Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike from the bill provisions which would give rise to a monopoly controlling Federal coal leases, primarily in Wyoming's Powder River Basin. These provisions are anticompetitive, anticonsumer and against the interest of the majority of coal miners in this country. It is important to understand that the Federal Government owns one- third of the Nation's coal, mostly in the Western States, with a high concentration in Wyoming's Powder River Basin. This coal is made available for production under a competitive leasing program. The taxpayers receive a return in the form of bids made to secure the leases and in the form of a production royalty. Provisions of H.R. 6 would change all of this. These provisions would allow coal producers with Federal leases to seize unlimited additional Federal coal lands without competitive bidding and be relieved of paying royalties owed to the American taxpayer under certain circumstances. Just imagine that these producers would be in the driver's seat. They could gobble up unlimited acreage of publicly owned coal lands without competition. The net effect of these provisions would be the creation of a Federal coal-producing monopoly in the Powder River Basin, with ramifications to electricity consumers throughout the West and Midwest and to the detriment of coal producers and coal laborers in the Appalachian and Midwestern States, and the American taxpayer, the American taxpayer, the owners of the lands, would be robbed of their share of the bonus bids and royalty payments. This map displays in red the States which lose under these provisions. These are States which either consume Powder River Basin coal or have coal producers which compete against this coal. As United Mine Workers of America President Cecil Roberts recently wrote: ``The bill constitutes a serious threat to coal miner jobs and coal community families. If enacted, the bill would provide a huge windfall to a few, while shifting significant costs and risks to the American public.'' As it stands, electric utility companies have filed with the Surface Transportation Board, already, several cases challenging the reasonableness of coal rates involving Powder River Basin coal. These utility companies already filing suit, among them Northern State Power, Public Service Company of Colorado, West Texas Utility Company, Texas Municipal Power Agency and Wisconsin Power and Light, these utilities are alleging that the delivered price of Powder River Basin coal is already unreasonable. The Federal coal leasing provisions of H.R. 6 would add insult to injury. I would add that these are not by any means the only utility companies which purchase Powder River Basin coal. Whether it is the Arizona Public Service Company, the Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Detroit Edison, Nebraska Public Power, Oklahoma Gas and Electric, or Public Service Company of Colorado, the consumers of all these utilities stand to lose with the creation of a monopoly in their supplier of coal to these utilities. It is absurd in the name of national energy security to artificially inflate the cost of delivered power to electric utility consumers. The Federal coal-leasing provisions also represent a direct assault against coal producers in States which compete with the Powder River Basin coal for electric utility markets. I make no bones about it, yes, that includes my home State of West Virginia. It also includes States such as Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Tennessee. Coal producers in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois would be harmed as well. This amendment transcends partisan politics. Members representing States which either consume or compete against Powder River Basin coal all stand to lose if the provisions in question stay in this legislation. I urge my colleagues to look at this map and determine how this provision adversely affects their consumers, and I urge the adoption of my amendment to strike. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to the gentlewoman from Wyoming and her assertion that the lawsuits that I mentioned in my opening comments are filed against the rail companies, I do not dispute that; that is true. They are filed over already high rates concerning coal coming out of the Powder River Basin. So this anticompetitive provision in this legislation would only further add to the high cost of coal coming out of that area and, therefore, yield even further lawsuits. Mr. Chairman, on March 17 Mountaineer Coal in Mingo County in my district began laying off 460 people. These workers are among hundreds of others in southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky to have gone out of work in the past year and a half. Meanwhile, the once hustling former B&O Railroad coal lines in part of my State are now recreational trails. The track has been pulled up. Over the years, we have suffered as we have lost critical electric utility markets to Federal coal production in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming to the detriment of our employment base and regional economies. The provisions in H.R. 6 that I seek to strike would provide that Powder River Basin coal production with an artificially created, additional competitive edge to the additional detriment of our employment base and our regional economies. I say to my colleagues from coal-producing regions in the Midwest and in Appalachia, we once had a saying in the coal fields from which I held, Which side are you on? Which side are you on? I stand for the coal miner and our coal communities, and today, this effort of mine is all about fighting for the heart and soul of Appalachia. To fiscal conservatives in this body, Democrat and Republican alike, I appeal to my colleagues on this amendment. Is it reasonable to make public resources available without benefit of competition and to not require a proper return for their disposition? Is this a proper stewardship of public lands in this country? I think not. That is also why I am seeking to strike these provisions from H.R. 6. And to those of my colleagues who represent electric utilities which buy Powder River Basin coal, I appeal to you as well. Stand for your consumers against potential monopolistic pricing practices. And to those of you who may not care one iota about coal, I appeal to you for a sense of fairness. There is no justifiable reason why the Federal Government, which owns over one-third of the coal in this country, should be deployed in an anti-competitive fashion against industries, workers and consumers. This is not the American way. I urge the support of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Ron Kind, the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. There is no reason, no reason whatsoever, for Congress to be mandating OCS royalty relief. The fact of the matter is that Secretary Norton apparently already has discretionary authority to grant royalty relief and is in fact promulgating regulations on this matter. There is simply no need for this Committee to now mandate, and perhaps hamstring, Secretary Norton on the matter of granting royalty holidays. The issue of Royalty-in-Kind deserves some attention. This stuff comes right out of the pages of the Communist Manifesto. It is being proposed that we socialize the Federal oil and gas royalty process. That companies would send Federal bureaucrats the actual oil and gas, rather than cash payments, to meet their royalty obligations. Then, these Federal bureaucrats would be expected to market the oil and gas, to compete with Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell, in order for the taxpayers to actually recoup the royalty proceeds. Incredible. Simply incredible. Both of these provisions are drains on the Treasury and are simply not needed to enhance America's energy security. And to top it off, to top it off, provisions of the bill which Mr. Kind is seeking to strike would have the taxpayer foot part of the bill for oil and gas companies to comply with NEPA. The taxpayer is actually being called upon the pay these companies for their privilege to drill on Federal lands. At a time of soaring gasoline prices. Suffice it to say, these provisions have not redeeming value to our energy security and should be stricken from H.R. 6. I urge all Members to support the Kind amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, do I reserve the right to close?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In conclusion, let me wrap up the debate on this amendment by saying that it is a pro-mining amendment. It is a pro-consumer amendment. It is a pro-fairness-for-American-taxpayer amendment. The coal that is mined in the Powder River Basin for the most part is Federal coal. This is coal that has as the owner of the deed on that land all the American taxpayers. They have a right to get a fair return for the disposition of their resources. We have, as public policymakers, the obligation to ensure that the American taxpayer gets a fair return and that this coal that is mined on Federal coal leases in the Powder River Basin is leased on a competitive basis. That helps the consumer, and that helps all of America. Those of us in the east and other States, where of course the majority of the coal that is mined is on private lands, this amendment ensures that that production will continue in a very fair and environmentally sound manner. It ensures that there is an equal balance in the distribution of our coal supplies across this country; and it means that the American taxpayer, in the long run, is the beneficiary of my amendment to strike this anti-competitive provision.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment that originally was to be offered by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means now being offered by the author of the relevant provision in the legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor). In light of the fact that I had filed the very same amendment with the Committee on Rules, which is now being considered, despite all of the rhetoric we heard previously, we are back to the main amendment, which is the amendment involving health care for our retired coal miners. In light of the fact that I was going to offer that same amendment on behalf of some 50,000 retired coal miners and their widows, I do want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who was originally supposed to offer this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for offering this amendment, and the Committee on Rules for making it in order. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on Resources, for allowing the amendment to be made in order. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) on my side of the aisle and several members from the coal-producing States that have retired coal miners in their districts. I certainly have some of the largest numbers in my congressional district. I thank all of these gentlemen for making this amendment in order. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) again, because he has personally discussed this amendment with me and realized the adverse effect the original provision would have had on our Nation's coal miners. Indeed, the legislation as originally presented to this body before this amendment would have allowed certain coal companies to be relieved of their contractual obligations to fully fund health care for their former employees. Rather than pay the annual health care premiums based on the current cost of coverage under the original language, the provisions would allow these companies to prefund their ability at what they determine are their obligations and then walk away without any further responsibility. As the old adage goes, that would have been like the fox guarding the henhouse. Obviously, these companies are not going to ante up the true cost of providing long-term health care when they get to determine how much they pay. So it was more than fair that this provision come out of this legislation. This, after all, is a commitment that our Federal Government has made to our Nation's retired coal miners and their widows, which goes back to the days of President Truman and when John L. Lewis was the president of the United Mine Workers of America. It is a promise that our Federal Government has made to retired coal miners, which has been reaffirmed by administration after administration, regardless of party, in the ensuing years. That is what we are doing in this legislation, making sure that the Energy Policy Act of 2003 does not rob, or have the possible potential to rob, these 50,000 retired coal miners and their widows of the health care coverage they deserve. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to America's heroes on National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day. The holiday is all the more poignant this year. This year the world celebrated the rescue of POW Private Jessica Lynch from an Iraqi hospital. This brave West Virginia woman fought capture as she watched her comrades die next to her. West Virginians are especially proud of the rescue of one of our own and proud of the troops, including some of West Virginia's own National Guard, who were involved in her return. This was a truly remarkable moment for West Virginia's service men and women. We may never know all the details of the ordeal Private Lynch endured while held in Iraqi captivity. Like so many POWs before her, not only are there physical wounds to heal but mental and spiritual. As Americans, it is our duty to welcome back these heroes who fought for our freedom. We must give all of our returned POWs the support they require and deserve and share with them our pride in their sacrifice to the Nation. We give thanks to God for the return of our POWs and ask Him to watch over our soldiers and our Nation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. As I conclude, let me note that all is not lost just yet. There still will be opportunities to improve the Committee on Resources provisions. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) will be offering an amendment to strike the non-ANWR oil and gas provisions, the giveaways, if you will, from this bill; and that means that one can be for drilling in ANWR. I am not, but my colleague can be for drilling and still vote for the Kind amendment. Then I will be offering an amendment to strike the Federal coal leasing provisions that are anticompetitive and do real harm to consumers and coal miners in many States. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of majority of the Democratic Caucus of the Committee on Resources, I had sought to have made in order an amendment which would have substituted the Committee on Resources' provisions of H.R. 6. Unfortunately, this amendment was not made in order, and it is worthwhile to note what we did proposed in that substitute alternative. Rather than exploiting environmentally sensitive areas, we proposed to facilitate the delivery of over 35 trillion cubic feet of gas from developed fields in the North Slope to the lower 48 States, and do so with the benefit of Buy American and project labor agreement protections. Rather than grant a royalty holiday to oil and gas companies, we proposed to ensure that the American people receive a fair return for the disposition of their resources by cracking down on royalty underpayments. Rather than potentially disrupting the distribution of western water to farmers and cities by emphasizing hydropower over all other purposes, we proposed to relieve transmission constraints in the western power grid. And, as Democrats, we also proposed to redouble the commitment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Democratic alternative to the Committee on Resources Republican energy provision was about energy development, empowerment and endowment; the development of renewable energy resources on our public lands in offshore areas and the development of a more efficient electricity transmission highway in the 15 States that lie within the Western Area Power Administration's territory; the empowerment of Indian country and the contribution they can make to our national energy mix; and the endowment to coastal communities of pristine beaches, environmental wildlife habit, and the economic prosperity these attributes make; the endowment to the coal-field communities of the necessary resources to combat the constant threat they face from abandoned coal mines. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the debate will not take place today on these issues due to the restrictive nature of the rules. I would echo the words of the dean of the House, the ranking member on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and say, let us defeat the bill, let us defeat the rule, and let us defeat the previous question.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that I oppose much of what is contained in H.R. 6 and especially provisions approved by the Committee on Resources. However, I do want to publicly thank the Committee on Resources chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), for his fairness, his fairness in allowing all the amendments to be heard during the committee consideration of this bill in a very judicious manner, and I appreciate that. Now, while I am disappointed that my substitute to the Committee on Resources provisions was not made in order, I do appreciate, as well, the Committee on Rules making in order my amendment to strike the Federal coal leasing provisions, as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Kind) amendment to strike the non-ANWR oil and gas provisions. Finally, to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I thank him for having an amendment made in order to strike from this bill provisions which would have done great harm to retired coal miners and their widows; and the chairman and I have personally discussed this issue. With that, Mr. Chairman, I end my kudos. Today, this body is considering legislation that represents an unprecedented assault on America's resources and on American taxpayers under the guise of contributing to our energy security. The fact of the matter is that there is little in the way of relief for Americans at the gas pump in this bill. Adding insult to injury, the legislation would gouge Americans even further through a whole host of taxpayer subsidies to energy producers. This is misguided relief. It is not for consumers but for multinational corporations drilling for oil and gas in Federal Gulf of Mexico waters by granting them a taxpayer-subsidized royalty holiday. They get to drill and the taxpayer foots the bill by forgoing royalty payments. An unwarranted drilling incentive at a time of high energy prices, a staggering budget deficit, and the yet unknown full cost of the war in Iraq. In fact, this legislation contains so many royalty reductions and kickbacks that the Treasury stands to lose a mint. There are royalty holidays for deep-water wells, shallow water/deep wells, and marginal wells. Just name the site and there is a good chance a company will be relieved of its debt to the country. It is probably easier to identify who would actually have to pay a royalty rather than who would not if this bill were to become law. Robin Hood must be turning in his grave. Even America's natural resource heritage would be placed at risk under this legislation, whether it be along the Rocky Mountain front, our national forests, ANWR or in Federal waters near beach communities. These areas are all targeted for increased energy development under the bill. Americans and the majority of Representatives in this body do not believe we must sacrifice our heritage and our prized natural treasures to achieve greater energy self-sufficiency. Americans need real relief from energy prices, yes, without a doubt, and potential natural gas shortages. When it comes to enhancing domestic gas, as well as petroleum supplies, I think we need to start thinking outside the box. This bill does not do that. In my view, a real energy policy could increase domestic gas supplies in a responsible fashion which would include the following element, which is also missing in H.R. 6: If we really want to think outside of the box, we should provide incentives to the utility sector to build coal gasification plants. We have been pouring money into Energy Department research on clean coal technologies for over 20 years. The technology is there. For instance, South Africa, for many decades, powers its entire country with synthetic gas and petroleum provided and produced from coal under what it calls the Sasol technology. Yet, today, there are only two coal gasification plants in commercial operation because it is far less expensive and easier for utilities to build small gas turbine generators. I believe it would be worthy to provide the utilities with an incentive to actually build coal gasification plants. As my colleagues can see, I am not against well-thought-out, targeted energy incentives; but what I am opposed to are taxpayer subsidies for traditional oil and gas drilling at a time of high energy prices. That makes no sense. In my view, the economics of supply and demand will prevail without the government's meddling. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to America's heroes on National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day. The holiday is all the more poignant this year. This year the world celebrated the rescue of POW Private Jessica Lynch from an Iraqi hospital. This brave West Virginia woman fought capture as she watched her comrades die next to her. West Virginians are especially proud of the rescue of one of our own and proud of the troops, including some of West Virginia's own National Guard, who went in to save her. We are particularly grateful of West Virginia Air National Guard Major Harry Morgan Freeman Jr. of Chapmanville who helped deliver the SEALs to the hospital where Lynch was held and then flew the group to safety. This was a truly remarkable moment for West Virginia's service men and women. We may never know all the details of the ordeal Private Lynch endured while held in Iraqi captivity. Like so many POWs before her, not only are the physical wounds to heal but mental and spiritual. As Americans, it is our duty to welcome back these heroes who fought for our freedom. We must give all of our returned POWs the support they require and deserve and share with them our pride in their sacrifice to the Nation. We give thanks to God for the return of our POWs and ask Him to watch over our soldiers and our Nation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the achievements and life of our former colleague, Herbert Leon Callahan, universally known as Sonny. I appreciate the invitation by our colleague, Jo Bonner, Sonny's worthy successor, to express my thoughts about Sonny. Born and raised in Mobile, Alabama, Sonny graduated from McGill Institute High School in Mobile, and went to serve his country honorably in the United States Navy from 1952 to 1954. Later, he attended the University of Alabama, Mobile. Following a successful career in business, and terms in the Alabama state House of Representatives and state Senate, Sonny was elected to the 99th Congress. He went on to serve his district and his state with distinction for the next 16 years. During this time, he developed into a key authority on foreign aid matters in the House, and he rose to become one of the ``Cardinals,'' the Appropriations subcommittee chairmen. His involvement with foreign aid allowed him to do great good deeds to help those in need, and it allowed him to develop friendships with a unique cast of characters. I laughed at Sonny's quip about his efforts with the rock star, Bono, which he described as the ``Sonny and Bono show.'' Also, first as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, then as Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, Sonny always honored every appropriations request with fairness and a much-appreciated willingness to work with members. Sonny helped me personally in my efforts to improve the conditions of my district in rural West Virginia, and I want to publicly and personally thank him for his efforts. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are greatly privileged to serve our constituencies and our Nation during our time in office. The ``People's House'' in which we serve is a monument to the American people, and it is a symbol of our country's sustained democracy. Let it be known that during his time in office Sonny Callahan served the People's House with distinction. I wish Sonny well in his retirement. As I have said elsewhere, our loss is a clear gain for his family and friends.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the Republic of Tunisia's 47th Anniversary on March 20, 2003. I invite my colleagues to join in extending our congratulations to the leaders and people of this important ally. While Tunisia is celebrating 47 years of independence, our relationship with this country has roots much older. As early as 1797, The United States first signed a treaty of peace and friendship with Tunisia. This first step was a portentous omen for the future. Throughout Tunisia's brief history they have been a staunch ally to the United States and democracy at large. Whether it be their willingness to support the United States in World War II by suspending their own struggle with the French to lend aid to the allied cause, or their unwavering commitment to seeing terrorism vanquished through their membership in the U.S. led coalition against terror, it becomes evident that Tunisia's dedication to freedom and democracy is held in the highest regard by its people. Not only is Tunisia a defender of democracy outside its borders, but within as well. Few are the nations that can boast of a more progressive attitude towards women's rights, enshrined in law, as early as 1956, The Code of Personal Status established a new organization of family based on equal rights through a series of provisions including the abolition of polygamy, and setting the minimum age of marriage at 17. In 1993, amendments were adopted that went still further, guaranteeing alimony for divorced women and their children. Mothers were also given the explicit right to partake in the management of their children's affairs whether married or not. Tunisia is also a country that values its heritage and culture. It is a proponent of the arts and its distinct, diverse culture. The government of this culturally rich country has passed laws that allow texts and musical instruments bound for cultural purposes to be imported tax free to stimulate interest and growth in this important sector of society. Tax breaks have also been levied towards investment in monuments from antiquity that might otherwise fall into ruin. Tunisia is a country that has overcome many obstacles. From foreign powers to economic reform Tunisia has never shied from change while also preserving its unique and rich heritage. For this reason, and many others, I invite my colleagues to join in congratulating all Tunisians as they celebrate the 47th anniversary of their nation's independence.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Ron Keeney who will soon retire after nearly 37 years of great service to our Nation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I would emphasize the term ``great service'' because the contributions Ron Keeney has made to bettering the lives of the people who reside within the jurisdictional area of the Huntington District of the Corps of Engineers is beyond description here. Indeed, Ron is more than a dedicated public servant and wonderful person, I also view him a friend not only to myself but to the people of West Virginia. Ron will be retiring from the Huntington District where he is the Deputy District Engineer for Project Management and the Chief of the Planning, Programs and Project Management Division. From my experience, Ron brought to this job not just the credentials of a seasoned Corps of Engineers veteran in terms of planning and constructing civil works projects, but a very real and deeply held belief that the mission of the Corps is more than just building locks and dams and flood control projects. That in effect, the Corps' mission includes improving our environment and providing opportunities for economic development so that our children and future generations to come will live in a better world. Ron Keeney was born in Huntington, West Virginia, and began his rise through the ranks of the Corps of Engineers in 1966. He graduated from Ohio University with a BBA in Economics, summa cum laude. Over the course of his career he has received 30 outstanding/exceptional performance ratings and awards, the Silver de Fleury Medal, named USACE Planner of the Year, LRD Planner of the Year twice and received the Director of Civil Works Special Act Award. I have had the privilege to work with Ron on many projects over the years and can say without hesitation that no challenge was ever too great for him. And challenge him we did indeed. Whether it was providing flood control along the Tug Fork River, implementing one of the first in the Nation Corps of Engineers environmental infrastructure programs, or building a relationship with Marshall University's Geotechnical Center, Ron Keeney responded to the challenge. I know for a fact that when he looks back at his career he will remember the work we did together at the Bluestone Dam facility as a highlight. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and my staff, including Kent Keyser and Jim Zoia, we wish Ron Keeney Godspeed on his future endeavors. The best to him and his family, and may he continue to reside and prosper in the great State of West Virginia.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of West Virginia's senior Senator's service to the people of West Virginia in the United States Congress. It was Winston Churchill who perhaps best foresaw the defining nature of the tenure of Senator Robert Byrd's tireless work on behalf of the State of West Virginia, our Nation, the House and the Senate and, of course, our Federal Constitution. Churchill said, ``Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts.'' Senator Byrd has seen success. He has never lost an election. But Robert C. Byrd does not measure success by personal standards, but by the public good. He does not seek success, only to serve. And through his service, West Virginians have prospered, America has been strengthened, the Congress has been ennobled, and the Constitution secured. Failure has been rare and momentary but always used as a catapult to advance the next charge for the cause of the day. It is common to celebrate milestones in our Nation's capital, Mr. Speaker; but tenure no matter the length is temporary. What matters, what measures the man, Mr. Speaker, is not the number of terms but the depth of his determination, not the years but the heights of his horizons and not one more sunrise but the courage of his convictions. By this measure, Mr. Speaker, Robert C. Byrd's record can never be outdone.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend, Mrs. Helen Dobson, who passed away on December 8, 2002. Helen will be missed by all of us, but her memories will last forever in our hearts. She was a beautiful flower whose fragrance permeated her surroundings. Her songbird voice soothed the souls of many and brought joy to our hearts. Helen's untiring efforts on behalf of our community never went unnoticed, as she gave unselfishly of herself to meet the needs of others time and time again. One of my fondest of many memories, is when Helen surprised me by singing ``Happy Birthday'' and inviting the congregation to join in, during a Sunrise Prayer Service at Central Baptist Church, in conjunction with a visit to my hometown of Beckley, West Virginia, by former U. S. Secretary of Transportation, Rodney E. Slater. Secretary Slater was in awe of Helen's beautiful voice, as she sang her favorite song, ``If I Can Help Somebody, Then My Living Shall Not Be In Vain.'' I will never forget Helen's efforts on my behalf and the support she gave me throughout the years. I pray that Helen's memories will live forever in our hearts. It is for certain that, ``Helen's Living Shall Not Be In Vain'' and the West Virginia Hills are alive with the sound of her music.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation to restore our Nation's historic commitment to insuring lifetime health care for retired coal miners. Joining me in introducing this bill is the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Bob Ney. Indeed, last year the House of Representatives passed the legislation we are reintroducing today. However, the other body did not take action on it prior to adjournment of the 107th Congress. Enactment this year of CARE 21, the ``Coal Accountability and Retired Employee Act for the 21st Century,'' is essential if we are to avoid seeing a curtailment in health care coverage for thousands of retired coal miners and their widows. This would not be the first time that Congress acted in this matter. In 1992, in what is known as the ``Coal Act'' enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act, Congress established the UMWA Combined Benefit Fund (CBF) combining the union's 1950 and 1974 benefit plans. This action came in response to changes in the coal industry which created a large class of ``orphaned'' miners whose benefits were no longer being paid by an active coal company. A key feature of the Coal Act was the financing of orphaned miner health care costs through an annual transfer of a portion of the interest which accrues to the unappropriated balance in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. Simply put, in restoring abandoned coal mine lands we must not abandon the retired coal miner. The Coal Act has worked well with health care for retirees whose former employers could be identified financed by premiums paid by those companies while providing for a transfer of reclamation fund interest to finance orphaned miner care. However, a barrage of litigation, adverse court decisions and skyrocketing health care costs is now threatening the financial integrity of the program. The result: Without a new source of funds, the CBF faces a deficit which if it continues could force curtailments in health care coverage for some 50,000 retirees and widows whose average age is 78. CARE 21 takes a relatively simple and straightforward approach to addressing this impending crisis: It would lift the restriction in current law that reclamation fund interest can only be used for orphaned miner health care. Instead, it would allow interest transfers to be made for the purpose of offsetting any deficit in net assets in the CBF. One of the key features of CARE 21 is that the general taxpayer is not being called upon to pay for retired coal miner health care, but rather, the coal industry itself would provide for this coverage through the interest which accrues to the fees it pays into the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. Mr. Speaker, I noted earlier there is a historical commitment to providing health care for retired coal miners. This is a unique situation in that what would normally be a matter solely for the private sector is not in this instance. The genesis for this situation dates back to 1946 in an agreement between then-UMW President John L. Lewis and the federal government to resolve a long-running labor dispute. At the time, President Truman had ordered the Interior Secretary to take possession of all bituminous coal mines in the country in an effort to break a United Mine Workers of America strike. Eventually, Lewis and Secretary Julius Krug reached an agreement that included an industry-wide, miner controlled health plan. In fact, the 1992 Coal Act itself was formulated partly on the basis of recommendations from the Coal Commission, established by former Labor Secretary Libby Dole, which in 1990 recommended a statutory obligation to help finance the UMWA's Health Benefit Funds. Mr. Speaker, the people covered by this health care program spent their careers producing the energy which powered this Nation to greatness. We must not forsake them. We must not cast them adrift in their later years, robbed of the health care they so desperately need.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we meet today to debate and cast one of the most important votes we are asked to make as a Member of this body. None of us can look lightly nor politically upon the decision to send American men and women to war. This is a resolution to grant one man unprecedented, unconstitutional, unprovoked, and unsupported power to start a war. As was the case 11 years ago, this vote has weighed heavily on my mind; but unlike 11 years ago, today we debate the issue within 30 days of political elections, versus 11 years ago, when we were in a rare January session after the elections and in a much calmer atmosphere. I supported President Herbert Walker Bush. The evidence back then was clear and convincing: Iraq had invaded a neighbor. The United States had strong international support which even helped us pay the costs of that war. Today, the situation is starkly different. Not only is the evidence circumstantial, at best; but we will have to pay our allies or cut them in on oil deals to buy either their silence or reluctant support for this war. These costs are on top of what President Bush's top economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, estimates to be a 100 to $200 billion cost of an invasion of Iraq, figures that are mind-boggling. I have had many questions about the prospect of U.S. military engagement with Iraq. This vote is so important to me that I did travel to that country to seek answers to some unanswered questions. I thought it was important to open a dialogue with the Iraqi people for several reasons. I did not get all the answers which I sought, either in Iraq or here in this country. I will not be bullied by this or any President of the United States. I do not work for the President of the United States. I think it is time to cool the war rhetoric, the cowboy rhetoric, if you will. I think it is important for Iraqi civilians to see that Americans, among them West Virginians that I represent, are not a warmongering people. I work for the people of West Virginia. The President has, and rightly so, asked Congress to debate and vote on this issue. We do not wage war simply for war's sake. The State of West Virginia proportionately sends more of our men and women to wars than most other States. West Virginians could die. We consider the life and death of people on both sides of this war, and even beyond. That is what we are considering today. As an Arab-American Member of Congress, having extensively traveled in the Middle East and having questioned U.S. policy in this region under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, I felt myself to be a credible messenger. I would go again, even if I remotely thought the door to peace would be ajar. I wanted to deliver a message to the Iraqi leadership that President George Bush is serious; that the only hope whatsoever of any possible peaceful resolution, and in order to prevent further devastation and suffering of the Iraqi people, would be to accept unconditional and unfettered access to U.N. weapons inspectors into the country, period. No gimmicks. No games. No kidding. My repeated message to Iraqi officials during my trip was to allow the unconditional and unfettered access by U.N. inspectors. I told them the moment was right if the fruits of peace are to be harvested. But Iraq had to take a dramatic new approach. I was pleased when, upon my return to the United States, the Iraqi government announced it would allow U.N. inspectors back into the country unconditionally. Was this all that I asked? No. No. It certainly was not, but it was a step in the right direction, but it should not be so out rightly rejected by slamming shut airtight the door to peace. There is no question, and I recognize as well as the next person that Saddam has played games in the past, there is no question that past weapons inspectors have also been spies, seeking pernicious embarrassing minutia on the Iraqi leadership. Today's inspectors must be objective, professional and no doubt will have more advanced technologies than 4 years ago. They must have the time to do their job, and they no doubt will have international support. Weapons inspectors must have access to presidential palaces, mosques, schools, hospitals, places where Saddam will, if he has anything to hide, no doubt use so as to be able to claim collateral damages when we hit these sites. So I do not trust the man. No, I do not. I recognize the deceit and the lies of the past and the fact that he has used chemical weapons against his own people, during which time the U.S. said little because we cared little for victims and Saddam knew that at the time. We cared little for those victims whom Saddam was gassing and using chemical weapons against. I want America to give peace a chance. I want Iraq to give peace a chance. As hard as it is for them to say anything, Iraqis may be the first to say that Saddam Hussein must go. But I guarantee you, Americans are the last from whom they want to hear the message. Iraqis feel that U.S. policy in the region robs us of any credibility and morality whatsoever. I ask the administration to abandon its cowboy war rhetoric. Remember your campaign words, Mr. President, for a more humble approach to international affairs. We have and will be able to continue to contain Saddam. He loves himself more than he hates us. I know we all are and will continue to seriously reflect and ask what is in America's best interest. I know that we will all continue to seriously reflect and ask what is in America's best interest here, and I do hope we not take as gospel what one particular country in the region tells us nor follow their agenda above our own. We should plan what is best for America in the whole region and our future, not to be perceived as siding and consulting and planning every detail with another country. Only one voice and one view is needed. Let us consider the feelings, whether public or private, of all of our allies in the region. Let us recognize the tremendous strains and pressures we put upon the very effective coalition that President Bush has put together to fight the true terrorists, al Qaeda, America's war on terrorism. I strongly support those efforts. That is the war that should be ratcheted up. That is a direct and imminent threat to the United States for which we have proof. So I say to my colleagues as I conclude, let us defeat this resolution. Let us recognize that we must tread carefully in a region that is already volatile, where U.S. military engagement could tip the region into further chaos and further bloodshed. I urge defeat of the pending resolution.