Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 22) to designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the Senate bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, in a speech given in the fall of 1964, as the War in Vietnam intensified, President Lyndon Johnson quoted Scripture from the Book of Matthew which says that the floods came, but the house did not fall because it was founded upon rock.

President Johnson then said the following, ``The house of America is founded upon our land, and if we keep that whole, then the storm can rage, but the house will stand forever.

Once again we find ourselves as a Nation seeking shelter from the storm; the storm of two wars, the storm of economic collapse. But like President Johnson, we remain convinced that no matter what adversity we may be facing, if we are faithful stewards of our land, our house will stand forever.

The legislation before us today, S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, will keep America's land whole. The bill contains more than 160 individual measures, including new wilderness designations, new wild and scenic rivers, new hiking trails, heritage areas, water projects, and historic preservation initiatives.

Taken as a whole, this omnibus bill is the most important piece of conservation legislation we will consider this year and perhaps this Congress. Some have argued, and will argue today, no doubt, that the challenges we face mean that we should not spend time considering environmental legislation. They dismiss the package before us as ``feel good'' legislation. Well, I think the American people could use some feel good legislation right now. They could use legislation that protects our pristine public lands, the clear running streams and rivers, the wide open spaces, and the unique history that make this Nation great.

When the headlines read that banks are failing and companies are folding, they could use some headlines announcing that our national parks are still beautiful, our national battlefields are still sacred, and our rivers are still wild and scenic.

When the headlines read that America's status as an economic superpower is in doubt, they could use some headlines announcing that our status as a conservation superpower has never been stronger.

The package before us is exactly what the American people want, and it is exactly what our public lands need. In my own case, I'm enormously proud of the fact that included in this package is the Wild Monongahela Act, which will designate more than 37 acres of wilderness in my home State of West Virginia.

It should be noted that we are amending S. 22 today to insert language making it absolutely clear that this bill will not affect existing State authority to regulate hunting, fishing, and trapping on the lands in this package. The amendment also makes clear that nothing in S. 22 will affect these activities. My colleagues should know that this provision was negotiated with the National Rifle Association and has the NRA's full support.

Opponents of this bill fail to grasp the deep and abiding love the American people have for their land. They fail to understand the power of our wide-open spaces and magnificent vistas, the power of those magnificent vistas to inspire our generation and renew our spirit. It's that kind of inspiration and that kind of renewal that are always valuable, but when times are tough, they are priceless.

We should approve S. 22 today, not in spite of the challenges we face but because of them. These storms will pass and the house of America will be standing because we have kept our land whole.

I urge passage of S. 22.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

To respond to the gentleman, over 70 bills in this omnibus land package were considered by our Committee on Natural Resources and passed out of the House of Representatives. Some 20 more were reviewed by our committee during the last session of Congress when the gentleman from Washington was on a leave of absence from our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, the subcommittee Chair of our National Parks Subcommittee, a gentleman who has been very instrumental in crafting this legislation and does so much for our national parks, Mr. Grijalva.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire), who has been very instrumental in crafting additional language in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I think previous colloquies or language at least put into this debate by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) made it very clear that it is not the intent of the sponsors of this legislation to see innocent civilians collecting fossils on public lands go to jail. That's not the intent, and it's been made very clear both in the legislation and already in this debate thus far.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent to the distinguished gentleman of our Energy and Minerals Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

(Mr. COSTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, our subcommittee Chair of our Water and Power Subcommittee, Mrs. Grace Napolitano.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Mr. Mike Thompson.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am mindful and remain committed to progress in implementing and funding the December 19, 2000, Trinity River restoration record of decision. Restoring the fishery resources of the Trinity River is important for the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe, commercial and recreational fishing families along the coasts of California and Oregon. I agree to work with the gentleman from California in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the omnibus lands packages of the past by Republican Congresses that were jammed down our throats at the last minute, this bill has been around for well over a year in our committee. To have the bill described as being jammed down their throats at this point, the gentleman from Utah has been in quite a few battles with this bill, so he must know a lot about it.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, the distinguished chairman of our Education and Labor Committee, Mr. George Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a very valued new member of our committee, Mr. Martin Heinrich, the gentleman from New Mexico.

(Mr. HEINRICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Chris Murphy.

If the gentleman will yield, I have four speakers, and it is my intention to conclude the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Brian Baird.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Tom Perriello.

How much time does the gentleman from Washington have, and what are his intentions to use it?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Two.

Not including me.

All right. Then I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Gerald Connolly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished Member and a valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I am prepared to close.

Simple, simple answer. No.

That is not the case. The answer is no.

The question is not in order, Mr. Speaker.

How much time, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the cost of this legislation. I think it's important to note that CBO estimates that enacting S. 22 would have no effect on revenues and no net effect on direct spending over the 2009 to 2018 period, which is the time period relevant to enforcing the pay-as-you-go rules under the current budget resolution. So, this legislation is PAYGO-compliant. PAYGO rules do apply here; something the Republicans never followed when they were in power.

This is an authorization process and, as most Members know, there's a difference between authorization and appropriation. If Members oppose certain projects in this bill, then the case is to take this to the Appropriations Committee, where those concerns can be properly aired.

The bill contains numerous provisions related to non-Federal matching funds in order to maximize public benefit while minimizing Federal expenditures, an important point that has not yet been made in the pending legislation.

So, as I conclude, Mr. Speaker, let me say, as I said in the beginning, this bill is important, especially in today's troubled economic times. We find more and more families where both breadwinners have to find jobs in order to make ends meet. That means that quality time spent at home is rare, and the quantity of time in which families can spend together is even more rare today. Whenever there is time found together, it must be quality time, and that quality time can be found in our National Parks and our public lands and our heritage areas and our historically preserved areas, in our open spaces.

And that's what this legislation is about. It's a family values issue. Providing hardworking American families today time to spend quality time and quantity time is rare; to spend quality time together in our open spaces, recognizing the vast heritage and important heritage and proud heritage of this great land that we call America. That is what this legislation is all about, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I submit for inclusion in the Record the following exchange of letters between the Judiciary and Natural Resources Committees regarding a certain jurisdictional aspect of S. 22.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, February 5, 2009.

Hon. Nick Rahall,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rahall: I am writing regarding S. 22, the

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which has been

received in the House after passing the Senate.

Subtitle D of title VI of that bill is a measure based on

H.R. 554 from the 110th Congress, the Paleontological

Resources Preservation Act, containing significant provisions

within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee,

including criminal penalties, judicial review and enforcement

of administrative fines, use of civil and criminal fines, and

forfeiture. The Judiciary Committee received an extended

referral of H.R. 554 in the 110th Congress, and our two

committees had extensive discussions about refining the bill

in important respects.

While I understand and support the decision, in light of

the difficulty in passing S. 22 in the Senate, to attempt to

pass it in the House without amendment to ensure it reaches

the President, I regret that we will be unable to make

appropriate refinements to the provisions in the Judiciary

Committee's jurisdiction before the bill becomes law. I

appreciate your willingness to work with me to make these

refinements as soon as practicable in subsequent legislation.

I would appreciate your including this letter in the

Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the

House floor. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and

for the cooperative relationship between our two committees.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.,

Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act, or the FLAME Act.

Last year, our country experienced the devastating effects of catastrophic, emergency wildland fires in California. For the past several years, we have witnessed tragic fire seasons that have put American lives and our treasured public lands in harm's way. Fire seasons are getting longer and more intense due to climate change, drought, and other factors.

As a result, federal fire suppression spending has increased substantially over the past 10 years and projections appear to indicate that this trend will continue into the foreseeable future.

The dramatic rise in these costs is eroding other non-fire programs and impacting the core mission of the Federal land management agencies. In the case of the Forest Service, for example, wildland fire suppression activities now account for approximately 48 percent of its budget. This creates a sad trend: our Forest Service is turning into the Fire Service.

Furthermore, both the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have had to ``Rob Peter to Pay Paul'' by borrowing funds from other agency accounts to cover the escalating costs of wildland fire suppression. In 2007, for example, the Forest Service spent $741 million more than was budgeted for wildland fire suppression, and the Department of the Interior spent $249 million more than was budgeted for wildland fire suppression. And in the case of the Forest Service, the costs of catastrophic, emergency wildland fire suppression activities account for the vast majority of suppression expenditures, as two percent of fires account for 80 percent of costs.

Madam Speaker, it is clear that something needs to be done to resolve this problem. That is why today I am reintroducing the FLAME Act.

The FLAME Act establishes a federal FLAME fund for catastrophic, emergency wildland fire suppression activities. The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior may declare catastrophic, emergency wildland fire suppression activities eligible for the FLAME fund by issuing a Suppression Emergency Declaration. The declaration will evaluate the size, severity, and threat of the individual wildland fire incident.

The FLAME Act continues our stewardship of all lands by making funds available for catastrophic, emergency wildland fire suppression activities on State and private land consistent with existing agreements. Funds will also be available for catastrophic, emergency wildland fire suppression on Indian lands.

The FLAME Act also requires that the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior submit a long-overdue report to Congress containing a cohesive wildland fire management strategy. This report will improve efforts to prevent fires on our public lands, by addressing critical fire prevention issues such as indentifying a system for assessing the level of fire risk to communities, and indentifying a system to ensure that the highest priority fuels reduction projects are being funded first.

Last Congress, we worked to ensure House-passage of the FLAME Act. The bill drew support from the five former living Chiefs of the Forest Service, over 40 different organizations, 56 Members of Congress, and the Speaker of the House. However, the Senate did not act upon the measure. This Congress, I am pleased that Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski will be introducing the Senate companion measure to the FLAME Act. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the other body to ensure enactment of this important legislation in the 111th Congress.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that President Obama has indicated that he is supportive of working together on this issue. I thank him for his leadership on this issue by addressing it in his Fiscal Year 2010 budget.

I also will be working with the esteemed Chairman of the Committee on the Budget, Chairman John Spratt, to include language in the Budget Resolution to support the FLAME Act.

Madam Speaker, catastrophic, emergency wildland fires can cause tragic loss of life and property. I am proud to be joined in introducing the FLAME Act today by my colleagues Rep. Norm Dicks, Rep. Raul Grijalva, Rep. Mike Simpson, Rep. Greg Walden, and Senators Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski In the other body. I look forward to working together towards enactment this Congress to ensure that our country has the necessary tools to combat catastrophic, emergency wildland fires.

I rise today in recognition of Meadow Bridge High School in Meadow Bridge, West Virginia. With encouragement from their principal, Al Martine, 100% of the senior class has submitted voter registration forms to the County Clerk in Fayetteville, West Virginia.

Meadow Bridge High School has an eight-year history of registering their entire senior class, and they are the only known school in West Virginia with such an accomplishment to call their own. Not only that, but Meadow Bridge High School was recently honored as a bronze level school in US News and World Report. They were singled out because every student, even the most disadvantaged, has standardized test scores that are above the state average. If that doesn't take hard work or doesn't deserve recognition here, I don't know what does.

Were he still with us today, I am certain West Virginia Senator Jennings Randolph, who proposed the 26th Amendment to our Constitution to lower the voting age to 18 in 1971, would be very proud of each and every student at Meadow Bridge High School. As your elected representative to Washington, I am especially moved by the faculty's efforts to get young people involved in the political process at a young age. By registering to vote, they have achieved the highest office in our land, that of a citizen.

West Virginians have a long, proud history of serving their country. It brings me great pleasure to be able to recognize the efforts of our youngest new voters as they continue in the grand tradition of their classmates, parents and neighbors who registered to vote before them. These students take great pride in doing their civic duty, and I look forward to having their voices heard at the polls come election season.

Let us take this moment to recognize the truly spectacular achievement they have attained with this milestone.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest sympathy in the passing of my dear friend Rev. Dr. Andrew Durgan. Over 60 years ago, Rev. Durgan began his radio ministry over the airways of my family's radio station, WWNR, becoming the first African American to host a weekly program. I am proud that my father created an opportunity which Rev. Durgan used as a launching pad for his ministry. Joining together with my dear friend, the late Helen Dobson, made them both a powerhouse in the community.

I was honored to be with Rev. Durgan as guest speaker for his 60th Anniversary of Broadcast Ministry and remember fondly the testimonies he shared concerning the goodness of the Lord. Rev. Durgan recounted the

seven battles he had witnessed during his time in the service and although he never knew if he would make it out alive, he held fast to the words of the old hymn, ``The Lord will make a way Somehow.'' And though he may have had many storms in his life, he would say to his soul, Precious Lord, take my hand and lead me on, let me stand.

Now, Rev. Durgan has another testimony, his living was not in vain, because he helped somebody as he traveled along this way, all because of God's Amazing Grace. Rev. Durgan's legacy will live on for years to come to inspire others to Hold On to God's Unchanging Hand.

May God's blessing of peace be with you and may the memories of Rev. Durgan bring joy to your hearts.

Madam Speaker, in his Inaugural Address, President John F. Kennedy asked the people to ask not what their country could do for them but what they could do for their country.

Last month, as I again stood witness to history, President Barack Obama spoke a similar message, asking the people he had been elected to serve to remember the legacy that came before and with which many of us are intimately familiar: hard work, faith, and understanding in the face of economic insecurity, international conflict and personal differences.

No one understands this legacy better than African Americans, and it is with that in mind that we come together again this February to celebrate Black History Month.

The theme of Black History Month this year is ``The Quest for Black Citizenship in the Americas.'' It is a theme we in West Virginia understand to our core. Making our homes in a state born out of the Civil War, we are intimately familiar with the struggle for equality.

It is no surprise that we've seen significant moments in history celebrated right here in our hills and hollows. Carter G. Woodson, the ``father of Black History'' hailed from Huntington, a son of slaves who worked in the coal mines to earn money for an education at West Virginia State College and then Howard University in Washington, DC.

Booker T. Washington, perhaps our most famous African American, walked from Virginia to Kanawha County, `free at last,' to have a better life for his family. He also worked hard to obtain the education he felt in his heart was his right to pursue, working in the coal mines until he was 16. He walked 200 miles on foot to study at the Hampton Institute in Virginia and then came right back to West Virginia to teach the children of Appalachia.

Minnie Buckingham Harper of Keystone, the first African American woman to become a member of a legislative body in the United States, broke ground for countless women in 1928 when she was appointed to fill the term of her late husband.

Leon Sullivan, born in Charleston, was brought up in a dirty alley in one of the city's most poverty-stricken sections, worked in a steel mill to pay his tuition at West Virginia State College, and rose from poverty to found the Opportunity Industrialization Center, a job- training organization with branches around the world.

Helen Dobson was from Raleigh County, well-known throughout West Virginia for her beautiful voice, performed at the inauguration of two of West Virginia's governors and served as public school teacher for many years. Her spirit is still strong in southern West Virginia and it was with Ms. Dobson in mind that I signed on as a cosponsor of a bill that designates the African American spiritual as a national treasure. This bill passed the House of Representatives earlier this month.

Countless men and women have worked long hours for less pay to provide for a better future for their children. They have fought, and continue to fight, for our liberties in the armed forces. Through their compassion and quiet strength, these men and women are role models by which we all can live.

With change and the spirit of unity sweeping the Nation, we have come together again to celebrate Black History month. I can think of no more fitting honorees this month than the African American men and women of West Virginia who have done so much to serve our Nation.

Today, southern West Virginians remain deeply indebted to our African American educators who work hard to make sure the children of the Mountain State are ready to take part in an ever more challenging and modern economy. Folks like Bluefield State President

Albert Walker; Maurice Cooley, Director of African American Programs at Marshall University; Dr. Shari Williams-Clarke, Vice President for Marshall University Multicultural Affairs; Loretta Young, Vice President for Development at Concord University; and Roslyn Clark- Artis, Executive Vice President at Mountain State University, are an inspiration to us all.

Too often, the history of black Americans is not fully taught or remembered. With the indomitable spirit of Dr. Carter G. Woodson and new leaders such as President Barack Obama, African Americans in southern West Virginia and across the country are making great progress. Let us take this Black History Month to celebrate the African American contributions to the greatness of West Virginia and to commend those carrying on this proud tradition of service today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 48th Anniversary of the Peace Corps and in doing so, join many others around the nation in celebrating National Peace Corps Week. Their mission is to help the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women while helping to promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served, as well as, a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans.

Since the establishment of the Peace Corps by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, more than 195,000 U.S. citizens have served their country in the cause of peace by living and working in 139 countries throughout the world. As of September 30, 2008, 7,876 Peace Corps Volunteers are making significant and lasting contributions to improve the lives of individuals and communities in 76 countries.

I am proud to say that three of those volunteers currently serving their country are from my district in West Virginia. Both Ashley M. Hess (Burkina Faso) and Garrett C. Prendergast (Mongolia) will finish up their two years' of service in August of 2010, while Stephanie D. Zorio will finish up her two years' of service in the Philippines in November of 2010.

Peace Corps volunteers have made significant and lasting contributions around the world in agriculture, business development, information technology, education, health and HIV/AIDS, youth and the environment.

The 195,000 citizens, who have volunteered to serve their country since 1961, came from all walks of life and represent the best of what the United States has to offer. The work they have done over the past 47 years has played an important role in developing nations and continues to provide opportunities for people of different backgrounds to come together to serve the cause of peace.

Madam Speaker, in the 19th Century, it is estimated that as many as 2 million wild horses and burros ranged freely across the American West. Some of them were of noble birth, with blood lines stretching back to the horses which carried Spanish explorers into the New World; all of them were part of the fabric of the romance and the history of the American West.

As wild animals living on public land, management of these horses and burros fell to the Federal government, acting through the Bureau of Land Management, BLM. Unfortunately, many decades of underfunding and inhumane management practices combined to destroy these wild herds, leaving fewer than 25,000 wild horses and burros on public lands by the early 1970s.

Starting in the 1950s, the American public became aware of the cruelty, disease and death suffered by these iconic animals, thanks in large part to the actions of one woman, Mrs. Velma Bronn Johnston-- better known by the nickname she earned--Wild Horse Annie. The crusade she started--which included a massive letter-writing campaign and eventually a beloved children's book--culminated in 1971 with enactment of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. The Act stated clearly that:

Congress finds and declares that wild free-roaming horses

and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer

spirit of the West; that they contribute to the diversity of

life forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the

American people; and that these horses and burros are fast

disappearing from the American scene. It is the policy of

Congress that wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be

protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death; and

to accomplish this they are to be considered in the area

where presently found, as an integral part of the natural

system of the public lands.

While this landmark legislation resulted in significant improvements in the management of these herds, our experience since 1971 has demonstrated that the law was far from perfect. While the Act identified 53 million acres of public land on which these herds could roam freely, the BLM has removed horses and burros from nearly 19 million of those acres for a variety of reasons. Since 1971, more than 200,000 wild horses and burros have been removed from public land and either adopted or placed in long-term holding facilities. Six states have lost their entire population of wild horses and burros. Recently, the BLM announced that a combination of a lack of funding, facilities and options may require the killing of as many as 30,000 healthy wild horses and burros. Clearly, the laws and policies in place since 1971 need updating.

A recent investigation by the Government Accountability Office identified many of the problems plaguing the wild horse and burro program within BLM. This legislation amends the 1971 Act to implement the changes suggested by the GAO.

This legislation would remove outdated limits on the areas where wild horses and burros can roam freely, allowing the BLM flexibility to find additional, suitable acreage. The bill would strengthen the BLM's adoption program, require consistency and accuracy in the management of these herds, allow more public involvement in management decisions, facilitate the creation of sanctuaries for wild horses and burros on public land and place significant new limitations on the authority to remove these animals from the wild. Finally, the legislation would prohibit the killing of healthy wild horses and burros.

Madam Speaker, introduction of this legislation is the beginning, not the end, of this process. There are many stake-holders--here in Congress, in the agencies and among members of the public--who are invested in this issue. I look forward to working with all parties in an effort to craft a final bill that would make Wild Horse Annie proud.

Mr. Speaker, history is fleeting, unless you are part of making it. Few in this House, nor outside this body, would take issue with the proposition that John D. Dingell has been a maker of history most of his days here. I rise today to honor our esteemed colleague, Congressman John D. Dingell, as the longest serving member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

As the youngest elected, longest serving Member of Congress in the history of the House, I can attest to the trials and tribulations, the trophies and triumphs of tenure. It has been my honor to work alongside Mr. Dingell over the last 32-plus years.

We have fought together in the trenches of Congress to bring affordable healthcare to the elderly, to craft a reasoned and balanced view of the U.S. role in a lasting peace in the Middle East, and to champion the safe usage of our precious natural resources.

Today, the ``Dynamo of Detroit'' has reached a remarkable milestone: 19,420 days of service in the House of Representatives. He stepped into a seat vacated by his late father, John Dingell, Sr., on September 19, 1955, but his service to our Nation began many years prior.

In 1941, when serving as a congressional page in our hallowed halls, he was standing on the House Floor, when President Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan. He not only heard that call but answered it, and went on to serve in the Army, rising to the rank of second lieutenant.

After taking up his father's mantle to represent the people of Michigan's 15th Congressional District, he worked on legislation that has strengthened the fabric of our Nation, voting on the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s and helping pass into law Medicare in 1965.

Congressman Dingell has not just lived history; he has truly made history.

Public service at times rises and sadly falls in the imaginations of our Nation's youth. As testament to what can be the very best of public service, we need to look no further than the legacy of John Dingell. The length of his tenure only serves to underscore his noble service.

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague on this great milestone. It has been an honor and unique privilege to serve beside him as my senior colleague, my mentor, and my friend. With my election to this Congress, I am now the longest serving House member from the State of West Virginia, and I look forward to many more years of working together with the gentleman who has served his State and this Nation longer than anyone in the history of this House.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to submit for printing in the Congressioinal Record, pursuant to clause 2(a) of Rule XI, of the Rules of the House, a copy of the Rules of the Committee on Natural Resources, which were adopted at the organizational meeting of the committee on February 4, 2009.

Rules for the Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of

Representatives, 111th Congress, Adopted February 4, 2009

Madam Speaker, today I wish to recognize a dedicated and committed

young woman in West Virginia, Alisha Young. Ms. Young, a native of Montgomery, West Virginia, has overcome steep odds to gain an education and has tirelessly dedicated herself to the betterment of southern West Virginia and her neighbors.

Despite hardship early on, Ms. Young worked part-time in her local community to help her mother provide for their family and got herself through high school and into college. After a series of unfortunate choices, Alisha found herself back at home and joined YouthBuild, a youth and community development program which addresses low-income community challenges, including housing, education, employment, crime prevention, and leadership development.

Ms. Young speaks passionately about her work with YouthBuild. In a recent editorial in The Charleston Gazette, she highlighted the opportunity that participants have to obtain their GEDs or high school diplomas while learning career- and leadership-skills and earning money to build affordable homes for homeless and underprivileged families.

Now a self-proclaimed YouthBuild leader, Alisha has persevered and hopes to return to her education in the near future. She is currently serving in the AmeriCorps VISTA program and working with the YouthBuild USA Young Leaders Council.

It is from Alisha Young's example that I hope we can all learn. Her enthusiasm for her work and YouthBuild are a testament to the strong and compassionate spirit of volunteerism in West Virginia and America.

As citizens of this great Nation, it is our duty to help the less fortunate using our strengths and talents to help those in need, and to inspire those who are lost. Today, I am proud to recognize her hard work and determination and congratulate Ms. Young for her commitment to personifying the change she hopes to see in the world through her work.

Madam Speaker, last Friday, January 23, marks the passing of 137 years predecessors in the U.S. House of Representatives began to debate a bill to promote the development of mineral resources in the United States. One described the legislation as ``an experiment.''

On that day in January 1872, Representative Sargent from the State of California noted prior fierce debate in the House over a core element of the proposed mining law--that the Federal Government would be selling off the mineral rights of the United States rather than holding onto Federal ownership and imposing a royalty on future production. Representative Maynard from the State of Tennessee questioned whether the law might encourage speculation.

During an April 1872 debate in the U.S. Senate, Senator Cole from the State of California cautioned that the proposed mining law would allow a person to acquire large tracts of land ``which might be worth thousands of dollars per acre, perhaps millions . . .'' Senator Alcorn from the State of Mississippi acknowledged that he had never seen a gold mine in his life, while Senator Casserly, also from the State of California, warned of men who could not imagine the mineral deposits that ``lie to a fabulous extent in value between the Mississippi River and the Sierra Nevada.''

Ultimately, however, our predecessors believed the bill would ``meet with universal favor'' and would prevent litigation among mining claimants. They liked the idea that the bill might, as Representative Sargent hoped, ``bring large amounts of money into the Treasury of the United States, causing the miners to settle themselves permanently, and improve and establish homes, to go deeper in the earth, to dig further into the Hills . . . and build up their communities and States.''

And so, on May 10, 1872, Congress passed a law that encouraged people to go West, locate hardrock minerals and stake mining claims on Federal lands, and remove treasure troves of gold, silver, copper, and platinum from the public domain--for free.

The General Mining Law of 1872, or the ``experiment,'' as some of our predecessors named it, has endured for more than one and a third centuries--a total of 137 years.

Today, we can resoundingly assert that the experiment has lasted long enough.

Consider some of the impacts of the 1872 Mining Law:

According to the Congressional Budget Office, it allows the hardrock mining industry to remove $1 billion in precious metals every year from America's public lands, with no royalty payment or production fee to the Federal Government. By comparison, the coal, gas, and oil industries pay royalties of 8 percent to 18.75 percent.

According to the Department of the Interior, it has allowed mining claimants to buy American public's lands for $2.50-$5 an acre--lands that could easily be worth thousands or tens of thousands of dollars an acre today. Between 1994 and 2006, the U.S. government was forced to sell off more than 27,000 acres of public land holding valuable minerals for a pittance: $112,000.

Finally, as detailed in several Government Accountability Office reports, there have been instances where American taxpayers have paid a fortune to buy back the very lands we once gave away. From Central Idaho's Thunder Mountain, to Telluride, CO, to land outside Yellowstone National Park, millions of public and private dollars have been spent to reacquire thousands of acres of mining claims to protect public access for hunting, fishing, and other recreational opportunities.

Given our current economic crisis and the empty state of our national Treasury, it is ludicrous to be allowing this outmoded law to continue to exempt these lucrative mining activities from paying a fair return to the American people.

Beyond that, the 1872 Mining Law has allowed unscrupulous owners of hardrock mines to abandon hundreds of thousands of mines--and to require American taxpayers to foot the bill because there is no ``polluter-pays'' funding source, that is, a dedicated source of cleanup funding.

In 2007, the U.S. Forest Service estimated that, with its current annual abandoned mine cleanup budget of $15 million, it would take 370 years to complete its $5.5 billion in abandoned mine cleanup and safety mitigation work. In 2008, the inspector general of the Department of the Interior concluded that the public's health and safety is jeopardized by the unaddressed hazards posed by abandoned mines on Federal lands, including lands in the national parks. These old mines are not just eyesores, they are killers.

Today, I, along with Representatives Miller, Waxman, Markey, Berman, Grijalva, Holt, Costa, Christensen, Stark, Kildee, Hinchey, Eshoo, Blumenauer, Kennedy, Kind, Capps, Schiff, Honda, Salazar, Tsongas, and Connolly, introduce the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009. This legislation would end the financial and environmental abuses permitted by the 1872 Mining Law--archaic provisions that fly in the face of logic, and are not what taxpayers, sportsmen, conservationists, and western communities want or need.

This is the same bill that the House of Representatives passed by a bipartisan vote of 244-166 in 2007. It contains the same critical requirements, including:

An 8 percent royalty on production from future hardrock mines on public lands, and a 4 percent royalty from current mines.

A permanent end to the sell-off of public lands holding mineral resources.

The establishment of a clean-up fund for abandoned hardrock mine sites, prioritizing the riskiest ones.

Stronger review requirements, specifically for mines proposed near national parks, to help protect nationally significant areas such as Grand Canyon National Park, where miners had filed more than 1,100 claims within five miles of the park as of October 2008.

A threshold environmental standard for mining. This standard would not preclude mining, but it would make it possible to protect public lands if a mining proposal would irrevocably destroy other equally valuable resources.

Every year, the mining industry's fear of losing the sweet deal they currently enjoy on U.S. public lands leads, predictably, to baseless arguments that reform will cause a large scale departure of mining from American soil.

But we know there are many reasons companies will still want to mine for hardrock minerals in the United States. In an annual survey of metal mining and exploration companies published by the independent, Canadian-based Fraser Institute in 2008, Nevada ranked second out of 68 jurisdictions worldwide for overall policy attractiveness. Utah and Wyoming also made the top 10, and Arizona the top 20. The survey highlighted why the U.S. has appeal. Relative to many other countries the U.S. offers good enforcement, good infrastructure, a stable political system, minimal risk of terrorism or guerrilla groups ruining a mining investment--and a predictable regulatory system. Imposition of a Federal royalty--or fee--on production--will not change those powerful advantages.

We also know that the mining industry is clinging to an outdated boondoggle. Nearly every country in the world imposes a royalty--except the United States.

Industry might also trot out the argument that this bill undermines our Nation's secure access to the minerals we use in everyday products. Yet, import reliance alone is not a problem, as the National Research Council of the National Academies asserted in a recent study of critical minerals. Some minerals we have always imported in significant quantities, simply because the ones we need do not exist in mineable quantities here.

Furthermore, a 2008 Congressional Research Service report concluded that Mining Law reform legislation would not likely have much impact on domestic mining capacity or the import reliance of minerals like copper, uranium, platinum, and molybdenum, in large part because the vast majority of mining on federal lands is for gold--about 88 percent.

Today, our goals for mining policy are no longer what they were in 1872, when Representative Sargent hoped the mining law would encourage miners to ``dig deeper into the earth'' and ``further into the Hills.'' We can aspire to a law that does not merely promote mining, but one that also protects the other values of the hills themselves: clean water, wildlife, recreation, open space, and tourism. We should aim for a law that encourages mining but also encourages responsible corporate citizenship. And, a law that brings a fair return to the taxpayer. That would be a Mining Law worthy of the 21st--rather than the 19th-- century.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize West Virginia's Army National Guard for their assistance at the Presidential Inauguration of Barack Obama on Tuesday, the 20th of January 2009.

West Virginia provided nearly 500 men and women with the National Guard to usher in President Barack Obama. From crowd control to communication, West Virginia National Guard troops assisted local law enforcement in providing security and other services. In addition, the West Virginia National Guard sent helicopters, airplanes, mobile satellite-communications trailers, medical gear, and a mobile kitchen. Our brave men and women witnessed history and gave their all to help at this historic occasion.

Our heroic men and women in uniform are never far from my thoughts. They are our Nation's consistent example of valor and courage. In West Virginia, they earned a Special Category ``First Place'' award in the Army Communities of Excellence, ACOE, competition in May 2008 for their strong strategic planning process, communication, and customer-driven focus. Their excellence reflects the hard work and dedication of the men and women not only of the West Virginia Army National Guard, but also of every family member and friend who stands behind them. It is important to remember that our brave soldiers have given so much and have expected so little in return. I am proud to take this moment to recognize the excellence of the West Virginia Army National Guard for all they do to keep us safe from harm.

Our Armed Forces have paid the debt for the freedom we enjoy today, and I will continue, as I have in the past, to do everything I can to honor their sacrifices and service. Our soldiers and their families remain foremost in the thoughts and minds of southern West Virginians, and I will continue to devote my all to those who wear or have worn America's uniform.

Madam Speaker, Thomas Jefferson famously observed that were it left up to him ``to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government,'' he would ``not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.''

Fortunately, Americans have never been forced to make that choice. Jefferson and his fellow Founding Fathers bequeathed us a democratic government that has made us the envy of the world. And, at the same time, the Nation's free press has shown itself fully worthy of the confidence Jefferson voiced in it.

This year, a great newspaper in my native West Virginia, The Herald- Dispatch, marks a major milestone in its long and distinguished history--its 100th anniversary--and I am proud to offer this salute to it.

The Herald-Dispatch published its first issue in Huntington on January 17, 1909.

The newspaper's roots actually stretch back to 1871, the very year of Huntington's birth, when printer O.G. Chase arrived by riverboat and soon was publishing the young city's first newspaper. Known as The Independent, Chase's publication merged in 1875 with the Cabell Press to form a new publication called the Weekly Advertiser. When it later became a daily paper, the name was shortened to The Advertiser.

A rival daily, The Huntington Herald, was launched in 1890. Three years later, in 1893, printer Joseph Harvey Long, arrived in Huntington determined to purchase The Huntington Herald, which he did--paying $100 down and pledging to pay a balance of $1,700. Long published The Herald for only 18 months before selling it and purchasing The Advertiser.

Floyd S. Chapman, a future several-term mayor of Huntington, was first the city editor of The Advertiser, then editor of The Herald. In 1904, he left to begin his own newspaper, The Huntington Dispatch. In 1909, The Herald and The Dispatch merged to become The Herald-Dispatch.

Flash forward two decades and another historic merger occurred in 1927 when The Advertiser and The Herald-Dispatch merged to form the Huntington Publishing Co., with J.H. Long as president. Known to one and all by his honorary title of ``Colonel,'' Long would go on to become the undisputed dean of West Virginia newspapermen.

The staff of The Herald-Dispatch moved into The Advertiser's handsome new building on the corner of Fifth Avenue and Tenth Street, but the two staffs remained separate and highly competitive. The building's presses published The Advertiser each afternoon, The Herald-Dispatch each morning and a combined edition, The Herald-Advertiser, on Sundays.

Over the years, Colonel Long not only made The Advertiser and The Herald-Dispatch the region's leading newspapers, he and his sons also branched out into broadcasting. In 1923, the company purchased WSAZ Radio and in 1949 founded WSAZ-TV, one of the Nation's first television stations.

Colonel Long died in 1958 at age 95.

In 1971, the Gannett Co., one of the Nation's largest newspaper chains, purchased the Huntington Publishing Co. newspapers.

Under Gannett, the newsroom's typewriters gave way to computer terminals, and the noisy Linotype machines that once spit out lines of hot metal type were consigned to the junkyard.

In 1979, The Advertiser became one of many afternoon newspapers to cease publication, a victim of changing tastes on the part of readers who now prefer morning newspapers. At the same time, the Sunday Herald- Advertiser nameplate was retired and The Herald-Dispatch became a seven-day-a-week publication. Many long-time staffers on The Advertiser moved over to The Herald-Dispatch.

Gannett published The Herald-Dispatch for 36 years, until May of 2007 when the company sold it to another national chain, Gatehouse Media. A month later, Gatehouse in turn sold the newspaper to a Huntington company, Champion Printing, thus returning it to local ownership.

And indeed, the heart and spirit of America's free press, from the beginning, have been individuals dedicated to keeping the public informed, communities educated, and discourse alive and well. Throughout its century of living, the Herald Dispatch's corps of employees has kept the interest and needs of its neighbors foremost in their writing, coverage and opining.

On this, its 100th anniversary, I extend my hearty congratulations to The Herald-Dispatch. May it continue to inform and entertain its thousands of readers for many, many years to come.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, using the authority granted to Congress under the Congressional Review Act, to overturn last minute regulations promulgated by the Bush Interior and Commerce Departments which give federal agencies an unacceptable degree of discretion to decide whether or not to comply with the Endangered Species Act, ESA.

Joining me in introducing this measure are Mr. Markey, Mr. George Miller, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Hinchey, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Holt, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Blumenauer. I thank them for their support.

The Bush Administration has had a long, though one could hardly say proud, history of trying to undermine the Endangered Species Act and the protection it provides our Nation's most imperiled species. For years, high ranking political appointees in the Department of Interior used their positions and influence to meddle in scientific decisions under the ESA and alter outcomes, potentially harming species and most definitely harming the integrity of the law and morale and reputation of the agency charged with implementing it.

The rules we seek to overturn with this joint resolution were rushed through in the final months of the Administration and are the final assault on and insult to one of our nation's landmark conservation laws. They gut what is the cornerstone of the law, the Section 7 consultation process, and allow federal agencies to undertake or permit thousands of federal activities, such as logging or building a dam, on federal land and other areas without obtaining review or comment from federal wildlife biologists at the Fish and Wildlife Service.

This incredibly controversial proposal--which could have far-reaching implications on the future integrity of the Endangered Species program--clearly merits more public scrutiny than the Administration provided. First proposed in late August, the Administration rushed a public comment period and environmental assessment and then reviewed more than 300,000 public comments at a rate of more than 6,000 per hour. This last minute, ill-conceived overhaul of the rules governing America's endangered wildlife, brokered behind closed doors, is an affront to the American people who trust their government to do the right thing.

Eleventh hour rulemakings rarely, if ever, lead to good government, and this is not the type of legacy the Bush Administration should be leaving for future generations. Not surprisingly, this is not the first time--though fortunately it will likely be the last--that the Bush Interior Department abdicated their responsibility for ensuring that an agency action will not jeopardize a listed species or harm their habitat. Similar regulations proposed to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to decide whether to consult when licensing pesticides were rejected by the Court in 2006, just as we should reject these regulatory changes now.

As the Bush Administration fades off into the sunset, they leave behind a trail of last minute regulatory changes that represent the worst in public policy and that Congress and the new President will have to undo. In my role as chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I look forward to working with the Obama Administration to correct course and promote a positive resource conservation agenda. We need to invoke the change that is needed to restore the vigor and vitality of America, including the unique natural heritage that has carved our Nation as we know it today. Passage of this joint resolution will be one important step in restoring that natural heritage.

Madam Speaker, years ago a coal miner from West Virginia wrote a letter to me noting that every single federal law regulating coal was penned in blood. He was referring to the fact that it took an explosion claiming 78 souls in 1968 at a mine in Farmington, West Virginia, to give rise to the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. And that it took the failure of a coal slurry impoundment at Buffalo Creek, in Logan County, West Virginia, that killed 125 people, for the Congress to finally pass the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.

Just a few weeks ago, in December, a facility owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) gave way, unleashing an avalanche of coal ash sludge that covered more than 300 acres. This time Heaven intervened, and thankfully no lives were lost.

This disaster--which could have been avoided if TVA had exercised appropriate engineering and monitoring regimes at its Kingston facility in Harriman, Tennessee--was a clarion call for action. Now is the time to take that action, before any lives are lost to a similar disaster.

Simply put, there are no federal standards for coal ash impoundments. They are constructed and maintained under a patchwork of State requirements, or on a voluntary basis.

Today I am introducing legislation to impose uniform federal design, engineering, and performance standards on coal ash impoundments. These standards are aimed at ensuring the structural stability of these impoundments, and requiring adequate monitoring and inspection regimes to avoid a repeat of what happened at Kingston, Tennessee, and what almost happened just last week at another TVA facility in Alabama.

Coal ash is a byproduct of the combustion of coal at electric utility powerplants. Some of the coal ash produced is recycled, usually as construction materials like concrete, Portland cement, and wallboard. However, the majority of coal ash is deposited in impoundments, landfills, or mines.

The larger issue here is how to regulate coal ash, and, in this respect, the track record is woefully inadequate. Back in 1980, former Representative Tom Bevill of Alabama and this gentleman from West Virginia successfully offered an amendment to what became the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1980 requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine how to regulate coal ash.

I am sorry to say that after 29 years the EPA has yet to do so. Over the years, I have cajoled the agency to move forward. It came close to making a decision under the Clinton Administration, then retrenched under the Bush Administration. I called for a study by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences on this issue, which was completed in 2006. Following up on that study, last year our colleague, Rep. Jim Costa, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Energy and Minerals Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee, held a hearing on coal ash. The study, and the hearing, all pointed to the pressing need for a federal regulatory regime governing the disposal of coal ash, whether in impoundments, landfills, or in mines.

I have no doubt that the Obama Administration will finally take action on this issue. In the meantime, however, the purpose of my legislation is to address the engineering aspects of the impoundments themselves.

For its part, the electric utility industry says it complies with voluntary guidelines in this matter. And some States claim they have adequate requirements. Yet, as it stands, one State might require strict standards for the construction of a coal ash pond, while the State next door largely ignores how coal ash ponds are constructed. Pennsylvania, for example, requires a solid waste permit for all surface impoundments that receive coal ash, while Illinois and Indiana are among the states that regulate surface impoundments as water

pollution control facilities, rather than solid waste management units.

Similarly, requirements for liners for coal ash ponds vary State by State. For example, Alabama and Florida do not require liners for surface impoundments for coal ash, while Wisconsin does.

The argument that all States have adequate regulations for coal ash is not substantiated by the facts. It is impossible to write off the disaster in Tennessee as a freak accident. The absence of national standards for coal ash has resulted in environmental damage throughout the country--not just last month, or last year, but for decades. In 2007, the EPA recognized 67 contaminated sites in 23 states where coal combustion byproducts have polluted groundwater or surface water. This may be just the tip of the iceberg, because most coal ash sites in the United States are not adequately monitored.

The ``Coal Ash Reclamation and Environmental Safety Act of 2009'' requires minimum design and stability standards for all surface impoundments constructed to hold coal ash. The bill draws on the regulatory model for impoundments that is used for coal slurry management under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Requirements for coal slurry impoundments that would be made applicable to coal ash impoundments under 2 this legislation cover aspects of design, construction, operation, and closure, including:

Regulations detailing the engineering and stability of the embankment.

Regulations requiring all applications for an impoundment to have a foundation investigation to determine design requirements for stability.

Each design plan must include a geotechnical investigation of the embankment foundation area.

Each impoundment plan must include a survey describing the potential effect on the structure from subsidence of the subsurface strata resulting from past mining operations in the area.

Plans for impoundments must be reviewed by a geologist or an engineer.

Regulations requiring that a qualified engineer, with experience in construction of impoundments, inspect each impoundment regularly during construction, upon completion of construction, and periodically thereafter.

The ``Coal Ash Reclamation and Environmental Safety Act of 2009'' also requires immediate development of a detailed inventory and analysis of all existing coal ash disposal sites, to guide informed and prompt decisions on how to bring that universe of ponds and lagoons up to safe standards, now.

For States that already have careful standards for coal ash disposal, the bill I am introducing will not be a problem. For those that do not, the ``Coal Ash Reclamation Environmental Safety Act of 2009'' will require immediate attention to shocking gaps in coal ash management.

As a witness at our hearing last year so presciently reminded the Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals: ``the cost of safe disposal [of coal ash] is not burdensome to industry, although it has proved, at site after site, to be catastrophic to the public and the environment.''

The time to act is now.