Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and to commend West Virginia's senior Senator, Robert C. Byrd, on the occasion of having cast his 15,000th vote in the United States Senate. Having cast that 15,000th vote on May 5, 1998 marks consistent voting by Senator Byrd for over 40 years, giving him a voting average of 98.7 percent for his entire tenure, and earns for him the title of most votes cast by any Senator in the history of the United States Senate. I believe it is only fitting to note that his 15,000th vote was cast in favor of the ``Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1998'', because no Member of the U.S. Senate has done more to provide for the training and education of this nation's workforce than Senator Robert C. Byrd. His understanding and devotion to the needs of his West Virginia constituents, and particularly his well documented efforts to ensure a strong economy in our State, has included his enormously successful efforts on behalf of securing jobs for the unemployed. Senator Robert C. Byrd has been setting voting records in the Senate since he was sworn in early in 1959. On January 8, 1959, Senator Byrd cast his first vote in the U.S. Senate. Fittingly, it was a vote on Senate procedure. On April 27, 1990, the Senator cast his 12,134th vote, earning him the record for greatest number of rollcall votes in Senate history. On July 27, 1995, he became the first Senator in history to cast 14,000 votes, and he has now built on his record number of rollcall votes to be the first person in Senate history to cast 15,000 votes. In a historical context, Senator Byrd cast the first of his 15,000 votes with Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, both of whom were there in the Chamber with him. When he cast his first vote, Hawaii was not yet a State, and the United States had not yet put a man in space. For 40 years, Senator Byrd has managed the run the Senate as Majority Leader, chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee, and has studied and written volumes on the history of the Senate, earning his place as the unrivaled expert on Senate rules. In the future, scholars and historians will write about Senator Byrd's remarkable impact on the Senate, as an orator, a parliamentary expert, a Senate historian, a legislative tactician, and an outstanding leader. Most certainly, he is all of those things. But more than that, he is the most revered, most beloved, most respected, member of Congress that his proud State of West Virginia has ever sent to Washington to represent them. As a historian himself, Senator Byrd is now a part of history, and will be always remembered for both the quantity and quality of his work, his service to his fellow Senators, and his unstinting service to West Virginians for nearly half a century. Certainly, no man or woman who has ever served in that body has ever loved the Senate, as an institution, more than Senator Robert C. Byrd, nor shared in the great esteem and honor the title of Senator has given to him. On May 5, 1998, as he made history in the Senate, he referred to himself as ``. . . a prince who still glories in the name of ``Senator.'' To him, it is and has always been a position of trust--a trust he has honored all of his life. Congratulations, Senator Byrd, on the occasion of casting your 15,000th vote, and for having been the only U.S. Senator in the life of the Senate to achieve that pinnacle. But more, I congratulate you for inspiring others, and encouraging both young and old alike to aspire to dignity, to knowledge, to trust and to honor whether they are your colleagues in the U.S. Senate, or a young student somewhere wondering whether he or she should think becoming a public servant. I had the high honor of serving on Senator Byrd's staff before returning to West Virginia and running for public office. I know first- hand of Senator Byrd's example that encourages and inspires others to also serve their country by seeking public office. On May 5, 1998, Senator Byrd wondered where today's hero's are--who he wondered will the youth of today look up to as their hero's. Well, one of today's hero's resides in the United States Senate where, by example, he inspires and encourages all within the sound of his voice, and his name is Robert C. Byrd. I wish to convey to my friend, my mentor, my colleague Senator Byrd, my highest esteem, my deepest personal respect, and my overwhelming pride in him as a strong and most distinguished man, as a loving husband, father and grandfather, and as a greatly honored and trusted United States Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, let us get some facts on the table. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) has laid out very well how funds for highways are apportioned under this bill. Eighty-eight percent would be distributed to the States by formula through apportionments, by going to States. Basically, this money goes to governors and State legislators. Seven percent would stay here in Washington for administration of the Federal Highway Administration. Let us get it straight, only 5 percent, the remaining 5 percent of the highway funds in BESTEA, are for these projects that are deemed to be high-priority projects by Members of this body. That is the same as in the current law, ISTEA. The bottom line is that governors and State legislators get to spend 88 percent of the highway dollars, while House Members get to direct only 5 percent. Yet some in the media, and I think perhaps the sponsors of this amendment, ought to look at these facts, instead of paying attention to those in the editorial pages in some of the national newspapers or those in the media who would portray this as pork and something evil. Let us look at the facts. They ignore the fact that 88 percent of these dollars are going directly to the State governors and State legislators for their disbursements. Are these individuals angels? Let us get real. The last time I checked, governors were elected like we are elected, politicians. They have to run for election. I do not know of any governor that has been appointed from some holier-than-thou source to serve. So these guys are politicians. Get real. I would submit that Members of this body, Democrat and Republican alike, know his or her district better than any State governor who has to make those decisions on a Statewide basis. If anybody in this body does not know his or her district better than the governor of their State, I doubt if they are going to be here very long. These projects are worthwhile. They have been through a rigorous vetting process. They have answered a series of 14 tough questions that we instituted back when we started reauthorizing ISTEA. They have been part of the transportation plan of every State. We have reviewed the requests. We have held public hearings. There has been nothing secretive about the process, there has been nothing dishonest about the process, there has been nothing corrupt about the process; some of the words being thrown around here. So the proof is in the pudding. This legislation has passed the muster. It has passed the muster with the Surface Transportation Policy Project, a liberal group comprised of environmentalists, in line with the Conference of Mayors and League of Cities. The Surface Transportation Policy Project has endorsed this legislation, and they have said that these projects are worthwhile. I would urge rejection of this amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, the ranking member, for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker had just spoken of the formation of two parties today. He said ``republicrats'', I believe is what he called those of us working for the future of America by these investments we are making today. I would suggest perhaps the other party that he did not refer to should be called the ``RWWK'', the ``right wing whacko kids'' for some of the philosophy they have been espousing here today. I commend the gentleman from Ohio for his tenacity. I do not agree with his amendment, but certainly his tenacity is to be commended. He has testified before our committee before. This is not his first time of putting this proposal forward. I would also note that I have been waiting for this day for a long, long time. I want to see a rollcall vote taken on the gentleman from Ohio's amendment, because I think we need to clear once and for all where things stand on this particular issue. This amendment is, indeed, a thinly veiled attempt to turn back almost all highway responsibilities to our States, to devolve the Federal responsibility. So it just pertains to interstates and roads within our national parks, our public lands, and Indian reservations. That is it. There would be no other Federal highway-related responsibilities. Under the gentleman's amendment, to accomplish this goal, the Federal motor fuels tax would be reduced to a little more than 7 cents per gallon and ultimately phased down to 3 cents a gallon. The obvious problem with his approach is that it does nothing, it does nothing to address the existing shortfall and spending to address our deficient highway infrastructure. In fact, it would worsen that shortfall. Considering the 18.3 cents per gallon Federal gas tax that is reserved for transportation investments, that is simply to maintain our status quo. Simply to maintain that status quo, many States are going to have to then increase their State gasoline taxes by at least 15 cents per gallon under this turn-back proposal, devolution, States opt out, or whatever description they want to give it. If my colleagues believe that the majority of our State Governors in their legislative bodies are prepared to take this type of action of increasing their State gasoline taxes to make up for this shortfall, if we believe State Governors and legislators are going to do that, then welcome to la-la land. There are numerous other problems with this approach as well. The fundamental problem, however, is that it simply throws crumbs at our crumbling infrastructure. That is all this approach does. There is a Federal responsibility, in my opinion, a pressing need on the Federal level to improve our roads, highways, and bridges. It goes to more than just our interstate system. Every day our people cross State lines on a noninterstate highway or roadway. These principal arterial routes, along with our interstates, are part of the national highway system. Interstates play only a small part of that national highway system we designated in 1995. I urge that we continue this Federal responsibility to maintaining our interstates and national highway systems. Vote no on this amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding the time to me. I commend the gentleman from South Carolina, the ranking member on our Committee on the Budget, for the work that he does on that committee. He is proposing an amendment here that would allow the normal congressional budget process to work its will prior to enactment of BESTEA. Unfortunately, highway construction seasons across our country do not necessarily allow themselves, because of the seasons through which they go, to follow our normal budget processes in Congress. The other body decided to proceed full steam ahead with this legislation prior to consideration of their budget resolution. And I think our House leadership made the appropriate decision in consultation with our House budget chairman, to proceed forthwith on this legislation at this time. We are facing a May 1 deadline. After May 1, the States will lose their ability to obligate spending authority and in many States much more, so in our Northern States and other States, this will truly wreak havoc in their transportation planning decisions. Not only will it wreak havoc in the States, but there could very well be a problem with the FHWA here in Washington. There are staffing problems to consider. We do not want to face any type of a government shutdown at FHWA, which would truly be devastating to our road mapping processes and transportation decisions across this country. There is no way to plan if the States are faced with a cutoff of obligational authority come May 1. It is truly a drop-dead date. We do not have the luxury of trying to comply with the budget process or time frames that have been set up here in this Congress. We are talking about spending what the American taxpayers and the American motorists in particular have already paid at the gas pump and that is why we must proceed here forthwith without waited for any budget resolutions. It is no way to plan America's future. It is no way to plan for the safety on our Nation's highways. If we are to delay this process and find come May 1, or a couple of weeks thereafter if we face a slippage that the States do not have the definitive schedule upon which to base the letting of contracts within their borders. So I would submit that while the chairman of, the ranking member of our Committee on the Budget has noble goals in mind, this is perhaps a back-door effort used by some on the other side of the aisle to truly kill this bill. I would urge defeat.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the excellent amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). The simple fact of the matter is that lack of transportation is frequently a barrier to employment whether one resides in an urban or rural environment. This amendment would raise the general fund authorization contained in the bill for the welfare to work program. I know that from a rural perspective these programs hold great promise. In my home State of West Virginia we have undertaken four welfare to work pilot programs already, including in Greenbrier and Wayne Counties which I have the honor of representing. This amendment is about access to jobs, about access to training, about access to a better life for many Americans, and I urge my colleagues to accept it.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I commend the gentleman as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), for their excellent work on this legislation. As we begin debate on this legislation, we are indeed at a crossroads in this country. We can decide whether we want to retreat from the transportation needs of the new century and fail to make the necessary investments in our highway and transit infrastructure, or we can rise to the challenge and dedicate the necessary resources to these endeavors. Those of us who bring this legislation forth today are seeking to rise to that challenge, to keep faith with the American public, to restore integrity and restore trust back into the Highway Trust Fund and to make the necessary investments in America. To be clear, this is not just about an investment in concrete and asphalt, but one about investment into our children, one about investment into our environment, and an investment into the very social fabric of this Nation. This legislation involves the very standard of living we in this country wish to enjoy, and it entails the type of legacy we wish to leave to future generations, our children. Poor road pavement, outdated design standards, and the lack of safety enhancement present a very real threat to the motoring public. In parts of my district, school buses have collided with trucks for these very reasons, prematurely extinguishing the innocent lives of our younger generation. I know tragedies like this have happened elsewhere around the country. This bill makes an investment into improving those roads and providing more safety features so that we can better ensure the well- being of our children. Our environment, let us look at what this bill does. Congestion plagues our cities, both large and small. Air quality deteriorates as vehicles stack up behind each other with motors idling. And tempers flare erupting into road rage affecting so many parts of this country. This bill makes an investment into improving our environment by advancing alternative means of transportation such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian pathways, and innovative new intelligent transportation systems. Our very standard of living, let us look at what this bill does. In order to compete globally, companies are demanding production efficiency. It is estimated that more than one-half of U.S. manufacturers are using just-in-time inventory systems. This approach requires an efficient transportation system. This legislation makes a fundamental investment into improving our transportation systems, not just highways, but transportation links that are intermodal in nature, to better ensure the smooth flow of goods, both domestic and international markets. It has been said that ISTEA represented a revolution in how we viewed our surface transportation needs. Over the course of the last 6 years ISTEA, as implemented, has produced some fundamental changes in the Federal role in transportation. It empowered our local communities. If ISTEA was indeed a revolution, then this bill known as BESTEA is a revelation; a revelation because it exposes the Highway Trust Fund for what it truly is, not an account to be used to mask the true size of the Federal deficit, or make our budget look brighter. Not a pot of funds to be held hostage to the whims and the caprices of our budgeteers, but rather as a trust fund, a trust fund paid into by the American motorists for the express purpose of receiving a better return in building our road and bridges in this country. I urge adoption of this entire bill. I think it is what the American public wants. It is what our children and future generations want.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule, especially on my side of the aisle; and I urge them to set aside partisan considerations and any special agendas and support the rule. The consideration of legislation to reauthorize ISTEA simply cannot wait. It is the 11th hour. We face a May 1 deadline, upon which the ability of States to obligate Federal highway dollars will expire. This comes at a critical time, especially in many States where the start of the construction season must begin earlier than in other parts of the country. A vote against this rule will unravel the delicate balance that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has achieved; and I commend his leadership, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), in achieving this delicate balance. If we defeat this rule, it kills the bill. I cannot even imagine what the alternative would be. So I urge my colleagues to keep their eye on the ball here. To those who believe ISTEA spends too much, I say, under the rule, they will have their chance to vent their concerns through the amendments offered by the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from South Carolina. They will have their shot through these two amendments. To those who are concerned with the proposed amendment of my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), I say to them that they will have their chance in conference to vent their concerns and their support for this amendment at that time. We may debate the issue today and during general debate or during consideration of this rule, but I urge support of the rule so that the process may go forward so that we will have consideration during the conference committee. And to those of my colleagues who are concerned that this rule makes in order the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) to eliminate the DBE program, I say that they will have the commitment from the bipartisan leadership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that will stand with them in opposing this amendment. Republican and Democrat alike, we in the leadership on the committee will urge a no vote on that amendment. So I urge adoption of this rule. My colleagues, do not have it said that we have worked to defeat the most important legislation facing our Nation today, because the eyes of the Nation are upon us. Every motorist who sat in congestion this morning knows that, every driver subject to road rage. A vote on this rule is a defining moment. I urge its adoption.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to the Honorable Jim Howard, former Member of the House of Representatives, and Chair of the then Committee on Public Works and Transportation, now the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. My tribute to Jim's memory has to do with his chairmanship of the Public Works Committee, where he served from 1975 to 1988. This tribute comes from the fact that when I first began my tenure in the House in 1976, as a twenty-seven year old freshman, I chose the Public Works Committee as the major committee I most wanted to join, and having done so I have remained on the Committee for nearly 22 years. Jim Howard's stewardship of that committee, and the strength and courage of his convictions concerning the importance of this nation's infrastructure, and of our duty to see that it was funded, will always be with me. As we are poised to vote on the reauthorization of the Federal Highway bill, known as BESTEA, in the coming days, I am reminded even more of the on-the-job training I received under Jim's leadership, which as served me so very well over the years. During Jim's chairmanship of the Committee, he guarded its jurisdiction with all of his being--which was considerable. It was Jim Howard who was responsible for the passage of the 55-mile per hour national speed limit, the first legislation to focus attention on the relationship between speed and safety. I was mindful of that fact when, in 1995 during floor consideration of the National Highway System Designation Act, as I tried in vain to preserve that 55-mile per hour speed limit. I wondered at the time whether Jim Howard was watching and listening as the speed limit was raised to ever more dangerous levels nationwide. I continue to believe that Jim was right, and that his 55-miles per hour limit that had stood the test of time as a mandate that prevented the deaths of many innocent victims around the country, should have remained in force. Chairman Jim Howard was a champion of all the issues over which his committee had jurisdiction, not just highways--from Clean Air to Clean Water, from Mass Transit to Airport and Airway Improvement, and from motor carrier safety to groundwater protection. As I mentioned above, in the next week when we again meet on the floor of the House to reauthorize the federal highway legislation, I will draw strength from remembering that Jim Howard did not shrink from a floor fight over legislation he believed was in the nation's interest. I know that he will be watching over us as we carry on with the legacy he left for all of us and for the nation by enacting BESTEA, again focusing attention on our country's infrastructure and environment. This special order tonight, and our action to enact BESTEA this week or next, will go far in assuring that Jim Howard's role as a National legislator is not forgotten.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the anniversary of the 42nd year of Independence for the Republic of Tunisia, to be celebrated on March 20, 1998. Legend has it that more than 200 years ago, Tunis, as token of esteem and friendship, sent one of its finest stallions to U.S. President George Washington. Unfortunately, customs officials in the nascent republic denied entry to the horse, which spent its remaining days in the Port of Baltimore. After this somewhat rocky start, I am pleased to note that U.S.- Tunisian relations have improved considerably. Tunisia is about to celebrate its 42nd anniversary of the establishment of the Republic of Tunisia as an independent country, a time during which Tunisia has enjoyed a strong and healthy relationship with the United States. I congratulate Tunisia for its many accomplishments, not the least of which is to have established a more democratic system of government, making every effort to broaden political debate, including passage of an electoral law that reserved 19 seats of the National assembly for members of opposition political parties. Tunisia has a very impressive economic record, having turned to economic programs designed to privatize state owned companies and to reform the banking and financial sectors over the last decade. As a result Tunisia's economy has grown at an average rate of 4.65 percent just in the last three years, and its economic success has had a beneficial impact on Tunisia's international standing. Tunisia is one of the few countries to graduate successfully from development assistance and to join the developed world. Tunisia has also become a moderating force in the Middle East peace process, taking an active role within the international community in fighting terrorism. This may not seem so important until you consider that Tunisia's only two neighbors are Algeria which has been racked by civil strife for several years, and Libya, whose dictator has supported the most nefarious and subversive kinds of terrorism. Tunisia may not live in a good, friendly neighborhood, but they are good neighbors to the United States, maintaining internal stability in the face of external chaos. With increasing strong ties between us, the American people congratulate the people of Tunisia on this historic occasion, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 856, legislation which would provide a framework by which the people of Puerto Rico may determine their political status. Various speakers during today's debate will discuss a number of aspects of this legislation and the sensitive issues it raises. However, as the ranking Democratic Member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, I will limit my remarks to how Puerto Rico is currently being treated under the federal highway and transit programs, and what the process of self-determination could mean to the island. Today, the people of Puerto Rico are the beneficiaries of federal highway dollars even though they do not pay any federal motor fuel taxes into the Highway Trust Fund. On the surface, that may appear to be a good deal of Puerto Rico and a bad deal for the rest of the country. Yet, our contribution to the highway infrastructure of the island is relatively small. Indeed, over the six-year life of ISTEA, starting with 1992 and ending with 1997, Puerto Rico received $492 million in federal highway dollars. It is interesting to note that with a population of about 3.8 million people, Puerto Rico received considerably less than Hawaii, a State with similar characteristics in terms of the factors used to apportion federal highway dollars to the States. With a much smaller population of 1.2 million, Hawaii received a little more than $1.2 billion in federal highway dollars during ISTEA compared to the $492 million sent to Puerto Rico. On the other hand, if we simply look to population, Connecticut with about 3.3 million people received $2.2 billion over ISTEA compared to Puerto Rico's $492 million. As such, while Puerto Rico, which pays no federal motor fuel taxes, receives federal highway dollars, the amount is nowhere near it would receive if it was a State and its residents contributed into the Highway Trust Fund. In fact, under existing formulas, if Puerto Rico was a State it would receive back in federal highway dollars far more than what it contributes in motor fuel taxes as is the case with Hawaii, Connecticut and many other States. Is there a pressing need to make transportation improvements in Puerto Rico, yes, certainly. Anyone who has driven the streets of Santruce, of Rios Piedras, of Bayamon or anywhere else in San Juan knows of the massive congestion which plagues that city. This is not to say that the government is not making efforts to make improvements. For example, Tren Urbano is one of if not the best new transit start anywhere in the United States. Yet, the federal share currently is only 30% of that project while other, less deserving transit projects, have federal share of at least 50% with some up to 80%. Why is this? I think in part it is due to the resourcefulness of the governor and his administration. But I also think it is in part because they feel there may be limits to the extent of federal transit dollars they can seek under Commonwealth status. In conclusion, I would observe that the people of Puerto Rico have shed their blood in defense of the United States. For over 100 years they have been a junior partner in the development of the greatest Democracy in the world that is this country. The relationship has been mutually beneficial. However, I believe it is time, once again, for the people of Puerto Rico to make a determination as to their political status. Do they want a full seat at the table that is these United States, to be a full and equal partner, or do they want to continue to sit at that table on a small stool as a commonwealth, or do they want to go their own way as a separate nation. That is what this legislation is about. I urge a yes vote on H.R. 856.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I feel like the old farmer who was being severely chastised by his fellow farmers for beating his mule over the head because he wouldn't respond to a simple ``gitty-up.'' The farmer gave the stubborn old mule one final whap, and the beast of burden began moving swiftly ahead, pulling his load. The old farmer looked at his fellow farmers, as he tossed the two-by-four on the back of the wagon for future use and said: First, you have to get their attention. Last week I sent out a Dear Colleague about the termination of the Venipuncture home health benefit to get everyone's attention by asking: Have we No Shame? While it may have felt like a two-by-four to many, hopefully it went to the heart of this body so that it can move toward doing something about the fact that the wildly applauded, history-making Balanced Budget Act contained language did, on February 5, 1998, terminate the 13-year old Venipuncture or blood drawing procedure as a skilled home health benefit under Medicare. I hoped a two-by-four would alert them that this lost benefit is having a severe, life-threatening impact on seniors, and that we need to fix it. We can and have spent hours on this floor renaming our National airport, but we have not spent any time on this floor talking about the gross and severe hardships caused by the loss of venipuncture as a home health benefit. I happen to think Venipuncture is more important. My colleagues, we have a dire situation here. We have HCFA promising that venipuncture can still be allowed, but we don't have HCFA explaining how difficult that could be. We don't have HCFA spelling out that patients need to get to their doctors and ask for a reevaluation leading to a new authorization for them to receive a NEW skilled care so that venipuncture can continue. And we don't have a lot of doctors out there willing to take a chance on being audited themselves if they actually do re-qualify a former venipuncture patient for a new skilled care. We don't have HCFA spelling out that while most areas, and assuredly not rural areas, don't have laboratory technicians that make house calls--HCFA still insists that these elderly, frail disabled patients contact a lab technician and ask them to make house calls in order to draw blood--for which HCFA will pay the princely sum of $3. And it is a little known fact--but some States have laws AGAINST lab technicians leaving their labs for any reason to perform blood work in a patient's home. Now if venipuncture patients CAN'T requalify through their doctors for a NEW skilled care benefit, and if the patients CAN'T find a local lab technician willing to travel 50 to 100 miles in rural America to make a house call for a paltry $3, then venipuncture ISN'T available-- is it? So, while it is technically correct for HCFA to day that patients can still get venipuncture, they don't spell out the two big ``IF's''--and so the REALITY is that for the most part, Venipuncture patients are out in the cold and without services and unlikely to obtain them ever again. And my colleagues, if you think doctors are afraid of the wrath of HCFA's auditors, listen to what Medicare's Fiscal intermediaries are saying. Fiscal intermediaries are saying: venipuncture better not show up on ANY new claims received after February 5, 1998, even in conjunction with another new SKILLED benefit, because they will be denied. Fiscal intermediaries are afraid of audits too. But the most offensive thing I've heard yet is that one fiscal intermediary official stated that in fact he believed that without venipuncture services, some of the patients could end up in the MORTUARY--his word--not mine--end up in the mortuary. And this same official also stated it was ``too bad, so sad . . .'' about patients ending up in mortuaries. No wonder you need a two by four to get folks' attention--when those in charge of processing home health benefit claims for the homebound, elderly, sick and terminally ill can state publicly that it's ``too bad, so sad . . .'' about former patients ending up at the local morgue--AND NO ONE RAISES AN EYEBROW? I wish we could get a hearing on this matter. I wish we could get a hearing and bring in this intermediary to the witness table and ask him to repeat his offensive statements for the public record. I wish we could get the intermediary to tell us why he thinks people might die without venipuncture. I believe it is true that patients might die without this benefit-- but I guess as long as they don't die in epidemic proportions--no one will care. Well, I care. I know of 71 Members of this House that care because they cosponsor H.R. 2912. My colleagues who are speaking during this special order tonight-- they care, and I thank them for caring. There are alternatives to terminating the benefit. Congress could grandfather in those patients now receiving venipuncture, but not allow any new patients to be covered by the benefit except as described in the BBA. Or, Venipuncture could be retained as a skilled care, but placed under the requirement, also in the BBA, that it be administered by HCFA using normative standards as is required for other home health benefits under Medicare. I am listening and I am ready to work with the committees of jurisdiction, or with the Administration including the President, should he wish to use his executive order powers to remedy this gross injustice against the frail elderly, disabled and terminally ill Medicare enrolled patients throughout this entire country. And while we are waiting to see how many patients end up in the mortuary for a lack of venipuncture benefits I ask you:

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to Montana Perry Romine, a native of Mount Hope, West Virginia, who retired from the Mine Safety and Health Administration on January 3, 1998, after more than 47 years of federal service. Mrs. Romine was first hired on June 26, 1950, by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in Mount Hope. During her career, she offered professional and dedicated service to the people of the United States through her work at the Bureau of Mines, the former Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration, and finally with the Mine Safety and Health Administration. In recognition of her service and professionalism, Mrs. Romine earned numerous awards, including a distinguished career service award. I am sure that Mrs. Romine's many friends and colleagues at the Mine Safety and Health administration will miss her both personally and professionally. Today, I join them in congratulating her for her service and wishing her continued health and happiness in retirement.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the most respected members of the House of Representatives, the ranking Member of the House National Security Committee, Ron Dellums. I know that I safely speak for all of my Colleagues when I say that the House will not be the same without his thoughtful leadership when he leaves this body on Friday. Chairman Dellums has served in the House of Representatives for over twenty seven years, arriving in 1971 as an intense young man, committed to his principles of justice, education and health care for all. His legislative goals including cutting back on defense spending and using that money to help local communities, and to ending apartheid in South Africa. In the 27 years since arriving in Washington, Mr. Dellums may have gotten a little bit more gray hair, but one thing hasn't changed: His intensity and commitment to the people of California's Bay Area and to the United States. Ron Dellums has taken stands on issues that sometimes have been at odds with many other Members. For example, when most members fought to join the House Armed Services Committee to increase defense spending, Mr. Dellums joined for another reason. He said at the time, ``I did not join the Armed Services Committee to learn about missiles, planes and ships; I joined because I knew I would need to become an expert in this field in order to argue successfully for military spending reductions that would free up resources for the desperate human needs that I see every day in my community.'' His stands on other issues have been just as principled. In 1971, the Freshman from California introduced legislation to impose economic sanctions on the apartheid regime of South Africa. It would be fifteen years before this legislation was enacted into law, enacted over the veto of President Ronald Reagan. Lesser members may have given up the cause, but not Ron Dellums. It will be this that I will always remember Ron Dellums. For his hard work and commitment to his ideals and his willingness to always seek an alternative. Ron Dellums always could be counted on to develop alternatives that reflected his beliefs, so that he would never have to sacrifice his principles. Ron Dellums will be missed by the House of Representatives and by me. I wish him the best of luck in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the ranking Democrat on the bipartisan Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, which is ably chaired by the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin Tom Petri. In conjunction with our full committee chairman Bud Shuster and ranking member Jim Oberstar, we are now in the position to consider the pending measure. This bill provides the States with some ability to continue to obligate federal highway funds until Congress reauthorizes the federal aid to highway program which expired on September 30th. Since that time, no new contract authority associated with federal highway dollars has been available to the States. Under this legislation, which represents a compromise with the Senate, $5.5 billion in new contract authority would be provided to the States. This amount, coupled with the unobligated balances associated with prior year contract authority currently in existence, provides the States with $9.8 billion in federal highway fund obligational authority subject to a May 1, 1988, expiration. This legislation should be viewed as an interim measure made necessary because Congress did not enact a long-term highway bill this session. The reasons for incomplete action on the long-term bill are varied. For our part, the simple fact of the matter is that the bipartisan leadership of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure intends to keep faith with the American motorist and with our responsibilities to address a crumbling transportation infrastructure in this country. We do not believe that motor fuel taxes paid by the American people, which are deposited in the Highway Trust Fund for the express purpose of making transportation improvements, should then sit idle in that Trust Fund and be held hostage to the whims of the budgeteers. Earlier this year, a grave injustice was done to transportation when the Administration and the Republican leadership of the Congress agreed upon a 5-year budget plan. Simply put, highway spending was not sufficiently provided for placing us in a situation where the surplus in the Highway Trust Fund will continue to grow while highway construction needs remain unmet. We on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee feel compelled to fashion a long-term reauthorization of the existing highway law, ISTEA, that provides highway spending levels which more closely track receipts into the Highway Trust Fund. Because this was not possible this year, we are moving forward with a short-term bill so that we may seek more justice in highway spending next year when the Congress will once again consider a budget resolution. With that, I urge the adoption of the pending measure.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to my colleagues an article that was published in the Charleston Gazette of Charleston WV. The article was written by a constituent of the Third Congressional District of West Virginia and a national vice commander of the American Legion, Mr. Robert Vass, Sr., of Huntington, WV. I am sure that many of my colleagues spent yesterday the same way that I did, visiting with constituents to celebrate Veterans Day. Entire communities come together on November 11 each year to honor those who have served our Nation in the Armed Forces. Veterans Day is an opportunity to remember those who have given their life in service and to remind ourselves of our responsibility to care for those veterans who still need assistance. As Mr. Vass writes, veterans continue to serve our Nation, even after leaving the military. Not only are they ready to serve in time of war, they remain active in times of peace. Veterans and active-duty personnel alike are active in our communities by volunteering at hospitals, sponsoring scouting and athletic programs for youths, providing scholarships or students and donating thousands and thousands of hours in volunteer service in their communities. I share my good friend's column with my colleagues because it reminds us that Veterans Day is not just a day for veterans and their families; it is America's Day. It is a day for Americans to ``express appreciation for the contributions of all veterans up upholding the values for which these patriots sacrificed.'' And it is a day for all Americans, to be like veterans, and to involve themselves in their communities. Mr. Speaker, I have included a copy of Bob Vass column and ask that it be printed following my statement. [From the Charleston Gazette, Friday, Nov. 7, 1997] Veterans Day is America's day--Holiday Honors Those Who Sacrificed (By Robert E. Vass, Sr.) I'm proud to be one of countless Americans who in the tradition of the citizen-soldier fighting for America's independence, served in our nation's armed forces. I served in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II. Veterans Day, Nov. 11, is not only my day; it is American's day. On this day, in events ranging from solemn to spectacular--in sprawling cities and in small towns-- Americans will honor those who sacrificed for freedom. Men and women of all races, creeds and social stations have stood in harm's way in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Panama, Grenada and the Persian Gulf. More than a million of them, including my wartime contemporaries , forfeited all of their tomorrows in their youth so that the core values of our nation--freedom, justice and equality-- might grow old. A simple gesture of gratefulness is all veterans want on Veterans Day. Whether you a veteran or not, you can poignantly express appreciation for the contributions of all veterans by upholding the values for which these patriots sacrificed. I and my comrades in the American Legion support traditional American values here and in thousands of other communities nationwide. We carry on a tradition of community service dating back to the Legion's founding in 1919. We advocate policies upholding law and order, a strong national defense, a full accounting of those listed either as missing in action or as prisoners of war, and just compensation for veterans, with service-connected disabilities. The latter includes thousands of Gulf War veterans who went to the region healthy and returned with ailments of mysterious origin. We volunteer in Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals. We help veterans file claims for benefits. We sponsor programs which instill traditional values in young people, including Scouts, high school ROTC, American Legion Baseball, American Legion Boys State and Boys Nation, Junior Shooting Sports, and the National High School Oratorical Contest. West Virginia Legionnaires last year donated 38,436 hours of service to their communities, awarded $63,664 worth of scholarships to 70 deserving West Virginia students, and donated 459 pints of blood to West Virginia blood collection centers. Above all, consistent with our support for the Constitution, Legionnaires believe ``we the people'' must have a voice in how our nation is governed. On this premise, the U.S. Senate should do what the House did in June: Pass a constitutional amendment to return to the people the right to protect the flag of the United States from physical desecration. Ordinary citizens must reinforce America's core values through service to God and country and participation in our governance. That's what the American Legion is all about on Veterans Day and every day. And that's what we all must be about on Veterans Day and every day. Veterans Day is America's day.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, West Virginia's senior Senator, Robert C. Byrd, has been named the 1997 Distinguished Legislator of the Year by the University of Michigan. Senator Byrd is the second legislator to be so honored by the university, which began the program last year through a gift from alumnus Bertram J. Askwith, who established the program to honor contributions by a U.S. Senator or Representative and to provide support--up to $40,000 in scholarships--for a student from the honoree's home State or district to attend the University of Michigan. In accepting the honor, Senator Byrd said ``I'm deeply appreciative of this honor, particularly because it provides the opportunity for another West Virginian to pursue a formal education.'' Senator Byrd has for years been singularly recognized as an advocate for students who are high academic achievers, have great potential, who merit student tuition assistance because of their hard work and commitment while in school, yet often do not have the means of attending college. He has helped thousands of students receive scholarships through the Robert C. Byrd Scholars program, funded under the Higher Education Act. These recipients are students who are not just financially needy, but who also have high grade point averages upon graduation from high school. Senator Robert C. Byrd has, throughout his Senate tenure, stressed the need to acknowledge students who work hard in school, are talented, and who, based on merit alone, command our help as they seek to pursue a college career. I commend the University of Michigan for its recognition of Senator Robert C. Byrd as the 1997 Distinguished Legislator of the Year. But more than that, I salute Senator Robert C. Byrd for having, himself, shown the remarkable, personal merit to have attracted the attention of the university to his outstanding lifetime achievements, including many years he served as majority and minority leader in the U.S. Senate, a service to his Nation that, I am confident, helped bring about this new honor as the 1997 Distinguished Legislator of the Year. Mr. Speaker, many times I have risen to commend our beloved senior Senator from West Virginia, for his enormous heart, his unimpeachable integrity, his unique compassion and for his trustworthiness as a leader of this Nation. Today, I rise to commend Senator Byrd for a lifetime of work dedicated to helping provide a better life and more opportunity for all people. A humble public servant, Senator Byrd strongly believes in what he himself has said is ``this miracle of a country, where anything is possible, dreams do come true, even for a poor lad from West Virginia who once gathered scraps to feed the hogs on a rough hillside farm.''

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill titled the Medicare Venipuncture Fairness Act of 1997, to reinstate payment under Medicare for home health services consisting of venipuncture based solely on blood monitoring, and to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to study the appropriate use of venipuncture under the Medicare Program. This essential Medicare home health benefit was denied in the recently passed Balanced Budget Act, and will affect literally thousands of vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries. Over the past 3 weeks, I have received more than 234 letters from concerned Medicare patients, or their family members and caregivers in my District expressing their grave concern over the devastating impact this provision will have on seriously ill and disabled seniors. As I introduce this legislation today, I am pleased to be joined in sponsoring the bill by my friends and distinguished colleagues, Representatives Poshard, Mollohan, Clayton, Kilpatrick, McIntyre, Frost, Costello, Clement, Baesler, Aderholt, Boucher, and Cramer. Of the 38 million Medicare recipients in the United States, we know that approximately 4 million receive some type of home health benefit-- this is the only number HCFA has available. Speaking of HCFA--the Health Care Financing Administration, it is useful and telling to note that while the agency claims the venipuncture prohibition was put into law to fight fraud and abuse in the Medicare home health benefit, there are no studies or reports that exist, either from HCFA, the HHS Inspector General or the General Accounting Office [GAO], linking blood monitoring in home care to fraud, waste, or abuse. Removing blood monitoring as a qualifying service for the Medicare home health benefit was a vast overreaction--indeed it was a solution in search of a problem in my view. Mr. Speaker, if we start down that slippery slope of denying or withdrawing services because some unscrupulous provider decides to defraud or abuse the system, we will have to terminate nearly every federally supported benefit program that exists today. Another important point to remember is that the need for blood monitoring does not automatically result in eligibility for home health care. An individual must meet all of the very detailed and specific eligibility requirements for home health care and services must be prescribed by a physician. Currently, nearly 1 million home health beneficiaries need blood monitoring. In rural communities where nearly 38 percent of residents are unserved by public transportation, Medicare beneficiaries who need blood monitoring will face special problems. In these areas, travel by the elderly, sick or disabled seniors is nearly impossible. Ambulance services would cost as much as $250 a trip--much, much more costly than paying for blood monitoring at home. Moreover, if these beneficiaries cannot get proper blood monitoring services, they will end up in institutions like hospitals or nursing homes at a much higher cost to Medicare. One of the senior citizens from my congressional district who wrote to me says that he suffers from Black Lung disease, is confined to a wheelchair on 24-hour oxygen, and suffers from heart problems for which he takes medication plus blood thinners. How vulnerable can you get? How can this man or his caregiver get to a doctor's office or a laboratory for timely and medically necessary blood monitoring? My colleagues, it is one thing to penalize unscrupulous providers by cutting off reimbursement under Medicare, but to penalize the sick, disabled elderly who have not committed fraud or abused the system is quite another. The 234 Medicare beneficiaries in my district who have contacted me concerning this loss in their benefit, are confused and afraid--confused because they've done nothing wrong, afraid because they can't get to an outside facility, physician, or laboratory to get blood samples taken. They do not know what will happen to them, the stability of their health, or their peace of mind. They believe their ability to remain in their own homes, as opposed to a hospital or nursing home, hangs in the balance. In the name of fairness, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Medicare Venipuncture Fairness Act so that we can rectify this injustice to Medicare beneficiaries. The legislation not only repeals the provision in the BBA that denies home health services based solely on blood monitoring, but mandates a study to look at past abuses in the benefit and to recommend standards for the appropriate use of venipuncture services. Time is of the essence. I call upon my colleagues to join with me quickly so that we can defeat this proposal before it becomes effective on February 5, 1998, leaving thousands of needy Americans without a vital health care benefit. If you wish to cosponsor, please call me or Mrs. Kyle on my staff at X53452.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in getting back from my district, and missed rollcall vote No. 490. But had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 490, on the Rule House Resolution 232, calling up the Agriculture Appropriations Act Conference Agreement for FY 1998. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Shaw]. Pursuant to House Resolution 232, House Concurrent Resolution 167 is considered as adopted. The text of House Concurrent Resolution 167 is as follows: H. Con. Res. 167 ``Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That in the enrollment of H.R. 2160 the Clerk of the House shall, in title IV, in the item relating to `Domestic Food Programs--Food Stamp Program', strike the period and insert the following: `: Provided further, That none of the funds made available under this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations'.''

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment to H.R. 2267, the Commerce, Justice, State fiscal year 1998 Appropriations bill that is being offered by our friend Mr. Hefley of Colorad--an amendment that would cut $90 million from the Economic Development Administration--the EDA. Mr. Hefley says he wants only to cut $90 million from EDA--down to $271 million--so that our bill will match the funding level in the Senate-passed bill. There is no magic, and no common sense either, in the Senate numbers. Last year, my colleagues, you joined 328 of your colleagues-- Democrats and Republicans alike--for continued funding of the EDA. I urge you to vote again to stop the push to gut the Economic Development Administration and its program funds that assist so many States and localities nationwide, but particularly in those areas suffering the most economic stress. H.R. 2267 already cuts the EDA by 15 percent below the fiscal year 1997 level. There are no earmarks--these economic development projects are selected by the EDA on the basis of sending help to the most distressed communities in our Nation--helping people by creating jobs. I know that each of you are aware of the assistance EDA provides to your own district's distressed communities, whether they are urban or rural. This is vital seed money for local governments--for every $1 spent in EDA funds, local governments leverage another $10 from other sources, to help pay for these vital economic development programs. These local governments are hard pressed to respond to the needs of former welfare recipients as they are faced with finding ways in which to provide necessary jobs--gainful employment--for those families. A vote against the Hefley amendment to cut $90 million from the Economic Development Administration is a vote in favor of new jobs, for families in need, for communities suffering from the effects of natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes and spring floods.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me the time. I do rise in opposition to the pending Saxton amendment. I have no illusions as to what the outcome of this vote would be, if such were called, especially in the climate that we exist today and after the most horrendous and stupid acts of the last 24 hours. But, Mr. Chairman, it is important to realize that the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act is a tool which the President uses to conduct foreign policy. We have one Commander in Chief, one individual in charge of this foreign policy. In this case it is a means the President uses to stay in touch with both chairman Arafat and the Palestinian people so that he can make the appropriate timely reports to Congress. The collapse of peace talks 4 months ago was because of mutual distrust, recriminations, and provocations. The Saxton amendment will only add to this distrust, recriminations, and provocations. It continues to be imperative that the U.S. role is allowed to be evenhanded, as an honest broker's role should be. Placing additional restrictions only on aid to the Palestinian Authority, only on such aid, fails the test of balance and fairness, because we all know that as the Secretary of State has said, failure to comply with stipulations in the Oslo accords is not confined to just Palestinians. Press reports indicate that there is documentation that Israel has been found in violation of the Oslo accords as well, a total number of 34 times. And I have such a list of Israeli violations of the Oslo accords as well. So there have been violations on both sides. It is not necessary for the Congress to point fingers only at one side. The White House is strongly opposed to this amendment because it goes way beyond reasonable limits. It imposes new restrictions on Palestinian aid and new requirements on the President. A vote today to cut off aid will stamp out what little economic progress the Palestinians have achieved for a majority of their impoverished and innocent citizens. Even Prime Minister Netanyahu knows this is true. He is quoted as saying this, and it is quoted in a letter to Members of Congress by Americans for Peace Now, and I quote, it is necessary for PLO aid to continue. That is the current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, urging that aid to the Palestinians continue. His predecessors, Prime Minister Peres and Prime Minister Rabin both are on record as urging continuation of this aid as well. While there are certainly practices and acts by the Palestinian Authority which are reprehensible and there are serious problems and they should cease, this amendment is not the way to go about it nor to get such a cessation. We can either bolster our government's efforts to achieve a lasting peace in a balanced manner or we can extinguish that hope perhaps for all time by adoption of this amendment. If we were to extinguish that hope at this most precarious time, then only escalating violence, bloodshed and death may rise from the passage of the Saxton amendment. Given the remarks of our Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who I commend for her courageous decisions, not only in regard to Lebanon recently but in the region as a whole, it should be perfectly clear to Members of this House that passage of the Saxton amendment is dangerous and liable to cause further violence in both neighborhoods in the Middle East. I rise and urge my colleagues to defeat the Saxton amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, just last week, in the July 14, 1997, issue of USA Today an article entitled ``Fewer Dying Despite Faster Speed Limits'' reported that a decrease in the number of highway fatalities is a direct result of increased speed limits. On the contrary, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration claims that highway fatalities are in fact up overall from 1996, leading us once again to the conclusion that speed and safety don't mix. In 1987, when we allowed States to raise rural interstate highway speed limits to 65 mph, a 15-20 percent increase in deaths on interstate highways resulted, amounting to an increase of 500 deaths per year. Now, after the States were allowed, at their option, to raise speed limits in 1995, we see once again the result of high speed limits. Every time we raise the speed limit more people die. It's as simple as that. In 1995, when Congress considered legislation to repeal the national speed limit, I led the charge to maintain what was then current law set in place in 1974. I did so because, as a result of that law, the very first year after its enactment highway deaths dropped by over 9,000. At the time, I said that the repeal of the national minimum speed limit would turn our highways into killing fields. Some proponents of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, however, used States' rights as an issue in passing this bill. They claimed we should let the States decide what their own speed limits should be. I'll say now what I said then, this is not a States' rights issue, it is a human rights issue. People are dying out there and we have the opportunity to do something about it. After all, the Federal Government financed 90 percent of the cost to construct the Interstate Highway System. The Federal Government, therefore, has a vested interest in the protection and safety of those roads. Yet, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 gave the States the power to set their own speed limits. It repealed the Federal standard. In many cases States raised their speed limits. Many by 10 mph, others by 15-20 miles per hour, and in extreme cases such as Montana, simply abolished them during daytime hours. The numbers don't lie. These increased speed limits have led to more deaths on America's highways. For example in California on roads where speed limits were increased to 70 or 75 miles per hour there has been a 12 percent increase in fatalities. On roads where there was a increase to 65 miles per hour there has been a 22 percent increase in fatalities. However, sometimes the numbers can be misleading. In California they have a reduction in traffic fatalities. However, on roads where the speed limit was increased, they saw an alarming rise in the number of traffic fatalities. The reason for the overall reduction in deaths is the result of a 8 percent reduction in death on roads that remained at the 55 miles per hour speed limit. These are the facts. On roads where the speed limit is increased, more people die. On roads where the speed limit remained 55 miles per hour, there was a reduction in traffic fatalities. It's simple, it's there in black and white. Let's make our roads safe again and demand a uniform national speed limit of 55 miles per hour.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on February 26, 1972, at 8 o'clock in the morning, a coal waste dam failed on the Middle Fork of Buffalo Creek in Logan County. Over 175 million gallons of water and coal waste raced through a 17-mile valley. In its wake, 125 people were dead, 523 injured, and 4,000 left homeless. Historically, the environmental effects of coal mining were often neglected. From the time surface mining techniques became widespread until the 1970's, it was assumed implicitly that the permanent degrading of the local surroundings and the pollution of streams was the inevitable price a community paid in return for jobs and tax revenue generated by the coal industry. What happened at Buffalo Creek changed all of that. While the lives of those 125 individuals could not be reclaimed, their ultimate sacrifice raised the level of public attention to the plight of coalfield citizens from a local, to a truly national, level. The Buffalo Creek disaster also became, in 1977, a major factor in the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, known as SMCRA. August 3, 1997, marks the 20th anniversary of the date former President Jimmy Carter signed SMCRA into law. The act set detailed mining and reclamation standards for coal operators and established in abandoned mine reclamation fund to finance the restoration of land that had been mined and abandoned in prior years. I was pleased to have been a Member of Congress who worked to make that law a reality, and to have participated in the Rose Garden ceremony when President Carter signed the legislation into law. Much has changed over the last 20 years since SMCRA was enacted. The coal industry has benefited because the law created a more level playing field. At one time States would try to increase the competitiveness of their industry by reducing environmental regulations. That cannot happen under SMCRA. Coalfield citizens have benefited as well. Many hazards we once faced--burning job piles, abandoned open mine portals, and landslide-prone hillsides--have been eliminated and the land brought back to productive uses. SMCRA also created a Federal agency to make sure the States properly enforced the law. This arrangement has also benefited coalfield residents as this agency, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, is their second line of defense--their safety net--against the occasional failure of State enforcement authorities to fully implement SMCRA. In recognition of the 20th anniversary of SMCRA, today I am introducing a House concurrent resolution which reaffirms the goals of SMCRA: the advancement of the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the Nation's coalfields. Joining me in introducing this resolution are a number of my Democratic colleagues on the Resources Committee. They are Mr. Miller of California, Mr. Vento, Mr. Romero-Barceleo, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Pickett, Mr. Oritiz, Ms. Christian-Green, Mr. Faleomavaega, and Mr. Hinchey. To each of them, I express my gratitude for their support of this resolution and what it means to the people of the Appalachian region. Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply states it is the sense of the Congress that the private property rights of coalfield citizens should be protected against incursions by improper coal mining practices. It states that the homes, farms, water supplies, and places of business of coalfield residents should be protected from subsidence, from improper blasting practices, and from landslides and erosion. It states that the health, safety, and general welfare of coalfield citizens should not be diminished, or threatened, by the failure of State or Federal regulatory authorities to enforce SMCRA. It states that coalfield residents have the right to enjoy the recreational values of their rivers and streams, that these water bodies should not be diminished by acidic or toxic water pollution from coal mining operations. And it states that coal operators, as citizens of our Nation's coalfields, deserve equal protection under SMCRA. That they deserve equal protection against predatory policies which may be advanced on the State level aimed at providing operators in one State a competitive advantage over operators in another State. In effect, that it is our policy that Kentucky should no less effectively enforce SMCRA than West Virginia, giving Kentucky operators a leg up on West Virginia operators in pursuing utility coal contracts. That in the Powder River Basin, Montana producers should not have a competitive advantage over those in Wyoming because of less stringent environmental protection standards. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not also take this opportunity to pay homage to the father of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, our former colleague and once chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Morris Udall. It took Mo over 9 years and two Presidential vetoes to gain the enactment of Federal surface mining legislation. But get it enacted he did. While he hailed from Arizona, I know that Mo came to understand Appalachia and the pressing need we had at that time for Federal leadership in gaining the enactment of legislation such as SMCRA. The last time I visited Mo, I told him that I was seeking to return the favor by promoting the reform of the mining law of 1872 which in its present form so adversely affects the environment of the West. Finally, I would like to note that nine House Members and eight Senators signed the conference report on H.R. 2, the legislation which was enacted as SMCRA back in 1977. Of those nine House Members, I am the only one still serving in the House of Representatives. Of the eight Senators, two still serve: Senator Wendell Ford of Kentucky and Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico. I salute these gentlemen as well for their foresight and courage in working 20 years ago to gain the enactment of SMCRA.

Mr. RAHALL

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy, but before I do I want to commend the chairman and the subcommittee for placing a moratorium on the acceptance and processing of mining claim patent applications made under the Mining Law of 1872. By the continuation of this moratorium, I think the subcommittee expresses the view of the majority of the Members of this body, if given the opportunity, they would vote for a comprehensive reform of the Mining Law of 1872. While I do commend the Committee on Appropriations for continuing this patent moratorium, I think it is important that we be up front in recognizing that this provision is only a Band-Aid that will not staunch the hemorrhaging of the public's mineral wealth under the Mining Law of 1872. Radical surgery is what is required. I hope that one day we will get around to doing that. Mr. Chairman, the committee bill provides $4.5 million for grants to the eight heritage areas designated by the Omnibus Parks Act signed into law last year. Of this amount, three heritage areas are to receive the maximum amount allowed under that law, $1 million each, because the committee has determined they are further advanced. That leaves $1.5 million for the remaining five heritage areas. Is it the committee's intent for the National Park Service to distribute this funding roughly evenly among those five heritage areas, with no area receiving less than $200,000?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)