Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 640, the conference agreement on the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The House version of this bill, H.R. 3592, passed this body on July 29 of this year. The enactment of this legislation is overdue. Many places of the country, such as West Virginia, continue to be subjected to severe flooding. In fact, many places of my Congressional District have spent a good part of this last year under federal disaster declarations. With this said, while I am pleased that we are finally gaining the enactment of this legislation, I would have preferred to see many of the provisions of the version as passed by the House have remained unmodified by the Senate. In this respect, this conference agreement at the insistence of the Senate Conferees scaled back certain House provisions such as the one relating to flood control in the Greenbrier Basin of West Virginia that I sponsored. The fight we have had in gaining approval of this provision, which does not include the construction of a main-stem dam, illustrates that it would be virtually impossible for supporters of a dam on this river to be successful. In effect, in this bill we have been reduced to a $12 million authorization for non-dam alternatives. It is, as such, highly improbable that anyone could have succeeded in obtaining over $100 million for a dam in an era when the Congress is simply not approving new main-stem flood control dams. Following is an explanation of those provisions I sponsored in this legislation. sec. 579. greenbrier river basin, west virginia, flood control The subject of providing flood control along the Greenbrier River Basin in West Virginia has been considered for many years. At some point in the 1930s, a main-stem dam was authorized, known as the Big Bend project. However, in 1974, at the recommendation of the Corps of Engineers, this project was deauthorized. This lack of interest in providing flood control protections for the Greenbrier was short-lived. In 1978, the Huntington District of the Corps of Engineers undertook a flood control study for the basin. The study was ready for release in 1985. However, in that year, a flood of record occurred which the caused the Corps to look into other methods of flood control. Prior to 1985, the Corps was ready to recommend channel improvements in the area of Marlinton (Pocahontas County) as a means of flood control. In 1994, preliminary findings of the study indicated that a single-purpose flood control dam on the Greenbrier River upstream from Marlinton may offer the greatest potential for providing flood protections against a reoccurrence of the 1985 flood. This type of project, however, had a low cost- benefit ratio and the Huntington District decided to evaluate a non-structural flood plain management approach. Meanwhile, earlier this year, in January, the area experienced a flood which exceed the one in 1985. The Corps decided not to release its study, but rather, to update it with the data from the January 1996 event. In May, the Greenbrier River once again left its banks and in certain areas, exceeded the flood level experienced in January. The communities along the river have been divided on the question of the proposed main-stem dam. With the defeat of the proposed Auburn Dam during the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's consideration of H.R. 3592, and the fact that the cost-benefit ratio associated with any type of Greenbrier River dam even with an updated study would not pass Corps let alone Congressional muster, it became apparent that some type of alternative flood control protections should be pursued for the Greenbrier Basin. The provision which passed the House of Representatives as section 580 of H.R. 3592 would have authorized $20 million for the Corps of Engineers to design and implement a flood damage reduction program for the Greenbrier River Basin in the vicinity of Durbin, Cass, Marlinton, Renick, Ronceverte and Alderson. In consultation with these communities, flood control activities that could be undertaken includes levees, floodwalls, channelization, small tributary stream impoundments and nonstructural measures such as individual flood proofing. In addition, also authorized are floodplain relocations, floodplain evacuations, and a comprehensive river corridor management plan. In Conference with the Senate, the House provision was modified by reducing the $20 million authorization to $12 million. Further, the innovative cost-benefit considerations included in the House-passed bill were objected to by the Senate, and this provision was dropped. sec. 359. southern west virginia environmental restoration Section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 authorized an environmental restoration infrastructure and resource protection development pilot program in southern West Virginia. Under this provision, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is to provide design and construction assistance for publicly owned projects such as wastewater treatment and water supply facilities through local cooperation agreements with non-Federal entities such as, for example, a county commission or public service district. In addition, appropriated amounts for the pilot program must be matched on a 75% federal/25% local basis. To date, the full $5 million authorized for the program in 1992 has been appropriated and the Huntington District of the Corps of Engineers is engaged in two projects: a wastewater system in Gilbert and a water supply system in Summers/Mercer Counties. However, the authorized level of $5 million is unduly restrictive and will serve to limit the potential benefits this demonstration project has for the Nation. H.R. 3592 as passed by the House would increase the authorization to $25 million and make sundry technical amendments which the Corps' has identified as facilitating the implementation of the program. In Conference with the Senate, the $25 million authorization increase was modified to $20 million. sec. 357. bluestone lake, west virginia Section 102(ff) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 authorized and directed the Army Corps of Engineers to take such measures as are technologically feasible to prohibit the release of drift and debris into waters downstream of Bluestone Lake project. As part of the implementation of this directive, some concern has been raised that the removal of all woody debris may adversely affect the biological integrity of the New River. For this reason, H.R. 3592 as passed by the House, and maintained in the Conference Report, would provide for the release of that organic matter necessary to maintain and enhance the biological resources of such waters and such non-obtrusive items of debris as may not be economically feasible to prevent being release through the project. In implementing this provision, the Secretary should not construe the amendment being made as allowing the release of substantial amounts of accumulated drift and debris. In this regard, the amendment conforms this provision of law with the Secretary's responsibility under section 1110 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 to provide for the release of water from the Bluestone Lake project in a manner to facilitate protection of the biological resources of the New River. I would further note that this amendment is being adopted in anticipation of a Memorandum of Understanding being entered into between the Corps of Engineers, the National Park Service and the State of West Virginia relating to river cleanup responsibilities downstream of Bluestone Dam. sec. 580. lower mud river, west virginia Originally envisioned as a P.L. 83-566 watershed protection and flood prevention project, the Watershed Plan and Environmental Impact Statement has been completed for the Lower Mud River, West Virginia, and section 401 and 404 permits secured. The proposed project is aimed at preventing flooding in the City of Milton (Cabell County) through channel work (widening and straightening the flood channel) of the Lower Mud River and includes both on- and off-site wetlands mitigation. In light of the fact that the Natural Resources Conservation Service is no longer being authorized or funded to undertake projects of this nature, H.R. 3592 as passed by the House and agreed to in the Conference Report provides for this project to be completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The total project cost is $20,159,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,426,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,733,100. sec. 360. west virginia trail head facilities Section 306 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 directed the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study and develop a plan for trailhead facilities connected several Corps facilities in southern West Virginia. In devising the report, the Corps entered into an interagency agreement with the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. Earlier this year, the Corps published a ``West Virginia Trailhead Facility Study, Final Report.'' This report constitutes a Master Plan to guide in the development, management and operation of a regional system of recreational trails. The development of the trail system will be undertaken by a non-federal entity: the Hatfield-McCoy Regional Recreation Authority established by the State of West Virginia. However, as part of the development and management of the trail system, the Authority is seeking continued technical assistance from the Corps and BLM. H.R. 3592 as passed by the House, and as agreed to in the Conference Report, provides for the Corps to enter into an interagency agreement with the BLM for the purpose of providing on-going technical assistance and oversight for the trail facilities envisioned in the master plan. Under this provision, the BLM must provide this assistance and oversight. It intended for this assistance and oversight to be undertaken with the trail Authority. sec. 229. marshall university, west virginia H.R. 3592 as passed by the House contained a provision authorizing the Corps of Engineers to enter into a cooperative agreement with Marshall University to provide technical assistance to the Center for Environmental, Geotechnical and Applied Sciences. The House bill also contained a generic provision of this nature, entitled ``Support of Army Civil Works Program,'' relating to relationships through which the Corps could enter into with colleges and universities, among other entities. In Conference with the Senate, the House provision relating solely to Marshall University was dropped with the intention that it be covered by the generic House provision which was retained by the Conference Committee and a specific reference to Marshall University was included in the Statement of Managers discussion of this provision. Under this provision, it is intended for the Corps of Engineers and Marshall's Environmental Center to work together in dealing with environmental contamination in the Central Appalachian Region and to provide national leadership in this area. Envisioned activities under the cooperative agreement would include, among other items: (1) the development of innovative technologies for all aspects of handling hazardous waste, including management, treatment, remediation, restoration, mitigation and disposal projects; (2) research to improve the understanding of the processes of groundwater contamination and subsequent migration/diffusion; (3) the development and application of modern computer technologies for the collection and management of large volumes of scientific and other data characterizing the various environmental problems located in or affecting activities within the region; (4) environmental technology transfer; and (5) public education about the many regional environmental issues, problems and hazards. sec. 539. acid mine drainage mitigation, new river, west virginia Acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mines is perhaps the single most serious water quality problem in many parts of the Appalachian Region. In fact, nationwide, over 12,000 miles of rivers and streams and over 180,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs are contaminated due to acidic and toxic drainage from abandoned mines. Because of the magnitude of the problems associated with acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mines, and the lack of progress made to date in addressing this issue, H.R. 3592 as passed by the House authorized the Corps of Engineers to undertake certain demonstration projects aimed at abatement and mitigation of acid mine drainage caused by abandoned mines, as well as degradation caused by the lack of sanitary wastewater treatment facilities. As modified by the Conference Committee, the provision is limited to the Corps providing technical assistance for these projects. Under the Conference Agreement, $1.5 million is authorized for the Corps to provide technical assistance for projects in the New River, West Virginia. In conducting these activities, it is intended for the Corps to focus on Dunloup Creek, Manns Creek, Wolf Creek and Piney Creeks of the New River watershed. In this regard, the Corps is to cooperate with the Federal entity with administrative jurisdiction over the lands within such watersheds, the National Park Service, and if appropriate, with the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendments to H.R. 3159, legislation which would reauthorize the National Transportation Safety Board, contain provisions that are similar to a bill, H.R. 4040, passed by this body last week aimed at promoting greater compliance with our highway truck weight laws. As we prepare to send this legislation to the President, I want to take this opportunity to note that the amendments to the Intermodal Safe Container Act of 1992 is the product of a consensus reached between the shipping, motor carrier and railroad industries. In this regard, I want to commend these entities for their good faith negotiations and willingness to compromise on what is today a product that is truly in the public interest. Mr. Speaker, in 1992 we passed legislation to encourage compliance with U.S. highway weight limits by requiring that an entity which ships containerized cargo verify the weight of the containers. These containers often are transported in an intermodal fashion, from ship to truck, or ship to railroad to truck, with final delivery made by trucks subject to our highway weight laws. The truckers must depend on the accuracy of the weight certification in determining their compliance with highway weight limits. Yet, if those certifications are inaccurate, and the trucker is found to be overweight, it is the trucker who must pay the fine even though he or she had no involvement in the packing of the container. Since 1992, DOT has attempted to issue regulations implementing the 1992 act. While a final rule has been devised, DOT has delayed its implementation due to shortcomings it cannot administratively address due to the language of the 1992 law. The pending bill seeks to address these deficiencies by first, while continuing to require the shipper to certify the weight of the containers, the certification could be incorporated into shipping papers and may be in electronic form. If the certification is not made, or is incorrect, the shipper is liable for any violations which may occur of our highway weight laws. And second, the weight threshold for container certification under this bill is set at 29,001 pounds. This limit, it is my understanding from both DOT and industry, is a more appropriate threshold than what is in current law. These are the major aspects of the legislation. I believe they will enhance compliance with our highway weight laws, and urge the adoption of this measure.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I feel particularly privileged to be able to say farewell to Representatives Tom Bevill and Glen Browder of Alabama as friends as well as beloved colleagues in the House. I have learned much from them, and I appreciate their having allowed me to grow as a Member by drawing from the wealth of their experience and their knowledge. Tom Bevill was elected a full 10 years ahead of my election to the House, in 1966, and he has been reelected by overwhelming margins ever since by the folks he represents in Alabama's Fourth Congressional District. As chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, Tom has stood with me many, many times on behalf of the people I serve in southern West Virginia as we worked together to facilitate development of West Virginia's waterways and energy development projects. My constituents have benefited greatly through Tom's willingness to listen and to understand and to respond to the needs of my congressional district with respect to water resources development and Corps of Engineers projects throughout southern West Virginia. Tom Bevill's mastery of the appropriations process is legendary. The people of the Fourth Congressional District of Alabama are indeed fortunate to have had such a champion fighting for their needs all these years, and he will be long remembered by all of us who remain behind here in this body as the man who helped each of us better serve our own constituents. He is a man who believed that every dollar he ever appropriated was spent on a worthy cause--to help someone down on his luck, to help a community grow, to help a university educate its young people, to ensure that a small child had enough to eat. And he believed that money for these purposes needed to be spent in Alabama, and in West Virginia, and in every State in the Union. Tom Bevill has served with distinction, pride, integrity and style. He will be sorely missed in the years to come by this House of Representatives. Glen Browder, elected in 1989, has served with distinction on the National Security Committee, formerly the Armed Services Committee, where he has labored to fulfill a responsibility to assure that our Nation's military readiness is second to none in the world. While many of us in the House never served on committees with jurisdiction over out national security, I knew, and my colleagues knew, that we could rely upon Glen's knowledge and expertise in the area of national defense in keeping us strong as a nation and ready to defend our country, its people, and our allies abroad. We knew that Glen's thoroughness and his vast knowledge about our armed services and military readiness, would lead to a reasonable and responsible use of our vast military resources where they would do the most good. Glen also served his constituents in the Third Congressional District of Alabama, not only by making wise decisions of our Nation's security, but by taking great care to see to the domestic needs of the people in Alabama's Third Congressional District. He combined his natural leadership skills with his innate sensitivity to their socioeconomic circumstances in order to improve the lives of his people. Above all, both Tom and Glen deeply believed in good Government throughout their tenures in the House, and their years of service and commitment to good government is visible across this great country. I commend them for their diligent service to Alabama and to the United States. I wish them both Godspeed.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the full committee chairman, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking minority member, for the very effective and capable manner in which they have worked toegether with me and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], the chairman of the subcommittee, in bringing forward this legislation. There has been a good give-and- take on both sides of the aisle. I also commend the staff that have worked so very long and hard on bringing this bill to us today. Mr. Speaker, as the full committee chairman has stated, while this bill basically consists of technical amendments, its enactment will fulfill congressional and DOT intent in addressing the issue of liability as it relates to intermodal shipments of potentially overweight freight containers. Basically, we have a situation where a trucker picks up a container of, say, shoes at the Port of Long Beach that was packed in Taiwan and is headed for a J.C. Penny Store. On its way along our Nation's highways to the store, the trucker is found to be overweight. Under current law, the trucker pays the fine even though the trucking company had no involvement in the packing of the container and was led to believe it would not cause the truck to be overweight. In 1992 we passed legislation to address this situation. However, due to shortcomings in this law, DOT has yet to make effective a final rule implementing it. Hence, the need for this legislation. The pending bill would facilitate the implementation of the 1992 act by, first allowing the shipper certification of the weight of intermodal containers to be incorporated into shipping papers or transmitted in electronic form. If the certification is not made, or is incorrect, the shipper is liable for any violations which may occur of our highway weight laws. And second, this bill sets the weight threshold for container certification at 29,001 pounds. It is my understanding from both DOT and industry that this is a more appropriate threshold than what is in current law. With that stated, I urge the adoption of the pending measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].

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

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I feel particularly privileged to be able to say farewell to Representatives Tom Bevill and Glen Browder of Alabama as friends as well as beloved colleagues in the House. I have learned much from them, and I appreciate their having allowed me to grow as a Member by drawing from the wealth of their experience and their knowledge. Tom Bevill was elected a full 10 years ahead of my election to the House, in 1966, and he has been reelected by overwhelming margins ever since by the folks he represents in Alabama's Fourth Congressional District. As chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, Tom has stood with me many, many times on behalf of the people I serve in southern West Virginia as we worked together to facilitate development of West Virginia's waterways and energy development projects. My constituents have benefited greatly through Tom's willingness to listen and to understand and to respond to the needs of my congressional district with respect to water resources development and Corps of Engineers projects throughout southern West Virginia. Tom Bevill's mastery of the appropriations process is legendary. The people of the Fourth Congressional District of Alabama are indeed fortunate to have had such a champion fighting for their needs all these years, and he will be long remembered by all of us who remain behind here in this body as the man who helped each of us better serve our own constituents. He is a man who believed that every dollar he ever appropriated was spent on a worthy cause--to help someone down on his luck, to help a community grow, to help a university educate its young people, to ensure that a small child had enough to eat. And he believed that money for these purposes needed to be spent in Alabama, and in West Virginia, and in every State in the Union. Tom Bevill has served with distinction, pride, integrity and style. He will be sorely missed in the years to come by this House of Representatives. Glen Browder, elected in 1989, has served with distinction on the National Security Committee, formerly the Armed Services Committee, where he has labored to fulfill a responsibility to assure that our Nation's military readiness is second to none in the world. While many of us in the House never served on committees with jurisdiction over out national security, I knew, and my colleagues knew, that we could rely upon Glen's knowledge and expertise in the area of national defense in keeping us strong as a nation and ready to defend our country, its people, and our allies abroad. We knew that Glen's thoroughness and his vast knowledge about our armed services and military readiness, would lead to a reasonable and responsible use of our vast military resources where they would do the most good. Glen also served his constituents in the Third Congressional District of Alabama, not only by making wise decisions of our Nation's security, but by taking great care to see to the domestic needs of the people in Alabama's Third Congressional District. He combined his natural leadership skills with his innate sensitivity to their socioeconomic circumstances in order to improve the lives of his people. Above all, both Tom and Glen deeply believed in good Government throughout their tenures in the House, and their years of service and commitment to good government is visible across this great country. I commend them for their diligent service to Alabama and to the United States. I wish them both Godspeed.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2292 as reported by the Committee on Resources contains a number of provisions relating to three units of the National Park System in the State of West Virginia. The primary purpose of these provisions are to make boundary modifications to the New River Gorge National River. In this regard, I would note that similar boundary modifications passed the House of Representatives on two occasions: in the 102d Congress as part of H.R. 4382 and in the 103d Congress as title I of H.R. 3252. At the beginning of the 104th Congress, I reintroduced these boundary modifications as part of H.R. 640. In this regard, a provision of H.R. 2292 would modify the boundary of the New River Gorge National River to expand it by 8,768 acres. Of this total, one tract, known as the Ward estate property, accounts for 7,000 acres with an additional 800 acres of inholdings within that tract. This property is viewed as a critical addition to the national park unit, as it is located directly across from the Grandview area which is one of the most highly visited and scenic areas of the New River. It should be noted that there is no intention to acquire the 800 acres of inholdings. The remaining 968 acres consisting of willing seller property remnants of which 786 acres have already been acquired with the remaining 182 acres pending acquisition. All in all, the proposed additions to the New River Gorge National River would enhance scenic or natural resources already included in the park unit, including peregrine falcon sites, as well as provide for better visitor access. The pending legislation would also provide for a minor boundary modification to the Bluestone National Scenic River to include 40 acres of riverfront land that were inadvertently excluded when the river was designated in 1988. Aside from these boundary matters, the legislation would reaffirm the State of West Virginia's jurisdiction over fish and wildlife resources within the New River Gorge National River, as well as over fish stocking activities there. This is a conforming amendment as a similar provision is contained in the enabling legislation for the neighboring Gauley River National Recreation Area. Further, the bill would conform the act which designated the New River Gorge National River with provisions applicable to the Gauley River National Recreation Area in two other respects. First, it would extend to the National River a provision in the National Recreation Area's enabling legislation authorizing the Secretary to enter into a cooperative agreement with the State of West Virginia to maintain and improve existing roads and public rights-of-way within the boundary of the National River to the extent necessary to facilitate and improve reasonable access. Second, the amendments would extend to the National River a provision in the National Recreation Area's enabling legislation authorizing the acquisition of remnant lands in order to minimize the payment of severance costs. Also in the way of technical and sundry amendments, the bill would amend the enabling legislation for the Gauley River National Recreation Area by providing for the upstream river boundary to revert to its original location in the event construction on a proposed hydroelectric power facility is not commenced within the time required in its license. The enabling legislation established the upstream boundary at the foot of Summersville Dam, but provided for an automatic downstream boundary adjustment in the event a hydroelectric power facility was licensed for the area within a prescribed period of time. The facility was licensed, however, no provision was made in the enabling legislation to readjust the boundary upstream in the event the power facility was never constructed. The Gauley River National Recreation Area is also affected by this legislation by a provision which provides river access for noncommercial recreation users within the National Recreation Area at a place known as Woods Ferry. Currently, the only public access to the area is located at its upstream boundary, with all other access sites being privately owned primarily by commercial whitewater outfitters. This situation poses an access problem for the general public, including private boaters. The Woods Ferry site, located in the middle section of the Recreation Area, is ideal because and access road is already in place and it is owned by willing sellers to the National Park Service. A final provision of this bill would amend the designating legislation for the Bluestone National Scenic River to authorize the Secretary to negotiate a memorandum of understanding or cooperative agreement with the owner of a tract of land outside of the boundary of the scenic river or to acquire the tract with the owner's consent, in order to provide upstream access to the scenic river. Mr. Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a House Concurrent Resolution, expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty, and full independence of Lebanon. You may ask what that means, and you may ask why it is prudent or necessary to introduce such a resolution. I will tell you. As a Lebanese-American Member of Congress, I am aware of recent events in the Middle East which despite secret diplomacy may have slowed the peace process. I have seen resolutions introduced in this body which would do the same by calling upon Syria to get its Armed Forces out of Lebanon--as though Syria is the only occupying force that needs to get itself out of Lebanon; as though Syria is to blame for every single averse thing that has happened to Lebanon in recent years. Mr. Speaker, Syria is no angel--but Syria isn't the only problem Lebanon has, or that the Middle East has, for that matter. We all know that to be true. The biggest problem today appears to be that everyone views Lebanon as some kind of bargaining chip, or pawn, to be used by Israel and Syria and then whoever else find themselves with an ax to grind in the region--not an ax to grind with Lebanon necessarily--and they then proceed to grind their axes at will and at Lebanon's expense. The most recent grinding of axes in and around Lebanon was called Operation Grapes of Wrath. And the axes were turned into shells and rockets and so-called precision weaponry that allegedly could penetrate buildings in the middle of the city of Beirut and search out a floor with a window that supposedly was concealing Hizbollah, without harming the innocent mothers and children also living in that building. But the precision weapons turned out not to be so precise, and more than 100 Lebanese civilians were killed, 400,000 were displaced and many left homeless, injured, and suffering. This resolution is for Lebanon and about Lebanon. It isn't about Israel or Syria--except that all non-Lebanese forces are asked to get out of Lebanon. It is an idea whose time has come and perhaps a point of discussion in current secret diplomacy and/or other talks. Another idea whose time has come is that the United States Government--the Congress--the President of the United States--need to reformulate their policy toward Lebanon and they need to reaffirm their support for a country that has long been friendly toward the United States. Not only do they need to reformulate a policy, the policy needs to be implemented. Lebanon has a government, and it has an army, and it is rebuilding and it is getting stronger and more secure every day. It is time that the United States Government began looking at and considering Lebanon as the master of its own house--the captain of its own ship--and understand that the United States Government should negotiate directly with Lebanon's government on issues concerning Lebanon and its future. There is no need for the President, the Congress, or anyone else to look toward Syria to the North, or toward Israel in the South--they have no right to decide Lebanon's future. As a matter of fact, our Government needs to look backward 18 years ago--and recall United Nations Security Council's Resolution 425 which calls for the withdrawal forthwith of Israeli forces from Lebanon and for which the United States representative to the United Nations voted. The Taif agreement regarding Syria did not go far enough because it did not call for withdrawal. It did call for a redeployment of Syrian forces to the entrance of the Bekaa Valley and the disarmament of all militia in Lebanon, both of which Syria has ignored. And so, Mr. Speaker, I introduce this concurrent resolution, urging the President to take the necessary steps to activate the Consultative Group for Lebanon's Reconstruction, which was established by the April 26, 1996, understanding between Lebanon and Israel--entered into after Operation Grapes of Wrath, which rained so much death and destruction upon innocent civilians in the land of my grandfathers. By this resolution I and my colleagues who cosponsor with me call for the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon so that she will no longer serve as the preferred battleground for her neighbors. It tells the President that he need not wait upon the reconvening of the official Middle East peace talks, or the finalization of a comprehensive peace accord with all nation states in the region--to help Lebanon get non-Lebanese forces out of Lebanon. The resolution calls upon the President to negotiate directly with officials of the Government of Lebanon on issues pertaining to Lebanon. To negotiate directly means just that--without any middlemen. In closing Mr. Speaker, I submit this resolution to the House, calling upon Lebanon to assert more independence to assure the international community that Lebanon has the political will and the military capability to guaranteed security along her borders, for herself and her neighbors, and to disarm all militia upon the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon. Let Lebanon be Lebanon.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation has been holding a series of hearings on the reauthorization of the Federal Highway and Transit Programs as embodied in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA], which expires at the end of fiscal year 1997. One of the most contentious issues raised so far involves the formula by which Federal highway funds are distributed to the States. Since the inception of modern Federal Highway Program in 1956 when the Highway Trust Fund was established, there have always been some States which contribute more into the Fund than they receive back, known as donor States, and others which receive back more than contributed, known as donee States. This arrangement is necessary because a national highway system simply cannot be constructed and maintained without it. In this regard, there are basically two delivery mechanisms through which Federal highway money is distributed to the States: Funds are either apportioned or allocated. Apportioned funds are divvied out by formula, and each State is assured of a minimum 90 percent return on the amount of its estimated contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. It is important to note that out of all of the Federal highway funds available to States in a given year, the vast majority--89 percent--are apportioned by formula for such major programs as the NHS, Interstate Maintenance, the Surface Transportation Program and the Bridge Program. Allocated funds, on the other hand, are discretionary in nature. Allocated funding categories include such items as the Bridge Discretionary Program and the Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program. These monies, which only account for 11 percent of the amount of Federal highway funds available to the States, are primarily allocated on a needs basis. A group of donor States, however, are seeking to change the existing highway funding distribution formula. Their basic contention is that while they receive back 90 percent of apportioned funds, when the discretionary (allocated) funds are taken into account they allege that they often receive back less than 90 percent of their contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. These States, which have organized as the step 21 coalition, are seeking a number of changes in ISTEA, including a new formula that assures them a 95-percent return on payments made to the Highway Trust Fund. It should be noted, however, that the step 21 proposed formula for distributing funds to the States is based on using a percentage of a percentage. In other words, each State would receive 95 percent of its share of contributions to the Highway Trust Fund without requiring that the total amount distributed in a given year equal the total amount received. Shades of voodoo economics. Of course the step 21 formula paints such a rosy picture for donor States. It is premised upon a formula which has as an assumption that more money could be paid out than received into the Highway Trust Fund. The more appropriate and fiscally prudent way of measuring how each State is faring under the Federal highway program is to calculate the ratio of its payments to the Highway Trust Fund against what it receives. This is the method that has traditionally been used and is the most widely accepted. Recently, the Federal Highway Administration calculated the amount each State has received compared to its contributions under ISTEA to date, fiscal years 1992 through 1995. It is interesting to note that of the 22 States who are members of step 21, only two, Georgia and South Carolina, received back less than 90 cents on the dollar contributed to the Highway Trust Fund. Morever, seven step 21 coalition States received back a dollar or more on each dollar contributed: Arizona, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, and Wisconsin. And another six step 21 coalition States--Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina and Oklahoma--are receiving back between 95 cents and 99 cents on the dollar. The other 7 States all received at least 90 cents on the dollar. These calculations, it should be noted, include returns with the discretionary accounts factored in. It seems to me, then, that the only step 21 coalition States who have a bona fide beef with the current highway funds distribution formula are Georgia and South Carolina. If you believe that there is still a national interest in the highways of this country--the Interstate System and the new National Highway System--then the step 21 proposal poses some danger to the integrity of that system. Not only is the step 21 formula based on unrealistic assumptions, but it would deprive the ability of the Nation to construct the new high- priority corridors authorized by ISTEA as part of the National Highway System as well as other NHS routes of an interstate nature. Simply put, under step 21, there would not be funds available to construct and maintain roads of an interstate nature, highways of a national interest, as well as to fulfill other Federal obligations, such as building and improving roads in units of our National Park System. I would urge all of my colleagues to consider these facts when deliberating the reauthorization of ISTEA.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to any amendment that would terminate and/or cut funding for the Economic Development Administration--the EDA. Mr. Chairman, this year's recommended funding level for the EDA is but $328.5 million. This is identical to the funding for fiscal year 1996--reflecting a 20-percent cut in EDA funding since fiscal 1995. This is surely representative of EDA's fair share of reduced Federal spending we are called upon to make. One of the most important features of EDA funding is that it provides vital funding to communities that have had, and are still experiencing, base closures and defense downsizing. If it were not for the EDA, defense conversion funds, set at $95 million in fiscal year 1997, where bases have been closed and Defense industry jobs lost--communities would not have the money to pick themselves up and dust themselves off--and get back on their feet again. While West Virginia has had no base closures, and so Defense conversion funds do not assist my constituents, I know that many States depend upon the EDA's Defense conversions for economic development assistance, and I want them to have this $95 million set aside for that purpose. EDA funds also go to local development districts and university centers, and to areas that have been devastated by spring floods, and winter blizzards, and earthquakes, and hurricanes and tornadoes. But such funds are also spent on communities faced with both chronic and sudden economic downturns that result in massive job losses. Over the past 30 years, EDA has created almost 40,000 economic development projects, generated more than $2 billion of private sector capital through revolving loan funds, supported more than 7,000 businesses, and leveraged $3 for every Federal dollar invested. That doesn't sound like golden fleece awards to me. My colleagues, listen to what is being said around you by Members of this body about how much EDA means to their economically distressed areas, and defeat any amendment to kill or reduce the EDA program, just as you defeated their twins last year.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, West Virginia was known primarily as a mighty coal producing State fueling much of America's economy. Many Americans simply did not know all West Virginia had to offer. However, thanks to the hard work and dedication of the people of West Virginia, we are opening our doors to show America and the world what all West Virginians know; our State has much to offer. Since 1989, West Virginia has gone through a metamorphosis that has put the most beautiful butterfly to shame. We have invested $1 billion in computers for our classrooms, and placed them in modern schools that can handle the latest technology. Our roads and bridges are in the best shape in our history, our rural health program is considered a national model, and the public safety program is considered one of the best in the Nation. And, Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our accomplishments. We want all Americans, especially West Virginians who have left, to come home and take note of the progress we have made, as well as our plan for the future. That is why we are engaged in a statewide effort known as Homecoming '96. Homecoming '96 is a celebration of West Virginia. It's the largest community effort ever undertaken in our State--a celebration of our heritage and our future. Under the direction of steering committee cochairs Senator Robert C. Byrd and country music superstar Kathy Mattea, Homecoming '96 has many exciting statewide events planned. We are inviting old and new friends to return to West Virginia and experience the unparelled beauty and friendship we have to offer. We invite everyone to travel our highways and take part in our rich heritage. Mr. Speaker, there are over 300 communities in West Virginia participating in Homecoming '96, 78 of which are in my district. These communities have planned many activities for all people of all ages. For example, in Bluefield, the Historic Railroad Association has planned a train excursion in Mercer County. In Huntington, the celebration of the city's 125 birthday will coincide will Homecoming '96 activities, and in my hometown of Beckley, a Labor Day weekend concert will take place. 1996 is the year the residents of West Virginia recognize each other for the tremendous accomplishments made in the past. We are excited to show the world just how beautiful the Mountain State really is. Whether it's skiing the white peaks or thundering down the great New River, West Virginia is a State with much to offer. Many past and current residents of the State will be sporting attractive Homecoming '96 pins and bumper stickers to encourage all Americans to join us in the most wondrous of celebrations. Many of these people will be more than happy to lead you where the delicious smell of apple butter is being made or homemade pies being cooled. I close by inviting my colleagues, present and past residents of West Virginia, as well as all Americans, to come home to West Virginia and join the festivities this summer. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the names of the communities in the Third Congressional District participating in Homecoming '96 be entered into the record: Alderson, Ansted, Athens, Ballard, Barboursville, Beckley, Big Creek, Bluefield, Boomer, Bramwell, Brenton, Buckeye, Camden on Gauley, Caretta, Ceredo, Chapmanville, Crumpler, Danville, Delbarton, Diana/Jumbo, Durbin, Fayetteville, Fort Gay, Frankford, Gary, Gauley Bridge, Gilbert, Greenbrier, Greenville, Hacker Valley, Hamlin, Hanover, Hinton, Huntington, Itman, Jodie, Jumping Branch/Nimitz, Kenova, Kermit, Kopperston, Lansing, Lerona/Speedway, Lewisburg, Lindside, Logan, Madison, Marlinton, Matewan, Matoaka, Maxwelton, Meadow Bridge, Milton, Montgomery, Mullens, Nemours, Northfork, Oak Hill, Oakvale, Oceana, Pence Springs, Peterstown, Pineville, Pipestem, Princeton, Prosperity, Rainelle, Renick, Ronceverte, Smithers, Sophia, Spanishburg, Summerslee, Summersville, Sylvester, Talcott, Union, War, Webster Springs, Welch, West Logan, West Virginia State Fair, White Sulpher Springs, Whitesville, Williamsburg, Williamson, and Wolf Creek.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that this bill does not contain any earmarking of funds for high-priority highway projects, often referred to as demonstration projects. The reason I make note of this particular fact is that whenever funds are earmarked for highway projects, some in the media, and some in this body, call it pork barrel. In fact, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, my good friend, advised Members earlier this year not to even bother testifying before his subcommittee on highway project requests. Yet, to be sure, as it turns out there are numerous earmarks for other types of transportation projects. For example, the bill earmarks over $724 million for 39 transit new start projects. The report accompanying this bill earmarks $333 million for 87 bus projects under what is supposed to be a discretionary program. In addition, the report directs $36.2 million to 16 specific intelligent transportation system projects. I could go on and on. My colleagues, those earmarks alone amount to almost $1.2 billion being directed by this bill toward specific projects. $1.2 billion. Ah, but not a one of them a so-called highway demonstration project. For some reason that I have been unable to understand, the pork barrel label is only applied by the media and some in this body to the earmarking of funds for highway projects. Meanwhile, the earmarking of funds for transit and ITS projects is met with mute silence. Now, to be clear, I had no project requests before the subcommittee. I was not seeking highway project earmarks, or for that matter, transit or ITS project earmarks. And, I see nothing wrong with the Congress exercising its judgment and directing funds to a specific transportation project. These are, after all Federal funds and not State or local moneys. However, I do want to illustrate the dual standard that is now being applied. I want to point this out because we are now operating under this dual standard. You can go to the Appropriations Committee to get an earmark of funds for a transit project, that serves a locality, but you cannot go to the Appropriations Committee for funding for a highway of an interstate nature that needs an extra boost to be completed. You can go to the Appropriations Committee to get an earmark of funds for a bus station in some small town, but not for a four-lane highway that crosses State lines. Mr. Chairman, this dual standard simply makes no sense. And, as we all know, dual standards are never fair. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I certainly do not mean to object, but I would yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin for the purposes of explaining the bill.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Diaz-Balart].

Mr. RAHALL. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner], a member of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. RAHALL. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his explanation and I join him in supporting this bill. It is indeed fitting that the least we can do to honor Bill Emerson is to name the bridge that is to be constructed in Cape Girardeau in his memory. Sine 1980, Bill Emerson served with great distinction on the Public Works and Transportation Committee, now known as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, working on behalf of the people of the Eighth Congressional District of Missouri. In fact, a particular bridge we are naming in his honor today has been a priority transportation improvement project for him, and funds were earmarked for it in the National Highway System designation bill that I managed in the last Congress when I served as chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. As we all know and have heard today, Mr. Emerson, our dear friend, was a gentleman, a great legislator, a family man and a friend to all of us. His memory will stay with us for many years.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, it was a young but brave Bill Emerson who as a page helped move the mortally wounded Members of this body from the floor on a stretcher after a terrorist assassination attempt. Even as a teenager Bill Emerson saw his duty, and he did it without any thought for his own safety. Bill Emerson and I had many things in common, our careers paralleling one another, we both worked here in Washington before returning home at young ages and being elected as Members of this body. Bill's personal office and staff is located next to mine in the Rayburn Building. Our families were neighbors in McLean, VA, and we were neighbors and colleagues on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Only four doors down from my family in McLean were Bill Emerson, his wife Jo Ann and his four children. Our children attended school together, were often found in each other's homes, and participated in school and church activities together. Bill was a devoted family member and a devoted church member. I know that my daughter Suzanne will never forget the times when Bill's daughter, Tori, and later Katherine, who we later called, ``Kat,'' would babysit. They loved having each other over, spending the night together, doing their home work together, baking cookies together. I recall one instance when we noted in the neighborhood a large truck outside of Bill and Jo Ann's home. It was a huge delivery truck, and they had just unloaded hundreds of cartons in front of Bill's driveway. So we strolled over to see what was going on. Could not imagine what was being delivered to their home. ``These are my books,'' Bill said very proudly with a sense of excitement. ``Where on earth will you put them all,'' we asked him. His wife Jo Ann laughed and said, ``That's a good question.'' The cartons went inside, and Jo Ann and Bill found a space for quite a library of their beloved history books. So, Bill was not only a great team player here in this body, he was a great team player in his neighborhood. Theirs was a close-knit family. Their strength, their hopes, their faith over these past months as Bill struggled to ``beat this thing,'' as he put it, never faltered. Bill, his wife Jo Ann and his four daughters are a source of love and stability for each other throughout this ordeal, but amazingly they took time to reassure and give strength to their neighbors as well, showing their deep and abiding Christian faith at all times. So as we say goodbye, for a short time anyway, to our friend Bill Emerson, we say it to a very honored, respected, and beloved friend of all of us, and while he is gone from us for a short time, he will live on through his wife Jo Ann and his four daughters and his mother, but more, he will live on through all of us in this body who had the great good luck and good fortune to have known Bill Emerson and to have served with him. MR. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in praise of Stephen S. Rosenfeld, the author of an op-ed piece which appeared in the Washington Post, on June 21, entitled: ``For Israel in Lebanon--a Unilateral Withdrawal.'' Mr. Rosenfeld's article breathes new life into what I have been saying now for many years--get Israeli soldiers out of Lebanon, and the guerrilla Hezbollah will disappear as well--making it safe for both Israeli citizens in north Israel, and for Lebanese civilians who live in or near the southern border. The Rosenfeld column is extremely timely given two recent and related events in the Middle East. First of all, the totally inappropriate and devastating attack on Lebanon civilians by the Israelis during operation Grapes of Wrath. In that operation 170 innocent Lebanese civilians were killed, and more than 400,000 men, women and children were left homeless, grievously injured, and suffering from the grave loss of their loved ones and of destroyed infrastructure on which they relied for life's daily necessities. Second, what Rosenfeld has to say is timely because we have just witnessed the election--the first direct election--in Israel which replaced the Labor party with the more conservative Likud party-- leaving most of us wondering about the future--if any--of the Middle East peace process. Third, in the contest of a continuation of the Middle East peace process, where does it leave the innocent bystander nation known to the world as Lebanon, as it struggles with Syrian soldiers on the one side, and Israeli soldiers on the other. In that context, I bring to the attention of my colleagues the column by Stephen Rosenfeld for the Post, in which he says what I and the Lebanese have been saying for years: get Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon--and the rest will take care of itself. Mr. Rosenfeld states at the outset: ``Here is a good way for Benyamin Netanyahu to start off his foreign policy on the right foot. Remove Israeli troops from southern Lebanon and its larger occupier, Syria, but without negotiation. Just do it.'' Rosenfeld also notes that ``southern Lebanon, after all, is not part of the `Land of Israel,' and no Jewish settlers live there.'' I agree completely with that observation and urge my colleagues to understand its deeper meaning in the context of Middle East peace. And I also agree that to rid Lebanon of Israeli soldiers would also rid southern Lebanon of the Syria-sponsored Hezbollah guerrilla infestation--because with Israeli troops gone, the guerrillas would have to go too. Syria's credibility would definitely be on the line. I could not agree more. Just do it. And please, for the sake of humanity, do it without another operation first, which undoubtedly will only cause further civilian casualties. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the above-referenced newspaper article be printed in the Record at this point. [From the Washington Post, June 21, 1996] For Israel in Lebanon--A Unilateral Withdrawal (By Stephen S. Rosenfeld) Here is a good way for Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's new prime minister, to start off his foreign policy on the right foot. Remove Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. Right away. With notice to Lebanon and its larger occupier, Syria, but without negotiation. Just do it. The advantages for Lebanon are obvious. It would be rid of the Israeli occupation. More important, Lebanon could reasonably anticipate being rid of the provocative presence of the Syria-sponsored Hezbollah guerrilla infestation. For without Israeli troops to attack on Lebanese soil, Syria loses the last pretext to keep Hezbollah in Lebanon. With Israeli troops gone, the guerrillas would have to go too. There, of course, lies the advantage for Israel. The Israelis are dreadfully cynical about Lebanon, alternately bemoaning, exploiting and aggravating its weakness. But surely Netanyahu's Likud, newly validated as the party of security, is capable of serving the goal it professes. What greater interest does Israel have in Lebanon than to stop the relentless drain of its soldiers' blood in the Israeli- occupied border zone and to safeguard its own now-threatened northern villages? These results would flow from calming the Lebanon-Israel border. Perhaps Prime Minister Netanyahu is more interested in flexing Israel's military power. In that case, he would want to wait for suitable Hezbollah provocation--they come along regularly--and conduct a bash. This is the traditional Israeli way to try to intimidate the guerrillas and reassure folks at home. But set aside, as Israelis do, the repeated disasters this policy of reprisals has bought upon Lebanon. Netanyahu must know the policy has been an utter failure for Israel. Israeli soldiers are still being ambushed, Israeli towns still rocketed. This record and this prospect have to be the starting line of any serious Israeli effort to deal with Lebanon. I hear you out there saying, wait a minute, if the Israelis pull back, Syria and Hezbollah may simply conclude that Israel has lost its nerve, that Netanyahu and his Likud have gone squishy, and stay in place. This fear of having one's resolve underestimated is the defining anxiety of Likudniks, especially those in America. My answer is that Hezbollah's withdrawal is integral and implicit in the politics of the Middle East. In an Israeli pullback, Hezbollah and its patrons would be able to claim victory: to say they had driven Israel from Lebanon. They would have no reason to stay. Lebanon's residual nationalism and self-respect and Hafez Assad's care for his own credibility would propel the guerrillas out. But Israel too could claim victory--the safety of its soldiers and civilians alike. An Israeli government devoted to security that did not explore this option would have its own problems of credibility. Southern Lebanon, after all, is not part of the ``Land of Israel,'' and no Jewish settlers live there: key factors in easing any possible Likud doubts about a pullback. Netanyahu campaigned on a claim that only his Likud Party could make the tough decisions necessary for peace. Here is a tough decision, one perhaps that the left-leaning Labor could not have made but that the right-leaning Likud can. The prime minister has been saying he wants to move away from his predecessor's attempt to find a ``comprehensive'' approach to Syria and adopt an ``incremental'' one. Okay, here is an increment, a nice bite-sized one; there aren't so many others. Netanyahu has been making public the ``guidelines'' for his foreign policy. For most of them, he would seem to have no Arab partner, not soon, anyway. But for this one he could very well have a partner, Syria, which is in a position to bring along poor Lebanon and the killers of Hezbollah. As for doing it unilaterally, the case for it is that this is how to get the thing done quickly and cleanly. Israel would simply announce its plans, reserving, of course, a ``right of return'' for the Israeli army if the Syrians don't deliver. The worst that could happen would be to go back to the unsatisfactory but manageable status quo. In the early 1970s, I asked the Israeli prime minister, Labor's Golda Meir, if she had considered a unilateral withdrawal of Israeli forces from their positions on the Suez Canal back to the Sinai passes,with both sides free to police the evacuated territory to keep it demilitarized. She drew herself up in executive unanswerability and thundered: ``I suppose you want the entire Egyptian army directly on our frontier!'' Soon came the 1973 war, leaving the Israeli army at the passes. In 1992 some in Likud thought the reason Yitzhak Shamir lost to Shimon Peres was that Shamir had not acted on Likud suggestions to withdraw unilaterally from troubled Gaza. Then as now the argument rested on Israel's security needs. Most foreign policy fixes take two. Here is one in Netanyahu's hands.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule as well as the fiscal year 1997 appropriation bill itself and the Interior Department and related agencies. While it is not the perfect Interior appropriation bill, I do commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for the manner and the actions that he took within the context of the spending allocations with which he has dealt. I believe that he did a decent job of providing for those programs which are the most important. We are, after all, in an era of having to make decisions in order to prioritize our scarce resource dollars. So while it is true that this bill is about $400 million less than current year funding, it should be noted that part of this reduction can be contributed to the fact that several programs have been terminated and no longer require funding. This is an important fact to bear in mind. Further, while cuts are being proposed for energy conservation and research programs, those reductions are allowing more funds to be plowed into operating our National Park System wildlife refuges, endangered species and other resource management agency programs. In my view these are some of the most important aspects of the Interior appropriation bill. But most importantly I am supporting this bill because it does not reduce funding for the Office of Surface Mining, and it contains the moratorium on the processing and issuance of hard rock mining patents, an issue this House has expressed itself on unanimously on a number of occasions. The OSM in both its regulatory functions and through the abandoned mine reclamation program well serves the citizens of our Nation's coalfields. So I commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], express my gratitude to him for resisting the agenda being advanced by certain quarters to gut the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 through backdoor approaches such through OSM's budget. The agency took a severe hit in the current year appropriation. It is operating with about 25 percent less Federal inspectors, and it is coping and under the leadership of Director Bob Uram. It is doing a job. So I commend the fact this bill is largely free of controversial anti-environment, anti-public interest riders which plagued our consideration for so many appropriation bills last year. Amendments might be offered today, Mr. Speaker. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle will vote for them. Fine. I may vote for them as well. But when all is said and done, let us vote for this Interior appropriation bill and vote for the rule.

Mr. RAHALL

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished, very capable gentleman who is the Representative of the Third District of Kentucky, Mr. Ward.