Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker today I am introducing legislation to protect the park professionals who ``dedicate their careers to preserving our system of National Parks from the Bush Administration's privatization plan.

According to the Bush Administration, the rush to replace National Park Service employees with private-sector subcontractors is a harmless experiment to see if the services provided by thousands of dedicated public servants could be had more cheaply. The Administration claims it is considering only a small number of positions and asserts that taxpayers will see cost savings from this plan.

Unfortunately, this is just not the case. The Administration's privatization scheme is so vast, so unwarranted and so clumsy that it threatens to undermine both the National Park Service and the resources it was created to protect. To avoid this, I am introducing legislation to stop the Bush plan.

The Administration proposes to privatize approximately 1,700 full- time National Park Service employees by the end of next year. While this number alone is troubling, it is only the beginning. According to The Washington Post, the Administration has identified approximately 70% of the current NPS workforce it feels should be eligible for replacement by private workers.

And who are the people the Administration is seeking to replace? According to the Director of the National Park Service, nearly 90% of the men and women potentially eligible for privatization in the Washington, D.C. area are minorities and the numbers in areas such as Santa Fe and San Francisco are similarly lopsided.

Making matters worse, the alleged cost savings created by replacing these workers is unproven and unlikely. Despite paying private consultants more than $5 million, or about three thousand dollars per position being considered, not a single study has been produced demonstrating even a nickel in savings. Meanwhile, that $5 million came from funds intended to pay for the operation and maintenance of our National Parks.

Of course, the reason no savings can be demonstrated is that there are no savings to be had. This entire scheme is based on the premise that you can build a workforce of dedicated professionals, with the experience, institutional memory and expertise of the National Park Service, for less money. You can't.

The description on paper of an NPS employee's job doesn't begin to include all of the services that employee performs on the ground. Visitors don't direct their questions about plants and animals only to NPS biologists nor do they wait to ask questions regarding historic preservation until an NPS historian is available. Wildfires and heart attacks don't happen only when full-time fire fighters or EMTs are on duty.

The National Park Service challenges all of its employees, regardless of their actual job titles, to respond to all kinds of visitor needs, and the employees work hard to meet this challenge. This kind of all- out commitment and

willingness to pitch in comes from a passionate commitment to your job, a commitment which cannot be bought from the lowest bidder or adequately described in a want ad.

What's more, each unit of our National Park System is unique, both in the resources it offers and the challenges it faces. Such richness and diversity defy a ``one-cheapest-size-fits-all'' approach. The best scientific mind to further stabilize the Anasazi ruins at Mesa Verde is not the best person to protect endangered species in the Dry Tortugas. A private corporation, offering the lowest possible salaries, probably can't provide either of these people, much less both of them.

The fact is, NPS employees' salaries are scandalously low, their housing is dilapidated and they are frequently asked to pack up their families and move to a park thousands of miles away. These men and women work in the National Park Service because they love National Parks, and the people who visit them, and there is no excess to be wrung from their paychecks. While it is appropriate to seek the lowest bidder for the uniforms they wear or the equipment they use, allowing the lowest bidder to replace their expertise and experience will only cheapen our National Parks.

The mission of the National Park Service is resource protection and visitor enjoyment, not profit. To accomplish that mission, the National Park Service needs employees motivated by a love of people and of parks, not of money. The natural, cultural and historic resources contained within our National Parks are too valuable to allow the job of protecting them to be traded on the open market.

My legislation will stop this privatization scheme in its tracks and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, alumni of Woodrow Wilson High School Class of 1958 will congregate in Beckley, West Virginia. They gather to celebrate the 45 years passing after the graduation of 343 students.

My alma matter, Woodrow Wilson High School, so named in 1917, traces its roots to July 13, 1900. The school mascot is a flying bald eagle and the enrollment of the school is identified as the Flying Eagles. As the bald eagle is a majestic bird, it is also an independent creature. Eagles nest but they do not flock. It was therefore preordained that the alumni of this school separate and spread to the four corners of our great Nation and beyond.

The year 1958 represents a very different time with American citizens living under different standards. The Universal Military Training Act defined one of those standards. Under this Act, able-bodied male citizens past the age of 18 years were subject to six years of military training and duty. The United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps thereby benefited with the coming of age by Woodrow Wilson alumni. One chapter of the military contribution made by the Class of 1958 can be found in the Vietnam War. West Virginia sacrificed more sons on a per capita basis in the Vietnam War effort than any other state in the Union. Vietnam in wartime was where some 1958 graduates celebrated their 10th year beyond graduation. By the end of the Vietnam War, these alumni had returned to their homes and families, except one. This Flying Eagle was reported as missing-in-action on May 16, 1966, when the AC-47 gun ship he was navigating failed to return from a mission. At the time of his last action, the young man who had interrupted his studies at West Virginia University to serve his country held the rank of 1st Lieutenant in the United States Air Force. When the exchange of prisoners of war took place following the Vietnam War, this airman was not among the repatriated. During the following years, the airman's mother was encouraged by our government not to relinquish hope. She mailed letters and packages for years. None of the letters or packages were either acknowledged or returned. During these same years, the airman received posthumous promotions up to the rank of major. The mystery surrounding this Class of 1958 Flying Eagle was not resolved until November 24, 1999, when his recovered remains were positively identified. His remains, along with the remains of seven additional crewmembers on the ill-fated military aircraft, were obtained from the crash site during three separate collections during 1995, 1996, and 1997. The recovered remains of all eight crewmembers

were scant, as the plane had been consumed by flames upon crashing, followed by more than 30 years of deterioration in a jungle environment.

During the 34th year following his last day on Earth, this Woodrow Wilson High School alumnus was buried in Arlington National Cemetery, in common with the limited remains of his fellow crewmembers. Every Class of 1958 Woodrow Wilson High School classmate who served honorably in this Nation's Armed Forces gave something, but this one airman gave all for his country and in a greater sense, his family and his classmates. The Woodrow Wilson High School Class of 1958 alumni gathering in Beckley, West Virginia tomorrow wish to honor this classmate, Major George Winton Thompson, by having his name placed in the Congressional Record, as evidence he has yet to be forgotten. I hereby honor that request, as this is the first class reunion that the group has known the outcome of Major Thompson's story.

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) opposed to the resolution?

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

Mr. Speaker, I deplore the bus bombings and other acts of terrorism against innocent civilians wherever heinous acts of violence occur. The violence must stop. President Bush's vision of a two-state solution, two states living side by side in the Holy Land, must be implemented. I support the road map whole heartily.

Mr. Speaker, it was just a very short time ago this year that this body passed a resolution commending Israel and condemning the Palestinian Authority and calling upon the Palestinians to elect new leadership. Now the Palestinians have done just that. They have elected their new prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas. He has been in office for less than 2 months now, and now this body all of a sudden expects him to stop the violence that has raged out of hand for close to 3 years in such a short time. Prime Minister Abbas is trying very hard to negotiate an understanding among the militant groups that will end all acts of violence against Israelis. And as we speak, as we speak, a cease-fire appears to be taking hold. There appears to be such an agreement.

This process going on in the Middle East as we speak certainly needs no help from this body with this type of one-sided, inflammatory resolution for which this body is so well noted. Prime Minister Abbas must be given the time, he must be given the space, he must be given the opportunity to assert his authority and that of his new security chief Mohammad Dakhlan, with whom our own CIA and Israeli security forces have worked very well in the past, and can do so again.

Let us attempt some objectivity here, Mr. Speaker, if we are to remain the responsible super power that we are. The single most important step that the Israelis could undertake is to stop its policy of political assassinations of Palestinians unless they are proven to be ticking time bombs. Tom Friedman said in a recent column that both sides have crossed the line where self-defense has turned into self- destruction.

Is Israel better off or worse off after carrying out these assassinations? The day after it tried unsuccessfully to kill a senior Hamas leader, a suicide bomber killed 17 innocent people aboard a bus in Jerusalem, these acts occurring since the Aqaba Summit. The bomber said this act was in retaliation for the assassination attempt the previous week. Clearly the people of Israel are questioning this policy. In a poll last week by a leading Israeli newspaper, 58 percent of the Israelis polled supported ending this type of assassination policy and cooperating with the new Palestinian government to end all violence.

The fact is, the only time the Israelis have enjoyed extended periods of peace in the last decade is when the Palestinian Security Service, under Mr. Dakhlan, have cooperated with Israel and both sides spent their energy, successfully, I might note, in preventing acts of violence.

We are right today to call upon Prime Minister Abbas and his government to make greater and more efficient efforts to control the militant groups and end violence, but we also have a responsibility in order to be objective and even-handed, to ask the government of Prime Minister Sharon in this same resolution whether these policies are making Mr. Abbas's tasks easier or harder.

The people of Israel is asking this question, so should the Congress of the United States. Let us have a little balance here. Let us have a little balance

here. Let us call on the Palestinian Authority to make greater and more effective efforts against terrorists; but also, let us call on the Israeli Government to stop making Mr. Abbas's tasks more difficult. It is also time for Israel to reassess and hopefully end this process of political assassinations. We cannot allow the extremists on either side to sabotage the peace process. We cannot allow terrorists to torpedo the peace process. Let us look at some objectivity before we pass, once again, another resolution of this nature.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished dean of the House the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, do I understand the gentleman correctly that it would be split as it was originally split, 10 minutes and 10 minutes on his side?

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on his reservation?

I think for once the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I totally agree on this particular issue. I agree with what he just said about the importance of it. I agree to the extension of time as he has requested.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me correct something in which I may have misspoke earlier when we were talking about an extension of time on all sides and I said that perhaps that was the only area in which the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my good friend, and I agreed. That is not the case. It was a misstatement on my part, and I do correct it, because as he has stated and as we have discussed on numerous occasions throughout our careers in this body, we perhaps see eye-to-eye on 95 percent of the issues involved in this particular area and in the Middle East. We certainly agree on the need to stop the violence. We agree on the need to end the terrorism. We agree on the strong Israeli- U.S. relationship that must always be maintained. And we certainly agree on the need for peace for all people in the region.

I must respond to some comments that were made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House. He spoke quite eloquently about all of the Israeli deaths, as does this resolution refer to those numbers as well. But I never once heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) mention any type of sympathy for the innocent Palestinian deaths that have occurred since the Aqaba summit alone. The resolution mentions the 22 Israelis killed, but fails to mention the 55 Palestinians killed, the 258 Palestinians injured just since the Aqaba summit.

Five ambulances have been destroyed; 33 houses have been demolished and 236 damaged; 7,116 trees uprooted; 328,000 meters of cultivated land have been destroyed; 500,000 meters of land confiscated for illegal settlement; 67 private businesses destroyed; water and irrigation pipes destroyed; homes demolished; people detained, as we saw in this morning's press.

All of these actions have occurred since the Aqaba Summit against innocent Palestinians, so it is that perspective that this resolution so much fails to mention.

I would say as well in calling upon both sides to agree with what they set upon at the Aqaba Summit, yes, there have been some illegal outposts, perhaps a flag here or a pole here that has been dismantled by the Israelis. But according to Israeli sources and journalists, 12 new outposts have been constructed since the Aqaba Summit, and there are rumored to have been five additional ones yet to be discovered. This has happened since the Aqaba Summit.

I would remind the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that a recent poll of Christian conservatives here in the United States found that 78 percent of the Christian conservatives in this country support President Bush's vision for Middle East peace.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of areas in which all the speakers today have agreed. And certainly that makes some points of this resolution commendable.

But, again, in looking at its totality, the resolution lacks in its objectivity. It lacks, Mr. Speaker, in what I term the United States' best interest first. A lot of parallels have been draw today between the Israeli responses to terrorism and Israel's right to defend itself and the United States' global war against terrorism and our fight against al Qaeda. I would say the main question that needs to be asked here is does the Israeli assassination policy, when there is no proven link that those assassinated are ticking time bombs, where there has been nothing judicial pending against them, there has been nothing but allegations of terrorist activity, in those type of assassinations, is that fairness? Does it promote what is justice in the region. Does it promote the United States' best interest in fairness when it is done with what is perceived to be United States approval?

Maybe there are some in the Sharon government that compare this to our fight against al Qaeda. But those educated and those that will profess some sense of fairness will view this in a different light and see that that comparison is disingenuous to say the least. Certainly, Israel has the right to defend itself against those ticking time bombs and to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring. The United States has that right to fight the global war on terrorism, to fight al Qaeda whenever and wherever we can.

But to make the comparisons between what is happening in the West Bank and Gaza by these Islamic militant groups, to compare them with al Qaeda is stretching it a bit in this gentleman's estimation. We must realize what are the true roots of the al Qaeda and the true roots of why they hate us in the Arab world. Let us look at that response before we determine if we can compare the Israeli fight against terrorism with the United States' fight against al Qaeda.

There are many countries in the world that help us in the fight against the true terrorists, which is the al Qaeda network; and it is those countries that we will continue to need their help in our coalition fight against al Qaeda.

Mr. Speaker, I do say to all those who are participating in this debate, it has been healthy. It has been what we have needed in this Congress for some time, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate this issue many more times. I have demonstrated during this debate the question that many Israelis have about the policies of their government in regard to fighting terrorism, and I think it is just as worthy a debate here in this country as it is in the country of Israel. We have that right in our democratic system. We also have the responsibility in this country to look at actions that we take as Members of Congress and resolutions we pass, to ask first and foremost what is in the best interest of the United States of America.

I referred earlier to the cease-fire that has just been announced today and appears to have taken hold. While this resolution does not have the force of law, we must, and we know as Members of this body that every word we utter and every resolution we pass has profound impact across this world. Whether they are actually the words of the law or not, they do send a message. I think this is the wrong message that the United States should be sending at this particular time, this precarious time in the Middle East. Some say this cease-fire is only temporary and it would give the militant a chance to rearm during a 3- month cease-fire. This is the time that the new prime minister with whom the United States has built a relationship, with whom the Israelis have built a relationship, for the newly installed Prime Minister Abu Mazen, who has been in office for less than 2 months, this is the time he needs to gain the political credibility, to gain the support among his own people, to further crack down on the militants without creating a civil war among the Palestinians.

Now, perhaps that is the goal of some on the other side, but that is not the goal of the United States; and it should not be the goal of the United States. But, rather, we should give the newly created prime minister, the newly installed prime minister in the Palestinian territories the time, the space, and the opportunity he needs to gather the support he needs to crack down and, indeed, make this cease-fire, however temporary in nature, of a permanent nature.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that my colleagues look carefully and hard at this resolution before making up their minds and cast their votes in what in their good conscience they deem to be in the United States' best interest and in the interest of peace in the Middle East.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time I yielded back.

Mr. Speaker, I do that in keeping with what I said earlier was an important debate and I believe that all Members who wish to speak on this should be heard.

Mr. Speaker, I yield half of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

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

This has been a good debate, a very healthy debate. There is no doubt that security cooperation needs to be restored between the Palestinians and Israelis. It has worked in the past. The road map now is the way to do it. Several of the speakers today have risen in support of the road map, and they will support this resolution. I cannot even find the word ``road map'' mentioned in this resolution, and that is a major, major problem with it.

The economies of both Israelis and the Palestinians are in dire shape. There is no question about it, and this road map, for which I have already commended and continue to salute the President for presenting it, is the way out.

Confidence building measures by both sides, coupled with stability and economic development, must occur, and it will help bring back the necessary hope that both sides so desperately need and the trust in one another that is so lacking at the current time.

There are obligations of both parties under the road map. This resolution, unfortunately, points only to obligations of Palestinians and insinuates they are not fulfilling those obligations. There are obligations by the Israelis as well that are very clear. Yet they are not stated in this resolution.

We must give Prime Minister Abu Mazen, a good friend with whom I have met, the help he needs to fight terrorism and we must not allow civil war among Palestinians to occur. The road map is the way to do that. It will take time.

I salute President Bush for his personal involvement, for Secretary of State Powell's involvement, for Condoleezza Rice's involvement via her trip to the region any day now, and I salute our security people, the United States security people, our CIA and others that are on the scene in an effort to help the Palestinians restore security. That takes time. That takes patience and that takes an opportunity, that we must give and Israelis must give the Palestinians to create that security that is so vital to bring peace to this area.

I am not going to urge my colleagues to vote one way or another on this resolution. They can make up their own minds, but each colleague I would say has to look in his or her conscience and has to determine in their best opinion what is in the United States' best interests in promoting the road map to peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, as the Republican majority shortchanges working families on the child tax credit; as our veterans' benefits are cut; as the majority approaches cuts in transportation funding; as we experience a lack of funding for education and homeland security initiatives, and as the President is cutting services for the many in his incessant thirst to help the wealthy few, Thomas Friedman offers a view in his column ``Read My Lips'' in the June 11, 2003 edition of the New York Times, which I recommend to all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike. It is as follows:

[From the New York Times, June 11, 2003]

Read My Lips

(By Thomas L. Friedman)

Democrats have been groping for a way to counter George

Bush's maniacal tax cuts, which are designed to shrink

government and shift as many things as possible to the

market. May I make a suggestion? When you shrink government,

what you do, over time, is shrink the services provided by

federal, state and local governments to the vast American

middle class. I would suggest that henceforth Democrats

simply ask voters to substitute the word ``services'' for the

word ``taxes'' every time they hear President Bush speak.

That is, when the president says he wants yet another round

of reckless ``tax cuts,'' which will shift huge burdens to

our children, Democrats should simply refer to them as

``service cuts,'' because that is the only way these tax cuts

will be paid for--by cuts in services. Indeed, the Democrats'

bumper sticker in 2004 should be: ``Read my lips, no new

services. Thank you, President Bush.''

Say it with me now: ``Read my lips, no new services--or old

ones.''

Whenever Mr. Bush says, ``It's not the government's money,

it's your money,'' Democrats should point out that what he is

really saying is, ``It's not the government's services, it's

your services''--and thanks to the Bush tax cuts, soon you'll

be paying for many of them yourself.

As the former Nixon-era commerce secretary Peter Peterson

just observed in this newspaper, when Mr. Bush took office

the 10-year budget projection showed a $5.6 trillion

surplus--something that would easily prefinance the cost of

Social Security. The first Bush tax cut, coupled with

continued spending growth and the post-9/11 costs, brought

the projected surplus down to $1 trillion. ``Unfazed by this

turnaround,'' notes Mr. Peterson, ``the Bush administration

proposed a second tax-cut package in 2003 in the face of huge

new fiscal demands, including a war in Iraq and an urgent

`homeland security' agenda.'' Result: now the 10-year fiscal

projection is for a $4 trillion deficit.

This in turn will shrink the federal government's ability

to help out the already strapped states. Since most states

have to run balanced budgets, that will mean less health care

and kindergarten for children and the poor, higher state

college tuition, smaller local school budgets and fewer state

service workers. And Lord only knows how we'll finance Social

Security.

Everyone wants taxes to be cut, but no one wants services

to be cut, which is why Democrats have to reframe the

debate--and show President Bush for what he really is: a man

who is not putting money into your pocket, but who is

removing government services and safety nets from your life.

Ditto on foreign policy. As we and our government continue

to spend and invest more than we save, we will become even

more dependent on the outside world to finance the gap.

Foreigners will have to buy even more of our T-bills and

other assets. And do you know on whom we'll be most

dependent: for that? China and Japan. Yes, that China--the

one the Bush team says is our biggest geopolitical rival.

``In the 1990's, Japan's and China's excess savings were

financing our private sector investment, because the

government was in surplus,'' says Robert Hormats, vice

chairman of Goldman Sachs International. ``Now, with these

looming deficits, China and Japan are being asked to finance

our government's actual operations.'' That makes us very

dependent on their willingness to continue sending us

hundreds of billions of dollars of their savings. Should

China and Japan not want to play along, your services will

very likely be cut even sooner (unless you believe in

``voodoo economics''). Which is why Democrats should rename

this tax bill the China-Japan Economic Dependency Act.

I don't think Democrats can win the presidency with a

single issue. You win the presidency by connecting with the

American people's gut insecurities and aspirations. You win

with a concept. The concept I'd argue for is

``neoliberalism.'' More Americans today are natural neolibs,

than neocons. Neoliberals believe in a muscular foreign

policy and a credible defense budget, but also a prudent

fiscal policy that balances taxes, deficit reduction and

government services.

To name something is to own it. And the Democrats, for too

long, have allowed the Bush team to name its radical

reduction in services, and the huge dependence it is creating

on foreign capital, as an innocuous ``tax cut.'' Balderdash.

This new tax cut is a dangerous foray into wretched excess

and it will ultimately make our government, ourselves and our

children less secure.

Mr. Speaker, many would argue that the United States Capitol is sacred. It is a testament to freedom, a symbol of government, a monument of national historical and cultural significance. Throughout its halls there are statues of our founders, our heroes, our history. For the past 200 years, legislators have sweat blood and tears debating the laws of our great country.

It is sacred to me, to the American people and to the underlying principles of this country. No patriotic American or friend of this great country would even think to spoil or mar the sanctity of this building.

But there are many places across this country no less sacred than the Capitol building, that are being desecrated as we speak. It is inconceivable to have open-pit mining in Arlington Cemetery or to imagine an oil rig plopped in the middle of the Sistine Chapel. But in fact that is the very problem facing Native American sacred lands today.

For example, the proposed site for a 1,600-acre, open-pit gold mine in Indian Pass, California, is a place where ``dream trails'' were woven. The Bush administration revoked a Clinton-era ruling that said mining operations would cause undue impairment to these ancestral lands, an extremely sacred place to the Quechan Indian tribe. Now the tribe is left fighting for its religious and cultural history. Although the state of California has taken action to help protect this site, the Federal government remains poised to permit the gold mine.

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

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

We cannot fight to preserve Native American sacred lands on a case by case basis. We need a comprehensive process to protect bona fide Native American sacred sites wherever they may lie on the public domain.

That is why today I am introducing the Native American Sacred Lands Protection Act.

First, the bill would enact into law a 1996 Executive Order designed to protect sacred lands. Specifically, it ensures access and ceremonial use of sacred lands and mandates all federal land management agencies take the necessary steps to prevent significant damage to sacred lands.

Second, my bill gives Indian tribes the ability to petition the government to place federal lands off-limits to energy leasing or other incompatible developments when they believe those proposed actions would cause significant damage to their sacred lands.

This is an extremely important provision. The tribes would no longer have to depend on the good graces of federal bureaucrats to protect these lands. Rather, the tribes themselves could initiate those protections.

Third, the bill respects the confidentiality requirements of some Native American religions. And finally, the bill would permit sacred lands be transferred from the Federal government to the affected Indian or co-management plans to be implemented.

If you look to our national parks, forests and monuments you see the commitment to preserve many of our country's natural treasures. The Federal government has put its full weight behind protecting these lands, and we can do the same for Indian country.

At a time when the Bush administration is promoting increased energy development, we must enact comprehensive legislation that prohibits the further loss of Native American sacred lands. We must not stand idly by as these unique places are wiped off the face of the earth.

Mr. Speaker, with nearly 300 million visitors to our National Park System each year, there are times when the roads in America's Crown Jewels look little different than the scene on I-395 into the District of Columbia during morning rush hour. The level of traffic congestion being experienced in many of our National Parks not only diminishes the visitor experience, but is adversely impacting the resource values these parks were established to protect in the first place.

While the automobile will continue to reign supreme, our National Parks and the people who visit them are suffering from a lack of alternative transportation opportunities. To address this situation, today I am introducing the Transit in Parks Act (TRIP).

Recognizing the growing problems many of America's `crown jewels' are experiencing as a

result of high visitation levels, Congress in the last major federal highway and transit reauthorization law known as TEA 21 required the Secretaries of Transportation and Interior to undertake a study of alternative transportation needs in National Parks. The study found a pressing need to increase transit opportunities in order to relieve traffic congestion, enhance visitor accessibility, preserve sensitive resources and reduce pollution. However, it identified a number of barriers to implementing successful transit systems in National Parks, including the lack of a dedicated funding source.

The TRIP bill carries out the study findings by establishing a Transit in Parks Program to be administered by the Secretary of Transportation (Federal Transit Administration) and the Secretary of the Interior (National Park Service). The program would generally follow existing law requirements for mass transportation as it relates to the planning and development of transit facilities and would create a transit counterpart to the Federal Highway Administration's Parkways and Park Roads program. The legislation proposes a $90 million annual allocation for the Transit in Parks Program from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund.

It should be noted that the National Park Service is currently using on average $11 million of its $165 million annual Parkways and Park Roads allocation for alternative transportation. This amount is insufficient to meet the alternative transportation needs for units of the National Park System identified by the TEA 21 study of approximately $90 million a year. Moreover, as the study noted, this shift in funding increases the gap between available funding and the amount needed to maintain the rapidly deteriorating and already underfunded park roadway system.

Currently, we are squandering some of our most unique natural resource heritage contained in units of the National Park System as a result of a relatively small investment in alternative transportation facilities. It is my hope that the funding in this bill will be additive to the extensively documented but unmet rural and urban transit funding needs which must be addressed in the TEA 21 reauthorization.

Mr. Speaker, unbeknownst to many Americans lurks a drain on our economy estimated to be greater than $100 billion annually and growing, a drain that goes unchecked and relatively unpublicized because it is not glamorous. Yet, this drain is spreading, continually invading our natural spaces and crowding out our native flora and fauna--in West Virginia, across Appalachia and beyond.

This economic sinkhole is caused by harmful non-native species, also referred to as invasive or nuisance species; an issue which last year catapulted into the public eye with the larger-than-life Northern Snakehead fish in a Maryland pond. But it took a predatory fish that can walk on land, with enough charisma to make it onto David Letterman's late night Top Ten List, to get the American public to finally sit up and take notice.

As Aldo Leopold said: ``A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.'' This then sums up the silent warfare that is being perpetrated against our economy, our fish and wildlife and our native species of plants--threats by invasive species.

For instance, my home State of West Virginia is relatively small in terms of land mass, but vast in the opportunities it affords anyone who seeks to enjoy wildlife-based outdoor recreation. Yet, this traditional and important sector of my State's economy is under siege by harmful non-native space invaders. According to a report focusing on West Virginia that was just released by the Union of Concerned Scientists:

State and Federal agencies have spent more than $18 million since 1983 to control the European Gypsy Moth in West Virginia, a voracious forest pest that kills trees and dramatically hurts the timber industry;

The balsam fir tree, on the state list of rare plants, is being infected by a small insect, the balsam wooly adelgid, which sucks the tree's sap, thereby killing it. This tree is a unique species for my State, and unless drastic measures are taken, it will be completely wiped out by this insect; and

In a continuation of the plight of the Great Lakes, the zebra mussel has found its way to West Virginia. So far, the zebra mussel is responsible for the Federal listing of five species of mussel in the Ohio River, not to mention economic and public health impacts from its clogging of municipal and industrial water intake pipes and outfalls.

These are only select examples that illustrate the kinds of problems West Virginia faces as the result of invasive species. Unfortunately, there are over 1,000 non-native species in West Virginia, over 300 of which are known to cause environmental and economic damage. In my view, we have an obligation to our natural heritage to protect, conserve and restore native species from these ``space invaders.''

While there are a number of initiatives already in place aimed at combating invasive species, there is a void in existing statutes. No current law is directly designed to protect and conserve our native species from harmful non-native species at the Federal or any other level. There are laws addressing harmful nonnative species, but mainly through prevention, including the National Invasive Species Act, the Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act, the Federal Plant Pest Act, the Plant Protection Act, and the Federal Noxious Weed Act. Most Federal funding presently goes to protect production agriculture with little allocated to assist States and local communities directly.

For these reasons, today I, along with like-minded Members who are similarly concerned about invasive species, are reintroducing legislation to protect, conserve and restore our native fish, wildlife and their habitats by addressing the threat of harmful invasive species where it matters most--at the local level.

The Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act, or SPACE Act, would provide the missing link in existing efforts to combat the destructive invasion of some of our most valuable natural areas by harmful non-native species. Save for a couple of refinements, this bill is identical to legislation reported by the Resources Committee last year. Specifically our legislation would:

Provide grants to States to write State-wide assessments to identify exactly where their native species are being threatened by harmful nonnative species and where cooperative control efforts should be focused;

Encourage the formation of voluntary, locally-based partnerships among Federal land management agencies and non-Federal land and water owners and managers through the competitive Aldo Leopold grant program and encourage the use of innovative technology to control invasive species;

Create a legislative authority for the National Invasive Species Council;

Authorize a Federal-level rapid response capability for an incipient threat; and

Provide funds for long term monitoring of control project sites so that we can learn by experience what strategies and techniques are most effective at controlling harmful non-native species.

The bill I introduce today augments last year's legislation in that it would provide a statutory authorization for the National Invasive Species Council, established in 1999 by Executive Order 13112. In codifying the Council, this legislation seeks to strengthen and make permanent the Federal interagency cooperation necessary for the management of invasive species. The Council is responsible for coordinating the implementation of the National Management Plan-- ``Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge.''

In the development of this legislation, I have worked with a number of environmental and science organizations including the newly formed National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species, which includes the American Lands Alliance, the Center for International Environmental Law, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense, Environmental Law Institute, Great Lakes United, the International Center for Technology Assessment, National Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Refuge Association, The Nature Conservancy, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. These organizations, along with Audubon, the Aldo Leopold Foundation and American Fisheries Society, are also offering their strong support for my legislation.

I look forward to working with all interested parties as well as the members of the Resources Committee to facilitate the enactment of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly associate myself with the comments the distinguished dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). Therefore, I also rise against this rule.

As many Members know, the underlying bill contains broad exemptions from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act which go far beyond what the military requested. For those of who found that the DOD has provided little in the way of justification for its own proposals, these broad exemptions were extremely troublesome.

In fact, under the guise of maintaining national security and military readiness, H.R. 1588 would weaken the ESA to allow critical habitat designations which are necessary for the recovery of imperiled species to be done on a discretionary basis and to do so in all instances, not just as it may apply to the military. In fact, when it came to marine mammals, any nonmilitary, nongovernmental activity also would be covered by the weakened standards of this bill.

Let me be clear, H.R. 1588 goes far beyond what even the military requested. As far as what DOD requested for itself, we have had two recent GAO reports which found that the Pentagon has failed miserably to provide any compelling examples to verify their allegation that the ESA and the MMPA are undermining the training and readiness of our fighting forces. In Iraq, we watched on live television the overwhelming strength and bravery of our Armed Forces. We salute them for a job well done. There is no doubt they were well-prepared for battle, and they did it under existing law.

Further, we know that existing law already provides exemptions to all laws when national security is at stake. Yet the military has not even availed themselves of those exemptions in current law.

However, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and myself are reasonable people. We are strong supporters of our military. We on this side of the aisle, just as strongly as anybody in this Chamber, support our troops. We are proud of the great sacrifice our fighting men and women have made to protect our Nation.

As such, we submitted to the Committee on Rules an amendment which would have, first, limited the proposed revisions to the ESA and the MMPA contained in this legislation strictly to military activities. Second, we would have ensured that those revisions, while providing the military with some compliance flexibility, would not have diminished the letter and intent of the ESA and the MMPA.

This reasonable amendment was not made in order. Instead, buried within the text of what was supposed to be a technical manager's amendment by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, we find a sleight-of-hand trick is being played.

Yes, the Hunter amendment revises the broad ESA and MMPA exemptions contained in H.R. 1588. It limits these changes to the military, but it does not do so in the prudent, protective manner that was part and parcel of the Rahall-Dingell amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my colleagues that we not be lulled into believing that the Hunter amendment would have accomplished what the Rahall-Dingell amendment would have. On process and substance, the Hunter amendment should be rejected. Therefore, I urge a no vote on the previous question; and if that fails, I urge a no vote on the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Who controls the time in opposition?

I so claim that time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I do rise in opposition to the Hunter amendment.

I think at this point in time there is some clarification needed as to the situation that we are in. Many Members may well be confused.

First, this same amendment was filed by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) before the Committee on Rules; and for reasons only known on the other side of the aisle in their internal machinations, it is now in order under the gentleman from California's name. We have all of 10 minutes to debate what are truly far-reaching changes to environmental law under this rule.

In fact, the amendment does make one important improvement in the language originally reported by the Committee on Resources. It strikes extraneous language that would have gutted a key provision of the Endangered Species Act. In this one case, the administration did not even request or support the language. But make no mistake about it, the rest of the Hunter amendment leaves intact all the exemptions and changes sought by the DOD, and I think that is worth repeating. It leaves intact all the exemptions and changes to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act that the Pentagon wants. All those exemptions and changes will remain in the bill if the current Hunter amendment is adopted.

And there is one added bonus, a special bonus here. That is a special endangered species exemption that applies to only one Arizona base which is described by the Arizona Republic as a ``silly rider'' that is not even necessary. That, too, is left intact by the Hunter amendment.

Simply put, the environmental exemptions which would be codified by the Hunter amendment are overbroad and unjustified. As a May 15 article in the Chicago Tribune stated, the bill language now before us would grant the Department of Defense exemptions which would ``apply to all military facilities, including golf courses, irrigated gardens and swimming pools.'' For those of us who have spoken out against the military exemptions, this is unacceptable. The American people respect and support our military, but they do not believe nor do I believe that the Pentagon should be held unaccountable or exempt from the laws which apply to all of us.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I proposed a substitute that would have addressed DOD concerns about future readiness activities in an environmentally responsible manner. That amendment was supported by many major environmental organizations. But because of the Republican rule that is now being jammed down our throats, we have no opportunity to consider the Rahall-Dingell amendment. It is only the Hunter amendment, take it or leave it, which forces us to vote to endorse the military exemptions to get rid of one extraneous ESA rider.

I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Hunter amendment.

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

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

I would just respond to the gentleman from California as we have responded numerous times today during this debate. There are exemptions in current law that the DOD can exercise whenever it finds conditions where national security warrants such exemptions to any environmental laws. To this date, in all reports that we have asked for, we have not seen where DOD has asked to utilize the current exemptions allowed under current law.

As we all know, our forces did a tremendous job in Iraq. We on this side of the aisle support our troops as strongly as those on the other side of the aisle, as strongly as all Americans do, and we praise the very effective job that they did. And we would add that they did it under current law.

The briefings that I have had, the briefings that I have attended for all Members of Congress, even the briefing I had with General Franks in Dohar a month or so ago, none of those briefings listed any problems that our military had with current law or the exemptions that they have to use under current law that would have in any way endangered our commanders or our military in their preparations of our troops for combat readiness, as they have been so well trained.

I say the current language works. That is what we should recognize has served our military so well and allowed them to be the great force that they are.

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

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

In conclusion, I would state that I am supported in this effort by the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan, the dean of the House. I am also supported by a number of other ranking members on our side of the aisle. The gentleman from Missouri has already made his views firmly known before this body, and he is our respected ranking member on the Committee on Armed Forces, the authorizing committee. I would just say that this issue is too important to leave all critical habitat designations as subject to the whims and caprices of the Secretary. I would urge the defeat of the amendment.

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 the pending legislation. Others will come to the floor to discuss the threat of wildfire 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.

These are debatable issues, and the House will be presented with an alternative to the pending bill in the form of a substitute that will be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and myself. We are not unmindful of the need to address the issues raised by this bill, but in our view we would do so in a more prudent and responsible manner.

There is one pending issue in this legislation, however, which transcends the debate over forest fires and forest health: the independence of our judiciary and 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.

Consider this: Under this bill the Courts are told to expedite the consideration of any lawsuit involving forest hazardous fuels reduction projects. In effect, they are told to give priority consideration to these types of lawsuits and render a decision within 100 days of filing.

Terrorist trials, corporate crime cases, civil rights cases, name it, those would have to be put on the back burner because this legislation says that lawsuits involving cutting trees are the most important types of litigation there is before the courts. Incredible. Simply incredible. This bill tells the court that litigation involving thinning trees is more important than prosecuting suspected al Qaeda terrorists. To judge lawsuits 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.

But the violation of our judiciary does not end there. By no means. For example, the sponsors of this measure have rigged the system in favor of the Federal agencies. The bill sets a brand new standard for injunctive relief by mandating that courts must give the greatest weight to what a Federal agency determines to be in the public interest. In essence, a directive to ignore the basis of appeal brought by the plaintiffs in a lawsuit.

Think about the ramifications of that for a moment. Think about it. Think about the precedent we would be setting. In my neck of the woods, for example, it would be like telling the families of coal miners who died in a mine explosion that if they sued the Mine Safety and Health Administration for alleged failure to adequately inspect the mine, when they walked into the courthouse, the judge by statute had already been ordered to defer to the Federal agency. Basically, to ignore the contentions of the aggrieved families.

Many of us have been here long enough to remember when conservatives did not trust the Federal Government, and they did not endorse expanded and unchecked Federal powers. These provisions have caused a whole group of organizations which have no interest in forest policy to take a stand in opposition to this bill. The NAACP, for example, is opposed to this bill. In a letter sent to all Members of the House, they state: ``We urge you to reject H.R. 1904 as it could severely impact the ability of our Federal courts to issue time decisions in civil rights, workers' rights, and other pressing matters, and change the fundamental balance that has been struck in our legal system.''

The effect of these provisions are to unfairly and arbitrarily shut the courthouse door on Americans, making the Federal Government far less accountable to its citizens. It is unfortunate 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 they do a disservice to our addressing issues such as forest insect infestation and forest fires in a prudent and responsible fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and ask unanimous consent that he control said time.

Mr. Speaker, earlier during general debate I noted we are 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.

And do so without incorporating the poison pill judicial review provision in H.R. 1904.

That is the purpose of the pending amendment.

For instance, the issue of insect and disease infestation is one of importance to me and to West Virginia's hardwood forests.

Exotic insects, in particular, pose a serious threat to America's forests. For example, the hemlock woolly adelgid is already widespread from North Carolina to New England and in parts of the West.

The McInnis bill, however, only authorizes $5 million--an amount far short of what the agency needs to research and address this problem. The bill also specifies certain insects for study. Yet, several other species have also been detected.

Again, as I noted, there are issues in H.R. 1904 which should be addressed and that is the purpose of our amendment.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 131 years to the day after President Ulysses S. Grant signed the 1872 General Mining Law, today I am introducing legislation to provide much needed environmental and fiscal oversight for the hardrock mining industry, the nation's largest toxic polluter. Joining me in sponsoring this bill are Christopher Shays, Jay Inslee, Earl Blumenauer, Brian Baird, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Dale Kildee, George Miller, Bill Lipinski, Mark Udall, Ron Kind, Barney Frank, Grace Napolitano, Eni Faleomavaega, Raul Grijalva, Hilda Solis, Betty McCollum, Adam Schiff, and Jim McDermott. I would add that our bill is endorsed by 43 organizations representing affected citizens and taxpayers across the Nation.

This bipartisan legislation would overhaul an antiquated statute signed into law by President Grant on May 10, 1872--a law that contains no environmental protection provisions governing the mining of hardrock minerals such as platinum, gold, silver, and copper on public domain lands in the western States; prevents the federal government from stopping ill-advised proposed mines on federal lands; and has left the headwaters of 40 percent of western waterways polluted by mining. The 1872 Mining Law also allows extraction of these minerals from the public domain without the payment of a royalty to the American taxpayers and allows a mining company to purchase mineral rich public lands for no more than $5 an acre irrespective of its true value.

Our legislation would bring hardrock mining law into the 21st century. It would protect precious water resources from toxic mine waste with much needed environmental standards, and prevent mining industry ripoffs by requiring the industry to pay a royalty on the extraction of publicly owned minerals. It would also prevent mining operations from endangering federally designated wilderness areas and other special places by requiring land managers to weigh mine proposals against other potential land uses when making permitting decisions.

The lack of a royalty in the 1872 Mining Law and the absence of deterrents or penalties for irresponsible mining have caused enormous taxpayer giveaways and liabilities. Under the Mining Law the federal government has given away over $245 billion in mineral rich public lands. And, in return, the mining industry has left taxpayers with a cleanup bill estimated to be in the range of $32 to $72 billion for hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines that pollute the western landscape.

To be sure, Congress has attempted to reform the Mining Law at various times over its history--each time to be thwarted by powerful mining interests. Former Congressman Mo Udall came close to achieving reform of the mining law in the 1970's. During the 102d Congress in 1991, I introduced mining reform legislation and we came close to enacting legislation that would have reformed this archaic law in 1994. But, at the last moment, after both the House and the Senate had passed separate bills, the Conference failed to reach a compromise and the rest, as they say, is history. Since then, I have re-introduced reform legislation in each succeeding Congress.

Many Americans support reform and question why Congress does not address this issue. These people believe that American taxpayers are being robbed every time a multinational conglomerate breaks U.S. ground and mines our valuable minerals for free. These people also wish to be protected from the poisoned streams and pockmarked vistas that are the historic legacy of the mining industry. Attached to my remarks is a letter signed by 43 organizations representing many of these affected citizens and taxpayers, all of whom endorse mining law reform.

The Rock Creek Alliance, one of the endorsers of our bill, is an example of the growing grassroots support for mining reform. This Idaho-based organization is battling a proposed silver and copper mine on the Idaho-Montana border.

If the plan is approved, as expected, the mining operator will bore two three mile tunnels underneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area, one of the first areas protected under the Wilderness Act of 1964. This mine will threaten one of the last remaining grizzly bear populations in the Lower 48 states, negatively impact populations of threatened native

bull trout, and pollute rivers, lakes, and drinking water supplies including the famed Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Oreille. Mining is a legitimate use of the public domain. However, due to the pro-mining provisions of the 1872 mining law, the mine proposal outweighs any other consideration: proximity to a wilderness area, endangered species habitat, or degradation of regional water quality.

The Great Basin Mine Watch, a Nevada-based organization, provides another example of local support for mining law reform. This group, along with local officials, is fighting a proposed clay mine that will produce kitty litter. In 2002, the Bush administration intervened in a dispute in Nevada involving a Chicago-based kitty litter company, which was attempting to use the Mining Law of 1872 to circumvent the county's denial of a permit for a mine. The Bush Department of Justice asserted that the county did not have the right to deny the permit because of the 1872 mining law. And, according to the Court, they were right--no Federal statute requires that an operator procure a state or local permit for such operations. In other words, kitty litter rules.

It is time, well past time, that the Congress replace this archaic law with one that reflects our values and goals. Insuring a fair return to the public in exchange for the disposition of public resources, and properly managing our public lands are neither Republican nor Democratic issues. They are simply ones that make sense if we are to be good stewards of America's lands and meet our responsibilities to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, during the years I have labored to reform the Mining Law of 1872 those who defend its privileges--and it is indeed a privilege to be deemed the highest and best use of our public domain lands--have often alleged that reform legislation fails to take into account the contribution of hardrock mining to area economies. They claim that reform would have dire consequences on the industry, that if we did not provide the industry with unfettered access to public lands and public minerals, the industry could no longer survive.

Let me just say at the outset that there is no member in the House of Representatives whose Congressional District is more dependent upon mining for employment and its economic benefits than this gentleman from West Virginia. And when we are talking about the effects of mining, I would suggest that there is little difference between coal mining, or gold mining. The effects, whether measured in terms of employment, or in terms of the environment, are the same.

With that noted, I have engaged in the effort to reform the Mining Law of 1872 these past many years not just for the apparent reasons-- valuable minerals mined for free, federal lands available almost for free and no comprehensive federal mining and reclamation standards. But also because I am pro-mining, because I no longer believe that we can expect a viable hardrock mining industry to exist on public domain lands in the future if we do not make corrections to the law today. I do so because there are provisions of the existing law which impede efficient and serious mineral exploration and development. And I do so because of the unsettled political climate governing this activity, with reform if not coming in a comprehensive fashion, certainly continuing to come on a piecemeal basis.

So I say to my colleagues from the western states who resist reform, I understand your concerns. I have been in your situation. In 1977 I served on what is now called the Resources Committee as a young freshman. I was confronted by legislation being advanced by my chairman, Mo Udall. And I will recall that the coal industry was dragged kicking and screaming into the debate that led to the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.

I voted for that legislation. It was not an easy thing for me to do. But I voted for that bill because in my region of the country we were grappling with a legacy of acidified streams, highwalls, refuse piles, open mine shafts and other hazards associated with coal mining practices. A legacy, I would submit, that we are faced with on lands administered by the Forest Service and the BLM in the western states due to hardrock mining practices.

The fact of the matter is that the gloom and doom predictions made by industry against the federal strip mining act all those years ago did not materialize. Predictions, I would note, that are almost to the word identical to those which industry has leveled at times against this Mining Law of 1872 reform legislation.

Yet, today, the coalfields of this Nation are a much better place in which to live. And today, we are producing more coal than ever before.

Certainly, coal continues to have its controversies, whether they involve mountaintop removal coal mining or the problems we are having with coal waste impoundments. But at least there are laws on the books to deal with those situations.

At least there are in place basic federal mining and reclamation performance standards. At least when one mines coal on federal lands a royalty is paid to the federal government. And at least we are making provision for the restoration of lands left abandoned by past coal mining practices.

None of this exists with respect to hardrock mining under the Mining Law of 1872.

I believe that with enough courage, and fortitude, we can continue to address the problems facing mining, and dovetail our need for energy and minerals with the necessity of protecting our environment.

For at stake here in this debate over the Mining Law of 1872 is the health, welfare and environmental integrity of our people and our federal lands. At stake is the public interest of all Americans. And at stake is the ability of the hardrock mining industry to continue to operate on public domain lands in the future, to produce those minerals that are necessary to maintain our standard of living.

Mr. Speaker, earlier in these remarks I mentioned that this bill is endorsed by 43 organizations. In an April 11th letter to me, they noted: ``The real challenge will be to ensure that any mining on public lands takes place in a manner that protects crucial drinking water supplies and other natural resources, special places, taxpayers, fish and wildlife habitat, and the health and well being of our communities. These organizations are as follows:

Alaska Wilderness League; American Rivers; Amigos Bravos; Bear Creek Council; Clark Fork Coalition; Citizens for Victor; Colorado Environmental Coalition; Colorado Wild; Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund; Endangered Species Coalition; Environmental Working Group; Friends of Pinto Creek; Great Basin Mine Watch; Greater Yellowstone Coalition; Gila Resources Information Project; High Country Citizens' Alliance; Idaho Conservation League; The Lands Council; Maricopa Audubon Society; Mineral Policy Center; Mining Impact Coalition of Wisconsin; Montana Environmental Information Center; Montana Wilderness Association; National Environmental Trust; National Parks Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; National Wildlife Federation; New Mexico Environmental Law Center; Northern Alaska Environmental Center; Northern Plains Resource Council; Okanogan Highlands Alliance; Rock Creek Alliance; Scenic America; Sierra Club; San Juan Citizens' Alliance; Siskiyou Regional Education Project; Spearfish Canyon Preservation Trust; Taxpayers for Common Sense; Washington Public Interest Research Group; Western Organization of Resource Councils; The Wilderness Society; Women's Voices for the Earth; and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

Mr. Speaker, Carter G. Woodson's professional accomplishments are impressive. In 1915, while a professor at Howard University here in Washington, DC, Dr. Woodson launched the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, an organization that would come to represent his life's work--the documentation and dissemination of the history of African Americans.

Through Dr. Woodson's work, and the work of his organization, Negro History Week was established in 1926 and expanded to Black History Month in 1976. Based on his lifelong scholarship and leadership, Dr. Woodson well deserved his title as the ``Father of Black History.''

In addition to these professional accomplishments, however, Dr. Woodson's personal life was one of amazing accomplishment as well. Born in Virginia in 1875, the child of slaves, Dr. Woodson was unable to attend school as a child. However, after teaching himself to read and write, Dr. Woodson and his brother moved to Huntington, WV, in my congressional district, when Dr. Woodson was seventeen. It had been his hope to attend Douglass High School in Huntington full time, but he was instead forced to earn his living in the coalfields, attending school for only a few months at a time.

At age 20, however, Carter Woodson was able to attend Douglass year round and earned his degree in just 2 years. After a teaching stint in Fayette County, WV, Dr. Woodson returned to serve as principal of Douglass High.

I would note that today, while Douglass High School is not longer an active school, it plays a significant role in the community. The building, located on Bruce Street and Tenth Avenue, was placed on the Register of Historic Places in 1985. It now serves as a museum, houses the Carter G. Woodson Memorial Foundation, as well as the Ebenezer Medical Outreach Center that serves the people of the Fairfield West Community.

After college in Kentucky, Carter Woodson went on to study at the University of Chicago, the Sobronne, and Harvard University, where he became only the second African American to receive a doctorate.

To go from being a student at Douglass High School, to serving as the school's principal in just a few years, is impressive enough. However, to overcome an early life of poverty and illiteracy to achieve the absolute pinnacle of academic achievement, by way of hard work in the coalfields of West Virginia, is a truly amazing and inspirational achievement.

I commend my friend, Eleanor Holmes Norton on her legislation to add Dr. Woodson's home here in Washington to our National Park System. It is my hope that, through the establishment of this new site, people from around the country, and even from around the world, might come to know the legacy of Dr. Carter G. Woodson and to draw inspiration from his life and work.

Mr. Speaker. It is with alarm that today members of the United Mine Workers of America rally on the steps of the State Capitol in Charleston, West Virginia, to protest one of the greatest threats to their health and safety in many years.

It is unfortunate, but true, that this threat comes from their own Federal Government, in the form of proposed rules issued by the Mine Health and Safety Administration (MSHA) that would increase fourfold the amount of dust levels permitted in underground coal mines.

As a May 6, 2003, editorial in the Beckley, West Virginia, Register Herald pointed out, a recent study conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and MSHA already casts doubt on the efficacy of existing coal mine dust compliance rules. The editorial points out that about 1,000 miners still die a year from the dreaded black lung disease which is contracted as a result of sustained contact with coal mine dust. And as the editorial notes: ``We need to dig for answers quickly, so the next century of coal mining can be accomplished without the threat of black lung disease.'' Following my remarks I ask that the editorial be printed in its entirety.

Yet, despite this study and a whole host of other evidence, MSHA on March 6th of this year published two proposed rules which would dramatically harm the health of our Nation's coal miners and conflict with both the letter and intent of the landmark Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

This week, in a letter I wrote to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, I asked that these proposed rules be immediately withdrawn. There is no credible reason why any alleged ``mine health'' regulation should allow permissible dust levels to increase from the current 2 milligrams/cubic meter standards to 8 milligrams as would be possible under the March 6th dust rules.

The Labor Department and its agency, MSHA, should heed the call of the Register Herald editorial and take actions to eliminate the threat of black lung disease rather than allow increased dust levels in the Nation's coal mines.

Black Lung: 30 Years After Protections, Disease and Questions Remain

Under the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, miners

are to be exposed to no more than 2 milligrams of coal dust

per cubic meter of air over eight hours--equal to a debris

speck the size of a pinhead.

These federal coal-dust controls were designed to protect

miners so black lung no longer would be an occupational

hazard.

So, 30 years later, have these restraints been successful

in halting a disease that reduces the ability to breathe and

leads to heart failure?

At first glance, that seems to be the case. But statistics

sometimes can be as clear as mud.

According to the study conducted by the National Institute

for Occupational Safety and Health and the U.S. Mine Safety

and Health Administration, black lung disease continues to

develop in miners who have worked their entire careers under

current, and supposedly acceptable, coal dust limits.

X-rays show that rates among miners with 20 years or less

in the mines produce ``no clear trend,'' the study said.

Black lung ``continues to occur among working coal miners,

even among those first employed after the current federal

exposure limit became effective'' in 1972.

Even among surface miners, X-rays found that black lung

occurred in 1.9 percent of cases.

Surface miners ``had been thought not to have been at much

risk because they work out in the open,'' noted Dr. E. Lee

Petsonk, one of the study's authors and senior medical

officer in the surveillance branch at the health institute's

Division of Respiratory Disease Studies in Morgantown. ``It

is a finding of concern.''

The $64,000 question, then, is a simple ``why?'' Why do new

cases of black lung disease continue to develop in miners

when coal-dust limits established to protect miners have been

in effect for more than 30 years?

Are the dust levels being complied with? Are the rules

still not stringent enough? And why are surface miners

developing black lung?

Answering these questions is vital, because about 1,000

miners die from black lung each year. Many of those are West

Virginia miners.

Coal, we pointed out in this space yesterday, will be

around for a while. By a most conservative estimate, there

are at least 100 years of coal deposits still to mine.

We need to dig for answers quickly, so the next century of

coal mining can be accomplished without the threat of black

lung disease.

Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation aimed at providing equity in the treatment of benefits for eligible survivors of recipients of black lung benefits.

By way of background, in 1981 the Black Lung Benefits Act was amended in several respects at the urging of the Reagan Administration. The driving motivation for this legislation at the time was to shore up the finances of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund through which benefit payments are made to beneficiaries where mine employment terminated prior to 1970, or where no mine operator can be assigned liability.

After the enactment of this legislation, administrative actions and a number of extremely harmful court decisions made it extremely difficult, if not almost impossible, for those suffering from the crippling disease of black lung to qualify for benefits. However, today, a large number of the problems claimants faced have been remedied by a Clinton Administration rulemaking that was finalized on December 20, 2000.

Yet, two provisions of the 1981 Act in particular continue to be most troublesome, and largely impact, in a very adverse way, surviving widows of coal miners who die as a result of black lung disease.

As it now stands, due to the 1981 amendments, there is a dual and inequitable standard governing how benefits are handled for surviving spouses of deceased beneficiaries. In the event a beneficiary died prior to January 1, 1982--the effective date of the 1981 Act--benefits continued uninterrupted to the surviving spouse.

However, if the beneficiary dies after January 1, 1982, the surviving spouse must file a new claim in order to try to continue receiving the benefits and must prove that the miner died as a result of black lung disease despite the fact that the miner was already deemed eligible to receive benefits prior to death. This is illogical, unfair and outlandish.

In addition, as a result of the 1981 law, there is also a dual and inequitable standard governing the basis by which a miner or his widow is entitled to benefits under the Act. For pre-1981 Act claimants, a rebuttable presumption of the existence of black lung disease is established if the miner worked for 15 years or more in underground coal mines and if over evidence, such as an X-ray, demonstrates the existence of a total disability respiratory or pulmonary impairment. This rebuttable presumption, however, does not apply to post-1981 Act claimants.

The legislation I am introducing today removes the requirement that a surviving spouse must refile a claim in order to continue receiving benefits. It also applies the rebuttable presumption of black lung disease for pre-1981 Act claimants to those filed after the effective date of that statute.

This is a fair and just proposal, and one which should have been enacted years ago. In fact, l have introduced various black lung bills since 1988. During the early 1990s the House of Representatives on two occasions passed reform legislation. Much of what was contained in these comprehensive reform bills was finally addressed by the Clinton- era rulemaking. However, the subject matter of the bill I am introducing today demands action by the Congress.

I urge the leadership of this body to consider this matter, and to allow this bill to be acted upon this year.

Mr Speaker, ``It must not be forgotten, lest it be repeated.'' This is the message of the life of West Virginia Holocaust Survivor Max Lewin. Though Max left us this year, his community in southern West Virginia recently honored him. Today, on National Holocaust Remembrance Day I wish to share with my colleagues the story of Max Lewin, a proud West Virginian and a brave Survivor.

No phrase should ever weigh heavier upon our collective conscience than, ``it must not be forgotten, lest it be repeated,'' as we consider world history, and negotiate America's foreign policy and humanitarian priorities. The lesson of what happened during the Holocaust surely shows us that every day we live in a world of diversity, filled with respect for peoples of various religious, ethnic, and racial backgrounds is a day that assaults the vile teachings of the Nazi regime. Every day that as legislators of this great Nation we look across the globe and make certain no person or group of people are singled out to live lives of indignity, is a day we truly remember the lesson of the Holocaust. Today, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, let us come together to remember our great teachers of this lesson.

So that I may share with my colleagues the story of Max Lewin, I ask that this recent article in the Beckley Register-Herald be printed in the Record.

The article follows:

[From the Register-Herald Reporter, Apr. 7, 2003]

Holocaust Memorial to Honor Max Lewin

(By Mannix Porterfield)

Even before his health began to fail, Max Lewin made sure

his tortured life as a Holocaust victim and the lessons of

the 20th century's darkest hours were never forgotten.

What he did was make a pact with a 10-year-old girl to keep

alive not only his excruciating memories but those of the

Holocaust in general.

That promise was kept, and Margaux Siegel, now 11, will

cover Lewin's heroic struggles Sunday in this year's

Holocaust Memorial, set to begin at 1 p.m. in Mountain State

University's Carter Hall.

``Max felt his greatest fear was that the story would die

with him and its lessons wouldn't be learned,'' explained

Margaux' father, Dr. Normal Siegel.

Lewin was the key figure in past Holocaust services in

Beckley, a difficult assignment for a man who lost most of

his family after German troops stormed into Poland in 1939,

signaling the start of World War II.

``I think certainly he had an authentic voice, though

sometimes it was difficult to hear precisely what he was

saying,'' Siegel said.

``I think, through his accent and tears, everyone felt the

pain.''

Lewin died last Aug. 24 at the age of 83.

A slight man with an ever-present smile belying the pain of

surviving the murderous regime of the Nazis, he often sought

to rekindle interest in the Holocaust by calling on schools

in West Virginia to teach its lessons.

In several newspaper interviews, Lewin voiced a fear that

future generations, as the adage holds, would be condemned to

repeat history if such lessons were ignored.

This year's service, in fact, marks the first such occasion

in which the Lewin story is told in the third person.

A gifted writer who won an award last year in elementary

school competition, Margaux relied on numerous newspaper

clippings chronicling Lewin's storied life from 1978 forward.

In addition, an old friend of his, Helen Huzoski of Pax,

provided access to his personal papers.

Affidavits also were researched, and a letter from a German

court confirmed his concentration camp serial numbers.

Actually, Margaux has delivered her vivid account of

Lewin's life on other occasions, where the audience was

limited to two or three. Come Sunday, the audience will be

considerably larger. ``She had promised him she would tell

his story when he wasn't around, so this is sort of

fulfilling it,'' her father said.

Strangers would never have guessed the kind, gentle Lewin,

a fixture in Beckley's business community for years, had

suffered unimaginable pain at the hands of the Nazis,

although a trace of sorrow never quite escaped his smile.

Even those familiar with his story couldn't have stepped

into his shoes for a full appreciation of his life.

In a eulogy at Lewin's funeral, Rabbi Victor Urecki put it

succinctly: ``None of us could ever imagine what it was like

to be Max Lewin. He always tried to smile. He never lost his

respect for humanity, his love for humanity.''

For Lewin, the placid, country life of a farm family was

shaken at the roots when his native land was invaded.

In a tear-laden 1996 interview, he recounted for The

Register-Herald the horrific scenes that ensued.

Some 100 robust young men were gathered by the invaders,

given shovels and ordered to dig a 4-foot-deep trench. Jews

were lined on either side, then gunned down, and the youths

were then directed to spread dirt over the victims, some

still writhing in agony.

Lewin lost most of his family in a mass execution March 10,

1943. A sister succumbed in a concentration camp. A brother

died in another mass murder a few weeks afterward.

Lewin's wife, Fruma, only 19, vanished, presumably a victim

of the Nazi execution squads.

Arriving in America after surviving Auschwitz, he joined

older brother Harry in launching Harry's Men's Shop, a

business he inherited and kept running after Harry's death in

1982.

Lewin lent his experiences to the Governor's Commission for

Holocaust Education that works to keep alive the tragic

lessons of the past.

As she has done in past observances, Sam Armstein will

serve as master of ceremonies at the Sunday memorial.

Amie Lamborn of Charleston and Michelle Levin, wife of Dr.

Barry Levin, will conduct the ``Lighting of the Candles,''

followed by Huzoski's narrative, ``Understanding,'' another

look at Lewin's life.

``Max, Mountain University and Me'' will be performed by

James Silosky, the school's executive vice president and

provost for extended learning.

Another tradition, this one embracing the audience, ``The

Tearing of the Cloth,'' will be led by Mark Lamborn, also of

Charleston. Dr. Joseph Golden of Beckley will offer a

commentary on Holocaust prevention.

``Growing Up With Survivors'' will be presented by Dr.

Levin, after which Tom Sopher will perform a poetic reading.

The Holocaust claimed a known 6 million Jews in Europe and

some of them will be recalled personally with the traditional

``Reading of the Names,'' led this year by Beckley attorney

Stan Selden. Members of the audience will be invited to help

with the reading.

Rabbi Paul Jacobson, acting rabbi at Temple Beth-El, will

perform a song, ``El Malei Rachamin,'' and say the kaddish, a

Jewish mourner's prayer. Pianist for the program will be

Becky Leach, also of Beckley.

Seven years ago, MSU dedicated a special section of its

campus to the memory of the city's most renown Holocaust

survivor with ``The Lewin Family Bell Tower.''

Inscribed on it are the names of Lewin's parents, Yechiel

and Sarah; wife Fruma; and his siblings, Awner, Joseph,

Harry, Leah, Hannah and Chaia.

Just above those names, a phrase captures the reason for

revisiting the horrors of the Third Reich in such ceremonies:

``It must not be forgotten, lest it be repeated.''