Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to add that many of us in this body would agree that Mr. Natcher's distinguished service to this Nation, and to the people of the Second Congressional District of Kentucky, merits in the very least some type of official recognition. The pending legislation reflects the wishes of the Kentucky Delegation to in some small way provide this recognition. This bill would designate a bridge on U.S. Route 231, which crosses the Ohio River in the vicinity of Owensboro, KY, as the ``William H. Natcher Bridge.'' It passed the House last Congress, but failed to make it into law. I would, as such, urge a unanimous vote in approving this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, for years we have heard that national sports figures have been role models to young Americans all around the country. There has been a great debate centering around academics versus athletics and what takes precedent in the lives of young adults. I rise today to honor a group of individuals from my district that I am proud to say have excelled on both the athletic field and in the classroom. The Huntington High School Pony Express boys and girls tennis teams have won a total of three State championships in a span of 2 years. The school won dual titles in 1995 and the girls team won again in 1996. Although they may not be as well known as Andre Agassi or Steffi Graf, they are great example of what one can achieve through hard work and dedication. Under the guidance of coach Roberta Bunch, the teams combined have attained a record of 68 wins and 2 losses in 2-year span. They are the true definition of what one would call exceptional athletes. But their performance does not stop between the baselines. In the classroom, this group of players is among the best in the school. All of the players are college bound to schools such as Marshall University, West Virginia University, Duke University, Wake Forest University, and Indiana University. The grade point averages among these players consistently rank in the top 10 percent of their respective classes. They are the true definition of what one would call exceptional students. Mr. Speaker, I ask that their names be entered into the Record at this time: Jeff Morrison, Kyle Foster, Adam Woodruff, Jay Hatten, Jimmy Leach, Ellie Earles, Taryn Foster, Ashleigh Harrison, Lindsay Wilson, Tiffany Kassab, Erin Allen, Lauren Oxley, Jenna Hegg, Kate Denman, Ramsey Cook, Katie Twohig, Lynsey Jenkins, and Sabrina Copley. I am proud to recognize these individuals who have striven for and attained the highest peak possible in the Mountain State. I congratulate and salute them.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the time for study is over. We must move now, today, with a flood control strategy for the Greenbrier River Basin. Moreover, we must move forward with a plan that is realistically achievable. A plan that does not divide the affected communities. One that is economically viable in light of the tight budgets the Federal, State, and local governments face. Today I am proposing a flood control strategy for the Greenbrier Basin that includes both structural and nonstructural elements. This strategy does not include the construction of a main-stem dam on the river. Frankly, such a project would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain an authorization for by the Congress. Instead, I am proposing a strategy that is similar to what we have put into place along the Tug Fork River in southern West Virginia. The structural elements include the construction of floodwalls where necessary. The nonstructural elements include floodplain management strategies such as floodproofing and floodplain evacuations where absolutely necessary. In formulating this approach, I have consulted with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has raised no objections, as well as with local officials. They, as I, agree that the most feasible, the most readily achievable, flood protection strategy for the Greenbrier Basin must be pursued. Toward this end, I will be seeking the necessary authorization from the Congress for this initiative.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Riggs amendment to increase the minimum wage by 90 cents, to $5.15 per hour. I do so for many reasons, mainly because it is only fair to hard-working Americans who are working harder and longer with no gain. I do so because it is the right thing to do, to keep working Americans from having to ask for public assistance because $4.25 won't raise a family and provide for daily necessities and health care--just won't do it. I vote for an increase in the minimum wage because it will let American workers to share in the gains of rising economies--such as some of the highest profits ever noted for corporate America, at a time when CEO's make 300 percent more in annual income than their highest paid employee, and at a time when the stock market is on an ever increasing upward trend. Let working Americans in on the act. But one of my very biggest reasons for voting for this minimum wage increase is because we said that we would bring it to a vote, and 84 percent of Americans polled said: Do it. It may startle you to know that 71 percent of Republicans polled also support an increase in the minimum wage. Early on in this debate, when Democrats said they would demand and insist on this up or down vote to increase the minimum wage, the Republican leadership was quoted as saying many things. The majority leader said I will resist increasing the minimum wage with every fiber of my being. Another in the leadership said: I'll commit suicide first. But we persevered and we have brought the proposal to a vote today. But the Republicans who oppose this increase also did something else besides threaten to commit suicide or to resist with every fiber of their being. They went to their Ways and Means pharmacy and they concocted an antidote to the Democrats poison pill of a bill to increase the minimum wage. They met in the dark of night under a full Moon, no doubt, and using potent herbs and verbs, and using the eye of Newt, and hair and nail clippings from known Democrats who use the House barber shop--they developed their antidote and they called it the Small Business Job Protection Act, and cried out that if it was not enacted and administered immediately after enactment of a minimum wage hike, then small business would die. Well, guess what? Democrats are all for helping small businesses--the backbone of our Nation, and its number one source of job creation. We had no problem with the small business job protection antidote. So we nearly all voted for it--it passed by a vote of 414 to 10 on May 22. Was that sufficient, then, to sway our Republican friends across the aisle to come over to us and help us increase the minimum wage? In other words--did they seek us out to help us create a win-win situation--a situation where Representatives were willing to represent their constituencies--by honoring the efforts of the workers and by honoring the commitment and investment of small businesses in strengthening the economy of the entire country? All at the same time? No indeed. I have in my office two communications from the National Federation of Independent Businesses [NFIB]--one which says: If you are going to raise the minimum wage, first enact the Small Business Job Protection Act. The other one says, if you vote for the minimum wage, it will be used against you when we report it to constituents in your district--or words to that effect. Well, you can't have it both ways. I voted for the Small Business Job Protection Act because I do not want a single small business in my district or yours, my colleagues, to suffer. And I am proud to vote for this modest increase in the minimum wage for proud, working Americans who are struggling to stay off welfare and to live lives of dignity and self-respect by working for minimum wage. I want to reward all that hard work that is taking place across this country--work and productivity by millions of employees of businesses, large and small--I want to honor any work achieved, as the Bible directs us--by the sweat of our brows. I am ashamed at the betrayal by Republicans to hold out the small business antidote for raising the minimum wage--but once they got our support and our votes--to jerk the rug by fighting the rise in the minimum wage. Shame, shame, shame on you who vote against this amendment raising the minimum wage after voting for the small business job protection antidote last evening.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise not on behalf of the political ploy that is being perpetrated on the American public by this legislation but on behalf of the Nation's crumbling highway infrastructure. I would say to my colleagues that the American public recognizes a political sham when it sees one, and that is what this bill represents, nothing but a sham, a pure political sham. I would suggest as well that if anybody really believes the action we are going to take here today by repealing the 4.3 cents gas tax is going to lead to lower prices at the pump, then I would say if one really believes that, welcome to La-La-Land. Welcome to La-La-Land. Nothing we do here today is going to lower the price of the gas at the pump. We can argue, and we can argue, and we can argue about the reasons why the prices have gone up, whether it be the new sporty vehicles, whether it be the repeal of the national speed limit that this Congress did or whether it be the weather conditions or crude oil stock supplies, whatever. We can argue about the true reasons for this price increase. The fact is the American people want this money going to improving our infrastructure. That is where we ought to be spending this money without increasing taxes.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to transfer to the highway trust fund revenues received from the 4.3 cents of the Federal motor fuel tax that is currently going to the general fund. Many of us concerned with our surface transportation infrastructure were troubled when in 1993 this tax of 4.3 cents per gallon of motor fuel was imposed not for the purposes of bolstering receipts into the highway trust fund, but for the purpose of deficit reduction. I would note, however, that this was not the first time this occurred. As part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the Federal motor fuel tax was increased by 5 cents, with one-half of this amount dedicated to the general fund. This 2.5 cents was later restored to the highway trust fund effective September 30, 1995. As we all know, the basic premise of the Federal motor fuel tax is that it is a user fee collected for the express purpose of making improvements to our road and highway infrastructure. It is one of the few taxes where Americans can see an immediate and direct result for having to pay it as they drive on the Nation's highways. Today, the debate is centered on repealing the 4.3-cents-per-gallon tax. I offer an alternative. Restore it to the highway trust fund. Few, if anyone in this body, can say that the areas they represent do not require road and highway improvements. The legislation I am introducing today will not only restore faith with the American people on the uses of the Federal motor fuel taxes, but will certainly assist in making needed surface transportation enhancements.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor today that I rise today to pay tribute to our colleague, Sam Gibbons of Florida. For 33 years, Sam has stood proudly as a Member of the House of Representatives representing the 11th district of Florida and he will be missed by all for his integrity and dedication to the people of Tampa and to this institution, the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, although every American has a different definition of an hero, I think that most Members of the House would agree with me that Sam Gibbons has qualities that would qualify him as a great American hero to each and every American. To some, a hero is defined as a military man who distinguishes himself in battle. As a young captain in 1944, Sam was with 12,000 members of the 101st Airborne who parachuted into German-occupied France, providing key support for the invasion at Normandy on D-day which earned him the Bronze Star. To some, a hero is someone who has established himself as a leader of men. And if his military service is not enough to prove this, his career in the House of Representatives and Florida Legislature has. As a young member of the then Education and Labor Committee, Sam Gibbons was chosen to floor manage the Great Society legislation, including the Head Start Program, for President Johnson. Almost 30 years later, as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, he was able to muster enough support for a health bill that no one thought was ever possible. To others, being a hero means standing up for what you believe in, no matter what the odds are against you. In my years of Congress, I have not witnessed Sam compromise his views or do something in which he did not believe. His powerful voice resonating in support of the elderly, the children, and veterans will always be heard in the hallways of the U.S. Capitol. And to others, being a hero, means being a good husband and father. For almost 50 years, Sam has been married to Martha Hanley and they have three sons who have married and have blessed Sam and Martha with five grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I close by wishing the best for a great American hero, Sam Gibbons, as he and his family embark on new endeavors together. Sam has been a great friend to me during my tenure in the House of Representatives and I will miss him greatly.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, every country has the perfectly legitimate right to respond to terrorist attacks upon its borders and its people, regardless of whether those attacks were provoked or not. Such has been the case in southern Lebanon, the home of my grandfathers, where Israel has undertaken Operation Grapes of Wrath in order to end the terrorist Hezbollah attacks across the border into northern Israel. This tit for tat, this eye for an eye, this cycle of violence has gone on for well over a decade now. Ever since Israel's bombardment into southern Lebanon, and indeed, into Beirut itself in 1982 to rid Lebanon of the PLO, they have occupied what they have called a buffer zone in southern Lebanon in order to protect its northern borders. This Israeli occupation has led to the growth of Hezbollah, or Party of God. This Lebanese group has sought to end this occupation, and therefore has undertaken needless, uncalled for, unprovoked terrorist attacks into northern Israel. These have been undertaken, and in the past have been guided by unwritten agreements by which Israel and Syria, the two main power brokers in the region, have agreed not to attack each other directly. Therefore, Hezbollah operates as a proxy for outside powers, in this case obviously financed and trained by Iran and given the green light by Syria to operate in Lebanon. In order to end these attacks, Israel undertook Operation Grapes of Wrath. As I say, every country has that perfectly legitimate right to respond to terrorist attacks across its border. Today we saw a dramatic change in its operation. We saw a dramatic turn of events in which innocent civilians who have been killed over the last week or so of this operation escalated into which the death count now stands at close to 100 innocent civilians killed in an Israeli bombardment of a U.N. base camp in southern Lebanon, these innocent civilians having tried to flee, according to Israeli warnings beforehand, in order to prevent harm to themselves. Whether it was a mistake, whether it was just another message being sent in the long list of messages in which Lebanon is used as a chessboard in which outside powers play their game in Lebanon, remains to be debated, and is currently being debated in the highest echelons of Israeli government. President Clinton, much to his credit and however late it may be, has, within the hour, from St. Petersburg, Russia, called for a cease- fire in the Middle East. He has issued his sympathy to the families of those innocent civilians killed in today's state-sponsored terrorist act, and he has called for a cease-fire to take place, I hope, immediately. The President is to be commended for this call, however late it is in coming. But the final resolution, the final resolution of this conflict will only occur when a peace treaty is reached between those two main power brokers, Israel and Syria. It is time to quit using Lebanon as a chessboard. It is time to quit using the lives of innocent civilians, women and children, in order to send political messages to one party or another. Let us hope that, as has happened in the past in the Middle East, with this outrageous action today and with this uncalled for action, that perhaps it will be the last salvo and we will see a true breakthrough and peace occur. That peace will occur when the Lebanese Army, which in my opinion is quite capable of disarming Hezbollah, disarming them completely, put it in writing if need be, as Israel is demanding, with Syria guaranteeing the safety of Israel's northern border along with the Lebanese Government, and assurances that Hezbollah will stop these attacks once they are fully disarmed, and second, and at the same time, and no waiting until on down the road to see what happens, but at the same time, then I call upon the Israelis to recognize U.N. Resolution 425 and withdraw their forces from southern Lebanon at the same time. Let us put it in writing. Let us do it, however, by unwritten agreement or whatever, but this is the only solution to the current eye-for-an-eye, tit-for- tat cycle of violence that has taken too many innocent lives, has caused too much suffering, and has inflicted economic damages upon a country friendly to the United States, upon a country that has not been responsible for these terrorist actions, the country of Lebanon, too weak to handle it, strong in my opinion, growing stronger militarily but not politically, because of the controls the Syrian Government has in that country. But if we want to see peace, a truly just and comprehensive peace to which the President spoke today, to which all parties aspire, then it is time we get to the root of the problem. It is time we reach that agreement that would be a major step forward in Israel's recognition by all Arab countries in the region.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. RAHALL. 103d Congress. If I misspoke, I stand corrected.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about here the Truth in Budgeting Act. I would submit that that label perhaps should apply to amendments as well, and that we ought to say we are for truth in amendments as well, and I would like to advance some criteria in just a moment for what truth in the amendment process should be about. But let me say to the gentleman from Minnesota, one of the cosponsors of this amendment, very similar to remarks I made earlier in this debate addressed to the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, that is, these Members who get up and talk about earmarking projects, talk about pork-barrel projects and proceed to label themselves as pork-busters, knowing the way the press loves to headline and loves to pay such Members attention, I would remind the gentleman, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], our distinguished full committee chairman, has already done, and I am sure he is already aware of letters that he has written our committee requesting projects in the past. Evidently these projects under the current amendment and under the debate that is being conducted are termed bad and thrown out for political purposes, the money is thrown out for political purposes, but the pending amendment that the gentleman offers should indeed be shown for what it is. Under the truth in amendments criteria that I would advance, Mr. Chairman, I would say must reveal first the startling transformation that has occurred in the sponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge]. There is a highway project in Minnesota which I am sure he is aware. It is a good project. It is called trunk highway 212. In 1994 the gentleman wrote to me in my then capacity as chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee requesting an earmark of $12 million for this particular project. We were able to help the gentleman, maybe not to the full extent to which he was requesting, but nevertheless in that letter the gentleman from Minnesota noted that the project had already received two other congressional earmarks, both in ISTEA and in the fiscal 1992 appropriation bill. I think it is strange today that the sponsor of this so-called pork- buster amendment now finds the earmarking of money for highway projects so onerous. But be that as it may, there is a more important reason for opposing this amendment, and that is simply the fact that it makes no sense. The gentleman notes in his April 16 ``Dear Colleague'' in support of this amendment that if the trust funds were taken off-budget, highway demonstration projects will be completely exempt from obligation limitations. The truth is that today under the existing process, ISTEA demonstration projects are exempt from the obligation limits set in the appropriation bills. They are exempt from the obligation limits today. So, therefore, the pending amendment makes no sense and I would urge its defeat. I would say also in response to the gentleman from California, in his earlier rendition of what he termed highway robbery and appropriations of money that have come to West Virginia, my home State, for highway demonstration projects, I am not entirely clear but I believe some of those moneys to which he was referring are out of general revenues, and that is not what we are talking about in this particular legislation today at all. Yes, West Virginia received those projects, yes, we deserved them, but, no, they would not be affected by this particular amendment. They would not be affected by this particular legislation that we are considering because those were revenues that were appropriated out of general funds of the United States, not highway trust funds.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, in ISTEA, when I chaired the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, with the complete cooperation of the gentleman from Wisconsin, Chairman Petri, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, or then Chairman Mineta, we developed a set of criteria by which projects had to answer, a long list of questions. One of those questions at the very top was about whether the State supported the project or not. We did not put a project into ISTEA without full 100-percent written testimony from the States that they supported such projects. As I said earlier, these projects were scrutinized, scrubbed, and there was not a one put in there without State support, not without State support.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, would the gentleman clarify in this particular Member's mind his distinction between highway demonstration projects and earmarking?

Mr. RAHALL. I just wanted to hear it repeated.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman from Virginia, what was that pledge he made if this became law?

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

Mr. RAHALL. I know the gentleman is trying to relate his transformation to a possible transformation in the House rules, but we have not had a highway bill this year. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge]. Mr. Chairman, the title of the pending legislation is the ``Truth in Budgeting Act.'' I would submit that we should apply that label to amendments as well. Truth in amendments. The gentleman from Minnesota has labeled himself a porkbuster. I have two ``Dear Colleague'' letters signed by the gentleman in which he berates so-called porkbarrel highway demonstration projects. These types of projects are, in his view, apparently bad and as such, the pending amendment would make taking the transportation trust funds off-budget contingent upon there being no further earmarking of funds for a particular project. Under the Truth in Amendments criteria I am advancing, I find that I must reveal there has been a startling transformation in the gentleman from Minnesota's views as they relate to earmarking of projects. There is a highway project in Minnesota, and I am sure it is a good project, called ``Trunk Highway 212''. Now, in 1994, the gentleman wrote to me in my then capacity as chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, requesting that I earmark $12 million for that project. In that letter, the gentleman noted that the project had already received two other Congressional earmarks: in ISTEA and in the fiscal year 1992 appropriation bill. Let it suffice to say that I find it passingly strange that today, the sponsor of this so-called porkbuster amendment, now finds the earmarking of funds for highway projects so onerous. Be that as it may, there is one major reason to vote against this amendment. It makes little to no sense. The gentleman notes in his April 16 ``Dear Colleague'' that if the trust funds are taken off-budget, highway demonstration projects will be completely exempt from obligation limitations. My colleagues, the truth is that today, under the existing, process, ISTEA demonstration projects are exempt from the obligation limitations set in the appropriation bill. They are exempt from the obligations limitations today. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the pending amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. I am advised that in the last ISTEA legislation we did, that Wisconsin was adjusted near the end, and it came out very well. So I am not sure what the gentleman's direct concern is here, but certainly in the future in agreeing with this amendment which he wholeheartedly supports, we will be glad to exempt Wisconsin.

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

Mr. RAHALL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, if he is talking about highway funding formulas then, I believe that is properly addressed when our committee reauthorizes ISTEA at the proper time.

Mr. RAHALL. The distinguished chairman is entirely accurate. That is the format in which we should make that battle and also, in addition to that, we should not be trying to blur the distinction here between general revenues and highway trust fund moneys, either. If the gentleman has a problem with the appropriation process, then let us take that battle to the Committee on Appropriations and battle it out during the appropriation process.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in my capacity as the ranking Democratic member on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee to give my colleagues 6.8 billion reasons why they should vote for H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act. This, 6.8 billion, my colleagues, is the amount of highway and transit money the States have been shortchanged over the life of ISTEA to date. The following chart shows these losses by State, 1992-96:

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, people from all walks of life, professional, personal, religious--friends, colleagues and strangers alike--found themselves binding together over the past 2 weeks in mourning the loss of Ron Brown, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, who died tragically in a plane crash in Bosnia. As could be expected, Ron was lost to us while on a mission of peace as he sought to repair the fabric of war-torn Bosnia. Today, in honor of his memory, I would like to add my voice to those of hundreds of thousands--perhaps millions--of others who spoke of Ron Brown the man, the husband, the father, the friend of Democrats, the beloved advisor to President Clinton. I begin by extending my personal condolences to his wife, Alma and their children, and to the families and friends of all others who gave their lives as well, and to assure them that they are in my thoughts and my prayers; may they be comforted by God's love and the outpouring of grief, love, and the many tributes coming from people throughout the world. I also convey condolences to the family and friends of William Morton, a native of Huntington, WV, located in the district I represent, who was also aboard the doomed plane over Croatia. To them I extend my deepest sympathies and offer my prayers on their behalf that will always be comforted knowing that William died on a mission of peace, as a patriot of his country, doing the job he was committed to doing and doing well, at the side of his mentor, Secretary Brown. I pay particular tribute to Ron Brown, Secretary of Commerce, for while he excelled in all aspects of every endeavor or job or position he ever held in public life, it was as Secretary of Commerce that he won my everlasting admiration and esteem. As the Representative in the House of the people of the third district in West Virginia, one of my major goals is to do all that is possible to increase economic development opportunities and the job creation that follows such incentives, for my people. We live in the heart of Appalachia where unemployment in some areas still remains in double-digits, and where economic development is integral to our effort to create a stronger, stable economic base for all West Virginians. Ron Brown won my heart by requiring his entire department staff to memorize a one-sentence mission statement that ought to be the mission statement of every person in government, and that sentence was: ``Our mission is to ensure economic opportunity for every American.'' Ron Brown, having achieved the American dream for himself, spent the rest of his life seeking to make it a reality for those bound over by poverty and despair. His life stands as a testament to the power of educating our people, to a sound work ethic meaning a willingness to work hard, and a dedication of ourselves to work for the common good of all. In West Virginia, Ron will be remembered more for local economic development projects through the Economic Development Administration [EDA], and the Office of Economic Adjustment perhaps, then for his global view on trade initiatives between the United States and the rest of the world. He was a friend of towns and cities large and small throughout the Nation, and became the catalyst for change in social and economic circles that were long overdue, by reminding American capitalists that their prosperity was inextricably linked to the prosperity of all Americans. Whether Ron was in an American city, the Middle East, or Bosnia, he believed that participation in economic success would go a long way in healing racial, ethnic, and religious differences. Secretary Brown ran the Commerce Committee like no other Secretary before him--by actively involving businesses in securing jobs for Americans. He took a page from the investment strategy book of the Japanese Government whose economic growth excelled for many years because of the direct involvement of government in the Japanese business community, issuing a challenge to America's economic thinking. Ron Brown learned from that, and he acknowledged the power and importance of businesses great and small in the United States, and encouraged greater investment in business and industry, rather than ignoring them as his predecessors had done. Under his stewardship, the American economy rebounded over the past 3 years, largely due to his personal involvement and the involvement of his department staff who had memorized the one-sentence mission statement: ``Our mission is to ensure economic opportunity for every American.'' Ron Brown was many things to many people, and he was remembered as having great charisma, of being able to walk into a room and energize it, drawing people to his side. He was known for his sense of compassion, his willingness to listen to both sides. He was also known for his sense of humor and, needless to say, for his outstanding political acumen, and his ability to make friends anywhere and everywhere he went, working on behalf of the America he loved. That is Secretary Brown's legacy to us all, and we must not forget.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, over the years volumes have been written about the Middle East and its turbulent politics, economic potential, and strategic importance to the United States. One publication stands out because of its comprehensive, insightful and balanced approach to issues in the region. I am referring to Middle East Insight magazine which has just celebrated its 15th anniversary as one of the leading journals of Middle East affairs. Throughout this turbulent period, Middle East Insight has covered the complex issues affecting the region in a thoughtful, creative way to bring greater knowledge and understanding to all parties. By striving to rise above the ideological passions that often divide the region, Middle East Insight has earned the respect of its readers in Washington, DC and throughout the region. The driving force behind the magazine is its editor, George Nader. Nader is the founder and president of International Insight, an organization that promotes better understanding between the Middle East and the United States. He is a recognized expert on the region and is often invited by major news organizations to comment as events unfold. Because of his reputation for fairness and his remarkable access to key political and business leaders throughout the region, Nader has produced a magazine of distinction and high quality. Leaders such as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, PLO Leader Yassir Arafat, the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Morocco's King Hassan II, and Presidents Bush and Clinton have all been featured in Middle East Insight. It is a tribute to George Nader and his vision to publish a magazine that is respected for its contribution to public policy debate. Both he and Middle East Insight deserve special recognition on their 15th anniversary.