Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I have spent more than half my life as a member of the Resources Committee. In that time I have supported numerous wilderness designations. In fact, I cannot recall ever opposing a wilderness bill. Yet, today, I find myself in a different situation. While I am normally excited, in fact, enthused, whenever a Republican introduces a wilderness bill, H.R. 3603 falls far short of what I see as an acceptable standard for such an exceptional area.

Wilderness designations should not be the result of a quid pro quo. They should rise or fall on their own merits. We all understand that compromise is part of the legislative process, yet at the same time, I would submit that wilderness is not for sale. Simply put, I believe we should not seek the lowest common denominator when it comes to wilderness and saddle a wilderness designation with exceptions, exclusions, and exemptions. Wilderness is an endangered species. But instead of treating it as such, H.R. 3603 declares open season on it.

With all due respect to the author of this legislation, and its supporters, in my view the focus of this bill is placed on development, with public land giveaways, monetary favors and special legislative provisions for a select few.

There is nothing to be ashamed about with wilderness. Wilderness is not defined by the absence of certain activities, but rather by the presence of certain unique and invaluable characteristics. The answer to the oft-asked question, ``why do you want this area to be wilderness'' is that these areas are already wilderness. Congress cannot ``create'' wilderness. That is done by the hand of God. But what we can do is look beyond the fleeting uses these wild lands could be put to and preserve them as they are and as they have been for generations.

President Lyndon Johnson, at the signing of the Wilderness Act in 1964 perhaps summed it up best when he said: ``If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them something more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it.''

H.R. 3603 falls far short of the standard that has been set for wilderness designation over the past forty years. It treats wilderness as a bargaining chip, something to be used to gain other ends. I simply cannot support eroding protections in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, the transfer of public lands to developers, or the payoffs to mining speculators to name but a few issues.

H.R. 3603 does not enhance the cause of wilderness, it cheapens it. The rush to bring

this bill to the floor, without even a Committee Report, only shows that proponents fear a little sunshine on this legislation. They don't want you to look too closely at the backroom deals that were made, the favors that were granted, or the real resource protection for these public resources that is being forgone.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3603, is bad wilderness policy, it's bad resource management policy and it is bad fiscal policy. I urge defeat of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, it was 24 years ago almost to this very day that I led an official congressional delegation to the Middle East, appointed by then Speaker Tip O'Neill. This six-nation tour included meetings with heads of state in every one of the countries we visited, including the Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Began.

We were in Beirut those first days of August 1982 when Israeli bombs were falling all over the country and all over the city, as they are this very day. The Israeli aim at that time was to rid Lebanon of the

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me the time, and I commend him. The plethora of scenarios that he has just taken this body through, some of which are scary, are certainly scenarios of which we need to bring to the American people's attention.

We have seen the neocons have their way much too often in this administration. They got us into the war in Iraq, with some prodding from our allies in the region. And now those same individuals would have us strike at Iran. Yes, Iran, Syria are culprits in this recent kidnapping. There is no doubt in my mind, although there probably is not proof out there. Earlier I condemned Hezbollah and Hamas for these kidnappings. Were they taking their directions directly from Damascus, directly from Tehran? Probably, or at least some wink along the way. Or was Nasrallah going off on a tangent on his own? I am sure he did not expect the Israeli response that he got.

I am sure the Israelis have learned something from this latest fighting, just what is in the Hezbollah arsenal, missiles that perhaps both Israeli Army intelligence and our own did not forecast.

So perhaps this current scenario that will play out hopefully over another week or 2 is a learning experience, a feeling-out experience on both sides to determine just what other surprises are up one's sleeve.

But regardless of that, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) just accused, and it is a reality, that Hezbollah rockets have hit civilians in Israel. Unfortunate. Were they targeted? I hardly think the Hezbollah missiles are of the same guidance technology as Israel missiles. For the most part, these Hezbollah missiles have been landing in barren deserts. That does not seem to be a targeting of civilians. And when they do find a target, yes, unfortunately there have been civilians that have been hit. Israeli technology and Israeli IDF are certainly much more advanced, much more advanced in their guidance procedures and in their ability to target their targets.

The response is Hezbollah has their weapons, their missiles in civilian populations, in mosques, in innocent civilian homes. I have no doubt that that is accurate. And where that is proven to be, those targets are fair game and should be hit. But the Beirut airport, hardly a hideout for Hezbollah missiles, hardly a place that Hezbollah would use to receive arms, hardly a place that they would take their hostages for transportation elsewhere.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this debate, the tenor of the debate. The quality of the debate has been superb. The time that all sides have agreed for an extension is great. This is an important issue, and it should be debated as much as this body wishes to.

But the fact is that the country of Lebanon has never taken any hostages. Lebanon has never attacked anybody. Lebanon has been used as a chessboard upon which all other countries in the region play their games and seek their own motives, whatever those motives may be. The Iranians have their motives. The Syrians have their motives. The Israelis have their motives.

The other Arab countries in the region certainly have their motives. But Lebanon, the innocent bystander, is the one suffering the damage here. They have suffered an unmeasured response.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, again asked what should a response be then if Israel, as I have said, does have the right to go after their kidnapped soldiers, and how do you measure what is appropriate and what is inappropriate?

I happen to believe that the Israeli intelligence, as I have said, and their technologies, are far superior to Hezbollah, are far superior to any country in the region, far superior, and they can use that ability, that superiority, to better track where their soldiers may be and where they are unlikely to be.

It is that type of response that they have the right to pursue to the fullest extent to go after their soldiers. Not in Christian suburbs of Beirut that were hit today. I hardly think that is a hiding point for Hezbollah rockets and missiles. I hardly think you are going to find Hezbollah there. There were none found there. Yet a very pro-Christian, previously thought safe section of Beirut was hit just this afternoon by Israeli missiles. So there can be a better consideration of the innocent civilians.

The resolution to which Mr. Issa referred, which we Lebanese- Americans support, H.R. 926, mentions that protection of innocent life and civilian infrastructure in the very beginning up in the first paragraph, not the next to the last paragraph, as the current resolution before us does.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1972 Congress enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act to protect marine mammals from harmful human activities. It is a landmark statute in our pantheon of national environmental laws, providing for the conservation and management of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, and other marine mammals.

In the past, consideration of amendments to MMPA was done on a bipartisan basis, such as significant changes made by Congress in 1994. However, during this Congress, I have stood opposed to further consideration of MMPA legislation the Resources Committee approved almost 1 year to this day, until today. Let me emphasize that my opposition was until today.

This was because the bill would have eliminated a fundamental mandate of MMPA known as the ``deadline for the zero rate mortality goal.'' In other words, we, as a Nation, are to strive to put into place management regimes which will reduce, and ideally eliminate, marine mammal fatalities at the hands of human beings.

The troublesome provision which would have eliminated the deadline has been dropped from the legislation we are now considering. In this regard I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Pombo for agreeing to this, and I am pleased to say that I support the bill as amended today and urge its approval by this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the majority has already explained the purpose of H.R. 4376, which was introduced by our colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Richard Neal.

For nearly 200 years, the Springfield Armory was important to the manufacture of U.S. military small arms.

The national historic site, which was established in 1974, includes historic resources administered by the National Park Service as well as historic resources owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on behalf of the Springfield Community College.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Representative Neal, is to be commended for his efforts to preserve this historic site. He has worked diligently to maintain and enhance the relationship between Federal, State and local interests involved in the preservation and interpretation of the historic resources located at the Springfield Armory site.

Mr. Speaker, we support H.R. 4376 and urge adoption of the legislation by the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the majority has already explained the purpose of H.R. 3085 which was introduced by our colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Zack Wamp.

There is wide support for a trail study and designation by members of the Cherokee Nation and others interested in the history of the forced removal of Native Americans from portions of the Eastern U.S. It is our hope that the study of these additional trail segments will help to develop the most appropriate means to preserve and interpret this important aspect of our American History.

Mr. Speaker, we support H.R. 3085 and I have no objection to adoption of the legislation by the House today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the motives behind all the actors involved in recent actions in the Middle East. I do not condone kidnappings, murders, terrorist acts whether in a military zone or across borders, whether as an act of resistance or whatever the terms are that one uses.

I do feel I understand somewhat the feelings of an oppressed, occupied people who have been treated less than human and who now, through no actions or fault of their own, are being bombed back to the Stone Age.

Not only are innocent civilians losing their lives as we speak, but also vital support systems, services and infrastructure needed for day- to-day living are being bombed hourly.

Also in severe jeopardy of losing its life is the new pro-American, prodemocracy government of the land of my grandfathers, Lebanon. Only a year and a half ago, as we all will recall, the Cedar Revolution brought such new life and new hope for this country.

The Lebanese Government has little knowledge nor collusion with, nor agreement with what the military wing of Hezbollah does. They have condemned these recent actions, as I have

done. Every actor in the region knows this, yet some try to convince the world otherwise for their own selfish motives, whether it is for land, for reoccupation or to send signals to other countries.

Believe it or not, certain U.S. media outlets play right into these motives by fueling these misperceptions of which others purposely strive to further.

Example. Today, at 3 o'clock, Shepard Smith on that ``fair and balanced'' outlet called Fox News stated, referring to the country of Lebanon, ``that country known to fund Hezbollah,'' and again at 3:13 p.m. today, he further stated, ``Lebanon continues to fire Katyusha rockets into Israel.'' It is time that this unfair, unbalanced, untrue and outright garbage be called to the carpet.

It is also time for all actors in the region to be called to the carpet, to step back and realize how disastrous their current paths are to their people and to the world. Hezbollah must stop tempting fate, stop shelling across the border, must release the bodies of Israeli soldiers and/or unharm those still alive and safe, as their leader claims.

Israel must stop their unmeasured response, realize they are creating more militants than they are destroying and will never destroy every one of them, and take their grievances directly to the countries involved.

It is long past time for cooler heads to prevail if peace is to ever have a chance in the Middle East

Mr. Speaker, while other industrialized countries have embraced weaning themselves off imported oil by commercializing coal- to-liquid fuel technologies for transportation fuels, the United States has lagged behind in this endeavor as it has with other alternative fuels primarily due to the lack of will and the price of oil.

South Africa, for instance, at its Sasol facilities, is meeting 30 percent of its liquid fuel requirements through coal liquefaction using a technology originally developed in Germany during the 1920s. Worldwide oil prices are now at a level that would make more attractive investments in large-scale coal-to-liquid fuel facilities in this country. However, as evident with other alternative fuels such as ethanol, federal incentives will be necessary in order to sustain this type of an effort over the long-term.

The ``Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Energy Act of 2006'' proposes to take an omnibus approach to the commercialization of coal liquefaction technology by stimulating the production, marketing, and use of coal- to-liquid fuels. The bill would:

Amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to explicitly make commercial coal-to-liquid fuel facilities eligible under that law's energy project loan guarantee program.

Establish a loan program within the Department of Energy to commercialize coal-to-liquid fuel facilities.

Authorize as the Energy Secretary deems appropriate the purchase of coal-to-liquid fuels for Strategic Petroleum Reserve purposes.

Extend through 2020 the availability of the alternative fuel excise tax credit for coal-to-liquid fuels authorized by the 2005 federal highway and transit reauthorization legislation (SAFETEA-LU).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending legislation on the basis that I am unwilling to vote against America's energy independence. This bill would continue to mortgage our Nation's future to a handful of multinational oil conglomerates. It demands a continued addiction to a petroleum diet. It would only further enslave us as a Nation, as a society, to the oily ways of the past, which do not bode well for our energy future.

It is telling that the so-called ``energy week'' proclaimed by the Republican majority consists only of this single piece of legislation that would only further shackle the Nation to the

whims and caprices of the petroleum industry. It is telling that this is their idea, as it has been all along, of what energy independence means.

As Paul Revere did on that famous midnight ride, those of us opposed to this ill-conceived bill are raising an alarm. The drumbeat that we hear pounds out a call of freedom. Freedom to be done with those who profit and plunder at the gas pumps throughout this country, freedom from the price gougers, freedom from the merchants of profit and power over our American values, and the freedom to devise new and alternative fuels to our petroleum dependency. It is time to stand up and be counted, to hoist up the flag and salute it, to strike a resounding chord that will reverberate across this great land of ours.

I say to my colleagues that truly today is Independence Day here in the House of Representatives, for we are being given an opportunity to vote against this outrageous bill and vote against it on the following grounds:

First, it would improperly and perhaps unconstitutionally delegate to the coastal States virtually all decision-making powers over the disposition of a Federal resource. It says to all of the other owners of our offshore water and energy resources, whether they reside in Ohio, Idaho, Arizona or my great State of West Virginia, so it should say to the owners of our offshore waters and energy resources, all of the American taxpayers, no matter what State that they reside in, that they have no say in this matter. No say whatsoever, that we are going to vest all of the power with a few, to the detriment of the many.

Second, it would grab the second largest source of income to the Federal Government after personal income taxes, yank this revenue out of the Treasury and redistribute it to those few. Let's be clear. This bill would reallocate existing revenue from OCS oil and gas leases to willing coastal States, not just future, potential revenue streams, but also those currently being dedicated to the benefit of the Nation as a whole.

It would rob the majority of the American people and bankrupt the Land and Water Conservation Fund so cherished by communities and localities across this great land. According to the administration, this is their figures, the revenue-sharing provisions of bill alone would constitute a $74 billion hit over the first 15 years. Envision this massive rate on America's resources and what it will mean to the average American.

Third reason for opposing this bill, it would deprive most of us of jobs and economic benefits in most of the regions of our country. Those of you from the Midwest, from the corn belt, you can forget about ethanol. This bill demands petroleum. Vote for it, and you vote against your interests. You vote against the jobs in your region and against economic benefits that the production of ethanol brings to your region.

Those of you from the coalfields, like myself, where we have sought for many years to broaden our employment base and to reduce our Nation's petroleum fixation with liquid fuels made from coal, vote for this and you are voting against the future of your coal miners.

As in the past, these so-called energy bills that come before this Republican-controlled Congress are nothing but a vote for further, as the President wants to wean us away from, it is nothing but a vote for a further addiction to oil.

With the Nation hard and fast on a petroleum diet for decades to come brought forth by this pending legislation, the widespread commercialization of coal-to-liquids technology to fuel our vehicles will continue to be an elusive goal and merely lip service only.

I have never forsaken the coal miners in my congressional district, and I am not about to do so now.

Fourth, Mr. Chairman, this bill simply is not necessary. Under the Bush administration alone, the Department of Interior has offered leases covering 267 million acres of the OCS. Industry has only sought to acquire 24 million of those acres.

Now, contemplate that for a moment. There are still 243 million acres available, currently available for leasing that the oil and gas industry has not yet seen fit to bid upon. In all, in total, over 40 million acres of the OCS are under lease and less than 7 million of those acres are in production.

Is there a crisis in the OCS? Is there evidence that legislation such as that before us today, which shreds long-standing moratoria is needed? The facts tell us not.

Those who bring forth this legislation represent an era that should now be in our past, seeking to place all of our eggs in a black basket woven of petroleum. They would defend the predominance of Big Oil, those with wealth and power over our energy destiny.

Those of us opposed to this legislation bring with us the conviction that there are limits to what the American people will suffer for the sake of profit and power. This is indeed a turning point for America.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the pending legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a true leader in this area who has devoted a great deal of time on this issue and has a true concern for our environment and what this issues means for us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), a valued member of our Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), who year after year after year has been a true leader on this issue and on its environmental effects.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), who represents the coastlines of Florida.

Mr. Chairman, since the time is so tilted, I would hope that my chairman from California would use more time before I yield my next amount of time.

Before I do that, I do want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana who has just spoken. Although we deliver on this issue, he has done his State and his district superbly. He has been patient, persistent and has worked with me on this issue, as has the chairman, I might add. I do want to salute Mr. Melancon for the tremendous work and patience he has had on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

May I have the time again, please?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a very valuable member of our Resources Committee, and the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, has the chairman explained the amendment yet?

Mr. Chairman, as I understand, if I am on the right amendment, the pending amendment drops some provisions of the underlying legislation such as new royalty relief, which should never have been part of the bill to begin with.

On balance, however, the amendment consists of budget gimmickry designed to hide the true costs to the Treasury of the bill and to pacify CBO by pushing the spending beyond the 10-year

scoring window. Under the manager's amendment, State revenue sharing will cost the Federal Treasury $18 billion in the first 10 years under the CBO analysis.

According to the MMS, Minerals Management Service, which administers the offshore OCS oil and gas leasing program, this legislation's provisions for diverting Federal revenues to States will cost $74 billion over the first 15 years and a staggering $600 billion over six decades. So under the manager's amendment, the new gimmickry, as I understand it, the Federal spending is largely deferred until 10 years and then the costs escalate rapidly and continue permanently. So that is the basis for my opposition.

It is a new, permanent entitlement program with 80 percent of the diverted Federal revenue goes only to four States, as we have heard in previous debate, those States being Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi. This is revenue that is generated from the development of oil and gas resources owned by all the American people. All of our names are on the deed. And it currently goes to the Federal Treasury and is allocated by Congress for many, many national priorities that are getting slashed these days.

And despite assertions to the contrary, this is not new revenue to be generated by this bill, but rather it is existing revenue that is generated under current laws allowing for the development of oil and gas on Federal OCS lands, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico. The publicly-owned OCS resources are far beyond the State boundaries, and to grant the adjacent Gulf States a permanent entitlement to those revenues is to the detriment and at the cost of all the other States.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, continuing to claim my time in opposition.

I understand that the administration has just come out with their position on this legislation; and, as I understand it, much to everybody's surprise, it is in opposition. It is in opposition on budget grounds, as I understand the statement that has just come out from the administration, as well as their opposition to the revenue- sharing proposals that are contained inherent in this current legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

That hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement of the legislation. When the administration says they want to move the process forward, I hardly think that means that they will sign the current bill as written into law. And I have the administration's language here in front of me.

Yes, I will yield. Did they say that it was signed into law?

Well, it is hardly a ringing endorsement. I have been here 30 years, and I have seen administrations endorse legislation or I have seen where they wanted to move along the process.

Reclaiming my time, the way I read it, although I don't have my glasses, it is to move this process forward.

``The administration strongly opposes revenue sharing . . . '' I am reading now. My eyes just focused.

``The administration strongly opposes revenue-sharing provisions that do not incentivize production and that would reduce Federal receipts relative to current law and have a long-term impact on the Federal deficit. The administration's preliminary estimate is that the revenue- sharing provisions of H.R. 4761 would reduce Federal receipts by several hundred billion dollars over 60 years.''

Is that a ringing endorsement? Is that support of the legislation? Read the English language.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not begrudge the gentleman from Virginia or the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for their efforts to obtain additional funding for the transit system in this region. I have ridden it. It is a very valuable part of our infrastructure not only in our Nation's capital but in this country.

Quite honestly, I do not see any link here between OCS, oil and gas leasing, and funding a particular transit system. I have got some roadways in my State I wish I would have thought to include in this bill as well. But nevertheless, the only specific authorized use of these funds is for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, up to a total of 900 million each and every year. That is important to my State.

There is a linkage here with conservation of our land and water resources being financed with revenues obtained from the development of these resources in this bill. So if there is a linkage but here between OCS and WMATA, I see no linkage.

Second, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit, as all mature transit systems are, is eligible for funding and it does receive funding through the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. There I am happy to support it as well through my position on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. And I know that the authority is not really scratching for dollars these days, so that is why I claimed this time in opposition.

Again, I salute Mr. Davis for his dedication as well as the gentlewoman, Ms. Holmes Norton.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

By extending ``no leasing'' buffer zones to 125 miles away from the State boundaries, this amendment is I must admit an improvement in the current bill from the perspective of its Florida sponsors, and I certainly understand that and commend them for the effort here.

However, as is in the underlying bill, the amendment gives effective control over national resources to the States.

The OCS lands and oil and gas resources belong to all the people of America. The name of every West Virginian, the name of other citizens of our country are on the deed to these properties.

So these oil and gas resources belong to all the American people and not just to those who reside in the adjacent States; and, as such, Congress should retain the powers to make the decisions regarding those national resources on those grounds. It is for that reason that I object to the amendment.

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

If the gentleman would yield, in response to the gentleman, that was not an accurate statement. The mountains of West Virginia do not belong to all the people of this land.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), one of the cosponsors of the original underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, Norman Mineta last week announced his resignation from the President's Cabin as Secretary of Transportation-- the longest serving Transportation Secretary in the history of the Department. His departure comes gracefully and on his own terms, just as were his more than three decades in public service to the American people.

Norm's public service can't be condensed into a press release or simple statement of appreciation. His years of service to the country he loves--on behalf of his California constituents and in the arena of transportation--are unparalleled for their impact and effectiveness. The past 30-plus years have proven Norm a giant in his field and a true friend to those of us that served with and learned from him.

On occasion Norm joined me in the mountains of southern West Virginia, each time increasing his understanding of our unique landscape and transportation needs. In his years as a Member of Congress and as Transportation Secretary he did a great deal to improve the infrastructure of southern West Virginia and, indeed, the lives of southern West Virginians.

I am certain Norm will continue his outstanding record of service as a private citizen in the years to come and I congratulate my friend on his decision and wish him, his wife Deni and his two children, David and Stuart, the very best.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this special day to honor my home among the hills, the great state of West Virginia. It was on June 20, 1863 that West Virginia became the 35th state to enter the Union.

The Civil War changed the landscape of America, and nowhere was its impact felt more significantly than in the Virginias, which, like so many families fighting this bloody war, was rendered into two halves, west and east, North and South.

By some standards small in circumference but by any standards big in heart, West Virginia might have been born a child of national turmoil, but has grown to a State blessed with hard-working and generous people, awe-inspiring natural beauty, and a fount of natural resources.

The natural beauty surrounding us lures people from across the Nation and around the world to visit and play here.

Traditional industries have long played an integral role in our State's economy, and they continue so today.

Agriculture provides dairy, poultry, and feed crops for our State. The lumber industry makes use of our forests that cover 75 percent of our beautiful terrain.

And, we all know the coal industries motto in West Virginia, ``Coal Keeps the Lights On.''

West Virginia is also a leader in steel, glass, aluminum, chemical manufacturing, and natural gas industries.

And we will continue to support these traditional industries that have powered our Nation, and kept America running.

But, as the old saying goes ``nothing endures but change.'' And we are seeing a change in West Virginia. West Virginia's Renaissance will be marked by West Virginia's foray into the technology industry.

On that front, we have only just begun, but today our future is as bright as an early summer morning sunrise over the Appalachian hills-- hills that we are reminded of today by the gentle words of a classic tune that continues to strike a chord among all who have a ``Home Among the Hills'':

There's a land of rolling mountains

Where the sky is blue above.

And though I may roam, I hurry home,

To those friendly hills I love.

Where moonlit meadows ring

with the call of whippoorwills

Always you will find me in my home among the hills

And where the sun draws rainbows in the mist

Of waterfalls and mountain rills

My heart will be always in the West Virginia Hills

There, autumn hillsides are bright with scarlet trees

and in the spring, the robins sing

While apple blossoms whisper in the breeze

And there is music in the flashing streams

and joy in fields of daffodils

Laughter through the happy valleys of my home among the hills

--Words & Music by E.W. James, Jr.

Today, and every day, West Virginians thank the Lord for our bountiful blessings, and bound together in loyalty and love for our fine state remind ourselves that, yes, West Virginia is truly almost Heaven.

Mr. Speaker, what do you get when you multiply the power of the beacon by the strength of a workhorse by the steadiness of an anchor: Robert C. Byrd? We can celebrate his length of service today but we will always prosper more from his daily leadership for West Virginia over these past years.

We celebrate that definition of Senator Byrd, today as he becomes the longest serving Senator in the history of the Republic.

Today, June 12, 2006, marks a record 17,327th day Robert C. Byrd has served in the United States Senate. While we desire to mark this milestone and unrivaled achievement with celebration, I suspect the senior Senator from West Virginia will spend this day as he has every day for the past 48 years--by going to work to improve and enrich the lives of the people of West Virginia and ardently defending the Constitution of the United States.

In total, Senator Byrd has served this Nation nearly 54 years in the U.S. Capitol. Senator Byrd served three terms in this body before being elected to the Senate. Here on the House side, in Statuary Hall the old House Chamber, overlooking all, stands sentinel, Clio, the Muse of History, in a winged chariot, a symbol of the passing of time. There to witness and record the history of the Republic for future generations.

Time does tell all, Mr. Speaker. That is why today is so significant. Time trumpets talent, but talent ultimately triumphs over time. Senator Byrd's time here is a direct measurement of his talent, witnessed by the wisdom of the people of West Virginia who have returned him to serve again time after time. Democracies breed talent. The time of tenure validates talent.

I send words of congratulations and comfort to my Senator on this day, as I know it marks above all the birthday of his lovely and beloved Erma, who recently left us to rest eternally with our Lord in Heaven.

It remains one of my life's great privileges to serve with a man I consider a mentor and friend. I have never seen a greater example of a public servant and I have attempted to emulate my service after his.

Senator Byrd has been an architect of advancement for our state; the influence of his steady leadership over the past five decades can be seen from the hills to the valleys, from our towns and villages to our cities.

And it is with great excitement that I look forward to the continued service of West Virginia's senior Senator. For that is the brilliance of Robert C. Byrd--always with his stern gaze firmly fixed on the future, a better, more prosperous, more secure future for West Virginia and all America.

As a beacon you will continue to shine your light of advancement and progress across our entire State and Nation; as a workhorse you will continue to spend each day of your service dedicated to providing your people opportunities for prosperity; as an anchor you will continue to steady our land while giving generations of West Virginians and Americans hope, faith, and prosperity.

To my friend, I congratulate you on all you have achieved for your beloved West Virginia and all that you will achieve in the future for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending the gentleman from California for his over three decades of work in this body on behalf of our coal miners and our working men and women of this country. I salute his dedication and his career that he has built in helping improve those conditions.

Mr. Speaker, myself, speaking on behalf of myself, I will take a back seat, however, to no Member of this body in regard to standing up for our coal miners, standing up for their fair health and safety conditions, and standing up for pneumoconiosis benefits, over my entire career here as well.

This has been a dark, mournful year for our Nation's coal miners. Thirty-three deaths, 33 lives lost by decent hardworking men who have placed their trust in a mine safety system that failed them. Today the clouds begin to part. The mine tragedies of this year resulted from many years of growing complacency and diminishing compliance.

They happened because our Nation's mine safety system has been veering in the wrong direction for far too long. Indeed, several years ago I issued a siren's call when I offered an amendment on this floor to the labor appropriations bill to block the Mine Safety Health Administration from issuing regulations that would have allowed a four- fold increase of respirable dust in our underground coal mines.

We must recall that Congress armed MSHA with a sharp regulatory axe. But instead of using that weapon, in recent years MSHA has opted for the warm and fuzzy gimmick called partnership. What should have been sharp, steep and painful fines for safety violations have been reduced repeatedly to little more than love taps.

As new safety technologies have become commonplace in the mines of foreign competitors, MSHA failed to prod American mines that have plodded along with old devices. It did not punish and deter habitual violators. It did not update and maintain safety rules. It did not fulfill its statutory mandate or its responsibility to the miners it has been charged with protecting.

The pending measure will begin, begin, I stress, to change all that. This bill is not a cure-all. It is not a perfect bill. The only perfect bill around this body anymore is naming a post office after somebody. It is misleading and dangerous to suggest that any bill can be a cure- all, but it is a step in the right direction, a step that must not be delayed. To delay this legislation, no matter how noble the intentions, is to gamble recklessly with the lives of our Nation's coal miners.

Indeed, I would say to the gentleman from California, good decent George, that there are provisions missing from the pending legislation that were in our West Virginia bipartisan congressional bill. There are also provisions in the gentleman from California's and my bill that are not in this legislation. But as I said, this bill at hand is a beginning. The death toll in my congressional district, the death toll in the State of West Virginia, the death toll across our Nation's coal fields must halt, no more delay in acting.

The MINER Act pending before us, the Senate-passed bill, does include a number of improvements over the current law. That is what we are talking about, taking a step in the right direction. The pending bill is supported by the United Mine Workers of America, by the National Mining Association, by the Governor of the State of West Virginia, and might I add by the daughter of a miner quoted by the gentleman from California, Amber Helms, who said, ``We support The MINER Act recently passed by the United States Senate because we believe it is better than what we have in our law right now. But if it can be improved upon without delay that is where we stand. If this bill as written right now is the best we can do today, then we urge the United States Congress to pass it immediately.''

This bill is the best we can do today. It must be acted upon before further deaths occur in our coal mines.

The bill does call for immediate action to incorporate workable communication devices. The bill that we are talking about today does make immediate requirements for more oxygen, enough to evacuate miners in the event of an emergency and enough to maintain miners for a sustainable period of time if they are trapped underground.

The act does not designate a 48-hour supply, as the gentleman from California would do, because how does one honestly determine that 48 hours of oxygen is sufficient as opposed to 49 hours or 72 hours?

Indeed, the act requires each coal operator, in consultation with the miners and their representatives, to look at the individual mines, and as the gentleman from California knows, mines are different, and determine, subject to approval in a biennial review by the Secretary of Labor, what is an adequate amount of oxygen.

This bill addresses the seals. It requires the Secretary of Labor to develop promulgations and rules to strengthen the seals that have been the cause of recent disasters. This bill is a workable piece of legislation. It cannot be amended; otherwise we go to a conference committee. Who knows when it will then be passed, and it must be acted upon today. I urge passage.

Mr. Speaker, I pause today to remember the men, our brave veterans from the Greatest Generation, many who gave their lives on June 6, 1944 to begin the liberation of Europe.

Sadly, fewer and fewer of these brave men are left with us who were actually there on June 6, 1944, when Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower gave the go-ahead for the largest amphibious military operation in history: D-Day, code-named Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of northern France. Unfortunately, we are saying goodbye to these veterans in greater numbers with each passing year. But for those who remain with us and in memory of those who died that day and who have subsequently passed since, we pause today to honor their great deed.

At 6:30 a.m. on June 6, 1944, our brave American troops came ashore at Utah and Omaha beaches. On Omaha Beach, the U.S. First Division battled heavy German fire and rough waters and many wounded Americans ultimately drowned in the high tide. Our British and Canadian brothers landed at Gold, Sword beaches, and Juno beaches, and also were met with heavy German fire, but by day's end had established beachheads.

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at over 10,000. The breakdown of United States casualties was 1,465 killed, 3,184 wounded, 1,928 missing and 26 captured. Before the day ended however, 155,000 Allied troops would be in Normandy, bringing with them the beginning of the end of the Third Reich. The world has not forgotten what these men did on June 6, 1944, and we must remain vigilant in making sure we never forget their great sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, for decades this Nation has been researching, debating, drafting, and redrafting national energy policy. Unfortunately, the long gas lines of the 1970's that motivated the kind of original thought needed to end our dependency on foreign oil slipped from our memories as supplies increased and prices dropped. Today, we are punished with oil prices floating in the range of $75 a barrel, record prices at the pump, and an unstable world market for the foreseeable future.

At the same time, according to the Department of Energy, $35-$45 a barrel oil is attainable from a source within our borders. It is our most abundant domestic energy resource--coal. With technology that has been around for decades, coal can be liquefied and turned into a liquid fuel, and eventually sold for approximately half of what we are paying now per barrel.

The true value of coal is misunderstood and many ignore its potential to free us from foreign oil at our own peril. We risk stepping into the same trap that has caught so many promising energy policy advances by the ankle for decades.

Research has brought us a long, long way from the days of smokestacks and gray skies. True, there remain many less efficient, older generation power plants in this Nation, but largely because, while the Government draped oil companies in rich tax advantages, it devoted mere dribbles of money to providing incentives for clean burning coal plants.

Thirty years of government and private-sector research and development has created a product, according to the Department of Energy, that is cleaner than required under EPA Tier II fuel standards. And with this Nation's refinery capacity operating on all cylinders, these fuels would fit right into our energy mix as they would require very little additional processing. Coal-to-liquids can curb our appetite for foreign fuel.

Dtsturbingly, however, for all of our Nation's pride in our competitiveness and innovation, we stand behind a number of other countries in liquefying coal to end our foreign oil dependence.

For instance, these fuels represent about one-third of the consumption in South Africa, which began its production and use in the 1950's using the Fischer-Tropsch process developed during the 1920's by two German researchers. China, India, and Indonesia, recognizing the problems of relying on foreign sources of oil, are all aggressively pursuing coal liquefaction as key components of their energy production. For the U.S., our continued myopia about coal liquefaction is particularly numb-headed, since coal is our most abundant natural energy resource.

In order to catch up to the rest of the world, a position to which the U.S. is unaccustomed, we must invest in our future and Congress began to travel down this road with the reauthorization of the Nation's surface transportation laws last year by including two new excise tax credits aimed at promoting the use of alternative transportation fuels, including liquid fuel derived from coal.

While a helpful first step, due to the restrictive nature of the existing tax credit, I am pleased to join my colleague John Shimkus and others in introducing legislation aimed at helping far-sighted firms better afford their foray into coal liquefaction. Our bill would reduce some of the risk that these firms and their investors take as they try to lead our Nation into a new energy frontier.

Simply put, our legislation would extend until 2020 the 50 cents per gallon tax credit for liquid fuel derived from coal that is set to expire in 2009. The legislation does not address other alternative transportation fuels, just coal-to-liquids.

The aim is to provide a level of predictability for a number of years to those willing to put money into coal-to-liquids production. It would help to smooth out some of the ups and downs associated with fluctuating oil prices and the gamble investors make in the financing of these high-tech energy ventures.

Unfortunately, while other governments have been footing the bill for this kind of research and development for decades, our Government has been ``playing footsie'' with Big Oil. In comparison to the big tax giveaways enjoyed by the oil industry, precious

few U.S. budgetary resources have been devoted over the years to cutting-edge coal technologies. This is mind-boggling policy, given coal's abundance on our own shores.

The United States will never drill its way out of our oil dependency. But using proven, coal-to-liquid technology and American initiative, we could revolutionize our way to a new energy era. This bill helps to level out Federal tax policy that has long been tilted against the public in favor of rich oil companies.