Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and remember the outstanding life and legislative achievements of U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

I was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1976 and although that is over 33 years ago, Ted Kennedy had already been serving in the U.S. Senate for over a decade. The achievement of being the third longest serving Senator in our history is an accomplishment in its own right, but Senator Kennedy affected public policy in such a substantial and enduring way that the length of his time in office is really only one achievement in his remarkable journey.

Senator Kennedy boldly championed landmark legislation to improve the lives of all Americans. He fought fiercely for the poor and the disadvantaged. His legislative achievements include being a major player in a wide range of issues; from addressing funding for cancer research, health insurance reform, benefits for the mentally disabled, discrimination against disabilities, and the Children's Health Insurance program to Civil Rights, and education reform. Kennedy always considered healthcare the pinnacle issue of his legislative career, and it was a great achievement for him to see comprehensive healthcare reform moving further along in legislative process than it ever has before, five of the six committees handling the healthcare bill had passed them out of committee at the time of his passing.

One of his most recent achievements was the signing into law of The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act of 2009. This landmark legislation tripled volunteer opportunities across the country and created a new service corps for education, health care, energy, and veterans.

Although Kennedy was diagnosed last year with a malignant brain tumor, he continued to play a major role in the healthcare debate, and up until his final days he was truly the ``Lion of the Senate'' serving fiercely and passionately on behalf of so many Americans both in Massachusetts and around the country. August 25, 2009 was surely a sad day for all of us--but although Kennedy's life was filled with tragedy, his life was also filled with triumph. His victories in life far surpass most men and women's and his story is one of humanity and progress.

Senator Kennedy was a great statesman and a true leader, who cared deeply about America's future and I am honored to have served in the United States Congress with him. I extend my deepest sympathy and heartfelt condolences to Senator Kennedy's wife and family, and hope they take comfort in knowing that his legend and legacy carries on in the hearts and memories of a grateful nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the measure that is sponsored by our good friend from Arizona, the chairman of the National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Subcommittee, Representative Grijalva. I also rise, as I have said, and as I have done time and time and time again, to point out that the claim that national heritage areas harm the rights of private property owners is utterly false. F-A- L-S-E. Utterly false.

As Chairman Grijalva has already pointed out, H.R. 324 contains the extensive property rights protections included in every heritage area which has passed the House in recent years under both Democratic and Republican majorities, and signed into law by both Republican and Democratic Presidents.

So I would urge my colleagues to simply read the bill. On page 16, starting on line 4, it states, and I quote, ``Nothing,'' N-O-T-H-I-N-G, ``in this Act (1) abridges the rights of any property owner (whether public or private), including the right to refrain from participating in any plan, project, program, or activity conducted within the National Heritage Area.''

Furthermore, the bill makes clear that private property owners may not be forced to provide access to the public or any government agency, and the bill does not alter or expand any existing land use or other regulatory authority. These provisions cover every possible contingency however farfetched that the minority may dream up.

Let's look at the facts one more time. National heritage areas have been around for 25 years. Ronald Reagan signed the first one into law. Today we have 49 heritage areas in 29 States. Well over 50 million people live, work and recreate in a heritage area, 50 million people, and not one of them has been adversely affected. That's because heritage areas have no regulatory powers, no zoning authority, no power of eminent domain. Forty-nine heritage areas; 50 million people. That's almost my entire congressional district in a national heritage area.

As a matter of fact, the entire State of Tennessee is a national heritage area. It is the Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area. That is the entire State of Tennessee. Think about it.

Last I heard, Dollywood was still booming. The Grand Ole Opry was still swinging. People were still engaging in commerce, holding homes, and contributing to the economy in Tennessee. I believe it is still on the map. And not one of them has had their private property rights diminished. And in all of these areas over all of these years, there has never been a single instance where an individual's right to private property was abridged.

The Government Accountability Office interviewed property rights advocacy groups, and even they were unable to provide a single example. Not a single one. So this is the biggest red herring that I have ever come across.

Nevertheless, we have included these property rights protections in H.R. 324 to make clear once again that national heritage areas do not threaten private property. At some point in order to retain even a shred of credibility, those who make these claims will either have to produce some evidence or admit their mistake.

Seriously, folks, these allegations are beginning to wear thin. You have no evidence whatsoever.

As to the pending measure, the Santa Cruz Valley is a treasure trove of natural and cultural resources and it would be shameful, simply shameful indeed, if we lost the opportunity to protect and preserve these resources based on irresponsible accusations that were proven false long, long, long ago. So I urge support for H.R. 324.

Mr. Speaker, the pending legislation would provide for a study to determine the feasibility and suitability of including a segment of the Elk River as a component of the Wild and Scenic River System.

The Elk River is one of West Virginia's premier natural resource assets. It is the longest river in West Virginia with its boundaries entirely within the State. The study that would be authorized by this legislation, however, would focus only on that segment of the Elk where it begins at the confluence of two streams--Old Field Fork and Big Spring Fork--at the community of Slatyfork and flows North for approximately five miles to the Pocahontas/Randolph County line. The study would be conducted by the U.S. Forest Service.

I would point out that this legislation was initiated by the Pocahontas County Commission which unanimously voted on February 4, 2009, to request that a study be conducted on the segment of the Elk River within their county. In this regard I commend Commissioners Martin V. Saffer, David M. Fleming and Reta J. Griffith for their initiative.

The ``Slaty'' segment of the Elk River that would be the subject of the study authorized by this bill, named in reference to the community of Slatyfork where the river begins, was described in a January 2009 letter written by local resident Tom Shipley to the Pocahontas County Commission as follows: ``History abounds around, near and on the banks of the Elk River. She is, in a literal sense, very much as she was back in the early 1800s . . . one of the last rivers on the East Coast that has three naturally reproducing species of wild trout . . . Brook, Brown and Rainbow. As Big Spring Fork and Old Field merge, they form an impressive gateway to the Upper Elk . . . a gift from God to Pocahontas County.''

Indeed, the Slaty segment is a superb fishery, and the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources does a good job in the area. While what is being proposed is a study--not a designation--and while the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is very clear that nothing in the statute ``shall affect the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the State with respect to fish and wildlife,'' I am including in the legislation being introduced today a reaffirmation that the mere act of studying this segment of the Elk River will not change the status quo with respect to State jurisdiction.

In my view, most people associated with this segment of the Elk River want to keep it the way it is. As Mr. Shipley wrote, the river is ``a gift of God to Pocahontas County'' and I would add, to the State of West Virginia and the Nation as a whole.

I urge the adoption of the pending legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the first-ever federally-designated National Day of Service and Remembrance for September 11, 2001.

Yesterday, as I stood in Statuary Hall with members of Congress and President Obama in the Ceremony of Remembrance for the more than 2,000 people who lost their lives as a result of this act of terror, I was overwhelmed by a sense of sadness, but also a sense of pride. Although the world was irrevocably changed by these senseless acts of violence, tomorrow as Americans we have decided to honor those who died not with anger and violence, but by serving others through the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act--which was supported by the 9/11 families--and designates each September 11 as a National Day of Service and Remembrance.

The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act of 2009 is bipartisan, landmark legislation that will triple volunteer opportunities across the country and create a new service corps for education, health care, energy, and veterans. It is through this bill that the United We Serve initiative was born to encourage Americans to give back to their communities through continuous community service.

September 11th is a somber day, but the service work inspired by this legislation has and will continue to celebrate West Virginia and our great Nation, a country that has not and will not sink to a level of hatred and violence. Instead, our nation will face forward and choose to make a positive impact by donating our time to better our communities and our fellow citizens while truly honoring the victims who died eight years ago.

On September 11, 2001 two hijacked passenger planes were flown into each tower of the World Trade Center, while a third plane was flown into the Pentagon. The fourth and final hijacked plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after the heroic efforts of passengers to take back control of the plane. These events had a profound impact across southern West Virginia. Not only because of the monumental damage and loss of life caused by the attack, but also because one of our own, Dr. Paul Ambrose a Cabell County native and Marshall University School of Medicine graduate, died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

In West Virginia we truly do know our neighbors and the death of this West Virginian deeply affected our community. However, each year we gather in his honor to celebrate the great things about our state and its people. This year Fit Fest '09 will be held to honor Paul Dr. Ambrose, and will feature fitness activities including kids races, and a 5k walk/run.

Other activities to honor the victims of the 9/11 attacks include a Day of Service, sponsored by the Rahall Transportation Institute, in cooperation with the Citizens Conservations Corps and the Greater Huntington Park and Recreation District at St. Clouds Commons, which will help bring attention to the Paul Ambrose Trail for Health, as Dr. Ambrose was passionate about improving the health of his community and the Nation.

Today, I commend the incredible bravery and patriotism of the families and friends of the victims of 9/11, who have been working for years to make September 11th a national day of both remembrance and service. Their unending contributions to honor their loved ones' memories and unfulfilled promises continue to enhance the lives of others. I also want to recognize Dr. Ken and Sharon Ambrose, whose constant vigil has enriched their son's legacy and the livelihoods of countless West Virginians.

This day is truly a tribute to the loved ones that we all have lost and the spirit of freedom that this great Nation holds so close to its heart.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do have the honor and responsibility of chairing our House Committee on Natural Resources. The gentleman from Washington, Doc Hastings, a former Member of the Rules Committee, is my ranking member. His amendment was made in order under this rule.

Some allusions have been made on the minority side this morning that there are important issues facing our country, but here we are debating horses and burros because we couldn't find a cats and dogs bill. Well, we take seriously our responsibility on the House Natural Resources Committee as stewards of our public lands. We take seriously our responsibility to all creatures of this great land of ours, whether they be cats, dogs, wild horses, burros, sea otters, turtles, bees, birds. You name it, they appropriately come under our jurisdiction, and they are important responsibilities that the American people value. These are creatures that God has endowed our great country with, that have no vast lobbyists here in Washington representing them; but they represent good old American family values. They represent recreational pursuits. They represent a quality of time that our families can spend enjoying with these creatures that God has so richly bestowed this country with.

So for the other side to say that with all these important issues before our country--and they are important issues, and this Congress is addressing them because we on the majority side as well as this administration can, indeed, walk and chew gum at the same time. We are addressing those issues.

As the minority knows, since they were once in a position of leadership, we are supposed to be here 5 days a week, working on behalf of our constituents. Our constituents, for the most part, work at least 5 days a week, if not 7 days a week. At least in my district, many of them go to work before the sun comes up. They don't go home and see their families until the sun has gone down. They work a full 8- if not 12-hour day; and yet the minority side is noted for their offering motions to adjourn after we come in at 10 o'clock in the morning. They want to go home at 10:10 a.m. I know this is inside Beltway, inside baseball talk; but the American people want to see Congress do its job. They recognize the many issues that face our country, and they recognize that Congress should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, just like this administration is doing in a very appropriate way.

So we are addressing issues that affect the American people at the same time that we're addressing the issues that affect their daily lives. I think that that's what they want us to do, and they want us to do it in a bipartisan way. So we should not be up here trying to make fun of the matter that we're addressing of wild horses and burros legislation on a Friday because we know that work is being done while we are still discussing this legislation. The committees are meeting, the appropriations committees. The other committees are marking up health care reform, a very important issue. We know here amongst ourselves that if it were not for us having votes here on the floor of the House today, where would Members of Congress be? Some would be in their congressional districts, some would be out around the country doing things that Members do when we have weekends off. So this is an appropriate use of Congress' time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 653, I call up the bill (H.R. 1018) to amend the Wild Free-

Roaming Horses and Burros Act to improve the management and long-term health of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1018.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House today H.R. 1018, the Restore Our American Mustangs Act, legislation that will save the taxpayers money while saving tens of thousands of wild horses and burros from slaughter.

Earlier this year, the Bureau of Land Management made a truly shocking announcement. This Federal agency tasked with managing our magnificent public lands and resources announced future plans to destroy, i.e., slaughter, 30,000 healthy wild horses and burros entrusted to their care by the American people.

The announcement was even more stunning given that Congress enacted the Wild, Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 declaring that these iconic animals were ``living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West'' and ``are to be considered an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.''

How in the world can a Federal agency be considering massive slaughter of animals the law says they are supposed to be protecting?

At my request, the Government Accountability Office conducted a complete review of the program, and they documented its numerous shortcomings.

The bill before us amends the 1971 act to implement the suggestions made by GAO and give the agency as many options as possible to avoid destroying these animals. Most significantly, this legislation will move the agency toward increasing the acreage available to wild horses and burros.

When the original act passed in 1971, 20 percent of BLM land was open to the horses. Today, they are only allowed on 13 percent of BLM land. The agency has never justified the removal of horses and burros from these missing acres.

This bill will also require consistency in management planning, with publication of standard operating procedures for managing these animals across all of our public lands. It will require better accounting methods so the agency can be certain how many animals are truly out on the range. It will strengthen the adoption program so that many more eligible horses and burros can go to adoptive homes. And it will authorize cooperative agreements with individuals and nonprofits so that large numbers of animals might be moved onto non-Federal land. Each of these provisions will make this program more cost-effective and will make it more efficient.

Despite these improvements, opponents of this bill are going to claim today that it will be expensive to implement. Their solution is to simply pass the same narrow bill prohibiting slaughter approved in the last Congress. You're going to hear that this bill goes so far that it should be called welfare for horses. That's what they will claim.

This is a funny line, but it uses high cost estimates to gloss over the fact that since the last Congress we have the benefit now of a comprehensive GAO report identifying many more strategies that we must pursue. Commissioning a good report and then ignoring its recommendations I hardly think is a way to save money. Stopping slaughter is an important step, and I'm pleased to see my friends on the other side of the aisle are now supporting that, but we do need to do more.

To be very clear, the pending bill, H.R. 1018, contains no direct spending. We are not creating an entitlement for horses. So the welfare joke falls completely flat.

Any increase in funding for the wild horse and bureau program would be the result of appropriations, not this authorization bill. Increasing the number of Federal acres available to horses and burros from the current 13 percent of BLM land back to the 20 percent available to them in 1971 should not cost the taxpayers anything. It is merely a 7 percent management adjustment, nothing more.

Our friends across the aisle always claim that BLM owns too much land. Now, we don't think so, but they certainly own enough to accommodate horses and burros. Furthermore, the management efficiencies in other parts of this bill will actually save money, and here is what we are doing: increasing adoptions, contraception and reducing overcrowding that will relieve the agency from having to round these animals up and care for them in long-term holding facilities, an expensive proposition.

The status quo is the worst of both worlds. It requires the BLM to hold these animals in expensive, long-term storage right up to the point when the money runs out, and then the agency has to kill thousands of them.

And witness these photos. These are American wild mustangs. And this is their fate. This is their fate held in captivity, abused. This is not what America is all about. This is not what America approves.

H.R. 1018 will give the agency new and better tools to avoid this outcome and will save money in the process.

At the appropriate time, I will be offering a manager's amendment further clarifying that the restoration of the missing acreage is a goal rather than a legal requirement, and so I would urge my colleagues concerned about the cost involved to support that amendment at the time and then support this legislation on final passage.

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before recognizing the distinguished subcommittee chair, I do want to say I'm joined in cosponsoring this legislation by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and by my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

At this point, I will yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of our National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

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

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a dear friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), one of the cosponsors of the legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

May I have a time check, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier today in debate on the rule on this legislation, this Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can address unemployment, we can address health care reform, we can address the war, deficits, and at the same time, we do not need to allow the status quo to continue as it affects our wild horses and burros. These are icons of America, the American mustang. The status quo is a national disgrace. It is a disgrace to our heritage. It is a disgrace to all for which we stand.

Those on the other side of the aisle who want to make light of this situation, I'm sure if they were to go home to their Main Streets and pose a question to their constituents, do you support your Federal Government slaughtering 30,000 American wild horses, do you support them being held in holding pens, I suggest I know what the answer would be. The bottom line, this is the wild horse version of Gitmo, the wild horse version of Gitmo.

The pending legislation seeks to remedy the critical lapse that is taking place under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 by invoking a number of commonsense measures. The measure would promote the use of better science to determine whether the amount of range that is available to wild horses is capable of sustaining them.

This would be accomplished through maintaining a valid inventory of the

wild horse population on the range and establishment of appropriate, scientifically based methodologies to determine management levels.

Second, the pending bill would increase the amount of range available to wild horses, including through private lands controlled by entities seeking to establish sanctuaries. Many of us have heard about the Pickens Plan. And I'm not talking about the T. Boone Pickens plan, the one dealing with wind and solar energy. I'm talking about the one advanced by his wife, Madeline Pickens, to utilize private resources for the establishment of wild horse sanctuaries.

The pending legislation makes it a goal, not a requirement, but a goal to increase the acreage on which wild horses can roam. By doing so, we reduce the number of animals that are culled from the herd and placed in holding facilities.

These holding facilities which have come up during this debate, I think it is important to recognize that keeping wild horses and burros in these holding facilities costs $21 million annually, or two-thirds of the entire cost of the wild horse and burro management program. The cost of these holding facilities has been rising dramatically from $7 million in 2000 to $21 million in 2008.

So we are attempting to reduce costs here, reduce the holding cost by lessening the number of roundups through a combination of what we are doing in this bill, making more public land available for wild horses and burros, strengthening and reforming the adoption program, enhancing measures for fertility control and contraception.

Third, even with the actions that I have already outlined, there will not be enough open range land to sustain all of our wild horses. In an effort to contain the costs associated with these holding facilities, we seek to bolster the adoption program and implement sterilization and other fertility controls. We seek to give the Bureau of Land Management the tools with which to do a better job.

And, finally, what the bill does not allow is the destruction of healthy horses; fatally injured or terminally ill animals, yes, but not healthy wild mustangs.

Let us stop the slaughter. Stop the abuse. Save taxpayer money and vote for the pending legislation. Let's save mustangs and save tax dollars at the same time and support the pending legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes four changes to H.R. 1018 as reported by our Natural Resources Committee. First, after further consultation with experts in the field, the amendment will broaden the types of fertility control that would be available to the Bureau of Land Management in order to better manage the wild horse and burro population.

Next, the amendment narrows the definition of ``commercial uses'' prohibited under the act. The purpose of this change is to clearly prohibit the sale of horses and burros for slaughter while clarifying that use of these animals on farms or in other commercial operations is allowed.

The amendment also makes a technical change to clarify the membership requirements for the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Council.

And, finally, the amendment relaxes the requirement that the BLM return wild horses and burros to the acres of public land from which they have been removed since 1971.

The CBO cost estimate for this bill was based on the assumption that significant land acquisition would be required. That will not be the case, however; these horses and burros can be accommodated on existing Federal lands. Restoration of those acres remains an important goal but would not be a legal requirement.

This is a good package of small changes which will improve H.R. 1018. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Washington's comments on my efforts, and appreciate his full disclosure. I'll probably repeat it a few times here in the next couple of minutes, but I do appreciate him being up front about it.

This substitute, which is my anti-slaughter bill from last Congress, addresses one piece of a much larger puzzle. While the slaughter issue is a disturbing one, the ROAM Act will actually address the underlying problems facing the BLM horse and burro program, which has made slaughter a possibility. The substitute would address the symptom, while the underlying legislation will provide a cure.

I'm pleased that the gentleman from Washington State now opposes the slaughter of horses. When this substitute came before the Congress as a free-standing bill last Congress, and which he has already fully disclosed, he voted against it. But now he is in support thereof and is even offering it on the floor of the House. That is a step forward. Unfortunately, this conversion is a day late and several dollars short.

This substitute was the right approach last Congress, but that was before the BLM announced that the program was bankrupt and they were going to have to kill 30,000 horses and burros.

The GAO documented that the BLM program is out of control. First the agency was holding 5,000 horses, then 10,000, now it's 30,000. The agency now claims killing these animals is the only solution.

Adopting the Hastings substitute would stop private slaughter, but without the other reforms in the underlying legislation, 1018, the BLM will have to destroy these animals. The Hastings substitute just changes the identity of those who are killing the horses. Only the underlying bill actually stops the slaughter.

This substitute was the right approach last Congress, but that was also before the release of the GAO report. Now we have a thorough analysis of the obstacles facing the BLM, and a list of recommendations to address the root causes.

The GAO documented the enormous cost of the current BLM approach and proposed solutions. The Congress is now in a position to do more, and we must do more. H.R. 1018 does more.

Adopting this substitute would cost money, cost money, not save it, because it would allow the BLM to continue pouring good money after bad, without fixing the inefficiencies which plague the program in the first place.

Since I authored the legislation Mr. Hastings is now offering as his substitute, my colleagues and I have worked with the BLM, the Humane Society, the Animal Welfare Institute, the GAO and others to find new and more comprehensive solutions. We have apparently succeeded in bringing Mr. Hastings up to where we were last Congress, and I hope that eventually all of our colleagues will understand that now is the time to do more.

The substitute is too little, too late, should be rejected.

And I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close.

Yes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the CBO estimate, the $700 million that has been thrown out by the other side as a potential cost to this legislation, was done in the last Congress. It was done before the adoption of the manager's amendment that we just adopted today in an earlier voice vote. It was done without considering the ramifications of the other aspects of H.R. 1018 that this House will adopt today. It was done taking into account in a very narrow, single shot-type fashion, if you will, the potential costs of purchasing 19 million acres of additional Federal land for the use of these wild horses and burros.

Therefore, when taking into account that cost, as CBO has done, they did not consider the fact that there are already Federal lands owned by the American people that are available and out there. The CBO did not take into account the management tools contained in the pending legislation with which we intend to help the BLM do a better job and improve the status quo. The CBO did not estimate any cost savings from an enhanced adoption program or from sterilization programs. The CBO did not take into account the reduction in costs of these holding pens, which I referenced earlier, the $21 million annually that it costs today--and that number keeps going up--of the current holding pens for these wild horses and burros. The CBO did not consider any of the ``today'' costs or how the improved management tools offered in H.R. 1018 will save dollars in the years ahead.

I urge a ``no'' vote, not only on the Hastings substitute amendment but also a ``yes'' vote on the pending H.R. 1018. H.R. 1018 is the humane and right vote to cast today. It will save our mustangs. It will save tax dollars. It will save millions of tax dollars annually. When you look through all of the smoke and mirrors of the numbers that have been thrown out today, you will find that, by implementing herd reduction with birth control, we can save more than $6 million alone each year. Again, when we look at the cost reductions of these holding pens, this legislation is the tax-wise way to go.

So I conclude by urging a ``no'' vote on the Hastings substitute and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill, H.R. 1018.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I object to the unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the gentlemen for that recognition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment. It is, in what I view, a vindictive manner that seeks to prohibit the payment of a salary to any person employed by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, in addition the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change and a deputy assistant.

As the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over the National Environmental Policy Act, and hence, CEQ, I can assure my colleagues that eliminating this entity, which is the goal with the pending amendment, would have severe repercussions on our Nation's environment and our economy. CEQ, at least under President Obama, has served to coordinate policy among various Federal agencies and provide regulatory stability, coordination and stability.

I witnessed this firsthand recently with respect to coal surface mining in my home State in Appalachia. The EPA was off in one course, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were off on another course, and the coal industry caught in between was the subject of conflict and requirements with nobody able to provide it with a roadmap on how to obtain permits in order to mine coal in this country.

It was CEQ which stepped in, got the regulatory entities together, resulting in an interagency action plan on Appalachian surface coal mining. Now, the efficacy of that action plan remains to be seen, I grant you, but at least a plan is in place and the rules of engagement are set forth.

Now, if this amendment is part of a continued protest against the administration's position on climate change, let me be clear on that point. I voted against the House cap-and-trade bill. I did not support it, but I do support, as the subcommittee has said, the right of this President or any President to establish positions in his or her own White House. And if President Obama finds that he wants a White House assistant on energy and climate change, that's his prerogative. That's his right. It was the right of President Bush before him and many other Presidents in the past.

So I urge my colleagues to indeed oppose this ill-conceived, vindictive amendment.

Madam Speaker, I join with my colleagues in paying tribute to the service of Mr. Pope Barrow to the House of Representatives in the Office of Legislative Counsel. It is with regret that I learned recently that Pope has announced his retirement after a career of stellar service to this body.

Serving 40 years with the Office of Legislative Counsel, Pope has held a number of positions of increasing responsibility including Counsel, Senior Counsel, Deputy Legislative Counsel and lastly Legislative Counsel. His service to the House has been exemplary and the legislation passed by this House is better because of his efforts.

For many years, Pope was the go to guy in the Legislative Counsel's office on natural resource legislation. As a 33-year member of the Natural Resources Committee, I and my staff have called upon Pope numerous times to draft important and complex natural resource legislation. I am grateful for Pope's efforts in drafting legislation that led to the designation in my home State of West Virginia of the Gauley River National Recreation Area and the Bluestone Wild and Scenic River.

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleagues will be able to elaborate on Pope's legislative efforts but I want to make note of Pope's skills outside the legislative workplace. Some of my colleagues may not be aware that Pope is an accomplished kayaker. On more than one occasion when I was in my district I would run into Pope who was in West Virginia to kayak the beautiful and challenging whitewater found in my State. But Members did not have to go to West Virginia to find Pope on the water. He is a well-known fixture on the local kayaking scene and could often be found challenging the whitewater rapids of the Great Falls of the Potomac River.

Madam Speaker, while I have noted Pope's legislative and kayaking prowess, I would be remiss if I did not mention his greatest attribute; he is genuinely a nice guy. Fair and level-headed, he is proof that nice guys do not always finish last.

On behalf of myself and the many Natural Resources Committee staff that Pope has worked with, I want to wish Pope all the best in his retirement and thank him again for the many services he has provided Members and staff over the years.

Madam Speaker, at the request of the Pocahontas County Commission of the great State of West Virginia, today I am introducing legislation to provide for a study to determine the feasibility and suitability of including a segment of the Elk River as a component of the Wild and Scenic River System.

The Elk River is one of West Virginia's premier natural resource assets. It is the longest river in West Virginia with its boundaries entirely within the State. The study which would be authorized by this legislation, however, would focus only on that segment of the Elk where it begins at the confluence of two streams--Old Field Fork and Big Spring Fork--at the community of Slatyfork and flows North for approximately five miles to the Pocahontas/Randolph County line. The study would be conducted by the U.S. Forest Service.

The idea of preserving this river in its natural state is not something new. Indeed, I well recall conversations with one of West Virginia's visionary conservationists, former State Senator Robert K. Holliday, on this matter during the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 1989, the Senate of West Virginia passed a resolution calling for the development of the Elk River into a national recreation area by Federal and State governments. And in 1993, I did propose a Wild and Scenic study for a 57.5 mile segment of the river. For one reason or another, the enthusiasm over this endeavor dissipated.

The February 4, 2009, unanimous vote by the Pocahontas County Commission consisting of President Martin V. Saffer, David M. Fleming and Reta J. Griffith to request that a study be conducted on a much smaller segment of the Elk River resurrects this issue and makes it ripe for consideration.

The ``Slaty'' segment of the Elk River that would be the subject of the study authorized by this bill, named in reference to the community of Slatyfork where the river begins, was described in a January 2009 letter written by local resident Tom Shipley to the Pocahontas County Commission as follows: ``History abounds around, near and on the banks of the Elk River. She is, in a literal sense, very much as she was back in the early 1800's . . . one of the last rivers on the East Coast that has three naturally reproducing species of wild trout . . . Brook, Brown and Rainbow. As Big Spring Fork and Old Field merge, they form an impressive gateway to the Upper Elk . . . a gift from God to Pocahontas County.''

Indeed, the Slaty segment of the Elk River is a superb fishery, and the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources does a good job in the area. While what is being proposed is a study--not a designation--and while the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is very clear that nothing in the statute ``shall affect the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the State with respect to fish and wildlife,'' I am including in the legislation being introduced today a reaffirmation that the mere act of studying this segment of the Elk River will not change the status quo with respect to State jurisdiction.

The legislation being introduced today states that nothing in the bill ``shall be construed as affecting access for recreational activities otherwise allowed by law or regulation, including hunting, fishing, or trapping.'' It further states that nothing in the measure ``shall be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the State to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations, including the regulation of hunting, fishing, and trapping.''

In my view, most people associated with this segment of the Elk River want to keep it the way it is. As Mr. Shipley wrote, the river is ``a gift of God to Pocahontas County'' and I would add, to the State of West Virginia and the Nation as a whole.

In his book entitled ``Upper River, Elk's Origins and Beyond,'' Skip Johnson, a long time outdoor columnist and reporter for the Charleston Gazette, concisely summed up the essence of our relationship with rivers. ``Rivers like Elk touch us in a spiritual way,'' he wrote. ``Dave Teets, my neighbor, gave a talk on rivers at our 2004 church picnic. He said that rivers are important in the Bible, important to our soul and mind, and important to God. They also provide recreation, transportation, and natural boundaries. Then he made a less profound but equally important point: `Who hasn't spent at least a part of a day just watching a river roll on?' ''

I could not agree more.

Madam Speaker, the Congress would be unwise to sit by and simply allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as the agency has been mandated to do by the Supreme Court. Similarly, it would be a mistake to sit back and allow other countries to devise international rules that will affect America's economic and energy interests.

I do not agree with those who advocate for sitting on our hands and just saying NO to everything, sight unseen. The international community has no interest in protecting American businesses, and the Environmental Protection Agency is not required by the Supreme Court to consider the views of our constituents or the economic consequences to our communities.

I believe America is the one nation best equipped to lead such a multinational effort and, in doing so, to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the preservation of jobs. The hands-off approach of recent years did nothing to help promote new energy technologies, or to advance carbon capture and sequestration, or to protect American jobs.

It is evident that wishing that this complex issue would simply go away will not lead to better results for our Nation or the people we represent. And ``just saying no'' to any and all proposals, sight unseen, is unrealistic and irresponsible.

For those reasons, I chose to work with my colleagues and with numerous stakeholders--including the coal industry, manufacturers, and labor--to positively influence this bill and America's climate change strategies. And for those reasons our coal miners and responsible industry members have been at the table, too, rather than on the sidelines.

I thank Chairman Waxman, who has made many concessions in this bill, and I thank leadership for listening to my concerns about this legislation and moving to help address them.

As well, I commend my colleague Rick Boucher, from southwestern Virginia, who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee and worked in determined fashion to make improvements to the bill that we both sought. I am grateful that he has been so welcoming of my views and supportive of our interests--such as ensuring the availability of $10 billion to advance carbon capture and sequestration technologies and other changes that are beneficial to the people of our neighboring districts.

While this bill is greatly improved from the discussion draft that was first circulated in March of this year--and opponents were saying NO even before that draft was written--more improvements are needed to gain my support.

Coal does much more than keep the lights on in big cities across America. In my district, it covers the mortgage, puts food on the family dinner table, and keeps open the doors of small businesses. While the emissions target in the early years of this program has been lowered from the 20% cap initially contained in this bill, there remains widespread concern that even the reduced cap--17% in 2020--is still too high and too soon to incentivize rapid development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies, so as to ensure coal mining jobs for the future. We must allow time for expensive clean coal technologies to come on line.

These technologies are critical to lowering emissions across multiple sectors of our economy. And they are necessary for keeping hardworking coal miners in the jobs they want, providing power for the country they love.

Madam Speaker, today, I cannot cast my vote for this bill.

Madam Speaker, the Congress would be unwise to sit by and simply allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as the agency has been mandated to do by the Supreme Court. Similarly, it would be a mistake to sit back and allow other countries to devise international rules that will affect America's economic and energy interests.

I do not agree with those who advocate for sitting on our hands and just saying no to everything, sight unseen. The international community has no interest in protecting American businesses, and the Environmental Protection Agency is not required by the Supreme Court to consider the views of our constituents or the economic consequences to our communities.

I believe America is the one nation best equipped to lead such a multinational effort and, in doing so, to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the preservation of jobs. The hands-off approach of recent years did nothing to help promote new energy technologies, or to advance carbon capture and sequestration, or to protect American jobs.

It is evident that wishing that this complex issue would simply go away will not lead to better results for our Nation or the people we represent. And ``just saying no'' to any and all proposals, sight unseen, is unrealistic and irresponsible.

For those reasons, I chose to work with my colleagues and with numerous stakeholders--including the coal industry, manufacturers, and labor--to positively influence this bill and America's climate change strategies. And for those reasons our coal miners and responsible industry members have been at the table, too, rather than on the sidelines.

I thank Chairman Waxman, who has made many concessions in this bill, and I thank leadership for listening to my concerns about this legislation and moving to help address them.

As well, I commend my colleague Rick Boucher, from southwestern Virginia, who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee and worked in determined fashion to make improvements to the bill that we both sought. I am grateful that he has been so welcoming of my views and supportive of our interests--such as ensuring the availability of $10 billion to advance carbon capture and sequestration technologies and other changes that are beneficial to the people of our neighboring districts.

While this bill is greatly improved from the discussion draft that was first circulated in March of this year--and opponents were saying no even before that draft was written--more improvements are needed to gain my support.

Coal does much more than keep the lights on in big cities across America. In southern West Virginia, it covers the mortgage, puts food on the family dinner table, and keeps open the doors of small businesses. While the emissions target in the early years of this program has been lowered from the 20% cap initially contained in this bill, there remains widespread concern that even the reduced cap--17% in 2020--is still too high and too soon to incentivize rapid development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies, so as to ensure coal mining jobs for the future. We must allow time for expensive clean coal technologies to come on line.

These technologies are critical to lowering emissions across multiple sectors of our economy. And they are necessary for keeping hardworking coal miners in the jobs they want, providing power for the country they love.

For these reasons, I cannot cast my vote for this bill.

I thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis, for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, I do rise today to express my strong support for the fiscal year 2010 appropriation bill for the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

For many years, many programs in the Department of the Interior were severely underfunded, leaving us with a legacy of tired visitor facilities and a backlog of needs for many natural resources programs. The legislation before us today funds the most important programs harmed by years of starvation budgets. I'm very supportive of the funding increases for our public lands.

Madam Speaker, I do wish to commend the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations chairman, my classmate, Mr. Norm Dicks, and Ranking Member Simpson for the work that they have put in on this legislation. They have provided a needed increase to U.S. Forest Service for both wildlife prevention and wildlife suppression. The legislation also provides the necessary funding for the National Park Service to ensure that park visitors can experience our national parks in their full glory. I'm also pleased to see an increase in funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Further, I applaud the spending items contained in the pending measure for Indian Country. Through treaties entered into many years ago, the United States has a trust responsibility and moral obligation to provide for our Native Americans.

The unmet needs of Indian Country can never be addressed by a 1-year spending bill. However, we are making good progress with the increased funding for law enforcement, health care, and education in this legislation. These funding levels show our commitment to meet both our legal and moral obligations to Native Americans.

From the standpoint of our natural resources, the preservation of our heritage and keeping faith with Indian Country, this is a very good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, whenever an opportunity arises for the Congress to step forward and act to ensure that our veterans receive the full benefits they have earned, this Member is at the front of the line.

So when I was made aware of the need for monies to offset the cost of H.R. 2990, the Disabled Military Relief Act, I was proud to find the funds within the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee which I chair.

Most Americans, I believe, see it as deeply unfair and certainly counter to American values that disabled veterans would be penalized with cuts in benefits when they also receive retirement pay. That policy does not reflect the thanks of a grateful nation. That is a practice that must be stopped.

Toward that end, I have been glad to support the use of $50 million in receipts from the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources Program to help in the short-term provide our veterans with full access to the benefits they so rightly deserve. While this legislation represents a temporary one-year fix, I look forward to the opportunity to support a permanent solution.

There are those who may decry the use of those funds to pay for veterans benefits and who will complain that this offset is too costly to the oil and gas industry.

In response I point out an Associated Press article from earlier this month, which reported that the oil and gas industry has accelerated its spending on lobbying during this year faster than any other industry. In fact, Big Oil spent $44.5 million lobbying Congress and federal agencies in just the first three months of this year.

Madam Speaker, if those lucrative, multinational firms would simply call off their highly paid, smartly dressed lobbyists for three-and-a- half-month, this offset would be entirely covered. In essence, this amounts to a choice between three-and-a-half months of pay of deep- pocketed lobbyists and the debt we owe our veterans.

Madam Speaker, I stand with America's veterans.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 433, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Whaling Convention Act of 1949 (Act) to require that the United States Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) be a Federal employee.

The Act sets out conditions for the appointment of the U.S. Commissioner to the IWC. It provides that the U.S. Commissioner shall be appointed by the President on the concurrent recommendations of the Secretaries of State and Commerce, and establishes that the Commissioner shall serve at the pleasure of the President.

My legislation would add a requirement that any such individual must also be an employee of the Federal Government to ensure that the positions of the Administration are represented by the Commissioner. It would apply to any individual who is appointed, or reappointed, as U.S. Commissioner to the IWC on or after the date of enactment.

This amendment would bring the International Whaling Commission into line with other international fora, such as the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

It also would signal a shift in our approach to ending commercial whaling in all its forms at the IWC. Under the last Administration the U.S. Commissioner sought to negotiate an agreement that would legitimize commercial whaling and allow the continuation of so-called scientific whaling. This policy direction was very clearly at odds with the wishes of the American people, past Administrations, and numerous Members of Congress. Further, while we all want to reduce the number of whales killed, unfortunately the proposed agreement would not have achieved this goal.

Last year at this time, the House of Representatives passed House Concurrent Resolution 350, which, among other things, urged U.S. leadership to use all appropriate measures to put an end to all forms of commercial whaling around the globe.

In the first days of the Obama Presidency, I urged him to ensure that the Bush Administration's flawed policies and negotiation tactics become a thing of the past. Just last month, 34 of my colleagues joined me in calling upon the Obama Administration to modernize the IWC and bring it in line with other international conservation treaties.

This bill is the first step in that direction. It is time to set new goals for protecting whales with an explicit commitment to the accountability and transparency that were lost during the last eight years.

In her public statement issued prior to this year's Intersessional Meeting of the IWC, Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley confirmed that the Obama Administration views the commercial whaling moratorium as a necessary conservation measure and believes that lethal scientific whaling is unnecessary for modern whale conservation management.

In that spirit, it's time for a new direction for the IWC, with a new policy and a new agreement to end commercial and so-called scientific whaling. I look forward to working with the Obama Administration, and this bill will ensure that the next U.S. Commissioner, who will be appointed this year, will be an employee of their Administration, fully in step with their new approach and commitment to opposing the resumption of commercial whaling.

As the 61st Annual Meeting of the IWC convenes next week in Madeira, Portugal, I again urge the Obama Administration to take the necessary steps to repair the damage done in recent years and to reestablish our nation's longstanding commitment to protecting whales.

As a symbol of that new day, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.