Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished committee ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I have no illusions as to what the outcome of this vote will be, but I think it is necessary to rise in opposition to this resolution. It is well-intended, I am sure, and I certainly respect the sponsors of it and certainly respect the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. The administration, Mr. Speaker, is unmistakably on record as opposing a Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood. There is no real need for this resolution and particularly at this time, a very sensitive time in the Middle East itself. In a letter from the State Department to the gentleman from New York, our esteemed chairman of the Committee on International Relations, dated March 9, U.S. policy was clearly stated, that the administration opposes unilateral actions, but it goes further in stating, and I quote: ``We believe that any congressional resolution should make clear our opposition to all unilateral acts.'' I stress the word ``all,'' which the letter does in several different cases. ``Singling out one side would not be as effective as stressing what both parties have already committed themselves to do.'' Simply put, it was not only the Palestinians who signed the Oslo Agreement and later the Wye Accords. Israeli commitments as well should be reiterated in any congressional resolution on this subject. H. Con. Res. 24 simply fails to mention the other half of the equation. Failure to mention both parties in this resolution is only rhetoric aimed at this particular sensitive point in Israeli political elections at tilting the side toward one side or the other. I reiterate that while I may be opposed to a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood at this time, although that does not make me in opposition to a Palestinian state, this particular resolution is one-sided and comes in an untimely manner and an untimely fashion for this Congress to be considering. I oppose the resolution.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in paying tribute to Mo Udall, and would note that two Udalls, Mark and Tom, are Members of the 106th Congress and are carrying on the legacy set by Mo and his brother Stewart. There are those today who will speak about Mo Udall, the gentleman from Arizona. Mo Udall, the Presidential candidate. Mo Udall, the powerful chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and his vast legislative accomplishments. Mo Udall, the man. I share the sentiments of my colleagues in these matters. As a freshman Member of Congress I began serving on the Interior Committee in 1977, the year Mo became its chairman. Under Mo's leadership, the years that followed were extremely productive for the committee. Many of Mo's legislative initiatives were enacted into law, such as the Alaskan Lands Act. Under Mo Udall's guidance the committee produced a legendary amount of wilderness and park legislation that will stand as testimony to the will and foresight of this great man. Others will speak to those issues. I will speak to but one of Mo Udall's legislative achievements; one that left its mark on the lives of every citizen of this Nation's coalfields: The landmark Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Mr. Speaker, for many years leading up to the enactment of this law, the gentleman from Arizona saw what was occurring in the Appalachian coalfields of this Nation due to unregulated surface coal mining. By the 1970's, it became increasingly clear that the proliferation of acidified streams, highwalls, refuse piles, open mine shafts, and other hazards associated with past coal mining practices could not be ignored. It was on February 26, 1972, that a coal waste dam located on Buffalo Creek in Logan County, WV, collapsed causing a flood of truly horrible proportions in loss of life, injuries, property damage, and people left homeless. This disaster, coupled with mounting concerns over the failure of several States to properly regulate mining, ensure reclamation and the development of surface coal mining in the semiarid West for the first time raised the level of public attention to the plight of coalfield citizens adversely affected by certain coal mining practices from a local, to a truly national, level. The Congressional debates of the mid-1970's, and bills passed only to be vetoed, set the stage for Mo Udall's introduction of H.R. 2 on the opening day of the 95th Congress in 1977. As a newly elected Representative from West Virginia, I was honored to serve on the Interior Committee at this time, at the very time when Mo Udall took the leadership reins of the Committee, at the very time when after years of struggle it looked likely that a federal strip mining act would pass muster. I was given a great compliment when Mo Udall chose this freshman Member from West Virginia to serve on the House-Senate Conference Committee on H.R. 2, and stood in the Rose Garden with President Carter and Mo Udall when the bill was signed into law as the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. This law has served the people of the Appalachian coalfields well. It has made the coalfields of this Nation a much better place in which to live. The vast majority of the coal industry is in compliance with the law, and countless acres of old abandoned coal mine lands have been reclaimed under the special fund established by the act. Mo Udall's original insight and foresight have proven correct and we are very much indebted to him. When God made the mountains of my home State of West Virginia, he made a special breed of people to preside over them. We are born of the mountains and hollows of our rugged terrain. Our State motto is ``montani semper liberi''--mountaineers are always free. Although Mo Udall is from the southwest, from Arizona, he understood us. He understood the true beauty of our hills and hollers. He is, in my mind, an honorary West Virginian. And his years of diligence in not only gaining the enactment of the 1977 law, but in pursuing its implementation, will be long remembered by all West Virginians. Now, if Mo was here, I can imagine what he would say. He would tell the story about a young man at a banquet. This young man was getting an award and he was flustered and he said, ``I sure don't appreciate it, but I really do deserve it.'' Mo turned over responsibility on the committee for the surface mining act to this gentleman from West Virginia, his chairman of the Subcommittee on Mining and Natural Resources. As I undertake my duties in this regard, the words Mo spoke on the 10-year anniversary of the enactment of the 1977 law ring in my ears: ``The act was, and is, more than a piece of legislation. It is a vehicle of hope for those who live and who will live in America's coalfields.'' Mo left some big shoes to fill. Mr. Speaker, I cannot conclude without making note of one other mining initiative. Mo understood what was occurring in the coalfields. But he also understood the abuses that took place in the West, in hardock mining for copper, gold, silver and other such minerals under the Mining Law of 1872. It was also in 1977 that the effort to reform the Mining Law of 1872 came to a head. Mo Udall, a reform supporter, however, found that the press of Committee business and other considerations would cause this particular initiative to be shelved for the time being. Ten years later, in 1987, as his Mining Subcommittee chairman I resurrected the issue and today, mining law reform legislation is being actively considered by the Congress. Mo, I will do my best to use the same judgment, same humor, you would bring to the debate. Mo Udall, this one piece of unfinished business, once completed, is for you. God bless you, Mo Udall.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in celebration of the life of a true hero of the Middle East, a true patriot, a beloved leader of his people, friend and ally of the United States, King Hussein Ibn Talal al-Hashem of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. I believe it was when, at the most tender age of 15, as his grandfather King Abdullah was assassinated before his eyes while visiting the holy site of the Al Aqsa Mosque, that this future King of Jordan had his great strength of character forged in steel. Over his nearly 50-year reign as Jordan's Monarch, King Hussein met many challenges to his rule as a true patriot, with benevolence toward his own people and peoples throughout the region. He led with bold courage and became a visionary, and was seen often to turn away the wrath of his enemies with a gentle word and with compassionate but firm resolve even in the midst of turmoil while facing grave danger. There was none before him so steeped in the knowledge of the history, the culture, the religion, or the traditions of all contenders for power in the region, both Jewish and Muslim. King Hussein always understood perfectly that their roots were inextricably intertwined in the fertile and historic soil of the Middle East. He met the challenges presented to him with concern for others, but first and foremost was his deep and abiding allegiance to the sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The friendship he offered to the United States was founded upon his total respect for us as a Nation who shared his own values. One of his greatest legacies is the significant contribution he made, right up to his death, to peace and security in the region. We witnessed his enduring personal courage as he left his treatment behind at the Mayo Clinic to hasten to the side of the President at Wye River Plantation to help the United States keep that negotiation of peace between Israel and Palestine on track. It is for this reason, and so many other instances, that King Hussein would wish that every one of us acknowledge how vitally important it is for us to take immediate steps to strengthen the relations that exist between us in Jordan and throughout the Middle East, so that all our peoples may benefit from them. King Hussein chose to reject violence, because it was just such violence that propelled him into power. With the world watching, he bravely chose to reject violence and to embrace peace, and in 1994 showed remarkable courage when Jordan became only the second Arab country to sign a peace agreement with Israel. King Hussein rejected violence and embraced peace. He showed his compassion and deep understanding when another violent act saw the 1997 murder of seven Israeli school girls. He rejected the violence but embraced peace when he traveled to Israel to visit with the families of the young victims and so joined in their mourning. He led by example to his people and to the world at large, but especially in the Middle East. And even as the mantle of leadership for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was passed from then King Abdullah to King Hussein, so is the mantle now passed to his son, King Abdullah Bin Al-Hussein. In memory of King Hussein's true commitment to the peace process and to the strong relationship we have forged with Jordan, I extend the hand of conciliation to his son, King Abdullah, and offer him my prayer for God's mercy, my support and my friendship as he strives to ensure that his Father's dream of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East becomes a reality. His Majesty King Abdullah, the eldest son appointed by King Hussein before his death, received his education in England and in America, and prior to his appointment served as the Commander of the Royal Jordanian Special Forces where he honed his leadership skills. The Appointment of the Crown Prince to succeed King Hussein will bring a continuity of his vision for Jordan, and for Peace in the Middle East, and I am confident this includes King Abdullah's commitment to the Jordan-Israel treaty of peace.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of legislation to be introduced by Representative Visclosky, imposing steel import quotas on countries that are dumping steel in our markets, and by Representative Traficant, to impose a short-term ban on steel imports in the foreseeable future. I also support Representative Regula's bill calling for immediate changes in the Section 201 procedures used to indicate or prove that foreign imports are causing grave injury to industries and workers in the United States. The jobs of steel workers are at risk: 10,000 have already lost their jobs, and 24 more will be pushed out of the workplace every day the steel dumping continues. In 1998 alone, 18 million tons of foreign steel poured into the United States--12.4 million in the third quarter alone. This represents 56 percent more than the third quarter in 1997. By contrast, America exported a mere 5.5 tons of domestic steel in 1998--the same period in which Russia, Brazil, and Japan unloaded the exact same 5.5 tons of hot-rolled steel imports here. The United States Steel industry adds $70 billion a year to the gross domestic product--and you can put a face on that $70 billion if you think about the thousands of steel workers--their spouses and children--who will suffer even more if we continue to allow illegal steel dumping from foreign markets into ours--for there will be no jobs, no house mortgage or car payment, and no hope for their continued quality of life. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the Administration to take care of Americans--and American jobs. I do not intend to demean the Banana industry--those workers have to be able to earn a living too--but if the President will do for steel what he has done on behalf of bananas, then all will be well. There have been times in our history when a resource vital to the United States was threatened by foreign producers, and it could happen again. Steel is a vital resource to our national security--our military complex. If we are forced to rely on foreign producers to provide our steel, the entire industry will fold and we could find ourselves held hostage once again. Mr. Speaker, somebody needs to tell the Administration that it is steel on which our military depends for its weapons and equipment in times of crisis, not bananas, and he must act to stop steel dumping now.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today it is my privilege to introduce, once again, comprehensive legislation to reform the Mining Law of 1872. I am pleased to note that the distinguished gentleman from California, George Miller, and Peter DeFazio of Oregon are joining me in introducing this measure. Some may view the introduction of this legislation as a exercise in futility. They are those who benefit from the production of valuable hardrock minerals from certain federal lands without payment of either rent or royalty to the American public. They are those who benefit from the hodgepodge of minimal regulation governing the reclamation of these lands and the lack of suitable environmental safeguards to protect the American public. Yet others, others view the introduction of this measure as a ray of hope. They are those who are concerned that in the last year of the 20th Century the United States still actually allows multinational conglomerates to mine gold, silver and copper from our federal lands for free. They are those, countless citizens, who live in the vicinity of these operations, who must contend with maimed landscapes and polluted streams. And all of us must wonder, is this the type of legacy we wish to leave to future generations? The Mining Law of 1872 today is an anachronism that will not die. Enacted in an era when the policy of the United States was to populate the West partially by making free land and free minerals available to those who would brave an unsettled and wild region, it has resisted substantial reform despite countless attempts to modernize it and make it responsible to more current policies governing the management of our public domain. The bill we are introducing today is the very same which passed the House of Representatives by a three-to-one margin during the 103rd Congress. Reintroduced during the 104th and 105th Congresses, it was held hostage by the Resources Committee. Even under A Republican majority, I remain convinced that if allowed to proceed to the House floor, this bill or something similar to it would pass the full House of Representatives. The issue of insuring a fair return to the public in exchange for the disposition of public resources, and the issue of properly managing our public domain lands, is neither Republican or Democrat. It is simply one that makes sense it we are to be good stewards of the public domain and meet our responsibilities to the American people. This means that the Mining law of 1872 must be reformed.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, two years ago, during the 105th Congress, I considered it a duty to introduce private relief legislation on behalf of 62 families who were air-lifted out of Kuwait during Iraq's invasion of that country. These families were brought out of Kuwait involuntarily, most without the opportunity to bring private belongings or assets with them. nearly all have children who are U.S. citizens. As indicated by their having been cleared by the INS and the FBI, the Persian Gulf Evacuees [PGE's] are shown to be professionals who are gainfully employed, none of whom have become wards of the States in which they live, received welfare assistance, or otherwise broken any U.S. laws while in the United States. Because of their actions in Kuwait at great risk to themselves, to provide safe harbors of Americans trapped that country during Saddam Hussein's attack, these Persian Gulf evacuees deserve our utmost respect and gratitude. I urge my colleagues to take note of this private relief bill, because the Persian Gulf evacuee families are scattered all over the United States, and one or more families may live in your Congressional District, and they need your support to help get the bill out of committee and enacted into law. President George Bush, in air-lifting them out of Kuwait during those perilous days just prior to U.S. Military intervention, did so to protect their lives. He gave the evacuees five years of ``safe harbor'' in the United States during which time the evacuees made every effort to adjust their status to that of permanent immigrant. After President Bush left office, President Clinton extended their stay here for an additional two years. At the time of the air-lift, more than 2,000 individuals were involved; during the intervening years, all but 62 individuals and families have ``adjusted'' their status and have gained permanent immigrant status in the United States where, as I have said, they are self-supporting and have brought no financial burden upon the United States for their care and keeping. These 62 remaining individuals and families have not had their status adjusted in the intervening years because many of them ran into barriers between themselves and the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] that kept appropriate interviews from being conducted with the evacuees and further kept the FBI from starting and completing necessary background checks on the evacuees to assure they had committed no crimes while in the United States. Today, I have reintroduced a Private Relief Bill naming 62 individuals and families who are known as Persian Gulf evacuees [PGE's] and I urge my colleagues to join with me to serve those evacuees who may live in your Congressional District to ensure appropriate action is taken this year to grant them permanent immigrant status in the United States.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation aimed at providing equity in the treatment of benefits for eligible survivors of recipients of black lung benefits. In past Congresses, I have introduced legislation to make more comprehensive reforms to the federal black lung benefits program in an effort to make it more responsive to those who suffer from this crippling disease. However, in light of a pending Labor Department rulemaking in this area, I am withholding the introduction of that comprehensive bill at this time. In this regard, I believe that some comity is in order as we wait the promulgation of final rules under that proceeding. In the interim, the bill I am introducing today is very limited in scope. In 1981, Congress amended the Black Lung Benefits Act in several respects. Facing insolvency, at the time the driving motivation for the legislation was to shore up the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund through which benefit payments are made to beneficiaries where mine employment terminated prior to 1970, or where no mine operator can be assigned liability. Through a variety of measures, solvency was restored as a result of those 1981 amendments which had the support of the United Mine Workers of America as well as most of the coal industry. Yet, one provision of the 1981 Act in particular was most troublesome. This provision involved the treatment of surviving spouses of deceased coal miner beneficiaries and the manner by which they could continue to receive black lung benefits. As it now stands, due to the 1981 amendments, there is a dual and inequitable standard governing how benefits are handled for surviving spouses of deceased beneficiaries. In the event a beneficiary died prior to January 1, 1982--the effective date of the 1981 Act--benefits continued uninterrupted to the surviving spouse. However, if the beneficiary dies after January 1, 1982, the surviving spouse must file a new claim in order to try to continue receiving the benefits and must prove that the miner died as a result of black lung disease despite the fact that the miner was already deemed eligible to receive benefits prior to death. This is illogical, unfair and outright insane. The legislation I am introducing today simply removes the requirement that a surviving spouse must refile a claim in order to continue receiving benefits. It provides for equitable treatment and recognizes that since the Black Lung Trust Fund is very solvent, there is no need to penalize beneficiaries any further.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2500, legislation dealing with the ownership of coalbed methane as a source of energy in situations where a federal coal estate is involved. Until July of this year, the issue of how to allow the development of coalbed methane resources where a federal mineral estate was present seemed to be well settled. As a result of two Department of the Interior Solicitor opinions, it was held that the right to extract coalbed methane was vested with the owner of oil and gas rights rather than the coal resources. In situations where the federal government owned both, the Department required that an oil and gas lease be issued to extract the coalbed methane. There are other situations, however, where the federal government reserved to itself just the rights to the coal resource. These situations arise from federal policies pursued during the early part of this Century. Starting with the Coal Lands Act of 1909, the United States reserved coal deposits in lands subsequently disposed for agricultural purposes. This policy was also elaborated upon in a 1910 Act. And it culminated with the 1916 Stock Raising Homestead Act which extended the reservation to all minerals whenever lands were patented to ranchers. But with respect to the 1909 and 1910 Coal Acts, it had been held that only the coal was reserved to the United States. The owner of any oil and gas rights could validly extract coalbed methane. Subsequently, a thriving coalbed industry has grown encouraged to a great part by the section 29 non-conventional fuel tax credit enacted in 1980. Indeed, when I championed coalbed methane legislation as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 in my then capacity as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Mining and Natural Resources, we examined this issue and found no need to include provisions relating to situations where coalbed methane was being developed in situations involving federal estates or the reservation of the coal resources. However, on July 20th of this year, in a somewhat tortured manner, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals asserted that coalbed methane is part of the coal, rather than a separate mineral resource. This ruling came as a result of litigation pursued by the Southern Ute Tribe in Colorado which claimed ownership of coalbed methane from coal it acquired under the terms of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 as a successor in interest to the statutory reservation of coal by the United States under the terms of the 1909 and 1910 Acts. This ruling, obviously, has far-reaching ramifications for any entity which is producing coalbed methane where a federal land or mineral interest lies. In effect, the rules of the game have suddenly been changed on them in a manner which jeopardizes millions of dollars of investment. The legislation before us seeks to mitigate the potentially disastrous affects of the Court's ruling by preserving the sanctity of existing coalbed methane leases associated with federally-owned coal reserves. It does not apply to such leases where the coal reserves have been conveyed to a federally-recognized Indian Tribe, thus upholding the Court's ruling as it would narrowly apply to the interests of the Southern Ute and similar tribes. Mr. Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. While the focus of this legislation is on coalbed methane in the western States, this energy resource is of increasing importance to the Nation as a whole especially as we continue to work to foster a coalbed methane industry in the East on private lands under the terms of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to reauthorize the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and the Economic Development Administration Act (EDA). It is time, Mr. Speaker, to have reached agreement to reauthorize these two economic development programs--the ARC and EDA--for the first time in nearly 17 years. As passed by the Senate, the legislation before us is similar to H.R. 4275, the bill reauthorizing ARC/EDA that was reported by the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, and its Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development, where I am pleased to serve and proud to be a part of our bipartisan efforts to provide economic development assistance to the most distressed areas of the country. The House, Mr. Speaker, has passed reauthorization legislation every one of the past 17 years except for the 103rd Congress--and it was the bipartisan, positive attention given to it by the Chairmen of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its Subcommittee on Economic Development who distinguished themselves as leaders in the effort to keep the ARC and EDA programs alive. I want to commend Subcommittee Chairman Jay Kim and the ranking Member Jim Traficant, as well as Chairman Shuster and ranking Member Jim Oberstar, my good friends and able chairmen for their enormous efforts to bring reauthorization legislation for these two vital economic development programs to a vote after all these years. This legislation preserves the basics of the Economic Development Administration, as well as those of the ARC. The bill recognizes that the EDA programs have been enormously successful in aiding distressed regions of the nation. The bill strengthens EDA by reforming program delivery, and tightening eligibility so that funding no longer goes to over 85 percent of the country. The EDA reauthorization adds new economic development tools, and it responds to communities subject to base closings and defense cutbacks. The bill also recognizes and builds upon the ARC, a well-known, highly successful model for Federal-state cooperation. Because of the foresight of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, and with the strong support of the senior Senator from West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd, the ARC's Appalachian Development Highway is now funded from the Highway Trust Fund as authorized under TEA21. Carving the development highway out of the ARC has reduced authorized funding by $100 million a year, to $67 million in FY99 and--as newly configured--permits better targeting of ARC funds to truly distressed regions within the 13 State, 400 county region. Mr. Speaker despite being unauthorized since 1982, both the EDA and the ARC have continued to receive strong bipartisan support for continued funding over the years, but it wasn't always easy. I think it appropriate to thank the House Appropriations Committee leaders from both sides of the aisle over the past 17 years, for keeping hope alive for the ARC and the EDA. I can think of hundreds of ARC projects that have helped West Virginia--but one that comes to mind is the Gardner Interchange and Industrial Park Water and Sewer Improvements. This project in Mercer county helped retain and create more than 768 jobs in an area struggling against economic decline and severe stress. And as I said, it is only one of many projects funded by the ARC to help the people of Appalachia continue to grow and to realize their full potential. The Economic Development Administration--the EDA--has undergone significant downsizing over these 17 years--but the downsizing has strengthened rather than weakened it, improving its efficiency. This reauthorization today will give EDA the stability it lacked over these many years. Now it can move forward in response to the changing needs of America's distressed communities, and it can do so with confidence. I applaud today's vote on the reauthorization of the EDA and the ARC, and can think of no more fitting way to continue the many economic benefits of these two vital programs than to carry them forward, into the 21st Century. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the improved payment system for kidney disease patients contained in this bill. Nor am I opposed to the commendable veteran benefits contained herein. I am, however, deeply concerned about the bill's home health provisions as many of my other colleagues have already expressed. This bill that is masquerading as an appropriate remedy for the devastating effects of last year's BBA, which imposed an interim payment system on our Nation's home health care agencies, the only specialists we have who serve homebound disabled seniors, and the effect has been to drive thousands out of business and deprive seniors of adequate access to care to which they are entitled. The home health care provisions of the BBA call for paying home health care agencies in 1994 dollars, and since January this year more than 1,100 have gone out of business or have been forced to stop serving Medicare patients because they cannot afford it. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is pure and simple, that the Thomas bill, however well intended, is not the proper response to the Nation's home health care problem. It does no harm and it does no good, as has already been stated. It is paying mere lip service to the problem of the interim payment system, and I do hope we can address this in the next session of Congress.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in 1996, the Surface Transportation Board was established within the Department of Transportation as a result of Congressional action to terminate the Interstate Commerce Commission. The STB is an adjudicatory body with jurisdiction over certain surface transportation economic regulatory matters which were formally under ICC jurisdiction. The Board consists of three members and herein lies the crux of the problem. Today it consists of two members. By the end of the year, it will consist of only one member. This is not a situation the Congress envisioned when establishing the STB and enacting provisions such as those found under section 13703 of Title 49 of the United States Code. And I state this as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation which had a major role in drafting the ICC Termination Act of 1995. The provisions of section 13703 relate to the grant of antitrust immunity for certain collective activities pertaining to the motor carrier industry. In enacting the 1995 Act, and specifically section 13703 of Title 49, Congress retained immunity for classification making, the collective establishment of through routes and joint rates, rates for the transportation of household goods, general rate adjustments, rules and divisions. These activities have historically had antitrust immunity as being in the public interest and Congress had the good sense not to change that arrangement. However, the 1995 Act contained a caveat. While immunity would be retained for an initial three year-period, which expires December 1998, the Act requires that the Board continue the immunity beyond the three- year period unless it finds that renewal is not in the public interest. In other words, unless the Board affirmatively determines that there is some public interest basis for not continuing the immunity which Congress provided for in the statute, the immunity is to be renewed beyond the initial three year period. It is now being left up to a single Board member to make these determinations. In this regard, there is some question as to whether or not the board, when comprised of a single member, even has the authority to make any determinations of this nature. Apparently, the matter is not well settled. But in any event, any action taken by a STB comprised of a single member will be the subject of controversy if not litigation. As such, I would advise the STB not to take any actions on matters which fall within the purview of section 13703(c) of Title 49 while it lacks a quorum of its statutorily designated membership. Indeed, the clear intent of Congress in enacting the 1995 Act was for the grants of antitrust immunity to continue. We knew then, as we know now, that the efficient operation of the motor carrier industry, and its ability to serve both shippers and consumers alike, depends on the continuation of commodity classifications. Clearly, motor carriers could not, and would not, meet collectively without immunity and it is a fact that no system other than the National Classification Committee Agreement provides for the grouping of products with comparable characteristics, or the separation of products that are dissimilar, for transportation purposes. And we knew then, as we know now, that the motor carrier industry remains extremely competitive using the collective ratemaking process authorized by the immunity to provide procompetitive services to shippers. These principally regional motor carriers, by benefit of the immunity, have been able to establish together rates and routes for essentially multi-regional services, and these services compete with the single line services of the large carriers. In this way, these carriers, who compete with each other for regional and inter-regional freight, effectively join together to offer shippers competitive, and often times more cost effective, services. That these carriers are continuing to provide shippers with these services in a market of extreme competition is testimony to the positive competitive effect of the immunity. I would note that the household goods industry as we know it also depends on the antitrust immunity provided by law. For these reasons, I believe the public interest is best served by the continuation of the agreements in existence today, and that the public would be ill-served by an STB, comprised of a single member, taking any actions which would jeopardize the efficiencies embodied by the status quo.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, for taking this special order to allow us to debate this most important bill, as it may be the only time, likely will be the only time we will have to debate this issue. I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill because of its threat to the health and safety and welfare of our coal miners who are suffering from the crippling disease known as pneumonoconiosis or black lung. Over the history of the Appalachian coal fields, we have seen many atrocities invoked among our coal miners. Even today, we are left with a legacy of abandoned coal mine lands and abandoned coal miners. Indeed, as it stands now, we are now experiencing less than a 10 percent approval rate on claims for black lung benefits, even after the appeals, and this figure does not attest to any unreasonable and unbiased comportment of the facts. We have seen delays in the promulgation of new rules as proposed by the Department of Labor, for which I highly commend them. Yet there is a provision in this legislation that constitutes a vicious assault on black lung victims. This provision, while falling short of placing an outright moratorium on the promulgation of these rules by the Department of Labor, does seek to create further delays and place roadblocks in the way of the publication of the new rules. I, therefore, urge defeat of this legislation. Recognizing this, on January 22, 1997, the Labor Department proposed rules aimed at making the black lung program more receptive to the thousands of miners, their widows and families who are being victimized by the current procedures. Public comment opportunities were extensive, including two lengthy hearings during the summer of 1997. Yet, today, final rules have yet to be promulgated. This delay is of concern. Even more troubling is a provision contained in H.R. 4274 which constitutes a vicious assault on black lung victims. Specifically, instead of allowing the Labor Department to proceed with this rulemaking under those laws normally applicable to the promulgation of Federal regulations, the provision forbids the rule from being finalized until certain certifications are made by SBA and OMB. Under current law, SBA is to be consulted but has no ``certification'' role. Further, after these so-called certifications, the provision requires an additional 60-day comment period. I would submit that these proposed rules have now been published for almost 1 year and 9 months. That is ample time for review and comment. There is simply no need for this provision except as a delaying tactic aimed at killing this rulemaking. And let us be perfectly clear. Further delay is the death knell for those coal miners seeking the benefits they so justly deserve under this program. Coal miners have suffered enough without being subjected to this type of abuse. For my part, I will not stand idle during consideration of amendments to this bill and will seek to strike this onerous provision.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to my esteemed colleague, Lee Hamilton, as he retires from the House of Representatives after 34 years of service to Indiana's Ninth District, and to our Nation. Lee Hamilton arrived in Washington to begin his long tenure in the House during the Lyndon Johnson administration. As those times demanded, he was present for the creation of such landmark legislation as the Elementary and Secondary and Higher Education Acts, helping assure an educated citizenry so that the socio-economic needs of this country might be met. He also presided over the enactment of legislation to assist those living at or below poverty--especially the children--as Johnson's War on Poverty began, and the President's Great Society began to take shape. Lee Hamilton was here in 1965 when the Medicare Program for senior citizens health care was enacted, lifting many seniors out of poverty once they no longer had to choose between paying for health care and eating, providing seniors with a healthier, quality life of hope and dignity. There was much going on in this House when Lee Hamilton arrived from Jeffersonville, Indiana to begin his service as the representative of the Ninth District of that great state, and aside from domestic issues, Lee was soon to become deeply involved in international issues as well. As Lee Hamilton's distinguished service grew and flourished on behalf of those who needed federal support in order to obtain an education, food, shelter and health care, he quietly became our most able leader in International affairs. As the chair of the International Relations Committee for many years, and as its current ranking member, Lee has devoted himself to leading this country through the cold war, helping bring about the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and the Communist threat. Lee Hamilton too great care to help ensure America's security in an unsafe world. Lee's lifetime commitment to public service, under the administrations of seven Presidents from both parties, has never faltered. His enormous achievements are a testament to a remarkable life of selfless duty and an unstinting commitment to the peace and prosperity of the people of Indiana as well as our Nation, for which we owe him a great debt of gratitude. Lee is known for his unimpeachable integrity, his gentle voice of reason, and a firm hand, and I have personally benefited from both his reason and his strength. I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to publicly thank Lee for his assistance to me over the years with concerns I have had over events in the Middle East, and especially in the land of my grandfathers, Lebanon. His deep understanding of the culture, history and traditions of the Middle Eastern countries is enormous. I know there have been many times over the years when, at my request and no matter how busy he was, he has taken the time to share with me and my colleagues his remarkable insight into how best to address events in a troubled area in times of great distress. I thank him also for his direct assistance to me as I have endeavored to bring humanitarian and non-lethal military assistance into Lebanon as that country struggles to return to its former state of independence and sovereignty after a 17 year civil war. And so it is with warmest personal regard, highest esteem and deepest appreciation that I rise to pay tribute to Lee Hamilton as he takes his leave of this House where he has served with distinction for more than three decades. I wish him God Speed, and great personal happiness and success as he embarks upon his newly chosen career path.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Mr. Ernie Salvatore on his 50th anniversary as a journalist for newspapers serving Huntington, West Virginia. Mr. Salvatore began his career as a journalist at age 15 taking sports scores over the telephone. A year later, he covered traffic court for the Greenwich Times in Connecticut and served as sports editor for his high school newspaper. In 1942, Mr. Salvatore joined the U.S. Army and served in World War II. After his discharge as a staff sergeant in 1948, he enrolled at Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia where he met his future wife, Joanne Pinckard. Following graduation, Mr. Salvatore worked for the Huntington Advertiser as radio-TV editor until being named sports editor in 1953. After 14 years as sports editor, he became executive sports editor for both the Huntington Advertiser and the Herald-Dispatch. In 1986, Mr. Salvatore retired from the Herald- Dispatch, but continues to submit columns from his home office. Mr. Salvatore hired the first woman to write about sports at the Advertiser and has many admirers in West Virginia including Bobby Pruett, the Marshall University football coach. ``He's an honest person,'' Pruett said. ``He tells it like it is. In all dealings with me he's been very honest, straightforward and he's treated me fairly. I've known him since 1961, . . . and the thing I've learned about Ernie is that he loves Huntington and he loves Marshall University. But even though he has that strong love, he's going to be honest to his profession and honest to his reading public.'' He and his wife, who will celebrate their 50th anniversary in January, have raised five children and are the proud grandparents of six grandchildren. I salute Mr. Ernie Salvatore for his tireless dedication to the Huntington community, the State of West Virginia, and his chosen profession.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on August 11, 1998, John F. Brady passed away. He was 69 years old, a father, a husband, grandfather much beloved by his family, as well as by his many friends. John Brady went to sea at the tender age of 16 with the U.S. Army Transport Service, now the Military Sealift Command, for two years. He enlisted in the U.S. Navy in Seattle, WA, in December 1947, serving with distinction in China and Japan. John Brady was decorated for service with the USMC in the Korean War, and was a member of the `Chosen Few'. Wounded in action, he was awarded the Purple Heart for Service and Sacrifice to his country. Upon his discharge from the service, he served for five years with the Merchant Marine, as a second engineer. He came ashore in order to serve as a representative for his union, then the Brotherhood of Marine Engineers, later becoming the American Maritime Officers. He held every union office (except as president) for the next 40 years. John is survived by his loving wife Kitty, daughters Catherine and Cynthia, and sons Phillip, John F. II, and Scott, who is also with the Merchant Marine, and by six grandchildren and two sisters. John's deep and abiding commitment to the happiness of his family is well known, and he was devoted to their well-being throughout his remarkable life. John Brady's enormous personal and professional dedication to his fellow maritime officers was also well-known, and he seemed to think of them as members of his extended family. It was well understood by all who knew him that he took his responsibility as the Maritime Officers' Union Representative, very seriously, and he worked tirelessly to help assure their success and well-being for nearly four decades. Mr. Speaker, John Brady will be sorely missed by his loving family, his fellow officers, and his community, but his memory will live on in their hearts and minds forever.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I join with my Colleague Representative Van Hilleary, to introduce a new bill that has as its purpose to resolve the unconscionable mess the BBA made of home health benefits programs when it passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in this effort since last November when I introduced H.R. 2912, intended to restore the venipuncture home health benefit that the BBA terminated for all time. As of this date, 105 of my concerned colleagues from both sides of the aisle have joined me in supporting the restoration of this life- giving home health benefit. Mr. Speaker, the bad news is that the hastily drawn, ill-considered attack on America's home health industry that took place last year during debate on a balanced budget has resulted in massive harm--both to home health agencies and to the Medicare-enrolled, Medicare-eligible senior citizens who are vulnerable, frail and seriously disabled. This attack on home health agencies has driven 1,100 out of 8,000 agencies nationwide out of business and those who are still open are beginning to refuse to accept Medicare patients. But the good news is that: Members of this House from both sides of aisle with conservative to moderate to liberal leanings--are finally beginning to band together to try and reverse the trend to shut down the only specialists we have in this country who are trained to provide care for our sickest and most vulnerable population--senior citizens and others who are disabled and homebound. I take great pride in having introduced H.R. 4339 last week--a bill calling for a three-year moratorium on the so-called temporary payment (interim) system that has caused home health agencies to fail and patients to be left totally without resources to keep them safe. The Interim Payment system (IPS) was only supposed to remain in place until HCFA could get the Prospective Payment System in place in October of 1999. The horror is that HCFA has advised Congress that due to circumstances, including HCFA's problem with Y2K considerations--it can't meet the deadline next October. If HCFA doesn't meet that deadline, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter-- the BBA says that when next October 1st rolls around it will automatically trigger a 15 percent reduction in all reimbursements to home health agencies. I deeply appreciate the bipartisan support my bill, H.R. 4339 has received over the past week, and I encourage those Members who haven't cosponsored it, to do so. But because of a need to provide a solution to the IPS problem while at the same time guaranteeing budget neutrality--we need not only a moratorium--but also a trigger of our own--a trigger that works on behalf of home health agencies--instead of the built-in trigger that gets pulled next October making matters much worse than they are today. That is why we have introduced the HERO bill today--the Homebound Elderly Relief Opportunity bill--to provide both a moratorium for immediate relief--and a trigger mechanism for future relief and stability among both agencies and the patients they serve. This is a bipartisan effort to get something done--something positive and constructive to get home health agencies back on their feet--where they deserved to be--and Medicare patients back into home care programs they rely upon for daily comfort, for physical and mental stability, for the chance to remain at home among loved ones while struggling with the infirmities of old age and disease. That what this joint effort is about today--my colleague Representative Van Hilleary of Tennessee and I--it is our rallying cry for action before this Congress adjourns to help those we are sworn to help--vulnerable people who cannot help themselves--the sickest and most frail population in this country--who depend upon home care and the people who deliver it to them. We need to do the right thing. I strongly believe the combined moratorium to provide immediate relief, and the trigger mechanism in the HERO bill for future cost effectiveness, is the right thing to do.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague Representative Mark Souder to cut $25 million from the appropriation for the Economic Development Administration (EDA) in order to fund the drug court program. Mr. Chairman, the appropriations bill before us, H.R. 4276, contains $368 million for the EDA grant program, the same amount authorized in H.R. 4275, the EDA reauthorization bill ordered reported by the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee in late July. This appropriation is consistent with the EDA program reforms included in the reauthorization bill. The increase for the drug court program is not necessary. The Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill before us already increases this program from $30 million to $40 million, a $10 million increase. Further, Chairman Rogers has graciously agreed to accept an amendment by Representative Ensign to add another $3 million for the drug court program to bring funding to $43 million. While I am supportive of the drug court program which provides grants to state, local and Indian tribal governments to help develop treatment options for nonviolent drug offenders, I believe that a funding level of $43 million is more than adequate--and is $13 million more than the 1998 level and the Administration's request for FY99. The Economic Development Administration programs that assist distressed counties throughout the country to strengthen and stabilize local economies by creating jobs through community development projects will need all the appropriated funds contained in this bill in order to implement new EDA reforms, and to adequately serve the country's needs. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment to cut $25 million from the EDA appropriation in order to bring the funding for drug courts to an unwarranted and unprecedented level of $68 million. Mr. Chairman, $68 million for drug courts, as worthy as those programs are, would mean a $38 million increase above that requested by the Administration for fiscal year 1999 and above the amount made available last year. Again, I urge defeat of the Souder amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, July 24, 1998, just a brief time after the last vote of the day was cast, two seasoned Capitol Hill Police officers were gunned down in one of the entrances to the United States Capitol, the People's House. Hearts were broken, and a part of America died. There is a poem, one that is very fitting for this occasion, about fallen heroes, entitled ``A Part of America Died Today.'' Its author is unknown to me but I ask that it be printed in the Record at this point, and I will state it in tribute to Officer J.J. Chestnut and Special Agent John Gibson. Somebody killed a policeman today, and a part of America died. A piece of our country he swore to protect will be buried with him at his side. The suspect who shot him will stand up in court, with counsel demanding his rights, while a widowed mother must comfort her kids and spend alone many long nights. The beat that he walked was a battlefield, too. Just as if he had gone off to war. The flag of our Nation does fly at half mast. To his name, they will add a gold star. Yes, somebody killed a policeman today. A cop put his life on the line. Now his ghost walks a beat on a dark city street, and he stands at each new rookie's side. He answered the call and gave us his all, and part of America died. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, my staff and the people of the Third District of West Virginia, I extend our deep sympathy, our prayers and our thanks to the families of these two fallen heroes, Officer J.J. Chestnut and Special Agent John Gibson, placing them in the comforting arms of God, asking his blessings upon them. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, July 24, 1998, just a brief time after the last vote of the day was cast, two seasoned Capitol Hill Police Officers were gunned down in one of the entrances to the United States Capitol--the People's House. Hearts were broken and, a part of America died. Despite the chaos that ensued during and shortly after the first shots were fired, killing Officers J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson, both veterans of 18 years on the U.S. Capitol Police Force, it was with cool, deliberate bravery that they pursued and brought down the gunman, even as they themselves were dying. That they died to stop the gunman from getting more than a few feet inside the United States Capitol speaks eloquently of their training, their devotion to duty, their incredible courage, and their willingness to take full responsibility for the safety of others at the expense of their own lives. These two officers saved countless lives last Friday, for had the gunman been able to breach the security of the United States Capitol by even a few more feet, more would surely have died. Both officers have died in the service of their country, keeping the Capitol secure, so that Members, their staff, and the hundreds of thousands of Americans visiting the ``People's House'' might live. I do not want fear or unreason to take hold amidst cries to turn our Capitol into a fortress. There is talk of beefing up security in the aftermath--a review that would have taken place after any violent event in and around the Capitol. I assure you this will not pass us by, but will grow into something positive in the way of added security. But we must carry on and let nothing stand in the way of the public's access to their Capitol or their representatives. To do otherwise would be to somehow diminish the supreme sacrifice made by these two brave officers. Instead, let us grieve along with the families, and offer them our strength and the comfort of our prayers to see them through the days ahead, by remembering the bravery of the men they lost--men who were husbands, fathers, grandfathers, sons, uncles, friends and above all, protectors of the public trust. There is a Poem--one that is very fitting--about fallen heroes, entitled: ``A Part of America Died Today,'' and its author is unknown to me. But I reprint it here in tribute to Officer J.J. Chestnut and Special Agent John Gibson: Somebody killed a policeman today, and a part of America died. A piece of our country he swore to protect will be buried with him at his side. The suspect who shot him will stand up in court, with counsel demanding his rights. While a widowed mother must comfort her kids and spend alone many long nights. The beat that he walked was a battlefield, too. Just as if he had gone off to war. The flag of our nation does fly at half-mast. To his name, they will add a a gold star. Yes, somebody killed a policeman today. A cop put his life on the line. Now his ghost walks a beat on a dark city street, and he stands at each new rookie's side. He answered the call and gave us his all, and a part of America died. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, my staff, and the people of the 3rd District of West Virginia, I extend our deep sympathy, our prayers, and our thanks to the families of these two fallen heroes, Officer J.J. Chestnut, and Special Agent John Gibson, placing them in the comforting arms of God, asking His blessings upon them.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Home Health Beneficiary Protection Act of 1998, on behalf of myself, and Mr. Merrill Cook of Utah, Mr. Bob Wise of West Virginia, and Mr. J.C. Watts of Oklahoma. Last November I introduced another bill linked to changes made in the way home health agencies would be reimbursed for services they provide to homebound seniors and other frail and disabled persons, in their homes, by the Medicare program. The bill I introduced late last year is called the Medicare Venipuncture Fairness Act, H.R. 2912, and it seeks to restore a home health benefit known as venipuncuture--the drawing of blood samples--to Medicare enrollees who were receiving this care provided by home health providers, in consultation with the patient's own physicians. This home benefit, so important to the stability of homebound patients, was terminated by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. As a result, many former venipuncture patients have entered nursing homes, and hospitals, and some have died from having their health and well-being compromised because of the loss of this vital service. Today, I find myself again trying to assist the home health agencies and their needy patients, by introducing a three year moratorium on the Interim Payment System--or IPS--also imposed on the industry under the BBA of 1997. Under the BBA, the Health Care Financing Administration, or HCFA, was directed by Congress to replace cost-based reimbursement for home health services with Prospective Payment System (PPS), to become effective in October, 1999. This Interim Payment System (IPS) was imposed while HCFA prepares to implement the PPS late next year, imposing new per beneficiary caps on home health agencies. HCFA Administrator Nancy-Ann Min DeParle has recently stated that her agency cannot meet the PPS deadline of October 1999. While there is no question of the importance of providing a transitioning procedure for home health benefits into a PPS, to ensure that all such agencies are cost-effective as they deliver services to the homebound, usually elderly, frail patients, it is our solemn duty to also protect eligible, elderly Medicare beneficiaries. It is quite evident to me that the current IPS, coupled with HCFAs interpretation of the surety bond status, is gravely threatening access to these invaluable services throughout our nation. Quite simply, the IPS is fatally flawed. While we all seek to drive out those who would deceive and defraud the elderly and the Medicare Program, by devious, fly-by-night home health providers, I am deeply concerned about a punitive IPS, which is now in effect, which is driving good, caring, quality providers out of business. Nationwide, over 1000 home health providers have closed or stopped accepting Medicare patients. There are few resources available to former patients except nursing facilities, which are much more expensive but which Medicare does not have to pay for, or emergency rooms at local hospitals if a beneficiary's health destabilizes-- another expense that must be borne by Medicare. Since last November I have sought intervention from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the President, and among my colleagues, urging them to take action to stop the demonizing of home health providers by allowing HCFA to continue to misinterpret the intent of Congress, and to continue to impose more and more punitive measures upon the home health care industry. Since last November I have sought to impress upon my colleagues, HHS and the White House, that HCFA is over-regulating these industries a majority of which are caring providers. Yet HCFA continues its arrogant disregard for Congressional intent, and our constituents--the elderly, the frail, the disabled--leaving them to find other sources of care as agency after agency is forced out of business. Today, let me say again that fraud and abuse in the Medicare system must be ended--but it is also noteworthy that in its zeal to find criminals, HCFA appears to have written and enforced regulations that treat all providers as criminals or potential criminals. It is time for Congress to now impose a moratorium on the IPS. My bill not only accomplishes this equitable goal, but it also puts pressure on HCFA to move expeditiously toward the establishment of PPS for home care. A study conducted by the George Washington University Medical Center, Center for Health Policy Research, entitled ``Medicare Home Health Services; An Analysis of the Implications of the BBA of 1997 for Access and Quality,'' confirms why Congress must take expedited action in removing the IPS. Just briefly, the Study concluded that (1) the BBA's reductions in Medicare's Home Health coverage and financing can be expected to impact the sickest and highest cost patients, and punish the very agencies that specialize in the provision of care to this population; (2) the most severe effects of the IPS falls on the sickest patients living in states with the lowest utilization patterns (as is true in my State of West Virginia); and (3) the BBA's interim payment system will shift costs to other payers (notably Medicaid) while rewarding inefficient agencies who care for relatively healthier patients. So it is not only beneficiaries and providers who are alerting a sleeping Congress to the devastation of this IPS system, but outside experts are also telling us that we must revisit this issue. While the IPS approach is a short-term solution, it has serious consequences for many vulnerable patients and honest providers. For that reason, last Friday, June 24, 1998, Senator Christopher Bond introduced an identical bill to the one I and my colleagues introduce today. I salute him for quickly recognizing that the IPS is a serious-- very serious--problem and for acting at once. Mr. Speaker, ensuring that home health care agencies, both profit and not-for-profit, can continue operating as the high quality health care providers they are, will require the cooperation of Congress, the agencies themselves, HCFA, HHS and the White House. But Congress has the power to fix the IPS problem, and it must take expedited action to do so. We truly must not stand by while thousands of home health agencies shut down. It seems to me to be in our best interest to maintain and support those who are not only specialist in caring for the aged, the infirm, the severely disabled, but to heap upon them the high praise they deserve and have earned for the work they do, both in the name of compassion and out of a sense of responsibility toward the home health care needs of senior citizens.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as cosponsor of the bill, H.R. 3905.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, the pending legislation proposes $7.8 million for the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program and I commend the gentleman from Ohio, Ralph Regula, for seeking to accommodate the request I and others have made in this matter. Indeed, this year I spearheaded a Coalfield Jobs, Environmental Justice and Trust Campaign to increase appropriations from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. This is a trust fund with about $266 million a year in receipts and a balance approaching $1.5 billion. Yet, during this decade, appropriations for State Reclamation Grants have averaged only $140 million a year. The purpose of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program, obviously, is not to collect fees assessed on coal production so they can sit idle in a government trust fund. Rather, it is to make these funds available for the reclamation of abandoned coal mine lands thereby mitigating health, safety and environmental threats to coalfield citizens while creating jobs and bringing these lands back to productive uses. Joining me in the effort to liberate a greater amount of the reclamation funds this year are the Associated General Contractors of America, the United Mine Workers and the Citizens Coal Council. With that stated, I do want to express concern over bill language included in this appropriation measure that would authorize $7 million from the balance of interest earned on the Fund for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative. There is more than a sufficient unappropriated balance in the Federal share of the Fund to provide for this $7 million appropriation without tampering with the accrued interest. Specifically, interest payments to the Fund are reserved, in part, for transfer payments to the United Mine Workers Combined Fund. In light of a recent Supreme Court decision, I am loathe to see any diversion of these interest payments to new endeavors. While I had contemplated offering an amendment on this matter, in light of the great degree of cooperation Chairman Regula has shown on the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program this year I would rather work with him and his Senate counterparts to address this issue during conference.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deepest condolences to the family of Charles Edwin Skidmore of Hinton, West Virginia, who died on May 31, 1998 after a long battle with cancer. I also rise in tribute to Charles Skidmore and his lifelong commitment to disabled Veterans. Charles was the Commander of the Disabled Veterans in Hinton, West Virginia at his death, but had previously served two terms as State Commander of the West Virginia Disabled American Veterans, and was still active as a volunteer at the Beckley, West Virginia Veterans Hospital up until his death. Even though Charles was very ill during the last year of his life, he still fulfilled all his commitments. Charles Skidmore was vice president of the Southern West Virginia Veterans Museum, and served on the committee for the Restwood Veterans Memorial where he was instrumental in its design and completion. A lifelong member of the American Legion Post #29 in Elkins, and a life member and local commander of the DAV in Hinton, Charles was also deeply involved in ``Respect the Flag'' program with local area schools. A retired Postal worker for the Beckley Post Office, Mr. Skidmore was also a former railway clerk in Hinton, West Virginia where he was born and where he lived all of his life. Charles Skidmore is survived by his wife Rosalyn, three sons and three daughters, 16 grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. I am confident that his wife, and his sons and daughters will carry on his commitments to local Veterans programs and to his community in the years to come. Charles Skidmore will be sorely missed by Veterans at the Beckley VA Hospital, where they could count on his presence, where they could tell him of their problems and get his advice on how to solve them. Veterans in the Beckley-Hilton area knew they could always count on him to actively fight for their right to adequate and appropriate health care services at the local, State and National levels. I last saw Charles at a dinner in May, shortly before he died, where we spoke briefly concerning veterans affairs, and where he introduced me to his wife, his daughter Sharon and his grandchildren. He was a proud husband, father and grandfather, who set a shining example of compassion and caring, trustworthiness, honesty and good citizenship for them and for his community. Mr. Skidmore was buried with full military honors in the Restwood Memorial Gardens in Hinton, a place he helped design, build and dedicate as a fitting burial site for other Veterans.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the term ``pork barrel politics'' has been in the lexicon for many, many years and is most often used by the media to cast a negative connotation to an earmark by a Member of Congress of federal funds for a specified project in his or her Congressional District or State. It is my experience that when the media uses this term it usually has no first-hand knowledge about the project itself, and instead, relies on hearsay to support its contention that the project constitutes ``pork.'' This is what I would call ``pork barrel journalism.'' I submit for the Record an excellent example of pork barrel journalism exposed by Steven Brill, in the August 1998, edition of Brill's Content. [From Brill's Content, August 1998] Quality Control A U.S. Senator writes a letter to the Washington Post claiming that an eye-catching story about him is completely wrong. What happens? Nothing. Last December, I noticed a curious letter to The Washington Post from Senator Robert Byrd, of West Virginia. The subject was an article that had run in the Post detailing the senator's supposed role in getting a National Park Service project funded in his state--a role the Post cited as an example of lawmakers turning the service ``into their personal pork barrel.'' Here are the highlights of Byrd's letter: ``The very first paragraph of the article speaks of a renovated train depot . . . asking `Why did the National Park Service spend $2.5 million turning a railroad station into a visitor center for a town with a population of eight? The compelling reason--Senator Robert C. Byrd . . . who glides past on Amtrak's Cardinal Limited from time to time, heading to and from his home in Sophia, a few miles south.' ``Funny thing, I do not ride the . . . train to and from Sophia and I have never done so. In fact, in the long existence of that train--which does not go to Sophia--I doubt that I have ridden it more than three times, and the last time was probably a decade ago. ``Not so funny is the suggestion that the historic preservation of that building and the town of Thurmond . . . would be undertaken as a result of such whimsy. Equally ridiculous is the falsehood that I `slipped' the New River Gorge National River park unit into federal legislation `unwanted' The recommendation to have the New River Gorge managed by the National Park Service was made by the Interior Department . . . [B]ecause of my concern for the costs associated with this plan. . . I have not supported the Park Service proposal for complete restoration of the town of Thurmond. And in the case of the depot, I forced the Park Service to complete the project at a cost conserably less than its original estimate.'' In short, Byrd claimed that the entire story was totally, even comically, wrong. To which the Post replied . . . well, it didn't Byrd's letter ran without comment. So, who was right? Brill's Content staff writer Rachel Taylor reached Martha McAreer an editor of the Post's letters page. No comment from the paper was added, said McAreer, because ``letters to the editor allow readers to voice differences of opinion.'' Could it really be a matter of opinion whether the senator had actually ridden the train or ``slipped'' the project in ``unwanted;'' by the federal agencies involved? A discussion with the article's author, Frank Greve, the respected national correspondent for Knight-Ridder Newspapers, whose wire service had supplied the story to the Post was stranger still. ``So what's the problem,'' Greve began, after having read Byrd's letter, which he told me he had not seen before my inquiry to him. ``He's entitled to his opinion.'' ``Is it a matter of opinion that he rode the train to and from his home and that that's why the depot go funded?'' ``Well, I heard he did,'' said Greve. ``And I know he lives near there.'' ``Is it a matter of opinion that he slipped the bill in unwanted?'' ``I was told that,'' Greve answered. ``Did you call him and ask?'' ``Sure, I called his office,'' Greve continued. ``What did you ask them?'' ``I told them I was calling because I was interested in the history of the project, so they suggested I call a former [congressional] staff guy because the project was so long ago. He was one of my sources.'' Greve also pointed out that his original wire service article had included a paragraph saying that Byrd had cut the budget for the depot, but that the Post had cut that section from the version it had published. But for Greve to call Byrd to say he was interested in the history of the project rather than to ask specifically about the train rides or about slipping the project into the budget unwanted, is like calling someone and saying you are doing a story about the history of his family when you're about to write that he has been accused of incest. Greve finally urged me to call two of his sources for the story--a former congressional staffer and a former Park Service official--on the condition that I not name them. The first ``source'' said he had talked to Greve ``generally about the Park Service pork-barrel abuses'' and he ``heard that either Byrd or a West Virginia congressman had wanted to slip the River Gorge project in.'' But he was ``not sure about who it was or even if it was either of them. . . . It was an old story everyone sort of liked to tell. . . . You know, an apocryphal story.'' The second ``source,'' the former Park Service official, said he told Greve that Byrd's involvement ``sounded right,'' but that he had ``no way of'' really knowing because the park project ``was way before my time.'' When told of the accounts provided by his ``sources,'' Greve sighed, and then said, in near-disgust, ``Look everyone knows that this is the way the world works in Washington. What's the big deal?'' Actually, it is a big deal. Most of us think this indeed is the way Washington works, and I know I always thought of Byrd as the embodiment of all that. So a story like this piles on to our preconceived notions and makes us all the more cynical and ready to believe the next story. Conversely, when a story about how the world probably does work, written by a respected reporter, turns out to depend on an anecdote that doesn't seem to hold up, otherwise good journalism is discredited. But what may be more important than whether Greve's story is correct, is what happened after Byrd wrote his letter. Which is that nothing happened. Greve freely conceded that no one at Knight-Ridder ever asked him about the Byrd letter. Knight-Ridder Washington bureau chief Gary Blonston confirms that ``I never heard anything about a letter.'' (Blonston also notes that he was hospitalized at the time the letter was published). As for the Post, when shown Byrd's letter two months after he published it, executive editor Leonard Downie said, ``I've never seen it. . . . In fact, I must admit I don't read letters to the editor.'' (As the Post's executive editor, Downie is the editor to whom an aggrieved reader presumably writes; it is he who is responsible for all news coverage.) Wouldn't Downie likely see a letter like this from a senator? ``If it were directed to me personally, I think I would,'' He said. ``But if it is just sent to the paper I don't know who would see it on the news side [as opposed to the editorial page editors like McAteer, who oversee the letters page]. I suppose we should systematize that.'' It is impossible to imagine that the producer of any other consumer product, such as a car or an appliance, could or would ignore this kind of complaint about a defective product, let alone one from someone important. If only because most other enterprises would fear embarrassment in the marketplace or a lawsuit, this absence of basic quality control would be unfathomable. (Greve would win any libel suit as long as he could show he really believed the Byrd story might be true--but that defense for a defective car or toaster would be laughed out of court.) So what's important here is that at two of the most respected (and deservedly so) news organizations in the world, the senator's letter was a non-event. A footnote: The original Washington Post story generated lots of editorials across the country attacking pork-barrel politics. And, two weeks after the Byrd letter appeared, one of my heroes in journalism--Charles Peters, the editor of the Washington Monthly--cited the Greve article as an example of tax dollars misspent because ``the money was slipped into the budget'' by Sen. Byrd. Asked how he had checked the article, or if he had called Byrd for comment, Peters, who is from West Virginia and knows Byrd, said, ``It would be unheard of that this would happen without somebody's intervention. I'd be incredulous if Byrd wasn't behind it. . . . I guess it could have been a congressman, but I doubt it. But I did no checking because something like this just has the ring of truth.'' ``SOURCES SAY'' Let's have a contest. I'll extend a subscription for an additional year to the reader who, by July 15, sends us the news article or transcript of a television or on-line newscast that has the most uses per 100 words of the specific phrase ``sources say.'' The winner and the offending author will be announced next issue. We want to stamp out the common use of a phrase that is never defensible. At the least, a reporter can always tell us if there are two sources or 20. Surely he knows. Similarly, he can almost always provide some kind of description of the unnamed source that suggests the source's knowledge or possible bias, even if he cannot be identified. The principle is simple and, again, it has to do with quality control for this particular consumer product: providing clear information is an achievable goal, especially when journalists ask us to trust them--and their unnamed sources. This reminds me of one of the laziest, most duplicitous things that nonfiction authors do in their acknowledgements at the beginning of a book. Here's an example: ``More than 300 people were interviewed for this book . . .'' Doesn't this author know how many? Was it 301 or 33,001? Why can't he tell us? Is 300 a figure of speech? Why trust him with anything else in the rest of the book if he's this lazy with that kind of easy fact? That's a quote from the acknowledgements page of a book I wrote in 1978.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this conference report on this most historic piece of legislation. For too long, this Nation has allowed its basic surface transportation system to deteriorate. For too long, we have witnessed unsafe road conditions contributing to the fatality and injury rate of the American public. And for too long, we have experienced our competitive posture in world commerce be adversely affected by an increasingly inefficient surface transportation network. Today, we are making an historic move that this shall be no more. This conference agreement to authorize Federal highway, highway safety, motor carrier and transit programs is the largest and most comprehensive surface transportation bills to be considered in the history of our Nation, and I am very proud of this legislation. I am proud of our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I am proud of our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). I am very proud of the staff that has worked virtually around the clock for the last 2 or 3 weeks to get this historic legislation to the floor of the House, and they deserve the highest words of praise as well. Indeed, in dollar terms, this legislation will provide over $200 billion during the course of a 6-year period for highway and transit facilities. However, there is much more than just dollars in this legislation. It transcends considerations of the concrete, the asphalt, the steel and stone. Indeed, what we are doing in this legislation is improving our standard of living for our children in generations to come. It entails a type of legacy that we wish to leave future generations of Americans. It is an investment in America's infrastructure finally and foremost, rather than throwing money overseas. So I approve of this legislation wholeheartedly. We address safety. We address the environment. We address flexibility. We truly have an intermodal piece of legislation here, and I commend it to my colleagues for passage. Safety. We are all concerned about the safety of our children and our families. This bill contains an impressive array of weapons to combat unsafe road conditions, and importantly, unsafe drivers. Road rage is on the rise in the country. Tempers flare as drivers are gridlocked in traffic snarls. This bill will bring to bear an better financed Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program that contains the keys to unlock that gridlock and sooth those flaring tempers. With this bill, we are also escalating the war against drunk driving, including through a $500 million arsenal of incentives to the States to lower blood alcohol content standards. The environment. Transportation is about much more than roads, bridges and highways. It is also about alternative means of moving people from place to place. The Transportation Enhancements Programs will experience a significant increase in funding for an expanded list of eligible projects that will serve to make the transportation experience more enjoyable for many Americans. Innovation. Americans are innovative by nature, and this bill rewards that attitude in terms of both technology and financing. Under it, intelligent transportation systems, maglev and other new transportation initiatives will be further advanced, and indeed, taken past the demonstration stage and placed into every day use. Further, this legislation further promotes innovative financing approaches to transportation problems through a wide range of tools. And finally, a promise. A promise that will now be fulfilled to the people of the Appalachian Region more than 30 years ago. For the first time, the Appalachian Highway System will be fully incorporated into the Nation's highway program and financed by trust fund revenues. This will provide a secure and dedicated source of funding for the unfinished segments of the Appalachian Development Highway System, opening impoverished areas greater accessibility and subsequent economic development. In this regard, the inclusion of this program in this legislation is due to the efforts of West Virginia's senior Senator, Robert C. Byrd. And it will stand as his lasting legacy. In conclusion, to the American motorist, know this. The taxes we pay every time we gas-up our vehicles will no longer be used for non- transportation purposes. This bill contains an iron-clad, rock-ribbed, copper-riveted guarantee that fuel tax revenues will be spent on highway and transit improvements. We have built a fire wall around these revenues from which there will be no diversion. My colleagues, I would be remiss if I did not express our appreciation of the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Bud Shuster, and for our ranking Member, Jim Oberstar, for their tireless efforts on behalf of securing fairness, equity and justice in the federal highway and transit programs as exemplified by this conference agreement. These two gentlemen, along with Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri and myself, worked to uphold the principles espoused in the House bill during our meetings with the other body. I must also commend the Secretary of Transportation. During the course of our deliberations over this legislation, Rodney Slater did not sit idly in his office. He rolled up his sleeves and got down to work with us to seek resolution of many, many difficult issues and decisions that were addressed. I urge approval by the House of this conference report.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on May 8 this year, the Nation lost a great man, a former U.S. Senator, a beloved West Virginian, a great orator, a man of civility and courtesy, a master of the legislative compromise, a builder of concrete, asphalt and stone, and a builder of character named Jennings Randolph, who died at the grand old age of 96. When Senator Randolph passed on, it was truly the end of an era. He was the last living Member of Congress from the New Deal era, making him the last of the New Deal legislators who voted to enact the Social Security System and a minimum wage. On May 11 of this year, had he lived, Senator Randolph would have marked the 65th anniversary of his freshman speech on the floor of the House. He spoke on the subject of Mother's Day, an event founded by fellow West Virginian Anna Jarvis, and his speech, an eloquent one, was entitled, ``The Unapplauded Molders of Men''. This speech was given on the 69th day of Roosevelt's famous first 100 days, and on that day Jennings Randolph the great orator was born. As many of my colleagues will know, it was Senator Randolph who began, during his House tenure, to amend the Constitution to allow 18- year-olds to vote. He succeeded in this endeavor in 1972, as a U.S. Senator, with the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, the first and only constitutional amendment that took a mere 90 days to achieve ratification by the requisite number of States and to become the law of the land. At one time, I am told, he forced then-President Nixon to spend the funds appropriated for the interstate system by filing an injunction against Nixon's practice of impounding the funds, keeping them from being spent. It was in the 1974 budget act that impounding funds by a President was first restricted. Jennings Randolph would be proud of our every effort, Mr. Speaker, and success this very day in freeing some of the collected motorists' gas taxes and spending them on transportation needs. Yes, J.R., we will one day restore trust to our Highway Trust Funds. I would like to tell my colleagues a little something about the Senator's lifelong public service, that we have seen little written about of recent date. Having traveled so often with the Senator, many times late at night in a very small plane, two or four-passenger plane, sometimes through very stormy weather, the first comment the Senator would make upon landing was ``Where is the telephone?''. I would be thinking of other places to visit but the Senator was always wanting to keep in touch with the people. Senator Randolph was known for his devotion to people and his compassion for all people in need. He coauthored the Randolph-Shepherd Act for the Blind, giving blind persons the opportunity and the right to be employed and have the dignity of a paycheck. The blind are still benefiting from that effort today. He fought for and maintained the Black Lung Benefits Act throughout his public life in the Senate. Once, when he was being chastised by some of his Coal Mining constituents because the Black Lung benefits bill was then languishing in the Senate with no action being taken, Senator Randolph quietly but firmly said: There are only 18 coal mining states in the Union. Those 36 Senators are going to vote for this legislation. Persuading 64 other Senators representing non-coal mining states that their constituents should or must allow their tax dollars to be used to pay for the benefits for workers in other States is not an easy matter to accomplish. It takes time. And I pay those 64 Senators the courtesy of approaching them one on one, personally, to discuss the plight of coal miners with black lung disease, and their need for disability compensation for themselves and, for those who have died, their widows and orphans. He told them ``it will get done * * *'' And it did. Senator Randolph, concerned for the plight of mentally and physically disabled children and concerned over their lack of an appropriate education, established the first Subcommittee on the Handicapped in the Senate, and he chaired that Subcommittee with passion and the courage of his beliefs as he authored and guided to enactment the Education for all Handicapped Children Act. Today, the Special Education law is working to mainstream disabled children into regular classrooms with their peers across this Nation in every school building getting a free and equal education to which all children are entitled. It was Senator Randolph, with his great love for airplanes and aviation, who first proposed the establishment of the National Air and Space Museum. When he first proposed it, of course, the space age hadn't been ushered in yet--and so when asked to give the Dedication speech for the new Museum, Randolph remarked that it took so long to get Congress to act on his proposed aviation museum, they had to add the word ``space'' to its name. And it was Senator Jennings Randolph who, with another licensed pilot aboard, flew the first coal-fueled aircraft from Morgantown, West Virginia to National airport. Senator Randolph was always looking for ways in which coal mined by his coal-mining constituents could be used to help strengthen and stabilize the economic base of his beloved State of West Virginia. And finally, but never lastly, the Senator realized his long held dream of establishing a peace-arm of the U.S. Government. Serving under Roosevelt when the Nation was drawn into World War II, Randolph believed that the U.S. Government ought to have a Peace Department since it had a War Department (the War Department was changed to the Defense Department in 1948, the year after Randolph left the House). It took him from 1943 to 1984--41 years--but the last legislative initiative he authored and guided to enactment was the creation of the U.S. Institute for Peace, a still vital, thriving institution devoted to the waging of peace, not war. Speaking of the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Senate's consideration of the legislation in 1984 was not an easy road. Some of the more conservative Members accused him of creating an institution that would attract communists and become a possible security risk. And one Member went so far as to call Senator Randolph the ``Jane Fonda'' of the Senate. Randolph did not respond to the charges, of course, for that was not his way. But he did try to get President Reagan to support his Peace Institute bill. One day, when the Labor and Public Welfare Committee in the Senate was about to vote on whether to waive the budget act so that the Randolph Peace Institute bill could come to the floor for a vote, President Reagan called Senator Randolph. The Senator gently but firmly said to the Committee Clerk: Please tell the President I am busy here. I will have to call him back.'' In about 15 minutes the Committee had voted favorably on the budget waiver Senator Randolph needed, and he then turned to the Clerk and said: Please get the President for me, I can talk with him now. To which the Clerk replied: The White House is still on the line, Senator, waiting for you to finish. Randolph still did not get the President to endorse his bill, but he spoke with him about why he should do so. As I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I quote from Senator Randolph's maiden speech on the House floor in 1933, when he said, Volumes have been written about kings and emperors; historians have told of the exploits of a thousand heroes of battle; biographers have packed into colorful words the life and death of our statesmen; while painters have filled galleries with the likenesses of our living great. Some day, some enterprising young scholar will write volumes about Jennings Randolph, and historians will tell of his exploits, and biographers will pack many colorful words about the life of this mighty statesman from West Virginia, Jennings Randolph.