Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking minority Member for yielding time to me, and certainly associate myself with his comments, as well as the comments of our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that has been of critical importance to those in the coal fields who are captive to one rail line or are captive shippers of coal and other bulk commodities as well, I might add, across the Nation. As the gentleman from Minnesota mentioned, this amendment embodies the Long-Cannon guidelines as they relate to captive shippers, and that puts in place the current law that has worked well for us in the coal fields since the enactment of the Staggers Rail Act in 1980. It does provide for reasonable rates charged by railroads on these captive shippers, and for this I salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania, as well as the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], for their working together with me, and for those of us who do represent captive shippers, whether they be coal, iron ore, grain, or whatever the bulk commodity may be, so I urge adoption of the Shuster en bloc amendments.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, it is, in a sense, appropriate that we consider legislation to complete the process of abolishing the oldest Federal regulatory agency today in an atmosphere where the Federal Government is unable to conduct its daily business due to a lack of appropriations. The Interstate Commerce Commission, created to combat the railroad robber barons, will be no longer with the enactment of the pending bill. The process of terminating the ICC, while Republican inspired, began last year under a Democratic majority in the Congress. It has been a thoughtful process, undertaken through both appropriations and authorizations over the course of the last year, culminating on this day with our consideration of H.R. 2539. This is, as such, not a meat ax approach to knocking off a Federal agency as some this year have proposed as part of their philosophical or economic jihad to make Government smaller. To be sure, there are essential functions at stake here, and this legislation transfers those ICC functions--both motor carrier and rail--to the Department of Transportation with many of [[Page H 12255]] them being vested with a new Transportation Adjudication Panel. In my capacity last year as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, and this year as its ranking Democrat, I have sought to insure that this legislation causes the least disruption to the trucking industry, its employees, and the general public. The Trucking Industry Regulatory Reform Act of 1994 not only began the process of downsizing the ICC's responsibilities, but further deregulated the motor carrier industry. In that law, as with this bill, however, we preserve regulatory regimes where they are necessary to promote the public interest. The area of household goods carriers, for example, will continue under some regulation. In addition, certain motor carrier practices, which well serve the industry and its customers, such as commodity classifications and ratemaking for intermodal shipments and joint lines, are maintained as well. Mr. Chairman, there is one other item, in this bill that should be noted. Last year, inadvertently, the Congress preempted the ability of local governments to regulate the tow truck industry. This was a mistake. The Congress did not intend to do this, and in fact, has no business intruding in this intrastate and local matter. The pending legislation would restore the local authority to engage in regulating the prices charged by tow trucks in nonconsensual towing situations. These are situations where the owner of the auto is unable to consent to it being towed, such as in cases of a severe accident. Finally, while my primary responsibility on this legislation is in the motor carrier area, I want to make note that its rail provisions have been modified to maintain the captive shipper protections contained in the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. These protections are especially necessary for shippers of bulk commodities, such as coal, iron ore and gain, who often have no viable transportation alternative but a single rail line. They are, as such, captive to that railroad, and could be subject to monopolistic pricing practices without the protections afforded them by the Staggers act, and now, this legislation. Mr. Chairman, while no fan to abolishing the ICC, under the circumstances, this legislation represents the best course of action to take and I urge it be adopted.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the brave and courageous gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield]. It is a fact that whenever Congress has taken action to deregulate a transportation mode--be it aviation, rail, motor carrier or intercity bus--we have incorporated provisions aimed at mitigating the impact of deregulation on transportation workers. For it is also a fact that transportation workers are the innocent victims of deregulation, with many thousands having lost their jobs since the late 1970's when Congress first acted to deregulate the transportation industry. Today, we have before us a bill that among other items would further deregulate the railroad industry. It would make sense, then, for this legislation to maintain existing rail employee protections. But it does not. This legislation puts in jeopardy the jobs of those workers who are employed by what are known as class 2 and 3 railroads. The short lines, the smaller railroads, of this country. And it does so for no particularly good reason. The Whitfield amendment is a compromise. The smallest of railroads, the class 3's, would no longer be subject to existing law labor protections. But the class 2's, many of them which are not especially that small, would be subject to modified labor protections. Not the rarely used 6 years of labor protections that opponents of labor often mention. And rarely invoked it is. [[Page H 12302]] But rather, a dramatically reduced 1 year of severance pay, when the employee is eligible, in the event he or she loses their job as a result of a merger or other transaction of that nature. Let us not turn our backs on the working men and women of the rail industry. Let not greed take precedence over human decency. I urge the adoption of the Whitfield amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I noticed the other day that while it is still early November, Christmas decorations are already on the shelves at many stores. Each year, it seems, the holiday season begins earlier and earlier. And with this in mind, it is perhaps fitting that today we are considering a bill that will grant a multibillion dollar royalty holiday, courtesy of the Republican majority, to some of the largest corporate conglomerates in the world. As has already been explained, last July this body sent a bill over to the Senate that simply lifted the ban on exporting Alaskan oil. But we were not blind to what the other body was contemplating. We also passed a motion to instruct our conferees not to accede to the Senate's desire to impose the deep water royalty holiday on the House. The vote was taken on the motion to instruct, and is passed by a bipartisan 261 to 161. Yet, today we find that the majority will of this House has been ignored, in a very blatant fashion, and the royalty holiday crept its way into the pending legislation. Today, when it is still questionable whether the Federal Government will be able to continue to operate after next Monday, I ask: Is it appropriate to pass legislation that will cost the Treasury nearly a half billion dollars in revenues? Is it appropriate to grant a royalty holiday, at the taxpayer's expense, as an alleged incentive for these companies to do what they are already doing in the first place? I would submit the answer is no. We have copies of the vote taken last July on this issue here, and I would urge Members to be consistent. If you voted against the royalty holiday on July 25, there is no reason why you should not vote against it today. I urge the adoption of the Miller motion to recommit this bill to conference so that the royalty holiday provisions can be deleted.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, a man of war, a man of peace, I think that most succinctly describes Yitzhak Rabin, the man we eulogize today. Only a man of his background and commitment could bring Israel to make the bold and courageous steps for peace so necessary in recent years. I recall meeting with Yitzak Rabin in his office in Jerusalem the early part of this past June in which he gave graciously of his time and patience, I might add, for spirited discussion of the peace process, especially as it relates to Israel's northern neighbor and the land of my grandfathers, Lebanon. I recall watching both he and the king of Jordan light each other's cigarettes just off the floor of this body following their speeches to a historic joint session of Congress. These two soldiers of war and soldiers of peace had it right when they said, The peace process must survive. It is now time for all religious fanatics on all sides to stop the killing in the Middle East and to realize that the peace process must now be strengthened. Those who fuel the flames by their hotheaded rhetoric to satisfy these enemies of peace, including in this body, should pay the real tribute to Yitzhak Rabin and his family by supporting the peacemakers.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of my colleagues in the House an op-ed piece which appeared in the October 23 edition of the Christian Science Monitor written by Frederic C. Hof, a former U.S. Army officer and State Department official and currently a partner in Armitage Associates. Mr. Hof illustrated, in my opinion, a solution for Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, thereby preventing further attacks on Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah which so poison the Israeli- Syrian peace negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I traveled to Lebanon in August, including southern Lebanon, the home of my grandfathers. After discussions with people, political, religious, educational, and military leaders most importantly Gen. Emile Lahoud the very capable commander-in-chief of the Lebanon Army, there is no doubt whatsoever that given the political go-ahead the Lebanon Army can control every inch of Lebanese territory and prevent cross-border attacks upon Israel. This is confirmed by our U.S. Embassy. Mr. Hof's op-ed follows: [From the Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 23, 1995] Israel Could Gain Ground by Exiting South Lebanon (By Frederic C. Hof) The recent deaths of Israeli soldiers patrolling the ``security zone'' in southern Lebanon grimly illustrate an inescapable fact: that Israel's continued occupation of Lebanese territory is a liability both for Israel [[Page E 2102]] and for the Middle Eastern peace process. The time is right for Israel's leaders to take a fresh look at how best to secure their northern border. Israeli forces have been on Lebanese territory since March 1978, when they consolidated a security zone nominally administered by a Christian Lebanese officer. The purpose of the zone was twofold: to place Israeli territory beyond the reach of Palestinian gunners, and to place on the table a strong Israeli card in the high-stakes game of determining Lebanon's political future. In June 1982 Israel moved decisively to destroy the Palestinian military presence in southern Lebanon and rearrange the Lebanese political scene to its advantage. The fist objective was achieved as Palestinian forces were driven back to Beirut and eventually evacuated from Lebanon. The second was frustrated by Lebanese political disunity and skillful Syrian subversion. By 1984 Israeli forces were essentially back within the security zone, with a new and more potent opponent--one enjoying the support of Iran and Syria. In a 1984 study of security and water disputes in the Galilean region, I noted that ``In the long run, unless Israel is willing to assume complete responsibility for the economic and political aspirations of the volatile Lebanese Shi'a community in the south, there will be no peace for Galilee without a real government for Lebanon.'' Lebanon is still--in the south--without a real government, and over the past decade Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon has acted as a magnet for Syrian-supported Hizbullah attacks on Israeli forces, Israel's surrogates, and Israel itself. It may well be that 25 years of cross-border violence has rendered a ``solution'' to the current impasse impossible. There may be no one in Israel still interested in embracing the Lebanese ``tar baby,'' but how to let it go is the issue. Is there a way Israel might extricate itself from Lebanon and, at the same time, enhance the security of its citizens? Must such an extrication await a formal peace treaty with Lebanon, or might its unilateral implementation help break the logjam blocking the Israel-Syria-Lebanon track? One hypothesis worth testing is that neither Hizbullah nor Syria will have any compelling reason to attack Israeli territory from Lebanon if the occupation ends and Israeli forces withdraw to Israel's side of the international boundary. The fighters of Hizbulla claim to be motivated by a desire to end Israel's occupation. A unilateral Israeli withdrawal might suit them fine. Having ``Liberated'' southern Lebanon, would it make sense for them to press the attack into Israel proper? It can be argued, no doubt convincingly, that no Israeli government could permit Hizbullah to claim ``victory'' in this manner and that nothing could ``guarantee'' in this manner and that nothing could ``guarantee'' the security of Israel's northern towns. A corollary to this argument is that neither Hizbullah nor Syria is to be ``trusted,'' and a unilateral withdrawal would convey to Israel's enemies a sense of ``weakness'' sure to be exploited. If, however, it is just possible that Israel's security would be enhanced as a result of evacuation, it is worth asking anew whether the cost of trying it would be prohibitive. In view of the fact that Israel makes no claim on Lebanese territory, is there any issue except the security of Israeli citizens worth considering in a withdrawal scenario? How might the government of Israel proceed in a manner defensible both in terms of internal Israeli politics and the safety of Israeli citizens? The government of Israel could consider declaring unilaterally its intention to withdraw all of its forces from Lebanese territory within 90 days. It could request that the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) convene, as soon as possible, a meeting of Israeli and Lebanese military officers to work out the details of a professional handover. Israel could make it clear at the outset that its forces will be gone in 90 days and that no amount of stalling, hand wringing, or haggling would alter the timetable. Coupled with this declaration should be another statement designed to fix, once and for all, the responsibility of Israel's neighbors to respect the inviolability of Israel's borders. Israel could declare that it will hold the governments of Lebanon and Syria fully responsible for ensuring that no party in Lebanon, to include all of Syria's Palestinian and Lebanese surrogates, violates Israeli sovereignty in any way. Israel could make it especially clear that it will make no return of territory to Syria unless the border with Lebanon becomes as quiet as the cease-fire line on the Golan Heights. Indeed, the willingness of Syria and its Lebanese proxies to act responsibly in Southern Lebanon before, during, and after the evacuation of Israeli forces will instruct the Israeli people as to the advisability of a territorial settlement with Syria. In the manner the liability presented by southern Lebanon can be converted to an asset in the hands of those sincerely interested in a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace settlement. Should new attacks on Israeli territory be mounted from Lebanon, direct retaliation by Israeli forces on those responsible for maintaining law and order in Lebanon would be warranted. Instead of creating massive flows or embittered refugees, Israel would be striking at the actual malefactors. Who, under such circumstances, could blame Israel? Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon helps perpetuate an ambiguity that does not exist on the Golan Heights, arguably the most peaceful spot on earth for over 20 years. Syria has exploited this ambiguity to strike indirectly at Israel by encouraging fighters who claim to be waging a war of national liberation. Israel alone can remove this ambiguity by withdrawing and forcing its neighbors to accept full responsibility for their actions. Such an action could hardly be characterized as a defeat.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation today to reinstate the emergency unemployment compensation program. In 1993, we were able to pass two extensions of unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed. Thousands of people were exhausting their benefits each month, and when they lost their benefits, these American workers also lost any chance of further retraining and education. Mr. Speaker, we passed the benefits to forcibly pull our Nation out of the recession of the late eighties and early nineties. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have news for some of my colleagues; unemployment is not over for every body. By not passing another extension in 1993, we removed a vital safety net for our chronically unemployed workers. I have been contacted by a number of coal miners in my home State of West Virginia, miners who for years had worked in the mines, only to see their jobs disappear. One miner wrote to me saying, ``My unemployment has run out. I need a way to support my family. I'm 54 years old and I am not asking for a handout or welfare. I'd like to have a job, I am tired of being out of work * * * extending unemployment benefits would help since it takes so long to find a job.'' Another worker, who is attending a transition class at a vocational school, wrote to me to request an extension of unemployment benefits. This worker was not asking for a handout, he was asking for a helping hand so he could finish his class, find another job and continue supporting his family. West Virginia coal has fueled this Nation's economy for over a century. Now, as we move into the 21st century, when a mine closes, often times the mine never reopens. Generations of miners must be retrained with new skills, and that Mr. Speaker, takes time, sometimes longer than the 26 weeks the State provides in unemployment benefits. The legislation I have introduced today is straightforward. The bill will extend unemployment benefits for workers who have exhausted their State provided benefits for a period of 20 to 26 weeks, depending on each State's unemployment rate. It is funded through emergency funding provisions within the Budget Act because for any family with a long- term unemployed member, every single day without a job or paycheck is an emergency. Mr. Speaker, it is urgent that we as a Congress act now on this measure. It is an urgent issue for families all across America. By passing this legislation, we will be providing a helping hand, providing a safety net and it will continue the work started in the 103d Congress to pull all of our Nation out of the recession created by the failed policies of the eighties. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will enable chronically unemployed workers who have lost their jobs to retrain and retool for the next century.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2491, the so-called Seven Year Budget Reconciliation Act. It never ceases to amaze me that, just when you think you've heard it all--you hear just one more piece of rhetoric that again, you think caps everything else you've ever heard. Now as if the changes and cuts in Medicare were not bad enough, I read in this morning's Post that just yesterday, Senate majority leader and Presidential candidate Dole expressed his pride in his vote, 30 years ago, against Medicare's enactment. He says he knew even then it would not work. He bragged about fighting the fight against Medicare. Dole said: ``I am against Government-run health care.'' So as not to be upstaged and left out of the Presidential hopeful limelight, Speaker of the House Gingrich spoke right up about his round of massive cuts to Medicare by stating: ``Now we don't get rid of it (Medicare) in round one because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it (Medicare) is going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it.'' People--seniors--are not going to voluntarily leave the program, they are going to be starved out of their fee for service plans they are now in due to a lack of funding, and forced into managed care--and boy, wait till seniors find out about managed care. It would be helpful if the Republicans would just say what they mean. Not managed care--but rationed care for the elderly. H.R. 2491 is, without a doubt, the most onerous, burdensome, hurtful bill I have ever witnessed in this House in my 19 years service here. There are more than 30 major-major changes in existing laws in this bill--major-major-changes--reforms that will change the face of how this Nation treats children, women who are pregnant and poor, senior citizens who are tiresome because they are old, the unemployed and the underemployed who are desperately seeking work and a dignity of life; young people in search of a college education and a better life for themselves and their children; children in need of day care, and their parents who would work if it could be found instead of taking welfare; for the disabled child and adult--losing coverage under Medicaid and Medicare. I am deeply concerned for the hundreds of people in my district who have written to me about a 40-percent cut in Medicare reimbursement for home-delivered oxygen therapy--without which they would not be able to breathe. There used to be a joke about taxes--that if it keeps up, folks said, first thing you know they will be taxing the air we breathe. Well, today's the day. As I said, there are over 30 major changes in current law in this bill, not the least of them is the decimation of the Earned Income Tax Credit for working families with children. Not the least of them is a provision that invites, encourages corporations to raid workers' pension funds. Let us hope that, when those workers retire, the money will be there to pay their pensions--but do not hold your breath. Just one investment gone bad can wipe out a company's pension plan overnight. And lest anyone forget--veterans are also mistreated under this so- called budget reconciliation bill--let me just say that cutting $6.5 billion from veterans health, housing, education and other programs is no small amount. This bill codifies into law the massive cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, and it codifies into law the so-called Welfare reform bill passed by the House earlier this year. There will be no cash assistance to teens who have babies--and this is an unacceptable encouragement and incentive for these young women to get abortions--to kill their unborn babies. This is unconscionable. Mr. Speaker, this bill decimates at least 30 major programs. I call this the Republican Judas bill. Republicans have brought this bill to the floor for 30 pieces of silver. The bill specifically does the following things, and I am providing estimated impacts on various programs and populations in West Virginia and in my Third District as available to me: 1. Cuts $270 billion from Medicare (but we still have not seen the language--text to be supplied they say--325,000 seniors in West Virginia will be hurt by this cut, paying up to $1,800 more per individual and $3,600 for couples for health care by increasing premiums to $93 a month; requiring a 20 percent copayment for home care; by increasing the $100 deductible to $150 and above in the out years; by starving the fee for service program, forcing seniors into managed care plans. 2. Cuts the wealthiest Americans taxes by $245 billion--giving them a tax break of up to $20,000 a year, but only approximately $159 for families with incomes between $20,000 and $30,000 a year (while increasing taxes by up to $2,600 a year for families earning $28,500 or less by repealing the EITC). It is important to note here that this bill also repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax [AMT] for huge corporations, which means that more than 130 of largest U.S. companies in the United States will not have to pay any taxes. 3. Cuts $182 billion from Medicaid and block grants it, hurting children, the elderly, the poor and the disabled (West Virginia's Medicaid cuts by 2002 will amount to 42 percent of its funds, terminating benefits by 2002) for an estimated 140,000 out of current 367,000 recipients of Medicaid for a total of $4.5 billion over 7 years (and out of approximately 548,958 seniors who will be eligible in WV by 2002). It includes terminating benefits also to children and disabled persons, and will deny long-term nursing care to 26,000 seniors. 4. Reduces the Earned Income Tax Credit by $23 billion, raising taxes on the most vulnerable among us (there are 38,500 families eligible for EITC in WV's Third Congressional District, and 93,834 families throughout the State). Eligible families can lose up to $2,600 per year depending upon income and number of children. 5. Allows corporations to raid worker pension funds to the tune of $40 billion; (bad investment of pension funds could wipe out workers' pensions overnight; the plan raises revenue for first few years but is estimated to increase the deficit by $32 billion in the out years of the 7 year budget). Welcome to the revolution all corporate raiders. 6. Terminates the low-income housing tax credit (to save $3.5 billion). 7. Eliminates the student loan interest exemption, costing students $3.5 billion (in West Virginia 39,500 students will pay as much as $2,111 more for college loans, and as much as $9,424 for 5,600 graduate students; it denies Pell grants to 2,600 students in our State in 1996 alone). 8. Cuts $1.1 billion from the title 1 education program for poor elementary school children in need of remedial instruction in reading and math (5,999 West Virginia children will be cast aside when the State loses more than $12 million in title funds). 9. Cuts $6.4 billion in veterans benefits by rounding down their COLA's repealing automatic compensation, and increasing copayments for their drugs. (This will affect 62,700 veterans in the Third Congressional district in WV). 10. Terminates the Federal Direct Student Loan Program, eliminates service improvement and costing schools already in the program additional money. (There are 25 colleges, universities, and trade schools currently in the direct lending program, six of which are in the Third District). 11. Raises interest rates on education loans to parents. 12. Cuts $1 billion in funds to oversee the Federal Student Loan Program. 13. Dismantles the Commerce Department, replacing it with 7 new agencies (new costs of 7 new agencies to be supplied according to the Republicans). 14. Increases HUD rental payments by $4 billion. 15. Increases contributions for GI bill benefits by $1 billion. 16. Block grants and cuts welfare spending by $102 billion (WV would lose approximately $90 million, affecting 17,000 children who will be dropped because they are current recipients of AFDC, and 47,000 children because they are in families who have been on AFDC more than 60 months; $134 million in food stamp assistance affecting 62,500 persons; a loss of $17 million in child protective/foster care services; loss of $10 million for WIC services to pregnant women). 17. Repeals the school lunch/breakfast programs (WV loses $4.2 million a year, affecting 195,130 West Virginia children). 18. Open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration for $2.3 billion. 19. Giveaways to western mining companies that pay for land but not silver and gold beneath it. 20. Allows ranchers to pay less for grazing fees. 21. Weakens community reinvestment act by allowing banks to self certify that they are in compliance with CRA. 22. Eliminates Federal Housing Administration's foreclosure relief program. 23. Eliminates affordable housing programs run by the RTC and FDIC (reduces spending on public housing capital 46 percent below the President's request, by cutting $2.7 million in 1996 alone, and cuts 40 percent from assistance to homeless persons at a cost of $1.4 million in West Virginia). 24. Extracts $10 billion from Federal worker retirement. 25. Repeals Service Contract Act giving prevailing wages to workers such as janitors, laundry helpers, and security guard personnel creating a real underclass of working Americans who already earn very low wages. 26. Makes $13 billion in unspecified agriculture savings (text to be supplied, they say) (from what we know, West Virginia loses $3 million in farm spending along with drastic reductions in support for commodity programs). 27. Taxes innovation by diverting fees paid by users of the Patent and Trademark office. 28. Increases electric rates for rural consumers by selling power marketing administrations. 29. Exempts special tariffs for imported Timex watches--competing against our own industry and its workers. 30. Summer jobs are elminated, cutting West Virginia by $9,342,000 affecting 6,460 youths; dislocated worker training cut by $3,646,000 affecting 1,490 West Virginians; adult training dollars cut by $1,848,000 in WV affecting 690 adults; older American employment programs in WV cut by $330,000 affecting 80 senior citizens; safe and drug-free schools funding in WV cut by $1,812,000 affecting 52 out of 55 county programs; senior nutrition programs in WV cut by $189,000 affecting 122,900 seniors; Head Start is cut by $1,073,000 affecting 420 Head Start children (if not more), denies 6,850 disabled children SSI cash benefits in 2002 (55 percent of those now eligible) by cutting $195 million.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Indiana for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the pending measure that would relocate the U.S. Embassy now located in Tel Aviv, to Jerusalem. Mr. Speaker, when this legislation was first introduced in May of this year, and word went out in the world about it, there were quite a few statements made about its negative impact upon the Middle East peace talks. A spokesperson for Prime Minister Rabin said: ``the rightist Likud opposition is behind the effort in the hope of torpedoing the peace negotiations.'' Shimon Peres, Israeli Foreign Minister, said: ``There is no need for our involvement at this point.'' Shulamit Aloni, Israeli Minister of Communications, said: ``If the Americans decide to do it immediately, they would be liable to cause tensions, which we don't need.'' Martin Indyk, our new Ambassador to Israel, said: ``Any move now, I believe strongly, would explode the peace process.'' The Forward, a Jewish Newspaper based in New York, said: ``Efforts by individuals to emerge as the `greater champion of Israel' would be laughable, were it not so blatant a play for positioning in the coming primaries.'' It is not lost on anyone that five Presidential candidates have come out in support of the legislation. The bill, which will have the force of law, emphatically states that Jerusalem is, and has always been, the capital of Israel. Yet it is a matter of record that no nation--no country--since Israel's annexation of east Jerusalem in [[Page H 10686]] 1967--has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. As a matter of fact, no country has moved an embassy to Jerusalem since 1967 except Costa Rica. The fact that the new embassy would be in west Jerusalem does not change a thing. I understand that waivers have been placed in the Senate measure passed yesterday in that body, to allow the President to waive this move in the interest of our National Security, but that it does not necessarily mean that the President may consider a breakdown of ongoing peace talks in the Middle East, or a breakdown of relations between Israel and the PLO, as being ``in the national security interests.'' What kind of ``National Security Interest waiver authority'' is that? No doubt, King Hussein of Jordan, Yasir Arafat of Palestine, King Hassan of Morocco--now feel they have been made unwitting collaborators in a plot to destroy the peace process. Mr. Speaker, not since 1967 has a single country, including the United States, recognized Israel's annexation of east Jerusalem, nor that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. Not one. How then is it that we have a bill on the floor today that states--unequivocally--that Jerusalem is, and always has been, the capitol of Israel and that being so, we should move our embassy there? Jerusalem is a holy city, and it is called the City of Peace. It belongs to Judaism, to Christianity, and to Islam. It is not only Israel that feels bound by its history and its religious beliefs and practices to Jerusalem. It is not only Israel's holiest of cities--it is the holy city of Christians and of Moslems too. It always was, and it always will be. Passage of this bill flies in the face of the recent outstanding gains the United States has made in the Arab world as an honest, and objective, broker of peace in the Middle East. The President has been advised, by the Department of State, to veto the bill, because of constitutional questions about its usurping the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and set foreign policy. I understand that, the President will sign the bill, based on these waivers, and that no veto can be expected. Mr. Speaker, as our Amabassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, stated in May of this year, I believe strongly that any move now would explode the peace process.'' I also believe it will have an extremely adverse effect on Prime Minister Rabin's ability to continue as Prime Minister, playing dangerously into the hands of the hard-line Likud party. Certainly I believe it will place chairman Arafat in an untenable position with respect to his ability to keep the peace, comply with the accords, and particularly with respect to the first Palestinian elections scheduled to take place in January 1996. I hope that the President will see the so-called waivers as actually binding his hands as an honest broker of Middle East Peace. That he will see such binding of his hands is a threat to our national security interests and that he will veto this legislation with a veto message stating that the upending of the Middle East Pace talks is, in his view, a matter of our National Security Interest, and further that he demand a bill that says so in no uncertain terms. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to passage of this legislation.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I rise in vehement opposition to this legislation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called Republican Medicare plan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in total opposition to the so-called Medicare Reform bill before the House. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2425 is a little bit like topsy--it grows, and grows and grows. The bill before us is nearly 1,000 pages long--and few of us have had a chance to read it, much less understand it. But from what we've heard since the secrecy on details of the Republican plan was lifted, it's enough to put fear and trembling in the hearts of every senior citizen in the United States for decades to come. Mr. Chairman, 380,239 of Americans on Medicare live in the State of West Virginia--my State. How many of them will be disenfranchised, when they lose $1.5 billion and more in Medicare payments under this bill? How many will become more seriously ill, or even die, as a result of denied health services under Medicare? The Republicans say: They don't know, and they don't care--all they know is they need to find $245 billion in a hurry, and Medicare is one of the biggest piggy banks around. Mostly, what we don't understand is why it is necessary to take these drastic actions in a program that is not insolvent, and according to the trustees report, wasn't in danger of becoming insolvent for another 7 years? This 7-year window gives us plenty of time to work out ways in which to keep the program solvent as we have done since 1970 when the first trustees report came out--giving us only a 2-year window in which to bring solvency back to Medicare. For every year since, Congress has responded to the trustees report, and has never failed to assure continued solvency for Medicare. The Medicare actuaries have stated, over and over again, that in order to bring solvency back to the Medicare Program now, we need only cut $89 billion from the Program. Why then the unprecedented, frightening cut of three times that amount? H.R. 2425 calls for a cut of $270 billion in the program, supposedly in order to save it. Save it for whom? We believe, based on the evidence before us, that this $270 billion is necessary so that Republicans can award tax cuts for those who don't need it--and most wouldn't even want it if it disenfranchised the elderly. This bill, if allowed to pass, will increase senior's Medicare premiums from today's $46 a month to more than $90 a month by 2002. It will force seniors off their current fee for service plan into managed care plans, where they will have no choice of physician or hospital. Under managed care, seniors will be unable to call 911 for an ambulance in an emergency--not unless someone somewhere in a new managed care bureaucracy preapproves the emergency. Emergencies don't often happen during office hours where the preapproval comes from--and in my experience, when a person has an emergency, they are not inclined to call a business office for preapproval--they are more than prone to calling 911. Not allowed under this Medicare reform proposal. If a senior goes to the emergency room or calls an ambulance without managed care preapproval--even if it turns out to be a costly heart attack--that senior will be presented a bill for those costs--and required to pay them out of their own pockets. If a senior needs home care which, today, costs seniors nothing in copayments under Medicare, that senior will in the future be forced to pay 20 percent of home care costs. Pretty tough on seniors on low, fixed incomes who are already struggling with decisions about whether to heat, or eat--or whether they can pay for their prescription drugs and still buy groceries. And for those seniors not yet old enough for Medicare coverage--not yet 65 years of age--it gets worse--for in future they will have to wait a little longer--until they are age 67. [[Page H 10342]] Mr. Chairman, let me repeat that, the Medicare cuts for my State of West Virginia will be more than $1.5 billion. Currently, West Virginia's 380,239 seniors who are enrolled in Medicare live predominantly in rural areas--54 percent of them. By living in rural areas, they are already limited with respect to access to health care providers of facilities. Cuts in Medicare reimbursement to hospitals located in rural areas is expected to cause many of them to close-- further limiting rural West Virginia seniors' access to hospital care. Seniors in West Virginia can expect to pay from $535 to over $1,000 in additional out of pocket expenses for less coverage and fewer services than they get from Medicare today. The current deductible is expected to go from the current $100 to $150 next year, and above $150 between now and 2002. My West Virginia seniors can't afford additional premiums, additional deductibles, additional costs of 20 percent for home care, or to lose access to their own physician, hospital, and emergency response ambulances. I am appalled at the mean-spiritedness of H.R. 2425, Mr. Chairman. I am appalled that anyone would treat our seniors as tiresome old people not important enough for their Government to champion their health care needs. These seniors have lived and worked long, hard lives, giving to society at large, to their own communities, end up being tossed out of their health care system--too poor and too disenfranchised to have their Government look after their health needs. Mr. Chairman, we may not have the votes to defeat this measure, but we can and we will continue to tell our seniors that the $270 billion cut wasn't necessary--because the Medicare trustees stated plainly that only about $89 billion would be necessary to ensure its solvency for the next decade--at least to 2006.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the ranking chair, for yielding time to me. I want to respond to my good friend from Arizona who took the well and very legitimately and forcefully defended the mining jobs in his district. Mr. Speaker, what is important to note here in this moratorium is we are not talking about a moratorium on mining. Plenty of mining goes on and will still be able to go on, on unpatented claims. What we are talking about is a moratorium on the issuance of patents on Federal claims, which is the transfer from Federal ownership to private ownership. Mr. Speaker, plenty of mining goes on, on unpatented claims. We are not going after the jobs in the district of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] or the district of the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. In addition to that fact, there are plenty of royalties, State taxes paid by mining companies today, yet mining continues, jobs are provided. The only problem with the regime today is that the Federal taxpayers get nothing for the disposition of their resources. State governments do, yes; other companies do, yes; but not the true owners of the land, the Federal taxpayer. That is the issue here. It is not a moratorium on mining.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding this time. Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, a motion will be made to recommit this conference report with instructions. This motion, to be offered by Mr. Yates, only concerns the mining claim patent issue, and I would urge the Members to support it. My friends, a cruel hoax is being perpetrated on the American public. It is cruel indeed. For contained in this conference report is a provision which will allow billions of dollars worth of valuable minerals underlying Federal lands to be transferred to private interests for free under the mining law of 1872. This provision exists despite a national outcry against this 19th century practice that continues to this day. It exists despite a bipartisan amendment which passed in this body by an overwhelming vote last July aimed at halting this practice. A vote of 271 to 153, on an amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Scott Klug, and myself. It exists despite a motion to instruct House conferees to insist on retaining the language of this amendment in its dealings with the other body. And it exists despite the alleged preoccupation of some Members of this body that the Government should be run more like a business. Well, my friends, what business, what individual, would allow minerals underlying land that they owned to be given away for free? Who, in their right mind, would say, hey, what a great deal, pay me the value of the surface of my land and you can have the underlying gold, or silver, for no charge? [[Page H 9687]] Yet, this is what is contained in the conference agreement before us today. The House, last July, took a strong stand in seeking to extend a moratorium on the issuance of mining claim patents. This was done on a bipartisan basis. Liberal or converstaive, Republican or Democrat, we agreed that it is time to put a halt to allowing public lands containing billions of dollars' worth of minerals to be patented for a mere $2.50 an acre. Yet, the purveyors of the special interests had a different idea. Scarificing the public interest on the alter of corporate welfare, they sought, and succeeded, in getting the conference committee to include in this legislation what amounts to sham reform of the mining law of 1872. I urge every Member to vote in support of the recommittal motion, so that the public, at least in this instance, can receive some assurance that the Congress is not in the business of squandering their natural resource heritage for a pittance of its fair market value.

Mr. RAHALL

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me state my very strong support for this amendment, obviously, but also the support of some 52 organizations that have written this body opposing the repeal of the national maximum speed limit. Among this very diverse group are the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Alliance of American Insurers, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Insurance Association, American Nurses Association, American Red Cross, Consumer Federation [[Page H 9292]] of America, the Heads Up Injury Prevention Program, numerous insurance companies, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Public Citizen, State Farm Insurance Companies, among many others, have written us in strong support of maintaining the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. In addition, we have a letter written to the ranking minority member of our committee from the American Trucking Associations' Mr. Tom Donahue, its president and CEO, maintaining their support, the American Trucking Associations' support for supporting the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. Not only is it fuel conservation and less wear and tear on their equipment, but the most important reason the ATA states in their letter for supporting the 55-mile-per-hour national speed limit is that they are convinced it saves lives. This is from the ATA. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I do urge support of this amendment. I may have been born at night, but I was not born last night; and I recognize where the votes lie on this issue. I say to those Members that are concerned about State flexibility, as we have heard during this debate, that, if you find in your heart and in your conscience your inability to support this particular amendment, I do have a followup amendment which will set a 65-mile-per-hour speed limit cap and allow all the State flexibility in the world under that cap as a followup compromise measure. I would certainly expect those concerned about States rights to support that particular amendment. With that, I do urge adoption of this particular amendment in the name of saving lives.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to my dear friend and fine colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, this particular Member does not mean to cast any aspersions on our State legislatures whatsoever. I did not have the honor of serving in such a body, but I know that they have the best interests of their States at heart, that they serve with a maximum amount of ability and talent to make the right decisions. However, what we are doing here today, if we remove a national speed limit, is allowing in some States, without any decision of their State legislators, for that speed limit in that State to automatically increase, or not even exist, not even have a speed limit. So, in effect, without any decision of the State legislature or reconvening of that State legislature, we have no speed limit then in those States. Montana and Nevada, for example, had no speed limit prior to enactment of the national 55 miles per hour speed limit. Granted, the original purpose for the enactment of this speed limit was the oil embargo in the mid-1970's, the desire to conserve fuel. That turned out to be an empty threat. Today, we are importing more oil than we were at that time, yet we have no threat of an oil embargo. And even if we were, I submit, it would be another empty threat. If that is what it takes to save American lives, then I say let all of these empty oil threats come from whatever country wants to issue them against the United States. If that causes the U.S. Congress to save American lives, I submit that we ought to maintain this 55 miles per hour speed limit. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski]. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have noted the ranking minority member's opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I know that we had this issue debated in full committee, and we had, as I am sure we do on the floor, the very strong support for this amendment and vehement opposition to lifting the speed limit from the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and I know he will make his position known before the day is over. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking minority member. (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose]. (Mr. ROSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, because he has devoted so much of his career to improved transportation policy in this country, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking minority member. (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, and I do urge my colleagues to do likewise when it comes to final passage. I join with the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], in commending all the work to bring this legislation together, including that of themselves, for their valuable patience in working with us, and willingness to compromise when such was necessary to move the process forward. I also pay tribute to our ranking minority member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. I shall have more to say about him in a moment, but he has been, of course, one of the fathers of ISTEA, and this bill that we consider today is a product of that legislation. I say I am in support of the legislation, Mr. Chairman, because even though some of us cannot support every single provision of this bill, when all is said and done, the fundamental purpose of this legislation--the designation of a new National Highway System--is something that must be passed by this body and enacted into law in the very near future. Yes, we have had our differences on certain provisions of this bill. For instance, it would repeal the national speed limit. I, for one, will be offering amendments to address this issue. Yet, while I may not agree with what is contained in the committee bill on this issue, it is important to remember that this is a must pass piece of legislation, a number of accommodations have already been made to the minority since the bill was reported by the committee, and that today it is being debated under a free and open process that allows us to continue to pursue our concerns. This bill is must pass because at stake here is $5.2 billion in Federal highway funds to the States which will cease flowing on September 30th if we do not gain enactment, and an almost $3 billion in highway funds that will be lost due to a budgetary problem. At the same time, with this bill we are creating in this Nation a new, integrated network of highways, to be known as the National Highway System--the NHS--that will be the centerpiece of the post- Interstate construction era. In effect, what we are talking about here today are the crown jewels of America's highways. As I mentioned earlier, a number of accommodations have been reached on this bill since it was reported from the committee. As reported, it contained a provision that would have repealed Federal safety regulation of 40 percent of the truck traffic on the roads today. That provision has since been dropped from the bill. It also originally contained a provision known as the ``trigger'' which would have jeopardized the entire fiscal year 1997 Federal Highway and Transit Program. This provision, at my insistence, and the minority's insistence, has also been dropped from the bill we are considering today. And again, for those who continue to have concerns over the repeal of the national speed limit, or with the repeal of motorcycle helmet laws, as proposed by this bill, the democratic process is at work here today and we will have ample opportunity to address those issues. So again, once the debates are ended, I urge all Members to support final passage of this bill. In closing, I do, once again, commend the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], for their work on this measure. And I pay special personal and professional tribute to our dear friend, the gentleman from California, Norm Mineta, the ranking Democrat member on our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, who will leave this body next month. The gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] will be remembered by all of us for the many great things he has accomplished for his constituents and for the Nation as a whole during his service to the U.S. Congress. Today I take just a brief moment to salute him for his diligence to highway safety. His concern is not only for our public infrastructure, but for our environment, our future transportation policy, indeed, for our very future in this country, by ensuring that we have better roads and bridges, and improved safety for the people who travel upon them. Norm Mineta has served as chairman of four of our subcommittees on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and of course he has served as chairman of the full then Committee on Public Works and Transportation. A prime architect of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, Norm Mineta has made his mark on the bill before us today as well. It is, again, a measure that we should all support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 26.