Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Rural Broadband Improvement Act. This bill would refocus the Rural Utility Service (RUS) Broadband Loan Program to bring high speed internet access to rural Americans.

Access to broadband service is critical to the quality of life in rural America. It has the potential to be an unprecedented catalyst for economic growth and improvements in education and health care. However, I am concerned that instead of benefiting the rural Americans who need it, RUS is too often being used to subsidize Internet access to suburban and affluent communities that already have multiple high speed internet providers.

According to a USDA Office of Inspector General September 2005 Audit Report on the Rural Utility Service Broadband Grant and Loan Program, ``RUS has not exclusively served those rural communities most requiring federal assistance to obtain access to broadband technologies. Because RUS's definition of `rural area' is too broad to distinguish usefully between suburban and rural communities, the agency has issued over $103.4 million in grants and loans (nearly 12 percent of $895 million in total program funds) to communities near metropolitian areas.'' The audit report also found that RUS needs stronger controls to prioritize communities without broadband access.

I have introduced the ``Rural Broadband Improvement Act'' to refocus and improve this important program. My legislation would make three simple reforms:

1. It would ensure that RUS loans and guarantees go to truly rural communities;

2. In rural communities that already have some high speed internet service, my bill would ensure that Federal dollars benefit those residents who have no broadband;

3. It would ensure that projects that were intended to be built with federal dollars, but were not built within three years of being granted the loan, are paid back to the U.S. Treasury.

The Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture issued a report criticizing this program. In the President's Budget, the Administration recognized that the program needs to be retargeted to rural Americans who need it. But after five years since this program's inception, precious dollars that could be used to bring high speed internet access to rural homes and schoolhouses across America continue to be misspent.

Now it is time for Congress to act. Please join me to help enable rural Americans to enjoy the same high speed access to the internet that urban and suburban America enjoys.

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to remove my name from cosponsorship of H.R. 65.

Madam Speaker, recently, in my home state of South Dakota, the state executive director of the USDA Farm Service Agency announced a plan to eliminate at least six county FSA offices that currently serve South Dakota farmers and ranchers. I think this plan is ill-timed and unnecessary. It will require many producers to travel greater distances to receive necessary services including critical price support, conservation, and disaster programs. If carried out, this consolidation would force considerable hardship and expense on all affected farm and ranch families, especially considering the fact that some of the counties targeted are among South Dakota's most rural. Even by USDA's own admission, the plan will result in almost no savings of taxpayer dollars, but it will certainly result in increased inconvenience, travel time and cost to producers. Local FSA offices are a lifeline to farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and some at USDA apparently do not fully recognize their value to our state.

Moreover, because we are just beginning debate on a new farm bill, it makes no sense to implement major changes to our FSA county office system at this time. We don't yet know what the next farm bill will look like and, therefore, we don't know what the demands on local FSA offices are going to be. As a member of the House Agriculture Committee and its subcommittees for Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research and General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, this legislation is necessary to protect family producers that rely on their local offices for timely and personal access to USDA's farm programs.

This bill will simply require that USDA postpone any FSA county office closures until well after Congress has finished its work of reauthorizing the Farm Bill and we know what the personnel demands on local offices will be. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation comprised of three sections to improve federal nutrition assistance.

The National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs are two of the Nation's most successful and popular programs. Each day almost 30 million children participate in the lunch program and 9 million in the breakfast programs. Yet, there are children who are eligible for the programs who cannot participate.

Children from families with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty line are eligible for reduced price meals. A reduced price breakfast costs 30 cents per meal per child and a lunch is 40 cents per meal per child. While it may be hard to imagine, this modest fee appears to be a barrier to low income working households.

In 2004, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108- 265) authorized a pilot program to determine for sure whether it was the reduced price fee that was keeping children from the program or whether there might be other reasons for the lack of participation. I believe the time has come to finally fund this pilot and I propose that the Congress take this action as a part of the farm bill.

USDA has suggested that a valid pilot could be implemented for approximately $23 million, $10 million per year for two years, plus the cost of evaluation. This amount would not allow for a five state, state-wide pilot as was authorized but it would provide for a valid test of whether the fee is the barrier that is keeping the children from the program.

Evidence has clearly proven that hungry children cannot learn. Therefore, if we are going to educate our children in America to compete effectively in a world market, we must provide for sound nutritious school meals. As the Congress restructures our farm programs, and reauthorizes the food stamp program, we should also fund this small but important school meal pilot.

Most of the school boards in South Dakota have endorsed funding for this pilot, as has the South Dakota Farmers Union and the Argus Leader, our largest newspaper. Nationally, the pilot also enjoys wide support. The School Nutrition Association, the Military Impacted School Association, National Farmers Union, the National Association of Elementary School Principals all support funding the pilot. The National School Boards Association has gone further and supports gradually eliminating the reduced price category, expanding the free meal category to the WIC income guideline. In short, if a family qualified for free WIC benefits, the family would also qualify for free school meals. Many state and local school boards agree with this policy.

Additionally, I'd like to acknowledge the administering State agencies and school districts that work so hard to ensure that every school meal these children receive meets the nutrition standards set forth in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans as required by law. To allow the USDA to better support school food professionals in their efforts, this legislation provides for a survey of foods purchased by school food authorities to be conducted once every 5 years. This data would also help the USDA to better manage the commodities that the Department purchases on behalf of schools, and also assess the economic impact of school food purchases on different commodity sectors. The most recent data on school food purchases is over a decade old and I believe this worthwhile investment is overdue.

Finally, this legislation would increase the minimum spent for food program administration in the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). FDPIR provides commodity foods and education to low-income households that reside on Indian reservations so that they can maintain a nutritionally balanced diet with foods they might not otherwise have access to where they reside. There are approximately 257 tribes that receive commodity foods through FDPIR and an increase in the distribution of administrative funds is in order to better reflect the actual participation rates in this critical program.

I encourage my colleagues to support this beneficial and important legislation. It sets forth modest proposals that could make a world of difference to children and families most at risk of severe hunger.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Reverend Stan Gruneich, National Chaplain of the American Legion, as guest chaplain of the House of Representatives.

On behalf of the entire House, thank you, Reverend, for your prayer, for serving as guest chaplain, for your military service to this country, and for your service to the American Legion as national chaplain. We are honored to have you here today.

Reverend Gruneich was appointed National Chaplain of the American Legion on August 30, 2006. A U.S. Army Vietnam-era veteran, he received his bachelor of arts degree and his master's in divinity from the University of Sioux Falls in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

He is a member of the Kelly-Porter Post 70 in Flandreau, South Dakota. During his 22 years in the American Legion, Chaplain Gruneich has held several key positions. In addition to serving as post commander, he brings 15 years of experience as the South Dakota department chaplain to the floor today.

Reverend Gruneich, I look forward to continuing to work with you and your

colleagues in the American Legion to ensure our Nation's veterans receive the benefits they have earned and deserve.

Madam Speaker, thank you. And thank you again to the Reverend, as we thank him for sharing his spiritual guidance and wisdom here today in the House of Representatives and for his commitment to serving his fellow veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join so many other proud and patriotic Members of this body, including a number of our military veterans, in support of this bipartisan resolution.

Just over a year ago when I was in Iraq on my second trip to the region, I shared the optimism and the assessment of many that, following three consecutive elections in 2005 with increasing turnout among Iraqi voters in each, 2006 would be a key transitional year militarily, politically, and economically.

However, a year ago this month, the sectarian strife in Iraq began to worsen, and our inadequate planning for possible and likely scenarios that could unfold in this war continued to catch up with us and continued to narrow our strategic options. As initial and important political developments did eventually unfold throughout last summer, sectarian violence did not abate but intensified, particularly in Baghdad. In response, U.S. forces were part of as many as four different efforts to enhance security in the capital in order to ease the path toward further essential political compromise. None of these efforts proved successful because of the limitations of the Iraqi security forces and police and the restrictions imposed by Iraqi Government leaders.

I had serious concerns when the President proposed last month to increase the number of troops in Iraq, and I hold them still today. I have serious concerns regarding the ability of Iraqi security forces not only to act as a reliable partner in the efforts to secure Baghdad, but to take on and maintain the lead in such efforts, concerns echoed in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

I have serious concerns regarding whether this plan is sufficiently different from previous efforts to secure the Iraqi capital, particularly when Prime Minister al-Maliki's initial proposal presented to the President in December did not envision additional U.S. troops as part of the effort. I have serious concerns about the further erosion of the commitment of our coalition partners and other allies, if indeed Iraq is the central front of our battle against terrorism.

Now, there is no doubt that al Qaeda in Iraq and elsewhere poses a real and serious threat to our security in the Middle East and to our national security here at home. But the security situation in Iraq has evolved to include a complex civil war, described as ``a self- sustaining intersectarian struggle'' by the NIE, for which additional U.S. troops should not be on the front line to resolve.

The Iraqi Government needs to understand they are on borrowed time and they must take greater control of the future of their own country through political reconciliation to quell the sectarian violence. Iraq's neighbors and the international community must be more engaged diplomatically to end the sectarian strife so as to prevent the spread of it and the instability in the region that would result.

Moreover, as recent oversight hearings have revealed, such a large escalation of both combat and support troops undoubtedly will have an impact on our overall military readiness. And despite their unwavering commitment to serve when called, there may be serious consequences for National Guard and Reservists, as redeployments of full units will be required to implement the troop surge, according to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

So after carefully reviewing the President's proposal to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, hearing testimony from senior members of the military, and analyzing the public statements of combatant commanders, and speaking with many of those from my home State of South Dakota who have served or who have loved ones who are serving in the war on terror, I conclude we should not stay this course. I remain unconvinced that sending additional troops to Iraq is the best way forward. Some who support the escalation have described it as ``our last best chance to win.'' To me, that is a clear acknowledgment that the President's plan further narrows rather than expands our strategic options.

And let me add this: This is an issue that demands a bipartisan approach, and it is most unfortunate that the administration has made a decision that dismisses the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. I believe this bipartisan, narrowly crafted resolution reflects the public's and Congress' assessment that increasing our military's combat role, especially in the midst of an intensifying sectarian struggle, is not the answer.

For those who would attack this limited resolution and the debate surrounding it or to suggest and ask, Whose side are you on, I would refer them to the comments of Secretary Gates from his testimony in the House Armed Services Committee last week in which he said that the troops are ``sophisticated enough to understand that . . . the debate's really about . . . the path forward in Iraq. They understand that the debate is being carried on by patriotic people who care about them and who care about their mission.''

Lastly, I want to reemphasize the first part of today's important resolution. Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect members of the U.S. Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq. We have a new generation of veterans returning from Iraq. As a subcommittee Chair on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I will work with all of my colleagues to ensure that the tens of thousands of young people coming home, some after their second, third, and fourth tours, many with severe and debilitating physical and mental wounds, return to the democracy which they fought to protect, with a government that recognizes their service and sacrifice with more than just words of gratitude, but with action that fulfills our Nation's collective duty and obligation to them as veterans who take their place alongside the other fighting men and women who have kept America free and safe.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Oglala Sioux Tribe Angostura Irrigation Project Rehabilitation and Development Act. This legislation authorizes much-needed efficiency improvements to the irrigation facilities at the Angostura Unit, a Federal Bureau of Reclamation dam on the Cheyenne River in South Dakota. These improvements will restore critical water resources and promote economic development on the nearby Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

This bill provides important resources to the citizens of South Dakota and the Lakota people of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. It authorizes funds to carry out the Bureau of Reclamation's recommended improvements to the irrigation facilities at the Angostura dam. The dam provides substantial economic benefits to many South Dakotans. It provides irrigation to 12,218 acres of land which benefits ranchers and agricultural producers in the area, and it supports an important recreational boating and fishing industry which is enjoyed by many of our citizens.

Until now, however, the Angostura dam has failed to provide any of these economic benefits to the members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe who live just 20 miles downstream of the dam on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The Oglala Sioux Tribe has long relied on the resources provided by the Cheyenne River, which forms part of the northern boundary of its reservation. Long before the dam was constructed as part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Project, the tribe relied on the river as an important economic resource. Since it was completed, however, the dam has taken an enormous toll on the tribe. The dam curbed the Cheyenne River's natural flow, reducing water quality on the reservation, diminishing natural riparian habitats, adversely impacting fish and wildlife and forcing important tribal agricultural enterprises to shut their doors.

The bill implements the Bureau of Reclamation's preferred alternative in its revised water management plan for the Angostura Unit, which calls for improved efficiencies in irrigation operations that will free up additional water resources for both existing water users and the tribe. In addition, the legislation would authorize the creation of a trust fund to compensate the tribe for the devastating economic impacts and loss of natural resources caused by the operation of the dam. The fund will be used to promote economic and infrastructure development on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and enhance the education, health and general welfare of the Oglala Lakota people.

I hope that my distinguished colleagues will take up and pass this legislation quickly. It will allow all of us in South Dakota to better use our natural resources, while keeping our solemn commitment to deal fairly and honorably with the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Lakota people of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. I ask for your help and support in moving it forward.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Veterans Reassignment Protection Act of 2007. This bill would ensure the application of veterans' preference protections to Federal and postal employees who are the unfortunate victims of downsizing actions that threaten to unfairly and involuntarily reassign them to locations far from their homes.

I have drafted this legislation to directly address the actions of some Federal agencies that are attempting to circumvent the application of certain employment preferences to military veterans in their ranks. These Federal entities in the course of downsizing actions, under the authority of so-called ``repositioning rules,'' are seeking to deny the longstanding employment preference entitlements Congress has conferred upon eligible veterans in connection with reduction-in-force actions. If traditional veterans' preference rights were available, veterans would likely remain employed in comparable positions in the same geographic area when a downsizing action occurred.

Since the time of the Civil War, veterans of our Armed Forces have been given some degree of preference in hiring and other personnel actions by the Federal Government. Recognizing their sacrifice, Congress has enacted laws to prevent veterans from being penalized for their time in military service. Veterans' employment preferences recognize the economic loss and sacrifice suffered by citizens who have served their country in uniform, restore veterans to a favorable competitive position in Government employment, and acknowledge the larger obligation owed to disabled veterans.

The blatant actions of some Federal agencies to circumvent preference eligible protections in the course of downsizing actions must be ended, especially in light of legal challenges by involuntarily reassigned employees that have generally been resolved in favor of their employing agency because of a loophole in the law that requires preference eligible veterans to accept involuntary reassignment or be administratively discharged for the refusal. My legislation would close that loophole. The Veterans Reassignment Protection Act would ensure the application of veterans' preference rights to employees who are involuntarily reassigned in the course of reorganizations or transfers of function within their agency, regardless of the characterization of such personnel actions by their agency.

I introduced similar legislation late in the 109th Congress, which was endorsed by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Association of Postal Supervisors, and the National Association of Postmasters of the United States. I appreciate the continued support of these groups and look forward to the added endorsements of additional veteran service organizations and others.

The rights and protections of our Nation's military veterans, especially in light of their continuing sacrifices in Iraq, Afghanistan and other dangerous lands, should not permit the unfair and wrongheaded employment policies by the Federal Government to stand. I am proud to support the selfless and patriotic sacrifice of our Nation's military veterans, and I urge the swift consideration and passage by the Congress of this necessary and important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 5, a resolution endorsing the designation and goals of Hire a Veteran Week. I would like to thank my friends, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), for introducing this important resolution.

As the chairwoman of the House Veterans' Affairs Economic Opportunity Subcommittee, which maintains jurisdiction over veterans employment and re-employment matters, I have been working with the ranking member and former chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Boozman, to explore the perceptions, activities, employment practices, and entrepreneurship opportunities for former servicemembers.

The men and women serving in the military today are professional, highly trained, and motivated. And if given the opportunity, they would be valuable additions to our workforce and overall economy.

As we all know, this is a key transitional period for many members of our Armed Forces serving overseas. Increasing numbers of service men and women are expected to return home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The men and women in uniform who defend this country and make our economic and political systems possible have earned a fair opportunity to successfully transition from military service to civilian life and employment.

We have asked hundreds of thousands of our best and brightest, including a great number of National Guard and Reservists from South Dakota and across the country, to serve overseas in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

We owe these brave men and women and their families a great deal for their sacrifice during these difficult times. We owe them the opportunity to make good on the American Dream they have fought to defend. Indeed, our Nation's employers would serve their business, their customers, and their bottom line well by hiring a veteran of the United States military.

H. Con. Res. 5 helps recognize the achievements of veterans and benefits of their employment. I ask my colleagues to support all veterans by supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding.

I rise today in strong support of this bill, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.

It is the capstone of the Democrats 100-hour agenda for America, and it is also a significant step towards fulfilling our commitment to meeting our Nation's growing energy needs with clean, homegrown, renewable sources. This bill will redirect roughly $14 billion of taxpayers's money to help fund important existing renewable energy programs, accelerate the development of new and more aggressive renewable energy initiatives and technologies and promote energy efficiency.

The biofuels industry, though still in its infancy, is already providing much needed income to thousands of family farmers and rural citizens across the Great Plains and across the Midwest. It has proven to be a vital economic lifeline to hundreds of communities.

It is the tip of the iceberg. This bill will provide additional funding to further advance research and development in order to greatly diversify the feedstock used to produce biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol. This will include not only dedicated energy crops, but also crop residue, municipal waste, woody biomass and a whole source of other inexpensive renewable sources.

The benefits that will flow from this bill are broader than just biofuels. It can also promote the development of wind energy in this country. In addition to having considerable corn and biomass resources for the production of biofuels in my home State of South Dakota, we also have been blessed with an abundance of wind.

In fact, the Dakotas have been called the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. For decades wind energy development in this country has been hamstrung by inadequate and erratic Federal support.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact long-term incentives to provide the certainty and the resources to vastly increase the role of wind in our Nation's energy picture. This bill reprioritizes our national energy policy and our future investments in a way that recognizes the unique challenges, but also the undeniable strengths of rural America. We truly have the solution to our national energy crisis growing in and blowing over our fields.

This bill is a strong statement of our commitment to an energy policy that decreases our dependence on foreign oil, benefits the environment, enhances our national security, and revitalizes rural America's economies, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Amendments Act of 2007.

The act will help to right a historic wrong that occurred during the construction of the Oahe Dam and Reservoir which inundated over 100,000 acres of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's best lands. For many years, the tribe was not provided adequate compensation.

Recognizing this wrong, Congress moved to compensate the tribe in 2000 by establishing a trust fund. While these actions were commendable, they left one important group behind--tribal members that lost privately owned lands. This act would correct that omission and give the tribe the discretion to distribute funds to individuals who are currently prohibited from receiving them.

I introduced similar legislation in the 109th Congress and was pleased to see it considered by the then-House Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Water and Power. Examination of the bill at a subcommittee hearing generated a number of constructive suggestions and, after additional consultation with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, committee staff, and administration officials, we were able to make a number of positive changes to the bill.

Though a revised version of the bill failed to pass the House last year, its companion passed the Senate in the last moments of the

109th Congress. Today, I rise to introduce a version of the Cheyenne River Sioux Equitable Compensation Amendments Act that reflects the positive collaboration from last year and has already enjoyed the approval of the Senate. It is my sincere hope that the House will recognize that work by approving this legislation as soon as possible.

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Amendments Act would finally provide just compensation for the taking of lands over 50 years ago. I urge its swift consideration and passage.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribal Compensation Act. This bill would fully compensate the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe in South Dakota for the lands that they lost in the last century as a result of the federal government's construction of the massive dams on the main stem of the Missouri River.

The 1944 Flood Control Act cost these tribes much in terms of lost land. It also took an enormous toll on the people of both tribes and their economies. It is critically important that we seek to fully reimburse these tribes for the lands they lost.

The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe are both constituent bands of the Great Sioux Nation. Both border on the Missouri River in central South Dakota and are connected by the Big Bend Dam.

Congress created a trust fund for the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe in 1996, and a separate trust fund for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe in 1997. These trust funds sought to compensate the tribes for the value of their land that is now permanently inundated as a result of the construction of the Big Bend Dam. Unfortunately, the compensation amounts between different but similarly situated tribes varied greatly along the Missouri River. The result was unfair and inadequate compensation trust funds for these tribes. This act is designed to create consistency among the affected tribes and to bring some long- overdue closure to two tribes whose best lands were inundated decades ago.

This legislation already has a history that spans multiple Congresses. An earlier version of this bill was reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in the 108th Congress and ultimately passed the Senate. In the 109th Congress it was amended in the Senate after further hearings and then reported. I am hopeful that the House will move quickly in the 110th to Congress to advance this important legislation.

Compensation for these tribes would mean an ability to actively work for the betterment of their communities. It would mean adequate roads and improved community facilities. It would mean better health care and newer schools. It would mean attracting commercial business and improving the local economy. Most importantly, it would mean a real chance for these tribes to provide future generations with the tools that so many of us take for granted.

I would ask all of my distinguished colleagues to support the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribal Compensation Act and work with me to enact legislation that would fairly and appropriately compensate members of the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes. I ask you to do it because of the tremendous positive difference it would make in the lives of those affected--and because it is the right and fair thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 819, the Pactola Reservoir Reallocation Authorization Act, and its House companion H.R. 3967. As has been noted during numerous legislative hearings, markups, and previous Floor proceedings, this legislation is critical to meet the changing water needs of one of South Dakota's largest and fastest growing communities--Rapid City.

Part of this legislative process has included additional consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation, which administers the Pactola Dam and Reservoir, and the Ellsworth Air Force Base, one of the most important entities to rely on the reservoir's water. Accordingly, I would like to submit the following comments to clarify the intent of this legislation.

The Pactola Dam and Reservoir is currently authorized for both irrigation and municipal and industrial use with its costs allocated to reflect those uses. Over time, municipal and industrial uses have increased while irrigation uses have decreased, creating a need to reallocate costs better reflecting current usage. When the Secretary of the Interior needs to reallocate costs from an existing allocation where there are multiple uses to a new allocation with multiple uses in different amounts, Congressional approval is required under the McGovern Amendment.

The current language in the Bill under section 3 could be read to imply that the Pactola Dam and Reservoir is a single purpose, irrigation only project. This interpretation is incorrect as the Pactola Dam and Reservoir remain multipurpose projects. Both S. 819 and H.R. 3967 simply reallocate costs from an older multi-purpose allocation to a new multi-purpose allocation. This is consistent with the McGovern Amendment.

Some additional clarification is also warranted with respect to the needs of the Ellsworth Air Force Base. As already stated, this legislation allocates additional costs to the municipal and industrial component of the Pactola Reservoir effectively making available additional water for municipal and industrial use. It is anticipated that Rapid City, South Dakota will contract for much of this allocation. Nothing in the legislation should be construed to change in any way the Bureau of Reclamation's and Rapid City's existing obligations to the Ellsworth Air Force Base.

The definite plan report for this project prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation dated June 1952 makes it clear that the Air Force would contribute its share of the capital cost of the project in advance. The Air Force Appropriation for the year 1954 included funds to cover the Air Force share of the project. Accordingly, the Air Force has fully paid its capital contribution and remains entitled to its share of the water without paying additional capital cost. Ellsworth Air Force Base currently has an allocation of 1810 acre-feet per year of water from the project. The Air Force is required to pay only the reasonable cost of transporting, and if appropriate, treating the water it uses. Nothing in this legislation is intended to affect the Bureau of Reclamation's obligation to make that water available to Ellsworth, and nothing is intended to suggest in any way that the Air Force Base should pay more than the reasonable cost of treating and transporting the water.

In entering revised contracts with Rapid City, the Bureau of Reclamation is expected to ensure that Rapid City provides the delivery of water to the Air Force Base at no more than the reasonable cost of treating and transporting the water.

This legislation is not intended to limit in any way the Air Force's ability to make an arrangement with a party other than Rapid City for the delivery of its allocation of water from Pactola Reservoir. There may be private parties or others who are able to build a pipeline for water delivery at lower cost than using Rapid City's distribution system. Making such arrangements is not inconsistent with this legislation or the definite plan report.

Although Rapid City's increased demand for water is a key consideration supporting this legislation, Ellsworth Air Force Base may also be obtaining an additional allocation of water in the event that the Air Force directs new mission to Ellsworth or reconfigures Ellsworth's existing mission in such a way that it needs additional water beyond the amount it has already been allotted. It is Congress' intent that water from Pactola Reservoir is provided at no more than the reasonable cost of treating and transporting the water without regard to the number of missions at Ellsworth Air Force Base.

With these clarifications in mind, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I have appreciated the opportunity to advance this legislation on the House Resources Committee and would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their support.

Mr. Speaker, on November 14, 2006, I missed rollcall vote No. 520 on H.R. 6314 to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain expiring provisions of law and to expand eligibility for the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance program. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 6314.

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

(Ms. HERSETH asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Radanovich explained, H.R. 409 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange 160 acres of Federal land in the Sierra National Forest at Shaver Lake for an 80-acre inholding also in the Sierra National Forest.

H.R. 409 also requires that the owners of the non-Federal land make a $50,000 cash equalization payment and convey the Federal land to the Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts of America within 120 days of receiving it.

Furthermore, an amendment to H.R. 409 made by the other body makes changes to the biomass grants under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objections to H.R. 409.

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