Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 27.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the current ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Aviation, and any day, or any hour now, to be the new ranking member of our full committee. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the amendment on our side that addresses many of the concerns which we addressed in our opening comments. I commend the chairman for offering this amendment and we support it.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara], a new member of our committee, one who has rolled up his sleeves and is ready to go to work on these issues.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, we have no problems with the amendment. We have reviewed it.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in support of the gentleman from New York's amendment and I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me again urge support of this compromise. The previous speaker spoke of if you are driving 55 miles per hour on California highways, people pass by you in a streak of lightning. Again, this is a limit of 65 miles per hour and it does allow States the flexibility within and underneath that cap to set speed limits in different parts of their States as they see fit. Mr. Chairman, I would submit as well, because this is a safety issue, that what we are discussing here is the Federal Government's responsibility to impose proper safety standards upon all of the people in this country, and we have a responsibility not only in this area when it comes to auto driving, but also in other areas, whether it is mine safety, consumer-related health, FDA, whatever, we could go down the list, but where the Federal Government does have a proper role and responsibility. It cannot be left to the States. Again, I am not casting aspersions upon our State legislatures, which I am sure will rise above local interest and make the common good decision. Nevertheless, we have that responsibility on the Federal level and we cannot allow States to get in a contest of trying to outdo the other State. Again, we get into each State trying to go maybe 5 miles per hour above its neighboring State. Where does it stop? The sky is the limit under the committee-reported bill. This sets a reasonable limit. I think we ought to adopt this 65 mile an hour cap in the name of saving lives, and it is responsible public policy in this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. [[Page H 9295]]

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking minority member.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this follow-up amendment is the perfect compromise on this issue. I, of course, was in strong support of the original 55- miles-per-hour speed limit. This amendment seeks to address the concerns often stated on the last amendment and by many other Members about the issue, in their minds anyway, of States rights. This amendment simply establishes a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour. Under current law, as we all know, the Federal speed limit is set at 55 miles per hour for urban sections of interstate highways, and at the option of the State, 65 miles per hour for rural segments of the interstates. For all other highways and roads, the Federal speed limit remains at 55. Mr. Chairman, the amendment adopted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, on the other hand, would completely abolish the Federal speed limit. Under this approach, a State could opt to set speed limits at any level, or for that matter, set no speed limit whatsoever. In this regard, I would note that prior to the establishment of the Federal speed limit, two States did not have any speed limits whatsoever. This type of situation would once again arise and be allowable under the committee bill as it stands. Now, we have heard a lot of discussion about State rights and the need for greater flexibility in setting speed limits. We also know, from statistical data, that speed kills. There should be no doubt about that. Speed kills. In addition there are economic costs. The economic costs of speed- related deaths in this country are $24 billion each year. Mr. Chairman, that is $44,000 a minute, in the costs of speed-related crashes each year. Even the opponents of the last amendment and supporters of repealing any type of speed limit have not suggested that there not be speed limits whatsoever, and as such, my amendment, I think, represents a perfect dovetailing of the opposition concerns that have thus far been expressed. It recognizes that there may be a need for additional flexibility in establishing maximum speed limits, and it recognizes there should be some type of limitation on this flexibility in the interests of safety. In my amendment, the maximum speed limit that could be established by a State would be 65. Let me be clear: A State would not have to accept that speed limit; it would simply have the option to establish speed limits for any type of highway or road up to the maximum of 65. I not only view this amendment as being a fair and reasonable compromise on the issue of speed limits, but one that, in fact, addresses the concerns of both the supporters of the repeal of the national speed limit and the opponents of that approach. I urge adoption of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us contains a provision that would simply repeal the national speed limit. Plain and simple, it repeals the national speed limit. Under this provision, then, the States could set no speed limit whatsoever. No speed limit whatsoever. Or [[Page H 9288]] they could establish a speed limit of 100 miles per hour or whatever. Despite the fact that proponents of eliminating the national speed limit often couch their proposal in terms of this being a matter of States' rights, the bottom line, in my view, is that it is a matter of saving lives; and that, my colleagues, should take precedence over any of these idealistic assumptions over the role of State and Federal Governments. For let there be no doubt in anyone's mind, the effort to repeal the national speed limit represents nothing other than an attempt to increase speed limits. Today, Mr. Chairman, 1,000 people are slaughtered each month on our Nation's highways in speed-related crashes, That is 12,000 deaths each year due to traveling at high speeds. This, I say to my colleagues, is under the existing 55 mile per hour national speed limit with 65 possible on rural interstate segments. It should be obvious that the death toll will rise once the States begin increasing the maximum speed limit under the provision of this bill. The enactment of the bill's repeal provision would, in effect, turn our Nation's highways into killing fields. It will turn our highways into killing fields. I say to my colleagues, this is not a matter of State rights. It is a matter of human rights. The Federal Government paid 90 percent of the cost of constructing the Interstate System, and it still pays that amount to maintain it. There is, as such, a justifiable Federal role in ensuring the safety of those traveling on this system. In addition, the interstates are just that, they are interstates. They are not intrastates. Cars traveling to the borders of States do not bounce around and go back and stay within that State. They travel across State lines. We are talking about a Federal responsibility here. People traveling across State lines should not be subject to the dictates of any individual State. So, again, I hardly see where a matter involving interstate transportation can be viewed as an intrusion of States rights; and I would urge that this type of rhetoric that we will hear during debate on this amendment be dismissed outright. For these reasons, the amendment I am offering would strike the proposed repeal of the national speed limit; and it would maintain existing law. I might add as well, Mr. Chairman, that Members have before them a letter from our Secretary, very fine Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Pena, stating the administration's opposition to removal of the national speed limit. I say in addition to that fact we have in this Chamber today the administrator of our Federal Highway Administration, Mr. Rodney Slater, who has been very helpful to us in this legislation and will continue to be as we go on down the process. And he, as well, has expressed his very strong concerns about the removal of the national speed limit. I would urge acceptance of this amendment, which returns to the law as we know it today, a law that has saved lives.

Mr. RAHALL. So, are there any problems there that we do not know about?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California for yielding. I certainly salute him for his ever-constant vigilance of good, sound, public policy. We have just been made aware of this in the last couple of days. To my knowledge, we have not been aware of the problem with these safety bonuses before. As I understand, it has come to the public attention through a Los Angeles Times article this past Sunday. I understand the gentleman's concern about Los Angeles, and there may or may not be a problem there. As I say, it has just come to our attention. We have not completely gathered all of that information there, and I commend the chairman for what he has said. I know that just recently I have been made aware that there is a safety bonus program in place in the bay area.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. There is more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak. The gentleman has certainly been dedicated to this issue and making sure that the public gets more bang out of their buck, so to speak, for money that is spent on highway projects and ensuring the quality of that type of construction. The Chairman has referred to how we have addressed those concerns in this [[Page H 9307]] NHS bill by the technique of value engineering analysis for NHS projects. Also in this bill there is a requirement that States utilize life cycle costing for certain NHS projects. Under this particular technique, all costs are expected to occur over a highway's usable life analyzed rather than just their initial cost. So we will continue to work with the gentleman from California whose dedication and diligence I commend very highly.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned over the impact of funding cuts in title I compensatory education programs contained in this bill. In West Virginia, in my district alone, title I children will lose more than $5 million in the coming year--and much more over 7 years. Let me tell you about Kimball Elementary School, in Welch, WV, McDowell County. At this school, there are 350 children dependent upon title I remedial education services so that they will learn to read and to do math at their appropriate age and grade levels. Of the 19 schools in McDowell County, and of the 6,900 children in those schools, 4,700 of those children are eligible for title I services based on the low income of their families, and based on the breadth and scope of distress in the county--which still has double- digit unemployment rates, and most families live well below the poverty level. McDowell County children will lose $565,700, over $\1/2\ million, of their title I funds in fiscal year 1996. Kimball Elementary School spends a mere $94,000 a year on children-- not just elementary-age children in need of services, but on dropouts who are brought back to school and guided to graduation. Teen mothers are brought back to school to complete their high school degrees. I am told by the title I director at Kimball Elementary School that five of those teen mothers are now in college, and one of them is on the dean's list. How's that for a success story for title I program services to children at risk of growing up and leaving school unable to read or compute, or write? Mr. Chairman, don't vote for this bill that cuts 1.2 billion out of title I--affecting 1.1 million children nationwide. Just think of the 350 kids at Kimball Elementary School who need only a mere $94,000 a year. Think of how it will affect 4,700 children in McDowell County West Virginia, who may grow up illiterate, without high school degrees, without these extraordinary remedial education services. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2127.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, it isn't often that a Member of this body would be tempted to rise in opposition to a bill, especially a funding bill, and to say unequivocally that there is so much in the measure to condemn it, that it is impossible to vote for good that is contained in it. Such is the case today, as I rise in strongest opposition to H.R. 2127 the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. Mr. Chairman, using appropriations bills, such as this one and like many others we have debated recently on the floor of the House, to establish policy and make decisions best left to authorizing committees, is just reckless and irresponsible behavior. Such use of the appropriations process cannot be the decision of this or many other subcommittees, or even full committee chairmen. It is obviously being directed by those at higher levels in cooperation with outside interests. The only thing of any real value in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill are those provisions that protect the unborn. I strongly support every one of them. I commend the Members of this House who fought to get this antiabortion language in the bill, and I will do all that I can to keep it in the bill. But I cannot support the final product--even if all the pro-life language is preserved. I can't, in good conscience, do so. Let me tell you why. Mr. Chairman, this bill decimates not only longstanding, vitally important, life-giving Federal programs for children, it also decimates longstanding workplace health and safety standards and the enforcement of such laws; it takes families earning at or below poverty wages and places them at greater risk of becoming homeless, by decimating labor laws and prevailing wages that keep them afloat. It takes those without jobs and tosses them aside like garbage--refusing to fund job search or job training programs so individuals can reenter the job market and care for themselves and their families and be contributing members of society. It attacks senior citizen programs to the point where I wonder: what is happening to us as a compassionate nation? The bill cuts funding for programs that train and protect working Americans by 24 percent below last year's level. Training alone is cut by more than $1 billion; worker protection programs embodied within OSHA, the Employment Standards Administration, and the National Labor Relations Board are cut by $180 million. Legislative riders eliminate or restrict the ability to enforce collectively bargained agreements, a safe work environment, and child labor protections. The bill nullifies the President's Executive order keeping Federal contractors from hiring permanent replacements for striking workers. Worse, the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill terminates black lung clinics that serve as the only caring, human, face-to-face contact for coal miners dying from black lung disease who are struggling to obtain appropriate life-giving health care, and who are struggling equally hard to qualify for benefits to enable them and their families to live in peace and dignity as they die of an incurable, progressive lung disease. With respect to child labor laws, I could not believe it, until I read it, but this bill actually terminates a child labor law that protects 14-year-olds against being maimed or killed by balers--baling machines--that are almost too dangerous for adults to operate. Those who placed this language in the bill actually call it a job creating provision for youth even though it could be a job that kills. These same members, in writing this same bill, Mr. Chairman, have terminated the summer youth job program for 14-year-olds and older youths--jobs that nourish rather than kill them. The bill declares war on the Nation's senior citizens. Low Income Energy Assistance [LIHEAP] is terminated--so all the elderly folks who have had to choose between heating or eating every winter--are forced to choose to eat fewer meals in order to pay utility bills. Six million households receive LIHEAP assistance--two-thirds are seniors, and the rest are disabled. To make matters worse for seniors, the minimum wage jobs that employ 14,000 seniors with incomes less than 125 percent of poverty are terminated--gone. Foster Grandparents and counseling programs to prevent MediGap ripoffs are cut. Senior nutrition programs are cut by nearly $23.5 million--meaning that 114,637 fewer seniors will be able to get a hot meal at their senior center, and 43,867 frail elderly persons will be cut off from Meals on Wheels. Millions of workers will be more vulnerable to employers who avoid paying even minimum wage, and who also avoid a 40-hour week, fair labor practices, and standards for safe work places. Education overall is cut 18 percent below last year's level. Employment and training by 35 percent; other cuts include $2.5 billion in assistance to local schools, $266 million from drug-free schools and communities, and $66 million from the school-to-work program. Student aid for college is cut by $701 million including a $219 million cut that terminates Federal contributions to Perkins loans and the SSIG scholarship program. Goals 2000 and the summer youth jobs program are eliminated. Head Start is cut by $535 million below the President's request; President Bush's Healthy Start Program to lower infant mortality is cut in half. Perhaps more than any other appropriations bill, the Labor-HHS- Education bill is the people's bill. When you make drastic cuts in this bill's funding, you are stabbing at the heart of this Nation--its people. For example: Labor.--Translates into jobs and job training, safe workplaces, decent wages, and dignity of life that comes with the dignity of a paycheck. Education.--Translates into quality of life for an educated citizenry, better jobs for better futures, for stable families. Most importantly, education translates directly into our national economic security, if not our national defense. Health and Human Services.--Translates into quality of life for those in need of life-giving care, from cradle to grave, regardless of station in life or income. How we can propose to make these funding cuts, and programmatic changes, and to disregard the educational needs, the health, well- being, and safety of every one of our constituents who rely upon us-- while at the same time proposing to increase defense spending by $58 billion over the next 7 years? How can Members of this House decimate labor, health, and education programs in order to fund higher defense spending than any President has asked for in over 14 years, and this in spite of the fact that the cold war is over, the Soviet Union as a competing superpower is no more, and with communism on its knees? This bill is, in all truth, beyond my understanding. Hubert Humphrey said: The moral test of government is how it treats whose who are in the dawn of life--the children; how it treats those in the twilight of life--the elderly; and how it treats those who are in the shadows of life--the sick, the disabled, the needy, and the unemployed. We have failed the moral test by bringing this bill to the floor of the House, and I am appalled. Have we, finally, no shame?

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the cuts proposed in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, and particularly for title I compensatory education. This House is proposing to cut the lifeline of education for disadvantaged children in this country--known as title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Remember all the horror stories you've heard about little Johnny who can't read? Remember the report about the huge number of 17-year-olds in this country who had been given high school degrees but who couldn't read or write? Title I is the remedial program that is putting a stop to illiteracy among young children that carries over to adulthood. Title I services are paid for with Federal dollars which local folks can't afford to pay for themselves--or at least, not without raising taxes. Mr. Chairman, I represent 16 counties in West Virginia. My 16-county, title I children stand to lose more than $5 million in fiscal year 1996 title I funds. I am here to tell you, Mr. Chairman, there is no way that my 16 counties can afford to raise taxes to replace $5 million in lost title I dollars next year. Is there anyone here on this floor whose district can afford to raise taxes in order to replace Federal title I dollars? Mr. Chairman, education cuts don't heal. They bleed and stay sore, but they never heal. Children who are already wary from bumping up against the wall of poverty, without title I remedial education, will never heal from these cuts. [[Page E 1615]] If these kids are to avoid running into the wall of indifference and illiteracy as adults, we must help them right now by keeping their educational lifeline open to them. This is a crucial vote--vote ``no'' on H.R. 2127.

Mr. RAHALL

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].