Charles Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the World War II veterans group, ``HonorAir'' of Western North Carolina, who recently visited Washington, DC. I want to commend the residents of Henderson County, who made this trip possible and showed the rest of the Nation how to honor the heroes of the greatest generation. The residents of Henderson County, with a population of 98,000, raised more than $100,000 to send 220 World War II veterans on two chartered aircrafts to Washington, DC to see the World War II memorial for the first time. The World War II Memorial honors the 16 million who served in the Armed Forces of the U.S., the more than 400,000 who died, and all who supported the war effort from home. Symbolic of the defining event of the 20th century, the memorial is a monument to the spirit, sacrifice, and commitment of the American people. The idea for HonorAir started when Jeff Miller, a resident of Western North Carolina whose father served in the Navy in the Pacific Theater, read an article about a man who flew World War II veterans in a small plane to Washington, DC to see the memorial. A fundraising campaign began in Western North Carolina on Memorial Day and ran through July 4, 2006. This effort was lead by Jeff Miller, Frank Schell, David Reeves, David Adams, Senator Tom Apodaca, Mike Murdock, Henry Johnson, George Erwin, Meridith Elliott, Marybeth Burns, Kim McKibbin and Sarah Smith. Within 6 months, residents young and old rallied to raise more than $100,000 for the trip. I would like to commend these individuals for their hard work in making this awe- inspiring idea into reality. Also, I want to commend Mr. Frank Schell and the ``guardians,'' a group of over 50 volunteers, who flew up from North Carolina to assist with the operation of the event. From the celebrated departure at the Asheville Regional Airport, to the water-arched greeting at Reagan National Airport, to the wreath ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknowns, the World War II veterans of Henderson County received a day of honor that was long deserved. It is apparent that the people in Henderson County truly love the Nation, and they honor the heroes who have protected it. Again, it was truly an honor to take part in HonorAir 2006 and I and the rest of the United States Congress hope to see more events like this around the Nation.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Trinity Baptist Church of Asheville, North Carolina. On October 1, 2006 Trinity Baptist will celebrate 40 years of service to the people of Western North Carolina, and I commend them for the leadership and tireless work they have contributed to the Asheville community. With 60 members under the direction of Rev. Ralph Sexton, Sr. as the Pastor and Dr. James A. Stewart as the Honorary Pastor, a building for Trinity Baptist Church founded upon the scripture from Psalm 127:1, ``Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'' For 13 years, Dr. Ralph Sexton, Jr. served as staff evangelist and youth pastor under his father. On the first Sunday of April 1988, upon his father's resignation as senior pastor, Dr. Ralph Sexton, Jr. became the senior pastor of Trinity Baptist Church. As the church continued to grow, mission outreach was increased both at home and abroad. To meet the needs of the growing congregation, several buildings have been erected. The Family Life Center was built in 1984 housing office space, a kitchen, fellowship room and gymnasium, to provide a space for fun, food and fellowship for the whole family. In 1992 a Baby Palace was added to meet the need of the growing families of the church. A Bible Institute program was started in 1989 for those who wish to devote their lives to the ministry of learning to serve; this became a 4-year Bible College in 1993. Most recently the church built a 1,500- seat sanctuary which has been named the ``Tabernacle of the Mountains'' in honor of the life and ministry of Dr. Ralph Sexton, Sr., who served the congregation for 22 years. In 1991, Trinity Baptist Church opened their doors to Russian immigrants many of whom came to this country because of religious persecution. Trinity Baptist Church accommodated the immigrants by providing services in their native languages, in addition to sponsoring many of the immigrants. In 1994, the EEOC threatened religious freedom by prohibiting any expression of religious faith in the workplace. Trinity Baptist Church worked with me and other area churches to preclude these improper regulations. Pastor Sexton and members of Trinity Baptist Church met with me in acknowledgement of our success in fighting for first amendment rights. One of the many outreach programs of Trinity Baptist Church is Hearts with Hands. Hearts with Hands is a disaster relief organization that provides humanitarian aide to worldwide victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, and tsunamis. To this day, this organization is still working with many of the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Again, it is my privilege to recognize the great accomplishments and leadership of Trinity Baptist Church over the past 40 years, and I, along with the rest of the United States Congress, wish for their good work to continue.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the brave soldiers who have sacrificed so much to ensure our Nation's freedom. I am extremely proud of all of Western North Carolina's brave men and women, including the 210th and 211th Military Police Units, who have fought courageously to establish a united, free, and sovereign Iraq. The sacrifices these men and women make are unimaginable, whether it's spending time away from their families, enduring financial hardships, or laying their very lives on the line for freedom. And while these sacrifices are great, we must not forget that they are fighting to protect the world from the grip of terrorism. By risking their lives in Iraq and abroad, these brave men and women, including my son, are protecting the lives of American families and making our country safer. Four men from Western North Carolina have given their lives in the Iraq conflict. Attending the funeral of one of those men--CW03 Mitchell Carver--served as a stark reminder that freedom is not free. It is not the press who protect a Nation's right to free speech; instead, it is men like Mitch Carver who choose the responsibility to do so. And Mitch Carver is not alone. In the eight years I have been privileged to serve as a representative on the Board of Visitors of our Nation's military academy at West Point, I have seen thousands of young men and women take the oath to protect us. Theirs is a simple pledge: ``Duty, Honor, Country.'' To me the great and central question in our debate is this: Are the Iraqi people capable of and deserving of democracy? The answer is quite simple. Any man or woman, nation, or civilization that thirsts to live free from tyranny, desires to speak freely, and wishes to freely and fairly elect their leaders is worthy of the great gift of democracy. We have seen the images of Iraqi men and women with tears in their eyes as they cast their first votes in the parliamentary elections. Iraq has embraced democracy with a contagious enthusiasm. Democracy is never easy, but in due time Iraq will be a beacon of hope for the Middle East. To turn our backs on the Iraqi people as they are making such great strides would be arrogant and foolish. In short, it is abandonment not only of the Iraqi people, but also of the principles which we have preached and practiced as a nation for more than two hundred years. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to our brave troops and our Iraqi allies. We owe the men and women in our Armed Forces a debt of gratitude--their courage should inspire us all. I encourage all Americans to join me in continuing to keep our troops and their families in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point of order.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I love the gentleman from Colorado like a brother, but I am going to have to oppose his amendment. First of all, the bill has already been reduced $145 million below the $206 million level. The nine largest agencies in this bill have absorbed more than $2 billion in pay and other fixed costs over the past few years, and this bill assumes that several hundred millions of dollars more in costs will have to be absorbed. The committee has done a responsible job, and one might say we gave at the office. We have already cut this bill about as much as we can. I have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I commend the gentleman for his efforts on the part of his constituents and for all the rural water users who are facing similar problems. I commit to work with the gentleman to see what can be done to fix this problem. The committee will be glad to facilitate a meeting with the EPA to address this important issue and see what can be done as we move this bill through conference with the Senate.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would only point out that the gentleman's recommendation is entirely contrary to what is happening in a sense. The Soil and Water Conservation is trying to put small tributaries underground, put into a pond, a clean water pond, with fabric around it, and so forth, to cow's activities getting involved in the water. Now that is what they are trying to do. The Corps is trying to oppose them in my own State, time after time. And we may have to get back and take money away that the Federal Government put forth for the Soil and Water Conservation, because the Corps bureaucratically says that one drop of water is in their control and the Corps has no authority. Now, if you want to pollute streams, enact this bill and you will see on farms more and more activities that will be ignored. No farmer would get involved in this, and we will have to have a police state to go by every cow and every animal to see that there is any compliance. Right now the farmer knows best and is the best steward of his lands. He is working with the Soil and Water Conservation, with elected members from that community, and they are doing a good job. Put more bureaucracy in it, we will bring it to a halt and create more pollution. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the clean water amendment offered by my colleagues Mr. Leach, Mr. Oberstar, and Mr. Dingell. This is an important amendment for public health and safe drinking water, for hunting, boating, and swimming, for protecting homes and businesses from floods, and for our economy, much of which depends on a clean environment, especially clean water. That is why the 1972 Clean Water Act is one of the nation's most fundamental and popular environmental protection laws. Clean water is vital to almost every aspect of quality of life in our nation. The policy adopted by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers in 2003 undermines the Clean Water Act's promise of clean water for all Americans and is contrary to the letter and spirit of the law. It threatens to reverse decades of progress in cleaning up the nation's waters. This policy is leaving many wetlands as well as headwater and seasonal streams without federal limits on water pollution. The policy tells the agencies' field staff they must get permission before applying Clean Water Act protections to certain so-called isolated waters, although that term is not used in the Clean Water Act to exclude waters from the law, nor is the term even defined in the policy, leaving it unclear at best what is and is not protected. No permission is needed before the EPA or Corps staff can deny protections for waters, and leave them open to pollution from sewage and industrial wastes, or even destruction. The total number of streams at risk across the country--and consequences for drinking water health and safety--are significant and potentially severe. Maintaining safe drinking water requires protecting the sources of drinking water--both surface water and groundwater supplies--from pollution. The EPA recently concluded that the majority of public drinking water systems that rely on surface waters get their water from ``source water protection'' areas that contain headwater streams or seasonal and intermittent streams. Again, these are the very types of streams both I and my colleagues offering this amendment believe are most at risk of losing federal Clean Water Act protections under the agencies' policy. According to the EPA's letter: In total, over 90 percent of surface water protection areas contain start reaches or intermittent/ephemeral streams. Public drinking water systems which use these intakes (as well as other sources) are estimated to provide drinking water to over 110 million people. If this policy continues, some or all of these source waters could lose federal Clean Water Act restrictions against water pollution, and the people who rely on these waters will either pay the price: either with dirtier water or higher costs for safe drinking water. I hope all of my colleagues will join me today in voting to reaffirm protections from all of the nation's waters, including streams and wetlands, as the Clean Water At has always done. Vote for the Oberstar- Leach-Dingell clean water amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman ought to go talk to his farmers more, because if this passes the farmer will soon find out, Mr. Chairman, that he no longer can drain even a few drops of water out of his ditch and try to collect it or put it in a way that he can responsibly manage his farm, even if that has been done for years and years. The Soil and Water Conservation has tried working with the EPA in this Clean Water Act to put common sense into these measures, to try to see that reality happens, that you can farm in a responsible way. In fact, they are doing more to clean up the water, especially in farms, by putting in systems that are drained into a central watering spot that is covered by fabric and stone, and then the cow will not contaminate the water that goes in it, rather than going into the streams themselves. Now, there is much government money going into this. But the Corps right now will stop that any time, any time that they get a chance. And I know that in my home. And that is why the Farm Bureau is against this group, the Home Builders, the American Forest and Paper, the National Association of Realtors, the National Rural Electric Cooperatives, and the Edison Electric Institute, the National Grange, the National Association of Counties, the National Cattlemen, and the National Corn Growers, because it goes beyond common sense. We have been successful. I worked with the EPA, and we have tried to fund the EPA for clean water. But what we find often is if we have a rule, some people think that if we double or triple that rule it will be better. Actually, after you start and get a certain distance with that rule, it becomes corrupting in the sense that it disrupts the whole purpose of the original rule. And that is what we are about to have here. The individuals landowners and the taxpayers certainly know what they can do inside small watershed areas. And the Soil and Water Conservation would be directly against this type of program, because they cannot have six agencies trying to manage the farms of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have one more.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to oppose this amendment strongly. On January 9, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that there must be a significant and important connection between traditional navigable waterways and the wetlands or waters to be regulated by Federal agencies. The EPA and the Corps of Engineers issued guidance to their field staff in 2003 clarifying that the Clean Water Act jurisdiction did not extend to isolated waters that are both intrastate and non-navigable. This guidance also clarifies that field staff should continue to assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters and adjacent wetlands and their tributaries systems and adjacent wetlands. Field staff was directed to make jurisdictional and permitting decisions on a case-by- case basis. The plain text of the Clean Water Act emphasizes that Congress constructed the statute in a manner that intended, as the Supreme Court has articulated, to ``recognize, preserve, and protect the States' primary authority and responsibility over local land and water resources.'' Misguided efforts to expand the geographical scope of the Clean Water Act will create and exacerbate local land and water resource decisions with burdensome and costly Federal controls. I will give you an example. Right now the Clean Water Act is being used in farms, with livestock, cattle primarily, to try to clean the streams where cattle are grazing. If we allow the situation we have here for navigable waters to be translated to ditches, small tributaries with an ounce of water, the soil conservation today, and we are providing grants for soil conservation to take those streams, provide drinking water for cattle, and then enable them to go back into a stream which is fenced off, if we rule according to what has been asked here, we will find that the soil conservation will be barred from doing any sort of work in cleaning water. We will actually get dirtier water. We could have up to six agencies get involved in trying to clean up water on a farm. Not only will the cost be prohibitive, but the bureaucracy, because many of those agencies do not agree in this thing. Eliminating this guidance will create confusion and could lead to the classification of ditches, drains, curbs, roads, gutters and erosion features as ``navigable water of the United States.'' Clearly, this goes beyond common sense, but it won't be the first time that the Federal Government has tried to force something like this. Such an expansive regulatory reach would have the Federal Government interfering and frustrating local decisions regarding construction, operation, maintenance, management, transportation, flood control, and agricultural production. For instance, soil water conservation, which would be working with the farmer, has an elected delegation inside the county, as well as the State delegations elected, and they are trying to do the right thing, and we are spending Federal money to help it. This could be stopped by the Corps of Engineers simply for bureaucratic action. Eliminating this guidance would require Federal oversight of ditches, storm drains and sewers. These are local structures that are constructed and managed and maintained at the local level. We don't want the Corps of Engineers and all the bureaucracy that would be entailed to get down to a small storm drain or a small ounce of water on a farm. The cost would be prohibitive, and it would go against what the Clean Water Act is trying to do, and that is clean water for a special agriculture problem. One critical consideration is the Supreme Court is expected to rule in two new Clean Water Act cases prior to the expiration of the current term in June. The decisions in these cases will provide important clarification of the geographic scope of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction. We should not act at this time on issues that are being actively deliberated by the Supreme Court. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of point of order and claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we will accept the amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I understand there is opposition being included in the Special Resource Study currently being conducted by the National Park Service. Would the gentleman agree to work with the ranking member and myself to see if we can resolve that?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. The gentleman from New York is right, the National Park Service has notified the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee that due to its inability to complete an open bid before the expiration of the current extension in April 2007, the Park Service will have to temporarily extend Circle Line's contract once again to prevent the disruption of service to Liberty Island.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield.