Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Michigan for yielding; and I to want to commend him for bringing this to the floor this evening, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his leadership on other relevant issues in this arena as well, and most particularly, his sponsorship and fight for the secret evidence legislation. Mr. Speaker, we are all justifiably angered about the events of 9/11 last week. We, often, in our rage, in our fit of anger, say and do things that, upon reflection, we perhaps regret. But the instances that have been referred to by previous speakers, including the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), go beyond those just temporary slips of judgment or temporary slips of the tongue. They go to what is basic about our American society, and it is really an attack upon what is basic about our military society. Let us not forget that Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, South Asian Americans, are Americans first. They chose to come to this country in order to seek a better way of life for themselves and their families. They pay taxes. They vote. They donate to various charitable causes within their communities. They have become well respected, and they have contributed in so many walks of life, whether it be the medical profession, the legal profession. Whether it be doctors, lawyers, whether it be teachers, whether it be laborers in our factories, they have contributed so much to our American way of life. Let us not forget as well that there were members of these communities that were in those Twin Towers that lost their lives, as well. Let us not forget that fact. So I guess the best way to describe these attacks against Arab Americans or Muslim Americans or South Asians is, as my hometown newspaper described it today, to paraphrase my hometown paper in Beckley, West Virginia, these are yahoos that are making these attacks, yahoos who happen to pose as great a threat to our American society, to our freedoms, and to our way of life as those perpetrators of those heinous crimes against our country last Tuesday. They are ignorant, those who espouse these attacks. They are not the majority of Americans. No, they are a small group; and fortunately, these attacks are not as prominent today as they were in past occasions, like the Gulf War or the Oklahoma City bombing. That is because more and more recognition is coming to the communities represented by Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, South Asians, because of their contributions to our American way of life. As the gentleman from Michigan has mentioned, they have all, to the group, condemned, highly condemned, the acts of last Tuesday. They have organized themselves into blood donation drives, they are contributing their money, they are praying as hard as each of us for the victims of these crimes against our country, and for the hopes of their families and their futures. So I commend the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing this resolution to the floor and urge its unanimous passage.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution of the condemnation of this heinous attack on our country. Mr. Speaker. Southern West Virginians know loss. We hope and pray for the victims of these attacks and their families as other Americans have hoped and prayed for us in the past. Our nation's motto is E. Pluribus Unum: Out of many, one. Americans always display this unity best when disaster strikes our fellow citizens. Yesterday's attacks did not kill only Washingtonians and New Yorkers. The victims came from across this country. At least one family in my own District was torn apart. Dr. Paul Ambrose, a talented and public- spirited young physician, was aboard one of the airplanes that the terrorists crashed. The sympathies of all America are with Ken Sharon Ambrose of Huntington, West Virginia, today. We will avenge their loss. America seeks peace, but it is not blind. The people who planned these attacks are out there, and we know that they still pursue their evilness. Their celebrations will be short, because America's resolve is sure. I support the President's vow to punish these murderers and those who give them shelter. As the death toll mounts in the aftermath of the most vicious terrorist attack ever perpetrated on Americans and America, I ask the good Lord to give us the courage, wisdom and conviction to bring those responsible to justice. Certainly, the horror of this attack has been etched into the minds and hearts of all Americans. It is time to mourn the dead. To care for the injured. But it is also time to plan for our future, and to take actions to insure that the lessons of this attack will not be lost. That those who perished will not have done so in vain. America will persevere. We are not weakened by this attack, but rather, will grow stronger. Out of these flames of death, an even stronger American spirit will be born. And the beacon of freedom, of our Democratic institutions, will burn even brighter upon the world.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker. Southern West Virginians know loss. We hope and pray for the victims of these attacks and their families as other Americans have hoped and prayed for us in the past. Our nation's motto is E. Pluribus Unum: Out of many, one. Americans always display this unity best when disaster strikes our fellow citizens. Yesterday's attacks did not kill only Washingtonians and New Yorkers. The victims came from across this country. At least one family in my own District was torn apart. Dr. Paul Ambrose, a talented and public- spirited young physician, was aboard one of the airplanes that the terrorists crashed. The sympathies of all America are with Ken and Sharon Ambrose of Huntington, West Virginia, today. We will avenge their loss. America seeks peace, but it is not blind. The people who planned these attacks are out there, and we know that they still pursue their evilness. Their celebrations will be short, because America's resolve is sure. I support the President's vow to punish these murderers and those who give them shelter. As the death toll mounts in the aftermath of the most vicious terrorist attack ever perpetrated on Americans and America, I ask the good Lord to give us the courage, wisdom, and conviction to bring those responsible to justice. Certainly, the horror of this attack has been etched into the minds and hearts of all Americans. It is time to mourn the dead. To care for the injured. But it is also time to plan for our future, and to take actions to insure that the lessons of this attack will not be lost. That those who perished will not have done so in vain. America will persevere. We are not weakened by this attack, but rather, will grow stronger. Out of these flames of death, an even stronger American spirit will be born. And the beacon of freedom, of our Democratic institutions, will burn even brighter upon the world.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to call to the attention of the body a very intriguing position in the ANWR title. Tucked away on page 487 is a section that mandates project labor agreements in ANWR oil and gas leases. What that means is that union labor would be employed to do the construction and other work in the Arctic Refuge. If we were to open the refuge, fine. I think that is a great idea. Since it is good for Alaska, I say to my colleagues, then let us also benefit the men and women working for oil and gas companies who stand to profit from royalty-free leases in the Gulf of Mexico as well. Now that the Bush administration is squarely behind the ANWR provision in this bill, perhaps the President realizes that he made a big mistake in February when he issued an executive order rescinding Clinton administration initiatives on PLAs. And maybe corporate America has reconsidered and concluded that project labor agreements are good ideas after all. Perhaps that is why the Reliance for Energy and Economic Growth has endorsed this bill, along with myriad other manufacturing groups. Mr. Chairman, I am glad, and I know that the National United Mine Workers union will appreciate that the National Mining Association now supports project labor.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Buy Indian Act has been to try and encourage the hiring of Indian workers in the purchase of Indian-made products by the Secretary of the Interior. While it is appropriate that we encourage the purchase of Indian-produced energy products, it is necessary that we address the real energy needs of Native Americans and put some teeth and some backbone into real solutions. Along with several colleagues, I introduced H.R. 2412, the Tribal Energy Self-Sufficiency Act, which contains not only the Hayworth amendment offered here this evening, but a full and comprehensive program to address the energy needs in Indian country. My bill includes financing options, tax incentives and provisions designed to encourage development of renewable and nonrenewable resources on Indian lands to benefit Indians and non-Indians alike. Native Americans have by far the highest percentage of homes without electricity. Many homes on the Indian reservations have either no electricity or unreliable electricity. In numerous instances, Indian lands are crisscrossed with electricity transmission and distribution lines, yet the Indian homes on those lands remain dark. Unlike local non-Indian governments, Indian tribal governments often have no access to these lines and little authority over what energy they do receive. As the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Resources, I offered substitute language to the energy bill during markup which included the language in the amendment that we are debating, as well as several other proposals to assist Indian tribes in attracting business development and access to electricity. Unfortunately, that language was defeated by almost a straight party-line vote. Again, I worked to ensure that language designed to break down barriers to energy development by the Indians be included in the Markey-Stenholm amendment which we hoped to bring here to the floor, but the Committee on Rules would not allow it. The Republican leadership of this House has determined that the plight and energy needs of Native Americans are not in order to be addressed. Mr. Chairman, I do support the gentleman's amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same. But shame on us, shame on us, shame on us. This paltry amendment is all that we have to address the very real energy needs of American Indians. But not to worry, not to worry, since many Indian homes do not have electricity here in 2001, they are probably not watching this travesty on C-Span this evening, unfortunately. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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 say, in conclusion, this is not the first provision of our Democratic alternative in the Committee on Resources that we have seen reoffered now in a different form. As the gentleman from Louisiana knows, another provision of ours that was defeated on a straight party line in committee was offered in another form, i.e., his own committee. But the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) mentioned in full committee that he wanted to work with us on this issue. We are now hearing from him for the first time since that committee action, and we are glad to work with the gentleman on this. We need to do more, and we hope that we will be able to join forces in the future and do more for our Indian tribes.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. In my opinion, it represents a gag order on this body's ability to consider H.R. 4 by severely limiting the ability of Members to offer amendments. For instance, I submitted an amendment, along with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), to strike the OCS leasing royalty relief provisions from this bill: up to $7 billion in giveaways at the American taxpayers' expense to oil companies, who do not need any relief whatsoever. I guess one reason the majority leadership waited until August 1 to bring this bill up was so they could not be accused of giving Christmas to the oil companies in July. But anyway, this rule does not make that amendment in order. It says that the interests of the American taxpayer in this legislation are not germane and are out of order. I submitted an amendment to strike the Federal coal leasing giveaway provisions of this bill, provisions not considered by any committee, provisions that would give rise to rank speculation in Federal coal leasing, provisions that would harm consumers and cost coal miners their jobs. This rule does not make that amendment in order. It says that the interests of consumers and coal miners in this bill are nongermane and out of order. I submitted an amendment to substitute the Committee on Resources provision in H.R. 4 with a more balanced approach. This amendment incorporated concepts of energy development, empowerment and endowment. Yes, we do have an alternative on our side of the aisle. It would have produced real BTUs for the countries while protecting our environment, reclaiming abandoned mines, and providing Native Americans with the tools they need to achieve energy self-sufficiency. This rule does not make that amendment in order. It says that the interests of Native Americans are nongermane and out of order, and the interests of coal field communities are nongermane and out of order, according to this rule. The concept of a balanced energy policy is nongermane and out of order, also, according to this rule. I joined our colleagues, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement) in submitting an amendment to strike from this bill a provision that has absolutely nothing to do with energy security. It would simply give the railroads a tax break. Rail labor is strongly opposed to this provision. This rule does not make that amendment in order. I ask for unanimous opposition to the rule. Fortunately, we do have another body that will consider this legislation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am among these who believe this country does need a new national energy policy, and we need to stick to it through times of energy scarcity as well as abundance. But not this energy policy, not what is in the pending legislation. The bill has nothing to do with providing Americans with energy security. Instead, it is a multibillion dollar giveaway of America's resources and America's taxpayer dollars to big oil, already awash in record profits. The headline, as we see here and has already been referred to in today's debate, from a Wall Street Journal article of this week: Major Oil Companies Struggle to Spend Huge Hoards of Cash. Imagine that. They have profited so mightily from the American public that they now cannot figure out what to do with all of their hoards of cash. Yet the Republican leadership of this body wants to reward big oil even further. Tax credits and tax cuts with no offsets. At least we have paid for ours in our version of an energy bill. Relief from compensating the American public from drilling on our Federal lands and waters. Make no mistake about it, these giveaways will come at the expense of our elderly. There are no more surpluses. There is no reserve into which we can dip. The $33.5 billion tax cuts in this bill, largely for energy companies, will come out of Medicare. Rob the elderly to pay Exxon, Shell and the rest of them? This is an energy policy? I think not. The Committee on Resources provision in this bill, in particular, provides unnecessary, uncalled for and unjust giveaways that are part and parcel of this legislation. One of these provisions, for example, would provide companies that want to drill for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico relief from having to pay royalties to the American people, a royalty holiday. Under this bill, a company drilling in Federal waters between 400 and 800 meters deep can receive, for free, 5 million barrels of oil or gas equivalent. The owners of these resources are the American people. The American people get nothing, zero, zilch. Wait a minute, it gets even sweeter. Nine million barrels of oil or gas equivalent for drilling in waters between 800 to 1,600 meters for free, and if they drill deeper, a whopping 23 million barrels of oil or gas equivalent for free. This stuff is the makings of Ripley's ``Believe It or Not.'' At a time when there is widespread public concern that collusion of gasoline price fixing has taken place, when there is widespread concern, such as in the Wall Street Journal, that these companies are already awash in cash, we are providing a royalty holiday in this legislation and that is a message that is simply wrong, plain wrong. Even Secretary Norton has expressed concern with the extent of the generosity to the gas companies offered by the royalty holiday language. When I brought the issue up with the President personally at the White House, the Vice President chipped in, We are not going to be offering these royalties to oil companies. The same goes to the royalty in-kind proposal which is nothing more than a thinly disguised ruse to reduce royalty payments. This bill would have the Federal Government receive oil and gas royalties, not in cash but in the form of actual crude oil and natural gas. Federal bureaucrats would then be in the business of marketing oil and gas, joining the ranks of Exxon, the Shells and the rest of them. It does not make any sense. I have never heard of it. This surprises me when it comes from the majority that rules this body. At a time when Russia and China are shedding themselves of state-run industries, why is the effort being made by this body to toss the Communist Manifesto into our national energy policy? To be clear, in their effort to award big oil, Republican leadership has not forgotten about big coal as well, certain coal, that is, coal produced on Federal lands, mostly in the West. The pending legislation would eliminate current law requirements providing for the diligent development of Federal coal leases. What does this do for America's energy security? Again, absolutely nothing, zero, zilch. But it will give rise to the rank speculation in Federal coal leasing to the detriment of consumers and coal field jobs. Members need to be aware of this provision, not considered by our committee, but slipped into this massive bill without even being publicly reviewed or debated after full committee action. Mr. Chairman, Democrats do not believe we have to shortchange the American taxpayer and short shrift the economy and the environment by doling out a royalty holiday to big oil. We do not believe we should be providing this unfettered access to drilling rigs into environmentally sensitive lands. We recognize the contributions certain Federal lands can make to our Nation's energy mix, already one-quarter of America's oil consumption and over one-third of our natural gas and coal use. But at the same time we recognize, as responsible public stewards of our land, that there are environmental and social costs to energy development which also need to be addressed in any national energy policy. This concern and this public responsibility is noticeably absent in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a valuable member of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the former chairman of the Committee on Resources, now the Democratic leader on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. I think it is appropriate that that side had the chair of their Republican Campaign Committee as their cleanup hitter on this particular legislation. I guess the reason the majority decided to wait until August 1 to bring this bill up was so they could not be tagged with providing Christmas in July for the major oil companies. They brought the bill up on August 1 because it is a grab bag of goodies for the oil companies. The manager's amendment does nothing to eliminate any of these rip- offs of the American taxpayer. The American taxpayers are still going to pick up the tab for many of the costs incurred by the major oil companies who are today reaping hoards of cash and do not know what to do with it.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's amendment and hope I may allay some of the concerns of the gentleman from Louisiana about where our remarks are addressed. There are many reasons to oppose this amendment. I will limit my comments to those provisions of this amendment that falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. Under the pretence of improving several particularly egregious provisions of the bill as reported by the Committee on Resources, this manager's amendment does not, as the author suggests, perfect or correct these objectionable provisions. In fact, the amendment actually maintains the majority's misguided intentions to open the entire Federal estate to oil and gas leasing and to transfer costs now borne by the oil and gas industry to the American taxpayers. First, the amendment would add a misleading provision entitled ``preservation of Federal authority'' to lull the unsuspecting into believing that oil and gas leasing decisions will be consistent with Federal environmental laws. However, closer reading of the provision clearly states that Federal lease stipulations cannot be more stringent than State oil and gas laws. This means that if a wildlife or hunting regulation would require exploration and development to occur in certain months to protect wildlife breeding habitat, that the Federal Government could not impose that requirement on the oil and gas activity. The Sportsmen's Caucus should be very concerned about this provision. Second, despite what its authors tell you, the manager's amendment maintains the flaw in H.R. 4 that takes Forest Service decision-making authority away from the Forest Service land manager and instead hauls it into Washington, D.C. It requires the Secretary of Agriculture not to force professionals in the field to decide where oil and gas leasing will occur in National Forest Service lands. Third, the manager's amendment maintains a nice little kickback for big oil for its costs in preparing environmental impact statements. CBO says this particular provision will cost the American taxpayers $370 million, and, of that amount, the States, oil-producing States like Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, will lose $185 million. Why should American taxpayers foot the bill for NEPA documents for the oil and gas industry, which, according to The Wall Street Journal again, is enjoying huge profits and does not know where to spend their hordes of cash? This amendment does precious little to improve a bad bill. It does not solve the environmental problems created by the Committee on Resources portion of the bill. I would urge my colleagues to vote against the manager's amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the distinguished ranking member of our Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands. (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a valued member of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in the Third District of West Virginia, we have 8,300 citizens who will benefit from the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001. This ranks southern West Virginia seventh in the nation. My constituents have been calling and writing to me on an ongoing basis, asking me when this bill will come to the House floor for a vote. Today I hope to be able to tell them it will pass in the House and we can send it on to the other body, where we hope it will get speedy consideration. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Young and Mr. Oberstar, for working to bring this bill to the floor with overwhelming bi-partisan support. I also want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Railroad Subcommittee, Mr. Quinn and Mr. Clement, for bringing this bill through the Subcommittee process quickly. And I want to thank the Ways and Means Committee for their cooperation. My constituents have been anxious to see this bill get enacted into law because it will double benefits for widows of railroad retirees, reduce the retirement age from 62 to 60 years of age with 30 years of service, and allow a person to be vested in the system after five years of service, rather than 10 years, as currently required. This bill includes the exact provisions of H.R. 4844, which I helped to write last year, and which passed the House by an overwhelming vote. My constituents were disappointed and frustrated last year when the bill was not enacted into law, especially since it is a product of two years of negotiation between railroad workers and management of the railroad industry. With 368 co-sponsors in the House, this bill has overwhelming bi-partisan support, once again. With 71 bi-partisan cosposnors in the Senate, I look forward to its passage on the Senate floor, and I ask President Bush to sign the bill into law expeditiously. Once this bill becomes law, it will enable railroad retirees and widows to enjoy a better quality of life, by receiving the increased benefits they worked for and deserve. They spent their working lives paying into their retirement and they deserve to reap good benefits.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in the rush to greatness upon which many of us embark in this city, in the heat of the TV camera lights, in the chaos of clashing interests, it is important that we pause and take stock of those who brought us here, keep us here, and help make us. So this evening I thank and I pay respect to my long-time legislative director Birdie Kyle who passed away over our recent work period. Birdie once wrote, ``I am a native West Virginian born in Fayette County at MacDunn but raised up on Cabin Creek in the coalfields. I was born in a one-room abandoned boxcar. When I was little, my older sister tormented me when she felt like it by calling me ``Old Boxcar Bill.' I do not remember which made me the madder, being reminded that I was born in a boxcar or being called Bill when I was a girl. Probably both.'' That was Birdie Kyle writing for West Virginia's Goldenseal Magazine in 1980. Well, Boxcar Bill traveled far from her humble beginnings, but she never lost sight of the hills of home or the people there. Birdie Kyle, a true coal miner's daughter, a native West Virginian in every sense, served West Virginia and our Nation in the Congress for more than 3 decades. Birdie served with me since 1989, and I appreciate deeply her loyalty and dedication. Before that, she spent most of her career with the late Senator Jennings Randolph. Her mainstay of work for the Senator and for me was education. For Birdie, education was not a part of one's life. It was life itself. Teachers captivated her. Students compelled her. Books were with her always, from her earliest moments to her latest nights. If books were her backbone, words were her blood. She was the mother of wordsmiths and, boy, could she make me sound good. Birdie's letters, more often than not, prompted replies, and I got more kudos from her letters than anything. Her list of legislative responsibilities in my office over the years reads like a record of the republic itself: Education to health care, the Postal Service to the Middle East. As one person who called to express their sympathy said, ``She knew everything and everybody.'' How true. She could converse on every subject, but that was not her most unique attribute. She did not care if one was king or commoner. She was going to sway you to her belief before you left the building, and most of the time she did. Will there ever be another Birdie Kyle? No. Can one person fill her shoes? No. Birdie was, in addition, the poet laureate of the office. Each Christmas and on my birthday she composed wonderful verses that not only made me feel special but it was so wonderful I started believing it. She gave me my voice on many issues, issues of life and death, on wealth and poverty, on education and ignorance, health care and child care. Her deep compassion infected us all. In a city where a lot of people can make a buck off an issue, Birdie poured her heart and soul into those issues and sought nothing in return. Her family, her mother, her sisters, her children, and grandson all meant everything to Birdie. In fact, I think she would have liked to adopt me because sometimes she thought I needed a mom in town, and she was probably right. Each time that she came in to see me in my office to offer her advice and wisdom, she would tap lightly on my door. No one else ever did that. I knew that I was either in trouble for a vote I had cast on the floor that day contrary to her suggestions, or I was in store for a witty argument on an upcoming vote in this body. There will be many days and many nights ahead when I will miss that tapping at my door, but I will have many years of memories, many years of good counsel and many years of friendship upon which to reflect and rely. Washington is a city of monuments hewn of stone and sewn with mortar. We can admire these great people and we should, but Washington is also the city that spreads forth the ray of hope for our Nation and our world. Birdie Kyle spent her life igniting that hope. I was honored to know and work with Birdie. Without her, I would not have been as good a representative nor as good a person as I am. Many of us in this body can say that about our staff. About right now, somebody up there in heaven is getting a morning briefing from Birdie, and I am sure it is not a pretty sight with all that needs to be righted in the world. We all know that heaven is in good hands with Birdie Kyle up there at the helm.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in my role as the Ranking Democrat on the Resources Committee, today I am proud to be introducing the ``Tribal Energy Self-Sufficiency Act'' and am pleased to note that joining me as original cosponsors are our colleagues Don Young of Alaska, George Miller of California, Dale Kildee of Michigan, Eni Faleomavaega of American Samoa, Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, Frank Pallone, Jr. of New Jersey, Adam Smith of Washington, Mark Udall of Colorado, Betty McCollum of Minnesota, and Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island. Native Americans have, by far, the highest percentage of homes without electricity. Many homes on Indian reservations have either no electricity or unreliable electricity. I find this appalling and unacceptable especially in light of the fact that at least ten percent of the energy resources in the United States are located on Indian lands. In a community which often receives lower than average wages, Native Americans pay a larger percentage of their income on energy needs than the rest of us. In numerous instances Indian lands are criss-crossed with electricity transmission and distribution lines yet the Indian homes on those lands remain dark. Tribes often have no access to these lines and little authority over what energy they do receive. As we all know, this is not the case with the various local governments in the rest of the country. As the House of Representatives prepares to consider legislation to further advance a national energy policy, we must not forsake the sovereign tribes to which the United States has a trust responsibility. In this regard, the fundamental purpose of this legislation is to provide Indian Country with the tools it needs to achieve energy self- sufficiency. When enacted, this legislation will go a long way to promote energy development of Indian lands where it is wanted and badly needed. The ``Tribal Energy Self-Sufficiency Act'' contains a multitude of provisions relating to the production of energy resources on Indian lands, the development of renewable sources of energy, and access by tribes to transmission facilities largely by building upon programs that are already in place. Mr. Speaker, I have worked to draft this comprehensive energy bill with the Council of Energy Resource Tribes, the Intertribal Energy Network and numerous energy and tribal experts representing well over 100 Indian tribes. While this legislation was developed with a great deal of input from Indian Country, it does not purport to include every single proposal or idea that was advanced. Rather, this measure is intended to reflect those areas where interested tribes are largely in agreement with refinements made as it is considered by the committees of jurisdiction during the legislative process.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, with the 225th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence being celebrated next week, it is with particular patriotic pride that the House should consider today H.R. 1668, a bill to authorize the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work to honor former President John Adams, his family and his legacy. We can thank many people for bringing the House to this point, but I want to pay tribute to the work of one Member of this body who's inspiration and yeoman's work truly has given life and legs to the idea for an Adam's Memorial. This member's work is based not in the politics of the moment or the whims of a majority, not upon the interest of a monied few or is it masked in media mania. Representative Tim Roemer's fount for this memorial was refreshingly found deep within the well spring of democracy itself, intellectual curiosity. Though Adams himself sought no memorial, even he would appreciate the sentient scene of Roemer cloistered in the Library of Congress greedily soaking up the lyrical lessons of Adams to the Continental Congress working tirelessly toward independence, drafting our Nation's now oldest constitution, that of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and continuing his service as Vice-President and President of the United States. Representative Roemer himself stands sentinel to all that Adams worked for his entire life, enlightened leadership. We thank him for his work on this legislation. Which will help illuminate our Nation's founding and the contributions Adams can still bring to Americans today. Madam Speaker, as this bill's language points out, somewhere along the way, we lost sight of the extraordinary national contributions of John Adams and those of his wife Abigail and their offspring. Among the gleaming marble facades of our presidential constellation along our national mall, among the many sites where we pay homage to individual's throughout America's history here in our Nation's Capital, there is a void, an Adams void, that should be filled. Daniel Webster, on the occasion of the deaths of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson on July 4th, 1826, noted: ``A truly great man . . . is no temporary flame.'' Rather he concluded it is ``a spark of fervent heat, as well as radiant light, with power to rekindle the common mass of human kind; so that when it glimmers in its own decay, and finally goes out in death, no night follows, but it leaves the world all light, all on fire from the potent contact of its own spirit.'' It is time we reignited the flame of Adams genius and work. Our flint and steel will be an interpretive memorial for generations to visit, perpetually sparking their curiosities of this great American, John Adams, his legacy and his family. Former Librarian of Congress, Daniel Boorstin, has highlighted for me a passage in a letter Thomas Jefferson sent Adams recalling the joint efforts of the two old revolutionaries, ``We were fellow-laborers in the same cause . . . Laboring always at the same oar, with some wave ever ahead, threatening to overwhelm us, and yet passing harmless under our bark, we knew not how we rode through the storm with heart and hand, and made a happy port . . . and so we have gone on, and shall go on puzzled and prospering beyond example in the history of man.'' With heart and hand let us give sail to that same voyage in the tradition of our founders. Let us hold the lamp of liberty bright to find passage through storms beyond our horizons and batten down all doubts of democracy by hoisting high the life and legacy of John Adams.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Secretary Norton has written a series of letters to various State and local officials encouraging reassessments of existing national monuments. I would like to quote directly from the Secretary's March 28 letter to the Governor of Arizona: I would like to hear from you about what role these monuments should play in Arizona. Are there boundary adjustments that the Department of Interior should consider recommending? Are there existing uses inside these monuments that we should accommodate? Mr. Chairman, I think this clearly shows that our monuments are under threat. The President, on March 13, additionally said, and I quote, ``there are parts of monuments where we can explore.'' Vote for this amendment. Protect our heritage. Protect our national monuments.

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