Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

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

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, two days ago our distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd, rose on the floor to pay tribute to ``Tinker'' St. Clair of McDowell County, West Virginia. At the end of this year, Tinker St. Clair will retire from his post as senior Doorkeeper in the U.S. Senate after 21 years of distinguished service to that body. Mr. Speaker, that is but a small part of this man's remarkable contribution to his family, his community, his State and his Nation. When Arthur St. Clair was a toddler, he was an active little boy which led his grandmother to call him a ``little stinker.'' His envious brother, who couldn't yet pronounce all his words, called him ``a little tinker,'' and the nickname ``Tinker'' has remained with Arthur to this day. Arthur ``Tinker'' St. Clair, born on January 6, 1916, is today 84 years old, having lived a busy, varied life with his late wife of 56 years, Elnora Hall St. Clair, raising their children Patty Lee and Linda, now Linda St. Clair Pence, wife of Ed Pence. Tinker is looking forward to his retirement, so that he can spend some quality time with his three grandchildren, Kimberly George, and Edwin Bryan and Mack Malan Pence. Tinker also looks forward to his greatest love, spending time with his two great-grandchildren, Nicholas Paul George and Jonathan Malan George. Being a West Virginian, Tinker is the descendant from his father William Woods St. Clair, coal miner, school board member, and small businessman, and his homemaker mother Etta Mae Cochran St. Clair. Tinker was brought up with a strong work ethic, family values, and more than a gentle nudge toward community service handed down by his parents and grandparents, in what has been called ``the free state of McDowell.'' Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to represent McDowell County, West Virginia, Tinker's homeplace. I just as importantly have the honor of calling Tinker a dear and true friend from day one. Over the years, this southern-most county has seen a decline in population from 100,000 coal miners and their families, to today's count of approximately 30,000 men, women and children. The population drop was brought about when coal mines began to mechanize, and during those years of decline, unemployment has remained higher than the national average for the people who remained in McDowell County. It was the good, strong, determined people like Tinker St. Clair who stayed in the county and who never stopped helping his people in good times and in bad, until his retirement there in 1979. Upon graduating from Gary High School in 1937, his first job was driving a school bus for McDowell County Public Schools. That is when he first met his future wife, Elnora. Once he was married and raising his children, Tinker went to work in 1941 for the Consolidated Bus Lines (which later became Continental Trailways), where he worked until 1947. Realizing how important transportation was and is for his community of deep valleys and winding roads, it wasn't long before Tinker started his own taxi service company in 1947, serving Welch, Pineville and Oceana, West Virginia. But Tinker was born of parents who were also deeply involved in community affairs, and he and his wife Elnora were always ready, willing and able when it came to serving on local political committees, and both were active in the Democratic party of McDowell County West Virginia. As Tinker will tell you, McDowell County went Democratic in 1934 when the first-ever Democrat was elected, and the county has remained a democratic stronghold, with Tinker's help, ever since. Tinker was proud to be politically active, and he traveled around the county campaigning for Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Baines Johnson. He also traveled the county with the late Senator Jennings Randolph, with our senior Senator Robert C. Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, and Nick J. Rahall--and I can tell you that it was a great pleasure whenever I found myself at Elnora's table many, many times during my own campaigns for the House. Tinker recalls that when traveling the county with Ben Cartwright of Bonanza fame, he invited him and his associates back to his home for a home cooked meal--requiring his wife Elnora to have to scramble to fix the meal on a moment's notice--but she did it with great pleasure, for she was as committed as Tinker to helping out the folks running for the Presidency, including Hubert H. Humphrey during his West Virginia campaign. Tinker gave up the taxi business to become the Deputy Sheriff and Court Bailiff in McDowell County, during which time he became a Member of the McDowell County Democratic Executive Committee, and was a delegate to the National Convention in the years 1952 to 1965. He then became a criminal investigator for the county's prosecuting attorney, and a justice of the peace. Finally, Arthur ``Tinker'' St. Clair was appointed to the position of County Clerk, and afterwards was reelected to a six year term with a majority vote of 89 percent. That wasn't machine politics folks, that was pure Tinker. Actually, Tinker hadn't thought of retiring at the age of 63 as County Clerk in 1979, but his children had all moved up to the Washington, D.C. area, and his wife Elnora tired of traveling back and forth to see her grandchildren. So one day, Elnora told Tinker she was once again visiting her children, and he asked her when she would get back. She said she wasn't coming back. That's when Tinker retired from the County Clerk's position and followed his beloved wife of 56 years to Washington. Now Elnora had her say in June of 1979, and so Tinker retired. But he wasn't happy not working. He just couldn't see himself retiring at age 63. So, Tinker called his old friend, U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, and asked him if there was anything he could do for him. Senator Byrd took him in hand, and within a month of his arrival in Washington, he began serving as Doorkeeper for the U.S. Senate, where he worked for another, memorable 21 years. As noted above, Mr. Speaker, Arthur ``Tinker'' St. Clair was born to the work ethic, to family values, and to community service. He has worked ever since he graduated from high school in 1937. Without a college degree, Tinker rose from bus driver to County Clerk in his native McDowell County, helping it to grow and to prosper in good times and bad; in a county who knew Tinker St. Clair for his ability to reach out to every person he met--and who always found a way to help whoever asked--whether it was a local resident and friend, a local official, or candidates for President--it didn't matter to Tinker. He was always sure he could make a difference--at home in McDowell County--and on the national level--and he and his late wife Elnora made that difference. Since coming to Washington 21 years ago to serve as Doorkeeper, Tinker has maintained his cheerful countenance, shared the wisdom of his years, and found words of encouragement for everyone he met. Just like he did all those years of growing up and working to serve the free state of McDowell County, West Virginia. I hope that when I reach the age of 63, that rather than retire, I will look for another way to serve my country for another 21 years-- until I too have reached the age of 84, just like Tinker St. Clair. I will miss seeing Tinker when I have the chance to go over to the Senate side, where I always knew I would get a smile, a firm handshake, and news from down home.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member of our committee.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my deep appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. I commend the statesmanlike manner in which he has just conducted himself in the statement he made prior to consideration of this bill. I have known that to be true through our many years of work together on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We have worked in a very gentlemanly manner and in a bipartisan manner, I might add, as well. I commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, for his support of this legislation and his help as well. It is supported, as the chairman has said, by a bipartisan group of Members, including the assistant whip on the majority side the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt). This bill seeks to address a real and pressing crisis facing an important segment of our trucking industry. That problem is twofold: First, owner-operators are being hit hard by high diesel fuel prices and simply do not have the market clout to negotiate the same sort of arrangement that the larger companies can to offset those costs. Unable to cope with high diesel prices, many owner-operators are simply unable to continue in business. In fact, fuel prices were the primary factor in the 1,365 trucking company bankruptcies which occurred during the first 6 months of this year. Second, coupled with a national driver shortage, just-in-time deliveries are being threatened, fewer transportation alternatives for shippers are available, and consumers could face a rise in the price of various goods and commodities. As such, the pending legislation provides owner-operators, shippers and consumers with a safety net by ensuring that any fuel surcharges assessed are ultimately passed on to the entity which actually purchases the fuel. And just what is a fuel surcharge? It is a long established practice in the industry under which a shipper pays to the trucking companies the difference between what is deemed to be a baseline cost of diesel fuel and any sudden and dramatic increases in the cost of that fuel, such as what we are experiencing today. Independent owner-operators, however, are not in the position to negotiate fuel surcharges or, where they exist, be paid the fuel surcharge. And when you consider that two-thirds of the trucking operations in the country today operate six or fewer trucks, we are talking about a sizable segment of the industry. The pending legislation, as originally introduced, would have imposed a mandatory fuel surcharge program. It has been modified to fully take into account privately negotiated fuel surcharge programs. No existing fuel surcharge arrangement would be abrogated and any future privately negotiated programs of this nature would not be precluded. Let me repeat. Any current and future privately negotiated fuel surcharge agreements are fully respected by the pending legislation. And I repeat that a third time. Past, current or future privately negotiated fuel surcharge agreements are fully respected. The essential feature of this bill is that it provides a private right of action as a means to ensure that the entity which actually pays for the fuel receives the surcharge. No Federal Government enforcement. No cost to the taxpayers. Just simply equity and fairness. Mr. Speaker, America watched the economies of Britain and France thrown into chaos on the issue of diesel fuel prices. I have already noted the large number of industry bankruptcies taking place in this country. Coupled with a shortage of up to 80,000 truck drivers, we have a formula for disaster in the making. I might add that high fuel prices have also had a devastating effect on the Nation's port drivers as well. Their poor working condition has come to the attention of the Teamsters Union, which is exploring ways to organize these truck drivers and is working to bring public attention to their plight. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say let us strike a blow for the little guy, the small businessman, and for the integrity of our economy by passing the pending legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) for his excellent statement and say to him as well that it has been my pleasure to serve with him for the last 6 years under his chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Ground Transportation. It has truly been an enjoyable experience, not necessarily the position where my chair is; but certainly serving next to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) has been a delight. He has always held comprehensive and very timely hearings on not only this issue but other issues. He has spoken of the bipartisanship of our committee and the camaraderie, and I certainly salute him and wish him Godspeed.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I think my friend for yielding time to me. Indeed, Bruce Vento was a dear colleague to me, as well. Having served with him, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), side by side, first on the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and now on the Committee on Resources for my 24 years in this body, to say that Bruce Vento knew what was in every piece of legislation that came before our committee is not an understatement. As I said, having sat next to him, I could see him and would marvel at the way he would read every piece of bill upon which he were asked to vote, with that red highlight pen underlining the pertinent pieces of every piece of legislation that came before our committee. Truly, he was a knowledgeable Member of this body. He was dedicated to our environment. He came with me to my district in southern West Virginia, rode on our whitewater rivers, and came back and helped me craft legislation to preserve those rivers for generations to come. Bruce was in my class. We came to this body in 1977. Throughout our years together, he was a man who truly lived the words ``public servant'' to their fullest. To his wife, to his family, to his friends back in Minnesota who he so ably served, I do say, we shall all miss him. Bruce Vento was a dear friend to all of us.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to commend and congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for the manner in which he has moved this legislation, as well as the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). At the appropriate time, I will submit the statement of the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for the Record. We support the revised bill. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), a member of the powerful Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, so under the provision of the conference report, it would not be inconsistent with the Research Council report for the BLM to issue a rule that would allow the disapproval of a mine proposal if it would cause undue environmental degradation of public lands, even if the proposal complied with all other regulations. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and I commend him for his work on the pending legislation, as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make note of the fact that the pending legislation once again carries a rider relating to the BLM's proposal to strengthen the regulations governing hardrock mining on lands under its jurisdiction. This is the fifth appropriations bill rider on this matter. However, unlike some of the past riders, this one does not appear to hinder the ability of the BLM to finalize its proposed rule. In fact, I have before me letters from both the National Mining Association and the Mineral Policy Center, groups which are normally opposed to each other, both supporting the pending legislation. In this regard, I would ask the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Interior, to engage in this colloquy. It is my understanding that the hardrock mining provision of the conference report does not impede the BLM's ability to prevent undue degradation of public lands with a new and stronger rule so long as that rule is not inconsistent with the recommendations contained within a National Research Council's report on the adequacy of existing mining regulations. Is this understanding correct? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, does not one of those recommendations direct the BLM to clarify the agency's authority to protect valuable resources not protected by other laws?

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule and, indeed, the underlying measure, the conference report on the fiscal year 2001 interior appropriation bill. Contained in this legislation is up to $94.5 million to bolster the financially ailing, congressionally mandated program that provides health care to certain retired coal miners and their dependents. If this funding is not forthcoming, some 60,000 beneficiaries, whose average age is 78 years old, will see their health care cut. So I ask that my colleagues who represent coal field communities, whether they be in Appalachia, in the Midwest or the western States, not turn their backs on these retirees. They were made a promise, a promise endorsed by the Federal Government, of lifetime health care. This legislation keeps faith with that promise. Mr. Speaker, we are currently dealing with a situation where what is known as the Combined Benefit Fund (CBF) is facing financial insolvency. In this regard, Senator Robert C. Byrd championed a provision in the pending legislation that would transfer up to $94.5 million to the CBF to insure that health care benefits are not curtailed or halted in the immediate future. This provision is modeled after legislation I sponsored in the House, H.R. 4144, known as the CARE 21 bill. By way of background, the CBF was created in the Coal Act of 1992 to provide health care benefits for retired United Mine Workers of America coal miners who were eligible to receive benefits as of July 20, 1992, under one of two prior multi-employer funds. Under the terms of the Coal Act, companies which signed past National Coal Wage Agreements with the union are responsible for paying premiums for retired miners assigned as being their responsibility. For those retirees where there is no responsible company can be identified, the Coal Act provides for an annual transfer to the CBF of a portion of the interest which accrues to the unspent balance of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to pay premiums for these unassigned beneficiaries. Today, however, the CBF is facing funding shortfalls primarily due to a rash of litigation brought by companies on a variety of fronts. First, under the Eastern case, the Supreme Court relieved what are called the ``super reachback'' companies from responsibility to their former employees thereby adding some 8,000 retirees to the unassigned beneficiary roles. These companies had at one time been signatories to the National Coal Wage Agreement, but were not parties to the 1978 Agreement which included what is known as the ``evergreen clause'' in which companies committed to a continuing payment obligation. Litigation has also been brought in what are called the Dixie Fuel cases where companies challenge the validity of assignments made to them. And a third round of major litigation is taking place challenging beneficiary premium rates under what is known as the Chater decision. This litigation is chipping away at the financial solvency of the CBF and it should be noted these cases are being brought by companies that are both current signatories to the National Coal Wage Agreement as well as what are called ``reachback'' operators who were parties to the 1978 Agreement but not to the current agreement. In effect, and there is no way to get around this fact, these companies are seeking to reduce or walk away from their past collectively bargained obligations to provide lifetime health care coverage for their former employees. This creates a certain dilemma for the Congress as it is the Congress which created the CBF and I believe we have a moral obligation to these retirees despite the actions being taken by their former employers. However, at the same time, I do not believe it is prudent to use General Fund revenues for this purpose. Instead, the provision in the pending legislation would tap additional amounts of interest in the reclamation fund to provide for the cash infusion into the CBF. This is an important consideration because it is the coal industry itself which pays a fee that finances the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. It is, as such, the coal industry which is still paying for the health care benefits of these retirees under the provision contained in this legislation. There is no doubt in anyone's mind involved with this issue that a long term solution must be devised. My CARE 21 legislation would have done just that. Unfortunately, it has not been brought to the House floor and its counterpart has not been considered in the other body. Indeed, there is still a level of greed among certain entities involved in this issue as reflected in the litigation they are bringing against the CBF that is stymieing legislative efforts in this matter. This is going to have to change because the current impasse on devising a long term solution has in my view no benefit. It certainly does not benefit the many thousands of elderly retired coal miners and their widows who are being held hostage to this situation. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, and I commend the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks); the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula); and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for their help in including this provision in the legislation.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to West Virginia's labor and management team who have come together to help save a struggling hospital in Man, West Virginia, forced to close in June 2000 due in large part to Congressional cuts in Medicare reimbursements to hospitals. I salute the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) and the Arch Coal Company for setting an example for labor and management teamwork to save a hospital. As we all are deeply aware, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997--or BBA97 in its short form--caused draconian cuts in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers across this country--hospitals, home health agencies, skilled nursing homes, and physical therapy programs. I voted against the BBA97 because I knew first, you cannot cut providers without cutting services to seniors, and secondly, you should never vote for projected cuts of $115 billion in Medicare, period. That projected cut of $115 billion has today risen to $227 billion, with two more years to go of planned cuts under BBA97. Congress in passing the BBA97 rhetorically assured the American people that they were ``only'' cutting providers--not services to seniors who rely upon Medicare for all their health care needs. I knew then, and Congress knows now, that services were reduced to seniors, and that access to health care was denied to hundreds of thousands of patients. In the interim, these past 3 years have seen hospitals, skilled nursing homes and home health agencies closing their doors in record numbers, leaving vulnerable elderly patients without local access to health care of any kind. The safety net that used to be in place is gone. Put bluntly, it is only now that Congress pretends it has just been made aware that 2 years of balancing the budget on the backs of senior citizens has caused hospitals to bleed nearly to death financially. New estimates this year show that the bleeding has turned into a hemorrhage. In West Virginia, the Appalachian Regional Hospital at Man, West Virginia in Logan County has been closed since June 30, 2000. Coupled with losses of upwards of $5 million over the past several years, most of which can be attributed to the loss of Medicare reimbursement to hospitals taken away by the BBA97, the hospital could no longer continue to serve the citizens of Logan County, and citizens from surrounding counties as well. But also In West Virginia, the Arch Coal Company and the United Mine Workers Union (UMWA) have chipped in with funding to help reopen the Man ARH hospital, lifting the community over its fund-raising goal. In 1956, the Man Hospital was one in a chain of hospitals built by the United Mine Workers Health and Retirement funds. These hospitals were built in southern West Virginia, southwestern Virgnia, and Eastern Kentucky where other health care was not available to coal miners. While the Logan County economy has diversified to also include business men, women and their families, it is still an access hospital for coal miners, their surviving wives and children. Losing the hospital would affect the delivery of health care to thousands of people, and much of that care goes to those without any health insurance, known as uncompensated care, and a majority of the users of the hospital are senior citizens on Medicare. As noted above, it was the loss of the Medicare reimbursements that became the final blow that caused the Man ARH Hospital to close it doors. Today I commend the United Mine Workers of West Virginia, and the officials of Arch Coal Company, for caring enough about the people served by the Man ARH Hospital to contribute to its reopening and its future service to the people of Logan County and beyond. But more, Mr. Speaker, in these times of fiscal hemorrhaging by hospitals in the coalfields of West Virginia and the nation, I pay tribute to labor and management coming together to help people help themselves, without a single negotiating session at the bargaining table. In West Virginia, the United Mine Workers Union and the Arch Coal Company just stepped up to the plate and got the job done.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my concern about a small manufacturer in my district that is battling a tidal wave of low-priced Chinese imports and to underscore the importance of strong trade laws. Portec Rail Products, Inc. is a small business with manufacturing operations in Huntington, West Virginia. Portec makes steel rail joints which hold rail sections together and ensure smooth passage for commercial and passenger trains alike. Portec's West Virginia manufacturing facility represents the core of the kind of small, hard working American company that we all like to see succeed. Portec provides solid, semiskilled manufacturing jobs for many hard-working West Virginians. Additionally, Portec purchases steel bars from a West Virginia steel producer, further enriching the economy of the state. During the last three years, U.S. imports of low-priced steel rail joints from China have increased exponentially. According to official U.S. Department of Commerce statistics, imports of Chinese rail joints increased from 78,000 pounds in 1997 to 355,878 in 1999, a 356 percent increase. There has been no let-up--during the first quarter of 2000, Chinese imports were at a record pace of 175,000 pounds--a figure which, if annualized, would arnount to a 788 percent increase since 1997. Chinese imports are also underselling U.S. prices, resulting in lost sales and depressed prices for the U.S. industry. When Portec loses a sale to what might very well be dumped imports from China, it loses the profits and R&D dollars necessary to develop new products and services for its customers. This threat is not Just looming in the future--it is happening today and already has impacted Portec. In fact, Portec recently lost a contract to supply steel rail joints to our very own METRO in Washington, D.C. because the Chinese bid was lower. So, the threat to this small, West Virginia company is very clear. I can assure you that Portec does not intend to leave the challenge unanswered, and in fact, I will do my best to help them combat the harmful import surge from China through trade cases or other means. We must protect American manufacturing jobs from unfair import surges that injure American industry. The United States must maintain strong antidumping laws and ensure that they provide effective relief to small U.S. businesses before they are driven out of business by unfair trade.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Louise Stefanelli Simmons who retired from the Corps of Engineers in Huntington, West Virginia on August 1, 2000 after dedicating 39 years, 11 months and four days to the Corps. I salute Louise Stefanelli Simmons for her lifelong dedication to her husband and son Alan, as well as her devotion to duty throughout her service with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Her professionalism as well as her commitment to family and community are an outstanding example of family values and good citizenship. Louise was born in Newark, New Jersey of Italian immigrant parents, one of four children. After graduating from Newark Prep with an associate degree in business, Louise worked as a civilian for the U.S. Army Corps in Newark during World War II, where she met her future husband Howard ``Red'' Simmons. Upon her marriage, she left family and friends in New Jersey to marry ``Simmy'' as she called him, moving with him to Huntington, West Virginia. Louise remembers the ``culture shock'' when she first visited downtown Huntington--the girl from the ``big city''--there was no comparison. Early on in her marriage to ``Simmy'', she helped him run their restaurant, the Corral Drive-Inn near Marshall University, then got her real estate license so she could help him in his real estate development business. In addition to helping out with the restaurant business and her husband's real estate interests, Louise worked several years for an insurance company before coming to the Corps of Engineers in 1963, Beginning in the typing pool before becoming secretary to the Chief of Engineering, she later became the secretary to the Colonel in charge of the Huntington Corps, where she remained for nearly four decades. Louise will spend much of her retirement time as a long-time booster of Marshall University's sports activities, especially the football team, and attending the sporting events involving her two grandchildren, Mark 14 and Elizabeth 12. Louise loves to travel, back to New Jersey with family and friends. Early this summer she took a 2-week vacation to Italy, to revisit the history of her parentage, and to steep herself in the culture and traditions of her parents' homeland. Other retirement activities will include her dedication to walking (twice around Ritter Park at least 5 days a week), watching old movies, and perfecting her Italian cooking. Louise is an active member of Johnson Memorial United Methodist Church, the Women's Club of Huntington, and participates in the Professional Secretaries Association. I wish all the best for Louise, her husband, son Alan and her grandchildren as she embarks upon her Golden Years giving all her uninterrupted energy and love to her family, to her church, and to the community to which she has already contributed so abundantly throughout her remarkable life in her adopted State of West Virginia.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I submit into the Record a letter from His Excellency Nabil Fahmy, Ambassador to the United States, representing the Arab Republic of Egypt. Mr. Speaker, when the Camp David Summit ended without an agreement between the leaders of Israel and Palestine, a vigorous campaign was activated to paint an arbitrary picture of what supposedly went wrong-- to the effect that Mr. Arafat was intransigent, had rejected all proposals put before him, and was supported in this intransigence by Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I firmly believe that Egypt's response to those arbitrary and much publicized charges will go far to put a better light upon what, in truth, occurred. I submit for the Record the August 17, 2000 letter I have received from Ambassador Nabil Fahmy on this subject, and commend it to my colleagues for their close consideration. Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Washington, DC, August 17, 2000. Hon. Nick Rahall, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Rahall: To follow upon the latest summit negotiations at Camp David, I would like to share with you some of my thoughts. As soon as the Camp David summit ended without an agreement, a vigorous campaign painted a subjective picture of what went wrong in the 14 days of closed negotiations. In short, the story was that Arafat had been intransigent, had rejected all proposals, and was encouraged by Egypt and Saudi Arabia. These accounts overlook how far the Palestinian position had moved over the last few years. By accepting the 1967 borders, Palestinians had already compromised on about 80% of what many in the region believe to be the land of historic Palestine. Also, at Camp David it was reported that they further agreed to an exchange of land leaving some settlements under Israeli sovereignty. They have accepted intrusive security measures to satisfy Israeli concerns. No one underscored that Arafat compromised on many issues. While many issues remain outstanding, progress has been witnessed in numerous areas. The issue of sovereignty of East Jerusalem, particularly El Aqsa Mosque, was among the outstanding issues. It is especially sensitive to Palestinians. We have to recognize that the Palestinians were flexible, however, they also have legitimate concerns that are dear to them. The issue of Jerusalem remains outstanding, not only for the Palestinians. To this day, the international community has not recognized the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem. Numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions considered that all legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, to change the legal status of Jerusalem, are invalid and cannot change Jerusalem's status. They urgently called upon Israel to rescind all such measures, and to desist form further actions changing the status of Jerusalem. Almost every country in the world, including the United States, respected those resolutions and have not established diplomatic Missions to Israel in the Holy City. On the eve of the Madrid Peace Conference (1991), the basis of the current negotiations, the United States reassured the Palestinians that ``The U.S. is opposed to Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and extension of Israeli law on it and the extension of Jerusalem's municipal boundaries.'' This remains the pronounced U.S. official position today. We must not forget that the negotiations at the Egyptian- Israeli Camp David summit were also about to collapse on how to deal with the issue of Jerusalem. Each side stated its position in a letter to President Carter who would provide, for the record, an affirmation of the United States stance on Jerusalem. In his letter, dated September 22, 1978, President Carter asserted: ``The position of the United States on Jerusalem remains as stated by Ambassador Goldberg in the United Nations General Assembly on July 14, 1967, and subsequently by Ambassador Yost in the United Nations Security Council on July 1, 1969.'' The two statements unequivocally declared that: ``The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June (1967) War, like other areas occupied by Israel, is occupied territory . . . The actions of Israel in the occupied portion of Jerusalem . . . give rise to understandable concerns that the eventual disposition of East Jerusalem may be prejudiced and the rights and activities of the population are already being affected and altered. (The United States) government regrets and deplores this pattern of activity, and it has so informed the government of Israel on numerous occasions since June 1967. (The United States) has consistently refused to recognize these measures as having anything but a provisional character and do not accept them as affecting the ultimate status of Jerusalem.'' Forcing a compromise on the Palestinians would ultimately mean the postponement of the end of the conflict and would plant the seeds for a bloodier confrontation between future generations. We have learned, the hard way, that military superiority and ``qualitative edges'' have never prevented wars nor provided security, and will never do. We have no alternative but to reach a comprehensive Palestinian-Israeli peace accord, including Jerusalem, and to reach it now, to bring to a final close the Palestinian-Israel conflict. In a NY Times Op-Ed article on August 6, 2000, President Carter wrote: ``Accolades for one side and condemnation of the other is always a political temptation after an unsuccessful effort, but this makes it very difficult to orchestrate future negotiation sessions where mutual confidence in the mediator is required. Such statements made since Camp David discussions have aroused concern in the Arab community, and the possible movement of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would create an even greater impediment to further progress.'' Let us look for solutions rather than waste our time and energy trying to find excuses. As for Egypt's role, when asked on Israeli television about this issue, President Clinton answered ``I think that the truth is that because this had never been discussed before between the two parties--and because when we went into the negotiations, they were usually secret or sacrosanct--that I'm not sure, number one, that they thought they knew enough to know what to ask for''. President Clinton also spoke about Egypt's role in the peace process in an interview with Al-Hayat Newspaper published Friday the 11th of August. He said: ``The fact is that all that has happened since the original Camp David in September '78, including Madrid and Oslo, is an indication of the courageous and visionary policy of Egypt. Egypt was a pioneer for peace and continues to be a key partner for the United States. We agree on the fundamentals of the peace process and we will not be able to reach an Israeli- Palestinian agreement on these core issues without close consultations with Egypt. We are engaged in such a process today.'' What more can be said to dispel rumors that Egypt and other Arab countries were not helpful to the negotiations in Camp David. Egypt has been a key player in brokering almost all Palestinian-Israeli agreements, and has taken an active role in the pursuit of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement. When faced with a crisis or a stalemate in any Arab-Israeli negotiations, the parties and the United States always turn to Egypt for fair and objective advice. One recent example was the Sharm el Sheikh Summit in September 1999. It is noteworthy that Prime Minister Barak sent an envoy to Cairo even before leaving the U.S. and then proceeded himself to Cairo to meet President Mubarak after his return to the region, as did President Arafat. In the meantime, contacts between Egyptian and American officials continued in search of ways to overcome this impasse; Ambassador Walker, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs went to Cairo where he met with President Mubarak and conferred with Foreign Minister Moussa to coordinate both countries' efforts. President Clinton has recently corresponded with President Mubarak and Secretary Albright has since then called Foreign Minister Moussa. As always, we are now examining avenues of working with Palestinians and Israelis to give a creative boost to the negotiating process. It is a difficult task before us, let us focus our efforts on finding a truly historic compromise to finally bring peace between Palestinians and Israelis. I look forward to working with you toward this objective. Sincerely, Nabil Fahmy, Ambassador.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak, and President Arafat are meeting at Camp David in an attempt to resolve the most difficult issues preventing peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The pundits on both sides have been pessimistic about their chance for success. Each side claims that the other is unwilling to compromise. We are told the issues are too difficult and few new ideas are available. Each side has supposedly drawn red lines which reportedly will not be crossed. I, for one, am more hopeful. The task confronting these three men is great and the odds are clearly against them. Nevertheless, if one takes the time and effort, one can see examples of flexibility on all sides and willingness to rethink difficult issues. The most controversial of all outstanding issues is the future of Jerusalem. Even on this emotion-filled issue, parties are clearly willing to compromise and approach the problem creatively. An example of this is an opinion article which appeared in the Sunday Los Angeles Times. Faisal Husseini, the author, is the senior Palestine Liberation Organization official in Jerusalem. I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to the article not necessarily to endorse every idea presented in it, but in order to emphasize the level of creative thinking and flexibility being displayed by officials involved in finding solutions. Mr. Speaker, this flexibility gives hope if not optimism that the three men gathered at Camp David can find a peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. [From the Los Angeles Times, July 9, 2000] The Holy City Must Be Ruled Fairly (By Faisal Husseini) Jerusalem--No city in the world evokes as much passion and controversy as Jerusalem. And for good reason: Jerusalem is spiritually important to three great religions--Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And it is politically important to two peoples--Palestinian and Israeli. If we are to reach a peaceful resolution to the Jerusalem quandary, it only will be through devising a way to ensure that all five of these constituencies have a role in the administration of Jerusalem and its holy sites. No single group should be able to claim either religious or political exclusivity in Jerusalem. One of the many myths that have flourished since 1967 is that Israel wants to keep Jerusalem unified while the Palestinians wish to redivide it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither I nor others want to see Jerusalem as a divided city. The real question is whether a unified Jerusalem will be under the exclusive control of Israel or under shared control. Palestinians believe that Jerusalem should be a shared, open city; two capitals for two states. sIn our vision, East Jerusalem, as defined by the 1948-1967 borders, To a large degree, this arrangement would simply be recognition of reality. For the past 33 years, Israelis have treated East Jerusalem as a separate entity. The Israeli government has channeled only minimal resources to the Palestinians of East Jerusalem and has denied its majority Palestinian population many basic rights. These Palestinians, many of whose families have lived in Jerusalem for centuries, have had no voice in their city's administration and have faced severe impediments imposed by Israel in housing, land use and economic development. This is the Israeli version of ``unified'' Jerusalem. Under our plan, all of the city's residents, not just Jewish Israelis, would have a say in how Jerusalem is run. Moreover, the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis should be equal: If Israelis are to live in East Jerusalem, then Palestinians should be allowed to live in West Jerusalem. Creating shared administrative arrangements is especially important in the Old City of Jerusalem, as this concentrated area evokes the most passion among Jews, Christians and Muslims. Many residents of the Old City are Palestinian. Yet for the past 33 years, all decisions about land use, housing and development have been made by Israelis. Palestinian Christians and Muslims have had no say and have suffered as a result. For example, soon after Israeli forces captured Jerusalem in 1967, Israel greatly expanded the Old City's Jewish Quarter and ruled that Palestinians could not purchase houses there, even though extremist Jewish groups--often with Israeli government encouragement--have seized properties in the Old City's Christian and Muslim quarters. And since 1993, Israel has imposed a military closure that systematically prevents Palestinian Christians and Muslims from entering Jerusalem. In our vision of Jerusalem, such actions could not occur because administration of the Old City would be shared and followers of all three religions would enjoy unimpeded access to thier holy sites. As Jerusalem is the spiritual center for all three monothelistic religions, no one should have a monopoly over the Old City, and no one should act there unilaterally. Israelis say they want to keep Jerusalem unified and not divided. What they really mean is that they want to maintain 100% control over Jerusalem. Palestinians want a Jerusalem that is shared, not divided. Ours is the only realistic alternative for a city that is so important to so many people. There is no reason why Jerusalem cannot become the symbol of reconciliation in the Middle East instead of continuing to be an obstacle to peace.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my position in support of final passage of the vote that just occurred be expressed in the Record. I was unavoidably detained in my office meeting with the CEO of U.S. Airways and missed the vote.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago a blockbuster best-seller book, originally called ``The Rocket Boys'' was published, and shortly thereafter a movie was made based on the book, titled ``October Surprise.'' It was a sell-out at bookstores and theaters across the Nation. This story, written by former NASA engineer from McDowell County, West Virginia, was about a boy, his friends, and his weary but supportive parents, who was so taken by what he read about NASA's early rocket experiments commissioned by the United States Government, that he spent his childhood experimenting with homemade rockets His name was Homer Hickam, now a retired NASA engineer, who wrote ``Rocket Boys.'' On June 21, 2000 I received an official commitment from NASA detailing a long-term loan of a model of a U.S. Space Shuttle for exhibit in Coalwood, West Virginia, Homer Hickam's hometown. I worked closely with NASA officials in this successful effort to obtain a display in recognition of the accomplishments and vision of Homer Hickam and the ``Rocket Boys'' from Coalwood. The display of this U.S. Space Shuttle is a tribute to Homer Hickam, his remarkable talent, and his teenaged tenacity in making his dreams come true--not only to shoot his own rockets into space as a boy, but to take his talents and his dream to NASA itself as a grown man. Homer Hickam is an inspiration to our youth--not only in West Virginia but the Nation--that their dreams can come true, and that they should reach for the stars. The U.S. Space Shuttle model will come from the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, and will be in place in time for the celebration of the Second Annual Rocket Boys Day Festival on June 24, 2000. I believe, and the NASA Space officials agree, that this model is most appropriate to commemorate Mr. Hickam's work in propulsion, spacecraft design, and payload and crew training at the Marshall Center. After the festival ends, the 13-foot scale model will be on long-term display across from the Country Corner Store on Route 16, in the heart of Coalwood, West Virginia, across the street from Homer Hickam's homeplace. For those of you who read the book or saw the movie, you will understand the significance of placing this display across from Homer Hickam's old homeplace--the homeplace about which Mr. Hickam wrote, got a brand new furnace one day when Homer tossed a handful of unknown chemicals into the old furnace to see if they had enough explosive quality to thrust his next rocket high into the skies over McDowell County. They did, his mother got the new furnace she had always wanted, and the rest as they say is history.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly sensitive to the authorizing on appropriations to which the able chairman of the committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) raised, but I do think there are two exceptions in this particular case, the first being a major exception, and that is what my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has referred to; that is, the consequences that this particular action has for our basic freedoms as an American society. The second is that usually when such issues are raised about authorizing on an appropriation bill, we have the authorizers come here in unanimity, and that is not the case on this particular amendment. Mr. Chairman, in 1996, Congress did enact the so-called Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which contained a provision that may have been well intended at the time, but which, in fact, was ill- conceived, encroaching on our cherished constitutional rights against secret evidence and anonymous accusers. Under this provision, immigrants to this country are being jailed based on ``secret evidence,'' and these people are given no opportunity to face their accusers as we have so well heard in the debate so far this evening, nor are their lawyers allowed to see this so-called secret evidence against their clients. Today we have an amendment pending that will repeal this unwarranted, dangerous celebration of secret evidence, and it is an urgent matter. If for no other reason, vote for this amendment, because the government's duty is not to win cases, but to see justice done. My colleague and a cosponsor of the amendment, my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) has already adequately described as has the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the case of Mr. Najjar and others, the tremendous family situations that it has placed them in and not being able to see their families, because of their being held on secret evidence. Recently in New Jersey, a judge ordered the release of an immigrant who had been in jail for 19 months based on secret evidence. We heard that case already, but here is what the judge said in his action to order this man's release and I quote, The court cannot justify the Government's attempt to allow persons to be convicted on unsworn testimony of witnesses, a practice which runs counter to the notions of fairness on which our legal system is founded.'' Mr. Chairman, I am not of a legal mind, as my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) who has spoken in favor of this amendment, nor do I sit on the Committee on the Judiciary, but this is a judge, sworn to uphold the laws of our land, that issued such an opinion. This individual, as we have already heard, was placed in jail for 19 months based on testimony of an estranged wife. We have heard often about how labels are used in this country and, in this case, we are talking about a label; that label being immigrants and how such a label can put a man or women behind bars or cause them to be deported or even worse. Have we forgotten when the label ``Jew'' was attached to a whole people and because that was the label given them, it sentenced them to concentration camps in most cases absolute death. Have we forgotten about the account written in history, and I quote, When Hitler attacked the Jews, those who were not a Jew, therefore, were not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, those who were not Catholic, therefore, were not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, those who were not a member of the union, therefore were not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church, and there was nobody left to be unconcerned. Lest we forget the historic lessons learned from the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust, let us vote to repeal the secret evidence law that attacks those who are labelled as immigrants. If we do this, perhaps then our government will never some day come for us. It is all about that incrementalism that we heard earlier from the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Hinchey). Incrementalism, that is what we are talking about here. Mr. Chairman, I know there are people in this country and in this body who are concerned and we are not going to let this happen. We despise the use of secret evidence to put people in jail, to deport them from a homeland they have adopted and where they have lived in freedom for many years. Ask yourselves if our government can legally allow this to happen to immigrants, who are living the American dream, when will they come for us? Be concerned, vote yes for the Bonior-Campbell amendment.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on May 25, 2000, this body unanimously adopted a resolution commending Israel for its ``redeployment'' from Lebanon. I voted yes, despite the extremely one-sided nature of the resolution, even down to the use of the word ``redeployment,'' which most of the world terms as withdrawal. Let us not forget. This is a valiant victory for the people of Lebanon who have suffered immensely both before, but more tragically since, the Israeli occupation lasting over 22 years. Now our own government can pride itself on one less U.N. Resolution which it so embarrassingly failed to enforce for more than two decades. The following article, which appeared in the May 26, 2000 edition of the Los Angeles Times, and written by Hussein lbish, communications director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), puts into much more balance the recent House action. [From the Los Angeles Times, May 26, 2000] Know Now That Arab Lives Are as Worthy as Israelis' (By Hussein Ibish) As the Lebanese people have finally liberated themselves from more than two decades of Israeli occupation, most American commentors are reacting with only one concern: Will northern Israel be safe from attack? The focus on this misleading question is the result of a widespread acceptance of the official Israeli line that its 22-year rampage in southern Lebanon was in essence a futile quest for peace in a hostile region. This view is consistent with the pattern of putting Israeli lives and concerns over those of Arabs, but it is completely inconsistent with the history of the occupation and the experiences of its Lebanese victims. It is blind to the tens of thousands of Lebanese civilians killed by Israel during the occupation, the hundreds of thousands made homeless and the scores of destroyed villages and cities. It forgets the ghastly massacres of unarmed civilians for which the Israelis have been responsible in Lebanon, including the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and the U.N. base at Qana. It ignores the Lebanese civilians held hostage to this day in Israeli prisons and the hundreds of Lebanese men, women and childien held prisoner and tortured at the notorious Khiam detention center run by the Israeli-controlled militia, the South Lebanese Army. It does not acknowledge the pain of the Lebanese nation at being divided for almost a quarter of a century and subject to continuous attacks on its civilian population and infrastructure. No wonder, given this history, that the scenes of liberation from south Lebanon have been truly extraordinary. Hundreds of Lebanese streamed back into villages and towns from which they had been expelled by Israel. Tears of joy flowed as relatives were reunited after years of separation. Hundreds of civilians stormed Khiam, freeing about 140 prisoners and exposing the hideous apparatus of torture and terror employed there. These scenes have potentially far-reaching implications. Can others in the Middle East living under foreign military occupation, such as the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, have failed to register what real liberation looks like? Everywhere Hezbollah fighters, derided by the Israeli and U.S. governments as ``terrorists,'' conducted themselves in an exemplary manner, handing prisoners over to government troops and ensuring that the liberation was not marred by acts of vengeance. These supposed fanatical terrorists were once again shown to be a disciplined and responsible liberation force. How quickly it is forgotten that Hezbollah is itself a product of the Israeli occupation, founded in 1982 with the aim of driving out the Israeli army and freeing the south of the hellish experience of occupation. The fretting about potential Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israeli towns is misplaced, given that since 1996 Hezbollah has almost always carried out such attacks in response to Israeli killings of Lebanese civilians, often only after repeated atrocities. By contrast, in recent months Israel repeatedly attacked Lebanese civilian targets, such as power stations, in response to attacks on its soldiers in Lebanon. The Israeli army may have fled Lebanon in chaos and humiliation, but not without issuing dire threats of massive attacks against Lebanon. Israel's retreat from Lebanon is incomplete and insufficient. Israel was driven out of most of southern Lebanon by an extraordinary campaign of popular resistance, but continues to occupy the Shabaa Farms area. It holds numerous Lebanese hostage. There is every indication that Israel still feels it can attack the Lebanese people with impunity. Israel's foreign minister, David Levy, recently threatened that Israel would continue to target Lebanese civilians ``blood for blood, child for child.'' The international community, while paying lip service to Lebanese territorial integrity, failed to exert any pressure on Israel to end its occupation. Instead it was left to resistance groups such as Hezbollah to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 425, which in 1978 demanded Israel's unconditional withdrawal from Lebanon ``forthwith.'' The United States, Israel's main patron, financier and arms supplier, has been particularly culpable by repeatedly using its diplomatic muscle, including its Security Council veto, to protect Israel from international criticism after its invasions and atrocities. Rather than helping enforce Resolution 425, which it voted for, the U.S. government line has been that ``all foreign forces should withdraw from Lebanon.'' This was an obvious ploy intended to buy time and space for Israel by drawing a false moral and legal equivalence between Israel's brutal and illegal occupation of south Lebanon and the Syrian presence in Lebanon. Syria's role there is controversial, supported by many and oppposed by others as overbearing, while the Israeli occupation was universally despised, as was amply demonstrated by the instantaneous collapse of its proxy militia. Had the United States been willing to stand by interntional law rather than making disingenuous excuses for outrageous Israeli conduct, the international community might have been able to act responsibly toward Lebanon. The obvious questions now are: Will Israel be forced to complete its withdrawal from all of Lebanon, or will it be allowed to hang on to the Shabaa Farms, where it has built a ski resort and a settlement for Ethiopians? Will Israel be seriously pressured to release the Lebanese hostages, or will it yet again be granted an exception to the most basic international human rights norms? Will Israel be made to pay the reparations it owes to the Lebanese for the invasions, bombings and occupation, as is supposed to now be the norm for international aggressors? When will the American government and media acknowledge that Lebanese and Arab lives and rights are as important and worthy as those of Israelis? Finally, and most importantly, will the international community at long last live up to its responsibility to prevent Israel from ever again invading or bombing Lebanon and murdering its people?