Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

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

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Joe Kennedy, who on July 3, will retire from the National Park Service and his position over the last 8\1/2\ years as Superintendent of the New River Gorge National River in West Virginia. It is sad, but true, that many in this body these days take price in denigrating Federal employees, especially those in uniform. I will not be a party to those antics, and committed public servants like Joe Kennedy illustrate the degree of professionalism that swells the ranks of many agencies such as the National Park Service. Since January 1987, Joe has served with distinction and dedication as the Superintendent of the New River Gorge National River. He arrived at a time when very little in the way of basic infrastructure was in place at the park unit. I am pleased to report that under Joe's leadership, a great deal has been accomplished including the construction of a state- of-the-art visitor center at Canyon Rim, a park headquarters complex at Glen Jean, a boardwalk at Sandstone Falls that is a naturalist's delight, modern river access facilities at Cunard and Fayette Station, the restoration of historic Thurmond, and the establishment of an extensive trail system. During Joe's tenure, he also supervised a very active land acquisition program, and park operations and services improved vastly. These are just a few of his accomplishments. Throughout this period, Joe Kennedy never shirked from the call of duty, often going above and beyond what was required of him. After moving the park headquarters to Glen Jean, Joe received a phone call from an elderly lady in the community who wanted him to go over to her home and remove a snake that was in the basement. The Superintendent did not hesitate to do so. Moreover, Joe has had the distinction of serving as the Superintendent of not just one, but three, units of the National Park System at the same time. A little more than 1 year after arriving at West Virginia, through my efforts, Congress passed legislation to establish the Gauley River National Recreation Area and the Bluestone National Scenic River on tributaries of the New River. Joe has served as the Superintendent of all three park units, making him the ``River King'' of the National Park Service. Joe Kennedy now retires after serving the public as an employee of the National Park Service for 34 years. Starting his career at Kings Mountain National Military Park in South Carolina during July 1961, he then served briefly at Fort Pulaski National Monument in Georgia before being transferred to the Nation's Capital in July 1964 where he worked at the Department of the Interior until October 1968. After that, he headed south again and served at the Everglades National Park until October 1971 when he heeded that age old call of ``go West young man.'' Between October 1971 and August 1979, Joe worked at the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, and then, as Superintendent of Dinosaur National Monument until moving to West Virginia in 1987. I have been extremely proud to have had the honor to know and work with Joe Kennedy. We have gone through a lot of dedication ceremonies together, ran a goodly number of whitewater rapids on both the New and Gauley together--during which he never fell out of the raft, hiked a trail or two, and had some great discussions. To say the least, I am dismayed that he is retiring. His humor, patience, fortitude, and vision will be sorely missed. In conclusion, it is my understanding that Joe and his wife Jayne will move back to their native State of North Carolina. He will bring with him a wealth of memories from his years [[Page E 1309]] with the National Park Service, and he will bring with him our friendship and respect. On behalf of myself and Jim Zoia of my staff, we wish Joe and Jayne Kennedy the very best.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention the outstanding work of a fine group of students and teachers from the Raleigh County Vocational Technical Center in West Virginia's Third Congressional District. More than 100 young people from classes as diverse as electronics technology to marketing education to computer- aided graphing have come together in a project that has involved virtually the entire school. The culminating project has been the ``Electrosprint'': a state-of-the-art electric car which has been the subject of a great deal of attention. The students have been recognized by the environmental program ``A Pledge and A Promise'' by Anheuser-Busch Theme Park from among 600 entries nationwide and are recipients of the $12,500 first place award. The car was awarded first place in the efficiency event at the EV Grand Prix. It has the distinction of being the most efficient car ever tested by Argonne National Laboratories in the United States, where one official noted, ``[t]he car is as efficient as anything built by professional automakers . . .'' It also won the West Virginia Vocational Association Award of Merit for Innovative Program and was named the American Vocational Association Innovative Program for Region I. They have been featured on national television for their enterprising and innovative ideas. The Electrosprint project has had remarkable results. Sparking the interest of students and increasing enrollment at the vocational school; exciting people of all ages about science, math, and the environment; and boosting self-esteem and reinforcing a positive image of education in southern West Virginia are only a few of the beneficial effects of this venture. Serious about environmental concerns and efficiency, and learning firsthand about how to work as a team, these students deserve to be commended as a model not only for other students, but for all of us. Their work on electrically powered transportation should inspire others in the field and everyone who is concerned with protecting our environment. They are not satisfied with only a passive role in their own education; instead, they are learning through experience how to harness technology in a way that will have a visible impact on the world around them. These are essential skills and qualities as we enter the 21st century. The students' next project will be to draw from their previous work, transplanting the technology they have already developed to electric powered delivery vehicles for use in inner cities. Future plans also include testing vehicles on hilly terrain, expanding the use of alternative fuels such as solar, wind, and natural gas, and further developing safety equipment for electric cars with the possibility of patenting. We should encourage such initiative and hard work. I am extremely proud of the students at Raleigh County Vocational Technical Center and encourage them in their future challenges. I also want to thank and congratulate their teachers, parents, and community for supporting the superb efforts of the next generation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, after serving southern West Virginia as head of the Southwestern Community Action Agency in Huntington, WV for 26 years, Joan Ross has made her decision to retire in order to spend more time with her husband, her children, and her grandchildren. While her time and talents have been devoted almost solely to the Community Action Council which she has headed for 26 years, developing and implementing many ``poverty programs'' for the most needy people throughout southern West Virginia, Joan Ross began her public service prior to the 1964 enactment of the Economic Opportunity Act creating local and regional CAP agencies. Joan first spearheaded a local demonstration project called Project Find, a research and demonstration program under which she trained older, low-income persons who had not dreamed of being called upon to show the kind of professional skill required of survey takers, and under Joan's supervision were more than able to conduct the necessary random survey, using a 22-page questionnaire, throughout a three-county area--Lincoln, Wayne, and Cabell. The findings determined by the questionnaires indicated specifically what and how extensive the human service needs were throughout the area, and how best to provide for those needs. Joan Ross followed up by developing a delivery system Congress on her findings, entitled: ``The Golden Years: A Tarnished Myth.'' Joan had found that the Golden Years for the elderly were not exactly golden--but she also knew what kind of help was going to be necessary in order to make them golden. After that effort, Joan then served as the coordinating supervisor of the Neighborhood Youth Corps, responsible for developing and implementing an internal evaluation instrument, and recommending to management appropriate changes to make the program more efficient and effective for the youth intended to be served. These findings too became a written report to the U.S. Department of Labor and were used extensively to improve and enhance neighborhood youth corps programs. In 1967, Joan became the interim executive director of the Southwestern Community Action Council, where she got so busy doing what needed to be done, she never left--until now. Joan Ross knew long before Federal legislation was enacted, that West Virginia's southern area was very different from the rest of the Nation. More than 63 percent rural, the State had hidden poverty pockets that neighboring urban areas and officials knew nothing about, or not enough to pay attention. When, in 1964, the Economic Opportunity Act was passed creating her agency, community schools and businesses, restaurants and movie theaters--were not yet integrated. Hungry school children were not receiving hot lunches, and health care was nonexistent in most rural areas. At that time, the mentally impaired or disabled child and adult were not mainstreamed into society--but were kept hidden, either in institutions or by their families. In 1964, Joan had already found that substandard housing was accepted as a consequence of poverty, but not as a contributing factor, and people who were poor were perceived as poor by choice--but Joan Ross knew better. The enactment of the Economic Opportunity Act gave Joan Ross, and many other directors of CAP agencies nationwide the opportunity to bring people together who were concerned about their communities--their counties, cities and rural hamlets--people who wanted to find a way to help the poor help themselves. Joan, along with the staff which she recruited and who have served with her for nearly the same length of years at Southwestern, took it upon herself to become a pioneer in Lyndon Johnson's war on Poverty, taking on new programs that no one else would touch--and making them work as they were intended to work: Helping the poor to help themselves. The people in southern West Virginia, brought together by Joan Ross and kept together by her unstinting efforts over the years, were somewhat awed by the sight of bankers working with welfare mothers, rural folks with urban folks--young people with senior citizens--and volunteers with working people. When Joan Ross began her service with the Southwestern Community Action Agency as its interim director 26 years ago, her job was to help organize and stabilize the agency. Over more than a quarter century, she has seen the program grow from a tenuous one to a multi-million dollars corporation-still receiving Federal support from a few remaining programs under the old OEA--but which has grown and continued to survive because of the resources she has generated from other Federal programs, from private foundations, and local contributions. Under her very distinguished stewardship, the Southwestern Community Action Agency has done everything from weatherizing existing substandard housing, to building housing projects, for the elderly, for the low-income families, for the homeless, and for the mentally impaired. She pioneered the Head Start Program in our region, overseeing four county-wide Head Start Projects, as well as Head Start's Parent Child Centers, providing educational opportunities to pre-school children and their families, saw to the fluoridation of the water system, advocated for the mentally ill, conducted several national demonstrations, some of which have resulted in Federal legislation, provided services to the homeless and to troubled youth, provided training which has led to jobs for the unemployed, helped provide small low interest loans to low income people who were trying to start up their own business--and she piloted countless other programs designed to help the poor stop being poor. The story of Joan Ross and her career in public service is about excellence. When it comes to bringing people together from all walks of life and inspiring them--challenging them--to work together and to make a big difference, she has no equal. Joan Ross did all this regardless of anyone's cultural, ethnic, or racial origins. She did it regardless of a person's age, or whether they were from rural or urban settings, and all other socio-economic factors were taken into consideration for residents throughout her service area. Joan Ross's life has been about uniting people, never dividing them. While Joan spent 26 years counseling, cajoling, inspiring and challenging people from all walks of life--from County Commissions to the State Legislature to the U.S. Congress--from the poorest to the richest in our region--ultimately getting them to do the right thing-- she was completely and selflessly involved at every other level of community service. How she found the time or the energy, we will never know. For example: During these 26 years Joan served as a member of the Junior League of Huntington, was active in her church, served as chairperson of the board of trustees of the greater West Virginia Employees Health and Welfare Trust, served as president of the WV Community Action Directors Association, served on the Greenbrier Mission Development Fund, was chairperson of the State Visiting Committee of West Virginia University, as chairperson of the Cabell- Huntington Red Cross, as the national vice president of the Council of Agriculture Research, Extension and Training, served on the West Virginia Mental Health Planning Committee, as well as with the West Virginia Alliance for the Mentally Ill, as president of the Prestera Center for Mental Health, Chaired the Policy Committee of the WV State Jobs Training Coordinating Council, president of the Forest Management Corporation, and still serves as a member of the Huntington Hospital for Rehabilitation Board of Directors. And all this time, Joan was raising her four children and being a supportive wife to her husband, Dr. Thomas Ross. I have known Joan Ross for all of these years, and have been both inspired and humbled by her always dynamic, often gentle and compassionate approach to getting all the jobs done that were hers to do, and getting them done by, and for, the right people. By her example she brought dignity and a quality of life to thousands of men, women and children in southern West Virginia who had, until Joan began her life-long career of outreach to the poor, remained immersed in poverty. She will be sorely missed as she returns to the heart of her family to spend some quality time with them--but knowing Joan, she will always be involved in the affairs of her community and indeed in public affairs throughout the State.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, 1995 is a memorable year for the residents of Bluefield, WV. For it was 100 years ago that the Sacred Heart Catholic Church was dedicated on Mercer Street. The theme of this years celebration is ``Remember, Rejoice, and Renew.'' Late in the 19th century, the coal industry, the railroad, and commercial trade brought numerous Catholics to southeastern West Virginia. The first Catholic service in Bluefield took place on Princeton Avenue, when the Reverened John McBride came on horseback from Wytheville, VA, to perform the ceremony. Mr. Speaker, the first Catholic service in Bluefield even predated the incorporation of the city of Bluefield, WV. Five years later, in 1984, the Most Reverend P.D. Donahue, Bishop of the Diocese of Wheeling, WV, appointed the Reverend Emile Olivier the pastor of the growing Catholic community in Bluefield. Through Reverend Olivier's tutelage and the hard work of the parish, the Sacred Heart Church was dedicated on Mercer Street in Bluefield on October 27, 1895. The church continued to grow and was responsible for the creation of other Catholic communities in Powhatan, Gary, Welch, Williamson, Princeton, and Our Lady of Lourdes in Bluefield. Mr. Speaker, the Sacred Heart Church in 1995, as in 1895, is a family of Christians whose mission it is to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth by their worship, evangelization, and strengthening of relationships and service to church and community. It is with great honor that I help to honor the centennial year of Bluefield's Sacred Heart Church. Remember, Rejoice, and Renew.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal of talk this year about unfunded mandates, about the rights of the States, about regulatory burdens on local units of government. Well, I would say to my colleagues, this amendment represents the granddaddy of all burdens on the States, of all unfunded mandates on the States and of all violations of the rights of the States. What this amendment says is that we will let the Federal Government, in the form of FERC, run roughshod over State water quality determinations during the licensing of hydroelectric power projects. It is an amendment of convenience. At times, it is convenient to support State primacy. This time, to some, apparently it is not convenient. And so, what this amendment basically says is that we will allow FERC to shove hydro projects down the throats of the States, and while we're at it, overturn a Supreme Court decision and disregard the views of 40 State attorneys general. The simple fact of the matter is that water quality, where the States have primacy under section 401 of the act, and water quantity considerations cannot be separated. For this reason, the States currently have the right to condition hydroelectric power licenses issued by FERC to protect their bona fide interest in maintaining the water quality of their rivers and streams. This amendment would do away with that fundamental right of the States. As 40 State attorneys general wrote to the committee leadership recently: ``This Congress is actively pursuing a new federalism, seeking to delegate to states authority previously held by the federal government.'' They concluded: ``How ironic it would be for this Congress to reverse this policy and strip away longstanding state authority over water quality.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment. amendment offered by mr. laughlin as a substitute for the amendment offered by mr. emerson

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a special order, I expressed my total disbelief that, at an event convened at taxpayer's expense, a Member of this House would publicly charge that a Member of the U.S. Senate should be tarred and feathered and run out of the country. Was this a joke, Mr. Speaker? From press accounts, what we do know is that it was a reaction to a constituent's call for the murder of a Member of the other body, and that the murderer be given a medal. The Member from Washington State in question with whom I have spoken, did not object to the murder of a U.S. Senator. The member did not attempt to argue at all, instead Mr. Speaker, he fueled the flames of violence against members of the people's house, against the representatives elected by the American people. Let me read from a definition of ``tar and feathers'': Pouring molten tar over the body and covering it with feathers was an official punishment in England as early as the 12th century. It was never legal in the United States, but was always a mob--demonstration. The practice finally vanished in the late 19th Century. But now, Mr. Speaker, a Member of the House wants to resurrect the practice--to drag the American people, not toward the next millennium, but back to the last. Is this the course the new majorities in the Congress have set? Is this a new contract of tar and feathering, of drawing and quartering, of star chambers and chambers of torture for the American people? Are there no limits on inciting violence? Has America not seen enough hate in the last few weeks? Will this hate make America stronger? Mr. Speaker, When the people's representatives remain silent in the face of hate speech, they endorse it. When the people's representatives suggest violent acts against their colleagues, they tear at the very fabric that binds us as a nation. Should we not, as representatives of the people, seek a higher civility in this body? Should we not as leaders of this country, seek to uplift this nation, rather than tear it down? I ask for this Member's public apology Mr. Speaker. I ask that he apologize to the Member of the other body--that he apologize to the American people--and that he apologize to this institution of which he is a Member.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed fitting that we are considering this bill today, this alleged reauthorization, the Clean Water Act. I say this because on this day, 123 years ago, President Grant signed into law a bill that has perhaps created more environmental disasters than any other single measure. The law he signed has left us with a legacy of acidified rivers and streams, devoid of aquatic life, running shades of orange and red. A law that has left us with a legacy of mammoth open pits that serve as toxic swimming pools for migrating birds. A law that has left us with a legacy of cyanide laced rock and debris, a ticking timebomb for future generations. In short, a law that has given rise to more Superfund sites due to the activities it endorses than has any other type of activity. This activity is hardrock mining, for minerals such as gold and silver, on Federal lands in the Western States. And the law is known as the mining law of 1872. So today, on its 123d anniversary, we find ourselves considering another bill that if enacted promises to cause further environmental degradation and depravation. I say this because the pending legislation represents a direct assault on the goals of the Clean Water Act. Make no mistake about it, these are goals which are widely supported by the citizens of this country. Moreover, the pending bill even goes so far as to significantly roll- back the progress that has already been made in achieving water quality. And it does so for no particular reason at all. In the Appalachian Region of this country--where we do not have hardrock mining under the mining law of 1872, but rather live on a daily basis with the environmental, health and safety threats of past coal mining practices--in many places we too have acidified rivers and streams running those shades of orange and red. For example, the Cheat River in West Virginia, once a prime destination of whitewater rafting enthusiasts, today is so acidic that its water irritates the eyes and skin of anyone who dares traverse its rapids. Our loss is not only the aquatic life that once inhabited parts of this river, but a healthy amount of revenue from tourism. But rather than seek to promote the rehabilitation of this river, rather than seek to require that its designated water quality standards are met, the pending legislation takes the position that if something is polluted, well, it just might as well stay polluted. And it does so by gutting the NPDES process, creating countless loopholes and waivers for point-source pollutants. It does so by allowing effluent limitations for point sources of pollution to be based on new, weaker standards. It does so by repealing the entire stormwater permit program, and by hampering efforts to control nonpoint source pollution. And it does so by attacking the very basis for the promulgation of water quality standards, allowing non-scientific, arbitrary and capricious factors to be used in standard setting. No Member from the Appalachian region should be able to vote for this bill. And I would submit that those of our constituents who live with the ravages of mining, whether it be hardrock or coal, simply did not elect us to come up here and endorse the continued contamination of their water sources: The rivers, the streams, the groundwater that serves as the very lifeblood of our natural environment. Finally, on the question of wetlands, I think all of us agree that something must be done to provide relief from a permitting process that has become a bureaucratic nightmare. Yet, I do not believe that the majority of Americans want to see over 80 percent of our Nation's wetlands destroyed as could occur under the pending measure. This does not constitute responsible wetlands reform, and, it would have far-reaching consequences. For instance, I have been advised that this legislation would significantly reduce duck populations and diminish prospects for future duck-hunting seasons. Obviously, ducks require duck habitat to survive, and that habitat-- wetlands--would be seriously threatened by the pending legislation. This is something of concern to sportsmen and women throughout America, and I know it is a matter of great concern to sporting groups in my State of West Virginia. For these, and many other reasons, I urge this body to reject the pending measure.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, 123 years ago today, President Grant signed into law a bill aimed at promoting the settlement of the Western States. This bill allowed folks to mine valuable minerals such as gold and silver from Federal lands in those States for free. It also allowed people to obtain title to these lands for $2.50 an acre. In one sense, the mining law of 1872 served much the same purpose as the Homestead Act. Today, the Homestead Act has long since been repealed. The West is well settled. Yet, the mining law of 1872 survives intact, in this age of skyrocketing Federal budget deficits still allowing the wholesale giveaway of valuable Federal lands and minerals. It is incredible, but true, that annually under this law the United States allows about 1.8 billion dollars' worth of gold and silver to be mined for absolutely free. And for the most part, these minerals are not being mined by the lone prospector of old, but rather, by multinational corporations who reap the benefits of this last great giveaway of American natural resources. What a shame. What a shame, Congress, to allow lands, owned by every American, to be given away for fast food hamburger prices. To allow billions of dollars worth of the public wealth to be produced for free by corporations based in Luxembourg, Toronto, and London. say, I hope there will not be any more such birthdays left to you. My colleagues, please join me and 83 other Members of this body in seeking to reform the mining law of 1872; cosponsor H.R. 357 today.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in outrage to take exception to words attributed to a constituent of a Member of this House, as reported in the April 26, 1995 edition of The South Whidbey Record published in 2nd District of the State of Washington, that a revered, senior Member of the U.S. Senate should be killed, and that the person killing him should be given a medal during a Town hall meeting which I assume was called at taxpayers' expense. I take even greater exception to the fact that a Member of this body did not disavow or dissociate himself from, his constituent for calling for the murder of a sitting Member of the U.S. Senate, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. I take great exception to a Member of this House, who not only did not censure or otherwise refute his constituent's call for murder, but allegedly went on to state, and I quote: ``He should be tarred and feathered and run out of the country.'' Peter Coogan, staff reporter for the aforementioned newspaper in south Whidbey Island, WA, who opens his article with the words: ``To Kill a U.S. Senator or merely to tar and feather him,'' reports that a Member of this body, whom he claims was elected based on a campaign that attacked the Federal Government, allegedly made the statement at a town meeting in response to his constituent's call for the ``killing'' of Senator Robert Byrd. Mr. Speaker, these are dangerous times for unguarded, irresponsible speech, and we have every reason and every right to expect a Member of this body to strongly disavow such speech and to advise any constituent that murder is not an option in this country. Am I in a total state of stunned disbelief that a Member of the House of Representatives let this kind of statement about killing a U.S. Senator go unchallenged when such rhetoric may have led to the killing of more than 160 innocent people in Oklahoma City's Federal building? Yes, I am. Have we learned nothing from that evil act that shook a nation to its core? Should I be surprised at such rhetoric being used in just days after Oklahoma City, when the GOP's national committee planned to have as its honored guest a convicted felon-turned-radio-talk-show-host at a gala party fundraiser only days before the last body was brought out of that bombed out Federal building? A talk-show host who advised his listeners to shoot for the head of Federal agents, as the best way of killing them, and who bragged about using profiles of our President for target practice? Why be surprised? Mr. Speaker, I request that the newspaper article to which I have reference be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks. Mr. Speaker, the newspaper article to which I referred is as follows: [From the South Whidbey Record, Apr. 26, 1995] Metcalf Says Byrd Should Be Tarred, Feathered (By Peter Coogan) To kill a U.S. Senator, or merely to tar and feather him. The question sparked some light-hearted banter between U.S. Rep. Jack Metcalf and one of his constituents at a Congressional Town Hall Meeting in Oak Harbor Saturday. It came up when Metcalf tried to explain why, as a rule, he votes against large, heavily amended ``omnibus'' spending bills, even if they contain some good ideas. As an example of past abuse, he said a senator had hidden the cost of a Coast Guard facility for an East Coast state in the emergency relief spending for victims of the California earthquake. He asked the crowd to guess which eastern state. ``West Virginia,'' said Angelo Kolvas of Oak Harbor. Yes, Metcalf said. The culprit was former Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, who ``steals money all over America.'' Metcalf started to suggest some punishment for Byrd, saying ``he should be----'' Kolvas interrupted with ``somebody should kill him and give them a medal.'' Metcalf said: ``He should be actually tar and feathered and run out of the country. I mean, I'm serious. He steals money because he's chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, or one of the committees, and he's always the one on the conference committee, in the middle of the night. He's stuffing pork in there for West Virginia, brutally.'' Kolvas suggested that other congress- people are guilty of the same thing. ``This gentleman is right,'' Metcalf said. ``It is the fault of Congress, but Senator Byrd still should be tarred and feathered.'' Telephoned later, Kolvas said, ``I am not a vindictive person but if that guy would die today, that wouldn't bother me a damn bit.'' He added, ``I really don't think anybody should kill Byrd. That was a little strong.''

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1215, the so- called Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995. In the first place, it isn't fair, and in the second, it does nothing to reduce the deficit, unless you live in a house of smoke and mirrors. But before I go into the many reasons why I cannot vote for this bill, let me tell you about the good things that are in it, and for which I would vote if they were offered separately. This bill contains an increase, over 5 years, in the earnings limitation for senior citizens who are receiving Social Security benefits, but who still work at jobs to supplement their low incomes. I have been a cosponsor of this earnings limitation increase legislation for years. It hasn't come up in the House for a vote-- despite my signing a Discharge Petition last year to force it to a vote. Increasing, almost three-fold, this earnings limitation over 5 years to enable working seniors to earn as much as $30,000 a year before their earnings are offset against their social security checks, is a Godsend to seniors. Regrettably, because the majority here in the House will not allow a separate vote on it--I am forced to vote against it because of other unacceptable provisions contained in H.R. 1215. Another provision, which I have also cosponsored in the past, is the phased-in repeal of the 1993 new taxes on social security benefits for those singles earning more than $34,000 a year and married couples earning more than $44,000 a year. Had this new tax come before me for a separate vote in 1993, I would have voted against it. Now that its repeal is before this House for a vote, I must vote against it because no separate vote is being allowed. IRA Accounts. I have cosponsored and supported new IRA's which permit early withdrawal without penalty for such things as first time home buyers, college costs, extraordinary medical expenses, and even for periods of unemployment. I would very much like to vote in favor of this new IRA. But I can't. It isn't being brought up as a separate vote. I stand behind no one when it comes to imposing and enforcing tougher penalties for those engaged in child pornography. During the 103d Congress, I signed the amicus brief before the Supreme Court to force the U.S. Department of Justice to stop weakening existing child pornography laws. We won that battle--and Stephen Knox is behind bars for exploiting children in sexually explicit photographs which he had been peddling to perverts nationwide for huge profits. Yet in this bill, giving House Members a chance to toughen those laws, I will have no separate vote on the issue. If given a separate vote on the issues, I would also strongly support adoption and foster care enhancements, not to mention tax deduction for home office expenses, which I cosponsor in separate legislation. In the 103d Congress, I cosponsored a bill, introduced by my friend and colleague Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia, to give an additional $500 per child deduction to low- and middle-income parents. That provision is in this bill. Why can't I vote for it? Two reasons: First, the tax credit is given to families with incomes as high as $200,000 a year; and secondly, it isn't being brought up as a separate vote, but is included in the bill as a whole with no amendments allowed. Who wouldn't support making accelerated death benefits to the terminally ill tax-free? But I can't vote in favor of this, because it too is incorporated into the bill as a whole. Who wouldn't support an Eldercare tax credit, or tax incentives for long-term care insurance? I would vote for these, if they were offered separately. Too bad they are incorporated into the bill--one vote only--up or down. Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is much in the bill to recommend it. If the bill were being offered under an open rule, allowing separate votes on initiatives favored by a majority of Members regardless of party, then perhaps I could--many Members could--vote for them. As it is, we cannot. Now that I have reiterated the provisions in the bill that would have my support if voted on separately, I will tell my colleagues what is in the bill that prevents me from voting in its favor. First of all--recent surveys show that America prefers that we keep on reducing the deficit--as we have done since 1993--the first time the deficit has declined three years in a row since Harry Truman was President. They don't want a tax cut--and especially since many of them are now aware that this so-called tax cut won't help them because they aren't rich enough. How rich is rich enough? Earning over $200,000 a year is rich enough. That will get you about $11,000 in tax cuts. But if you earn under $30,000 a year, you might get about $124 in reduced taxes. The so-called tax cut for middle America isn't. That is, middle- income working Americans will not realize much of a benefit from any of the tax-cuts proposed. Fifty-one percent of all tax cuts and tax credits in the bill go to the richest people and corporations. For example, while I could and would support a reduced capital gains tax for individuals holding assets they wish to sell, I cannot in good conscience support the 50 percent capital gains exclusions for individuals because of its serious, adverse effect on small businesses. West Virginia is made up of small businesses--and it is these that create more jobs in my State than any other employer. We need those jobs. I can't afford to vote for something here that will hurt, not help them. Let me quote to you from a letter from the U.S. Small Business Administration, dated April 3, 1995: Specifically, Sec. 6301 of H.R. 1215 (or H.R. 1327) * * * creates a 50 percent capital gains exclusion for individuals but, in doing so, repeals the special small business capital gains tax incentive in the existing law (P.L. 103-66, Sec. 13113). This will have the effect of raising the taxes of future investors in qualifying, high growth, small businesses from the previous maximum rate of 14 percent to the new rate of 19.8 percent. This may be the only category of taxpayer to have its taxes raised under the capital gains provisions of the proposal. She goes on to say: * * * the repeal is troubling for small businesses for two reasons. First as a matter of even-handed tax policy, it seems incongruous to raise the tax rates of those who invest in the research, plant and equipment of a high-risk, emerging growth company while rewarding non-productive speculation in real estate or the stock market with substantial tax reductions. So to all my colleagues whose districts are comprised of many small businesses, which create the jobs our Districts need, but not so many big businesses, beware of voting for this bill because of the much- touted reduction in the capital gains tax for individuals. If you don't believe me, read the two-page letter from the Small Business Administration. Another provision--reducing and ultimately repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax for business. This AMT was put into the 1986 tax reform legislation because we learned that more than 130 companies--from A to X--Aetna to Xerox, not only didn't pay any taxes between 1982 and 1985, but that many such companies received tax rebates. Companies such as these will be back on the ``no tax'' gravy train if this bill passes as is. Proponents of H.R. 1215 will tell you it won't cost but $188 billion. Treasury estimates put the cost at near $700 billion over 10 years. You might ask: How is the majority going to pay for this tax cut bill? First, they would ``save'' $100 billion in unidentified cuts in discretionary programs. While the programs haven't been precisely identified, the Budget Committee chairman, in his budget proposal, H.R. 1219, has a list of ``proposed areas'' in which cuts should be made. What cuts? Student aid comes to mind--$13 billion in cuts. Repeal of the Davis Bacon Act comes to mind. Repeal of the Essential Air Service comes to mind. There are many, many other discretionary safety-net programs included in the $100 billion cut. Secondly, they would claim the $62 billion ``saved'' when they passed, without my support, their so-called Welfare Reform bill--a bill that makes war on innocent children and pregnant women, and senior citizens. Thirdly, they would claim the $17 billion in Rescissions recently passed by the House, which I have already rejected. Fourth, they would find another $10.8 billion in ``savings'' under Medicare by cutting both services to seniors, and payments to doctors and hospitals. Fifth, they would find another $10.5 billion in new payroll taxes for Federal employees. This small segment of our working population--1.8 into their pension plans, and get less out when they retire. These people are being given a tax increase--to help pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest population in the United States. The Committee on Government Oversight and Reform couldn't muster enough votes among its majority party to report this bill changing the Federal Retirement System and yet it has been plunked down in the middle of a so-called middle-income tax cut bill. The Congressional Research Service, in a report issued March 18, 1995, clearly stated that: the Federal retirement system is self- financing and its costs can never exceed its income--now or in the future. In other words, it ain't broke and it don't need fixing. The $62 billion in claimed ``savings'' in this bill to help pay for the tax cut, comes directly from cuts in school lunches and breakfasts, in reductions in WIC for pregnant women and children, from denying assistance to children of teen mothers under 18 years of age, and from denying assistance to children whose mothers have other children, or who have been on welfare more than 60 months. All this amounts to an economic jihad against helpless children. If government won't take care of them who will? If not now, when? When it's too late? When children have been arrested in their mental and physical development due to a lack of adequate and proper nutrition? Amazing to see this happening to children, when all we've heard from the past two years is how to encourage preventive health care to keep down health care costs. Last, while I reiterate that this bill's stated cost of $188 billion will grow to nearly $700 billion over 10 years--seven times more in the second 5 years than in the first 5 years--let me also state another provision lacking in the bill that would make it much more acceptable, if that were possible, and that would be the elimination of corporate welfare. I am a cosponsor of legislation, known as the ``Corporate Welfare Reduction Act'' to eliminate corporate welfare. This legislation will close a $200 billion loophole that buries corporate welfare in our tax code in the form of giveaways--while we continually ask Americans to sacrifice more and more in higher and higher taxes. We sought to make our bill in order under the Rule, so that Members could vote for this legislation while considering the tax cut bill. The Rules committee rejected our request, yet it would have given us the chance to ``find'' $200 billion to cut out of our tax code, and perhaps make it unnecessary to cut programs for the poor, low-income working Americans, the elderly, and school children. And just this past week, Mr. Chairman, the majority adamantly opposed requiring those persons who renounce their citizenship in this country and take their assets overseas--tax free--to pay tax on their assets--on the profits they made doing business in the United States under our free enterprise system--before they are allowed to renounce their citizenship. It was deleted from the bill, H.R. 831. I am a lot more concerned, Mr. Chairman, about Child-Fare than I am about Corporate fare. How can the richest Nation on earth, the only true Democracy, think of declaring war--the equivalent of an economic jihad--on children so that greedy corporations can get richer, fat cats can get fatter, stockholders' dividend checks can get bigger, and salaries of Corporate CEO's can exceed $6 million a year in many cases. Vote in favor of H.R. 1215? I think not, Mr. Chairman. A vote in favor of this bill, among other things, would have me vote for the heart of the FY95 Budget Resolution which hasn't even been brought before the House yet this year--cutting $100 billion randomly among discretionary programs. These cuts, of course, have not been specifically identified, but they point to cutting $13 billion in student aid, and repealing the Davis Bacon Act, the Economic Development Act, the Appalachian Regional Commission, and many others. This is a pig-in-a-poke and I am not buying it. When H.R. 1219--the budget resolution--comes to the floor, the majority is going to get up and tout the passage of H.R. 1215--saying: Gee, guys and gals, you've already voted to cut $100 billion when you voted for the ``crown jewel'' of the Contract With America--the tax cut proposal, so step right up and vote for the budget bill--it is one and the same. A vote in favor of H.R. 1215 would have me voting for $17 billion in rescissions--which I've already rejected once. A vote in favor of H.R. 1215 would have me voting for $62 billion in welfare reform cuts to programs that serve at-risk women and their infants, hungry school children and the elderly who need home heating assistance to keep from freezing to death in the winter--a bill I have already rejected. A vote in favor of H.R. 1215 would have me voting for $10.8 billion in Medicare cuts, both in services to the elderly and to hospitals and physicians. A vote in favor of H.R. 1215 would have me voting to require 1.8 million hard-working Federal employees to pay more into their retirement system and get less out of it upon retirement. It would add $905 more in payroll deductions for Federal employees each year, in order to give an $11,000 tax cut to individuals earnings more than $200,000 a year. This is a blatant new payroll tax on working Americans to help pay for a tax cut for the richest 12 percent of 260 million people who live and work in the United States. It pits 1.8 million Federal workers and retirees against the rest of the country. Talk about David against Goliath. Those of us who were here in 1981, have been down this road of trickle-down, borrow and spend economics. The economic policies of the 1980's made us into a debtor nation for the first time in our history--we now owe foreign countries more than they owe us. We saw those economic policies translate into a quadrupling of our national debt. Let's not go down that road again. In conclusion let me say this: Any tax cut bill ought to be tied to deficit reduction, through carefully crafted spending cuts, not by using a meat-ax approach, so that we don't give parents money today that their children will have to repay in the future in the form of a mammoth interest on a mammoth national debt. Let us save $200 billion by eliminating tax loopholes protecting corporate welfare in our tax code such as that embodied in the Corporate Welfare Reform Act which I and my colleagues have introduced, instead of taking $200 billion out of the mouths of hungry kids. Let us concern ourselves with child fare--not protecting welfare for the wealthy. I said early on, when the Contract With America was first presented to the House: there are a lot of god ideas in there--but none of them should be enacted if they intentionally harm the children. The biggest part of the contract that supposedly saves the most money is that which reduces and takes away support for children, in their nutrition programs, in their child care, in Head Start, in food stamps, in AFDC, in Medicaid. A literal war on children. A tax cut bill should be one which provides relief for America's struggling families--and that alone should remain a top priority. The power to un-tax is the power to truly rescue those who need rescuing. Regrettably, H.R. 1215 does none of these things. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill by voting against it.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago, the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act went into effect. In this era of regulatory moratoria, of reducing Federal regulations, and of risk assessments being applied to the rulemaking process, this act stands as a shinning example of the overwhelming benefits to society of Federal regulation and oversight. During November 1968, 78 coal miners lie trapped deep beneath the Earth in a mine near Farmington, WV. For the first time the average American witnessed a coal mine disaster as television coverage beamed this devastating incident across the Nation. They saw the horror, the sheer terror, on the faces of the wives and children, and of the fellow workers, of those coal miners. The reaction of the American people was swift, and it was clearly stated. Within 1 year Congress enacted the landmark Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, for the first time applying a Federal occupational safety law to a specific industry. More than 250 coal miners on average perished annually while on the job during the 3-year period prior to passage of the 1969 act. Over the last 3 years, the average number of coal miner fatalities has totaled fewer than 50. This achievement was made without a loss of industry productivity, or for that matter, profit. Mary `Mother' Jones, the union activist, after seeing the plight of coal miners in West Virginia during the earlier part of this century once exclaimed: ``When I get to Heaven I am going to tell God Almighty about West Virginia!'' The good Lord must have listened. Entering this century as the most dangerous industry in the Nation, the coal industry is ending it as one of the most improved, and again, without sacrificing productivity. But much more remains to be done. The improvements made since 1969 offers little solace to the families of the 44 coal miners who perished in 1994. They offer little consolidation to the many coal miners who today suffer from the crippling affects of black lung disease. And so I say to my colleagues, take care in what we do when considering changes to our Nation's safety laws. Take care that what we wrought today, does not come back to haunt us in the future.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today, along with my distinguished colleagues, Representative James Oberstar of Minnesota and Representative Don Young of Alaska, I have reintroduced legislation to protect the public interest in uninterrupted international air service, and the stability of collective bargaining relationships between U.S. air carriers and their flight crew employees--flight deck crew members and flight cabin crew members. It does so by confirming and clarifying that the Railway Labor Act applies to the U.S. air carriers and their flight crew employees while operating to, from, or between points outside the United States. Historically, air carriers and labor organizations have understood title II of the Railway Labor Act [RLA] to apply to U.S. air carriers and their flight crews when engaged in operations between the United States and foreign nations, and the terms of the act appear to cover these operations. Such carriers are increasingly engaged in providing service to additional points outside the United States by engaging in beyond operations from one foreign destination to another. For this and other reasons, the status of negotiated contractual work rules applicable to the overseas flight operations of U.S. air carriers, and the statutory scheme applicable to labor relations during such operations, need to be clarified. Recent court decisions are troubling because they have decided questions about the reach of the RLA by relying upon a presumption against extra-territoriality as well as the uncertain terms of the statute itself. But this approach does not effectively guide the courts or the parties in dealing with overseas flight operations of a U.S. carrier, which are essentially extensions of the carrier's domestic operations and are conducted by flight crews who operate interchangeably throughout the system. As a result, neither the public nor the parties can be certain that the industrial stability fostered by the RLA will protect the public while traveling in the foreign operations of U.S. carriers. It is the reluctance to fully apply title II of the RLA as it should be applied and as we have understood its application for many years, that has brought us to where we stand today in introducing this legislation. We hope to amend the act so as to effectively guide the parties concerned in dealing with overseas flight operations of U.S. carriers. Identical legislation (H.R. 4957) was introduced last year, and hearings were held in October, 1994 by the House Aviation Subcommittee, then chaired by the able Representative James Oberstar, who joins me as an original cosponsor of today's bill. This bill, as introduced, preserves the RLA's preference for systemwide collective bargaining agreements and permits such agreements accordance with the parties' intent. It is well to note that U.S. airlines and their labor unions have, to date, proceeded as if the RLA and the labor contracts negotiated under it follow the aircraft of U.S. flag airlines and their flight crews in both domestic and international operations regardless of their point of operation at any particular moment in time. This is similar, if not identical, to the rules and procedures followed under maritime law involving U.S. flagships. Here is what the bill does: It prevents either a carrier or one of its flight crew labor organizations from evading its obligations under the RLA by simply relying on geographical location of a particular operation. It prevents flight crew labor groups from conducting unpredictable work stoppages against the U.S. air carrier's foreign operations. It prevents an air carrier from firing or disciplining flight crew employees for engaging in union activities protected under the RLA merely because such employees are assigned in whole or in part to the carrier's operations outside the United States. It assures that the provisions in the bill apply only to flight crew employees--pilots and flight attendants--who are the employees engaged in the actual operation and service aboard the aircraft as they traverse international boundaries. It requires, where appropriate, fair collective bargaining to establish wages and terms and conditions of employment for flight crews throughout an air carrier's systems. Here is what the bill does not do: It does not impose our labor laws on foreign countries. It does not affect our aviation agreements with foreign countries. It does not cover employees providing ground and related services for U.S. carriers exclusively in foreign countries. It does not preclude negotiation of wages and terms and conditions of employment tailored to flight crew members that perform overseas operations. I hope that my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring and supporting enactment of this bill. If you have any questions, or wish to cosponsor the bill, please call me or Mrs. Kyle on my staff.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the continuation of the prevailing wage laws embodied in the Davis-Bacon Act, and against repeal of this vital act. As you know, Mr. Speaker, on March 2, 1995, the Subcommittee on Worker Protections, so-called, voted to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. They did so without a single member of the minority membership being present, an action that is, in and of itself, unprecedented in recent memory. The Democrats, refusing to be a party to the demise of the Davis-Bacon Act at the hands of their colleague in the other party, walked out in protest. The Davis Bacon Act has been in effect since 1931, and 32 States have their own Davis-Bacon Acts, with 9 States having repealed previous State statutes. Perhaps before taking any further action to repeal Davis-Bacon, all Members should take a look at what has happened in the nine repeal States. A recent, February 1995, study conducted by the University of Utah, one of the nine States having repealed their State Davis-Bacon Act, showed that: First, it resulted in driving down construction earnings and the loss to the State's coffers of substantial income tax and sales tax revenues. Second, as a result of the repeal of the State statute in Utah, the size of total cost overruns on State road construction tripled, and there has been a major shift to a less-skilled labor force, lowering labor productivity along with wages, and increasing injuries and fatalities in the workplace. Third, looking at all States, the study found that repeal cost construction workers in the nine States at least $1,477 per year in earnings. Fourth, the nine State repeals have reduced construction training in those States by 40 percent. Fifth, minority representation in construction training has fallen even faster than have the training programs in repeal States. Sixth, occupational injuries in construction rose by 15 percent where State prevailing wage laws were repealed. Based on the above six findings, the study concluded that Federal income tax collections would fall by at least $1 billion per year in real terms for every year for the foreseeable future--if the Federal Davis-Bacon Act were repealed. The University of Utah's study concluded further that: At the Federal level, construction cost savings would have to be very high indeed to generate any budget benefit from a repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act because of the Federal income tax structure. For example, using a conservative estimate of 3 percent construction cost savings with a 20 percent marginal tax rate (based on the 1991 level of Federal construction spending), the Federal Government would lose $838 million per year by repealing the Davis-Bacon Act. For those who falsely claim that a repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act would reduce the deficit, they are wrong--the above-cited study showed that a repeal will raise the Federal budget deficit, because the purpose and effect of a repeal is to lower the cost of wages on federally funded construction projects--which in turn lower wages and earnings. Proponents of the claim that repeal would lower the deficit are wrong also because the study found that the lower cost of wages cannot be isolated to federally financed public works--because in fact such wages would decline across the entire construction labor market causing the Government to lose more in income tax revenues than it would gain in construction cost savings. Mr. Speaker, the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act is not about reducing the deficit, or saving construction costs in federally assisted projects. It isn't about lowering wages so that more people can be employed. It is about union busting. The Act does not--I repeat does not--require that collectively bargained (union) wages be paid unless such wages also happen to be the prevailing wage in the locality where the work takes place. Davis-Bacon isn't about unions--although unions have made Davis-Bacon work by stabilizing the construction industry, keeping fly-by-night operations from operating; keeping health and safety standards in effect, and assuring that all workers, including apprentices, are well-trained and able to contribute to cost-effective productivity at the work site. Davis-Bacon assures that federally assisted construction projects are completed by well-trained, decently-paid workers, not store-front operations who use poor workmanship and shoddy materials--meaning higher maintenance costs and costly rehabilitation and repairs down the line. It means fewer cost overruns that drive up the total cost of construction. For many years Congress has made efforts to protect the working men and women in construction and other industries by assuring that they are paid the local prevailing wage, and particularly for projects that are paid for out of Federal funds. Now that there has been a shift in the majority parties in Washington, the repeal effort is in full force and is being pursued with vigor by opponents of the Act. I believe that a repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, would be a betrayal to all who are affected by the construction industry, and that is every American. Most importantly, it would be a betrayal to the workers who rely on good wages for a decent livelihood. I am diametrically opposed to the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, and I call upon the House of Representatives to continue the broad, bipartisan support that the Act has enjoyed to date by rejecting legislation to repeal Davis-Bacon.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, March 4, 1995, marks a sad day for the community of Huntington, WV. On Saturday, the Torlone brothers, Louie, Dominic, and Alfred, will close the doors of the Torlone's Community Bakery for the last time, after almost 50 selling the bakery to retire, a retirement well deserved after their lifelong service to their country and community. It is a great honor to commemorate the Torlone's families' commitment to Huntington. Beginning in 1946, the small bakery, opened by Peter and Maria Torlone, and continuing until Saturday by their three sons Louie, Dominic, and Alfred, has been a staple to the community. It will be sorely missed by all. Louie Torlone commented last week that he hopes that the community will remember that the bakery treated everybody decently. Anyone who has visited the bakery in the last 50 years can attest to how well the Torlone's treated their neighbors. Each week, the Torlone family donates baked goods to local churches, to missions, and to veterans homes. And after the tragic Marshall University plane crash, the Torlones emptied every last shelf so that rescue workers could be fed. The Torlones are always ready to help others. Dominic Torlone will miss the people the most. For years, the residents of Huntington have been the Torlone's customers, but they are also the family's friends, likely to just stop by to share the warmth and conversation in the bakery. Dominic, who works the day shift, is always ready to provide a warm cup of coffee, advice, or a hug to any of his neighbors or customers. Alfred Torlone, the youngest brother, believes the family has flour in their blood; their father began baking bread in West Virginia shortly after he immigrated from Italy in 1912. Alfred and his brothers have maintained the store as--in his words--a ``perfect example of a mom and pop store like we used to have in the old days.'' Throughout all these years, the Torlones have been a tremendous asset to the Huntington community. Their commitment to charity and their store has made Huntington a better place since 1946. Their family, friends, and neighbors all wish Louie, Dominic, and Alfred the best of luck as they enter their much deserved retirement. I salute their service to Huntington.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, last year Congress passed H.R. 2739, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, which included a provision in section 601 to preempt State economic regulation of intrastate trucking. Today, I am introducing a technical corrections bill to address an item which I do not believe Congress intended to be within the scope of section 601. The primary thrust of section 601 is to address issues relating to the transportation by motor carrier of general freight and express small packages. The act clearly provides for continued State regulation of safety requirements and the transportation of household goods. During consideration of this legislation, however, nobody with the exception of myself raised the question of how it could affect other types of motor carriers, such as tow trucks. And indeed, today, many police departments and municipalities are faced with a great deal of uncertainty over the effect the legislation will have on what is known as nonconsensual towing, that is, that towing which is conducted without the vehicle owners consent. This is the type of towing that occurs when a vehicle is illegally parked on private property, or the vehicle is towed by order of the police. In this regard, some local public entities believe that they can engage in contractual relationships with one or more tow truck operators for the purpose of providing nonconsensual towing services. Others contend this practice would represent the regulation of rates and of the matter is that nobody can provide any clear guidance on this issue. The technical corrections bill I am introducing today would provide for continued State or local economic regulation of intrastate nonconsensual tow services. This bill is very similar to the measure recently introduced by the distinguished Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and is supported by many State towing associations, including those in Texas and California. Again, in my view, the intent of section 601 was to address issues relating to the transportation by motor carrier of general freight and express small packages. I do not believe there was any intent to affect the ability of a police department or municipality to regulate tow truck operations in order to protect citizens from the occasional instances of unscrupulous pricing practices that give the entire industry a black eye. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this legislation should pose any controversy. Again, it simply clarifies the intent of Congress in enacting section 601 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding and appreciate his leadership, as well as the leadership of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and our ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, rise in opposition to the spending amendment. I could perhaps understand the rationale for its introduction if its author were a new Member of the majority party. But I am rather dumbfounded by the rationale of its current author, considering his background and his work in the past with our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The gentleman certainly comes to this debate with no clean hands, protest notwithstanding. As most of us know, the airport, highway, and transit projects are financed through the trust funds supported by users fees, as has been repeated during this debate. This is entirely different from last week's debate on exempting defense from the line-item veto. Defense has no dedicated user financed trust fund. Expenditures from these highway trust funds are achieved through contract authority contained in authorizing bills under our jurisdiction on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Our highway and aviation programs are already covered by spending controls. I repeat, they are already covered by spending controls. Annually our appropriators impose obligation limitations on transportation contract authority which in turn controls outlays for these programs. Second, rescissions of highway and aviation contract authority will not save any money. By law the funds not expended from these trust funds remain in the trust fund and may not be used for any other purposes. These are dedicated funds, derived from user fees. We ought to be putting more trust into these highway trust funds, not detracting from the trust in these highway trust funds This is about truth in taxing, Mr. Chairman, using the people's money for what they believe the money is going toward when they pay that fee at the gas pump or buy that airline ticket. It is what they truly believe their money is going for, improved airports and security at our airports, improved highways. This is about truth in taxing, putting trust back into these highway trust funds, being honest with the American taxpayer about where his or her money is going, not into some black hole in Washington known as deficit reduction, for which they may never see any positive results. These trust funds are deficit proof. By law, by the Byrd amendment, they cannot spend more money than they take in. They should not, therefore, be target for deficit reduction. Road building in our respective States is a jobs issue as well. When we build roads, we provide jobs in both the short term and in the long term. And finally, enactment of this amendment would cause havoc in our transportation programs. State and transportation contractors have no assurance that once a project is initiated, the funds necessary for its completion would be there. There would be no smooth flow of funds to our States to conduct transportation policy and build projects with any amount of certitude. Who can conduct a transportation and road building project like that? And talk about unfunded mandates. If or the national highway system program, who is going to build these projects in the States, these lifelines to many a community? Obviously States are going to have to pick up the tab themselves. Talk about unfunded mandates. This is not the type of way, this is not the manner in which we should be conducting transportation policy in this country, especially as we look into the 21st century and try to adopt a new and sound policy of intermodalism. I tell my colleagues that this vote will send an important message, not individually, I might add, but collectively, to this body and to the world as we begin writing a transportation policy this year.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing legislation that I have sponsored for several Congresses now to form the Federal Black Lung Program. This legislation reflects the frustration of thousands of miners and their families with the extremely adversarial nature of the current program as administered by the Labor Department. As it now stands, disabled miners who suffer from the crippling effects of black lung disease are faced with a Federal bureaucracy so totally lacking in compassion to their plight, that it appears intent upon harassing their efforts to obtain just compensation at every single step of the claim adjudication process. In fact, today, we are witnessing less than a 10-percent approval rate on claims for black lung benefits. This figure does not attest to any reasonable and unbiased comportment of the facts. Rather, it represents nothing less than a cruel hoax being perpetrated against hard working citizens who have dedicated their lives to the energy security and economic well-being of this Nation. The original intent of Congress in enacting legislation to compensate victims of black lung disease was for this to be a fairly straightforward program. This intent has been defeated by years of administrative maneuverings aggravated by some extremely harmful judicial interpretations. Under this bill, we will return to a program that reflects the statutory commitment Congress, and indeed, the Nation, made to compensate these coal miners and their families. Make no mistake about it. Victims of black lung disease are not people who are looking for a handout. They are people who worked their lives in one of the most dangerous occupations in this country. They are people who were promised compensation by their Government. And they are people who now see their Government break that promise. It is time, indeed, long past the time that Congress move legislation on behalf of the thousands of miners, their widows and families who are being victimized by this program, the very program that was intended to bring them relief. In general, this measure contains the following proposals: First, new eligibility standards. A miner would be presumed to be totally disabled by black lung if the miner presents a single piece of qualifying medical evidence such as a positive x ray, ventilatory or blood gas studies, or a medical opinion. The Secretary of Labor could rebut the presumption of eligibility only if he can show that the miner is doing coal mine work or could actually do coal mine work. Second, application of new eligibility standards. The new standards would apply to all claims filed after enactment of the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1991. All pending claims, and claims denied prior to enactment of the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1991 would be reviewed under the new standards. Third, elimination of responsible operators. All claims would be paid out of the coal industry financed black lung disability trust fund. The purpose of this provision is to eliminate coal operators as defendants in black lung cases and the advantage they have over claimants by being able to afford to pay legal counsel. Fourth, widows/dependents. A widow or dependent of a miner would be awarded benefits if the miner worked 25 years or more in the mines; the miner died in whole or in part from black lung; the miner was receiving black lung benefits when he died; or medical evidence offered by the miner before he died satisfies new eligibility standards. Widows who are receiving benefits and who remarry would not be disqualified from continuing to receive the benefits; and, a widow would be entitled to receive benefits without regard to the length of time she was married to the miner. Fifth, offsets. The practice of offsetting a miner's Social Security benefits by the amount of black lung benefits would be discontinued.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the leadership of the Churches for Middle East Peace have co-written a letter to all Members of Congress concerning steps Congress can take to help build confidence between Palestinians and Israelis in order to continue making progress toward lasting peace. The letter articulates two issues with profound implications for negotiations in the months ahead and which are also of urgent concern to the churches: The future of Jerusalem and the protection of human rights. Mr. Speaker, the group, Churches for Middle East Peace, are made up of a broad range of religions and religious beliefs and practices, and they include: The American Baptist Churches, USA, American Friends Service Committee, Church of the Brethren, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers, Mennonite Central Committee, Presbyterian Church [USA], Roman Catholic Conference of Major Superiors of Men, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church. They encourage us, as Members of Congress, to actively support the Israeli-Palestinian peace process which lies at the core of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, because they believe the process is presently at risk of breaking down. In support of their belief that the process is, or may become, at risk, they particularly cite the following: Jerusalem: It is critical that the 104th Congress not hinder these negotiations by urging President Clinton to implement a policy that favors Israel's claims to the portion of the city annexed in 1967. Members of Congress can make an important contribution by encouraging the President to keep the question of Jerusalem open for the parties to negotiate and to respect the rights and aspirations of both parties. The letter goes on to say ``. . . it is crucial that the U.S. Government vigorously oppose Israeli building of settlements or the expansion of existing settlements in the territory occupied by Israeli forces in 1967.'' Human rights: We are concerned that human rights abuses, perpetrated both by the Israeli authorities and the Palestinian National Authority continue and that the U.S. Government in its role as a cosponsor of the peace process is doing little to promote respect for human rights. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues this joint letter, and urge their reading of it in its entirety. The letter is reprinted here with the blessings and hope of the Churches for Middle East Peace for our thorough understanding of the issues, and for all necessary action to further a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Churches for Middle East Peace, Washington, DC, January 3, 1995. Hon. Nick J. Rahall, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Rahall, The members of Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP), a coalition of the Washington offices of Protestant, Roman Catholic Episcopal, and historic peace churches, encourage your active support for the Israeli- Palestinian peace process which lies at the core of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. We are writing to you now because we believe that process is at risk and there are steps the U.S. Congress can take to help build confidence between Palestinians and Israelis in order to continue making progress toward lasting peace. There are a number of problems that may undermine the peace process. We would like to draw your attention at this time to two issues with profound implications for negotiations in the months ahead and which are also of urgent concern to the churches: the future of Jerusalem and the protection of human rights. Jerusalem: The Declaration of Principles, signed by Israel and the PLO on September 13, 1993, stipulate that the final status of Jerusalem is to be determined by the Government of Israel and the representatives of the Palestinian people in the context of the ``permanent status negotiations'', now scheduled to begin no later than May, 1996. It is critical that the 104th Congress not hinder these negotiations by urging President Clinton to implement a policy that favors Israel's claims to the portion of the city annexed in 1967. Members of Congress can make an important contribution by encouraging the President to keep the question of Jerusalem open for the parties to negotiate and to respect the rights and aspirations of both parties. Israelis and Palestinians must be encouraged to avoid unilateral actions that would prejudice the permanent status negotiations on Jerusalem. Most importantly, it is crucial that the U.S. Government vigorously oppose Israeli building of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements in territory occupied by Israeli forces in 1967. Many observers fear that the settlement activity is an attempt by Israel to preempt the negotiations on Jerusalem by creating overwhelming facts on the ground. The permanent status of Jerusalem, and the process by which it is determined, holds the potential for either promoting reconciliation between Jews, Christians, and Muslims or fostering conflict between them. We urge the U.S. Government to advance a vision of Jerusalem, ``city of peace,'' as a symbol of reconciliation for the three faiths and for Palestinians and Israelis. is an essential ingredient in the process of peacemaking. We are concerned that human rights abuses, perpetrated both by the Israeli authorities and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), continue and that the U.S. Government in its role as a co-sponsor of the peace process is doing little to promote respect for human rights. In mid-September two of our members, Pastor Mark Brown of the Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs and human rights attorney Terence Miller of the Maryknoll Justice and Peace Office, met with leaders of Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations and representatives of international bodies such as the United Nations Secretariat and the International Committee of the Red Cross to assess the human rights situation throughout the occupied territories. The enclosed briefing paper, prepared by Pastor Brown, Mr. Miller and staff of a number of other U.S. religious and human rights organizations, asks that particular attention be focussed on the following four areas: 1. Ensuring the creation of democratically accountable forms of government in the Palestinian partial self-rule areas; 2. Providing for the deployment of international human rights monitors throughout the territories to bolster protection for human rights and the rule of law for all; 3. Preventing the institutionalization of a dual and discriminatory justice system as a consequence of continuing military occupation; and 4. Calling for an end to illegal Israeli settlement activity. We want you to know that we share the concerns raised in this briefing paper and ask that you will carefully consider the suggestions for U.S. Government action offered in each of the four areas. We commend Israel and the Palestinian National Authority for their determination to press ahead despite horrendous acts of violence which make the way to peace all the more painful and arduous. We ask that you honor their commitment to the achievement of peace by promoting a U.S. policy which fosters a negotiated solution for Jerusalem and the protection of human rights. Sincerely, Robert Z. Alpern, Director, Washington Office, Unitarian Universalist Association; Dale L. Bishop, Middle East Liaison, National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA; Fr. Robert J. Brooks, The Presiding Bishop's Director of Government Relations, The Episcopal Church; Mark B. Brown, Assistant Director, Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; J. Daryl Byler, Director, Washington Office, Mennonite Central Committee; Peggy Hutchison, Area Secretary for the Middle East and North Africa, World Division, General Board of Global Ministries, The United Methodist Church; Elenora Giddings Ivory, Director, Washington Office, Presbyterian Church (USA); The Rev. Ted Keating, Director for Peace and Justice, Roman Catholic Conference of Major Superiors of Men's Institutions. Jay Lintner, Director, Office for Church in Society, United Church of Christ; James Matlack, Director, American Friends Service Committee, Washington Office; Timothy A. McElwee, Director, Church of the Brethren, Washington Office; Terence W. Miller, Director, MaryKnoll Justice & Peace Office; Nancy Nye, Legislative Secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation; Anna Rhee, Executive Secretary for Public Policy, Women's Division, General Board of Global Ministries, The United Methodist Church; Robin Ringler, Peace with Justice Program Director, General Board of Church and Society, The United Methodist Church; Robert W. Tiller, Director, Office of Governmental Relations, American Baptist Churches USA.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing into the 104th Congress legislation to reform the mining law of 1872. Joining me in sponsoring this measure are George Miller of California, Christopher Shays of Connecticut, Bruce Vento of Minnesota, Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Jerry Kleczka of Wisconsin. This bill, the Mineral Exploration and Development Act of 1995, is identical to the version of H.R. 322 which passed the House during the last Congress on November 18, 1993, by a bipartisan vote of 316 to 108. In fact, our new Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Newt Gingrich], voted for this bill at that time. Unfortunately, last year the House- Senate conference committee on mining law reform was unable to reach an agreement. Today, with the introduction of this measure, we begin where that historical debate left off. In my view, the advent of a new Congress with a Republican majority does not change the fundamental and bipartisan support that continues to be displayed for reforming the mining law of 1872. Indeed, the fiscal austerity being advanced by the Republican leadership may very well enhance our prospects for gaining enactment of this legislation, which has enjoyed the support of the National Taxpayers Union, during this Congress. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues, many of whom may be new to this issue, in order to explain this measure perhaps it is best to briefly go back to the year 1872. At the time, Ulysses S. Grant resided in the White House. Union troops still occupied the South. The invention of the telephone and Custer's stand at the Little Bighorn were still 4 years away. And in 1872 Congress passed a law that allowed people to go onto public lands in the West, stake mining claims, and, if any gold or silver were found, produce it for free. In an effort to promote the settlement of the West, Congress said that these folks could also buy the land from the Federal Government for $2.50 an acre. That was 1872. This is 1995, Yet, today, the mining law of 1872 is still in force. In 1995, however, for the most part it is not the lone prospector of old, pick in hand, accompanied by his trusty pack mule, who is staking those mining claims. It is large corporations, many of them foreign controlled, who are mining gold owned by the people of the United States for free, and snapping up valuable Federal land at fast-food hamburger prices. legislation, the mining law of 1872 played a role in the development of the West. But it also left a staggering legacy of poisoned streams, abandoned waste dumps, and maimed landscapes. Obviously, at the public's expense, the western mining interests have had a good thing going all of these years. But the question has to be asked: Is it right to continue to allow this speculation with Federal lands, not to require that the lands be reclaimed, and to permit the public's mineral wealth to be mined for free? Today, anybody can still go onto Federal lands in States like Nevada and Montana and stake any number of mining claims, each averaging about 20 acres. In order to maintain the mining claim, until very recently all that was required was that the claimholder spend $100 per year to the benefit of the claim. In the event hardrock minerals such as gold or silver are found on the claim, they are mined for free. There are no requirements that a production royalty be paid to the Federal Government. It is incredible, but true, that an estimated 1.8 billion dollars' worth of hardrock minerals are annually mined from Federal lands in the Western States in this fashion. Yet, the Federal Government does not collect one penny in royalty from any of this mineral production. Under the mining law of 1872, claimholders can also choose to purchase the Federal land being claimed. They can do this by first showing that the lands have valuable minerals, and then by paying the Federal Government a mere $2.50 or $5.00 an acre depending on the type of claim. This is called obtaining a mining claim patent. Perhaps a good feature in 1872, when the Nation was trying to settle the West. But today there is hardly a need to promote the additional settlement of L.A., San Francisco, or Denver. Recently, for example, a mining company received preliminary approval to obtain 25 of these patents covering about 2,000 acres of public land in Montana. This company will pay the Federal Government little more than $10,000 for land estimated to contain 32 billion dollars' worth of platinum and palladium. Moreover, once the mining claim is patented, nothing in this so- called mining law says that it has to be actually mined. The land is now in private ownership. People are free to build condos or ski slopes on it. For example, a couple of years ago the Arizona Republic carried a story about a gentleman who paid the Federal Government $155 for 61 acres' worth of mining claims. Today, these mining claims are the site of a Hilton hotel. This gentleman now estimates that his share of the resort is worth about $6 million. Claimholders can also mine these Federal lands with minimal reclamation requirements. The only Federal requirement is that when operating on these lands they do not cause ``unnecessary or undue degradation.'' What does this term mean? It means that they can do whatever they want as long as it's pretty much what all of the other miners are doing. And who will pay the bill for this abuse? Check over the Superfund National Priority List and you will learn the answer. I might add that the issue of mining law reform does not deal with coal, or that matter, oil and gas. These energy minerals, if located on Federal lands, are leased by the Government, and a royalty is charged. Further, mining law reform does not deal with private lands. The scope of the mining law of 1872 is limited to hardrock minerals such as gold, silver, lead, and zinc on Federal lands in the Western States. That is also the scope of this reform bill. In brief, the legislation we are introducing today would prohibit the continued give-away of public lands. It would require that mining claims be diligently developed. It would impose a royalty on the production of valuable minerals extracted from Federal lands. And, it would require industry to comply with some basic reclamation standards. Again, this legislation is identical to the bill which passed the House last year by a bipartisan 3-to-1 margin. Mr. Speaker, I receive many calls in my office on the issue of mining law reform. When people learn that today, in 1995, gold and silver is still mined off public lands for free, they are, naturally, incredulous. The question is often asked: How come Congress has not done anything to reform the mining law yet? Frankly, as the Member who commenced this current effort to reform the mining law back in 1987, I, too, am incredulous that this law continues in force in a manner basically unchanged from its 1872 origins. Historically, the western hardrock mining industry has been successful in blocking any and all congressional reform initiatives. Lately, however, I have noticed an increasing sentiment within the more progressive element of the industry to settle this matter once and for all. Perhaps 1995 will be the year in which the voice of this element of the industry will become the dominating voice of the industry overall. For the benefit of my colleagues, following I offer a brief history on the effort to reform the mining law of 1872: History of Mining Law Reform The genesis of mining law reform dates back to 1879, seven years after the enactment of the Mining Law of 1872. At that time, Congress created the first major Public Land Commission to investigate land policy in the West. One of its major recommendations included a thorough rewrite of the 1872 law which even then was believed by many to undermine efficient mineral development. Several decades later, in 1908, President Roosevelt created the National Conservation Commission to study Federal land policy in the West, and it, too, made a number of recommendations for reform of the Mining Law. Again, in 1921, a committee appointed by the Director of the Bureau of Mines recommended a series of reforms, developed in concert with mining industry representatives interested in improving the mechanics of the law. These recommendations were embodied in legislation introduced in both houses of Congress and hearings were held in 1922, however, no action was taken at that time. Following this effort, the next call for reform came at the onset of World War II, when then Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes endorsed a leasing system for hardrock mining. In 1949, the Hoover Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, like the first Public Land Commission, recommended a series of changes to the Mining Law. This effort was succeeded by the President's Materials Policy Commission (the Paley Commission) in 1952 which also recommended revisions, including placing hardrock minerals under a leasing system. Once again, the criticism centered on inefficiencies in mineral development caused by the law. Between 1964 and 1977 Congress went through another period of debate on mining law reform. The debate became more complex during that time as issues related to abuse and the need for environmental protections were added to the mix. The Public Land Law Review Commission, created by Congress in 1964, made the Mining Law a prominent issue on its agenda. Following issuance of the Commission's report in 1970, Congress debated the issue until 1977, when efforts to reform the mining law collapsed. After a decade-long hiatus, on June 23, 1987, what was then known as the Subcommittee on Mining and Natural Resources held an oversight hearing on the Mining Law of 1872, initiating the current round of Congressional debate on reform. Subsequently, the Subcommittee held a number of hearings on specific issue areas related to hardrock mining on public lands, such as: hardrock mine reclamation and bonding requirements, abandoned mine land problems, mining claims on Stock Raising Homestead Act lands, uncommon varieties of hardrock minerals, regulation of hardrock mining wastes, and oil shale claims. On September 6, 1990, the Subcommittee on Mining and Natural Resources conducted a hearing on the first reform measure introduced into the House in over a decade, H.R. 3866, sponsored by then Subcommittee Chairman Rahall. This hearing was augmented by several reports produced by the U.S. General Accounting Office at the Subcommittee's request: An Assessment of Hardrock Mining Damage (1988); The Mining Law Needs Revision (1989); Unauthorized Activities Occurring on Hardrock Mining Claims (1990); Patenting of Mining Claims Complies with Law (Oregon Dunes) (1990); and, Increased Attention Being Given to Cyanide Operations (1991). At the commencement of the 102nd Congress, on February 6, 1991, H.R. 918 was introduced by Rep. Nick Rahall. During the first session of that Congress, the Subcommittee on Mining and Natural Resources held four field hearings on the bill in Denver, Colorado (April 12, 1991); Reno, Nevada (April 13, 1991); Sante Fe, New Mexico (May 3, 1991); and Fairbanks, Alaska (May 25, 1991). Two additional days of hearings were held on the bill in Washington, D.C. on June 18, 1991, and June 20, 1991. On June 24, 1992, H.R. 918 was favorably considered by what was then known as the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs which reported the bill with amendments by a roll call vote of 26 to 19. The House began floor consideration of the bill, but did not complete action on the measure prior to the adjournment of the 102nd Congress. At the beginning of the 103rd Congress, on January 5, 1993, Rep. Rahall introduced H.R. 322, which closely mirrored the version of H.R. 918 previously considered on the House Floor. On March 11, 1993, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a hearing on the bill and on October 28, 1993, the Subcommittee favorably reported the bill as amended. On November 3, 1993, the Committee on Natural Resources favorably reported the bill as amended by a vote of 28 to 14. H.R. 322 was passed by the House on November 18, 1993, by a vote of 316 to 108. Unfortunately, during the 103rd Congress a House-Senate conference committee on mining law reform was unable to reach an agreement.