Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to three West Virginia hospitals that have been commemorated by the AARP, as being three of the Best Employers for Workers over the Age of 50. The well deserving hospitals include St. Mary's Hospital in Huntington, Cabell Huntington Hospital and West Virginia University Hospitals in Morgantown.

The AARP is among the premier advocacy groups for adults over 50. The award in question was quite competitive: the AARP received over 145 applicants from across the Nation. Only 50 winners were chosen, including the three West Virginia hospitals. Criteria used for selecting the winning employers included employee development opportunities, health benefits for employees and retirees, age of employer's workforce, alternative work arrangements, and retirement benefits. Nineteen percent of West Virginians age 65 and older are still in the work force.

These institutions have a proven track record, of accomplishment. Over the years they have proven their commitment to both their patients and employees alike. St. Mary's received the award for the third year and West Virginia University Hospitals were recognized for the second year. We in the Mountain State take pride in all our citizens. We are all thankful for the exemplary institutions that give individuals an opportunity to showcase their talents and I am very pleased that AARP has recognized West Virginia's role in what is the best healthcare in the world.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California and I have been working together for the last several months to try to find common ground on the amendments to the Endangered Species Act. As the chairman knows and many of my colleagues, I came to our discussions with the view that the ESA does not need amendment, that most of its problems could be fixed by additional appropriations or administrative changes that this administration is not willing to make.

Recognizing reality, I decided to enter into good-faith negotiations with

my chairman, and that is what they were. I salute the manner in which the gentleman from California conducted himself and the manner in which his staff treated the minority during this entire process. It was a fair process; and, indeed, when we had problems, we found open communication was received from the other side of the aisle, and I appreciate that. In the end, however, we could not reach agreement.

I do not support the pending legislation, but I must admit that we have come a long way. Yet we still have differences that divide us, differences in some instances that I have yet to discover. In fact, the manager's amendment has been redrafted so many times, the latest version is still hot off the presses.

I wish the bill, because of these latest changes in the manager's amendment, were not being rushed to the House floor. I wish that the driving force was not the zeal to pass anything that could be labeled ESA reform, but instead could be labeled truly species recovery.

With a little more time to consider how much this bill is going to cost the American taxpayers, we could at least have had a chance to see how much we are going to lose in the exchange. In the last several hours, the bill passed out of the committee has completely blown apart. For example, the manager's amendment abandons the definition of jeopardizing a species we agreed upon in committee. Instead, the Secretary of the Interior will use existing regulations which allow Federal actions to proceed, even if they will reduce the likelihood of a species' survival and recovery. The survival standard is akin to keeping a patient on life support without any chance of recovery.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, if this is enacted into law, it will increase direct spending and would cost almost $3 billion to implement from the years 2006 to 2010.

So in my view, this bill offers endangered species less protection at far greater cost. Not only was fiscal responsibility thrown to the wind in this process, but we have turned back the clock to an era in which DDT was commonly known as ``drop dead twice.'' H.R. 3824 includes a provision adopted in the Committee on Resources that would repeal the Endangered Species Act provisions that protect threatened and endangered species from the harmful impact of pesticides.

H.R. 3824 would insulate those who use pesticides from the Endangered Species Act prohibitions against killing endangered and threatened species. As long as corporations comply with Federal requirements to register pesticide users, they will have no obligation to meet the requirements in the Endangered Species Act. The economic and environmental implications of this provision are staggering.

But where the budget really leaks is from the gaping hole created by a new, potentially open-ended entitlement program for property developers and speculators. This, I might add, is where we truly broke down in our negotiations.

Section 14 would establish the dangerous precedent that private individuals must be paid to comply with an environmental law. If this language were applied to local zoning, no mayor, no city council could govern a community without fear that their decisions might drive the community into financial ruin. This section pays citizens to comply with the law. What is next, paying citizens to wear seat belts, to comply with speed limits, to pay their taxes?

This bill also contains provisions that would severely weaken the consultation process, the very heart of the ESA. Under current law, the Fish and Wildlife Service analyzes a proposed action to gauge if it is likely to place the continued existence of a species in jeopardy. The process is grounded in science and must meet reasonable criteria.

This bill, quite to the contrary of current practice, wipes away any standards for that process. It wipes away review by wildlife experts. Gone. Proponents claim this change is justified because of the service's heavy workload. Instead of fixing the problem by giving Fish and Wildlife more resources, the bill simply changes the rules and undermines species recovery.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I oppose another provision that would further weaken the section 7 consultation requirement when applied to state cooperative agreements. Under section 10 of H.R. 3824, no additional consultations will be required once the Secretary enters into a cooperative agreement with a State. It is questionable whether consultation would ever occur, even in those situations causing jeopardy to a listed species.

These provisions, taken together, raise a whole host of questions and concerns. What is clear is that this bill will not improve species' ability to recover. Quite likely it will result in more extinctions, the loss of more of the creatures God has placed in our care. Frankly, we cannot be good stewards of His creation and pass this bill.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 3824. However, I have worked, as I said in the beginning, well with the gentleman from California on this bill; and I do salute his tenaciousness, his patience, and his courage in bringing this bill to the floor.

I would have preferred we keep trying to resolve our differences, but that is not the situation we are in today, so I would urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3824.

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

Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, in response to the last colloquy that just took place between the two gentlemen from California in regard to emergency powers that would be granted the President to waive provisions of the Endangered Species Act, I just wanted to respond that the Endangered Species Act did not get in the way in any manner whatsoever of recovery efforts in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Whatever provisions that were needed to be waived were waived under current law, without any additional authority being needed by the President.

So I just wanted to make that clear for the record that ESA did not hamper any recovery efforts for any of the most recent hurricanes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House as well as the father of the Endangered Species Act, the ranking member on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, there is probably not a Member of this body that cannot get up and tell some horror story with the current administration of the Endangered Species Act. We all agree there is need for reform and change.

The previous gentleman, while not speaking to the legislation whatsoever, should take note, and he has referred to the cost to a hospital in his district that had to pay some enormous costs, but it is important to realize anytime we allow species to go extinct we lose enormous potential to understand and improve our world and to create medicines that many times can save people's lives. Nowhere is that more evident than in the world of medicine.

I have my chief of staff who has returned from the hospital, thank the Lord to many medicines that have been produced from nearly extinct species. It has made him well and brought him to this floor, and I could go down the list. There are a number of important medicines, including possibly the next effective treatment of cancer, AIDS, or heart disease that can come from species that we are trying to protect and save on this world.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations and a member of my class.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a very valued member of our Committee on Resources.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a valued member of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, Psalms 104, verses 25, 30: ``In wisdom You made them all, the earth is full of Your creatures. There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number, living things both large and small . . . When You send Your spirit, they are created and You renew the earth.''

Such is the appropriate Biblical quote, I say to my colleagues, that should guide our deliberations today on this particular legislation.

Species keep people alive. In the earlier comment, I stated that there are numerous Members of this body, perhaps to the person, who could tell of horror stories involved with the administration of the current Endangered Species Act. And while some of those stories are probably valid and have their good points, the current regime, as I also previously stated, has not been working. It has not been working because it has not been adequately funded nor administered by the current administration. Funding is a problem. Funding perhaps would have solved many of these horror stories to which Members of this body refer.

But this particular legislation, as we have heard throughout the debate on this general debate and we will hear more during the amendment process, is an expensive proposition. If we could not fund the regime that exists today that implements the ESA, how, I ask, are we going to fund an even more expensive regime that is set up by the pending legislation? A compensation program to property owners that truly is going to cause us to go further into deficit spending. The legislation would increase direct spending by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to pay aid to private landowners who are prohibited from using their property under certain circumstances. That means money, I say to my colleagues. That means appropriations from this body's Committee on Appropriations, at a time when we are finding tremendous costs being imposed upon the taxpayers that was unexpected 2 or 3 months ago.

At a time when we are already cutting Bureau of Reclamation projects, western water projects, Indian programs, our national parks. Indeed, there are some in this administration that would sell our national parks and other public lands in order to address our ever-mounting deficit. This legislation will only exacerbate our deficit problems.

And as I have said and referred to in earlier responses, why should we care about critters? Those who criticize this Act refer to the supporters of the Act as being more concerned about critters than human beings. I will tell them why we should be concerned about critters, why we should care about the Endangered Species Act.

Nowhere should that care be more evident than in the world of medicine. Anytime we allow a species to go extinct, we lose enormous potential to understand and improve our world. Nearly 50 percent of all our medical prescriptions, for example, dispensed annually in our country, are derived from nature or modified to mimic natural substances. Yet we have only investigated about 2 percent of the more than 250,000 known plant species for their possible medical breakthroughs. The extinction of a single species may mean the loss of the next effective treatment for cancer, for AIDS, or for heart disease. Mold fungus led to the development of Penicillin over 50 years ago. Mold fungus, it has saved countless lives in recent generations, and it continues to do so every day. Morphine and codeine, both made from poppy plants, are among the most widely used medications in the world today. Venoms from snakes have led to important medications, including an important drug to control blood pressure.

Even insects have their value in medicine. We now know that the genes that turn out to form a heart in a fruit fly are actually the same genes that form hearts in higher animals and people.

Again, quoting from the Bible, from Ecclesiastes: ``Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath.''

Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I will be speaking on the manager's amendment and I will also be speaking in support of the substitute amendment that will be offered. As I said in my opening comments, I introduced these negotiations in good faith with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), my chairman, because I thought there was not adequate funding to enforce the current endangered species law, and those negotiations were conducted in good faith, and we came quite close, and he will say probably that 90 percent of the current bill is a bill upon which I agree.

But at the same time, in the manager's amendment that will be coming up, there were changes made in literally the last minute that came very close to violating the good-faith negotiations that were ongoing on this legislation. I will speak to that at the proper time.

But I will say at this point that this legislation needs to be defeated, the substitute that will be offered needs to be supported, and we need to look very seriously at how we can enforce better the endangered species laws on the books today rather than the overhaul that exists in the pending legislation, and I urge defeat of the legislation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes significant changes in the bill as it was reported from the Committee on Resources. These changes are likely to result in more species extinctions at greater loss of taxpayer dollars.

The pending legislation will increase direct spending in the discretionary funding law, which we will get into in general debate, and it could rise to more than $600 million a year, $235 million more per year than we are spending today for species conservation, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Let me make one point perfectly clear here: the manager's amendment is not something I agreed to in my discussions with the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo). To say that I agree with 90 percent of this bill is not an accurate description, or is an unfair way to paint the matter.

One of the points that we had reached agreement on was that there was to be a recovery-based standard of determining when Federal agency actions jeopardize the continued existence of a species. The manager's amendment drops this crucial provision. It cripples it.

While I was willing to eliminate critical habitat, it was only on the condition that we ensure that there were adequate provisions in place to encourage recovery. Without this definition, the bill will not promote recovery. We will likely see more endangered and threatened species. It is upon that ground that I oppose this manager's amendment, as well as the loosened compensation standards put in order by the manager's amendment.

It eliminates the bill's requirement that appraisals determining the market value of foregone use of property are binding on both the Secretary and the property owner. Instead, the appraisal is binding only on the Secretary, and the property owner may then go to court to seek additional compensation. That makes the current pending legislation worse, and it will increase the cost of this entitlement program to property owners and it will increase that cost to the American taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I say to my chairman, I appreciate his concluding comments there and, as I have said all along, we have negotiated in good faith, and I do want to continue that relationship that we have. Maybe we can still work on this bill together; I hope we can. But we will see as the process goes forward.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute amendment. It will significantly improve the species recovery which is an important part of our negotiating process that led us up to this bill on the floor today.

It will assist landowners in their efforts to conserve species. The substitute will also include a statutory definition of jeopardy that will ensure that Federal agency actions do not diminish recovery. That is a very important part of giving up the critical habitat designation, that we have an improved consultation process and an improved definition of what constitutes jeopardy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support of this bipartisan substitute and, again, opposition to the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Bridget Call to congratulate her on being selected as West Virginia's teacher of the year for 2006.

Bridget Call, who was chosen from 50 excellent nominees statewide, sets high standards and strives to be a role model for her students. She has dedicated many years to educating and enlightening students at Matewan High School in Mingo County. In addition to her classroom responsibilities, she also serves as head of the Drama Department at Matewan High. In light of her background as a former actress and director with The Araconia Story Inc. summer productions, this additional role is well suited for her talents. As a result of her dedication, Ms. Call will receive an educational technology package from the Smarter Kids Foundation valued at $14,000.

It is with great pride that we recognize a woman who has inspired and motivated so many of our youth in West Virginia. Through her experimental, yet effective teaching style, Bridget Call has contributed greatly to the education of an entire generation of youth in southern West Virginia and I am certain she has been an inspiration to her colleagues as well. As I have said in the past, education is not a solitary endeavor or achievement, nor is it to increase an individual's fortunes, but rather it is to enrich the whole of the family.

America's 229-year-old history is rich with those who have made a difference through educating themselves. Rather using what they have learned to not only educate others but to raise our Nation to inspiring heights. Because of their achievements we continue to prosper from their education and willingness to share their knowledge. The people of West Virginia have always striven for excellence. West Virginians are continually working to better themselves and their communities through education. Ms. Call exemplifies the qualities that are displayed in all West Virginians. West Virginia and the educational system at large, is better for having Ms. Bridget Call.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I pay tribute to a devoted public servant, the Honorable Robert J. Staker. Judge Staker is retiring as Judge of the United States District Court of the Southern District of West Virginia after 26 years of service.

A long and distinguished history of accomplishment and public service marks Judge Staker's career. He served his country in the United States Navy in the 1940's. Judge Staker attended both Marshall University and West Virginia University, and received his law degree from West Virginia University College of Law in 1952. Judge Staker has committed himself to serving the people of West Virginia as a member of the legal profession.

He practiced law in Williamson, West Virginia from 1952 until 1968. He served as Judge of the Circuit Court of Mingo County from January 1969 to September 1979, when he assumed his current office as Judge of the United States District Court of the Southern District of West Virginia in Huntington. Judge Staker continued his career by becoming a Senior United States District Judge on January 1, 1965.

Judge Staker's tenure on the federal bench was one marked by common sense and common justice for all. It has been said that those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience, usually recognize also the voice of justice. Judge Staker's legacy on the federal court will echo the voice of justice for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in congratulating Judge Staker on his admirable career. It is with tremendous gratitude and appreciation for his extensive service to the community and deep love of the law that we honor his distinguished service. Together with his wife Sue Blankenship Poore, and his two sons J. Timothy Poore and Donald Seth Staker, I offer to him my sincerest wishes for great success in all his future endeavors as he begins the next chapter of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to affirm that we are one Nation under God. For over 225 years the moral fiber of this Nation has been built not upon the law of man, but rather upon the law of God.

The roots of the Pledge of Allegiance go back to Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister who wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. It was still an ``unofficial'' pledge until June 22, 1942, when the United States Congress included the ``Pledge to the Flag'' in the United States Flag Code. On December 28, 1945, the Pledge to the Flag received its official title as our Nation's Pledge of Allegiance.

The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14, 1954 (Flag Day), when Congress added the words, ``under God,'' to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Although today, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation ``under God'' violates schoolchildren's right to be ``free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.'' Judge Karlton then issued a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at three separate elementary schools where the plaintiff's children attended school. Will this judge also take away American schoolchildren's milk money emblazoned with the words, ``In God We Trust?'' Will this judge deny our schoolchildren hearing the ringing words of our Declaration of Independence, which intones the Almighty throughout this sacred document?

A restraining order to prevent children from reaffirming their faith in God and Country? How absurd! Can you imagine the police storming an elementary school and handcuffing a 9-year-old child for uttering ``under God''?

President Eisenhower said at the time, ``In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.''

As President Eisenhower stated, God is America's most powerful resource. In his presence, we remain attentive of the character and spirit of our Nation, and we are determined to fashion a better and brighter future for the generations that follow. Only under the watchful eye of God can all we hope for be accomplished and all we dream of come true.

For 58 years, schoolchildren and billions of men and women across this Nation have gazed upon our Flag, the Star Spangled Banner, and proudly recited their pledge to their home and the greatest Nation on Earth, and I can think of no better way to begin each and every day, as we do in the House of Representatives, with these 31 words.

As an editorial from the Register-Herald, of my hometown of Beckley, West Virginia, best summed up last year:

Children cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge or even

listen to it, if they don't wish to.

The Supreme Court will sooner or later have to delete the

phrase or else rule in its defense, an action requiring only

this: respect for constitutional language and a grain of

common sense.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the overwhelming generosity of West Virginians, in the wake of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina continued on the campus of Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia. As part of a fundraising effort spearheaded by various campus organizations and coordinated with the American Red Cross, fans attending the Marshall-Kansas State football game were asked to ``Bring a Buck'', just one dollar, to aid the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

From the crowd of nearly 37,000 fans, a volunteer army of students, faculty and staff were able to raise more then $520,000 in just a matter of hours. This volunteer force of over 150 individuals, including Marshall President Stephen J. Kopp, spread out around the stadium with members of the local Red Cross chapter to accept donations as fans arrived at the game.

Thanks must be given to the many student organizations who volunteered their time and efforts to make this happen. Groups participating in the ``Bring a Buck'' event were: Student Government Association; Biology Club, Delta Sigma Theta, Student Ambassadors; Pre- AMSA (American Medical Student Association); Honors 101; Circle K; Campus Crusade for Christ; Phi Mu; Gamma Beta Phi; Alpha Tau Omega; Athletics, Staff and Recreational Sports.

The hard work and determination of these students to help out their neighbors in the Gulf region inspired Marshall Alumni, members of the Marshall University Foundation, Inc., the Board of Directors and others to rise to the challenge of ``Bringing a Buck'' and more. In one case, an anonymous donation of $250,000 was made, inspiring other donors to give as much as $25,000 each.

I applaud Student Body President Michael Misiti's challenge to other higher education institutions in the country to match Marshall's fundraising total. This sentiment was echoed by Governor Joe Manchin, who was at the game and issued his own challenge to the other 49 governors to work with their universities and colleges to sponsor a ``Bring a Buck'' event during upcoming football games.

This generous outpouring of support for the victims of Hurricane Katrina from West Virginians is not surprising. In fact, this is just the latest response by Marshall University as part of Thunder Relief 2005, a joint effort by students, faculty and staff in response to the devastation from the disaster in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida.

From waiving all application and late fees for displaced students, to offering free online courses, to coordinating through the Marshall medical school with medical personnel in hurricane-stricken areas who need assistance, Marshall University has not hesitated in doing their part to help out their fellow Americans.

We in the Mountain State have had our share of devastating floods and are familiar with the needs of those most affected by this tragic disaster. I am proud of the generous spirit of humanity being shown by my fellow West Virginians and I am proud to call the Mountain State my home.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all West Virginians, our thoughts and prayers are with the countless many whose lives were disrupted by Hurricane Katrina. We extend our hope that families will be reunited, lives will continue to be saved and, in time, homes and towns will be rebuilt.

Once again, when it mattered most, West Virginians have risen to the occasion. Hurricane Katrina dealt us a big blow last week, and reaction to this disaster will probably be analyzed long after our people have recovered and our cities have been reconstructed. But it is with great certainty that I tell you no one will question the swift reaction of West Virginia, among the first states to roll up its sleeves and roll out its resources.

West Virginia has had its share of devastating floods in recent years and has learned how to rapidly organize its agencies following an emergency. Because of this, we were able to mobilize quickly in response to the calls of help from the governors.

Three West Virginia Air National Guard C-130 cargo planes flew in 200 evacuees from New Orleans late Saturday and early Sunday. Most of these evacuees are now housed at the Camp Dawson Army Training Site in Preston County. As of Monday morning, five C-130 Hercules cargo planes from West Virginia stand ready in Texas to bring back about 400 evacuees from the Houston Astrodome.

Six crews from our State's Air National Guard--four from the Charleston-based 130th Airlift Wing, which just two weeks ago was saved from the chopping block by the BRAC Commission, and two from the Martinsburg-based 167th Airlift Wing--have been sent to aid storm victims.

In addition to these ongoing National Guard efforts, our Secretary of Military Affairs and Public Safety Jim Spears, the National Guard and the State Police continue to work directly with the homeland security officials in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi on formulating an action plan to assist victims who have lost their homes and are in desperate need of a place to stay.

Our citizens, too, have wasted no time in pitching in. They never do.

Marshall University has waived all application and late fees for students displaced by Hurricane Katrina who wish to take classes during the fall semester.

Marshall students, faculty and staff have begun making plans for a relief effort for victims of Katrina. Thunder Relief 2005 will be a joint effort in response to the devastation from the disaster in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. All donations raised from the effort will go to the American Red Cross. And at the medical school, Dr. Robert B. Walker is serving as a liaison officer for any medical personnel in hurricane-stricken areas who need to get Marshall's assistance in transferring patients or providing medical or other required public health resources.

In my hometown of Beckley, West Virginia, the Beckley Christian Ministerial Alliance, spearheaded by the Rev. David F. Allen, is collecting donations from area congregations through the month of September, with a presentation of the donations to the Red Cross scheduled for September 30.

There are other countless community and individual efforts going on across our state: Fish fries, barbecues and spaghetti dinners in small towns, bucket brigades at stoplights, donations from widows on fixed budgets, from children with piggy-banks full of carefully saved pennies. A drop in the bucket might only be a drop, but when it's all added up, our residents are giving a little hope to those who need it the most.

As a West Virginian, I am proud of the way both our State leaders and residents have responded to this disaster. Like any good neighbor, they opened their doors and their hearts to those in need. Our friends to the South can count on West Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not to bury Cliff Harvison, but to praise him.

After, a number of decades of working in Washington, DC, and with 40 years dedicated soley to serving the cargo tank truck industry, Cliff is retiring at the end of this year.

Through the establishment of the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and more recently, the Department of Homeland Security; through deregulation of the trucking industry, and carrier consolidation; through the terrorist attacks on our infrastructure and upon our Nation; Cliff Harvison has kept watch at the National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc., the tank truck industry's national trade association.

In addition to working with me--for almost three decades as a Member of Congress who understands the needs and vast potential of our national transportation network to States such as West Virginia--as well as working with a great many other Members of Congress over the last several decades, Cliff has worked also with labor, with Federal agencies, and with his own carriers to improve highway transportation. In so doing, he has played a key role in the development of major legislative and regulatory initiatives aimed at highway safety, hazardous materials uniformity, and transportation security. The Motor Carrier Safety Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act--and its successor, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act-- the Safe Food Transportation Act, truck driver hazardous materials endorsements--these are all key pieces of legislation and regulation affecting motor carriers, and bear the stamp of Cliff Harvison's input as an honest, and honorable, broker.

Mr. Speaker, without America's cargo tank truck industry, Americans would not be able to buy gas conveniently at so many comer filling stations across the country. If we couldn't rely on the cargo tank truck industry, our chemical manufacturing sector, which is a very important manufacturing industry in parts of my

home State of West Virginia, would be impeded by a great difficulty in getting goods to help make products to serve our ever day needs. Were it not for our cargo tank truck industry, it would not be possible to move fertilizers, baking products, plastics, and many other household products we take for granted.

All of these different products, transported in so many different kinds of uniquely designed trailers to ensure safe transportation, are vital to our national interests. Likewise, the ease with which they are transported guarantees Americans more affordable gasoline and other products, and protects our way of life. In addition, the cargo tank truck industry itself employs hundreds of thousands of Americans with good paying jobs.

As the cargo tank truck industry has evolved over the last four decades to play an increasingly integral role in our national economy, one constant has been Cliff Harvison's dedicated service to the industry, and to our Nation.

For these reasons, and many more, I am pleased to be able to honor Cliff for his service.

Mr. Speaker, this is now the third Congress energy policy legislation has been under consideration. During the course of this period I have consistently opposed the House versions of this legislation. Today, however, I am pleased to be in the position of voting for the pending conference agreement. The fundamental reason for my being able to now support this legislation is because many of the most troubling provisions in the past House versions which caused my opposition are largely no longer present in the final product before us today.

I have been troubled in the past by the inclusion of provisions waiving the National Environmental Policy Act, the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to development, inappropriate and unseemly taxpayer giveaways to Big Oil, as well as unwarranted liability relief to certain fuel manufacturers. I was not gullible enough to think that the conference would clean the slate entirely of giveaways to Big Oil, but aside from that issue, these provisions that I have long opposed are, for the most part, not present in the pending legislation.

In addition, I have opposed past versions of this legislation because they contained provisions which unfairly provided western coal produced on federal lands a competitive advantage over all other coal producing regions including my home State of West Virginia. Those provisions have been mitigated in the pending measure.

And finally, I have been opposed to past versions of this bill because they lacked visionary and significant incentives to burn coal more cleanly and to utilize coal in a more efficient manner. The pending measure finally contained incentives of that nature, which will allow us to employ coal as a means to help wean ourselves from foreign sources of energy.

This is not a perfect bill, by no means. It still contains royalty relief for large producers of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico. It also contains provisions which some believe can be a precursor to lifting the wildly popular moratoria on oil and gas drilling off portions of the American coastline. I do not support those measures. At the same time, when I examine the tax title, and find almost $3 billion worth of incentives to promote the commercial application of new coal burning technologies, I find that finally, finally, coal is being paid more than lip service in our national energy policy.

These incentives are extremely important. As I have often observed in the past, we as a Nation, have expended a great deal of money in developing clean coal technologies. Yet, the fact of the matter is that they have not been deployed in the commercial sense.

After many decades of this effort, today, only a single integrated gasification combined cycle coal plant exists owned and operated by Tampa Electric. The reason is simple. Advanced plants of this nature are much more expensive to construct and there is no incentive for the electric utility industry to build them. Hence, the pressing need for federal incentives, so that we can begin to achieve widespread commercial application of these technologies, have a cleaner environment, and reduce our dependency on oil and natural gas.

All in all, again, not a perfect bill but one which I believe will be of some assistance in expanding our national energy mix.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on official business on Monday, July 25, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall vote No. 417, ``yea''; rollcall vote No. 418, ``yea''; rollcall vote No. 419, ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize two important aspects of the National Historic Preservation Act. Specifically, my legislation will extend authorization for deposits into the Historic Preservation Fund through 2011 and will permanently authorize funding for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. In effect, we are extending authority for the money and expertise necessary for the Historic Preservation Act to continue fulfilling its purpose.

Allowing the Act to continue fulfilling its purpose is critical. As Americans, we revere our past. The individuals, cultures, institutions and events which precede our arrival at this place and time provide insight not only into who we are today, but also who we aspire to be tomorrow. This is true for the brief 229-year history of this nation, the 513-year history of Europeans in North America, and it is especially true for the tens of thousands of years of Native American history on this land.

Preserving this rich tapestry of cultures and traditions requires coordination of federal, state, local and private efforts. The centerpiece of federal historic preservation is the National Historic Preservation Act. Enacted in 1966, the Act provides an array of tools, as well as a funding source, which are central to preserving that which came before us.

One of those tools is the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation which has two important roles under the Act. One is to assist the Secretary of the Interior in cataloguing and preserving known historic resources through the National Register of Historic Places and other programs. In addition, the Council assists all federal agencies in avoiding damaging or destroying historic resources through consultation under the Act. The Council is not empowered to control agency decision- making or federal property.

Last reauthorized for five years in 2000, the Council is made up of Agency heads and Presidential appointees with diverse backgrounds. My legislation recognizes the critical importance of the Council by providing it permanent authorization while also making several technical changes in the Council's make-up and operation.

In addition, this bill will extend authorization for deposits into the Historic Preservation Fund for the next six years. The Fund is administered by the National Park Service and provides matching grants to states and territories for a variety of historic preservation programs including statewide historic preservation surveys and preservation plans. The Fund also provides matching grants to Indian Tribes, Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians and Historically Black Colleges and Universities for cultural heritage projects and the preservation of historic structures.

The source for the Historic Preservation Fund is a small percentage of the enormous revenues generated by oil and gas development in the Outer Continental Shelf. This legislation would allow that funding to continue flowing into the Fund through 2011.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we can move forward quickly on this legislation to allow the Council and the Fund to continue working. This legislation is nearly identical to a companion bill in the Senate as well as legislation introduced in the previous Congress which received the support of the Advisory Council, the National Park Service, and the Historic Preservation Community.

These are vital programs serving to preserve and protect the story of American and its people.

Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives today passed the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, a bill that will have positive and lasting effects on communities throughout America, including southern West Virginia. I commend T&I Chairman Young, Ranking Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member Johnson for moving this important bill.

WRDA, which traditionally follows a biannual schedule, was last enacted in 2000. Therefore, the Corps of Engineers has been forced to continue its work since then without any significant guidance from Congress. This is not how the program is supposed to work and has created considerable hardship for both local communities in need of assistance and the Corps itself. I hope today's action will be the first major step in reversing this five year trend.

Mr. Chairman, southern West Virginia has been ravaged by significant flooding since WRDA was last enacted, and the people of southern West Virginia have suffered. Many live in homes that were built well before flood patterns and the risks associated were known. Absent action from Congress in the form of WRDA, families have been forced to move from their homes and businesses have picked up and moved out of the area. In many cases, a simple authorization and appropriation would have mitigated many of these problems.

I have worked tirelessly with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Appalachian Regional Commission to combat flood damage, seeking to prevent future flooding. WRDA will help us in that endeavor.

Mr. Chairman, the House today made a strong statement by overwhelmingly passing WRDA. I urge the other body to take up and pass the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, as further inaction by Congress will continue to negatively affect our Nation's communities.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 359, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''