Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to exercise restraint and perspective in our consideration of H.R. 4681.

President Bush's Administration has already stated the bill is ``unnecessary as the Executive branch already has ample authority to impose all its restrictions and it constrains the Executive branch's flexibility to use sanctions, if appropriate, as tools to address rapidly changing circumstances.'' With that kind of endorsement, we must ask ourselves what this legislation seeks to accomplish.

Additionally, the so-called Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 limits diplomatic visas to members of the Palestinian Authority and would tie the hands of the foreign policy community when it comes time to negotiate peace between the PA and Israel. How many times has peace been brokered on American soil? Eliminating dialogue does not help to advance peace in the region. Peace only comes through mutual understanding.

Reasonable, even intelligent people can, and frequently do, disagree on how best to achieve peace in the Middle East, but, peace must be the goal of our foreign policy tools, whether they be by the stick or by the carrot.

Peace cannot come from punishing the Palestinian people. Even Israel's Foreign Minister knows that. He states in Reuters, that, ``Israel is prepared to release Palestinian tax revenues into a proposed aid mechanism being set up by Middle East mediators to avert the collapse of the Palestinian health sector . . .''

Instead, this legislation seeks to accomplish exactly what President Bush's Administration and the Israeli Foreign Minister realize is counterproductive. I can tell you that after 30 years in Congress, I have seen legislation succeed and fail. This legislation is rigid, and unnecessary.

To put it plainly, when you take from people who already have nothing, you breed trouble, you don't combat it. How easy will it be for Al-Qaeda to tell a man whose child is dying that the doctors are no longer there because the Americans took them away? How easy will it be to recruit a whole new generation of listless, impoverished youths?

Madam Speaker, I reject the idea that this legislation will combat terrorism. I reject it because we have history as our teacher.

The best nation-building, goodwill act that the United States has ever produced was the Marshall Plan after World War II. By rebuilding Europe, America continues to be stronger. Yes, there were communist factions that the United States deplored, but we knew the need was real, and punishing the whole for the acts of the few was wrongheaded in the extreme.

Today, our actions must be motivated only by our intense desire to achieve a just and lasting peace. The compassion and charity of the American people should be reflected in this legislation, though sadly, they are silenced.

Madam Speaker, make no mistake, a vote cast in favor of H.R. 4681 is not a vote for peace, it is not a vote for America and it is not a vote that I will cast.

I urge my colleagues to cast their votes against this unwise and unproductive resolution.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I want to address that portion of the pending appropriations bill concerning the Office of Surface Mining, and specifically the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.

In regard to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, there exists an unexpended balance in the AML trust fund approaching $2 billion, and it is my hope that in conference this particular appropriation will be increased.

With respect to the Office of Surface Mining, I would observe that just yesterday news emerged that the President intends to nominate John R. Correll to serve as the agency's director. I have not met the gentleman, and I look forward to doing so. But what immediately catches the eye is that, since 2002, Mr. Correll served as the deputy assistant secretary of labor and was responsible, according to the administration's press release yesterday, of all aspects of the mine's safety health administration.

Now, it is no secret that 26 coal miners have perished this year, a rate that this Nation has not witnessed in recent memory. It is also no secret that many of these fatalities could have been avoided if MSHA had been doing its job. Mr. Correll had been part of the leadership of MSHA during the time when the policy floor fell out. Under his leadership, the philosophy at MSHA changed from one of oversight and compliance to one of partnership and complicity. Rule-makings were abandoned, opportunities to improve coal mining safety were closeted away, and Mr. Correll and others within the Bush Labor Department advocated partnering with industry to address safety concerns rather than to enforce the law. In fact, in 1998 Mr. Correll testified before the House Committee on Education and Workforce, Subcommittee on Workforce Protection, advocating fewer inspections, incentives over penalties, and cooperation over regulation.

While other nations have soared ahead in mine safety, incorporating new technologies to ensure and improve protections for their most precious mining resource, their workers, this Nation through a cultural shift at MSHA remained at the dust. It has been a shameful record that I would be loathe to see carried over to OSM.

The health and safety of the residents in our mining communities should not be gambled on in the way that the health and safety of our mine workers has been. It is time that concern and compassion and correctness for our miners take precedent over loyalty to industry and loyalty to this administration.

So it is passing strange, to say the least, that the Bush administration would nominate as OSM director a person who presided over MSHA during the worst rash of coal miner fatalities in recent times. One must wonder if this person will bring the same philosophy to overseeing the environmental protection of coalfield citizens.

I urge opposition to this rule for many other reasons that have been stated by my colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to increase funding for PILT.

I am proud to join my colleagues from Western States to make the point that PILT is a vital part of communities across this great land. PILT funds help make communities safer, cleaner and healthier in 49 of our 50 States--from Maine, to West Virginia, to California. In seeking adequate PILT funding, we are truly all in this together.

Now some may say that, in the grand scheme of our Federal budget, PILT payments to counties are just not that important. Well I can tell you that the PILT funding received by Greenbrier County or Pocahontas County in West Virginia is crucial to their ability to provide the quality and quantity of local services the families of West Virginia deserve.

I am also here to support more funding for PILT because I support public land ownership and acquisition, where it is appropriate. As the ranking member on the House Resources Committee, I have the privilege of working with the other committee members to oversee our national parks, forests and refuges. These lands are part of our national identity and they are a birthright we will pass on to future generations of Americans.

But along with responsibility for these public lands comes a responsibility to the surrounding local communities. PILT payments compensate these local communities for lost revenue due to public land ownership. Making good on those payments is part of being a good steward but it is also part of being a good neighbor, and that is something we take very seriously in West Virginia.

The budget priorities chosen by this administration and this Congress force many very painful decisions. However, funding for a program as broad and important to local governments as PILT must be funded adequately. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey royalty relief amendment and am proud to be included as a cosponsor.

When the original deep water royalty relief legislation was on the House floor in 1995, I opposed it and said that it was ``an early Christmas'' for big oil.

Eleven years later, the holiday has never ended and royalty relief keeps on giving ever-bigger gifts.

We were assured by the champions of royalty relief that the 1995 act was a miraculous piece of legislation that would end up making money for the taxpayers by giving away publicly owned oil as an incentive for drilling.

But the concept of paying big oil companies to do what they would do anyway did not make any sense then and it makes even less sense now. Simply put, the taxpayer should not continue to massively subsidize an industry reaping the benefits of record prices and swimming in profits.

According to a recent estimate by the GAO, deep water royalty relief under the 1995 act will cost the taxpayers between $20 billion and $80 billion over the next 25 years, depending upon the outcome of an industry lawsuit.

Thankfully, today we have an opportunity to adopt the Hinchey amendment and put a halt to this fiscal rip-off.

This carefully crafted amendment provides an incentive for the major oil and gas companies which were granted royalty-free leases under the Clinton administration--companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell, and others--to renegotiate those leases to include a price cap on royalty relief. The companies may choose not to do so, but would then not be eligible for new OCS leases.

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of false bravado and empty rhetoric in this Chamber when it comes to reducing the budget deficit. But this amendment is the real deal. Let's stand up for the taxpayers and adopt it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been passed unanimously by this House in previous years, including last year.

Mr. Chairman, last year the House voted 249 to 159 to adopt my amendment to end the sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros. I ask the House today to reaffirm the stand it took to protect these icons of America's western heritage.

Earlier this year the Nevada State Quarter was issued by the U.S. Mint. Now, Nevada is known as the ``Silver State.''

However, if you look on the back of the quarter, you will not see a picture of a silver mine. No, what the good people of Nevada chose as the representation of their state was a wild horse.

Nevadans are rightly proud of the heritage of their wild horses. It is unfortunately a heritage at risk because of a legislative rider inserted into an Appropriations bill in the dead of night in late 2004 that puts thousands of wild horses and burros in danger of ending up on dining tables overseas.

We need to stop the slaughter of wild horses and burros not only because it is morally wrong but also because the program itself is a failure.

As a result of this failure, 41 wild horses have been slaughtered and thousands more face an uncertain fate.

While the Bureau of Land Management may have good intentions to prevent sales for slaughter, the legislative rider that created this problem in the first place severely handicaps any such effort.

Make no mistake about it, more wild horses and burros will end up slaughtered. After all, if the purpose of the legislative rider was to only sell off these animals to good homes, why was the long-standing prohibition on slaughter removed from the law.

According to the BLM's own statistics, the agency has approximately the same number of wild horse and burros in the sale program today as when the program started. For each one the agency has sold, another one has been added to take its place.

BLM has resorted to sending out letters to public land ranchers pleading with them to buy a horse. It has teamed up with a private entity to offer limited financial incentives to purchasers. These are not the actions of a sound program but the desperate attempts to implement and unwise and unsound policy.

Mr. Chairman, the wild horse and burro program is a failure both morally and administratively. We can and must do a better job of protecting these magnificent creatures. It is time to sheath the sword that hangs over these animals.

I urge the adoption of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I would like to begin by observing that I strongly share the view of the gentleman from New Mexico and our colleague, a very valued member of the Resources Committee, Mr. Tom Udall, that the pending measure is totally unnecessary and seriously deficient and should not be approved by this body.

With that noted, the amendment I am offering is simple and it is straightforward. It would strike from H.R. 4200 its most egregious provisions which ride roughshod over the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Clean Water Act.

These unwarranted assaults on our Nation's premier conservation laws under the guise of enhancing forest management should be an embarrassment to this body, to this House of Representatives.

Should this body prove the pending measure, the result would be a weakening of existing law in the form of NEPA, a law that is meant to ensure public participation in actions by the Federal Government.

The American public is already in an uproar over this administration's penchant for surveillance of their phone conversations and e-mail transactions. Now we are going to say to American taxpayers that they cannot even participate in proposed Federal actions that directly affect them? What message is this sending?

Did George Orwell really have it right when he wrote the book, ``1984'' back in 1949, in which he penned and I quote, ``If you want to picture the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.''

I would note that the sponsor of the pending legislation, the gentleman from Oregon, is very passionate about this matter and I certainly respect that. Yesterday during the Rules Committee's consideration of this bill he described my amendment as one that would gut the bill. I, on the other hand, firmly believe that Americans cherish the Clean Water Act and do not want its application waived. I also believe that Americans believe they should have a say under the National Environmental Policy Act on major Federal actions impacting their lives. Obviously, the gentleman from Oregon and I have a very different view of America.

And the gulf which divides us on this issue makes for a very clear vote in the House of Representatives today on this amendment. The pending measure also constitutes a direct assault on the ESA. It legislatively directs that an incidental take permit be issued without limitation, no ifs, no ands, no buts about it, regardless of the impacts of the salvaging operation on endangered species. This is not fair play. This is draconian.

Finally, my amendment would strike provisions of the pending measure involving compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. I would ask the question: Are we to sacrifice our country's past, our national heritage, on the altar of something like salvage logging?

Let us send the proper message to the people of this Nation today. Regardless of how Members view the remaining part of the pending measure, let us first vote to ensure that the public's right to participate in proposed Federal actions is preserved, and that our country's fundamental conservation laws will remain in place. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

As I conclude, the bottom line here is whether we are for NEPA or whether we are against it, whether we are for the Clean Water Act or whether we are against it, whether we are for the historic preservation laws of our land or whether we are against them, whether we are for the Endangered Species Act or whether we are against it.

We have got to be for these premier preservation laws that have guided our country so well over many years. We cannot willy-nilly pick at the edges and try to exempt special-interest groups on every piece of legislation that the Republican leadership in this body wants to consider. We cannot continue to do that or we will not have any of it.

Let us make that decision, whether we are going to have these laws or whether we are not going to have these laws.

This amendment is an effort to preserve NEPA and all of our premier conservation laws that have worked so well for our country and for our future generations. I would urge adoption of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my colleague, Mr. Inslee, in supporting this amendment to exclude inventoried roadless areas from HR 4200.

The public has proven its commitment to protecting inventoried roadless areas. The Forest Service has received 1.6 million public comments about the roadless rule, and over 95 percent of those comments favor protecting roadless areas.

Inventoried roadless areas represent 58.5 million acres of wild roadless areas in our National Forests in 39 states. In my home state of West Virginia, we have 202,000 acres of roadless areas. These last remaining wild forests protect our water, sustain our wildlife, and provide for an array of recreational opportunities for Americans.

This amendment is critical to ensuring protection of our most treasured areas in our National Forests. Without this amendment, logging roads for timber salvage operations will be built in inventoried roadless areas.

While bill proponents claim these roads could be temporary and obliterated upon completion of the project, one only needs to look to the Forest Service's current road maintenance backlog, which rings in at $10 billion, to see where this road leads.

I support this amendment and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to voice my support for the gentleman from New Mexico's amendment.

This amendment corrects some of the fuzzy vision contained in H.R. 4200 while ensuring that we do not turn a blind eye to the science on salvage logging.

A recent peer-reviewed study out of Oregon State University, published in the highly respected journal Science, found that salvage logging. after the 2002 Biscuit fire destroyed more than two-thirds of the seedlings that were beginning to regenerate the burned forest. That operation effectively increased short-term fire risks.

The Oregon State study is far from the only scientific voice being raised about the effects of salvage logging. Over and over again we have heard from forest ecology scientists about the increased risk of fire and the harm that salvage logging imposes on new and developing trees.

This amendment simply ensures that the Secretary will not carry out a project that will increase fire risk or decrease forest regeneration. We should not be promoting salvage logging that promotes fires and puts forest communities at risk.

I urge the adoption of the Udall Amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Rahall

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Rahall

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of a man that I am proud to have called a colleague and a friend, Gillespie V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery. Sonny had already been serving the people of Mississippi for 10 years by the time I had been elected to Congress, but his drive and tenacity for the men and women of his District and of the armed services: rivaled that of any of my freshman class of 1977.

The epitome of one man making a difference, Sonny helped expand the G.I. Bill to Guardsmen and Reservists and helped make possible the dream of a higher education to countless Americans. His efforts to elevate the Veterans Administration into the 14th Cabinet level department truly ensured, in his words, that ``veterans will no longer have to go through the back door to the White House.''

Few men leave the kind of lasting legacy that Sonny leaves. When I am back home in West Virginia, I see him in the faces of the West Virginia National Guard. The time before his accomplishments seem to stand in stark contrast to the current realities of serving our great Nation, and it reminds us all of how justice always needs an advocate.

I see how one man can better the lives of so many, and it reminds and reaffirms in me what it means to be a public servant.

This coming Memorial Day, we will remember and pay tribute to those who have served our country, in doing so we also remember and pay tribute to Sonny.

As the Lord welcomes him back home into the Kingdom of Heaven, may we all honor his legacy by picking up the torch that he so skillfully carried.

Madam Speaker, as the Ranking Democratic Member of the Resources Committee I would first observe that we on this side of the aisle also cherish the proud American tradition of horsemanship.

Whether it be thoroughbreds--and a potential Triple Crown winner this year possibly in the making judging from Barbaro's smashing performance in the Kentucky Derby--Appaloosas, Arabians, Clydesdales, our wild Mustangs on the Western Plains, Palominos, and even the Chincoteague Pony made famous by the book ``Misty,'' our country's history and indeed, still in the present, is deeply intertwined with the horse.

With that noted, while we will not object to the consideration of H.R. 586 today, there are certain problems with the legislation. In effect, the bill hampers the ability of local federal land managers to administer trails under their jurisdiction in a flexible fashion taking into account changed local circumstances. In effect, the pending bill says that trails historically open to pack and saddle stock horses shall always remain open to them within units of our National Park System, National Forest System, Wildlife Refuges and BLM lands. This not only ties the hands of the local land managers to make adjustments if warranted, but appears to be a nationwide rubber stamp approach to what has not been a national problem with respect to public trail usage.

I would observe there is one out, one means to make a change in the horse first rule this legislation advances, and that would be to go through a full-scale review under the National Environmental Policy Act. Here, I applaud those of my colleagues who are promoting this legislation because many of these have consistently voted in the Resources Committee to overturn, override, and exempt the application of NEPA to other matters.

I am also concerned about the precedent we are setting here. It is my understanding that the American Horse Council fully backs the pending bill. A noble organization, which does good service for the equine community. Yet, what if the American Motorcyclist Association catches wind of this bill. Can we expect a counter proposal from them, to make trails open to off-road motorcycles also deemed to be the highest and best use of public trails. I would expect their members would not want to be viewed as second class citizens when it comes to trail use. And the hikers, the bikers, the ATV groups. The list goes on.

With that Madam Speaker, I have some trepidation over the course this legislation sets, and this comes from a gentleman who is a strong defender of our horse tradition in this country.

Mr. Speaker, today is a significant day for me, the people of West Virginia and the Nation. Today we commemorate the National Day of Prayer.

As a people of faith, we know that prayer is a powerful instrument. And as one Nation under God, we know that many times our most powerful tool is prayer.

With that in mind and in celebration of National Prayer Day, today I have proposed in the House of Representatives a Constitutional Amendment that would restore voluntary prayer in our Nation's schools.

West Virginia's senior Senator, Robert C. Byrd, introduced identical legislation in the United States Senate last week.

I believe that the Framers of the Constitution made their intent clear when they wrote the First Amendment. I believe they wanted to keep the new government from endorsing one religion over another, not erase the public consciousness or common faith.

For hundreds of millions of Americans who believe in God, prayer is our bridge between Earth and Heaven, our way of opening our hearts to the Lord. Through this intimate relationship we find peace and guidance. It is as important to us, as Christians, as the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat. It nourishes our souls and makes us strong.

Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendment to the Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer in school, or to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer at a public school extracurricular activity. Nor does this resolution alter the language of the First Amendment.

The Constitutional Amendment I am introducing today simply clarifies our right, and the right of our children in school, to bow our heads and give thanks for our bountiful blessings, to begin the day as many of us do--with the comfort of prayer. It is a right that is protected by both the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of our Constitution.

Today, during the National Day of Prayer, I am reminded of the verse in Second Chronicles that reads, ``If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.''

Today we thank God for all the blessings He has bestowed upon this great Country and ask Him to continue to heal our land and meet our needs--and we do so through the power of prayer.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong opposition to this budget resolution for all the reasons that have already been said today, that will continue to be said this evening, that will be said all day tomorrow and into tomorrow night until the majority can get the necessary votes on their side of the aisle to jam it down our throats.

I want to highlight the negative impacts of the President's budget, as endorsed by this resolution, on the environmental and natural resources.

The President's budget for fiscal year 2007 provides funding for environmental programs which is 6.7 percent below the enacted level in fiscal year 2006.

That amounts to nearly a 10 percent cut below the level necessary to maintain current services at the EPA, the Department of the Interior, and other resource management agencies.

And to add insult to injury, these cuts would come on top of the previous years of stagnant funding under this administration for these vital domestic programs.

I also serve on the Transportation Committee, and let me briefly highlight one of the impacts of this budget on the EPA. Across the Nation, there is

a vast array of unmet clean water and safe drinking water infrastructure needs here in America. Yet the President's budget for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund calls for a 22.4 percent cut from the 2006 enacted level. If enacted, that would represent nearly a 50 percent decrease since 2004.

Whether it is in my district in southern West Virginia or any other Member's district in this country, it is obvious that we need to do more to ensure clean water and improve public health. Yet this budget disregards those obligations to the American people and falsely says, in effect, Mission Accomplished.

The inadequacies of the President's budget are equally detrimental to the programs administered by the Department of the Interior and other agencies under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources.

The vast majority of Americans treasure our national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges and public lands. Along with the oceans, Great Lakes and inland waterways, they not only provide habitat for fish and wildlife, but they are economic engines as well for adjacent cities and communities.

Yet this constricted budget not only neglects to improve and enhance this vast array of vital resources and national assets; it fails to even maintain the status quo. For example, the administration is so desperate for revenue gimmicks that it has resorted to proposing to sell off our national forests and public lands in order to fund rural schools.

Instead of selling public lands to special interests, what Congress should be doing is increasing funding for critical programs such as the popular Land and Water Conservation Fund.

The administration proposes to effectively dismantle the stateside grant program and provide only $91 million, the lowest amount in more than 30 years, for Federal land acquisition under the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

In effect, this would deprive State and local governments of badly needed funding for local parks and recreation and would further undercut efforts to acquire new lands to enhance our national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges.

Ironically, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has an unspent surplus on the books in the Treasury of over $14 billion, and the authorized annual spending limit is $900 million.

The purpose of the fund is to dedicate a small fraction of the enormous revenues generated by drilling offshore on the Outer Continental Shelf to the conservation of our resources. Yet this flawed budget, to put it politely, breaks that promise to the American people and disregards the conservation needs of this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, in the budget reconciliation legislation last year, the Republican majority on the Committee on Resources proposed to expand drilling in Federal waters offshore coastal States. That proposal, along with other controversial measures to open up ANWR and sell off public lands to mining companies, were all stripped from the legislation prior to enactment. Fortunately, perhaps in light of that experience, the Budget Committee has not included any instructions to Resources in this resolution.

But there are legislative proposals pending before the Resources Committee that would seek to undercut the offshore oil and gas drilling moratoria restrictions and expand drilling off the coast of Florida and elsewhere. In fact, these proposals would seek to offer incentives to approve States to approve drilling based on sharing of revenues which would otherwise accrue to the Federal Treasury and to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

But before Congress proceeds to consider opening wide swaths of protected coastal waters to the oil and gas industry, we should carefully evaluate the budgetary aspects of the current drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere.

The failure to adequately appropriate the current Land and Water Conservation Fund surplus is one problem with the current system, but the broader problem is a failure to collect the Treasury's fair share of the value of the oil and gas produced on public lands and offshore.

At a time of high prices and record oil and gas company profit, it is an outrage, let me repeat, simply an outrage that companies are avoiding paying the 12 to 16 percent royalty on oil and gas that they extract from public lands and waters. In part, the underpayments are an administrative problem as the agencies have failed to aggressively audit the industry; but Congress also shares the blame for enacting unwarranted royalty relief, first in 1995 and again in 2005, in the Energy Policy Act.

Of all the industries seeking relief from their obligations to pay for the privilege of profiting from the extraction of publicly owned resources, I can think of none less deserving than the oil and gas industry in the current high price and record profit environment in which they thrive. Yet it is this politically powerful industry that the Congress has favored time and again with unwarranted subsidies.

According to an investigation by the New York Times and a recent GAO draft report, the costs of royalty relief to the Treasury are staggering. Over the next 5 years, the cost to the Federal Government will be at least $7 billion in lost revenues and more than $28 billion if the industry is successful in a pending legal challenge.

And GAO estimates that the losses to the Treasury could range over the next 25 years from at least $20 billion to as much as $80 billion, depending on the outcome of industry litigation.

Mr. Chairman, if the Republican majority were serious about the deficit, it would put a halt to the royalty relief outrage, but this budget resolution is the worst of both worlds. It does nothing to improve the collection of revenues from the extraction of resources on public lands and at the same time it puts a fiscal squeeze on funding vital environmental programs that cannot effectively function if cut further.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), a valued member of our Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Washington's comments, a very important member of the Budget Committee, although we wish you were on the Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, today we extend best wishes on the occasion of the 80th birthday of Dominic Peter Torlone of Huntington, West Virginia. Born in Logan, West Virginia on April 7, 1926, Dominic has lived in Huntington for the past 44 years and was the long-time owner and operator of Torlone's Community Bakery, a staple of the Huntington community, along with his brothers, Louie and Alfred. His parents, Peter and Carmela Maria Torlone, originally opened Torlone's Bakery in 1946.

As any Huntington native will attest, Dominic is loved by all in the community. He is always ready with a warm smile and cheerful greeting for his fellow Huntingtonians, either in English or his favorite Italian. He exemplifies the decency and strong citizenship of his generation.

Dominic and his wife, Mrs. Harriet Torlone, are the proud parents of four children, Amy Harris, Lisa Koch, Mark Torlone, and Beth Sigall, and nine grandchildren. Although he officially retired from Torlone's Bakery in 1995, he remains an active member of Huntington's civic landscape, devoting many hours of service to worthy causes such as the Knights of Columbus and St. Joseph's Catholic Church, where he attends daily mass. He is truly a favorite son of West Virginia and we salute his continued service to Huntington on this his 80th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my heartfelt thanks and appreciation to Mrs. Juanita Conkling who, for the past 40 years, has served this esteemed body in the offices of the House Sergeant at Arms and the Chief Administrative Officer. In April of this year, Juanita will officially end her tenure working for this body and her contributions will be remembered for many years to come.

Juanita came to the House of Representatives on May 1, 1965, after working 1 year for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. She came to work initially for the House Sergeant at Arms and, most recently, has been the payroll/benefits administrator in the Office of Members' Services.

Much has changed in this body and on Capitol Hill in the 40 years Juanita has been here. Eight different Presidents, from Lyndon B. Johnson to George W. Bush, have given State of the Union addresses before Joint Sessions of Congress. Twenty Congresses have come and gone, along with countless Members and staff. All the while, Juanita has remained consistent, doing her job serving the Members of this body.

Juanita has had the responsibility of ensuring that the Members of Congress were paid on time each month. She has advised Members, new and old, on their ongoing options relative to their compensation and benefits. And she has been a friend to countless Members and their families.

I am proud to call myself a friend of Juanita Conkling. And on the occasion of her retirement after 40 years of service to the U.S. House of Representatives I want to extend my deepest appreciation for her friendship and outstanding contributions to this body. May she have many wonderful and exciting years ahead fulfilling her retirement dreams.

Mr. Speaker, we have lost a great daughter of West Virginia. A coal miner's daughter, Erma Byrd was born and raised in the hills of southern West Virginia. More than 68 years ago she married a young man named Robert C. Byrd and for the past decades they have enjoyed a wonderful life together working for the people of West Virginia and all Americans.

One of my life's greatest privileges was to know Mrs. Byrd. Always wearing a warm smile, encouraging with a kind word, reassuring with a gentle hand, Mrs. Byrd lived a life for others, clearing a path for each of us.

Her life full of compassion towards others garnered her much respect and admiration throughout my home state of West Virginia. Generations of West Virginians were touched by the life of Erma Byrd. The unfortunate news of her passing will bring sadness to all West Virginians, as even those who did not have the opportunity to meet Mrs. Byrd stand in admiration of Erma and everything for which she stands.

Scripture tells us that faith hope and love abide. The spirit of Mrs. Byrd always abided with these virtues and now always will through those whom her life so graciously touched.

It was a wonderful waltz that lasted over 68 years for Senator and Mrs. Byrd. My family's thoughts and prayers for the Senator and his family join those of countless West Virginians and fellow Americans as we honor and remember the remarkable life of Erma Byrd.

Mr. Speaker, a collective groan could be heard across the state of West Virginia in the waning hours of Thursday, March 23, 2006, as a last-second shot by the Texas Longhorns closed the doors on West Virginia University's impressive NCAA tournament run.

But while our Mountaineers might have lost the game, it remains a ``sweet ending'' for our heroes of the hard-court who, for the second year in a row, have our state swelling with pride.

It is the first time West Virginia has won two games in consecutive NCAAs since superstar Jerry West, whose silhouette graces the NBA's logo, led it to the title game in 1959 and a regional semifinal the next year.

Forward Mike Gansey, one of five seniors on the team, said about the distinction, ``I just hope we end up being one of the great and most popular teams in West Virginia history like they were.''

I think it's pretty safe to say Mr. Gansey and the rest of the team's departing stars will get their wish.

It will be a long time before any of us forget the hustle and heart of Gansey, the improbable three-point stroke of Martinsburg native Kevin Pittsnogle, the leadership and selfless play of J.D. Collins, the accomplishments on and off the court of Academic All-American Joe Herber, the sweet shot of Patrick Beilein.

And we will always remember how all of these young men came together to achieve more than anyone expected, and how through sheer determination, teamwork and a ton of heart they became role models not just for a state, but for an entire nation.

We will miss these five fine men on the basketball court, but will continue to follow the accomplishments of these unofficial West Virginia ambassadors as they are certain to go on to great things.

Behind them, they leave big shoes to fill, but they also leave their legacy, a legacy that will be carried on by their teammates and by many in the years to come.