Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I read in this Saturday's Washington Post Business section an articled entitled, ``US Airways Cuts Fares at National, Dulles.'' The article explains that the airlines are launching a fare war out of the Washington, DC area, which will result in great savings and travel options for air travelers. I naturally read this article with great interest, Mr. Speaker, because US Airways is a very important carrier at airports located in the Congressional District that I represent in Southern West Virginia.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the price reductions offered by US Airways and the other airlines are the result of competition. Unfortunately, these price reductions are not available to travelers who need them as much as--and maybe more than--any other air traveler. That is the air traveler in the rural areas and in the small cities. If the airlines had true competition in the rural areas and in the rural areas and in the small cities, ticket prices would be fairer. Instead, as is so often the case, the competition and the resulting discounts and travel options are only available in the large metropolitan areas.

As we recognized at the time of deregulation--and as we should recognize right now--we need to ensure that rural airports can continue to operate and provide much-needed air service and jobs. one primary program aimed at doing this is the Essential Air Service program (EAS). EAS is very important to rural airports, which have seen their air service and ridership fall dramatically over the years.

Recently, 2 airports in my district, Beckley and Bluefield, proved themselves eligible to receive EAS funding for the next 2 years. I can't overstate how badly this funding is needed to foster competition and ensure air service in that part of my State. Ever since we deregulated the airlines, we have been moving the rural areas farther and farther out of the mainstream for air travel. Furthermore, every time Congress appropriates money to the airlines, or establishes assistance such as the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, it is the rural communities that get overlooked.

While small communities in over 25 States rely on this Federal funding to help them manage through this time of economic distress at the State and local levels, the Bush Administration has consistently proposed to cut the EAS program by more than half. Likewise, Republicans want to make many rural and small communities pay a local share to qualify for EAS funding. But, Mr. Speaker, I submit that doing these things would greatly harm many local economies. Rather than further strapping the rural areas and small towns with costs that will further inhibit competition, we need to push policies that will increase air competition and provide cost-savings to travelers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when this legislation was considered by the Committee on Resources, the majority of Democratic Members opposed it after an amendment I sought to offer was not made in order. That amendment would have made two important changes to the bill. First, it would have provided that amounts distributed to the Western Shoshone would not be treated as income and subjected to Federal or State taxes.

Second, it would have directed the Interior Secretary to devise a list in consultation with the Western Shoshone of lands that may be suitable to be held in trust for the tribes.

Today we are considering a modified version of that legislation, which contains the language of the Senate-passed version, S. 618, and I am pleased to note it contains a provision I sought to exempt, the claims distribution from Federal and State income taxes. That is a very important change.

It must be stated that while this legislation would distribute over $130 million to the Western Shoshone, there is not consensus among the tribes on this issue.

While we do not have an exact count, there is a segment of the Western Shoshone who are opposed to this legislation. They believe that if the claims award is distributed, they would then be precluded from expanding the land base of the various Western Shoshone Indian tribes.

The ancestral lands of the Western Shoshone are rich with natural resources and minerals. Some have put mining receipts on these lands in the tens of billions of dollars since 1960s. Yet, there are no Western Shoshone billionaires and, to date, no moves to give back some of these rich lands to the tribes.

In that regard, I would report that the Senate sponsor of the pending legislation has personally advised me that he would pursue legislation to deal with the land issue. Based on that commitment, I find that I am able to vote for the pending measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the pending measure has been adequately explained by the gentleman from Nevada. We have no objections to it on our side. In fact, I join in commending the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) of the Committee on Resources for his initiative in this matter. We support the legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Nevada has adequately explained the pending legislation. We have no objection to it on our side. In fact, I commend our colleague on this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for his diligence in pursuing consideration of this bill by the House. The gentleman is a valued member of both the Committee on Resources and the other committee upon which I sit, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) has adequately explained H.R. 3706, which was introduced by our good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). I would just note that the boundary adjustment is about as small as anyone can recall, covering about 9,500 square feet, or just two-tenths of an acre. However, this adjustment is necessary to clear up a land title problem and allow the construction of a needed visitor center and facilities for the historic site.

The National Park Service supports this legislation, and there is absolutely no controversy with it. I commend our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for his work on the bill. I urge passage of H.R. 3706.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hometown newspaper, the Register-Herald, of Beckley, WV, hit the nail on the head today with its editorial, ``Pledge: Issue still unresolved,'' as the Supreme Court sidestepped a chance to help cement the moral foundation of our Nation. It used a technicality to overturn a decision by a lower court that had declared the use of the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.

For well over 200 years the moral fiber of this Nation has been built not upon the law of man, but rather upon the law of God. The Supreme Court held in its hands the people's eloquent expression of what many of my fellow West Virginians already know, that only under the watchful eye of God can all we hope for be accomplished and all we dream of come true. And, though the dismissal was welcomed, the Court's reason for the dismissal wasted an opportunity to forever strengthen our national character.

The Register-Herald best summed up the missed opportunity by our Supreme Court with the editorial that follows:

Pledge

Issue still unresolved

The words ``under God'' can stay in the Pledge of

Allegiance, says the Supreme Court, whose Monday ruling

actually resolves next to nothing.

Instead of taking on the substance of the issue, the court

ruled on whether the man who brought the case in the first

place had proper standing. He doesn't, the court said.

Three justices did indicate that they see no violation of

the Constitution in the pledge's language. Good for them. The

First Amendment aims to keep Congress from establishing a

state religion, which would require a great deal more effort

from Congress than inserting a couple of words in the pledge

a half-century ago. 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. Chairman, I would note that the pending bill continues a trend that we have seen from the White House and the Republican leadership. I certainly commend the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for his leadership, as well as the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), but it is a trend that is coming out of this pending legislation as well as the Congress, the trend of not keeping faith with the American people when it comes to various Federal trust funds.

With the highway bill, it is very apparent. There are those of us who want to return to the American people from the Highway Trust Fund the taxes that are paid at the pump in the form of better roads and bridges, and there are those who do not.

In the pending legislation, there is a trust fund account called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, financed by a fee imposed on the coal industry. This is the industry's version of Superfund. It is meant to provide funding to finance the cleanup of abandoned coal mine sites that pose a threat to human health and safety. The unspent balance in that trust fund is approaching $2 billion. Yet the pending bill flatlines the amount it would make available.

I could go on and on. There is another trust fund involved with the pending legislation; and here, too, this bill does not keep faith with America. That is called the Land and Water Conservation Fund programs, which is authorized at 900 million. The total is less than $150 million in this bill.

Funding that would improve and expand the wildlife refuges, National Parks, and National Forests is sacrificed at the altar of tax relief for the rich. Apparently, the money for the Bush tax cut really did grow on trees.

What is more, the Bush administration, along with the majority here in the House, fails to provide these funds even though half the money goes directly to the States for conservation and recreation purposes.

If the Bush administration supports making rich people richer, that is their choice; but the American people should know where the money is coming from. The American people should know what the real reason is when they go to a national park this summer and find it surrounded by commercial development because there will be no funds to conserve the lands around the park. The American people should know that even though we are supposed to have the money sitting in a trust fund, dangerous abandoned mine sites will not

be reclaimed because that trust has been broken as well.

Gutting conservation spending to fund a tax cut is short-sighted and cynical. Members need to come to this floor during the debate on this legislation and tell the American people where they stand.

It appears that this administration and its friends in the Congress have thrown the keys to the Treasury off the continent, funding a war that we were not properly advised on its true cost and which is going to reach astronomical proportions. Now we are left with depleted funds, from roads and infrastructure to our majestic parks and wildlife protection programs.

So I would urge Members to look closely at this legislation before making their minds up.

Mr. Chairman, I would note that the pending bill continues a trend that we have seen coming out of the White House and from the Republican Leadership. And that is a trend of not keeping faith with the American people when it comes to various federal trust funds.

With the highway bill, it is very apparent. There are those of us who want to return to the American people from the Highway Trust Fund the taxes they pay at the pump in the form of better roads and bridges. And there are those who do not.

In the pending legislation, there is a trust fund account, the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, financed by a fee imposed on the coal industry. This is the industry's version of Superfund. It is meant to provide funding to finance the cleanup of abandoned coal mine sites that pose a threat to human health and safety. The unspent balance in that trust fund is approaching $2 billion.

Yet the pending bill flat lines the amount it would make available. I can assure this body there is no lack of need for this funding. We have an extensive inventory of sites which need to be reclaimed. This program is about improving our environment, and it is about jobs. Well paying construction jobs. And there is another trust fund involved with the pending legislation, and here too, this bill does not keep faith with America.

Spending on Land and Water conservation Fund programs--which is authorized at $900 million--totals less than $150 million in this bill. Funding that would improve and expand wildlife refuges, National Parks and National Forests is sacrificed at the altar of tax relief for the rich. Apparently, the money for the Bush tax cut really did grow on trees. What's more, the Bush Administration, along with the Majority here in the House, fails to provide these funds even though half the money goes directly to the States for conservation and recreation purposes.

If the Bush administration supports making rich people richer, that is their choice. But the American people should know where the money is coming from.

The American people should know that the National Park they visit this summer will soon be surrounded by commercial development because there will be no funds to conserve the lands around the Park.

The American people should know that the conservation and recreation programs planned by their governor will have to be abandoned because the Federal government won't come through with matching funds.

The American people should know that, even though we are supposed to have the money sitting in a trust fund, dangerous abandoned mine sites will not be reclaimed because that trust has been broken. Gutting conservation spending to fund a tax cut is short-sighted and cynical. Members need to come to this House floor during the debate on this legislation and tell the American people where they stand.

It appears that this administration and its friends in the Congress have thrown the keys to the Treasury off the continent, funding a war that we were not properly advised on its true cost. And now we are left with depleted funds for worthy and traditionally bipartisan programs, from roads and infrastructure, to our majestic parks and wildlife protection programs.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the pending measure.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, throughout this Nation, sites on Federal lands held sacred for religious purposes by Native Americans are being desecrated, often needlessly, by adverse developments. In response, I have introduced the ``Native American Sacred Lands Protection Act.'' This legislation would make the protection of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands a matter of Federal law and put into place a petition system that may lead to the designation of these sites as unsuitable for development.

Tex Hall, the President of the National Congress of American Indians, described this bill as protecting ``the essence of what Indian Country is.''

Unable to have this legislation considered under regular order and considering the immensity of the threat posed to these sacred sites, I am now offering an amendment that would simply prohibit the expenditure of funds made available under the pending legislation for activities which would adversely affect the physical integrity of sacred sites.

Long before my ancestors arrived on these shores, American Indians were the first stewards of this land. They respected the Earth, the water and the air. They understood that you take only what you need and leave the rest. They demonstrated that you do not desecrate that which is sacred.

Most Americans understand the reverence for the great Sistine Chapel or the United States Capitol. Too often, non-Indians have difficulty giving that same reference we give to our sacred places to a mountain, valley, stream or rock formation.

For example, Mount Shasta in California, considered the birthplace of the Earth and sacred to several California Indian tribes, is under threat by geothermal industries.

The Zuni Salt Lake in New Mexico, where tribal medicine men gather minerals for use in sacred ceremonies, is under constant threat by mining interests, as is the Huckleberry Patch in southern Oregon, which contains plants and berries essential to the Cow Creek Tribe.

In fact, I have received a letter from Sue Shaffer, Chairman of the Cow Creek Tribe, supporting this amendment of mine, in which she states, ``Given the traditional cultural, religious and subsistence significance of the Huckleberry Patch to the Cow Creek Tribe as vital to our identity as an Indian tribe, we appreciate your efforts in proposing an amendment which would protect Native American sacred sites on Federal lands from significant damage.''

Now, some may ask why a Congressman from West Virginia should care. I care because it is morally offensive for these religious sites to be destroyed. It is not the American way.

I care because the history of Appalachia is similar to the history of our treatment of the American Indian. Back in the days of rape, ruin and run, our lands were left as moonscapes and our forests were denuded as coal and timber was extracted and shipped out-of-state. Armed mercenaries stormed the homes of our coal miners, throwing women and children out in the cold. So I understand.

But I also understand that we have worked to reclaim our land, to address the legacy of acidified streams and ravaged landscapes, to take back the land and restore our homes and communities, that the history of the past should not be the prologue of the future.

Let that be so in Indian Country.

So today I stand here in common cause with those from Indian Country who are struggling to have their voices heard in this, the Capitol of the United States of America.

Today, let their voices be heard. Let their voices be heard above the roar of mining operations which threaten to sweep away sites that are sacred to them. Let their voices be heard above the din of drilling rigs which seek to desecrate their places of religious worship. Let their voices be heard above the babble of corporate greed which would sacrifice their lands and waters on the altar of profit and wealth.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the pending amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), in his charge that the amendment is too broadly drafted. He then referred to Executive Order 13007. That is the referenced executive order, of course, in my amendment.

In that executive order it clearly very narrowly defines what sacred site means. In Section 1, Subparagraph (b), number iii, ``Sacred site'' means any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on Federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe or Indian individual determined to be an appropriate authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the tribe or appropriate authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site.

So I think that is a pretty narrow definition of ``sacred site,'' as opposed to the broad charge leveled by the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.

In response to the assertion that the Indian tribes do not like legislative riders on an appropriations bill, the respected chairman himself has been calling this an amendment throughout his remarks. So it is a matter of who is offering what here as to how we describe it. I describe it as an amendment, as the gentleman has adequately described it. A rider is something that the gentleman does not favor.

So I think it has been properly described as an amendment, and I have already described the NCAI's position on this by the words that were written to both of us in regard to the substance itself.

In regard to the feeling that the gentleman does not know how this is going to be interpreted, my amendment is clearly the language of an executive order. An executive order is pretty clear. I have already outlined how that executive order defines sacred site.

As far as what it would affect, I can give the gentleman a site in his home State of California that would be affected by my amendment, and that is that the BLM could have said no to allowing a mining operation; under my amendment, under this executive order, that the BLM could have said not approved, that is, a plan of operations for a mining operation for the Quechan Indian Pass in California. That operation was allowed to proceed because my amendment was not in place protecting this sacred Indian site.

So I think, again, in response to the amendment, it is pretty clear as to what it would do, and an executive order has been issued in this regard; and that is what my amendment is.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the chairman is completely accurate. He has been fair. We have had a hearing on this, my introduced legislation. Several requests, however, following up to that hearing to move on the legislation, have thus far not been met with action. And I have no doubt that the chairman is sincere in what he has said, as he has been on a number of other issues on which we have worked together.

But I think the issue here is of such importance to Indian country, and it is much like going to church. This is sacred land for them. And I feel compelled to press this issue at this particular time in the form of an amendment, knowing full well that the chairman is completely honest in his words about following through at another time on my introduced legislation.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for his comments. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has given a perfect example of why my amendment is necessary. The gentleman worked it out in his State. I salute him. That is the way it should be. That is what the executive order is all about. But it is not being done like that everywhere else. The purpose of my amendment is to get that process working, exactly as the gentleman has said it has worked in his home State.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4513. It is understandable that there is some confusion among Members about a bill listed on the schedule as the Renewable Energy Siting Improvement Act. After all, H.R. 4513 was recently introduced on June 4 and has not had a single day of hearings or markup in the Committee on Resources. Surely such a noble sounding bill must have a reasonable approach to address real problems.

Sadly, that is not the case with H.R. 4513. If there were a truth-in- labeling requirement under the House rules, this bill should more accurately be called an Act to gut the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Not only is it unwise to fundamentally rewrite NEPA, one of our most important environmental laws, it is unnecessary. It is unwise because this bill would turn NEPA on its head by allowing Federal agencies to avoid considering alternatives to any renewable energy project. Under H.R. 4513, it is up or down. Take it or leave it. It is my way or the highway. The Federal agency must put blinders on, even if a proposed energy project is next to a school or a park and there are more desirable alternative locations.

It is also unwise because the public is given only 20 days to comment on the up or down option being promoted by the Federal agency. As a practical matter, this means that States, local governments and ordinary citizens will be effectively out of the process of Federal agency decision-making on energy project siting.

It is unnecessary because there is no compelling evidence that complying with NEPA has thwarted responsible development of renewable energy in the United States.

Of course, some renewable energy projects are controversial, including wind farms on the mountaintops in my home State of West Virginia, but they are not going to become less controversial if we shut the door on the local citizens as would the pending measure.

In essence, this bill would make Federal agencies more powerful but less well-informed and less accountable to the States and the public than is currently the case under NEPA. In days gone by, such radical legislation would have been derided as big government by the conservatives in this body, but today I fear that H.R. 4513 is only part of a broader assault on NEPA and the public process.

So, to my colleagues from coastal areas, beware. I say beware. Today, it is wind energy. Tomorrow, it could very well be offshore oil and gas leasing.

Voting for this bill today sets a precedent. Pending before us is a feel good bill that does nothing but damage public support for responsible development of renewable energy. Let us not toss NEPA to the wind. Reject H.R. 4513.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

First I join with my colleagues in welcoming the gentleman from Louisiana back to the Congress. We know he has been through quite a battle and our prayers and thoughts were with him. I am glad to see that his full vim and vigor and rhetorical flourishes are back with us as well, the Billy Tauzin of old. It is good to have the gentleman back.

Let me say in response to some of his comments as well as my distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, as my good chairman knows and all Members of the body, I come from a coal-producing region of this country. Southern West Virginia has some of the best coal in the world. That is not just a parochial statement. I say to the gentleman that I certainly support the clean coal technology that is in the energy bill, even though it is peanuts compared to the tax credits and all the other goodies the oil industry gets, which is the main reason for my opposition to that bill. Nevertheless, clean coal technology is good, but we need more than lip service paid to clean coal technology if we want to develop alternative sources of energy in this country.

And in response to the gentleman's question of what am I for, I am for producing that coal. I am for the advanced technologies that would turn coal into gas and liquid fuel. That is what we need, are credits, incentives, other vehicles that will make it attractive for industry to produce that alternative fuel from coal. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal in this world. It makes no sense that we do not put in true incentives for developing that coal. I myself quite honestly would rather see a surface coal mining project than a windmill farm. That can be effectively reclaimed. It produces jobs both in the initial mining and in the reclamation process and in some cases can even clean up our environment better than previous to the mining. It certainly can provide better job-creating opportunities in the long run, such as industrial parks, the flatland is such a premium in the terrain from which I come, and other related industry that comes from such a project.

This current bill by eliminating the public input, by speeding it up so quickly that the public does not have an adequate say in the approval or disapproval process, in my opinion, does not add one iota to improving and increasing our domestic energy supplies. That is my problem with this bill, is that it does run roughshod over that process and I do not see where it is necessary to change that process, because that process, in this gentleman's opinion, has not hampered our energy production in this country. I want to see our domestic sources of energy explored further so we can indeed produce energy that this country needs without reliance upon foreign sources.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I would respond to the gentleman, the biggest problem I have is eliminating alternatives that are available to a project. It is either, as I understand the bill, the developer's alternative or no alternative to a project. That in my opinion is more devastating than limiting the public input time to 20 days which, the gentleman is correct, is the time limit in the bill. That is the problem that I have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), a distinguished member of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), a valued member of our Committee on Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to several comments made on the other side and in further response to what I said earlier, it is not the fact that the majority is trying to eliminate completely the public comment phase of NEPA.

As I noted in my opening comments, they would limit that to 20 days, and I understand through the debate there is going to be an offer to extend that to 45 days; but that is not the main issue that we have tried to make on this side of the aisle.

The main issue is the fact that in the pending legislation, alternatives to renewable energy development would be eliminated. Take one example from my home State of West Virginia. If a developer comes in and wants to develop a wind farm on a beautiful mountain site in Pocahontas County, then the way this bill is constructed, there are only two alternatives. Either the developer's initial proposal accepted or rejected; or a rejection, no project at all.

There would be no process whereby alternative sites would be considered, whether for environmental or whether for economic or whether for social or whatever other reasons may come into play. The developer could not consider an alternative site maybe over another mountain ridge, because this pending bill, by wiping out the Federal agency's alternative to look at alternatives, strikes that completely; and that is the main reason that I am opposing this bill.

We have asked for sites from the majority, for examples of sites that have been delayed because of unnecessary NEPA regulations. The gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) finally came up with one site. She mentioned a windmill farm in the Cape Cod area, and I would like to respond by reading from the developer himself. This is from Dennis Duffy, the vice president of regulatory affairs for the Cape Wind Associates, as quoted in the Cape Cod Times, when he said, ``The Cape Wind, the developer in this case, fully agrees with the Federal authority that offshore commercial activity should be based on a full and fair review of proposed developments, including consideration of human, economic, social, and environmental factors as well as other potential uses of the seas.''

He went on, ``The ongoing review of the Cape Wind project is proceeding in full compliance with the provisions of both NEPA and the Coastal Zone Management Act and specifically includes the preparation of comprehensive EIS and the consideration of alternative project locations.''

So the example cited by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), I submit, is not one that calls for the gutting of NEPA.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is unnecessary. The proponents have failed to produce projects that have been held up that would call for the enactment of this legislation.

In addition, there have been charges from the other side that politics come into play on this legislation. Well, I am kind of shocked. The last I checked, they are in control of the agenda in this body. Our side is not in control of that agenda. The last time I checked, this is part of an energy message week, originally scheduled for last week but postponed until this week. And I dare say that a few of the bills on the agenda in this body this week, while no doubt will pass, will never see the light of day in the other body because more reasoned and judgmental Members will make decisions thereupon.

So I think that is a false charge and one that should never have been brought up in the first place.

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

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

I guess the Speaker was calling into question my describing the other body as the reason?

No. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on this side. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, although not in opposition to the amendment, I wish to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the gentleman from California's amendment clarifying the obvious fact that oil and gas and coal are not renewable energy sources.

I do not think though that this is the end of the attempts to expand NEPA exemptions, and I urge those concerned about the integrity of coastal areas to remain vigilant. I would note, however, that even with this amendment, the pending legislation could be construed as providing NEPA exemptions to the construction of new hydropower dams on rivers and it could apply to incinerators using garbage or other waste products.

As I read the text, the exemptions in this bill include hydropower and incinerators which general power. As the gentleman from California is well aware, siting of dams and incinerators are very controversial matters and it is important, I believe, that the public knows what we are doing here on the floor today to their rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, the latest edition of Business Week notes that ``$2 a gallon gasoline have given the oil companies a Mississippi River of cash flow.''

Big oil is reeling in profit, reaching deep into the pockets of Americans at the pump. What happens in response? Today, the Republican majority wants to reward them with billions of dollars of tax breaks and directed spending that will not improve our energy situation one iota.

Indeed, this past February the Energy Information Administration performed an assessment of the pending legislation. It examined the billions in offshore oil and gas royalty relief and various tax credits in this bill and concluded that ``the impact on total primary energy consumption is small.''

That is not me saying that. That is the administration's own Energy Information Administration. So what is the purpose here today? What is the purpose in resurrecting this bloated bill on the floor?

The fact of the matter is that there is little in the way of relief for Americans at the gas pump in this bill. Adding insult to injury, the legislation would gouge them even further through a whole host of taxpayer subsidies to energy producers. This is misguided relief. It is not for the consumers. It is not for the consumers, but it is for the multinational corporations drilling for oil and gas in Federal Gulf of Mexico waters by granting them a taxpayer subsidized royalty holiday. They get to drill and the taxpayers foot the bill by foregoing royalty payments.

An unwarranted drilling incentive at a time of high energy prices, a staggering budget deficit, and the yet unknown full cost of conducting the war in Iraq. In fact, this legislation contains so many royalty reductions and kickbacks that the Treasury stands to lose a mint. There are royalty holidays for deep water wells, shallow water/deep wells and marginal wells, none of which I might add will do anything to enhance our energy security as evidenced by the Energy Information Administration's own assessment.

There is no wonder that newspapers in my congressional district editorialize against this bill. The Bluefield Daily Telegraph, for example, noted, ``The bill was ill-conceived and would reach deep into the pockets of West Virginians without providing any benefits to the State.''

The Huntington Herald Dispatch took issue with the provision in this bill that would put Appalachian and Midwestern mined coal at a competitive disadvantage to Western coal. And the newspaper is right on target in that respect.

The pending legislation would hurt the majority of coal producing regions and in other respects pays lip service to our most abundant domestic source of energy. According to CBO, of the close to $26 billion in tax breaks in this bill only $2.5 billion of that is for coal;

and this $2.5 billion is for clean coal technology applications. Yet there is a nationwide cap of 6,000 megawatts. That is peanuts. It is comparable to the annual energy output of the Grand Coulee Dam.

In fact, on a per capita basis, Mr. Speaker, Home Depot does better in this bill than the entire coal industry when you consider the $48 million that it would receive for not having to pay tariffs on ceiling fans. This is an energy bill?

I urge a no vote on the pending measure and urge that this body get serious about devising a national energy policy that takes into account all of our energy sources and our consumers' complaints.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be yielded to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for purposes of control.

Offered By: Mr. Rahall

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

title), insert the following new title:

Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan wrote an indelible chapter in America's and in the World's history. As our Country mourns his loss, our prayers go out to Mrs. Reagan and his family, and our future will long hold to the lessons of his public service.

It is the lesson of public service that defined our 40th President's life that also defines the good work of West Virginia's National Guard. And, as our former President lies-in-state at the Nation's Capitol I will be honoring his legacy with the West Virginia's finest as they help Southern West Virginians recover from another round of devastating floods.

As our Nation is mourning President Reagan's loss, many West Virginians are rebuilding their homes and their lives, as again last week, West Virginia bore the brunt of Mother Nature's wrath. But, as we always have done, we will join together and move forward once again.

Recent storms produced flooding throughout my home State of West Virginia, and joined with Governor Wise in requesting that President Bush issue a federal major disaster declaration. Tuesday, June 8, 2004, President Bush honored that request declaring the State of West Virginia a federal disaster area, and making residents of Boone, Braxton, Cabell, Calhoun, Clay, Fayette, Gilmer, Jackson, Kanawha, Lewis, Lincoln, Logan, Mason, McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Nicholas, Putnam, Raleigh, Roane, Wayne, Webster, Wirt, and Wyoming Counties eligible for federal assistance to help them pick up the pieces.

This week as America honors President Reagan in our Nation's Capital, I will be in Southern West Virginia with our coalfield residents as we pick up the pieces and move forward. I have already seen some of the damage first hand, and I was in Mingo and Logan Counties last week when members of the West Virginia National Guard, fresh off their tour of duty in Iraq and overseas, arrived to help Southern West Virginians start putting their lives back together.

Moving forward, after such losses, is never easy. The old saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither were the homes and towns that were washed away by the torrents of recent rains. It will take more than a day to build them back. But the West Virginia National Guard will help the steadfast residents of those counties pick up the pieces so they can rebuild their houses, businesses, and lives as quickly as possible.

The destruction caused by flooding in Southern West Virginia over the past few years has been unprecedented, and the relief should equal the need. Just as these heroes in uniform returned from the dry sands of the Iraqi desert, they were called to help out the waterlogged residents of Southern West Virginia.

In West Virginia, our people always band together to help their fellow man, and our National Guard is displaying the genuineness of this testament. All of those who have joined in the help, we want to thank them. With God's help, we will make it through this. Again.

Mr. Speaker, as many have already stated, and as many more Members are eager to express, Charlie Johnson's departure will be a loss to this great institution we serve, and which Charlie has served so well for an amazing 40 years.

While a tremendous amount has changed in this country, and in this House, over the last 40 years, one thing that has remained constant is Charlie's dedicated service to this great institution.

Throughout his tenure, Charlie has been a wise counselor, a trusted confidant, and an impartial adjudicator who has served both parties without pride or prejudice. He has served seven Speakers, and he has served each of them--and each of us--admirably.

For those who don't readily grasp the significance of the role of Parliamentarian, it is the Parliamentarian who makes sure that we can continue to conduct the House's business every hour of every day.

Those visiting, or watching at home on C-Span, may understand the importance of the House Parliamentarian as Members come and go from the Speaker's Chair. When they see Members in the Chair making procedural decisions, they also see the Parliamentarian's staff providing helpful advice on a timely basis.

For those of us who serve in the House, the Parliamentarian is an absolute lifeline. He's also the occasional judge, father confessor, and calm in the storm of the House floor as Members and parties seek to advance their own interests.

Although it seems that we increasingly can't find ourselves in agreement on many things, too many things for that matter, one thing that is beyond dispute is that Charlie has embodied the ideal of the civil servant who tirelessly has served the interests of the American people.

I, like so many others, am proud to have served with him.

Mr. Speaker, as far as we can remember, we have dreamed of reaching the stars. Since its inception in 1958, NASA has helped us realize those dreams. They have taken us into space, placed Americans on the moon, and opened our eyes by exceeding feats once deemed unreachable.

Today, I want to congratulate Mount View Middle School, located in Welch, West Virginia, for being selected to participate in the NASA Explorer School Program. As the first school in West Virginia to be chosen for this prestigious and exciting educational adventure, I am pleased that many of our children in Southern West Virginia will have the opportunity to be exposed to the world of science and engineering in a new and exciting way.

We must focus attention on our future astronauts, scientists, and engineers who will take us even farther than we dare to dream today. They are our children and our students, and with them our hope rests. We must nurture them and give them the resources they need to advance their studies; enhancing their learning and expanding their opportunities so that when it is their time to shine not even the darkest day will dim their light.

The NASA Explorer School Program will help train our math and science teachers and school administrators, for it is our teachers that can provide the spark that ignites our passion, and they lay the basic foundations of education necessary for the success of our future expeditions into space. Advancing the knowledge and skills of our teachers will only improve the development of our students.

The benefits of engaging and educating children in the world of science and engineering cannot be overstated. Programs such as the NASA Explorer Schools Program enable our students to explore these important subjects at a level and intensity that they might not otherwise experience. I once again congratulate Mount View Middle School for being selected to participate in this exciting program, and I look forward to hearing about their related successes.

With the impending challenges ahead, not only today but for generations to come, can we afford not to be ready? By ensuring that our students, our future NASA scientists and engineers, are well prepared for the trials ahead, we can ensure that our future in the skies is as bright as the stars above.

The future of NASA is the future of man. And, as we look toward our future we are reminded of the words of William Faulkner when he said, ``I believe that man will not merely endure. He will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance.''

Mr. Speaker, as many have already stated, and as many more Members are eager to express, Charlie Johnson's departure will be a loss to this great institution we serve, and which Charlie has served so well for 22 years.

I am actually one of the few Members of the House who can say I was already here before Charlie was, although he arrived here within only a couple of short years after I did. Since that time, we've had the opportunity to grow older together.

Throughout his tenure, Charlie has been a wise counselor, a trusted confidant, and an impartial adjudicator who has served both parties without pride or prejudice.

For those who don't readily grasp the significance of the role of Parliamentarian, it is the Parliamentarian who makes sure that we can continue to conduct the House's business every hour of every day.

Those visiting, or watching at home on C-SPAN, may understand the importance of the House Parliamentarian as Members come and go from the Speaker's Chair. When they see Members in the Chair making procedural decisions, they also see the Parlimentarian's staff providing helpful advice on a timely basis.

For those of us who serve in the House, the Parliamentarian is an absolute lifeline. He's also the occasional judge, father confessor, and calm in the storm of the House floor as Members and parties seek to advance their own interests.

Although it seems that we increasingly can't find ourselves in agreement on many things, too many things for that matter, one thing that is beyond dispute is that Charlie has embodied the ideal of the civil servant who tirelessly has served the interests of the American people.

I, like so many others, am proud to have served with him.