Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In the time that I have had the honor to serve as the ranking member on the Resources Committee, I have never had to come to the floor to oppose a bill reported by the committee being considered under suspension of the rules.

Indeed, under former Chairman Jim Hansen, and during this Congress, under Chairman Richard Pombo, we have instilled a greater degree of bipartisanship when conducting committee business.

I realize some may not want to hear that.

Those who manipulate this body's schedule seeking to make political points--even if they last for a nano-second or do not even register in the public's mind--by overt partisanship maneuvers, no, they do not want to hear that.

The fact of the matter is that Chairman Pombo has been fair in his dealings with all Members. He has been extremely fair with me. So I do not believe that it was through his will that H.R. 1409 is being considered under suspension today.

This bill has been placed on the suspension calendar over my objection. It is a controversial measure and should be considered under regular order, with opportunities for Members to offer amendments and a full and open debate.

I suspect that some in the majority are eager to push this bill because they hope to make Democrats in the House choose between our friends in the Native American community and our passion for our National Parks. This is a false choice and we refuse to make it.

The condition of the facilities found on many Indian reservations is unacceptable. Far too often, Native Americans are forced to endure housing, medical facilities and educational facilities that many Americans would find shocking. However, carving out large chunks from the middle of our national parks, as H.R. 1409 would have us do, is not the solution to this problem.

H.R. 1409 purports to deal with the Eastern Band, but of course a lack of quality educational opportunities is a problem that plagues Native Americans across the land. We are eager to work with the chairman of the

Interior Appropriations Subcommittee--for whom I have a great deal of respect--to devise a solution to this problem that might help all Native American children. And we must find solutions that do not destroy our National Parks.

What the pending bill does is carve out a huge chunk of land from the heart of the Great Smokey Mountains National Park valued at more than $3 million and trades it to the Eastern Band for land 30 miles away, not even within the park's boundaries, valued at $600,000. The bill is an attempt to shortchange the administrative process that is currently underway.

The National Park Service and a coalition of nonprofit environmental organizations are examining this proposed exchange as we speak. The NPS is putting the finishing touches on an Environmental Impact Statement that will address the obvious impacts this planned construction will have on the Park's resources, as well as the possibility of building the schools elsewhere.

The nonprofit groups have also publicly pledged to work with the Tribe to find an alternative site.

Once we have gathered all the facts, we could move forward with carefully crafted legislation if necessary to resolve the educational needs of the children of the Eastern Band without impacting a national treasure. And yet we are moving full steam ahead with this legislation, cutting off the NEPA process and abandoning any attempt at compromise.

This is particularly ironic given that language was included in the House-passed Interior Appropriations bill requiring further study of this proposal. Apparently, as recently as July, the supporters of this legislation felt that this proposed exchange raised concerns serious enough to warrant further study. To ram it through the House 2 months later is unwise and unwarranted.

I would raise one additional issue. It is passing strange that tomorrow the Resources Committee is scheduled to consider another bill concerning lands Indians lay claim to, but in that case, the proposed solution is to pay them off rather than cede them the land. Why the difference in approaches?

Simply put, the land in question in that case is rich in gold. It is valuable to the mining industry. Yet, the claims by the Western Shoshone to this land is well established.

I have to wonder whether the inconsistent approach between these two bills is related to the fact that the land taken from the Western Shoshone is known to be extremely valuable to mining companies, while in the case of H.R. 1409, the land in question is in a National Park.

To the Eastern Bank of the Cherokee, I understand that your history is one of broken treaties and stolen lands. It is the story of a great Indian nation hunted by the U.S. Cavalry, split at the seams, and forced either to escape to the mountains or to trudge along on a death march to a strange land.

The Eastern Band were able to escape the Trail of Tears and live in the mountains of North Carolina. They stayed together and rebuilt their nation.

I have nothing but respect for the Eastern Band, however, I must object to the consideration of H.R. 1409 under the suspension of the rules. If the administrative process underway is to be trammeled upon, I say to the proponents of this bill, at least bring it up under regular order.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this measure on suspension.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Fiscal Year 2004 Transportation appropriations bill.

I voted for the Transportation appropriations bill because there are many worthwhile and appropriate provisions in the bill such as highway funding, funding for the Airport Improvement Program, and restored funding for the Transportation Enhancements Program. Our economy and lifestyles are dependent upon our integrated transportation network, and my vote reflects my support for our infrastructure.

However, I voted for the bill with many misgivings. This bill grossly underfunds passenger rail in this country. As a long-time supporter of passenger rail in this country, I say that Amtrak has never been given adequate support by the U.S. Congress. Instead, it has frequently been made a convenient scapegoat for those eager to say that they support reducing federal spending, but who do not hesitate to fund other transportation modes. For many individuals from my Congressional district in Southern West Virginia, and for those in other areas, Amtrak serves as the primary source of travel even just for routine visits to the doctor's office or the Veterans Administration. Amtrak President David Gunn said he needs $1.8 billion in 2004 to continue to carry out his reforms, which have been very successful to this point. I think we ought to give him the money to do his job.

Similarly, the bill underfunds the Essential Air Services Program. I realize $63 million is no small amount, but it represents a dramatic cut to air travel in rural 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. Small communities in over 35 states rely on this federal funding for much-needed air service and jobs.

Furthermore, were it not for the efforts of Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member John Olver, my friend Tom Petri, who is Chairman of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and several others as well as myself, the funding for the Transportation Enhancements program would not have been preserved as authorized. When we on the Public Works Committee, the precursor to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, authorized this valuable program with the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991, we heard the requests of the American people for a transportation bill that reflected lifestyle interests over and above the construction of the highways. In addition to a sufficient roads network, the American people want opportunities to preserve and visit historic, archaeological, cultural, and scenic treasures. As my good friend, Jim Oberstar, the respected Ranking Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, can no doubt attest, Americans also want to pursue recreational activities such as bike trails as alternatives to increasingly sedentary lifestyles.

Attempting to alter programs through the appropriations process such as the Transportation Enhancements, or the National Scenic Byways program, encroaches upon the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This raises an additional point of concern. Mr. Speaker, the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21) will expire at the end of this month with no successor bill in place. This key surface transportation bill provides authorization and appropriations to address measurable needs in our infrastructure, but Congress has yet to even embark on a meaningful bill due to unresolved funding issues. This leaves the appropriators with no current, updated authorization language upon which to rely when crafting the transportation appropriations.

The United States Department of Transportation says we need to provide $375 billion in federal funding just to maintain our surface transportation system in its current condition, which the American Society of Civil Engineers recently described as ``substandard.'' Congress should not oppose investment in our infrastructure to ensure our future. We know what needs to be done, yet we are being delinquent in our responsibility to the American people by not doing it.

Congress should enact a surface transportation bill as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we learn from the Bible in Romans 12:21, ``Be not overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.'' In the a.m. hours of September 11, 2001, a great evil befell America. Around 3000 lives were lost and over 281 million American felt the pain of their passing. Two years later we still feel that loss.

Victims of this terrible tragedy came from all across this country, including Dr. Paul Ambrose of my home state of West Virginia, a talented and public-spirited young physician, was on the airplane that the terrorists crashed into the Pentagon.

The two grand towers of New York City, the symbol of our Nation's strength here in Washington, DC, a field in Southern Pennsylvania, and America itself was struck a mighty blow two years ago, but on that day, the enduring spirit of the United States of America overcame evil with the human goodness and love of their fellow man and woman.

In the aftermath of the attacks, Americans across our great land, including my home State of West Virginia, volunteered their services. Policemen, firemen, doctors, nurses, steelworkers, construction crews, plumbers, electricians, engineers, including members IOUE's National Hazardous Materials Program based in Beaver, West Virginia. Don Carson, the program's director, and a team of workers from the Beaver facility were among the first out-of-state workers to arrive at Ground Zero immediately after the September 11th terrorist attacks. They and many more giving individuals put their lives on hold to help in the search for the lives of others and to assist in the immense job of rebuilding New York, Washington, DC, Pennsylvania, and the rest of America.

But, there was one thing they did not have to rebuild and that was America's resolve. Never had its presence been stronger. We suffered the worst attack on our own soil against civilians that this country has ever experienced, and though the number of lives lost was devastating, the world witnessed America's resolve on that fateful day.

Partrick Henry told us in the beginnings of what would be the most powerful Nation in the world, ``United we stand. Divided we fall.'' Americans from all creeds, all religions, all backgrounds, from north to south, east to west, united behind each other that Tuesday morning and for the days that followed, proving Patrick Henry's words true. Though the World Trade Center towers eventually collapsed under great stress from heat and pressure, for the last two years America never waffled.

I am proud to be an American today, and I am proud to say that many my fellow West Virginians have given of themselves so much to those who suffered two years ago and who still feel the pain of loss. We have stood together in the face of great, unspeakable tragedy and we will continue to stand together in the face of triumph.

May God bless this great Nation, and give us the strength to serve his will.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The issue at hand is relatively simple. The transportation enhancement program is about our communities and the enhancement and the empowerment of localities.

As a Member who has served on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for going on 27 years now, and a former chairman as well as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways, I can recall that this was somewhat of a radical proposal when we adopted it back in 1991.

Prior to that, Federal highway legislation was largely viewed as the bastion of the States, highway contractors, asphalt, cement and steel manufacturers. The enhancement program transcended those interests and brought a relatively small portion of a State's annual Federal highway apportionment directly to local communities for local community projects. As I have said, a somewhat radical proposal perhaps in 1991, but certainly not

today, which is why after this program has worked so well over these past 12 years, it is odd that it is suddenly under attack.

Every Member of this body has a community where the lifestyle of its people have been enhanced by this program, where people have been drawn closer together and the old-fashioned American values are again flourishing as a result of enhancement projects.

In Princeton, West Virginia, for example, the community is being revitalized, partly as a result of a railroad museum partially funded under this program. In Milton, West Virginia, a historic covered bridge, cherished by the community, was rehabilitated under this program. And throughout the State, rails-to-trails, bike and pedestrian facilities, safety projects, and scenic beautification initiatives are enhancing the quality of life.

I am sure as we have already heard that all Members of this body have similar projects in their districts, projects that serve local communities, provide for families and children and which deliver so much in the way of benefits for relatively small cost.

I say let us stay the course. Vote for the Petri-Olver amendment. If changes are really needed to be made in this program, let us consider them in the normal legislative process as part of the TEA-21 reauthorization rather than going through the back door approach taken by the pending legislation.

So I urge support of the pending amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join our colleague Congressman Mark Udall in introducing the ``American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act Amendments Act of 2003.'' This bill is a sound proposal for the reform of the management of assets and funds held in trust by the United States for individual Indians and federally recognized Indian tribes.

For well over a century the Federal Government has been the trustee of funds generated from leases on Indian lands. For almost as long, the Federal Government has been charged with mismanaging these funds. To this day tribal and individual Indian account holders cannot be assured that the balances the Department of Interior claims are in their accounts are accurate.

Much attention has been given to the Cobell v. Norton class action lawsuit which was filed in 1996 on behalf of some 300,000 individual Indian money account holders. But regardless of what happens in this case, the current management and administration of Indian trust lands and trust funds by the Department of the Interior (DOI) is inadequate and must be reformed.

Enactment of this bill would elevate trust fund management within DOI, affirm trust standards, and ensure Indian tribes have a greater management role over their assets and funds. These are all elements needed for reform of the system as determined by the Task Force on Trust Fund Reform, the Intertribal Monitoring Association and the National Congress of American Indians.

I commend Mr. Udall for introducing this important bill and thereby starting the trust fund reform discussion in the House of Representatives. I remain open to other legislative proposals and am committed to working with Indian country towards true reform and protection of Indian trust funds.

Mr. Speaker, on August 26, Mrs. Florine Warden will be celebrating her 85th birthday. Her story is one of success. From the coalfields of West Virginia she has endlessly battled to preserve the liberties of her community. As her birthday approaches I wish to thank Mrs. Warden for the extraordinary effort she has put into our State.

Thomas Jefferson once said, ``none deserve better than those who contribute to the amelioration of that form (government).'' Mrs. Warden's life has been one of great service and citizenship. She has dedicated her life to voicing her opinion and striving to improve our form of government. Those who reside in Southern West Virginia know of her unwavering dedication to encouraging others to become active citizens. She has fought diligently on the political battlefield at the grassroots level. She brings a special enthusiasm to her community and the State of West Virginia. She has donated her time to improve and enhance our political process.

Mrs. Warden has spent countless hours working for the underprivileged. From picket lines to food drives, Mrs. Warden is a force for the less fortunate. She has sought to better her community by working as a booster for local high schools and colleges. This amazing woman has also devoted her time to the West Virginian Department of Highways, as well as the Department of Natural Resources. She has worked for the State, but more importantly for the people of West Virginia, which she cares for so dearly. She has worked tirelessly for the United Mine Workers of America. She is the true embodiment of the Mother Jones's mantra, ``Mourn the dead, and fight like hell for the living.''

Mrs. Warden's hard work has not gone unnoticed. Her many honors include the Distinguished West Virginian Award, the Beautification Award ``Make West Virginia Shine,'' and an induction into the Democrat Hall of Fame. Just last year I was at hand when Mrs. Warden was presented the labor award in the 17th Annual Celebrate Women Awards. With these awards, the word of her hard work has spread from Southern West Virginia to the rest of the State, and across our great Nation. In her amazing eighty-five years, she has been dedicated to promoting labor services in West Virginia and with her hard work she is irreplaceable in the political world. She has continually fought for the betterment of our form of government. I agree with Mr. Jefferson and feel that none deserve better than Mrs. Warden.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in agreement with the gentleman from New York who has just spoken. I also want to compliment the chairman of the subcommittee for his very factual and very precise statement in opposition to this amendment. The Saudis have helped the United States in the first Gulf War, and while they may not have been out in front in the latest attempt to dislodge Saddam Hussein, they certainly did not get in America's way. So I hope those that were supportive of the war in this body will recall that the Saudis did not in any way put themselves out to hurt America's efforts in the latest Iraq war.

I also support President Bush's road map to peace. I think he will show the same courage in enacting this road map to peace that he showed in dislodging Saddam Hussein. The actions of this body often send messages across the world. The gentleman from Arizona is perfectly right and several of my other colleagues. It is not about money. This amendment is not about money. It is about the message that this body sends. I have been one like many of my colleagues that have traveled the Middle East rather extensively, but I perhaps have spoken out on this floor more often than not for a more balanced policy in the Middle East, for what is in America's best interest in that region, which sometimes gets overlooked, in my opinion, when it comes to votes of this nature.

This amendment would send the wrong message today. It would send a wrong message for those that support a peace in the Middle East, a just and comprehensive peace. The Saudis have been targeted for all the debate thus far; but as I heard the amendment explained by the gentleman from New York, there are other countries on this list as well. I think I heard Syria mentioned.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I stand corrected. Anyway, the effort to fight the true terrorists, al Qaeda, would be harmed by the passage of this amendment. The Saudis have helped us, as have the Syrians; and that is the reason I brought up the other countries I thought were targeted as well, have helped us especially, since 9/11, in the fight against the true terrorists, al Qaeda. These countries get the message. They do not need the Congress to pass amendments of this nature or resolutions that go out that are nothing more than chest-thumping measures. These countries are getting the message already. They have gotten it since 9/11. For us to go out and to humiliate them publicly, as this amendment would do to the Saudis, is only going to cause them to become more stubborn. That is human nature. Any of us in this body if we are attacked publicly, are we likely to succumb the next moment, the next day and agree to that public trashing? I think not. We rather become more stubborn. That is part of human nature. That is what we are dealing with here.

I believe this administration and their opposition to this amendment is on the right track. I also happen to agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin: let us make sure that the majority party has their votes on the board in opposition to this amendment, in support of their President, in support of the fight against terrorism, the true terrorists, al Qaeda. Let us make sure that we are in this together, in opposition to this amendment, because we are in the fight against terrorism together, wherever, by whomever it occurs. And if we want to see a comprehensive peace truly stand a chance in the Middle East, let us give this administration, let us give this President the tools with which to fight, the tools with which to show the participants in the area, to show all the players, friends and foes alike, that America means business about a comprehensive peace and that we are not going to take actions in this body that would undermine those efforts of this administration.

I urge opposition to the gentleman from New York's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Resources for yielding me this time.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and I plan to offer an amendment soon dealing with an issue involving Yellowstone National Park. This morning, two Members who are in the majority are quoted as complaining in a newspaper report that we are being unfair because this matter should be debated in the Committee on Resources rather than as a rider to an appropriations bill.

I would note that we in the minority are forced to use this tactic. We are in the minority. The majority will not give our issue the time of day in the Committee on Resources. The Members making this allegation should know better. They are in the majority. They know that the Committee on Resources will not hear or consider our issues.

The situation is different with this particular amendment from the gentleman from California. He had every opportunity for the Committee on Resources to consider this matter. In fact, the bill was scheduled for committee consideration this past Tuesday. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), scheduled his bill; yet he came to the committee and had it withdrawn.

So I am going to vote against this amendment, and I am voting against it on the process that is being used. Perhaps then those two Members who took issue with my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey and the tactics that were used will recognize there is a difference. So we are being forced to offer amendments to an appropriations bill because we are not in the majority.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment today to halt the slaughter of bison in Yellowstone National Park. The bison is a symbol of America. Like the monuments on our National Mall or the dome on this Capitol building, the bison is an American icon. These magnificent beasts are woven into the fabric of our culture, not to mention being sewn onto the fabric of every uniform worn by an employee of the Department of Interior.

After a century of wanton slaughter, we have a small herd in Yellowstone

National Park, the last remaining example of the purebred, free-roaming bison left in this country. Is it any wonder then that the American public looks on in horror at footage of employees of the United States Department of Interior participating in the slaughter of Yellowstone bison? The general public is under the impression that these animals are being sheltered and protected by the Federal Government, not rounded up and shot. But the numbers tell the awful story: This year alone, the Department of Interior participated in the slaughter of 244 Yellowstone bison. On average over the last decade, 250 of these wild animals have been shipped off to slaughter or shot on site every year. The obvious question is why? Why is the Department of Interior murdering its beloved mascot?

Should this picture be the new seal of the leading conservation agency in this country? Instead of a bison standing tall and proud on the seal of the Department of Interior, it is indeed dead, on its back, legs standing stiffly in the air.

The reason these bison are being slaughtered lies in the Department's decision to pander to a single State's deadly approach to wildlife management. During the harsh winter months, bison migrate out of Yellowstone National Park to lower elevations in a desperate attempt to avoid starving to death.

Once they leave the park, they can come into cattle grazing on public and private land; and some of the bison may carry a disease which can be dangerous to cows. But here is the critical point: The transfer of this disease from bison to cattle has never happened in the wild. Never happened. Yet one State and only one which borders Yellowstone insists that the only means to deal with a theoretical possibility that it might happen is to pursue an automatic death sentence for any bison that steps one hoof onto the invisible park boundary. Talk about using a sledgehammer to kill a flea. Under current policy, simply being a bison in Montana is a capital crime, punishable by death.

Perhaps most shocking of all is that most of the bison are not even tested, not even tested to see if they actually carry the disease before they are being sent to their deaths. The truth is, this State is caught in a time warp. Despite the fact that we have entered a new millennium, this particular State is still pursuing wildlife management policies that were popular in the 1800s. Moreover, this State has demanded and the Department of Interior has agreed to help this State implement its approach to wildlife management by helping them shoot bison. That must stop.

The National Park Service is one of the foremost conservation agencies in the world. It should not be required to kill the very wildlife they are sworn to protect. If adopted, this amendment will prohibit the use of any funds in this bill to kill or assist others in killing these magnificent animals. This is a very narrow amendment. If Montana wants to continue to slaughter bison as if they were still living in the old West, this amendment will not stop them. However, the Federal agencies funded in this bill, agencies with a conservation mandate, will not help them do their dirty work.

The Federal conservation agencies funded in this bill will continue working within the existing bison management plan to address the theoretical threat of disease through hazing and capture of bison, through development of a vaccine for both cattle and bison, and through the use of other tools. But the tools they use will no longer be lethal.

This is a very simple amendment. Members either support slaughtering Yellowstone bison or they do not. We know the American people do not support the slaughter of this icon of America, just as they would not support the slaughter of the bald eagle. There is no good reason for this killing, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

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

Let me say once again that the bison is an American icon. In my own home State of West Virginia, at Marshall University, the football team's mascot is the bison. They are the Thundering Herd. Nobody slaughters that Thundering Herd just as nobody should slaughter the Yellowstone herd.

Are there alternatives? Yes. There are alternatives for dealing with diseased bison. It is not that difficult. Contrary to what the State claims, it does not require shooting them. We support continuing efforts to keep bison from having any contact with cows through the use of hazing and capturing bison when necessary. We support continued and improved testing to determine precisely how many bison actually have the disease. We support allowing bison which test positive to be quarantined either within the park or on any of the many Indian reservations where a tribe has contacted the Secretary volunteering to take possession of bison. All of these activities and more are allowed under the Rahall amendment. The only thing that is prohibited is killing these animals.

As far as the counter to our claim that there has never been a documented instance of a cow catching the disease from a bison, in the wild, it has never happened. I stress what we are saying here is in the wild. It is only a theory. If this concern were indeed serious, then bison would not be allowed to cross the southern park boundary and mingle with cattle in Wyoming, nor would elk, which also carry this disease, be allowed to leave the park and mingle with the cattle in Montana and Wyoming. None of this has led to an outbreak. The numbers regarding how many bison have the disease are inflated and unproven because under current practice most of them are not even tested before they are slaughtered. No one really knows how many bison have this disease.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the Department of the Interior should not be out slaughtering an animal that they are in charge of protecting. This is not a difficult problem with which to deal. There are alternatives available. This amendment allows those alternatives to be pursued. The American bison is to our culture just like the bald eagle is the very icon of our American way of life. Let us protect that icon, and let us stop the slaughter of bison in Yellowstone.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. He has eloquently described the effort here, as well as has the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), a gentleman who does not get up on every amendment which has been offered today, but he has spoken strongly in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from New Mexico.

I remind my colleagues regarding a letter cosigned by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and myself and some 100 other Members of the House to the President in March of this year. We wrote expressing our deep concern with the scope and the breadth of the initiatives undertaken by this administration. The cumulative effect of all of these proposals are to undermine or eliminate open decisionmaking, as we have already heard today, to eliminate accountability, eliminate resource protection, and limit opportunities for public and scientific input as well.

On November 27, 2002, this administration proposed a NFMA planning role that renders the public process virtually meaningless, and that is what this amendment attempts to restore, public input and protection of our resources so every area is not just opened up for willy-nilly use or multiple use of our forest lands.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, the fight over the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park has raged on for more than a decade. In the most recent round, the National Park Service found that these machines impair park resources, a finding which required a ban on this activity.

Only days after taking office, President Bush shelved the ban and requested a new environmental assessment of the issue. So 2 years and 2.4 million tax dollars later, the new study came out; and, lo and behold, that study reached the same conclusions. Snowmobiles are bad for Yellowstone.

Not to be deterred by the facts, however, the Bush administration has pursued not a ban but rather increased snowmobile use in the park and is set to issue new rules to implement this policy any day now.

The fact that the administration is allowing public natural resources to be abused of course is not news. Virtually every environmental policy developed by this administration is crafted to benefit one industry or another. However, the Bush snowmobile policy is particularly devastating because it threatens not only Yellowstone's bison and bald eagles but also the entire process of environmental regulation.

To wake up one morning in the Bush White House and decide to toss this policy out the window is not just wrong, it is dangerous. Determining how best to protect the crown jewel of our National Park System is not sandlot football. You just cannot call for a ``do over'' if you do not like the way the game turned out.

Either 78 decibels worth of noise harms wildlife in the park or it does not. Either discharging gasoline and motor oil directly into ground water harms the park or it does not.

These are fundamental scientific questions that were answered through a careful and standardized policy-making process twice, twice. Deciding to change the answers or ignore them will have devastating consequences. If the Bush snowmobile policy stands, it threatens not only the park and its resources but also the public's confidence in our park system, our park service and our entire system of environmental protections.

Like the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and several of our colleagues, I have visited Yellowstone. During the winter, I have experienced firsthand the devastating effect snowmobiles have on the park. I did not like what I smelled. I did not like what I heard. I did not like what I saw. Indeed, that evening I was having dreams, rather, I should say nightmares, of the Daytona Speedway as I went to bed.

If the administration is not willing to uphold and defend the law, those of us in Congress who love Yellowstone must act. We must act to preserve Yellowstone but also to preserve the faith that the American people have in our stewardship of the national parks. This is not anti- snowmobile. This is pro-Yellowstone. It is pro-protection for one of

the crown jewels of our American park system. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Udall Amendment to stop the giveaway of important public resources.

It seems that the giveaway of public lands is not just limited to the 1872 Mining Law. How ironic is it that we have a provision from another mining law--this one from 1866--that is being used to swindle the American public out of their public lands.

We have people and organizations out there that are trying to take advantage of a law enacted 137 years ago that was so antiquated that Congress repealed it in 1976.

Let us be clear on this outdated and repealed law that is known as RS 2477. It is a land grab. This is not about clearing up legitimate claims to roads that you or l or the American public would recognize. It is about bulldozing new roads across unspoiled public lands.

Cowpaths and trails that begin and end nowhere are being claimed as roads and Interior Secretary Norton and her Department are attempting to use new regulations for previously noncontroversial Disclaimers of Interest to breathe life into RS 2477 and facilitate a public land grab.

When then Interior Secretary Babbitt tried to develop a clear, common sense settlement to the RS 2477 issue in the 1990's, Republicans would have none of it and pushed through a legislative moratorium that remains in effect today on any regulations pertaining to RS 2477.

However, Secretary Norton and her Department have chosen to ignore the law and press ahead with these new regulations on Disclaimers of Interest.

Disobedience of the law and secret backroom deals; that has been the legacy of this administration on RS 2477.

It's time we put a stop to the unwarranted and unjustified giveaway of public assets. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Udall amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have been misled. Just like the telephone salesman who interrupts our dinner hour with an offer that is too good to be true, the Bush administration has sold the American people a tax cut by withholding some very important facts.

One of those facts is that, in order to subsidize rebate checks for people who live on estates which cover vast stretches of private land, the Bush administration now has to slash funding that would have gone to protect vast stretches of public land.

Spending on Land and Water Conservation Fund programs, which is authorized at the level of $900 million, totals less than $200 million in the bill that is currently before us. Funding that would improve and expand wildlife refuges, national parks and national forests is all being sacrificed at the altar of tax relief for the rich. What is more, the Bush administration, along with the majority here in this House, fails to provide these funds even though half the money goes directly to States for conservation and recreation purposes.

Gutting these conservation programs shatters an agreement made by this Congress just 3 short years ago when the Land Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Trust Fund was created as part of the Interior bill.

It should be noted that there is one exception in this bill to the majority's desire to slash and burn conservation funding. This appropriation bill would authorize a new national heritage area. This new heritage area has not even been studied by the National Park Service. It would simply be designated, and it is by no means a small designation as it would stretch over 25 counties in North Carolina and be authorized to receive $10 million in Federal funding over 10 years.

It had been my understanding that some in the majority, including the Committee on Resources chairman, opposed creation of any new heritage areas based on private property concerns; and, indeed, there are scores of Members, Republicans and Democrats alike, who are asking the Committee on Resources to consider heritage area legislation.

As such, I can only come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the inclusion of this new heritage area in this new Interior appropriations bill means that those concerns over private property rights have been addressed, and we look forward to the timely consideration of all of the heritage proposals that are now pending before this Congress.

Except for this one bright spot, however, the cuts of conservation spending contained in this bill are unacceptable. The American people should know that the national park they visit this summer is not being protected because there will be no funds to conserve park lands, and the American people should know that the conservation and recreation programs planned by their governor will have to be abandoned because the Federal Government would not come through with the matching funds.

I urge a no vote on the rule and a no on the previous question.

Offered By: Mr. Rahall

Amendment No. 3: Strike section 137.

Offered By: Mr. Rahall

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and I do offer an amendment, which is printed in the Record as No. 6.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in recognition this afternoon of the ultimate sacrifice that thousands of our Nation's coal miners who have perished from the crippling disease known as pneumoconiosis, or black lung, have made to the energy security of this Nation.

Today, I rise to extend condolences to the families of coal miners who died as a result of years of inhaling coal dust in our Nation's mines. Today, I rise to give hope to those who on this day descend deep into the Earth to produce a coal which fostered the industrial revolution in this country and which now fires the technological revolution. I rise in humble gratitude to them, and I say, thank you.

And I rise in anger as well, Mr. Chairman, because despite the fact that the Congress in 1969 passed landmark legislation to put an end to black lung disease contracted over years of inhaling respirable coal dust in the mines, annually around 1,400 miners still perish from this disease.

Yet this administration, the Bush administration, incredibly has proposed a regulation which would allow a fourfold increase of respirable dust in the coal mines. If made final, that regulation would directly translate into more deaths among our Nation's coal miners.

I have asked that this proposed regulation be withdrawn. The United Mine Workers of America have asked that it be withdrawn. Hundreds, if not thousands, of rank-and-file miners across this country have asked that these regulations be withdrawn.

In response, the administration has simply extended the public comment period. It is not going to withdraw these regulations. And why would it when the Assistant Secretary of Labor in charge of this issue was the very person who petitioned for these regulations when he served in the private sector? Imagine that.

Today I hope to give the coal miners a fighting chance by offering this amendment to block the Department of Labor from finalizing these ill-conceived proposed regulations. Enough is enough. Over 55,000 coal miners perished from black lung between 1969 and 1990, and still today 1,400 a year pass away as a result of it.

The poster to my right clearly illustrates what a coal miner faces from black lung. To the left is a healthy lung tissue. On the right, the far right, is a tissue sample of a 40-year-old coal miner. Compare that to the sample in the middle of a 90-year-old person.

To quote from the Louisville Courier-Journal which once described this disease in this manner, ``It is as if the Titanic sank every year, and no ships

came to the rescue. While that long-ago disaster continues to fascinate the Nation, the miners slip into cold, early graves almost unnoticed.''

This amendment would prohibit the Department of Labor from finalizing these proposed rules while allowing continued research and development on devices such as personal dust monitors. I want to emphasize that last point. This amendment still allows the continued research and development on devices supported by both the industry and the union known as PDMs, or personal dust monitors. I am not stopping research and development of those devices from continuing. The intent of this amendment is to cause MSHA to withdraw the proposed rule and repromulgate it in accordance with the letter and intent of the Mine Safety Act in order to improve the dust sampling and compliance regulatory program. I urge a yes vote on the Rahall amendment.

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

Announcement by The Chairman

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

I appreciate what the gentlemen are stating. In response to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), there is funding for these PDMs. Research and development is provided elsewhere in the Department of Labor budget. It is under the budget for NIOSH.

In regard to what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) have said, MSHA did not suspend the proposed rule. I know what they stated. They stated they were suspending the proposed rule in a press release. That is not the case. The notice of this action in the Federal Register, and that is what counts, what is said in the Federal Register, the notice of this action in the Federal Register simply notes that the Agency was keeping the comment period open until further notice. It is not stated as a suspension in the Federal Register.

What MSHA said in a press release does not match the facts, the reality, on the other hand as it appeared in the Federal Register. So it is not a suspension. There is no legal basis for suspending a proposed rule, and it cannot be done. In its guide for Federal agencies, the Office of the Federal Register advises that the term ``suspend'' applies only to blocking enforcement of existing final rules. The term does not apply to proposed rules. When agencies want to halt action on proposed rules, according to the guide, they withdraw the rules; and that has not occurred here. These proposed rules have not been withdrawn, and that is why my amendment is seeking to force the issue.

In regard to further research and development into the PDMs, as I clearly stated in my opening comments on this amendment, I am in no way blocking continued research and development into the development of these PDMs. Both the unions and the companies want this research to continue. My amendment does not block that research.

The amendment blocks MSHA from finalizing the proposed rule. It does not restrict MSHA from engaging in any other activity related to the proposed rule other than making it final. Second, there is nothing in the proposed rule that involves funding R&D into PDMs. The proposed rule does not contain funding, and if made final would not provide funds for PDM deployment. So for that reason I think my amendment is on solid ground, and I would urge the adoption thereof.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio is correct. The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Health and Safety, David Lauriski, was the general manager of a coal company known as Energy West, and was the very person who filed in September 1997 a petition asking for the rulemaking he is now in charge of administering.

Mr. Chairman, I do. The Department of Labor's March 6 Federal Register notice publishing these proposed rules notes that Energy West petitioned the Secretary of Labor on this matter during September 1997 and states on page 10800, ``This proposed rule responds to Energy West's petition for rulemaking.''

We obtained a copy of the petition, which I have right in front of me, and lo and behold, it is signed by David Lauriski in his then- capacity as general manager of Energy West.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow obfuscation or dilatory diversion tactics from some in the majority to go unanswered.

This is about increasing by four-fold the dust level in our Nation's coal mines, further putting coal miners at risk of losing their lives.

The gentleman that just responded obviously was not listening to my previous two comments. These proposed rules have not been suspended, as MSHA said in a press release, because I have the Federal Register right here in front of me which says exactly the opposite of what their own press release said. So the question here is about protecting some of the bravest souls in America who are laboring deep underground to produce our Nation's coal which provides over 50 percent of our electricity.

It is not about trying to defend some former company official who is now at the Department of Labor in charge of this exact same rulemaking that he tried to change when he was in the private sector. This is about increasing by four-fold the amount of dust levels in our Nation's coal mines, not what was intended by any act that this Congress has ever passed. It is a tragedy. It angers me, and here a gentleman from some other region of the country that I am sure does not have many coal mines in his district to come to the floor and make such defense of such defenseless acts of this administration is truly incomprehensible. It is mind boggling, and to see him make such comments and then walk off the floor without even hearing and obviously was not even here to hear the previous rebuttal to what the charges he is making that were handed to him by some coal company downtown. It is absolutely mind boggling that some of the majority would try to pull the wool over the American people's eyes.

I would hope that those who have any comprehension of what it is like in our Nation's coal mines, who have ever visited a coal mine, who have ever talked to a coal miner and looked into his eyes will vote for this Rahall amendment to further protect him from this administration.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Rahall

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

title), insert the following: