Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3646, a bill I introduced as a Private Relief Bill on behalf of 54 families and individuals seeking permanent resident status in the United States. These families, known as Persian Gulf Evacuees, have lived and worked in this country since being evacuated out of Kuwait, at the behest of the United States government, just prior to U.S. Military Intervention in the Iraqi invasion of that country. More than 2,000 individuals, many of whom have U.S. citizen children, by order of then President George Bush, were evacuated to keep them out of harms way when the United States intervened militarily in Kuwait to drive out Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Many of the evacuees, prior to evacuation, had provided a safe-haven for Americans caught unaware when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and hid them in their homes against Iraqi retaliation. Once here, the majority of the 2,000 evacuees adjusted their own status, often through asylum procedures. These 54 families remained in limbo, facing deportation and loss of work permits in the United States. The Persian Gulf Evacuees, better known as PGE's, are well educated, mostly professional individuals perfectly capable of working and supporting themselves here in the U.S. without becoming wards of any State in which they have settled. They are English-speaking, and this is especially true of their U.S. Citizen children. These families were extensively investigated by both the INS and the FBI, and have been cleared of any wrong-doing since entering the United States, and none has been found to be members of any subversive groups. I am deeply pleased to have been their champion since the 103rd Congress. I take this opportunity to extend my most profound thanks and appreciation to my friend, Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith. I am grateful for his good counsel and his able guidance over these past few years as we worked to bring this bill or similar legislation to enactment. My thanks go also to his capable staff for their long-term, hard work on behalf of the Persian Gulf Evacuees. I also extend my sincere thanks to Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, my good friend and a distinguished leader on immigration matters in the House, for his action to report H.R. 3646 favorably from his Committee, paving the way for passage of this vitally important legislation. I salute the Persian Gulf Evacuees, for their patience throughout the years it has taken to bring this bill to enactment. The nationwide teamwork among the PGE's worked remarkably well. The PGE Team Leaders not only keep my office advised of any problems they faced, while awaiting legal permanent status in their adopted country, such as work permits so that they could remain self-sufficient and not in need of public assistance, but helped each family keep track of the legislative process. They did an outstanding job, and I congratulate them not only for all their work, but as mentioned above, for their excellent patience throughout. And finally, I wish to thank Dr. Hala Maksoud, of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), and her staff, for bringing this matter to my attention during the 103rd Congress, and for their solid support for the legislation throughout the years of waiting. I believe our action today makes this new, challenging century in America one that will be remembered by these 54 families for its compassionate understanding, and is an acknowledgment of the duty we have to discharge our responsibility toward those who come to America at the behest of our own Government. We have, with the able assistance of Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith and his fine staff, responded to their economic needs by ensuring the continual approval of work permits, and by keeping them free of INS deportation actions until our action today could be brought to fruition. It was not an easy task, and knowing this makes us even more grateful for the assistance we have received. I am confident that the PGE's will continue, as they have during the 10 year period they have been in this country, to work hard, to remain good citizens, and to make important contributions to the American socio-economic structure as legal, permanent residents of this great country. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, we have all seen recent news reports of renewed confrontations between Palestinians and the Israelis. This violence is deeply troubling and cannot be condoned. It is all the more worrisome because the deadline for concluding a Final Status Agreement is quickly approaching. I think it is fair to say that we all hoped the days of such confrontation had passed. Israel's legitimate interests in stopping terrorism and achieving security are well understood and strongly supported in Washington. Sources of Palestinian frustration, however, are less well known. The Palestinian aggravation that boiled over recently stems from their view that seven years of peace negotiations have produced few tangible improvements in the lives of Palestinians. For example, Mr. Speaker, Palestinians continue to see their land confiscated by Israel for the building of roads and Israeli settlements. This issue, among all others may be the most frustrating to Palestinians. Gaining control of their land is the Palestinian goal in peace negotiations. Watching land confiscations continue while negotiating deadlines pass undermines confidence among Palestinians that the peace process is worthwhile. I would like to share with my colleagues an editorial on land confiscations that appeared recently in the Chicago Tribune. It is written by the head of the Palestinian Final Status Negotiating Team, Yasser Abed Rabbo, and it explains clearly the Palestinian viewpoint on this issue. Mr. Speaker, achieving a peaceful, stable Middle East is in America's best interest. We have therefore spent considerable time and resources supporting that goal. Israelis and Palestinians have all suffered tremendously because of their on-going conflict and the majority of both peoples clearly long for peace. All parties must renew their efforts and truly seek compromise on their remaining differences so that Israeli and Palestinian people alike see real benefits in peace and support negotiated agreements. I submit the Editorial written by Palestinian chief negotiator, Yesser Rabbo, from the April 27, 2000 edition of the Chicago Tribune, entitled: ``Israeli Settlements Undermine Change for Peace in the Middle East,'' for the Record. [From the Chicago Tribune, Apr. 27, 2000] Israeli Settlements Undermine Chance for Peace in Middle East (By Yasser Abed Rabbo) The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is based on the acceptance of both sides that no action will be taken that will prejudice the final negotiated arrangement. From the Palestinian perspective, continued Israeli confiscation of land and the construction of new Israeli settlements, whether approved by previous governments or not, prejudices the final outcome more than all other actions combined. A day does not go by that Palestinians are not confronted by the expansion of Israeli control of Palestinian lands. Public support among Palestinians for the peace process is rapidly being eroded in face of this increased activity, causing Palestinian negotiators to take a firmer stance in negotiations over land confiscation and settlement activity. Negotiators are making if clear that if settlement activity does not halt, the peace process very well may. Some see this as a sign of Palestinian intransigence; others have accused us of trying to cause a crisis in order to force the United States to become directly involved in the talks. Both assertions are wrong. For Palestinians, Israeli settlement activity is a critical issue because it makes attainment of our foremost goal more difficult. We seek to establish an independent state comprised of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This goal represents an enormous lowering of aspirations on the part of Palestinians. It places under Palestinian sovereignty less than one-fourth of the pre-1948 Mandate of Palestine--and less than half of the territory the United Nations recommended allocating to the Palestinians in 1947. The expansion of Israeli settlements, and the continuing confiscation of Palestinian land, undermine the very reason Palestinians have chosen to enter the peace process: to regain control of our territory. The U.S. and the international community have repeatedly condemned Israeli settlements as obstacles to peace. It is important to emphasize, however, that the obstacles posed by settlements are not abstract or rhetorical. With each new Israeli settlement or expansion of an existing settlement, new housing units are built, military installations to guard the settlement are expanded and new ``by-pass'' roads devour limited land. With the loss of land, Palestinian towns and villages become less economically viable and more isolated from one another. Most important, the ever-expanding patchwork of settlements and roads risks making it impossible for Palestinians to create a secure, contiguous, governable state. Palestinians do not aspire to become a Middle Eastern Bantustan. Palestinians' commitment to the peace process is resolute, but it is not absolute. We have made every effort to understand and respond to Israel's concerns. We recognize, for instance, that security is of paramount importance to Israel. The Palestinian Authority is doing all in its power to prevent violence against Israelis. In testimony before Congress last year, Martin Indyk, then-U.S. assistant secretary of state, praised the Palestinian Authority for its commitment to counter-terrorism. Palestinian actions, Indyk said, are ``beginning to pay real dividends in terms of improving the security of the Israeli people.'' The Palestinian Authority has taken these steps even at the risk of alienating and angering some segments of our population, because we understand the consequences for peace if we do not. We know we will never achieve lasting peace unless Israelis believe they will be secure. Israel, however, has not taken comparable steps to address the Palestinians' greatest concern by halting settlement activity. In November, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak ordered the dismantling of a dozen so-called ``illegal outposts,'' (tiny Israeli settlements that were not authorized by the government) in the West Bank. Barak was applauded by peace advocates in Israel and the West. Palestinians, however, saw no cause for celebration. The fact is, Barak allowed 30 newly built outposts to remain. More disturbing, more than 5,000 new houses for Israeli settlers are being constructed in the West Bank with Israeli government approval and another 3,000 have been authorized. Meanwhile, Israeli authorities have repeatedly authorized confiscation of even more Palestinian land. In Gaza--which many people incorrectly believe is under full Palestinian control--6,200 Israeli settlers remain and Israel has full or partial control of more than 42 percent of the land. The 1,000,000 Palestinians in Gaza are confined to a very small area and are deprived of potable water and employment opportunities. The Israeli government and people must understand that just as they cannot make peace without security, we cannot make peace in the face of the relentless expansion of Israeli settlements. To talk of peace on the one hand, and to continue destroying Palestinian houses and confiscating Palestinian private property on the other, undermines the process of peace the Palestinians and Israelis both want and need. It is time for Prime Minister Barak to unequivocally declare and strictly enforce a total and permanent freeze on all Israeli settlement activity and cease the confiscation of Palestinian land. To do so would go a long way toward securing the hopes and dreams of both our peoples.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to address a crisis which threatens to severely reduce competition in the trucking industry. To the hundreds of independent truckers who in an orderly and proper fashion came to their Nation's capitol earlier this year, let me say, we heard you. This gentleman from West Virginia, at least, heard what you had to say. Everyone is concerned over the effect high fuel costs are having on our economy. But in particular, high diesel fuel prices are hitting the independent small trucker the hardest. These individuals, who own and operate their own rigs, are faced with financial ruin. Simply put, they cannot afford sharp increases in diesel fuel prices and they are not in the position to pass these increased costs on to shippers. The result is that many are going out of business and an important segment of the trucking industry is being lost. What does this mean? Aside from the very real and pressing personal hardships these independent truckers and their families face, we are also losing competition in the trucking industry. Many shippers are concerned over consolidations in the railroad industry. Situations where due to the lack of competition, they believe they are held hostage to a single railroad. These shippers could face a similar situation in trucking as the owner-operators succumb to rising fuel costs, thinning the ranks of trucking alternatives. Indeed, last month in testimony before the Resources Committee the head of the American Trucking Associations, Walter McCormick, noted: ``If we start to see bottlenecks, shippers who today object to a fuel surcharge will have to scramble to get their freight delivered at any cost. It's easy to see where that leads: Consumer prices rise and inflation snuffs out our country's economic expansion.'' This statement echoes what the president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, James Johnston, said before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on March 21st: ``If we don't fix this problem soon, and truckers continue to lose their businesses or refuse to drive unprofitably, we are going to see greater disruptions in our economy as goods do not get to market and just-in- time deliveries to manufacturers cease to arrive `just-in-time.' '' To address this situation, we are introducing the ``Motor Carrier Fuel Cost Equity Act of 2000.'' This legislation would require that a mandatory fuel surcharge be put into place for truckload carriers, and that the surcharge actually be passed through to the motor carrier, or as the case may be, the broker or freight forwarder, who is providing the transportation service in situations where diesel fuel prices are the subject of sudden and exorbitant increases. Further, the bill provides that if existing transportation contracts or agreements already contain fuel surcharges, nothing in the legislation would affect those arrangements. To be sure, this is not unique response to fuel crises. There are situations where existing contracts between shippers and motor carriers contains fuel surcharges. Further, in response to past fuel crises, the Interstate Commerce Commission first mandated them during the 1970s. However, once the filed rate doctrine was abolished, federal authority in this matter lapsed. The question could be asked, why now mandate a fuel surcharge if some transportation contracts already provide for them. The answer lies in the type of environment in which independent truckers operate. In those instances where they are under lease to a motor carrier to provide the transportation service, there is no guarantee that a surcharge will be passed on to them. The transportation contract is between the motor carrier and the shipper, and the owner-operator has no role in the types of rates charged. In addition, where the independent trucker has his or her own operating authority and deals directly with shippers, they usually do not have the leverage to obtain a fuel surcharge from them. In effect, the independent trucker, being a small businessman, is put in a position of either having to accept the offered rate or losing the business. Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation represents a fair and reasonable approach to addressing this situation. It does not solve the fuel crisis, but it would bring relief to an important sector of the transportation industry.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to restore our Nation's historic commitment to insuring lifetime health care for retired coal miners. Joining me in introducing this bill, which will be known as CARE 21, is a bipartisan group of our colleagues: Bob Ney, Spencer Bachus, Rick Boucher, Tim Holden, Ron Klink, Alan Mollohan, John Murtha, Ted Strickland, and Bob Wise. Enactment this year of CARE 21, the ``Coal Accountability and Retired Employee Act for the 21st Century,'' is necessary if we are to avoid seeing a curtailment in health care coverage for thousands of retired coal miners and their widows. Indeed, this would not be the first time that Congress has acted in this matter. In 1992, in what is known as the ``Coal Act'' enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act, Congress established the UMWA Combined Benefit Fund (CBF) combining the union's 1950 and 1974 benefit plans. This action came in response to changes in the coal industry which created a large class of `orphaned' miners whose benefits were no longer being paid by an active coal company. A key feature of the Coal Act was the financing of orphaned miner health care costs through an annual transfer of a portion of the interest which accrues to the unappropriated balance in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. Simply put, in restoring abandoned coal mine lands we must not abandon the retired coal miner. The Coal Act was working well, health care for retirees whose former employers could be identified would be financed by premiums paid by those companies while to date, $193 million in reclamation fund interest and a one-time $68 million additional appropriation has financed orphaned miner care. However, a rash of recent adverse court decisions have been rendered which once again is threatening the financial integrity of the program. Among them, what is known as the ``Chater'' decision which overturned the Social Security Administration's premium determination reducing premiums by 10 percent. Another court decision ordered the CBF to refund about $40 million in contributions. And the Supreme Court's decision in the Eastern Enterprise case added some 8,000 retirees to the orphaned miner rolls. The result: Without a new source of funds, the CBF will face a cash shortage beginning next year forcing the curtailment and ultimately the cessation of health care coverage for some 70,000 retirees and widows whose average age is 78. CARE 21 takes a relatively simple and straightforward approach to addressing this impending crisis. First, it would transfer the amount of interest that is currently languishing in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to the CBF that was not previously made available for orphaned miner health care. This would provide an immediate infusion of roughly $172 million. Second, it would lift the restriction in current law that reclamation fund interest can only be used for orphaned miner health care. This action would serve to cover future shortfalls in the CBF. I would note that interest accrues to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund at a rate of about $83 million a year. Meanwhile, there is a $1.7 billion unappropriated balance in the Fund. CARE 21 in no way adversely affects the abandoned mine reclamation program. The principal remains intact for that effort, and is fueled by annual reclamation fees assessed on every ton of mined coal which finances the program. As such, one of the key features of CARE 21 is that the general taxpayer is not being called upon to pay for retired coal miner health care, but rather, the coal industry itself would provide for this coverage through the interest which accrues to the fees it pays into the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. Mr. Speaker, I noted earlier there is a historical commitment to providing health care for retired coal miners. This is a unique situation in that what would normally be a matter solely for the private sectors is not in this instance. The genesis for this situation dates back to 1946 in an agreement between then-UMW President John L. Lewis and the Federal Government to resolve a long-running labor dispute. At the time, President Truman had ordered the Interior Secretary to take possession of all bituminous coal mines in the country in an effort to break a United Mine Workers of America strike. Eventually, Lewis and Secretary Julius Krug reached an agreement that included an industry-wide, miner controlled health plan. In fact, the 1992 Coal Act itself was formulated partly on the basis of recommendations from the Coal Commission, established by former Labor Secretary Libby Dole, which in 1990 recommended a statutory obligation to help finance the UMWA's Health Benefit Funds. Mr. Speaker, the people covered by this health care program spent their careers producing the energy which powered this Nation to greatness. We must not forsake them. We must not cast them adrift in their later years, robbed of the health care they so desperately need.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing on matters pertaining to the soaring costs of gasoline and diesel fuel. Ostensibly the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether consumers would benefit from repealing a 4.3 cents Federal fuel tax, which they would not. Such a proposal is SSI, a simply stupid idea. Experts in the transportation field, including consumer groups such as the AAA, all said this proposal would have severe adverse effects on our country in terms of highway safety, congestion relief and employment while, at the most, saving the American consumer about fifty cents a week; the price of a pack of chewing gum, if that, because the oil companies would probably take that amount themselves. What every witness did support, however, is releasing oil from the SPR, and I join them in calling on the President to do so immediately. This is very important within the context of the measure we now consider. I am sure that the President and our former colleague, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, are doing their best on the diplomatic front, but one cannot fight a cartel without weapons and our best weapon is to turn on the spigots, bring our fuel prices down and show OPEC that we will not be at its mercy, that we will not be held hostage.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I join in commending the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster); the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan); and the ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for their tremendous efforts in bringing forward to the House today this Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, AIR 21. This measure does indeed make an investment in America, a badly needed investment, and one that will not just benefit airport facilities located in major cities but rural parts of this Nation as well. Rural parts of this Nation often neglected under this bill will have the ability to make greater contributions to local economic development activities, and the pending measure will help them achieve their true potential through Federal policy changes. In this regard, I would like to highlight two provisions that I had a part in fashioning. The first will provide $75 million in assistance to small airports to implement measures aimed at improving the costs and availability of air service to consumers, including through marketing and promotion, better use of airport facilities and air service subsidies. The second provision makes it clear that projects facilitating the transfer of cargo and passengers between air and ground transportation modes are eligible for funding under AIP. In other words, air to transit, air to freight railroads, air to trucking facilities located on airport property can be built using Federal aviation funds. This provision benefits both large and smaller airports, but in particular the small community and rural area facilities can utilize it as a means of expanding economic development and creating jobs. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the concept of intermodalism, intermodalism, which is part and parcel of our Federal surface transportation laws and policies, has now finally found its way into aviation policy. I urge adoption of this report.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the anniversary of the 44th year of Independence for the Republic of Tunisia, to be celebrated on March 20, 2000. Legend has it that more than 200 years ago, Tunis, as token of esteem and friendship, sent one of its finest stallions to U.S. President George Washington. Unfortunately, customs officials in the nascent republic denied entry to the horse, which spent its remaining days in the port of Baltimore. After this somewhat rocky start, I am pleased to note that U.S.- Tunisian relations have improved considerably. Tunisia is about to celebrate its 44th anniversary of the establishment of the Republic of Tunisia as an independent country, a time during which Tunisia has enjoyed a strong and healthy relationship with the United States. I congratulate Tunisia for its many accomplishments, not the least of which is to have established a more democratic system of government, making every effort to broaden political debate, including passage of an electoral law that reserved 19 seats of the National assembly for members of opposition political parties. Tunisia has a very impressive economic record, having turned to economic programs designed to privatize state owned companies and to reform the banking and financial sectors over the last decade. As a result Tunisia's economy has grown at an average rate of 4.65 percent just in the last several years, and its economic success has had a beneficial impact on Tunisia's international standing. Tunisia is one of the few countries to graduate successfully from development assistance and to join the developed world. 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. I 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. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and wish to set the record straight on the swirling misperceptions that have surrounded the West Virginia delegation's efforts to provide a balance between protecting jobs so essential for our Nation's energy security and protecting our environment at the same time. Over the past several weeks, the national media, environmental organizations, and the White House have engaged in a campaign of misinformation regarding a proposal by the West Virginia congressional delegation to address a coal mining crisis in our State. Over the years, litigation in the State of West Virginia has resulted in some of the toughest mining reclamation laws in the Nation. Indeed our coal industry in West Virginia operates under greater environmental scrutiny than the industry does in any other State in our Nation. As a result of litigation, environmental plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with the United States on matters involving both the Clean Water Act and the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. On October 20 of this year, a Federal court decision rendered a rather unique interpretation of the relationship between provisions of the Clean Water Act and SMARA. This interpretation in my view is contrary to congressional intent in enacting the applicable statutes. Our delegation has sought to reaffirm the interpretation of these provisions of law and regulations that have been upheld by the EPA, the Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department. Nothing, and I repeat, nothing in our efforts have sought to undercut the Clean Water Act. In fact, the provision of our legislation clearly states, and I quote, ``nothing in this section modifies, supersedes, undermines, displaces or amends any requirement or any regulation issued under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.'' I do not know how to better state it, how to make it more clear. Yet despite these facts, a campaign of misinformation has been trumpeted around this Nation and has been unfair to our West Virginia congressional delegation. The White House certainly is to blame. This is unfortunate, because the White House and the President's senior advisors particularly have turned their back on the many hundreds of hard-working men and women whose livelihoods, whose families and whose futures now hang in the balance. These are the individuals who have toiled beneath the surfaces of this Nation in order to provide us energy security that lights this very chamber today.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 2260, a bill to promote pain relief in lieu of promoting assisted suicide for men, women and children suffering from unremitting pain of grievous injury and terminal disease. The American people oppose euthanasia as a solution to the problem of pain and suffering. They know that is not the humane, decent choice. I believe that saying yes to people who talk about, threaten or ask for assisted suicide is not respecting that person's choice. The threat of or request for assisted suicide is a cry for help--not a real request to die. The yearning for, the love of life, the desire to live, is a part of each and every one of us. When a person--a loved one perhaps--believe they want to die because their pain cannot be or is not being controlled adequately, it is not for us to answer them by allowing controlled substances to be used to bring about their death. It is our duty and responsibility to let them know we care and that we will do something for them--not to bring about death--but to bring about relief from the pain that causes them to think they would rather die. It should not be--should not be--the response of the Federal Government to legalize assisted suicide. Our response should be that we have the medical technology that makes the administration of pain-relieving drugs sufficient to control pain. Our response must be to improve our medical delivery system so that what we know about the cutting edge of medicine becomes a reality at every bedside--and that doctors, nurses and family members are assured that the safe prescription of drugs for pain control is possible without fear that they will be charged with a crime. Our response must be that we will ensure through authorized federal programs the dissemination of state-of-the-art information to doctors or care-givers in medical settings, about how to control pain. Our response should be to give all care givers the information that our best pain specialists know. Our response is to ensure that this information go out to every general practitioner in every clinical setting--so that no one needs to be put to death--but are made comfortable so that even their final hours are spent in the most pain- free state medically possible. The Pain Relief Promotion Act before the House today takes those steps--strong steps--in that direction. Rather than starting down the slippery, dangerous slope of assisted suicide, let us take a higher ground--to a place that tells us it is reasonable--not extraordinary--to expect not to have to kill our loved ones in order to put them out of their misery. We have the medical technology. We have pain control and management specialists who are ready and willing to impart their knowledge to medical practitioners so it can be used for humane--and safe--purposes. The relief from pain for those who are suffering from grievous injury or terminal illness is within our capability now--and it can be administered without killing them. No one has a duty to die because they may be a burden to care givers, or a drain on a family's financial resources. If we do nothing else, we must stop going down that path where we put pressure on those who are vulnerable, who are poor and sick and disabled--that they have a duty to die because they are a burden. To do otherwise is to set a dangerous, inhumane precedent. I urge my colleagues to vote for alternatives to suicide--not assisted suicide. Vote for the Pain Relief Promotion Act. Mr. Wu. Mr. Chairman, death with dignity is a right which all Americans should have. Currently, only Oregonians have this right. Today, we debate whether Congress will deprive Oregonians of their most fundamental human rights--the right to choose one's destiny. May God guide this House in its deliberations. The bill before us today is misnamed the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act,'' a crafty piece of legislation that hides its real intent. Organizations that have taken the time to study the bill, including the state chapters of the American Medical Association, have expressed their opposition. Every day, opposition is growing to this bill because it subjects thousands of doctors across the country to second-guessing by the DEA. In order to hide the real motive of the legislation, H.R. 2260 alters the Controlled Substances Act--a law intended to deal with drug trafficking and diversion--in an attempt to regulate state medical practice. Frankly, H.R. 2260 amounts to little more than one section that contains non-controversial palliative care measures, and one section that is a thinly veiled attempt to overturn Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. Terminal illness has nothing to do with drug trafficking or forgery or all the other things that are traditionally the purview of the Office of Diversion Control within the DEA. H.R. 2260 would have this unknown law enforcement agency make determinations regarding a new offense that is inherently intent based, yet without allowing a physician to avoid legal responsibility by establishing that they merely intended to relieve pain, even where death inadvertently results. The Controlled Substances Act is written as a strictly liability law for both criminal and civil purposes and contains no intent requirement. Sadly, the Judiciary Committee voted down an amendment that would have required the government to prove the doctor's intent, and another which would have allowed health care providers to make an affirmative defense that they had no such intent. How will the DEA enforce this legislation? The DEA never testified before Congress on either H.R. 2260 or its predecessor in the last Congress, H.R. 4006. The gymnastics that are required to make this legislation work are mind-boggling. I am very concerned that there will be vast amounts of new paperwork requirements. Health care workers will be required to report on each other. Will family members who are sad to see a loved one pass away report the physician? This bill is fundamentally destructive of patient rights, the physician-patient relationship, and the independent practice of medicine. Testimony before the Committee indicated that ``this Act subjects physicians who care for dying patients to the oversight of police with no expertise in the provision of medical care.'' I am disappointed that the Committee chose to ignore these words. While members were not permitted to testify this year in the Judiciary Committee, my state medical association, the Oregon Medical Association, did testify. They said ``Physicians already undermedicate patients for fear of being sanctioned under the current law.'' H.R. 2260 will only exacerbate the current situation, and leave thousands more needlessly suffering. All it will take is one case, in any town in the United States, where the DEA investigates a physician on this issue, and I guarantee that an instant freeze on prescriptions for analgesics across that state will result. H.R. 2260 will trigger a federal enforcement process that would ruin the careers of physicians and throw them in jail. Physicians, already beset by controversy in local state laws, will be reluctant to prescribe the large doses of pharmaceuticals that are often required to treat incapacitating levels of pain. The Rules Committee has allowed a substitute by Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Rothman, and Ms. Hooley, my colleague from Oregon, to be considered on the floor. This substitute will enhance all the non-controversial provisions in H.R. 2260 regarding the need to boost palliative care, but leave out the provisions that have led the American Nurses Association, and American Pharmaceutical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Association of Health System Pharmacists, the American Pain Foundation, and many other organizations to oppose this bill. I hope my colleagues will consider the fact that the Johnson-Rothman- Hooley substitute puts Congress on record as opposing assisted suicide, but does not threaten treatment of chronic pain. There have been instances in our nation's history where it is appropriate for federal law to supercede state law in order to fulfill national imperatives, but this is not one of those occasions. With this bill today, Congress misses the opportunity to engage in a real debate about end-of-life care, and what our choices should be as individuals in a free society. Today does not represent the kind of open, courageous, and enlightening discussion that Congress is capable of having. Instead, this bill aptly demonstrates what Congress can do in a backhanded way. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2260, support the DeFazio-Scott amendment, and support the Johnson-Rothman-Hooley substitute.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to submit for the Record an article which appeared in the Beckley, WV, Register-Herald, on October 17, 1999. As you will note from reading this article, 10 men from Beckley and 2 from Huntington, WV, representing the Memorial Baptist Church and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes recently visited Gaza and the West Bank in the Middle East, where they used some very common skills to build friendships with Palestinians. The Reverend Paul Blizzard, who lead the group on the mission to Gaza and the West Bank, said that his visit was to show their love for the Palestinian people and to extend a helping hand in any way they could. And they did so in a most astonishing but effective manner--with a camera and basketball hoops. Aided by Bernard Bostick, coach at the Beckley-Stratton Junior High School, and Mike White, area director of the fellowship of Christian athletes, the West Virginians worked with basketball camps to help the youths develop their sports emphasis. While the language barrier was present--West Virginians don't speak Arabic as a rule, and few Palestinians speak English--they found hand signals often worked just as well as words--and learned all over again that kids are kids and people are people no matter where they are when it comes to sports. The camera was wielded by Rod Carney who owns the Grace Book Store in Beckley, and John Brown, a computer specialist with the Mine Safety and Health Administration in Mount Hope, WV, who took pictures of the basketball games and of families. Mr. Carney noted that ``family is very important in Palestine, and they don't have any way of getting pictures made of themselves. Many families have been separated and it means a lot to them to have family portraits made or to even have individual pictures of family members.'' The film will be developed in Huntington and the photos sent to the Baptist workers in the West Bank for distribution among the families. Reverend Blizzard noted that ``there is so much bad press and misleading information about Palestinians. We see all the rock-throwing and terrorism and are led to believe those acts characterize the people there. It just is not true. The Palestinian people are the most hospitable, loving people you would ever want to meet.'' One of the highlights of the trip was the personal meeting with President Yasir Arafat during the visit. There was a prayer, and an exchange of gifts, with President Arafat giving the group a Nativity set with the inscription Bethlehem 2000 as a gift from Gaza, and the West Virginia group gave the President a gift of the world-famous West Virginia Glass, a Bible and a West Virginia Lapel Pin from Governor Cecil Underwood. President Arafat told the group they would be welcome again anytime they desire to visit Palestine. It was my pleasure to personally convey Rev. Blizzard's request to me to help arrange for a personal meeting with President Arafat. I was able to hand the request to President Arafat in person during his recent visit to Washington. It is Christian efforts such as those carried out by Rev. Blizzard and his group from the Beckley and Huntington Baptist Church and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes that can help us put an end to the mindless stereotyping of Palestinians and others of Arab-descent as bomb-throwing terrorists. I know Rev. Blizzard will continue his missionary work in Palestine in the years to come. As the Representative of Rev. Blizzard and the other 11 members of his group who made the trip, I am very proud to insert the newspaper article describing his experience in Palestine in the Congressional Record. Ten Men From Beckley, Two From Huntington, Used Skills to Build Friendships with Palestinians (By Bev Davis) A Beckley group used a basketball, a camera to build friendships in another part of the world. The Rev. Paul Blizard, pastor of Memorial Baptist Church in Beckley, used contacts from previous trips to the Middle East to arrange a 12-day visit to Gaza and the West Bank, where 10 men from Beckley and two from Huntington used some special skills to build friendships with Palestinians there. ``There is so much bad press and misleading information about Palestinians. We see all of the rock-throwing and terrorism and are led to believe those acts characterize the people there. It just is not true. The Palestinians we met are the most hospitable, loving people you would ever want to meet,'' Blizard said. The American team took gifts of food, shoes, sports equipment and T-shirts. ``We gave over 100 pairs of shoes to a doctor who will distribute them in a Bedouin camp in Gaza. The people are very poor there. The shoes will enable the doctor to get people to come to the clinic for vaccinations and other medical services,'' Blizard said. The group also organized a three-fold plan to provide several services to their Palestinian hosts. Bernard Bostick, a coach at Beckley-Stratton Junior High School, and Mike White, area director of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, prepared themselves to work in basketball camps, teaching new skills and helping the Palestinians develop their sports emphasis. ``We met with a group of kids who didn't speak much English, and we didn't know Arabic, but when the balls started to bounce, there was one language,'' White said. ``We used hand signals to explain techniques, and the expressions on the faces of the players told us immediately they were pleased with new moves they learned from Bernie. Kids are kids, and people are people, no matter where they are. We had a wonderful opportunity to get to know these groups, and it was hard to leave.'' A Baptist group arranged for Rod Carney, owner of Grace Book Store in Beckley and John Brown, a computer specialist with the Mine Safety and Health Administration in Mount Hope, to take pictures of people living in the West Bank. ``Family is very important there, and they don't have any way of getting pictures made. A lot of families have been separated, and it means a lot to them to have family portraits made or to even have individual pictures of family members,'' Carney said. He shot 16 rolls of film and sent them to Huntington, where a photo shop will develop the photographs at no charge and send them back for Baptist workers in the West Bank to distribute to the families there. ``We were in homes of people who had very little, and yet they always welcomed us warmly and offered us food and beverages. We knew sometimes they were offering us all they had. We were all deeply touched by their hospitality,'' Carney said. ``When people asked us why we came, we told them we believe God wanted us to go there to show our love for the Palestinian people and to extend a hand to help them in any way we could,'' Brown said. Huntington Audiologist Tom Waybright accompanied the group and did volunteer work in a school for the hearing-impaired. ``This was a unique opportunity to learn more about the people and to provide a service for them,'' Blizard said. ``Everywhere we went, people were so appreciative and they just treated us like family.'' One unexpected highlight was the opportunity to meet with Palestinian National Authority President Yasser Arafat and exchange greetings and gifts with him, Blizard added. ``Through the efforts of Abu Tariq, the president's personal representative, our whole group was invited into the national headquarters to meet him. We talked with him and prayed with him. We gave him gifts from Gov. Cecil Underwood's office--lapel pins in the shape of the state of West Virginia and a piece of glass from our state. The president gave us a Nativity set with the inscription ``Bethlehem 2000'. One of our men gave him a Bible. It was quite an experience for all of us,'' Blizard said. ``It was reported the next day that Arafat enjoyed our visit very much and he sent word that we are welcome again,'' Blizard said. Several of the men said they would like to go back. ``We have made wonderful friends in the Middle East and are eager to see them again. We have come to love the Palestinian people, and we look forward to our return there,'' Blizard said.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Frank E. Matthews for his tremendous work for the River Cities Combined Federal Campaign, his many years with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as the leadership and generosity that he has shown toward the City of Huntington and the State of West Virginia as a whole. At the Huntington District Corps of Engineers, Frank serves as executive officer to the district engineer--a position that he has held for 19 years. He adds much needed continuity and leadership to this constantly changing field. Despite his many responsibilities to the Army Corps, Frank still makes time for worthy causes such as the River Cities Combined Federal Campaign, where he has served as coordinator since 1966. Frank has been described as the glue that holds the River Cities' CFC campaign together. Always modest, Frank refuses to take credit for the campaign's success--preferring to attribute the success to his coworkers generosity. However, his internal auditing system is one of the many ideas that has turned the annual fund-raising drive into such a success. It gives the fundraiser credibility while assuring donors that their money is spent appropriately. The auditing system allows Frank to track funded agencies and ensure that money is spent properly. Anyone at anytime can look at the report to see where the money is going. Initiatives such as the auditing system explain how the River Cities' campaign has grown and blossomed into a highly successful fund-raising drive under Frank's leadership. Just last year, Corps of Engineers employees donated $32,000 to the River Cities' CFC campaign, or almost 40 percent, to the campaign's overall total of $82,608. In addition to his official responsibilities, Frank is very active in his hometown community of Huntington, West Virginia and his list of activities reads like a Who's Who of area organizations. He is a member of the American Legion Post 16, the Elks and Rotary Clubs, the Huntington Museum of Art, the Marshall University Alumni Association, the Southside Neighborhood Association, and is a past commandant of the 340 Marine Corps League. He has also served on the board of directors of the Region II Mental Health Association, the Boy Scouts of America Tri-State Area Council, and the Huntington Jaycees. I have had the privilege of knowing Frank for many years. I consider him a dear friend and am honored to have worked with him on behalf of West Virginia. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Frank's wife, Jewell, his three married daughters, Maureen, Samantha, and Juliet, as well as his son, Matt, for sharing Frank with all of us. Mr. Speaker, I urge you and my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Frank on all of his hard work for West Virginia and the United States. He is truly a model of generosity and the epitome of a public servant.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chairman, I would ask of the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a provision in the pending manager's amendment would eliminate the requirement that agreements entered into pursuant to section 13703 of title 49 are subject to a mandatory 3-year review by the Surface Transportation Board. In effect, this provision would make the STB's review discretionary rather than mandatory and return the process for reviewing these arguments to what it was prior to the enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995. In this regard is it the gentleman's intention that the basis of the public interest test used to review these agreements shall continue to be limited to the national transportation policy set forth in section 13101-a of title 49?

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me the time. I want to commend him, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the subcommittee chairman, for bringing the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1999 to the floor today. The fundamental problem that this legislation seeks to address is this: in recent years, the Office of Motor Carriers began to move away from a prescriptive regulatory regime to a performance-based program. This in and of itself is not bad. However, in doing so, the Office of Motor Carriers sought to leap- frog rather than evolve; and a void was created, a void in fundamental inspection and enforcement activities and a void in leadership. This has caused a trickle-down effect on State programs and left us with inadequate compliance reviews, inspection levels, and a legacy of unpromulgated regulations. In response, the pending legislation does three things. First, it seeks to rehabilitate the Office of Motor Carriers by establishing it as a separate entity within the Department of Transportation. In doing so, we are hoping to provide its programs with the emphasis and the priority that they deserve within the Department's pecking order. Motor carrier safety, Mr. Chairman, should not be second to aviation safety. Motor carrier safety should not be second to railroad safety. Indeed it should, at the very least, be on par with them. Second, this bill will make improvements to the Commercial Driver's License program, primarily by closing loopholes relating to the qualification of drivers. Third, this bill will provide both truck and bus safety programs with greater financial resources, with some targeting taking place at border crossings. I think we are at a crossroads here. We can quibble and we can quarrel about where motor carrier safety jurisdiction should rest, or we can seize the brass ring and pull these safety programs out of the quagmire they are currently wallowing in and by doing so do some real good for the American people and their safety. Again, Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster); the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the subcommittee chairman; and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat, for their truly diligent and dedicated work on this legislation. I wish to conclude by commending our Secretary of Transportation, Rodney Slater, as well, for not only supporting the pending legislation on behalf of the administration but for the efforts that he has made, especially since the enactment last week of the transportation appropriations bill and the truly dedicated efforts he and his staff have made to ensuring that the traveling public remain in a safe manner.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and as a point of further clarification, last year the STB seemed to question whether the uniform bill of lading is regarded as part of the classification process. This clearly came as surprise because in doing so the STB ignored well-established precedent regarding relationship of the UBL to classification. Is it the gentleman's intention that the uniform bill of lading should continue to be part of the national motor freight classification?

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the urgent matter of making restoration of Medicare funding to our home health agencies, hospitals and nursing homes, especially those that serve rural areas. We are here to again bring to the attention of the House, and the American people, the absolute urgent need to take action before the end of this session of Congress--to restore Medicare funding and make other administrative adjustments to cutbacks imposed under the BBA of 1997. The BBA-97, as it is called, proposed to cut $115 billion from Medicare by either terminating or massively reducing Medicare reimbursement to providers of health and medical care for senior citizens and the disabled. The effect has been that with only one-third of the mandated Medicare cuts having been implemented so far, the total cut is not $115 billion--it already totals more than $206 billion. Imagine what will occur if the other two-thirds of proposed Medicare cuts are implemented in the coming year. In West Virginia, the hardest hit segment of our health care delivery system has been among home health agencies. We have seen the closure of 18 of our home health agencies, and drastic reductions in staff and services at those still operating. Our hospitals--especially the rural hospitals--are suffering the same kind of financial crush--with many of them having already drastically reduced staff, and dozens that have had to curtail services for outpatient care. I just received word yesterday that the Appalachian Regional Hospital at Man, West Virginia, may be forced to close by the end of October-- due in part to the loss of Medicare reimbursement. Another local hospital nearby which is in financial difficulty also, may eventually close. These are the only two hospitals serving a large rural county in my district. It is obvious that the closure of one hospital is bad enough--closure of two would create critical access problems for my constituents in need of emergency room care, inpatient care, and outpatient clinic services. The same kind of burden has been placed upon nursing homes where the sickest, poorest and most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries are cared for--and due to infirmities caused by age and disease--from heart problems to diabetes to stroke--they are the most costly of patients. We have reached this impasse tonight because, in my view, Congress balanced our Nation's budget on the backs of its elderly, disabled, homebound citizens whose only help comes from Medicare. It is my understanding--and if true I applaud him--that our colleague and friend, Representative Bill Thomas, Chair of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, will have introduced today--a plan to restore some of the BBA cuts to Medicare. The first words that occurred to me when I heard about the Thomas plan was: It's about time. But I genuinely applaud his effort because it is important to have our Health Subcommittee Chairman on record as having acknowledged the adverse impact of the Medicare cuts imposed on providers of this country's health care for our most needy, most vulnerable senior citizens. It wasn't that long ago that we were constantly admonished not to pay any attention to our home health agencies about the Medicare cuts--even as they closed over 2,000 of them nationwide--18 of them in my State. We were told that the cuts were not too deep, and that the impact was not so adverse as to require congressional action to restore them. And so again I greet Chairman Thomas' plan for restoring some of the BBA-97 Medicare cuts with genuine hope and lingering uncertainty, because we have not seen the details. I am also gratified to hear--after preaching on the subject for two long years--that the Administration is looking into ways that Medicare reimbursement cuts can be restored through administrative action. My colleagues here on the floor tonight will recall with me that we suggested this administrative action in a half-dozen letters to the Administration beginning over two years ago. But we were told that the BBA-97 was so tightly written that only legislative relief could help restore the Medicare cuts. We were told that the Administration had no ``wiggle room'' to act on its own. Once the details of the Thomas plan are available to us for our study--we will know for sure whether he has sent the Fire Brigade to our rescue, or if we are being handed a pitcher of spit to try and extinguish the fires of neglect brought to our health care delivery system through the excessive Medicare cuts contained in the BBA of 1997. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I say only what many of us have been saying all along--that we must work together to get this burgeoning loss of health services under control. Chairman Thomas has taken a first step in leading Congress to act before the end of this year. This is an important day--and I have every hope and expectation that Congress will move quickly and effectively to address the needs of our home health agencies, our hospitals, our nursing homes--providers who deserve our thanks and our support for this restoration of Medicare cuts imposed by BBA-97.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the full committee ranking member, for the excellent work they have done in bringing this legislation before us today. The fact of the matter is that today, on this very day, because of a legislative rider tacked onto the transportation appropriations act signed into law on Saturday by the President, the Federal Government now has no authority to enforce Federal truck safety regulations, none, no authority to enforce Federal truck safety regulations for whatever infraction except imminent hazard situations, this authority is totally lacking. This is because the Republican leadership rushed that bill through Congress in a roughshod and cavalier fashion. They did it so fast, tucking this legislative rider and authorization really on an appropriations measure, that apparently it did not occur to the Republican leadership that this rider prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from assessing fines against a trucking company for safety violations. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the Department cannot seek civil injunctions against truckers who violate Federal safety regulations. And to make matters even worse, the Department cannot even provide support to the U.S. Attorney for criminal prosecutions or lend support in FBI investigations. Imagine that, just imagine that if a roadside inspection or as a result of a compliance review conducted by Federal officials, a trucker is found to be in violation of safety standards, a threat to human life and safety, as a result of that legislative rider on the appropriations bill, no penalties can be assessed. Oh, yeah, a slap on the wrist perhaps, an admonishment to not do it again or to slow down, but that is pretty much it. It is pretty much like taking away from the police the ability to write tickets for speeding and other driving infractions. Getting pulled over, grant you, may be an inconvenience, but will speeding and aggressive driving be controlled if traffic tickets could not be issued? I think not. Certainly not. Today, then, all Americans should be aware that the trucking industry is operating with impunity from the Federal Motor Carrier safety regulations. It is really the Wild West all over again, but at this time it is taking place on our Nation's highways and byways. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad commentary on what happens when bills are rushed to the floor in a hasty manner and when legislative riders are struck on appropriation measures in the middle of the night. There was simply no need for these shenanigans. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has reported comprehensive motor carrier legislation, and we are prepared to bring it to the House floor tonight. We recognize the pressing needs to improve truck safety, and we are taking action to do so. This is the proper way to proceed, not with these ill-conceived and ill-advised riders to appropriations bills. Because of that, today America is suffering. And it is suffering from a lack of proper truck safety regulation because of arrogance and misuse of the legislative process. The pending measure will correct this mistake. It simply restores the Federal Government's ability and authority to levy civil penalties for violations of truck safety regulations. This authority could be used by the newly established Office of Motor Carrier Safety established by the Secretary of Transportation on Saturday after the President signed the bill into law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) the distinguished and very capable ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking minority member for yielding me the time and commend him for the motion that he has brought. I support all three points of his motion to instruct but would like to narrow my remarks to the mill site provisions portion of these instructions. As has been referred to, Mr. Speaker, the House overwhelmingly in a bipartisan vote on July 14 adopted my amendment offered along with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) to uphold the Interior Department's lawfully constructed position on the ratio of mill sites which may be located in association with mining claims on western Federal lands. This amendment was adopted 273-151, so a vote today in support of this motion to instruct would be consistent with the vote of last July 14. This issue is about protecting the American taxpayers and the environment against abuses which occur under that Mining Law of 1872 under which there is overwhelming support for some type of reform. Simply put, if Members voted ``aye'' on July 14, they vote ``aye'' today as well. As for the 151 Members who voted ``no'' at that time, perhaps they will see the light, have the opportunity to make amends, and today is the opportunity to do the right thing. We have had debate on this issue during the course of many years. Since our last debate, however, on July 14, new information has come to light. Under a directive that was included in the supplemental appropriation enacted last May, the Interior Department has now completed a report on the number of pending plans of operation and patent applications, which under the Solicitor's opinion, contain a ratio of mill sites to mining claims in excess of legal requirements. The results of this report clearly illustrate that the Solicitor's opinion will not lead to the end of all hard rock mining on western Federal lands as some would have us believe. In response to the gentleman from Nevada who just said that what we are doing by these instructions is retroactively going back and shutting down mines, that statement is certainly not substantiated by the facts of what I am about to present to the body. There are 338 pending plans of operations affecting BLM, National Forest System and National Park System lands. Three hundred thirty-eight pending plans of operations. Twenty-seven were found to include a ratio of mill sites to mining claims in excess of the legal requirement. Twenty-seven of those 338 would be affected by these instructions. That is only about 8 percent. Pending patent applications that could be affected, here the Department found that of the 304 grandfathered patent applications, only 20, that is about 7 percent, are estimated to have excess mill sites. It is clear, then, that the vast majority of the hard rock mining industry in this respect has chosen to abide by the legal requirements of the law. The vast majority of the hard rock mining industry abides by the legal requirements of the law. So I find it difficult to believe that the Congress would now penalize this majority of law-abiding operations and award the contrary minority as they relate to the mill site to mining claim ratio by rejecting the Solicitor's opinion. So let us go along with these instructions, with the vote we had last July 14, an ``aye'' vote to instruct the conferees to uphold the House position as well as the majority law-abiding portions of the hard rock mining industry.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we congratulate APTA on its 25 years of service, I would note that while the large transit systems such as Washington Metro and BART often attract the most attention, the backbone of public transportation in this country is still the providers in small communities and rural areas. On a daily basis in small communities across our country, many Americans rely on their local bus systems, such as what we have in Huntington, West Virginia, for their transportation needs. Indeed, the Tri-State Transit Authority is a shining example of what makes transit so important in this country, and is one of the reasons why we are commending APTA today. I would also be remiss if I did not note that another reason why we should be honoring public transportation today is the strong presence of the Amalgamated Transit Union. This organization represents the vast majority of transit workers who daily operate the trains and buses which get people to and from work in a safe manner and their leisure pursuits, as well, and their contribution to public transportation is also being commended today. I urge the adoption of the pending resolution, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) has explained the nature of the pending measure. I would simply note that it is an important one because it recognizes the human pain and suffering associated with severe injury and loss of life that unfortunately does occur at times in passenger rail service, so I urge the adoption of the pending measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.