Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my fellow cosponsors-- Ranking Member Brown, Congressmen Menendez and Cummings--for bringing this issue before the House.

Today represents another attempt to derail Amtrak and the essential transportation services it provides to millions of Americans, particularly rural Americans, across the country. The 18 routes the Appropriations Committee has proposed to eliminate would leave nearly 4\1/2\ million Americans stranded without needed rail service in 23 States, including my home State of West Virginia.

Unilaterally eliminating these routes is not prudent, and would deal a significant blow to our rural communities.

I urge my colleagues to support the Brown-Menendez-Rahall-Cummings Amendment that would save rail service to rural America.

A vote in favor of our amendment is not a vote just in support of Amtrak, it is a vote for the millions of Americans who depend on rail service to meet their transportation needs.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on official business on the afternoon of Monday, June 27, 2005. Had I been present I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall vote No. 322: yea; rollcall vote No. 323: yea.

Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidable detained on official business this morning. I was in West Virginia with Chairman Anthony Princippi, and over West Virginia delegation to discuss BRAC recommendations. I missed rollcall vote 308 through 314. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall vote 308: ``nay''; rollcall vote 309: ``yea''; rollcall vote 310: ``yea''; rollcall vote 311: ``yea''; rollcall vote 312: ``yea''; rollcall vote 313: ``nay''; and rollcall vote 314: ``yea''.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is honoring the life of one of it most distinguished Members, former Representative Peter Rodino of New Jersey. Congressman Rodino died on May 7, 2005, and is survived by his wife Joy Rodino, two children, three granddaughters and two great- granddaughters.

By the time I entered Congress in 1977, Peter Rodino was a national figure, a household name and someone to whom I looked for guidance as a young Member. He had been one of the main sponsors and a driving force behind Civil Rights legislation in the 1950s and 60s. He was Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings of President Richard Nixon. And he participated in the Iran-Contra hearings during the 1980s.

But his friends and colleagues remember more than the fact that he was involved in many of the most important matters that faced the United States in the second half of the 20th Century.

Born in 1909, he was a member of the Greatest Generation--serving in the Army in North Africa and Italy during World War II. In war, he received the Bronze Star and was one of the first enlisted men to receive a battlefield commission as an officer. Prior to his service in World War II, Mr. Rodino received his bachelor's degree from the University of Newark and graduated in 1937 from what became Rutgers Law School.

Following his 40 years of distinguished service in the House, Mr. Rodino taught at Seton Hall University School of Law. And it was his friends and colleagues at Seton Hall who so

aptly eulogized him at his funeral. As Paula Franzese, a law professor there put it: ``None of us will ever forget Peter Rodino because of the way he made us feel. He made us believe.''

So today the House remembers Congressman Peter Rodino, a lover of the Constitution and the law, who meant so much to this body and the Nation, particularly at a time of great turmoil.

Those of us who knew him lost a great friend, New Jersey lost a favorite son and the Nation lost a tremendous but humble statesman.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me time, and I appreciate his leadership, as well as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

I want to remind my colleagues that this particular amendment, which is a funding limitation, however, is still very similar to an amendment that the House voted on shortly before we broke before the Memorial Day district work period. That particular amendment passed in an overwhelming fashion and in a bipartisan fashion. So this is truly bipartisan when it comes to recognizing how valuable the horse is to this country and what a symbol it is of our freedom and how important it is to recognize this truly American icon.

When Americans think of the horse, I do not believe they think of it in terms of foreign cuisine on the tables of countries around the European area.

This amendment has invoked a lot of emotion and misinformation. The opposition has said that this will increase the abuse of horses and horses running wild out West. Such statements are not true.

Here are the facts. Each year some 65,000 horses are slaughtered in this country for human consumption in Europe and Asia where they are sold in restaurants as a delicacy. Another 30,000 are trucked to Canada and Mexico for slaughter. This amendment will end that slaughter of American horses for human consumption overseas.

Slaughter is not the same as humane euthanasia administered by a veterinarian in a very controlled environment. Euthanasia of horses is administered by legal injection, whereas slaughtered is administered by unskilled, untrained workers using the captive bolt. Many times this is administered improperly, causing unnecessary pain and suffering before death.

Passage of this amendment will not cause an overpopulation of horses. Each year 690,000 horses die in the U.S. many of which are euthanized by a licensed veterinarian. Slaughtered horses represent only 1 percent of horses that die each year. This would not result in an overpopulation of horses as some suggest.

There are alternatives available. Americans do not profit from slaughtering horses. This is an export-driven market. Foreigners eat our horses and foreign companies make money, and we should stop looking at it in that perspective and start looking at it in the American perspective.

Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding me this time.

Madam Chairman, we all recognize that the Committee on Appropriations must work within the constraints of a budget that is completely inadequate to meet the Nation's needs. I acknowledge that. But the fiscal year 2006 Interior and Environment appropriation bill also reflects the kinds of choices made in recent years by this administration and the majority in Congress, which made this clash of growing needs and shrinking budgets unavoidable.

The effect is that the Department of the Interior and our other departments and agencies are being put on a crazy fad diet that is harmful to the health of the Nation. I am troubled, for example, by the continued underfunding of maintenance needs to our national parks. The committee has seen fit to provide $20 million over the President's request for operations, an increase I support, but our national parks should be safe places, where parents and children can roam and relax, where they can picnic and hike and raft. Instead, our parks are falling apart, and against a huge backlog of maintenance needs, this bill cuts funds for park construction projects, a critical component of our park maintenance efforts.

Forest Service programs that help to promote safety and job creation in

rural America are also underfunded in this bill. Economic action programs, which enable rural communities and businesses to become more economically self-sufficient through the use of forest resources were zeroed out.

The situation here goes well beyond trimming fat. We can talk all we want about the need for a lean government, but this is not belt tightening, as some would suggest. This is more like being shoved into Scarlet O'Hara's corset.

The President eliminated statewide funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund in his budget. Those monies are indispensable to States across the Nation that rely on those matching monies for their parks and recreation budgets. But while the President may have conducted a tummy tuck, this bill calls for something close to an amputation. Even the Federal share is axed.

I am especially troubled by the flat lining of the appropriation from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. There continues to exist a large inventory of high priority human health and safety threatening sites in our Nation's coalfields. The unspent balance in the fund is approaching $2 billion, yet this money from a fee assessed on the coal industry is not being adequately deployed to combat these threats to coalfield citizens and their communities.

Madam Chairman, this bill is not a case of an overweight agency being squeezed into a slimmer, trimmer budget. This is a case of a starving agency trying to survive on the crumbs of a fiscal mess. I regret that I cannot support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the pending amendment, and I commend the gentlewoman from Wyoming for her leadership on this issue, as well as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon). It is always a pleasure for me to team up with these distinguished colleagues, and especially my friend from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), on natural resource issues of importance to both of our States. It is true that we are sometimes at odds with each other, that is never a pleasant experience, but when we do see eye to eye, we can make some inroads.

Today I find myself the token easterner on the bipartisan Cubin- Rahall-Cannon-Udall amendment to restore a portion of authorized funding for the PILT program. I chose to sponsor this amendment to make a point. PILT is as important in the east as it is to the west.

West Virginia, for instance, is heavily forested and 919,000 acres are federally owned with the Monongahela National Forest. PILT payments are extremely important to the forest counties, helping them to provide essential services to the public.

This amendment is about keeping faith with our units of local government who are already being strained to the limit.

Under the PILT program, the deal is that the Federal Government will compensate these localities for the loss of local tax revenues from Federal lands.

I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Chairman, America is blessed with a rich natural heritage. Part of that heritage are the herds of wild horses, direct descendants of animals that came here with early explorers and missionaries, which still roam the ranges in parts of the American West.

In 1971, Congress formally protected these wild horses and mandated that they could not be sold or processed into commercial products, in effect, slaughtered.

Since that time, when the Bureau of Land Management has determined that the wild horse population is excessive to the ability of the range to support them, captured animals have been offered to the public through adoption.

All of that changed as a result of a rider tucked away in the dead of night in the massive omnibus appropriations bill enacted last December.

With no public notice or comment, this rider trashed 33 years of national policy and lifted the prohibition on the commercial sale of America's wild horses.

Today, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and I, along with our colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), are offering this amendment to restore that prohibition, to stop the slaughter.

There is an urgency here. So far this year, 41 wild horses that we know of have been sent to one of the three foreign-owned slaughterhouses in this country. Moreover, the BLM has estimated that 8,400 horses need to be sold to comply with the recent change in the law.

To what end? To what end, I ask? So their meat can end up on menus in France, Belgium and Japan where it is considered a delicacy.

Incredible, simply incredible. We do not allow the commercial sale of horse flesh in this country for human consumption, but we are exporting horse meat for that purpose abroad.

Since introducing the legislation which is the basis for this amendment, I have received an impressive volume of heartfelt letters and e-mails from across the Nation.

The very notion that wild American horses would be slaughtered as a food source for foreign gourmets has struck a chord with the American people.

They see in this issue the pioneering spirit and the ideals of freedom, and the current policy has created disillusionment with many over how their government works and what their elected leaders stand for.

From Florida, Stacey wrote, ``Knowing that the horses won't be there for my kids has made me feel sad, hurt and angry at our government.''

A former West Virginian named Valerie who now resides in Nevada wrote, ``I, and our friends, have enjoyed going on to the desert to see wild horses roaming free.''

Jeremy from Oregon wrote, ``Your support will help to restore the public's confidence by assuring us that Congress operates under the principles of for the people and by the people.''

We must restore the people's faith. We must stop the slaughter of these American icons.

A week and a half ago, an annual rite of spring was held called the Running of the Kentucky Derby, a uniquely American institution.

I am wearing on my lapel a pin here, a symbol which bears the likeness of Ferdinand who won the 1986 Derby and the 1987 Breeders' Cup Classic, notable achievements. Yet his reward was to end his life in a Japanese slaughterhouse. Ferdinand was not a wild horse, true, from the American plain, but the issue is one in the same.

As children, many of us recall reading the compelling story in the book ``Misty of Chincoteague.'' What type of message would we be sending today's

youth if Misty was rounded up and sent to be slaughtered.

For Misty's sake, for America's sake, vote for the Rahall-Whitfield amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the cosponsor of the amendment.

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

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky has just touched upon a very important point, and that is that there are alternatives available to the outright slaughter; adoption and euthanization. These are alternatives rather than the slaughter of these animals.

In regard to what the gentleman from Nevada said, that BLM has recently done, what BLM has proposed in the last day or two in an effort to head off the successful passage of this amendment is illegal under the change in law that was made by the omnibus appropriation bill last year.

And I would say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, in defense of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and myself on the authorizing committee, this change was made in an appropriation bill, not in an authorization bill. Therefore, it is incumbent the change or reversal be done in an appropriation measure.

So I would urge that my colleagues look at the humane side of this amendment, look at what is only fair to these American icons and vote for the Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Offered By: Mr. Rahall

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the American Public Works Association's National Public Works Week. From May 15 until May 21, the APWA will be sponsoring the National Public Works Week in a concerted effort to highlight the importance of the United States public infrastructure and public works services. It is my intention today to honor these agencies that are essential to the well-being of our country.

Too often we take the many contributions of public works and services for granted when they are so intricately woven in to the daily fabric of our lives. From the roads we travel to the clean tap water we use for drinking, public works pervade every facet of our lives. Our communities rely upon the public works agencies that provide the water, sewers, roadways, public buildings and waste collection to ensure that the communities we live, work and play in are safe.

The public works that operate in our neighborhoods and cities require maintenance by a staff of public employees. The staff that diligently design, build, maintain, and repair the public works projects are the invisible hands, or the people behind the scenes, that have dedicated themselves to the service of our communities. These hardworking individuals deserve the greatest of respect for the commitment they have shown in serving our communities' welfare.

In my own state of West Virginia, the influential hand of the public works and services reaches deep into the foundation of our state's economy. I have advocated vigorously for access to clean water sources for citizens as well as effective waste water treatment sites to preserve the streams of my state. The Public Service Commission's Water and Wastewater division offers seminars that trained 220 utility employees about its new Water and Sewer rules last year alone. The PSC's transportation division regulates gas pipeline safety and regularly inspects reports of weakening infrastructure and leaks. Just last year they completed pipeline failure investigations of a ruptured pipeline in Wyoming County as well as an incident at Rocky Fork, WV.

I urge my colleagues to join me in commending their own public works and services employees for the duties they perform. The services they provide are essential to our nation's well-being. The National Public Works Week provides us an opportunity to do so, and we should take it.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing two bills that pay tribute to those service personnel who have nobly served our Nation in times of conflict. In both cases, the legislation extends pension benefits to those veterans who served in harm's way, though not in a time of declared war.

Under current law, you may only draw a full pension if you served in combat during a declared period of war. This distinction served its purpose well during many of America's 20th Century engagements, as our involvement in those wars was clearly defined. World Wars I and II and the Vietnam War are prime examples.

However, American service personnel have served--and faced heavy fighting--in conflicts that have not been declared ``war'' by our government. Case in point is Korea. Our Armed Forces lost 33,741 dead in that conflict, even though President Truman called our participation a ``police action'' and never asked Congress for a formal declaration of war.

The point of the matter is that while war is not always clearly defined, the sacrifice of our service personnel is.

With the support of the American Legion and noted West Virginia veteran John Peters, I introduce these bills to correct what many believe is an inequity in determining veterans' pension benefits. The first bill would provide the basic guarantee of a pension to those who served in Korea, Lebanon, Granada and Panama. In each case, American service personnel were faced with significant danger and, again in each case, American lives were lost. With this in mind, I believe it is imperative that our government provide veterans of those conflicts with appropriate pension benefits.

The second bill I am introducing would extend pension benefits to those servicemen and women whose actions earned them the Expeditionary Medal. For those who are unfamiliar with what an Expeditionary Medal is, or the actions for which it is awarded, the Joint Chiefs of Staff must determine that the service personnel is engaged where hostile action by foreign armed forces is imminent. Again, I believe those who have put their lives on the line in defense of our country, especially when recognized by the Joint Chiefs, deserve the benefits a military pension provides.

The United States has sent service personnel to all corners of the globe to defend our freedoms and way of life. In all cases, our troops have served nobly and honorably. In several cases, war has been declared officially--and those who participated in those actions certainly deserve to receive a military pension for their sacrifice. However, American personnel have also served in conflicts not officially declared war, and have been faced with incredible dangers. To these veterans I say you deserve the same pension benefits afforded your brothers and sisters in arms who participated in declared wars. I urge Congress to pass these critical bills.

Mr. Speaker, the wonderful state of West Virginia has known many great Americans. My neighbors in southern West Virginia each have their own interesting story, they are all a pleasure for me to represent. Today, I am here to recognize Mary Nell Godbey who passed away at the end of April.

Mary Nell Godbey was an outstanding member of her community. As a WVU Extension Agent in Raleigh County, she helped southern West Virginians on a daily basis.

My thoughts and prayers are with her family during this difficult time. She touched so many people's lives throughout her many years and will surely be missed.

I also ask that the following article from the Register-Herald in Beckley be printed in the Congressional Record after these remarks. Bev Davis, a friend and former co-worker of Mary Nell Godbey, wrote this column which shows how well loved Ms. Godbey was in southern West Virginia.

Beloved WVU Extension Agent Leaves Great Legacy Behind

(By Bev Davis)

``Call Mary Nell.'' Those were words I heard repeatedly

when I worked at the West Virginia University Area Extension

Office in Beckley. Area division leader Oscar Hutchison was

my boss, overseeing the nine-county WVU Extension offices.

Mary Nell Godbey was a WVU extension agent for Raleigh

County, and everything that had to do with homemaking, food

preparation, food preservation and hand crafts fell under the

umbrella of her expertise.

She taught workshops on everything from decoupage, macrame

and quilting to canning foods and how to get mold off your

carpet.

When I saw her obituary in our newspaper this week, it

really hurt to accept the fact she's gone. I remember her as

such a lady--always impeccably dressed and a woman who always

conducted herself with such dignity.

At the same time, she was warm, friendly and willing to

help.

Mary Nell was a virtual encyclopedia of knowledge for all

of us and for hundreds of callers. I lost count of the times

I told someone, ``Call Mary Nell Godbey. If anyone knows the

answer to your question, she will.''

A gentle woman with a great sense of humor, Mary Nell made

friends easily. She made me laugh often, and I probably use

something I learned from her almost every day of my life.

She was a lady with a quiet spiritual faith, and I know her

long absence because of illness has left some big shoes to

fill at First Baptist Church in Beckley, where she was a

member for many years.

I'm sure I speak for a huge community of people when I

extend my deepest condolences to Mary Nell's family. Her

influence had a wide impact, and her passing leaves a vacant

spot in our hearts.

In passing on her legacy, Mary Nell would want me to sound

a trumpet for the organization to which she dedicated so much

of her life.

As we have moved away from a more agrarian lifestyle, the

function and scope of the WVU Extension has changed a great

deal over the years.

It is, nevertheless, still a vital resource for our

communities.

The county offices provide a wealth of information on

homemaking, gardening, help for working women, parenting--

just about any topic that enhances daily living.

I know Mary Nell would want me to remind people to think of

a WVU Extension office first when a question comes to mind.

She has passed the torch to a new generation of agents who

are eager to make a difference in their community.

During the years I've worked at the newspaper, it's been

rewarding to refer callers to this agency for help. Because

of all the dedicated extension agents still around, it's a

pleasure to say to someone on the phone, ``Call the WVU

Extension office. If anyone can answer that question, they

can.''

The next time I say that, however, it will become a tribute

to Mary Nell.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Amtrak's Board of Directors released a set of ``strategic reform initiatives'' the railroad would like to take ``to revitalize U.S. passenger rail service.'' The Chairman of the Board suggested these reforms would ``strengthen passenger rail service at a time when our nation needs it most.''

In my view, which I share with many of my colleagues on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, these reforms are misguided and would doom the future prospects for the railroad, result in significant hardships for rail passengers in the long-term and be a tremendous disservice to the hard-working employees of Amtrak.

It comes as no surprise to me that the Board's proposal is similar to that of the Administration's--Amtrak's entire governing body has been appointed by President Bush. To be clear, if these proposals, both from Amtrak and the Administration, go into effect, Amtrak will not survive. In many cases, the millions of people who depend on Amtrak's services will be left with no reliable means of rail transportation.

Of significant concern is the Board's proposal as it relates to its workers. The Board proposes to alter the Railway Labor Act to enable Amtrak to unilaterally change work rules and contract out jobs. The Board's reforms would also eliminate many health, safety and benefit protections for which Amtrak's workers have fought hard. In addition, under the Board's plan, newly hired Amtrak and other passenger rail workers would be placed in the Social Security program instead of the Railroad Retirement System, which has covered rail workers for more than 70 years.

The Board is attempting to put Amtrak's funding burden on the backs of its hard-working employees and for that I will not stand. To that end, I would like to highlight the introduction of the Amtrak Reauthorization Act of 2005, introduced by Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar.

This legislation would provide Amtrak with $2 billion each year through 2008, and would put the railroad on the track to financial and operational stability. This bill also includes strict funding accountability procedures to ensure contractual obligations are met and money is spent wisely. It is this type of proposal--not the Administration's or Amtrak's Board's plan--that will benefit Amtrak and its passengers in the coming years.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to reject both the Bush Administration's and Amtrak Board's proposals to dismantle Amtrak. They aim only to weaken the railroad, place greater financial burden on the states, and harm the hard-working employees of Amtrak and passenger rail throughout the country.

Mr. Chairman, and both sides of the aisle, I stand with President Bush on this issue. The President has said, ``With oil at more than $50 a barrel, by the way, energy companies do not need taxpayer-funded incentives to explore for oil and gas.'' That was President George W. Bush in the Washington Post, April 21, 2005.

This amendment protects the taxpayer. This amendment is vital to restore some semblance of sanity to this legislation. To my colleagues from the Gulf States I would say, vote for this amendment if you also support the provisions in H.R. 6 to distribute $500 million in OCS revenues to coastal States and to redirect $2 billion in OCS to alter deep water research. If you support that, you simply cannot have it both ways. There will not be revenue enough for you to distribute if we do not collect the royalties on OCS production.

I urge my colleagues, and from the Gulf States especially, to support this amendment, and also I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support President Bush on this.

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

I rise in opposition to the pending legislation, surprise, because it will do absolutely nothing to lower the price of motor fuel and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

This legislation is antitaxpayer, anticonsumer, and antienvironmental. It is social security for the oil industry. We have before us a bill that squanders what could have been a bold stroke for American energy independence. It could have been visionary, and it could have been daring in developing new energy technologies and fuel sources.

Instead, we have before us a bill which contains a litany of various tax breaks and polluter protections for energy producers who are already experiencing record profits at the expense of the American public.

The bill contains $8 billion in tax breaks, largely for well-heeled oil and gas conglomerates who are already milking our constituents at the pump. In the Resources title alone, CBO says there is nearly a half a billion dollars of direct spending to subsidize the oil and gas industry over the next 10 years. To put it bluntly, if the taxpayer is feeling the pain of an energy crisis, it is coming from the derrick sticking out of his back pocket, and this measure does nothing to ease it.

Even President Bush recently stated, ``I will tell you, with $55 oil, we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives.'' These are President Bush's own words.

But has that stopped the Republican majority from bestowing such largesse on some of their biggest benefactors? Of course not. Because when one pulls the curtain aside on this bill, what we find is a wacky old fellow pulling the manipulating levers, reaching deep into the Treasury and deep into the pockets of ordinary Americans.

This bill, as I said, could have been a bold stroke, but it missed that mark. It ignores coal, America's most abundant energy resource. It pays mere lip service to coal. There is nothing here that would actually encourage an electric utility to install or invest in clean coal technology. There is nothing here that would advance bona fide technologies for coal gasification or liquefaction to run our factories and vehicles.

And, to add insult to injury, the single substantive coal provision in this bill favors Western Federal coal, primarily in the Powder River Basin of

Wyoming, over all other coals. It would give Federal coal from that region an artificial, competitive advantage to the detriment of coal producers and consumers in other States. Already, this Western coal has infiltrated utility markets traditionally served by Appalachian and Midwestern producers. To now provide these producers of Federal coal with special treatment in the form of relief from competitive bidding and the payments of royalties is unseemly and has no part in what is supposed to be a national energy policy bill.

It is, in effect, a direct assault upon all other coal, including coal from my home State of West Virginia, and it is a direct assault on consumers, jobs, and the economy and the communities which rely on coal from States like West Virginia who are not given special treatment under this provision.

Yet, under the rule governing debate on this bill, I was denied the ability to offer an amendment to strike this provision, an effort that came very close to succeeding when the House last considered this bill. Could it be that because I came so close to knocking it out of this bill on the House Floor of the last Congress I was denied that opportunity this year? Could it be because the Republican leadership fears debate on this provision and will only allow amendments that they can bet the House will fail to pass? All of this, all of it is why every newspaper in my congressional district that has editorialized on this bill has editorialized against this bill.

We are engaging in an exercise of microwave legislating today. The Republican leadership has hauled out the remains of last year's freeze- dried energy bill and are seeking to warm it up for yet another taxpayer-financed feast.

The people of America will not be played for fools. They will not be made to believe that all of our energy problems will go away if we simply grant misplaced and inappropriate tax cuts to energy fat cats, and if we allow polluters to get off the hook and shortchange the health and safety protections of our citizens.

I urge a no vote on the bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on Resources.

Madam Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a valued member of our Resources Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join our colleague Representative Barbara Cubin in introducing the ``Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Reform Act of 2005'' in recognition of the pressing need to make continued progress in restoring the environment in coalfield communities throughout the Nation.

Originally authorized as part of the landmark Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, to date over $5 billion has been appropriated under the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program in an effort to restore lands and waters adversely affected by past coal mining practices. These restoration projects normally involve threats to the public health and safety from dangerous highwalls, subsidence, refuse piles and open mine portals. They also include the construction of new water supply systems to coalfield communities where water supplies have been contaminated by past coal mining practices. Over the years, funds have also been made available under this program for emergency coal reclamation projects, the Rural Abandoned Mine Program, the Small Operators Assistance Program, certain noncoal mining reclamation projects and the administration of the program.

The primary delivery mechanism for these funds is through annual grants made through the annual appropriations process to 26 eligible States and Indian tribes. This effort is augmented by funds expended by the Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining (OSM) in States and tribes without approved reclamation programs. By most accounts, this effort has been a success achieving far more in real on-the-ground environmental restoration than programs such as the Superfund.

Yet, the mission of this program has not yet fully been accomplished which is the reason for the legislation I am introducing today. As it stands, there currently exists about $3 billion worth of high priority human health and safety threatening abandoned coal mine reclamation costs in this country. There are other costs as well, associated with lower priority abandoned coal mine sites. The fundamental purpose of the ``Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Act of 2005'' is to raise sufficient revenues which, when coupled with the unappropriated balance in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund and the reforms proposed by the legislation, to finance the reclamation of the remaining $3 billion inventory of high priority coal reclamation sites and draw this effort to a successful conclusion.

In this regard, it is essential to note that this program is not financed by the general taxpayer but rather through a fee assessed on every ton of coal mined. The unreclaimed coal sites eligible for expenditures under the program were primarily abandoned prior to the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 which placed stringent mining and reclamation standards in place. The authority to collect these fees was originally for a 15-year period. However, on two prior occasions through legislation I sponsored the Congress extended those fees collections in recognition of the continued need to address health, safety and environmental threats in the Nation's coalfield communities. Those fee collections are currently set to expire at the end of June this year.

A central feature of this legislation then is to extend that fee collection authority through the year to 2020. This is the period the OSM estimates will be necessary to generate the additional revenue to complete the high priority coal site inventory. However, that alone will not allow us to achieve that goal which is the reason for the reforms proposed by this bill.

Simply put, in my view over the years there has been a hemorrhaging of some of the funding made available under this program to lower priority projects. One of the reasons this reduction in focus on health and safety threatening projects has occurred is due to a late 1994 OSM policy shift that corrupted what is known as the general welfare standard in the coal reclamation priority rankings. This new policy has had the affect of allowing States to bootstrap what would normally have been lower priority 3 projects into the higher priority 1 and 2 rankings. To be clear, not all States or even a majority of States have taken advantage of this new policy and I commend them for that. Yet it is a fact that as a result of this new policy the bona fide $3 billion inventory of unfunded priority 1 and 2 projects has swollen to over $6 billion. I do not recognize this $6 billion figure and neither does this legislation.

The reforms proposed by this bill include eliminating the general welfare standard and restricting the use of State/tribal share grants and supplemental federal share grants to bona fide coal priority 1 and 2 projects involving threats to human health and safety. Once those projects are completed and only when those projects are completed, with two minor exceptions, can a State or tribe undertake the lower priority coal projects under the certification program with their State/tribal share grants. The exceptions to this rule involve situations where a priority 3 site is undertaken in conjunction with a priority 1 or 2 site, or where a priority 3 site is addressed in association with a coal remining operation. In effect, this legislation seeks to target the lion's share of available funding to coal priority 1 and 2s keeping faith with the original mission of the program. Among other reforms envisioned are federal approval of any additions made to the official Abandoned Mine Reclamation Inventory and a review of those additions made since the OSM policy shift on the general welfare standard.

The purposes of these reforms are intended, as previously noted, to complete those projects which are necessary to complete for the sake of protecting the health and safety of coalfield residents. At the same time, they are also intended to give the coal industry which finances this program reasonable assurances that the fees it pays will not be squandered but put to good use, and to give the industry a time frame which it can count on when the assessment of those fees will no longer be necessary.

I would like to make note of two additional changes to current law proposed by this bill. As already noted, in the past appropriations were made available from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to the Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP), an Agriculture Department program. No such appropriations have been forthcoming for six fiscal years now. I find this disappointing. While the Interior Department and the States from the very beginning were against RAMP funding, contending it was duplicative of their efforts, this in my view and in that of many others was not the case. RAMP served a distinctly different purpose involving a closer working relationship with landowners and sought to address reclamation projects on a more holistic basis. Another problem that also dogged RAMP was the fact that while it is an Agriculture Department program, its appropriations were being made out of an Interior Department trust fund by the Interior Appropriations bill. Obviously, Interior officials had little interest in this arrangement and so beginning in 1995 we have not been able to obtain funding for RAMP. In my view, this situation will not change if the status quo is maintained. For that reason, the legislation I am introducing today would authorize RAMP for general fund appropriations rather than out of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund so that funding can be pursued through the Agriculture Department's Natural Resources Conservation Service's budget.

Finally, this legislation also seeks to deal in a comprehensive fashion with the problems which have been plaguing the coal miner health care program.

In that regard, the bill would lift the restriction that interest accrued in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund can only be transferred to what is known as the Combined Benefits Fund for unassigned beneficiaries. Under this bill, all accrued interest would be available to keep faith with the promise made by the federal government many years ago to guarantee health care benefit for certain retired coal miners. Further, this legislation would also make accrued interest available for what are known as the 1992 and 1993 Plans. Due to a variety of factors, such as the rash of steel company bankruptcies and the Horizon decision of last year, these plans are coming under financial hardship and we must also keep faith with those retired coal miners and their dependents covered by them.

Mr. Speaker, it is time, far past the time, for this Congress to move forward with this legislation.