Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the people and government of Tunisia on the anniversary of the country's forty-fifth year of independence on March 20, 2001. Our two countries have maintained a steadfast alliance since signing the Treaty of Peace in 1797. Whether securing Mediterranean shipping lines, fending off Nazi aggression in North Africa as part of the Allied defensive, or standing by us during the Cold War, Tunisia has always shown us her loyalty. Today, Tunisia stands as an example to developing countries and the promise of North Africa. It has quickly progressed from a country that receives aid to a nation of growing financial influence through its efforts to privatize state owned companies, lifting of price controls and reducing tariffs, reforming the banking and financial sectors, and development of trade in order to create an aggressive free market economy. Today, over sixty percent of the population of Tunisians can be counted in the middle class. We congratulate the country on its progressive social and health programs and most extraordinarily for its leadership in the region as a supporter of women's legal rights. Tunisia has also become a moderating force in the Middle East peace process, taking an active role within the international community in fighting terrorism, while maintaining internal stability in the face of external chaos. 1 am pleased with the increasingly strong ties between the United States and Tunisia, and join the American people in congratulating the people of Tunisia on this historic occasion. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in introducing the ``Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001'' today. In the Third District of West Virginia, we have 8,300 citizens who will benefit from this bill, which ranks southern West Virginia seventh in the United States. The bill we are introducing today will double benefits for widows of railroad retirees, reduce the retirement age from 62 to 60 years of age with 30 years of service, and allow a person to be vested in the system after five years of service, rather than 10 years, as currently required. No taxpayers' dollars will be used to finance these railroad retirement benefits, which are paid by employer and employee taxes. This bill includes the exact provisions of H.R. 4844, which I helped to write last year, and which passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 391-25 on September 7, 2000. However, the Senate did not act on the bill. The bill is a product of two years of negotiation between management of the railroad industry and railroad workers. As last year's vote demonstrates, the bill has strong bi-partisan support. I will work to bring the bill to the House floor for a vote, and I expect to see the same strong support as last year. Once this bill becomes law, it will enable railroad retirees and widows to enjoy a better quality of life, by receiving the increased benefits which they deserve. They spent their working lives paying into their retirement and they deserve to reap decent benefits.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation aimed at giving the appropriate authorizing committee of the House an opportunity to do its job and resolve a matter that has had to be addressed by appropriations measures instead. In this regard, the legislation being introduced today would make permanent two provisions relating to the management of mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872. First, the ``Mining Claim Maintenance Act of 2001'' would make permanent a provision first enacted into law on a temporary basis by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and then reauthorized through 2001 by the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 requiring that holders of unpatented mining claims, mill and tunnel sites under the Mining Law of 1872 pay the Interior Department a $100 per year maintenance fee in order to hold the claim or site, as well as pay a one-time $25 location fee. This provision is in lieu of the 1872 requirement that the holder of a claim or site conduct $100 per year of ``assessment work'' in order to maintain the claim or site and the associated annual filing requirement under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. As with current law, provision is also made in this legislation to waive this requirement for holders of valid oil shale claims who must comply with a different regime as set forth under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, as well as for individuals holding 10 or fewer mining claims. Since this provision has been in effect, speculation on public domain lands under the guise of the Mining Law of 1872 has been dramatically reduced. Indeed, in the year this requirement went into effect there were over 3 million mining claims located on the public lands. Today, there are about 253,000. Further, as with the current practice, I would expect that the Appropriations Committee would utilize the receipts from the holding fee for the purpose of offsetting the cost of the Interior Department administering the mining law program. Second, this legislation would make permanent a provision that was first included in the fiscal year 1995 Interior Appropriations Act placing a moratorium on the issuance of what is known as a ``patent'' for any mining claim and mill site claim except in those situations where ``grandfather'' rights may exist. The purpose of this provision is to eliminate the absurd practice embodied in the Mining Law of 1872 that allows corporations to receive a patent, which represents fee simple title, to public domain lands encumbered by valid mining or mill site claims at $2.50 or $5.00 an acre depending on the type of claim involved. Mr. Speaker, both of these provisions have received overwhelmingly bipartisan support when debated as part of the Interior Appropriations legislation over the past several years. I have wholeheartedly supported these actions, and would hope that the Appropriators will continue to include these provisions in the upcoming budget bills if the Resources Committee fails to act. Nonetheless, it is properly the duty of the authorizing committee, the Resources Committee, to address this issue. These two provisions--the imposition of a maintenance fee and the end to patenting--are part of a larger issue relating to the need to reform the 1872 Mining Law. Unlike other extractive industries, such as coal, timber or oil and gas development, the hard rock mining industry enjoys a special status, provided under the 1872 Mining Law, that allows access and free use of our Nation's rich public domain lands. As responsible stewards of the public domain and to meet our responsibilities to the American people, it is incumbent upon us to rethink and reform the Mining Law of 1872. To that end, in the near future I will again introduce comprehensive mining law reform legislation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce an amendment to the Medicaid Estate Recovery Act, that will restore the discretion of the states to decline to participate in the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program. More than three decades ago, the Medicaid program was enacted and implemented throughout the States with a mission of bringing relief to the poor, with an emphasis on children and the frail elderly, which included long-term or nursing home care for those who could not afford it. When the Estate Recovery program was instituted, it was at the discretion of the states as to whether they would participate in the recovery of medicaid costs for the care of indigent elderly and disabled persons through the sale of their homes. Among others, the State of West Virginia had declined to participate in a program that would take the homes of persons, just because they were extremely ill and because they were too poor to pay the costs of long term or nursing home care. But in 1993 that discretion among the states was taken away, and in its place there was a state mandate to participate in Medicaid estate recovery efforts as a condition of federal Medicaid funding. West Virginia reluctantly enacted a State law that would permit the selling of the homes for elderly victims who died while in the care of Medicaid-funded nursing care. The State did so only after HCFA advised them in no uncertain terms that if they did not they would lose part or all of the State's Medicaid funding. As a result of the government's mandate, my State enacted the law that would allow the State to practice estate recovery against helpless home owners who happened to be too poor to pay for their own end-of- life care. In protest, the State law as enacted directed West Virginia's State Attorney General to file a lawsuit in federal court, claiming that the mandatory selling of people's homes was a violation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. The State's lawsuit is still pending. That was eight years ago, and no relief is in sight. That is why I have introduced my bill today, that would restore to the states their own discretion as to whether they will participate in estate recovery. Under my legislation, those states that wish to continue to sell the homes of the elderly in order to recover the medicaid costs of their end-of-life care, may continue to do so. But for West Virginia (and three other states who have steadfastly declined to ever implement an estate recovery program: Michigan, Georgia and Texas), it will have the discretion it had prior to the 1993 amendment to the Medicaid Act not to do so. As stated above, the original purpose of the Medicaid program was to provide funding to the states to furnish medical assistance to vulnerable populations with inadequate resources. There was no indication then that states would later be required to collect monies from the estates of the very same persons who were deemed by federal law to be vulnerable as to require medical assistance. I would like to give my colleagues one example of the disparity between poor and more affluent states when it comes to winning or losing under the estate recovery program. Estate recovery in a State which has a 50 percent federal matching share of Medicaid funds (FMAP), and which state recovered $2.5 million in a given year, that state would be able to keep $1.075 million in estate recovery funds for its own use. In a poorer state, like West Virginia, with a federal matching share of Medicaid funding (FMAP) of 75 percent, it would have been able to retain no more than $425,000 in estate recovery monies for its own use (West Virginia returns 75 percent of recovered funds to the Federal treasury, and pays 19.6 percent to a collection agency to carry out the estate recovery actions against the estates of persons who died while receiving Medicaid funded long term care. In other words the poorest states receiving the highest Federal matching shares under Medicaid receive the least benefit from estate recovery, and they return the most money to the federal treasury. This disparity results in the reversal of the direction of transfer payments on which the Medicaid program is based. In simpler terms, estate recovery subsidizes the better-off state with the assets of those residing in the poorest states. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation restoring to the states the discretion to implement and carry out an estate recovery program, in lieu of the current mandate. In this manner Congress will have allowed those states who desire to continue estate recovery activities to do so, while giving states that do not wish to participate in estate recovery the right to withdraw.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today at a Congressional Luncheon hosted by myself and Rep. Ray LaHood, and attended by many Members of the House, we had the privilege of hearing remarks made by His Beatitude Mar Nasrallah Boutros Cardinal Sfeir, Maronite Patriarch of Antioch and all the East. This is the Patriarch's first visit to the United States since 1988, and he is here on the occasion of the elevation of the first American born Maronite Bishop Ralph Shaheen. While in the United States, the Patriarch expressed his vision of peace for Lebanon and the Middle East Region. Lebanon, the homeland of my grandfathers and its people, cherish the same values of democracy, respect for human rights, independence and sovereignty cherished by the people of America. That is why the Patriarch, the church and the people and government of Lebanon have supported the Middle East peace talks of the past, and hope for a resumption of those talks in the near future. Mr. Speaker I submit the words of His Beatitude, the Maronite Patriarch of Antioch and All the East be entered in the Record, so that my colleagues will be enabled to hear his urgent plea on behalf of a continued alliance between the United States and Lebanon. I am honored to be here among members of the legislative body which makes laws for the United States and which have an influence on the whole world. I thank you for all the support you have given and are giving to Lebanon and its people. I wish to speak about Lebanon, a country of 10,000 square kilometers and 4 million people, but a country whose historical roots extend more than 6,000 years. It is the country where the alphabet was invented by the Phoenicians, who spread its knowledge not by war, but through trade and human interaction. Lebanon is a peace loving country which wants to live in peace with all its neighboring countries, including Syria and Israel. As a matter of fact, the Maronite Church and the Lebanese people cherish the same values of democracy, respect for human rights, independence and sovereignty cherished by the American people. The entry of the Syrian troops into Lebanon in 1976 was done without the request or permission of anyone, as stated by former President Hafez al-Assad in his speech of July 20, 1976. This was also noted by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in his book. From that time Syria has established its hegemony over Lebanon. While we have always advocated good relations between Syria and Lebanon, true international relations are possible only when the countries involved relate to each other on an equal footing. They cannot be established if one country dominates the other. Within the country, the people of Lebanon seek to be democratic, where Christians and Moslems live in peaceful co-existence, unless an outside element provokes a conflict. We seek human and religious values--faith in God, justice, equality, respect for human rights. Lebanon stands in the Middle East between Israel and Syria, and has suffered difficulties for a quarter of a century--17 years of war, thousands of victims, and terrible destruction. The Taef Agreement of 1989 was supposed to bring an end to the war. The United States was a principal sponsor. However, Taef has been implemented only partially and in a discriminatory fashion. As a result, Lebanon has yet to recover its institutional foundations. If the cannons are silent, anxiety still remains. The country suffers from a succession of crises due to the political situation in Lebanon, in which Lebanon lacks sovereignty, independence, and freedom in its decision-making. The South of Lebanon is still in a state of instability. A large number of its citizens are either in exile, displaced or in prison, leaving their families in dire straits. The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations raise the question of the final settlement of the Palestinian refugees, who have a right to a just solution. However, no agreement should be made at the expense of the Lebanese people. Imposing on tiny Lebanon a large foreign population would have dire demographic effects, since Lebanon already has the highest population per capita in the region. It destabilizes the balance between Christians and Moslems, and even among the Moslems themselves. It is in the interest of the United States to help Lebanon for the following reasons: (1) Lebanon seeks to be a democratic country and to enjoy freedom. (2) Lebanon has always had one face toward the East and the other toward the West. It possesses the culture of both East and West. (3) The credibility of the United States requires that it help Lebanon, and to liberate it from all foreign troops, according to the Taef Agreement, sponsored by the United States. (4) There is a large number of Lebanese immigrants in the United Sates who have achieved success in the higher levels of business and politics, and thereby can make an impact on the American political system. (5) Christian influence is diminishing in the Middle East and in Lebanon which has always been a stronghold of Christianity. If there were no more Christians there, this would be a catastrophe for Christianity, but would also undermine respect for human rights. I know that you have the same view as we, namely, that there should be no outside hegemony over Lebanon, even after the departure of non-Lebanese troops. Lebanon should remain an oasis of democracy, freedom, human values, and respect for human rights. Again, thank you for your welcome and support. May God bless you in your important work.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to support the Rail Passenger Family Assistance Act. This bill should be enacted into law because it is the honorable thing to do. In the 106th Congress, I cosponsored a similar bill, H.R. 2681, which the House passed on October 4, 1999, by voice vote, but the Senate did not act on the bill. I look forward to a different outcome this year. We all hope and pray that our constituents will get to their destinations safely while traveling. But the harsh reality is that sometimes tragedies do occur. Sometimes a plane or train crashes, causing a major loss of life. In times like these, when families face the shock and pain of losing a loved one, the least we can do is provide every possible consideration to them, including grief counseling and general emotional support, ensuring their privacy, and helping them to arrange a fitting memorial service. After the Valujet and TWA 800 airplane tragedies in 1996, this type of family assistance was established for the families of loved ones lost in airplane crashes, but such services do not exist for families of those lost in interstate and intercity rail passenger service. While Amtrak has established an informal family-assistance program, there is no federal law requiring these services for families of victims of railroad disasters. In addition, because the 1997 Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act mandated competition in intercity rail passenger service, Amtrak will no longer be the sole rail carrier. New rail carriers will be established to compete with Amtrak. Such competition demonstrates the need for the Federal Government to enact a family assistance program. Under the Rail Passenger Disaster Family Assistance Act that we are considering today, a program will be established modeled after the program that was established for families of victims of airline disasters. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will designate one of its employees to be the contact person within the Federal Government with victims' families. That person's name and telephone number will be published, and the person will be the liaison between the victims' families and the rail carrier. The NTSB will then designate an independent disaster-assistance organization, such as the Red Cross, to focus on the emotional needs of the families: providing grief counseling and a private place in which to grieve, helping them to arrange memorial services and funeral arrangements, and preventing contact by lawyers, or their agents, for 45 days after the tragedy, in order to help families to begin the healing process before taking any possible legal action. It is my hope that our constituents across the Nation will get to their destinations safely when traveling by interstate or intercity rail, whether it be the Amtrak Cardinal Line which passes through West Virginia between Huntington and White Sulphur Springs, or any other carrier anywhere in the Nation. However, when a rail tragedy does happen, we must provide every possible consideration to victim's families to help them through the tragedy. This bill does that. Finally, the Rail Passenger Disaster Family Assistance Act will have no significant impact on the Federal budget, based on the Congressional Budget Office estimate for H.R. 2681, the bill passed by the House in 1999. Therefore, I encourage the Senate to consider the bill as soon as possible, and the President sign it into law, for the sake of victims' families.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Reform Act of 2001'' in recognition of the pressing need to make continued progress in restoring the environment in coalfield communities throughout the Nation. Originally authorized as part of the landmark Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, to date over $1.7 billion has been appropriated under the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program to restore lands and waters adversely affected by past coal mining practices. These restoration projects normally involve threats to the public health and safety from dangerous highwalls, subsidence, refuse piles and open mine portals. They also include the construction of new water supply systems to coalfield communities where water supplies have been contaminated by past coal mining practices. Over the years, other amounts have been appropriated under the program for emergency coal reclamation projects, the Rural Abandoned Mine Program, the Small Operators Assistance Program, certain non-coal mining reclamation projects and the administration of the program for a total $4 billion in appropriations. The primary delivery mechanism for these funds is through annual grants made through the annual appropriations process to 26 eligible States and Indian tribes. This effort is augmented by funds expended by the Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining (OSM) in States and tribes without approved reclamation programs. By most accounts, this effort has been a success achieving far more in real on-the-ground environmental restoration than programs such as the Superfund. Yet, the mission of this program has not yet fully been accomplished which is the reason for the legislation I am introducing today. As it stands, there currently exists about $2.5 billion worth of high priority human health and safety threatening abandoned coal mine reclamation costs in this country. There are other costs as well, associated with lower priority abandoned coal mine sites. The fundamental purpose of the ``Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Reform Act of 2001'' is to raise sufficient revenues which, when coupled with the unappropriated balance in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund and the reforms proposed by the legislation, to finance the reclamation of the remaining $2.5 billion inventory of high priority coal reclamation sites and draw this effort to a successful conclusion. In this regard, it is essential to note that this program is not financed by the general taxpayer but rather through a fee assessed on every ton of coal mined. The unreclaimed coal sites eligible for expenditures under the program were primarily abandoned prior to the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 which placed stringent mining and reclamation standards in place. The authority to collect these fees was originally for a 15-year period. However, on two prior occasions through legislation I sponsored the Congress extended those fees collections in recognition of the continued need to address health, safety and environmental threats in the Nation's coalfield communities. A central feature of this legislation then is to extend that fee collection authority for an additional seven years to 2011. This is the period the OSM estimates will be necessary to generate the additional revenue to complete the high priority coal site inventory. However, that alone will not allow us to achieve that goal which is the reason for the reforms proposed by this bill. Simply put, in my view over the years there has been a hemorrhaging of some of the funding made available under this program to lower priority projects. Almost $200 million, for instance, for coal priority 3 projects which do not involve protecting the public health and safety. One of the reasons this reduction in focus on health and safety threatening projects has occurred is due to a late 1994 OSM policy shift that corrupted what is known as the general welfare standard in the coal reclamation priority rankings. This new policy has had the affect of allowing States to bootstrap what would normally have been lower priority 3 projects into the higher priority 1 and 2 rankings. To be clear, not all States or even a majority of Sates have taken advantage of this new policy and I commend them for that. Yet it is a fact that as a result of this new policy the bona fide $2.5 billion inventory of unfunded priority 1 and 2 projects has swollen to over $6 billion. I do not recognize this $6 billion figure and neither does this legislation. The reforms proposed by this bill include eliminating the general welfare standard and restricting the use of State/tribal share grants and supplemental federal share grants to bona fide coal priority 1 and 2 projects involving threats to human health and safety. Once those projects are completed and only when those projects are completed, with two minor exceptions, can a State or tribe undertake the lower priority coal projects under the certification program with their State/tribal share grants. The exceptions to this rule involve situations where a priority 3 site is undertaken in conjunction with a priority 1 or 2 site, or where a priority 3 sites is addressed in association with a coal remaining operation. In effect, this legislation seeks to target the lion's share of available funding to coal priority 1 or 2 keeping faith with the original mission of the program. Among other reforms envisioned are federal approval of any additions made to the official Abandoned Mine Reclamation Inventory and a review of those additions made since the OSM policy shift on the general welfare standard. The purposes of these reforms are intended, as previously noted, to complete those projects which are necessary to complete for the sake of protecting the health and safety of I would like to make note of two additional changes to current law proposed by this bill. As already noted, in the past appropriations were made available from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to the Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP), an Agriculture Department program. No such appropriations have been forthcoming for six fiscal years now. I find this disappointing. While the Interior Department and the States from the very beginning were against RAMP funding, contending it was duplicative of their efforts, this in my view and in that of many others was not the case. RAMP served a distinctly different purpose involving a closer working relationship with landowners and sought to address reclamation projects on a more holistic basis. Another problem that also dogged Ramp was the fact that while it is an Agriculture Department program, its appropriations were being made out of an Interior Department trust fund by the Interior Appropriations bill. Obviously, Interior officials had little interest in this arrangement and so beginning in 1995 we have not been able to obtain funding for RAMP. In my view, this situation will not change if the status quo is maintained. For that reason, the legislation I am introducing today would authorize RAMP for general fund appropriations rather than out of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund so that funding can be pursued through the Agriculture Department's Natural Resources Conservation Service's budget. Finally, this legislation also seeks to lift the restriction that interest accrued in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund can only be transferred to what is known as the Combined Benefits Fund for unassigned beneficiaries. Under this bill, all accrued interest would be available to keep faith with the promise made by the federal government many years ago to guarantee health care benefit for certain retired coal miners. In introducing this legislation I do not purport to suggest it offers perfect solutions. It is a fact that the draft bill has been available for review by the affected States and tribes for 10 months now and I thank them for their comments. It has also been reviewed by the Citizens Coal Council, a coalfield-based environmental group. And, it has been reviewed by segments of the coal industry. Certainly, though, we have a long legislative process ahead of us and I look forward to working with interested Members of Congress on this matter. I submit the following detailed section-by-section analysis of the ``Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Reform Act of 2001'' for inclusion in the Record. Section-By-Section Analysis of the ``Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Reform Act of 2001'' Section 1 provides for a short title. Section 2, amendments to title IV-- Subsection (a)(1) strikes form the purposes of Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund the transfer of amounts to the Secretary of Agriculture for use under the Rural Abandoned Mine Program and the use of funds for abandoned mine land research projects conducted by the Bureau of Mines. The bureau no longer is in existence. Subsection (a)(2) clarifies that all interest accrued to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund is for the purpose of making transfers to the Combined Benefit Fund. Subsection (b)(1) extends the authorization to assess reclamation fees from 2004 to 2011. Subsection (b)(2) modifies the provision of current law requiring the redistribution of grant amounts not expended within three years after being awarded. Amounts redistributed would be expended under the historic coal production supplemental grant program rather than any funding category as under current law. [Note: this provision has never been enforced]. Subsection (b)(3) strikes the reservation of reclamation fees and interest for the Rural Abandoned Mine Program. An amendment made by this subsection requires the Secretary to insure strict compliance with the priorities set forth in section 403(a) in the expenditure of funds until certification of the completion of all eligible coal abandoned mine reclamation projects is made. Subsection (b)(4) contains two technical and conforming amendments. Subsection (b)(5) rewrites section 402(g)(4) relating to the eligibility of certain post August 4, 1977,sites for expenditure of funds under the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. Current law allows such expenditures on certain sites abandoned after August 4, 1977, but prior to a State or Tribe receiving approval of this permanent program or where a surety company insolvency resulted in abandoned coal mine lands and waters. The amendment made by this subsection primarily strikes the latter situation as such sites are no longer prevalent. Subsection (b)(6) increases the amount of reclamation fees dedicated to the historic coal production supplemental grant program from 40% to 60% of the Secretary's 50% share of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation fund (30% of the total). This subsection also includes a technical and conforming amendment. Subsection (b)(7) eliminates the set-aside of 10% of annual grants for purposes of expenditure after September 30, 1995, as the provision is no longer relevant. Amendments in this subsection also streamline provisions relating to the 10% set-aside for acid mine drainage abatement and treatment by eliminating Secretarial approval of such expenditures and provisions requiring consultation with the Soil Conservation Service and the Bureau of Mines. Subsection (b)(8) provides that the expenditure of funds for projects formerly identified as priority 3 may only be made in conjunction with the expenditure of funds for priority 1 or 2 projects or in association with coal remining operations prior to the certification of the completion of all eligible coal abandoned mine reclamation projects is made (other amendments eliminate priority 3 from section 403 and transfers it to the post-certification program). Subsection (b)(9) extends the authorization level for minimum program States to post-certification priority 3 coal sites. Subsection (b)(10) lifts restrictions relating to the transfer of interest to the Combined Benefit Fund. Subsection (b)(11) is a technical and conforming amendment relating to the amendment made by subsection (b)(9). Subsection (c)(1) strikes the term ``general welfare'' from priority 1 and 2 and strikes priorities 3 thru 5. Subsection (c)(2) makes a technical and conforming amendment and includes a requirement that amendments to the AML Inventory are subject to the approval of the Secretary. Subsection (d) makes a technical and conforming amendment. Subsection (e) authorizes the Rural Abandoned Mine Program to receive general fund appropriations. Subsection (f) updates requirements relating to the filing of liens. Subsection (g) updates section 409 primarily by including references to Indian tribes, clarifying that annual grants may be used for projects under the section excluding amounts received under the historic coal production supplemental grant program, and clarifying that States and Tribes rather than the Secretary make expenditures under the section subject to the approval of the Secretary. Provision is made allowing continued eligibility under section 409 after a State or tribe has certified the completion of all coal priority 1 and 2 projects but has not yet completed other remaining coal projects under section 411. Subsection (h) rewrites the section 411 certification program in two significant ways. First, it allows the Secretary or a third party (in addition to a State or Tribe as under current law) to seek the certification of the completion of all coal priorities on eligible lands and waters. Second, provision is made to require certification after the completion of coal priority 1 and 2 projects. Once this occurs, a State or Tribe would commence other remaining coal projects eligible under section 404 (former priority 3 projects) prior to undertaking non-coal projects. Provisions relating to non-coal projects remain unchanged from current law. Subsection (i) strikes a moribund provision in section 413. Section 3, free-standing provisions-- Subsection (a) provides that reclamation fees credited to the Rural Abandoned Mine Program but not appropriated in the past be available for historic coal production supplemental grants. An amendment also provides for the transfer of interest not transferred in the past to the Combined Benefit Fund. Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to review all additions to the AML Inventory made since December 31, 1998. Provision is made deeming projects listed in the inventory under the ``general welfare'' standard as being ineligible under section 403(a) and may only be carried out under section 411(c)(1). Provision is made for the Inspector General to evaluate the review and together with the Secretary report the results to committees of the House and Senate. Provision is also made requiring the Inspector General to conduct an annual review of any amendments to the inventory. Subsection (c) is a savings clause noting that nothing in the legislation affects any State or Tribal certification made before the date of enactment of the bill.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our colleague, the late Henry B. Gonzalez, who died on November 28, 2000, and who served the House and the Nation for 37 years as one of its most revered public servants. To his family, his wife Bertha, his son Charlie who now serves in the House as our colleague, and to all of his constituents in the 20th District in Texas, I extend my most sincere condolences. My prayers are with all of you in the hope of giving comfort against the grief of your great loss. What to say about Henry B., as he was affectionately known in his San Antonio Congressional District. In the House, Henry B. was known as a fierce activist for the poor and for minorities in the field of housing, small business, community development, and consumer fairness. He was an unbridled advocate for what he believed was right for his constituents and the Nation. For Members like me, he was a friend, a mentor and an educator-- because without his knowledge and willingness to share, many of us who did not have the privilege or opportunity to serve with him on the Banking and Housing Committee would not have known what was going on, or how to resolve the problems facing the Nation--from affordable housing to community development to salvaging the savings and loan industry, naming only a few of his many struggles to secure the American dream for all Americans. From the beginning of his adult life, Henry B. was on fire to help his people and his State and his country. A feisty first-ever Mexican- American to serve in the State Legislature, he was also the first to be selected to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1963--and in both jobs he went about kicking down ethnic barriers, facing civil rights issues with searing defiance that meant a 36 hour filibuster in the Texas State Senate, defeating 16 segregationist bills, to punching out a restaurant patron in the 1970's for calling him a ``communist.'' When an apology was demanded, Henry B. said only that he was sorry he had pulled the punch. During his 37 years in the House of Representatives, Henry B. Gonzalez spoke out for the people--all people--on behalf of the needs of the working poor--long before it was popular to do so. He held in his hand the day of his swearing in as a Member of this House a bill to abolish the Poll Tax which was eventually enacted, and he never stopped working against all kinds of discrimination against the poor and the disenfranchised in our country. And so we say goodbye to Henry Gonzalez, knowing that the rich, the poor, the powerful, the disadvantaged, the young and the old, are better off than they would have otherwise been without his caring and compassion, and without the fire in his heart and the courage of his convictions as a public servant that left so much good in its wake-- enough to last a lifetime. We celebrate the life of Henry B. Gonzalez, who served under eight presidents and became a legend in his own time, by conferring upon him the titles of statesman, warrior, pioneer, patriot, hero and a national treasure. We also remember him as funny, brilliant, a maverick, and a coalition builder who lived his life and served his people with exuberant ardor. Most of all he was genuine, and he was honest to a fault. But Henry B. Gonzalez said it best: ``I have never failed myself, and I have never failed you.'' He provided the opportunity for all of us to follow in his footsteps, and none more so than his beloved son, the gentleman from Texas, Charlie Gonzalez, our colleague now serving the 20th District of Texas, and I again extend to him and his family my heartfelt sorrow and tell them, Henry B. will never be forgotten.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3646, a bill I introduced to grant permanent immigrant status to those families who were evacuated from Kuwait for safety reasons by the United States Government prior to United States military intervention against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. These families have been cleared by INS and the FBI, and have been found to be hard-working, self-sufficient individuals, who have been in limbo for nearly a decade while awaiting adjustment of their status. None of these individuals have ever been a ward of the State, but have found jobs and resources necessary to make themselves completely self-supporting citizens of this country. I wish to express my deep gratitude to my colleagues, Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith, and Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, and their hard working staff, for the effort that they have made to bring this bill to fruition. It was a long, hard journey of cooperation and coordination among subcommittee and full committee staff, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose job it was to do an in-depth investigation of the Persian Gulf evacuees during their 10 year hiatus in the United States, and to find them worthy of permanent status. All these efforts, individually and collectively have brought us to today's passage of H.R. 3646, granting permanent immigrant status to those people who have come to be known as Persian Gulf evacuees. Again, I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation to assist these families in securing the right to remain in the United States after our government evacuated them from Kuwait at the start of the Persian Gulf war, to ensure their safety.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), our dean of the House of Representatives, and my dear friend.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, would not somebody in opposition have time allotted to them in opposition to the resolution?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, yes, I do, in its current form.

Mr. RAHALL. How much time, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 426 concerning the violence in the Middle East. If this body wishes to pass a resolution of support for Israel, then let us do it honestly, straightforwardly; not this way. Not through a resolution that is rife with bias and prejudice against the Palestinian people. This resolution could have a lasting adverse impact upon our goal of peace in the Middle East. We are talking about peace between two peoples here, not between political factions in Israel and Palestine; factions that never want peace in the first place. Regrettably, the language of this resolution is not balanced. It is not a straightforward vote of solidarity in support for Israel. If it were, I would not be standing here today. In sum, by passing this resolution, we abandon our role as an honest broker and take a step that undermines negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Our words and our actions do bear consequences. In the past, we have passed resolutions in this body that do not reflect our greater interest and evenhandedness, and, as a result, people have suffered. We should be standing here today, Mr. Speaker, urging both parties instead to return to the negotiating table and help them find their way back on a path toward peace. Instead, we have a resolution before us that is an indictment of the Palestinian people's desire for peace; and, indeed, it is an indictment of the Israeli people's desire for peace as well. This resolution condemns one side, and it inflames passions to do the opposite of continuing the peace process. The true heirs to peace in the region, the peoples of Israel and Palestine, want the killing to stop. I know there is a deep despair, if you will, among Palestinians that they will never be able to live as a free and independent people. There is a feeling of frustration among the Palestinians that their lives mean less than Israeli lives. I know that the people of Israel have their legitimate concerns about the security of their borders. We as Americans know and Israelis and Palestinians know that there is no military solution to the terribly difficult solutions that have made the Middle East a region of tension and conflict for so long. In today's climate, when at this very moment sees our security forces in parts of the Middle East on the highest of security alerts, this body must act in a manner that is in the best interests of our country and the security interests of America, Mr. Speaker, instead of passing provocative resolutions of this nature. This resolution is about bashing the Palestinians as though they have not lost more than 130 lives in the conflict, as though innocent Palestinian fathers and sons have not been gunned down as they walked home, innocent of the conflict around them. We cannot ignore the fact that an American Red Cross worker was gunned down when he tried to intervene to save the child and his father. I condemn these excessive and brutal actions, just as I strongly condemn the mob-lynching mentality of Israeli soldiers by Palestinians. I would note that Chairman Arafat said that he would conduct an investigation, and those responsible for this grueling act are in custody. There is a line in this resolution that says perceived provocation should be subject only to negotiation, not violence. That line, of course, refers to the fact that Ariel Sharon deliberately timed his visit to the Nobel Sanctuary, accompanied by more than 1,000 Israeli security units. Sharon made his trip because he wanted to create strife among Palestinians, because creating strife among Palestinians would help him and those who follow him get rid of Prime Minister Barak's efforts toward peace, putting the Likud back in power in Israel. It is about politics, not about peace, and, after all, the Israeli Knesset does return to session this Sunday, and the usual blackmailers in that country are at work. This resolution only helps the extremes on both sides, those who never wanted the peace process to succeed in the first place. It plays directly in the hands of Prime Minister Barak's enemies, enemies of peace in the Middle East. He knows it, and I would even have my serious doubts whether Prime Minister Barak would want to see this resolution pass in its present form. For 7 long years, hard years, the U.S. has been the proud father of the peace process. We have worked as an honest broker in the Middle East. But we all know that to be an honest broker, you must be without bias. This resolution will do more to silence the proud U.S. role as an honest broker than all of the conflict of the region can do, for there is no honesty in the biased language of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me again say that there is enough blame to go around on all sides in this part of the world. There is a lot of finger pointing today. But it is incumbent upon this body at this crucial time in the region to step back to urge the party to stop the inflammatory statements on both sides, on all sides, and there have been those statements as I referred to earlier, in order to show the bravo, in order to play to the factions within one's own side in that region. But this body has a higher responsibility not to get involved in that, but, rather, to urge the parties to get back to the negotiating table, as President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright have so excellently tried to do in Egypt and continue to do this very hour. Let us support this administration and their efforts.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this debate, certainly I have no illusions as to the outcome, just as I believe nobody in this body or in the region or in the world has any illusions about the outcome if, truly, as the previous speaker has said, that Israel is fighting for its very life. That is certainly speaking from emotions, and this is an emotional moment in the region. But who can deny the outcome of gun ships and helicopter gunfire and smart bombs, precision targeting, pinpoint targeting, one of the most well-equipped armies in the world, against the Palestinian people? Who could deny that outcome? Who even thinks that this truly is a war of all wars? I understand a lot of the accusations that have been made and leveled by my friends and supporters of this resolution, and a lot of that cannot be completely denied. If there is one accurate statement that can be said about this part of the world and the way of life in this region, it is the fact that no side is without their share of the blame, no side is without their share of miscalculations, no side is without their share of inflammatory statements, pandering to their domestic opponents. All of these statements could describe all sides of the fighting in this region. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that we in this body have a higher responsibility, not to get involved in internal divisions of any country in the region, not to point fingers, not to take so obvious a side at so obvious an emotional moment; not to speak and take actions that can be perceived in some parts of the world, although not reality, but can be perceived as the law of the Congress when we take actions. We have a responsibility not to take those provocative actions in this body. Granted, we have taken and passed a number of resolutions over the decades, some of which I have supported, that have jumped up at the moment to address what many of us feel is the best sense of peace in the Middle East. However, we are not secretaries of state in this body. I believe that we have a responsibility, while recognizing what is truly in our hearts, while recognizing our support, as I have today and in the past for our ally, Israel and the region, recognizing our legitimate concerns for the security of its borders; but we have a responsibility. We have a responsibility at this particular time to take action that reflects the thinking in our heads. As I noted earlier, today we see our armed forces in parts of the Middle East on the highest state of security alert than we have seen in several years. Now, for us to come through with an action of this nature could very well be misinterpreted by some in the region who do not understand that this is merely a resolution and does not carry the force of law, but it is still perceived as an expression of this body that can have devastating effects in the minds of those who in the region have only violence in their heads, who have only suicide missions on their agenda, and who truly have never been for the peace process to begin with. There are those extremists on all sides in the region who have never been for the peace process. If we are to support this administration and their role as an honest broker and President Clinton's Herculean efforts day in and day out, continuous without fatigue, as he works nonstop to bring the sides to the negotiating table, our role today should be to call for a cessation of violence in a nonpartisan, in a truly objective manner, and urge the parties to come back to the peace process.

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

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

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding to me, and certainly want to commend her as the ranking member and the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the subcommittee, for their help on this legislation that I introduced. Both of my colleagues from Texas have adequately explained the bill, and I certainly commend them for their sense of fairness and justice on this legislation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in its current form, I am opposed to the Senate bill.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.