Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, an article in today's Washington Post, entitled ``Bush's Handling of Gas Costs Criticized'' by Jonathan Weisman, reports that not only Democrats, but also the President and Vice-President's former associates in the oil and gas industry are growing more critical of the Administration's inaction and lack of attention to the rising cost of gasoline. ``The average guy on the street is getting killed because this administration does not care,'' said John Meade Huntsman, founder of the largest privately held chemicals manufacturing corporation in the U.S.

While I did not hold high hopes for the Bush Administration in general, I certainly thought that with two former oil executives running the country, the one thing they could get right would be the supply of affordable gasoline. But instead, America is heading into a long, hot summer of higher prices for the gasoline we use to get to work and to go on vacation. After all, this was an issue George W. Bush promised to make a high priority during his 2000 campaign for the presidency.

But, apparently, as with so many other promises, the President did not mean what he said about meeting the needs of Americans who depend on affordable gas prices to find work, get to work and provide for their families.

In March of this year, according to the American Automobile Association, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in West Virginia had increased to $1.72. At that time, I asked Attorney General John Ashcroft and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to launch an immediate investigation into whether price fixing is the cause behind skyrocketing gasoline prices. Now, less than 2 months later, the price has risen 27-cents to an average price of $1.99. One year ago, the average price was $1.54--that's a 50-cent increase over the last 12 months. This steep jump in price is severely affecting my constituents in West Virginia. Today, I add my voice to Senator Robert C. Byrd's request that the Federal Trade Commission review whether consumers are being unfairly squeezed.

So far, the Administration has done precious little to address the surge in oil prices. This past week, the price of oil reached a 13-year high. And these prices will continue to rise as fears and uncertainties rise over the Administration's ill-planned ``regime change'' in Iraq. Members of Congress have called on the Administration to suspend delivery of oil in-kind to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and to bring greater pressure to bear on OPEC to increase oil supplies.

These near-term actions would have some beneficial effect. In the end, however, the Nation requires a serious, workable energy strategy. As Ranking member of the Resources Committee, I can say with confidence that neither the House nor the Senate has developed such legislation. Despite the President's continued call for an energy bill, his Energy Information Administration has concluded that a number of the provisions in the energy bills currently before Congress will have only a negligible effect on energy production, consumption or prices.

Certainly, there is a serious need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources. However, enacting legislation to open the ANWR or other environmentally-sensitive areas in the Rocky Mountains is not the answer. Instead, we should focus our efforts on developing alternative fuels and strategies. For instance, with an increased investment in energy efficiency, we can meet more of our transportation and other needs through the development of coal, renewable and other resources.

Mr. Speaker, as we remember those who sacrificed their lives for our Nation on this Memorial Day, let us remember that daily we reap the benefits of the bravery of America's veterans. They have been our liberties' steadfast defenders.

Soon hundreds of thousands of World War II veterans will gather on the National Mall to help dedicate the newest Memorial commemorating their heroic service to our country and

honoring their fellow soldiers who gave their lives defending our freedom. The WWII Memorial recognizes and celebrates the sacrifices and unfailing loyalty that veterans demonstrated for America.

However, it has been more than sixty years since the United States joined the war efforts, yet the promises that our government initially made to the brave men and women who put their lives on the line in fighting in the Second World War are being endangered by the hacking away at the veterans' budget. They were promised health care. Most of all, they were guaranteed that their Nation would not turn a blind eye to their future needs. However, these promises have been dulled and slowed, and more and more of our World War II veterans are quietly slipping away, never to know what could have been if their government had fulfilled their promise.

We still have time to correct this injustice and to take care of our World War II veterans before it is too late. Our Nation needs to move further in a direction that allows us to reward our veterans for their sacrifices they have made, wherever and whenever they made it. Our veterans and our soldiers today remain foremost in the thoughts and minds of Americans, and along with our devoted attention given to those who wear America's uniform. Without our veterans, there would be no America, and time and time again, our veterans put the life of their country before their own. It is time that their country finally rewards them for the unfailing dedication each has demonstrated throughout their lifetime.

Mr. Speaker, without our veterans, there would be no America. As we remember those who sacrificed their lives for our Nation, let us remember that daily we reap the benefits of the bravery of America's veterans.

However, despite these sacrifices, our veterans continue to fight against this Administration for the benefits that they were initially promised every day. At the same time, we have continuously seen the VA budget slashed, giving fewer and fewer veterans the ability to receive the much needed assistance they were once guaranteed.

At the very least, our veterans, the brave men and women who put the life of their country before their own, should have access to health care facilities that meet their needs. However, we are now seeing critical hospitals closed, and often times they are the only option that our veterans have, especially in rural areas such as my district in Southern West Virginia. The Beckley VAMC in my district was fortunately spared from closing, however, others were not so lucky, and if current trend continues, it will only be time until the real possibility of closing looms near again.

Instead of closing these much needed facilities and cutting benefits once promised to our veterans, we should be modernizing hospitals, expanding benefits currently offered to our service men and women, and continuing to ensure that we show these brave Americans our gratitude for their service every single day. Our Nation needs to move further in a direction that allows us to reward our veterans for their sacrifices they have made, wherever and whenever they made it.

Our veterans and soldiers today remain foremost in the thoughts and minds and Americans, and along with our devoted attention given to those who wear America's uniform. If we continue to create more and more veterans everyday, especially through recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, then this government needs to be prepared to follow through on the promise that their government will be there to take care of them. Each life is invaluable; let's ensure that we demonstrate our support and appreciation for what our veterans have done for America.

Mr. Speaker, an article on the front page of the May 11, 2004, Washington Post entitled, ``All Quiet On the House Side,'' by Charles Babington, contrasts ``the burgeoning scandal over U.S. treatment of Iraqi prisoners and persistent concerns about the economy and the deficit'' with the seemingly limitless lack of concern for meaningful action here in the House on any significant issue. This comes as no surprise to me or, evidently, Mr. Babington.

``The House's lean schedule is no accident. GOP leaders who set the agenda and floor schedule say they achieved most of their top priorities last year and are content to rest on their laurels through the election.''

For this reason, a great number of important issues lay by the wayside, collecting dust, while we convene in brief, three-day sessions to tackle the not-so-weighty issues of naming federal post offices, or designating days, weeks, or months to such non-controversial subjects such as ``Financial Integrity.''

A perfect example of an opportunity squandered by the Republican leadership is the total lack of attention being given to the need to reform this country's antiquated mining laws.

As many of my colleagues know, I have fought to reform the General Mining Law of 1872 for the past 17 years, and along with Representatives Shays and Inslee, continue to work on behalf of the taxpayer to ensure proper reimbursement for the natural riches mining companies extract from our public lands for the cost of a fast-food cheeseburger. Our bill, H.R. 2141, deserves consideration by the House Resources Committee, yet no hearings have been scheduled.

This is not going unnoticed by the public. On Monday, May 10, 2004, the Environmental Working Group released a new interactive report, located at www.ewg.org/mining, that shows how international and domestic mining companies have taken control of 9.3 million acres of public western lands under the archaic Mining Law of 1872. On the day following its release, three Western newspapers ran articles focused on local problems resulting from the mining industry's control of Western public lands:

``Group raises red flag over old mining law'' by Michael Doyle, Modesto Bee.

``Once public land goes private'' by Robert McClure, The Seattle Times.

``Bargain-priced mining claims abound in West, figures show. Report: 5.6 million acres staked out under 1872 law'' by Mike Soraghan, The Denver Post.

H.R. 2141 does not deal with coal, or oil and gas. These energy minerals, if located on Federal lands, are leased by the government, and a royalty is charged. Further, Mining Law reform does not deal with private lands. The scope of the Mining Law of 1872 and legislation to reform it is limited to hardrock minerals such as gold, silver, lead and zinc on Federal lands in the Western States.

H.R. 2141 would prohibit the continued give-away of public lands. It would require that a holding fee be paid for the use of the land, and that a royalty be paid on the production of valuable minerals extracted from these Federal lands. And, it would require industry to comply with some basic reclamation standards.

The American public deserves a fair return from the gold, silver and other hardrock minerals produced from public lands and the hard rock mining industry should be required to meet the same environmental standards that all other extractive industries meet. As our distinguished Minority Whip, Rep. Steny Hoyer, noted on the floor today, ``Our constituents did not send us here to pretend to legislate. They sent us here to solve problems and fulfill our duty.''

It is time, well past time, that Congress replace the 1872 Mining Law with one that reflects our values and goals. Please contact the Resources Committee Democratic staff if you would like to co-sponsor this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my most heartfelt welcome to President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, President of Tunisia, on his visit to the U.S. on February 18, 2004. President Ben Ali has been an unstinting friend and ally in the war on terror. Thereby, he has maintained and nurtured an alliance between the U.S. and Tunisia that has existed for over two centuries, dating back to the Treaty of Peace of 1797.

It has been the hallmark of the Honorable Ben Ali's tenure as President of Tunisia, to institute meaningful and lasting reforms in several spheres. President Ben Ali has taken the lead role in the region as a consistent and ardent supporter of women's rights. His reform endeavors carry over into the area of economic modernization under the auspices of ambitious educational reform and investment in technology and infrastructure. The great people of West Virginia can certainly appreciate these advancements as they themselves continue to spearhead similar ventures through top-notch technology training institutes and initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I am honored to welcome His Excellency President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali on his visit to the United States in order to meet with President Bush.

Mr. Speaker, Lewisburg, one of West Virginia's proudest attractions known for its history, beauty and hospitality, offers a bit of everything for those seeking attractive destination spots to visit, and recently, the National Trust for Historic Preservation named Lewisburg one of its Dozen Distinctive Destinations.

The City of Lewisburg is a cultural and artistic center in West Virginia. Downtown Lewisburg is designated as an historical district, with many of its buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and the city has won acclaim as one of the best small-town arts centers in America. History buffs, theatre goers, music lovers, shoppers and fine diners alike can delight in Lewisburg. It is no wonder why West Virginia holds its annual State Fair on the outskirts of this splendid city.

Just down the road from Lewisburg is the world-famous Greenbrier Resort, a source of pride for every Southern West Virginian, and so important nationally that for years it was intended to be the American government's home away from home.

The recognition of Lewisburg by the National Trust for Historic Preservation is a great honor bestowed upon one of West Virginia's best kept treasures. West Virginians have always known the beauty, the history and the draw of Lewisburg. It was just a matter of time before the rest of the world took notice.

Lewisburg is a prime example of the best West Virginia has to offer. Our countryside is filled with historic treasures, grand vistas, wild whitewater, towering mountain ridges, and numerous trails that cater to horseback riders, ATV users, hikers and bikers. Travelers and tourists can find a cornucopia of activities and adventures across Southern West Virginia, as we offer attractions that appeal to a wide variety of interests and tastes.

Today, as more Americans than ever are looking for exciting, yet safe, places to vacation, and West Virginia, my home State, has become even more attractive as a destination to many adventurists and vacationers alike. Half the people in the whole country live within 250 miles of the Mountain State, making it an easy day's drive for all who wish to visit.

Mr. Speaker, on January 8, 1959, Robert C. Byrd, my friend and mentor, cast his first vote in the U.S. House of Representative. Today, he cast his 17,000th vote in the U.S. Senate. I was with him on the Senate floor for this historic occasion.

This is a singular achievement. One that reveals not only the dedication of the Senior Senator from my home State of West Virginia, but also his willingness to put into action the words he so eloquently articulates on the floor on the U.S. Senate.

Though many will say, and I agree, that there is not a better speaker today than Senator Byrd, he is not a man of talk, he is a man of action, as this milestone indicates.

With each vote, Senator Byrd sets a new mark of public service achievement, but as Senator Byrd said himself, ``It isn't necessarily the quantity of the votes that count. It is the quality of the vote.''

And, if a Senator were to cast but a lone vote in a senatorial tenure as short as a moment, the words of Robert C. Byrd on the floor of the U.S. Senate will still ring out loudly, clearly, and forthrightly to generations with time, ``(w)e are, at one and the same time, the sons of sires who sleep in calm assurance that we will not betray the trust that they confided to our hands; and the sires of sons who wait confident, in the beyond, that we will not cheat them of their birthright.''

Indeed, we honor cherish and learn from those generations before us and we must always live, work, and strive on behalf of those generations yet unborn.

I agree with Senator Byrd. It is the quality of the vote, and I would also add another. With Senator Byrd, it is the quality of the man.

With his steadfast service to the people of West Virginia, and his dogged defense of the U.S. Constitution, Senator Byrd's quality shines through like the brightest of beacons on the darkest of nights.

They say that records are made to be broken, but I believe this record will never be broken, just as nothing will ever break Senator Byrd's spirit and his love for his State.

Senator Byrd continues to be my mentor and most importantly my friend, and I would like to offer my heart felt congratulations to Senator Byrd for this remarkable achievement.

Mr. Speaker, my home State of West Virginia chose a representation of the New River Gorge Bridge to decorate the new West Virginia commemorative quarter to be issued next year by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

The New River Gorge Bridge resides close to my home in Southern West Virginia. It symbolizes West Virginia's beauty, ingenuity, hard work, and our peoples' determination to do what many deem the impossible.

Until recently, the New River Gorge Bridge was the longest single arch bridge in the world. Today, it is only surpassed by the Lupu Bridge recently built in Shanghai, China, but it is not surpassed in the eyes and hearts of West Virginians and those who look upon it.

The New River Gorge is the sun around which West Virginia's ever- expanding numbers of tourism initiatives revolve. It is the Grand Canyon of the east--one of America's oldest and most spectacular natural wonders. More Americans--indeed, more people from all around the world--discover our New River Gorge every year.

I have spent a career protecting the New River Gorge. The bridge and the river are not only nationally acclaimed recreation destinations; they also generate jobs and contribute greatly to Southern West Virginia's economy.

Construction began on the New River Gorge Bridge in June of 1974, and was opened for the public's use on October 22, 1977. The enormous undertaking, and breathtaking result reduced a forty-minute drive down windy mountain roads to a one-minute trip over one of the world's greatest tourist attractions.

On the third Saturday of each October the New River Gorge Bridge is open to pedestrians, where hundreds of thousands of people get to walk the span of the bridge and enjoy a number of events, arts, and crafts. Some brave outdoor enthusiasts also use this day to parachute from the center of the bridge to the river basin 876 feet below. This day is referred to as ``Bridge Day,'' and it is a day that brings people from all over the world to Southern West Virginia.

The New River Gorge Bridge represents what is best about West Virginia, our breathtaking natural beauty, and our people's skill and ingenuity. It is fitting that the New River Gorge Bridge was chosen to represent my home State in the commemorative coin series, and it is truly ``Wild and Wonderful'' news.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to quote the words of President Dwight Eisenhower, the father of our, Highway Trust Fund, who rightly said ``A network of modern roads is as necessary to defense as it is to our national economy and personal safety.'' President Eisenhower's words ring as true now as they did then.

Traditionally, the Transportation bill has been free from partisan differences. We have an old saying on the Transportation Committee, ``There are no Republican bridges, no Democratic bridges, just America's bridges.''

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this year, the bill has fallen victim to political differences--within the divided Republican Party. Even though we've had enough support to pass the bill since last year, the divided Republican Party has held up passage of this bill for months. The President opposes Congressional Republicans from both the House and the Senate. House Republicans are divided against each other. The President has even gone against his own Department of Transportation.

House Republicans go along with the President on tax cuts, a Medicare bill with an uncertain price tag, and funding infrastructure in Iraq. And, then he publicly belittles their transportation spending efforts by calling the highway bill an ``entitlement.''

The division within the Republican Party also extends to their traditional allies in the business community. The President opposes the bill because he claims it spends too much. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it might oppose the bill because it doesn't spend enough.

I hope that when we get to conference with the Senate, we increase the level of funding--as the majority of Members from both parties want. When we get to conference we also need to maintain several key protections that are in this bill.

To ensure that adequate funding is available across our National network, this bill guarantees each State a minimum rate of return equaling 90.5 percent of each dollar invested in the Highway Trust Fund. Each State is also guaranteed a minimum apportionment in funds.

But now, some States want to turn back the clock to some sort of Articles of Confederation, and keep the gas tax money for themselves. Doing so would rip apart the very fabric that binds our Nation together: our surface transportation system.

Many of those same States also want to alter the proposed scope of the minimum guarantee program, which will penalize States whose needs are regional, or even national, in scope. An error in the Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriations is already costing my State $20 million in badly needed highway funds. Altering the proposed scope of the Minimum Guarantee program, now, would only worsen this situation.

I supported H.R. 3550 months ago, with its equitable minimum guarantee program. I don't support making dramatic changes in the bill, now, after supporting the underlying bill for months.

It is important to bear in mind what President Eisenhower understood: that our transportation system is an integrated, coordinated, national network. It seamlessly crosses State borders regardless of the differences within those States, as the business community clearly understands. To be truly national, it must address measurable needs nationwide--taking into account the greater difficulty some States have at roadbuilding, or the greater needs some States have for transit.

Mr. Chairman, I come from West Virginia--one of the most difficult States for constructing highways. Transportation in--and through--my State is critical not just to West Virginians, but also to trucks, tourists, and commuters from other States.

And, if you cut equitable funding for highways this time, what will prevent cuts next time to the mass transit funding that States such as Illinois, New Jersey and California depend upon?

Just like other national programs where West Virginians' tax dollars go to help other States--such as the location of defense bases, or the Farm program--some contribute more than they get back.

That is appropriate. You can't drive across Mickey Mouse roads when you're traveling crosscountry to see Mickey, himself.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, on Friday, the President of the United States will be in my congressional district talking about jobs and the economy. Unfortunately, although I was invited, and I appreciate that, I will not be with the President because I will be here in the Halls of Congress working on a bill that very vitally affects jobs and the economy, this transportation and infrastructure legislation.

I commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar) and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking subcommittee member, for the hard work that they have put in on this legislation.

Jobs and the economy. That is what this is about. This legislation is the quickest way to put American working men and women back to work. For every $1 billion invested in our Nation's infrastructure, we are talking about 46,500 good paying jobs, not hamburger-flipping jobs; we are talking about good-paying jobs for our economy.

The $318 billion passed in the Senate bill, the $275 billion pending in this legislation is not sufficient to do the job. The President's own Department of Transportation has said that $375 billion is what is necessary just to, quote, ``maintain current economic growth.''

So if I were in my congressional district tomorrow with the President of the United States, I would say, Mr. President, would you please just allow us in the House of Representatives to maintain current economic growth and allow us to go to the $375 billion spending level for this bill. That makes economic sense. It makes just and fair legislation.

And I think that is what the American people want. If this were money that we are talking about, a difference here of several billion, unfortunately if it were money going to rebuild Iraq, perhaps it would sail through this body without any Presidential veto threats. But this is money that we are talking about to go here in America, putting Americans back to work, spending money on infrastructure in America, which is not any pork spending, it is not an entitlement; but it is an investment in America's future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my capacity as the ranking Democrat of the Committee on Resources to support H. Con. Res. 364; recognizing more than five decades of strategic partnership between the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the United States.

Historically, the Committee on Resources held oversight jurisdiction of the former Trust Territory of the Marshall Islands when the United States first took responsibility for the islands and her people shortly after World War II as part of a United Nations trusteeship agreement.

Though we prevailed in war, our country was still healing from the pain and suffering associated with battle. Yet we were mindful that the security of our Nation, and that of the world, depended on our understanding of the destructive nature of our nuclear arsenal.

It is within this context that the people of the Marshall Islands made a sacrifice that is unimaginable for us Americans. On islands where their ancestry could be traced back thousands of years; where their culture flourished, and where they lived in relative peace; the people having been convinced it was ``for the good of mankind'' voluntarily left their homes.

On military ships we loaded their canoes and personal belongings and moved them hundreds of miles away to other islands, safe from nuclear fallout.

Our nuclear testing program commenced and lasted for twelve years, between 1946 and 1958. Within that time, we detonated 67 nuclear devices. One of the 67, detonated on March 1, 1954, in the Bikini Atoll, was the largest ever explosion to occur. Code-named BRAVO, the hydrogen bomb was 1,000 times greater than the weapon used against Japan in 1945.

Shifting winds in the Marshall Islands caused those that were placed out of harm's way to be exposed to nuclear fallout. We have continuing responsibilities for their care and rehabilitation. We continue to work with the Marshall Islands government to resolve issues of healthcare, environmental remediation, and eventual resettlement of atolls still contaminated by nuclear fallout.

After the U.S. nuclear testing program, we continued to assist the trust territory in their political, economic, and social development, consistent with the United Nations trusteeship agreement.

In the mid-1980's, in an act of self-determination, the Marshall Islands chose to become a sovereign nation in free association with the United States. This political partnership fulfilled the U.N. trusteeship agreement and built upon the relationship established during the trust territory period. It continues to this day.

In November of last year, Congress continued our Nation's relationship with the Marshall Islands by approving amendments to our existing Compact relationship. The term of the amended Compacts is for the next 20 years. However, given our history, I imagine that our political partnership will outlive such timeline.

We may never fully understand the personal hardships our nuclear testing program caused to the people of the Marshall Islands, and more specifically those directly affected communities from the atolls of Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap, and Utrok.

And we should always remember the sacrifices made by the good people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands to strengthen our Nation and make the world more secure.

I thank Chairman Pombo for working with me to recognize the U.S. relationship with the Marshall Islands and to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the BRAVO test with this resolution. I also thank the Committee on International Relations for expediting this resolution so that it could be considered by the House.

I urge all my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 364.

Madam Speaker, I rise in my capacity as the ranking Democrat of the Resources Committee to join in honoring Luis A. Ferre.

In 1967, a young man named Luis Ferre set out an agenda for his home island which has transformed the political landscape of Puerto Rico. The modern day pro-Puerto Rico statehood movement began with Luis Ferre and his efforts in forming the New Progressive Party.

Today we take the opportunity to honor the life on Don Luis Ferre, a veneration bestowed by the people of Puerto Rico.

Don Luis died at the age of 99. Having been an engineer, businessman, politician, pianist, and philanthropist, it is no wonder that he has been described as a renaissance man.

Born shortly after the United States gained possession of Puerto Rico from Spain, he was raised both in Puerto Rico and the United States mainland. After receiving his high school degree in Morristown, NJ, he pursued undergraduate studies in engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Before leaving MIT, Don Luis would earn a master's degree in electrical engineering. He returned to Puerto Rico thereafter to help build up the family business.

In 1937, Don Luis founded the Ponce Public Library. His love for education and the arts continued to mark major accomplishments in

his life when in 1950 he established a foundation in his own name. The Luis A. Ferre Foundation would result in the creation of the Ponce Museum of Art, regarded as a world-class repository for the classics and for Puerto Rican culture.

In 1967, following a political status plebiscite where the choice of ``statehood'' received 39 percent of votes cast, Don Luis, an ardent and impassioned believer in Puerto Rico becoming the fifty-first State of the Union, established the New Progressive Party.

The following year, running on a platform promoting statehood, Don Luis was elected Governor of Puerto Rico.

After serving one-term, Don Luis worked to strengthen his party and Puerto Rico. He continued to advocate statehood and promoted American democracy in the region. His words and actions inspired many Puerto Rican leaders of today. Former Governor Pedro Rosello and our former colleague Carlos Romero-Barcelo are but two of the notables who benefited from the path which Don Luis blazed.

In 1991, his life's work, as a visionary and public servant, was awarded with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Don Luis Ferre was a stateman in the highest regard. His ideas and leadership were respected by all political parties and their leaders. His passing brought about mourning throughout Puerto Rico and for the tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans living in the United States mainland.

Don Luis Ferre was a lover of American democracy. He was a believer in making lives better, especially those in those in his home of Puerto Rico. In my view, Congress has an obligation to provide an opportunity for the 3.9 million people of Puerto Rico to achieve Don Luis's dream of membership in our Union if they so desire it.

It is an honor for me to honor him.

I encourage all my colleagues to support H. Res. 433, and I thank my colleague Mr. Serrano for his effort to have this considered on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Fiscal Year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill. I will vote in favor of this bill because it includes federal funding for a great number of very worthwhile projects in my district of southern West Virginia, many of which I personally sought and others that were provided by the esteemed senior Senator from my state, West Virginia's great champion, Senator Robert C. Byrd.

On my account, these projects include funding for technological infrastructure in a historically underserved area, transportation planning and congestion relief funding, funding to help educate the blind, federal assistance for wastewater treatment, and maritime safety training dollars for port security.

In addition, it is with tremendous gratitude for his efforts that West Virginia thanks Senator Byrd for providing much-needed funding of projects such as a road building effort that will enable veterans to access their medical center. He also provided funding for our universities and colleges, funding for economic revitalization efforts, and federal dollars for a great number of other worthwhile endeavors.

However, I cast my vote with great misgivings.

As a result of White House meddling, this bill recklessly strips overtime protection provisions that a tremendous majority of Americans favor and that overwhelmingly passed both the House and the Senate. To do the President's bidding on behalf of his big corporate friends, the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate made sure in this bill that the Department of Labor can gut more than 60 years of worker protections.

As a result of White House meddling, this bill unwisely fails to fund the No Child Left Behind initiative while actually even cutting many programs such as teacher quality grants, technology grants, safe and drug-free schools, and reading first grants.

As a result of White House meddling, this bill unfairly freezes funding for child care and wrongly imposes more stringent work requirements for parents receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

There are also a host of other shortcomings and deficiencies in this bill.

But this is what happens when the Republican leadership of the House and Senate fail once again to complete their Constitutionally-required appropriations bills in a timely manner. A bunch of different bills get rolled into one rather than being considered individually on their respective merits. Then, the White House threatens, as it did here, to veto the entire bill, which would leave many federal agencies without funds and therefore leave many needy people without protection, unless the President once again gets exactly what he and his rich friends want.

Mr. Speaker, recently U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D- W.Va., received the prestigious ``Freedom from Fear'' Medal from the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute in Hyde Park, N.Y.

Shakespeare warned us, ``men close their doors against a setting sun.'' But, in the extraordinary moments of human endeavor, when light of liberty dares to fade, often only a single soul stands to embrace its care--a soul who has stood vigil through the night armed with reason, buoyed by history and strengthened by vision. This award and Senator Byrd's honor reflect his place in human history.

Today marks the 86th Birthday of West Virginia's finest. Senator Robert C. Byrd's personal life and his public service have consistently embraced the same principles: diligent work, constant improvement, unwavering commitment, unswerving honesty, and an overarching sense of history.

In his 86 years Senator Byrd has been a legislative craftsman, parliamentarian extraordinaire, skillful architect, master builder, visionary, dreamer, and doer. From teacher, scholar, mentor, leader, author, historian, and diplomat, Senator Byrd has borne many mantles throughout the years. But the one of which he is most proud, and perhaps cherishes the most, is that of being a West Virginian.

He has been a mentor to me, a pillar of strength for West Virginia, and a voice of reason for the Nation. After 86 years and five decades of service in Congress, his work is not yet done. The West Virginian of the Past Century is quickly forging a sterling legacy in the new one. And, as before, he is leading the way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. Others will come to the floor to discuss the threat of wild fire to the health and general welfare of segments of the American population.

Others will come to the floor to discuss other elements of this legislation, such as its provisions concerning insect infestation which threatens some of our forests and forest industries.

I am not unmindful of the need to address the issues raised by the bill, but in our view, we would do so in a more prudent and responsible manner.

There is one issue in the pending legislation, however, which transcends the debate over forest fires and forest health: the independence of our judiciary and the right of Americans to seek redress from the courts when they believe they are aggrieved by a governmental action.

Indeed, the judicial review provisions of this bill would set a dangerous precedent for anybody concerned with civil liberties, civil rights, workers' rights and any other issue that may come before our judiciary.

Simply put, this legislation curtails access to the courts by American citizens by limiting where challenges can be brought, by whom, and on what issues.

This legislation interferes with how judges run their courtrooms. It arbitrarily requires courts to lift injunctions and stays after 60 days unless affirmatively renewed by the court.

A dangerous precedent and very bad policy. Our Constitution clearly delineates three branches of government. This conference report tramples on that tenant of our Constitution.

Incredible. Simply incredible.

This bill tells the court that litigation involving thinning trees is more important than prosecuting suspected Al Qaeda terrorists.

To judge suits over forest thinning projects more important than all other civil cases, let alone criminal cases, is seriously misguided. To make this policy law is absurd.

I have been here long enough to remember when conservatives did not trust the federal government and did not endorse expanded and unchecked federal powers.

It is unfortunate, it really is, that the sponsors of this bill chose to inject this controversial attack on the independence of our judiciary in a measure of this nature.

These provisions are a poison pill, and do a disservice to our addressing issues such as forest insect infestation and forest fires in a prudent and responsible fashion.