Home > D.C. > Research > Congress > CRW > Page

1A) Safe Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to put an end to the claims from opponents of used nuclear fuel disposal who say transporting the material is unsafe. These claims have become louder since President Bush made a decision to move forward with the disposing of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. The truth is their concerns are misguided. You cannot argue with the fact that almost 3,000 safe shipments of used nuclear fuel have taken place without any release of radioactive material. That is right. On some 3,000 occasions used fuel has traveled by truck or rail across this country including almost 500 in my home State of Illinois. And the reason you probably have not heard about this is because not one of these shipments has threatened the environment or public safety. States like Illinois have gone to great lengths to set up a system that will ensure safe transportation of nuclear waste through the State and across State lines. Transporting spend nuclear fuel is safe. It has been proven to be safe, and there is no reason to doubt that it will remain safe.

1B) Energy Legislation and Iraq

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this being the first day of March, I remind my colleagues of the schedule before us. We are about 3 weeks away from our 2-week Easter recess. There are many items on the agenda: campaign finance reform; trade authority; stimulus, perhaps; and, of course, the President's budget, which will take, I am sure, at least a week.

   So it is becoming somewhat clear that time is a precious commodity. It is in short supply. I remind my colleagues of commitments made by the majority leader. These were commitments made in good faith about time and about energy, and we have both around this body.

   I am reminded of a statement he made on November 27 of last year. I quote:

   I am prepaid to commit to taking up the energy bill prior to the Founders Day recess; that is, during the first work period, between January 22 and the time we break for the Founders Day recess.

   Again, on December 3, the majority leader said:

   I have already stated very emphatically my desire to bring up the energy bill prior to the Founders Day recess, to have a good debate, to talk about all of the issues, including those which are controversial. It is my expectation we will do just that.

   Again, that was December.

   The majority leader says he wants to move an energy bill, but I am afraid we just have not seen the kind of commitment that America expects or that is referenced in our calendar. We spent virtually all day yesterday in quorum calls, morning business, with no votes. We certainly have not done an awful lot this week. I note it is Friday afternoon, and it is pretty lonesome around here. Nevertheless, I do want to bring to everyone's attention the absence of any aggressive timeframe in addressing this energy legislation.

   As you know, it was one of our President's priorities. The priorities were energy, a stimulus package, and trade promotion.

   To my knowledge, after looking through the RECORD, our debates, so far, have been quite limited. I spoke an hour on it. Senator Daschle spoke for some 20 minutes. That was some time ago. I do not think that is an energy debate.

   In my view, the leader has been waiting I do not know for what purpose. When will it come up? Perhaps Monday or Tuesday. It probably will not come up Monday; maybe Tuesday. The longer it takes until we can pass an energy bill, the longer our Nation remains vulnerable.

   In my opinion, energy dependence is our Achilles' heel. Our enemies are painfully aware of this. We waited too long to deal with bin Laden, we waited too long to deal with al-Qaida, and we are waiting too long to deal with Saddam Hussein.

   This is a new month. There is still time and there are still plenty of opportunities to commit to the debate and the vote. But the longer we wait to address our energy security, the tougher it becomes to fix and the greater the risks that we face.

   Mr. President, I would also like to call to the attention

   of my colleagues the dilemma we will face once we get to the bill. This is a very complex bill. It is inferior, in my opinion, because it did not come through the normal course of activities associated with Senate procedure.

   Ordinarily, the bill would begin, upon introduction, by being referred to the committee of jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The committee would hold hearings. It would take witnesses. It would develop a consensus, and, more importantly, it would provide an education for each member on the intricacies.

   We are going to be talking about ANWR. That is a very contentious issue. But equally contentious is going to be CAFE standards. Just what are we going to do to address conservation? And, indeed, at what price?

   The electric portion is extraordinarily complicated. We have not had an opportunity for review in the normal process. As a consequence, Members are going to be educated by lobbyists, lobbyists with special interests. I venture to say, three-quarters, if not more, of the membership is not familiar with the terminology used in the electric bill. It is very, very complex.

   Our interests, of course, are maintaining an uninterrupted supply of electric energy in this country. We have seen what happened in California. We are going to need more transmission lines, more intra- and interstate activities relative to oversight by FERC. I could go on and on, but I promised to keep my remarks within 12 minutes.

   My purpose in bringing this issue up is to make sure every Member understands what we are looking at. We are going to be looking at a bill that has been laid down as the energy bill, without the process of the hearings, without the process of committee action, without the process of Republicans and Democrats having come together on some kind of a consensus about what we could agree or disagree on. That is going to be done on the floor of the Senate, which I think is unfortunate. And I am very critical, very frankly, of the Democratic leader, who made the decision to pull the responsibility away.

   We all know why that was done. It was done strictly as a political move, to ensure the issue of ANWR did not come up in the committee, because the votes to pass out a bill with ANWR were clearly within the committee's structure. We had both Democratic and Republican support. As a consequence of this decision, we are left with this rather unusual set of circumstances.

   I might say, to some extent, it was also done to the Commerce Committee, which was debating the issue of CAFE standards. It couldn't address it or resolve it. At least they had the authority up to that time. But, anyway, that was pulled from their committee as well from the standpoint of jurisdiction.

   So, my point is, we have a process here that is less than traditional. I think it is less than a bipartisan effort in the Senate to try to move a bill.

   So the bill has been laid down on the floor by the majority leader, and we will start the process.

   As a consequence of that, I think it is also important to recognize the realities.

   Yesterday, our brave men and women in uniform were again fired upon. They were fired upon by Saddam Hussein's ground forces. They were threatened. They were attacked. As a consequence, they fired back.

   I am not talking about Afghanistan; I am talking about

   Iraq, a country from which we are currently importing 800,000 barrels of oil a day.

   I quote the Associated Press:

   U.S. planes patrolling a no-fly zone over northern Iraq bombed an Iraqi air defense system Thursday in response to Iraqi anti-aircraft fire, the U.S. military said. It is the second time that U.S. planes have bombed Iraqi defense sites in northern Iraq this year.

   Well, we are 2 months into this year.

   But since the gulf war, in 1992, we have been enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq to keep Saddam Hussein in check. A no-fly zone is almost an aerial blockade in the sense of comparing it to a sea blockade. It is considered almost an act of war.

   It is the second time we have bombed, as I said, and it is only March 1st. So I think we are off to a rather troubling start.

   Last year, Iraq shot at U.S. forces, enforcing the no-fly zone, over 400 times. We responded on 23 occasions.

   But let's not lose sight that while, on the one hand, we perhaps make a fist at Iraq, on the other hand, we have our hand out taking his oil.

   In September 2001, we broke an 11-year-old record, importing more than 1.16 million barrels of oil from Iraq. It was the same time that we had the aircraft used as a weapon in taking down the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon and the tragedy that occurred in Pennsylvania. It was the same time.

   Where is the synergy? We have given Saddam Hussein more than $4 billion for his oil in the last year. That is a lot of money for an economy that is believed to have a GDP of only about $52 billion.

   What does he do with that money? We know he has chemical weapons. He has a chemical weapons program. The reason we know it is because during the Iran-Iraqi war he used it on his own people--his own people--the Kurdish people in northern Iraq.

   In fact, he is believed to have sufficient chemicals to produce hundreds of tons of mustard gas, VX, and other nerve agents, as well as 25 missiles and

[Page: S1390]  GPO's PDF

   Israel witnessed first hand the reach of his weapons delivery system during the gulf war. We know what happened. We know of missiles that were aimed at Israel. We know he has been working on nuclear weapons because one of his top nuclear engineers defected to the West in 1994 and has given us details of the program.

   Over many years, Iraq has worked on a number of occasions to acquire the material and the knowledge to perhaps build some kind of crude nuclear weapon. We can only truly speculate on the extent of his success, but it is commonly believed that an Iraqi nuclear device is inevitable. And if it is not available currently, the question is when?

   I think it is fair to say that he is up to no good. We can't say for sure because we haven't had U.N. inspectors in there since 1998. There was a U.N. mandate that we do that. We have not followed through. One can only imagine what he might be able to have accomplished in almost 4 years of seclusion.

   As long as we are dependent on sources such as Saddam Hussein for our oil, we will continue to finance the regime of Saddam Hussein. As long as he is in power, he will continue to threaten the world as a member of the axis of evil, which is a quote from our President.

   All the tools he needs evidently are now within his grasp. Reducing foreign dependence on oil can reduce the influence and the reach of a Saddam Hussein. The question we have to ask ourselves is, when and if we are going to have to deal with this, what will be the consequences if we wait too long? Will it be another terrorist attack sponsored by Iraq? Will it be another situation where we have something occur that we wish we had taken care of because all the signs were there that this threat was real? Reducing our dependence on a country such as Iraq is going to decrease the supply of oil, so the price is going to go up.

   So what do we do? We have domestic opportunities, and some of that will come up in the debate on ANWR, which obviously, as the occupant of the Chair knows, is a conviction I have, that we can open it safely, that it will come on line in roughly 2 1/2 to 3 years, that it would be on line now if President Clinton had not vetoed it in 1995, and that it is a significant supply because it is estimated at somewhere between 6.5 and 16 billion barrels. If it is half that, it would be as big as Prudhoe Bay.

   I might add, for the benefit of the Chair, who is not from Texas, I can speculate that there is much more oil in ANWR than in all of Texas.

   With that profound statement, I ask unanimous consent that a Washington Post article of Friday, March 1, final edition, be printed in the RECORD, that portion covering Thursday's bombing which comes amid a rising debate on whether Iraq will be the next target of U.S. antiterrorism campaigns. President George Bush ``branded Iraq as part of an `axis of evil' along with Iran and North Korea, and accused it of seeking weapons of mass destruction.''

   There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Jets on Patrol Over Iraq Attack Air Defense Sites

   ANKARA (AP).--U.S. planes patrolling a no-fly zone over northern Iraq bombed an Iraqi air defense system Thursday in response to Iraqi anti-aircraft fire, the U.S. military said.

   It is the second time that U.S. planes have bombed Iraqi defense sites in northern Iraq this year. The planes dropped bombs on the Iraqi defense system after Iraqi forces north of Mosul fired on them during routine patrols of the zone, the U.S. European Command said on a statement. Mosul is 400 kilometers (250 miles) north of Baghdad.

   The planes returned safely to their base at Incirlik, in southern Turkey, the command, which is based in Germany, said.

   U.S. and U.K. planes based in southeast Turkey have been flying patrols over northern Iraq since 1991 to protect the Kurdish population from Iraqi forces. Iraq doesn't recognize the zone and has been challenging allied aircraft regularly since 1998.

   Thursday's bombing comes amid a rising debate on whether Iraq will be the next target of the U.S. anti-terror campaign. U.S. President George W. Bush branded Iraq as part of an ``axis of evil'' along with Iran and North Korea, and accused it of seeking weapons of mass destruction.

   Turkey, host to the air patrols and a launching pad for strikes against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War, fears that a war in Iraq could lead to creation of a Kurdish state and boost aspirations of autonomy-seeking Kurds in Turkey.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so order.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska, Mr. MURKOWSKI, has come to the floor on several occasions and complained about the manner and method in which Senator Bingaman and Senator Daschle brought forth the energy bill, which will shortly come before the Senate. They have complained about the path by which it got to the floor. My friend, the Senator from Alaska, says it should have been reported out of the Energy Committee rather than coming to the floor by Senate standing rule XIV.

   But, in May of 2000, Senator Lott moved a Republican bill--the National Energy Security Act of 2000--to the floor by rule XIV.

   So when the Senator from Alaska was chair of the Energy Committee and the Republicans were in the majority, they moved the bill to the floor exactly the same way Senator Daschle has moved our bill. So the ranking member of the Energy Committee is now complaining of Senator Daschle doing exactly the same thing they did. He participated in this when he was chairman of the committee.

   It seems the Senator from Alaska is denigrating the example he set last Congress. I guess in the minds of the minority, turnabout is not fair play. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

2A) The Axis of Evil and the Importance of Missile Defense

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. MCINNIS) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

   Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, this evening I would like to cover a couple of subjects. The first subject that I would like to spend some time on is on the President's axis of evil. I really do not want to focus entirely on that particular subject, but I want to talk more specifically as kind of a jump from that subject on to missile defense, the importance of missile defense for the United States of America; in fact, the absolute necessity for the United States to deploy as soon as possible a missile defense to secure our borders against future attempts, either accidental or intentional, to cause harm.

   To lay a basis for this, I have just returned from NATO meetings. Our NATO delegation here out of the House of Representatives is chaired by the very able gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. BEREUTER).

   We went to our NATO meetings and then after our NATO meetings went and joined another group with the British American parliamentary assembly which was chaired by our very capable Member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. PETRI). And from these meetings, it was very interesting to go to these meetings. First of all, let me state that it amazes me, it absolutely amazes me that we do not have to get very far from September 11 before the old European criticism of the United States starts to rear its ugly head.

   Now that said, let me tell you that I think it is somewhat out of proportion this criticism. Mind you, it is the criticism that gets played up by the world media. It is not the things that are going right. And I can state a lot of relationships are probably more solid today with some of our European allies, for example, the British, than they have ever been in the history of relationships between these two countries.

   Let me compliment the United Kingdom. The Brits have been with us from the moment those planes hit the Pentagon and targeted New York City. And they have not faltered, they have not weakened, they have not backed off one inch. My compliments to the British people. Unfortunately, that strong commitment to the goodness of what our societies represent, not the United States alone, the United States is not standing alone. The United States is willing to go it alone, but the United States wants help from its allies. That is why you have allies. But unfortunately, in my view, not all Europeans, specifically the French, the Germans, even Luxembourg, I was a little discouraged by some of the comments I heard at some of these meetings about the United States, that the United States being the only super-world power is kind of pushing unilateralism.

   That is not what is happening out there. The United States of America is without question the only superpower in the world. But the United States of America is not arrogant about this. The United States of America has never ignored its friends. The United States of America does everything that it can to have a strong alliance with its natural allies. And the United States of America reaches out more than any country in the history of the world, more than any country in the history of the world. The United States of America reaches out to help other countries. It reaches out to give individual freedoms throughout the world. It reaches out and, sure, we talk and try and use education to tell people how the goodness of individual freedoms and individual rights and how it makes a country stronger and not weaker.

   We are not sensitive to criticism, unless the criticism is a little unjust. It was interesting over the weekend, there was an editorial in one of the London newspapers. And they remembered the quote that Lyndon Johnson had back in the de Gaulle days when de Gaulle said to Lyndon Johnson that he wanted the American troops, the United States troops off European soil. And President Johnson immediately replied, does that include the American troops buried beneath your soil?

   Twice in the last century the United States at the expense of many thousands of lives went to the defense of Europe. And I feel very confident that if Europe were challenged tomorrow, the United States would once again find itself in battle on behalf of the Europeans. The United States thinks very highly of the European nations. The United States of America thinks it is very important that we have friendships that are strong into the future. But let me tell you something about a friendship. You have got to be willing to help that friend of yours that might need some help.

   Now, the United States of America through the leadership of our fine President has committed to

   eliminate, to the extent possible, terrorism throughout the world. Not just terrorism focused on the United States of America, but terrorism focused wherever it raises its ugly head; and it has asked for assistance from other countries, other countries in Europe. Now, that is not acting as if you were arrogant. That is not going forward on some kind of unilateral message or unilateral path. The United States of America does not accept arrogance as its policy of moving forward.

   What the United States of America accepts as its policy is strength, strength through the ability to negotiate, strength through military might, strength through doing whatever you can to assist countries rebuilding themselves.

   Take a look at Afghanistan. It is our obligation, we feel in this country, we feel an obligation to help build that country, to have text books in those schools, to build those schools, to allow women the rights they have never seen in that country before, all individuals in that country to begin to exercise individual rights. And the United States of America is willing to step forward not only with its military might, but with its economic might as well, as well as its compassion, whether it is the Peace Corps or whether it is the thousands and thousands of items that have been contributed throughout this Nation, whether it be jackets or school books, or whatever, sent to the country of Afghanistan.

   I think it is a mistake, a deep mistake for our European allies, not all of them but for some of those European allies, to think that for some reason because the United States of America has the guts and, frankly, I think the obligation to stand up toe to toe with these terrorists, and destroy them where possible, do whatever we can to overcome the fear in the hearts of the American people and the people of this world that these terrorists have put there. And the United States is willing to be the first one out of the foxhole.

   But it is a little interesting when some of the people still back in the foxhole have enough malfeasance, in my opinion, of their professional responsibilities to criticize the United States because it is the first one out of the foxhole, because the United States of America is willing to take on this terrorism, not only for our Nation's security but for the world's security. And the President has made that very clear. The Secretary of State has made that very clear.

   We are not out to rid the world of terrorists that only attack the United States of America. We are out to contain and destroy to the extent possible the terrorists that rain their terror upon anywhere in the world. And we have asked some of our European allies, all of our allies to join us. It amazes me, it discourages me, it disappoints me that we have some of the countries in Europe who are speaking ill of the United States.

   It was surprising to hear how often I heard criticism of President Bush's axis of evil, the three countries that President Bush highlighted as direct threats, evil countries. It reminded me of the days when President Reagan had enough guts to stand up and call Russia the Evil Empire. You know what bothered a lot of people? The fact that he was right. And here President Bush is right.

   Sure, you can sugar-coat it. You can decorate your language, try and hide it, try and kind of through statesman negotiations, I guess, not really call these countries what they are. But what would you call North Korea? I asked some of my European friends, What is it that you would describe North Korea with? You want to get a Webster's dictionary and find me another word in the dictionary that would fit North Korea more appropriately than axis of evil or a combination of evil?

   Take a look at the suppression that North Korea does with its own citizens. How can you justify calling North Korea anything but evil when they starve their citizens to feed their military?

   Then you can move on to Iraq. When we talk about biochemical warfare, do you know what country in the history of the world has used it on its own citizens? Iraq. Do you think somewhere in Webster's dictionary you could find a definition other than the word of evil to fit the nation of Iraq? The people, the masses of Iraq deserve more than they are getting from that leadership.

   Saddam Hussein is evil and his leadership regime is evil. The country, the people of North Korea, the people of Iraq, and to a lesser extent the people of Iran, are all begging for some kind of new leadership out there. And Iran is no guardian angel. Iran seems to have at least some momentum moving towards reform in their country. But the fact is right now the three primary threats to the free world are Iraq, number one, North Korea, number two, and Iran, number three.

   So we have got a President that has enough gumption to be the first one out of the foxhole, to say it as it is, to talk about it in terms that are necessary for it to be talked about. And that is that these evil empires are doing not only injustices to their own people, but they threaten tremendous injustices to other nations in the world. That is what this President is standing up for. And that is what I hope our European allies understand, that the United States is not trying to snub, has made no attempt whatsoever to snub its allies anywhere in the world.

   In fact, it is the United States coming out of that foxhole not only for itself, not only for our Nation, but for all nations of this world, to rid this world of a terrible, terrible cancer. And there is no other way to describe the acts of these terrorists, whether it is the kidnapping of a Wall Street Journal reporter, whether it is flying a plane into the World Trade Center or flying a plane into the Pentagon or unleashing any other act of terror. Somebody has got to have enough guts to face up to them.

   Let me say, and I want to make it very carefully said that throughout my remarks the one sole strong exception standing so solid out there in the European continent is the United Kingdom. We have some other allies in the European continent that are standing with us, but the strongest out there are the British. And I want to commend my colleagues in Britain for standing with the United States of America. And I want to encourage the other European continent to join us in this battle. Not join us just in soft talk. Join us in strong action. That is what it is going to take.

   This cancer that we have discovered, this cancer that we discovered through the horrible events of September 11 is not just going to disappear on its own. In fact, every day that goes by that cancer begins to spread.

   Now, we took a pretty good whack out of that cancer with our military action in Afghanistan. And thanks to a lot of European allies who have helped us with intelligence, who have helped us with the money racketeering going on out there, we have been able to crawl somewhat into the cellars of some of these terrorist headquarters and begin to destroy that cancer. But the fact is cancer still exists. We cannot pray it off us, although that may help. We cannot wish it off us. Wishing is something for a dream, but it is not going to get rid of that cancer. You cannot love it off. You cannot talk it off. You have got to get in there, and you have got to take it away.

   Now in my opinion several of our European allies agree that the cancer needs to be taken away. But they want it done with the absolute opportunity of, I guess you would say, anesthesia for the patient. Get the best anesthesia that you can get and deliver and put it into the patient before you begin to remove the cancer. Frankly, I agree with that. Make the patient as comfortable as you can. But the problem is the patient and the cancer are here today. The anesthesia of which these people, the European allies, some of them, are referring to, we do not have it in the operating room. We need to go after that cancer now. We cannot wait for that anesthesia to arrive because if we do, it may be too late for the patient.

   So in an idealistic world, while we would like to have all of the anesthesia we need right there for that patient, in the realistic world, not the idealistic world, but the realistic world, we may have to go after that cancer before we have the kind of anesthesia that we would like to have. Those are the facts. And it is not because we are being egotistical. It is not because we want to act in a unilateral method. It is because we are saying that our fellow doctors in that operating room, look, we have got to get that cancer. Everybody agrees, right? Right. We have got to do it now. Yeah, we need to do it. We need to do it now. Somebody in that operating room has to take charge. And the United States of America is willing to lead.

   In fact, as Vice President CHENEY has said, the United States of America today in the world is the only one who has the capabilities from all angles in a broad statement to take on this terrorism. We want our allies with us. We want to protect our allies. That is a natural. Of course you want to protect your friends.

   So I would have expected when I went to Europe to find many of my friends from Germany or find many of my friends from France, although the French are tough to bring along in most cases, find our friends from Luxembourg, find our friends from some of these other countries jumping up and saying, hey, we are ready to get out of the foxhole. We are firmly committed behind your Nation.

   I happen to believe that most of the people in Europe agree with the United States of America in that the number one issue out there is security and that we have got to somehow repeal this horrible cancer that has stricken the world.

   Granted, on September 11, it hit the United States of America, but I am telling my colleagues it is not long before it hits somewhere else in the world. That is why it is our obligation, all of us, all of us, to get out of that foxhole, under the leadership of the United States of America, and take it on.

   I saw an excellent editorial in today's Wall Street Journal. I do not like to read into the RECORD, but this is an important editorial, and so I want to read. It is not a long editorial, but I ask my colleagues to listen very carefully to the words, because the Wall Street Journal editorial I think covers very precisely the type of feeling that I had at the NATO meetings that I was in attendance.

   Again, dated February 26, title of the editorial is Axis of Allies.

   To read the papers these days, you'd think Europe and the United States were headed for a giant fall over President Bush's ``axis of evil'' policy. Certainly European critics have earned all of the headlines. But there's another side to this story, which is that much of Europe actually supports Mr. Bush.

   We certainly would not call it a silent majority. But it includes some very big names, starting, for example, with the Spanish Prime Minister. Since you won't read about it anywhere else, we thought we'd tell you what he said.

   `` `I think that the position Bush has taken is of historic dimensions,' '' the Prime Minister said last week in an interview with European journalists. `` `It is comparable to the choice made by Truman, who in the postwar took a strong position against the Russians, and to the declaration that Reagan made at the beginning of the 1980s which defined the Soviet Union as the evil empire.' ''

   The Spanish Prime Minister added that, `` `I believe that today it is more important than ever that Europe strengthen its ties with the United States: Alone we Europeans will be able to do nothing, not only on the international scene but also even inside our own continent, as the crisis in the Balkans demonstrated. There are those who want to make an impression by lining up against the U.S., but I do not agree with this attitude.'

   ``Also largely unreported was the comment last week of'' the European Union ``foreign policy chief, who spoke of `overstatements of differences' with Washington.'' The policy chief's ``remarks were widely taken as a slap in the face of Chris Patten, the EU external affairs commissioner who warned, in widely quoted comments, that Mr. Bush was in `unilateralist overdrive.'

   ``Something is clearly getting lost in translation of how Europeans view America right now. When a French Foreign Minister calls U.S. foreign policy `simplistic' or the German Foreign Minister Fischer accuses the United States of treating European nations as `satellites,' their remarks make news on both sides of the Atlantic. But when a European leader speaks pointedly in support of America, he is shouting into the wind.

   ``The real story is the battle in Europe between the new politics and the old. It is no accident that those dowagers of the old socialism, France and Germany, tend to produce the U.S. critics, while exponents of a new centrist or center-right politics, primarily British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Mr. Aznar, support Mr. Bush.

   ``The internal debate in Europe is about its role in the world and the future shape of the European Union. Specifically, it focuses on the politics of European integration in which a French-led bloc wants to create a more integrated (and socialist) Europe. The issues will come up in elections in France and Germany this year.

   ``Both France and Germany also had business ties with Iraq that they are eager to resume; that won't be politically correct as long as Iraq is part of the `axis of evil.' A campaign (with tacit or explicit government support) to indict Western sanctions as the cause of Iraqi misery has also succeeded with the European public, making it that much harder for Paris or Berlin to support military action against Iraq.

   ``France and Germany are important countries, but they aren't all of Europe any more than America is Washington and New York. And even they may ultimately find a way to support American action in Iraq and elsewhere. In the meantime, President Bush can count on backing'' of Aznar, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Prime Minister of Italy, ``though they too will face political hurdles at home.

   ``A part of Europe sees eye to eye with the U.S. on economic liberalization and a foreign policy that attempts to rid the world of threats to peace and stability. Another part of Europe disagrees. Why do only the grumblers make news? ''

   I think it is an important piece, and I would urge my colleagues, if they have an opportunity, clip it out

   of the Wall Street Journal. Europe is very important for the future of our country. We need a strong relationship with the European countries, and we have a strong relationship.

   Twice in the last century, the United States of America took its boys, young men and women, overseas to fight for the Europeans, to fight on the European continent, and we would be willing to do it again tomorrow. But let me tell my colleagues, within the family, the criticism, while any good family allows for constructive criticism, it should always be somewhat justified criticism, and I think Germany or France or some of the leaders of these various countries of the European Union, some of those leaders that criticize the United States of America as acting in a unilateral fashion, have got it all wrong.

   The United States of America wants to act in a partnership. The United States of America wants Germany and France acting as strongly with us as Great Britain has. This problem of terrorism is not unique to the United States of America. They know that. The people and the officials of the European Union know that. The citizens of Europe know that.

   Let us form a team, as Powell said, our Secretary of State Colin Powell last week, that the Europeans, every time they pound on the United States, they ought to do a little pounding on Iraq.

   This is exactly what the terrorists want to occur. They want some kind of division to begin to pop up between the Europeans and America. Why? Because they know it is a lot tougher to take on two people coming out of that foxhole than it is to take on one coming out of that foxhole.

   So the United States of America wants our European allies with us as we come out of the foxhole. We are not asking our allies in Europe to be the first ones out of the foxhole. We are willing to do it. This Nation has the capability. It has the commitment. It has got the military strength and technology to be the first one out of that foxhole, but if you ain't going to fight, do not complain, and if you are going to fight, get out of the foxhole.

   This moves me on to the issue that I wanted to focus a little more on tonight, and that is the necessity for a missile defense in this country. I think the biggest weakness that the entire world faces are missiles, not just nuclear missiles. Obviously, we all fear the utilization of nuclear missiles, but ballistic missiles carrying conventional missile heads.

   Can my colleagues imagine what North Korea, the kinds of havoc that North Korea could wreak on South Korea, on Seoul, South Korea? Seoul, the Nation's capital of South Korea, is only 38 miles away from North Korean missiles. Can my colleagues imagine the protection and the leverage that we would be able to take away from North Korea if we could provide our ally, South Korea, with the missile defense?

   A missile defense is absolutely essential for the United States, for the security of our citizens and for the world, for the security of its citizens, any of our allies throughout the world.

   I had the opportunity several years ago, I think to the best of my recollection about 3 years ago, to be in Vail at the AEI's world forum that was hosted by a former President, Gerald Ford, and Margaret Thatcher was there. I cannot quote from memory exactly what the former Prime Minister of Britain said, but I can give it pretty darn close.

   I remember very distinctly that there was the current Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen, and Margaret Thatcher stood and addressed Bill Cohen. As my colleagues know, the Clinton administration was very reluctant to commit, they certainly did not give any kind of commitment the likes of which we have seen from the Bush administration, in regards to a defensive missile system for this Nation. They kind of halfway, lukewarm supported it.

   Margaret Thatcher stood up, took a look at the Secretary of Defense in the United States and her words were similar to this. Mr. Secretary, she says, you have an inherent responsibility to provide the citizens of your Nation with a missile defense. Any failure to do so would be nothing short of gross neglect.

   Now, again, those words are very close to what she said. My colleagues could have heard a pin drop in that room. Why? Because Margaret Thatcher was right. We need a missile defense in this country; and, fortunately, we have a President who is absolutely committed and moving forward at full speed at providing a missile defense for our Nation.

   Remember, there are lots of threats out there, and the threats are not necessarily an intentional missile launch against the United States. In fact, we could very easily have an accidental missile launch against the United States, and do not think accidental missile launches are something that just are nightmares of the

   future. It has already happened.

   Not long after September 11, about 6 months ago, a Russian airliner was flying I think over the Black Sea, and the Ukrainian military was doing military exercises with their navy, and they fired a missile by accident at a commercial airliner, a Russian airliner, and they blew the Russian airliner out of the sky. They killed 70 or 80 people. They blew it to smithereens.

   Accidents can happen. An accidental launch against the United States of America could happen, and it could lead to consequences much, much more serious than just one missile being launched across the ocean. If that missile was launched and, one, we did not know it was accidental; two, we did not have the capability to stop it, the United States may end up in a response of a retaliatory fashion. So missile defense is important not only against an intentional launch against our country but the possibility of an accidental launch.

   As my colleagues know, years ago, back in about 1972, the United States entered into an agreement with Russia called the anti-ballistic missile treaty. To the President's credit, President Bush has abrogated that treaty pursuant to the terms of the treaty. The treaty itself, the basics of the treaty or the philosophy behind the treaty was that one nation would not defend itself against the missile attack, nor would the other nation. In other words, the United States of America would agree not to defend itself against Russian missiles if Russia agreed not to defend itself against United States missiles, the theory being that the United States would not dare attack Russia because they could not defend themselves against a retaliatory attack and vice versa.

   I think it is crazy, but that was the thinking and the philosophy in 1972 when this agreement was signed. In 1972, when this agreement was signed, keep in mind that only two nations in the world had the capability of delivering intercontinental ballistic missiles into the territory of the other, Russia and the United States.

   Clearly, since then, many, many other countries throughout the world have developed that technology, and that technology is much more readily available than it was 30 years ago. We have had dramatic changes in the world scene today in regards to missiles, missile technology and the capability to launch a missile into the territory of another country.

   That 30-year-old treaty was outdated within a few short years after it was signed, and today, with all of the countries in the world that have the capability of striking the United States, and we discovered unfortunately on September 11 that we can be hit within our borders, of all of the countries that have that capability, why were we reluctant the last 8 years under the Clinton administration, for example, to go full speed ahead on building a defensive mechanism? These are not offensive missiles. This is a defensive missile system for our Nation to protect the people of this Nation.

   As Margaret Thatcher said, anything short of a full missile defense system is gross neglect, gross neglect of our fiduciary duties to our citizens.

   Take a look at the treaty. Now, by the way, as many of my colleagues know, the President has given notice, under the four corners of the treaty, that the United States is withdrawing from the treaty and that the United States of America intends to proceed full speed ahead to provide a missile defense for its citizens.

   Let us look at the agreement that allows us to withdraw from the treaty. The treaty is obviously of unlimited duration; but as I mentioned earlier, it is now about 30 years old. At the time the treaty was signed, again just so we have a little historical basis here, there were only two nations in the world, Russia, the U.S.S.R., and the United States that were capable of delivering missiles to the other country. That changed within a very few short years after this treaty was signed.

   In my opinion, the minute a third country entered the picture, they should have either been brought into the agreement or this agreement should have been abrogated. President Bush is the first one, though it took 30 years, but President Bush had the gumption to step up and exercise section two. Section two, it has been highlighted for my colleagues' benefit, states that each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this treaty. A right. It is a right within this treaty, if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized the supreme interests.

   It goes on to talk about the 6-month notice in this paragraph. That notice has already been given. And it says that the notice shall contain within it the extraordinary events, notifying the party regarding which jeopardizes our supreme interest.

   Now, have extraordinary events occurred which jeopardize the national sovereign interests of the United States of America? Of course they have. I cannot understand how anybody in these Chambers, any of my colleagues, would do anything but acknowledge the necessity for a military missile defense system in this country. And I do not know any of my colleagues that could stand up and tell me that extraordinary events have not occurred over the last 30 years. Obviously, they have occurred.

   Let us start with the first one, and I am just going to go through a few ``extraordinary events'' that have occurred that, in my opinion, giving us justification to go full speed ahead. The first one, again being repetitive, is that we are no longer talking about two countries. This treaty was between the U.S.S.R., which technically does not even exist any more, and the United States of America. Since then, let us take a look at what has happened.

   Number one, we have multiple countries that have missile technology and the capability to deliver those missiles into the territory of other countries. Number two, take a look in the last 30 years at what has happened with nuclear proliferation. These are countries. Now, the red countries have nuclear weapons. The green countries are countries that we are confident have or are concerned enough that we think they have the capability. We believe North Korea could easily have a nuclear missile or some nuclear missiles, Iran, Libya and Iraq.

   Now, looking at my pointer here, in 1970, it used to be just the United States and Russia. Here is what leads to those extraordinary events. Watch my left hand. First, we pick up India, Israel, Pakistan, Britain, China, France. Look at that list. That is an extraordinary event, not of a positive sense but of a realistic sense. There are multiple nations in the world that have nuclear missiles, and they are capable of launching those missiles. Our Nation must defend itself and its allies against that type of an attack.

   Let us go a little further. In the last 30 years, since the time this treaty was signed, look at what has happened with ballistic missile proliferation and countries that possess ballistic missiles. Look at them. One, two, three, four, five, six. Go across here. One, two, three, four, five, six. Roughly 36. Not exactly, but roughly 36 additional countries since 1972 have developed or now have missile technology capable of firing a missile against the United States of America or against another country within their territory.

   Now, what can we do with missile defense? Is the threat real? Here is the threat that we face today. Look at this chart. Weapons of mass destruction among 20 Third World countries that have or are in the process of developing weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons. Iran, we think has them, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria. Chemical weapons. Again, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria. Biological weapons, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Advanced technology for missiles. All of

   the countries.

   I believe there are serious threats outside the borders of the United States of America, and we have an opportunity to lead the world once again in a way to neutralize that threat. And the best way to neutralize that threat is to obtain the technology, and we are very close. The United States is very close to achieving the technological breakthroughs that are necessary to destroy a missile on its launching pad, to take a missile that has been fired against the United States and, somewhere along its route, destroy that missile, to minimize the casualties that that missile would create if it successfully landed on its target area.

   So the key here is this: the United States and our President, under our current leadership, is moving forward, and so is the United States Congress with financial commitments and financial backing for our President to build for the citizens of this Nation a security blanket, a capability to stop somebody from a ruthless attack or even an accidental mistake against this country.

   The United States is also going to be the first country to step forward with this technology and to hand it over to its friends. We will offer protection for South Korea. What is North Korea going to do when the leverage of their missiles is taken away? Maybe we will get a unified Korea, as we all hope in the future will occur. What will happen with some of these terrorist organizations or countries like Libya or Iran or Iraq when the missiles they have would not be capable of destroying or bestowing horrible destruction upon allies or the United States of America itself?

   My colleagues, we have an incumbent fiduciary obligation to our citizens to provide a security blanket for the protection of this Nation, and that obligation exists not only for the current generation, for the current people, but for future generations of this country. Today, we must develop that technology. We must put into position a missile defensive system.

   In my opinion, and I know sometimes I stand here and preach until I am blue in the face about the threat of a missile attack against this country, but all of a sudden on September 11 we all became a little more awake as to the fact that the United States of America could be a target too. We did not think on September 10 that action against this Nation was coming as quickly as it did. And who knows what the future holds? But I think we would be safe in assuming that the future holds further attacks against our country. I think we would be safe to assume that there are terrorist pockets out there that will do whatever it takes. They will destroy our children. Remember, in New York City, when they hit those World Trade Center towers, they killed the citizens of 80 separate countries. What we want to do is give those different countries the capability to defend themselves against these terrorists.

   Now, some might say, well, the United States of America should not have a missile defensive system. The United States should somehow feel guilty because of their military strength. The United States should become apologetic because they are so powerful. The United States should feel badly about leading the world in military technology. What a bunch of rubbish. The United States of America has the capability to lead the world in missile defense.

   And I could not more strongly compliment George W. Bush on his commitment for the security of this Nation. He understands, in his leadership team down there, whether it is the Vice President, whether it is Colin Powell, our Secretary of State, whether it is Condoleezza Rice, they have a clear understanding of their mission. And I think, colleagues, that we have an obligation to have a clear vision of our mission, and that is the security and the protection of the people of this country.

   I cannot think of anything more important that the leaders of a country have as far as their responsibility to its citizens than a national defense. I cannot think of anything more important. Obviously, there are a lot of important things out there, but what good is anything if we cannot protect our citizens? If we as leaders cannot protect this Nation, at least to the utmost of our capabilities, what good are the benefits of anything else that we could give this Nation?

   And protection, by the way of a nation, is not just necessarily a military missile defense, a strong military in regards to its capability to attack or in regards to its capability with technological advancement. I believe that the strength of a nation is displayed through its capabilities of negotiation, through its capabilities of helping other countries, through its capabilities of things like the Peace Corps and other efforts that we make like this, in foreign aid and foreign assistance with other countries. And the United States of America has no reason to apologize for any of this. The United States of America has led the world. There is no other

   country in the history of the world that has done more for other countries than the United States of America in regards to foreign assistance, in regards to educational benefits, in regards to open borders, in regards to opportunities.

   Now, that is not to say that I think the United States has got it all right. Many times we find out that we have made a mistake, but we learn from them. And basically, when we take a look at it, no one could classify the United States of America as anything but good, in my opinion.

   But to bring us back to this defense, we face very challenging times in the near future and in the distant future; and it is our responsibility as the leaders of this country, number one, to support our President and his team in their effort to provide the protection and the security that this country needs; and, two, to support our President and the President's team to provide the kind of security that our allies need.

   We need people to know throughout this world that the United States of America will protect itself, it will eliminate to the extent it can any threats against this country, and it will reach out to its friends to assist its friends and to protect its friends from those kinds of attacks.

   So as kind of a conclusion of this set of my remarks this evening, my colleagues, let me just summarize a couple of things. Number one, I say to our friends in Europe, our friends in France, our friends in Germany, our friends in the European Union, that the United States of America wants a partnership with you. We have had a partnership that has been tested through the loss of lives, hundreds of thousands of lives in the last century. Twice in the last century our partnership was threatened, and both times the United States of America contributed to the partnership and so did you. But this partnership must continue into the future.

   Europe is important for the United States, and the United States is important for Europe. But this is not the time for our friends in Europe to be shy about their support for this President. This is not the time for our friends in Europe to somehow give credibility to regimes like that of Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq. This is the time, instead, for friends and partners and allies to stand in unison against the common enemy and to do what is necessary to eliminate the threats of that common enemy.

   Madam Speaker, we have got the United States of America willing to be the first one out of the foxhole. We can lead. We are willing to put the money, the defensive resources. We are willing to do what it takes, but we want the European alliance to be right there with us. There is no other way that we want it to happen.

   Again, I summarize, the United States is prepared to come out of that foxhole by itself. The United States of America is prepared to go it on its own, but that is not our preference. This Nation has built its greatness through partnerships, partnerships of our citizens. And as we reach around the world to our allies and we once again are reaching out for this partnership and our friends in Europe, for example, Tony Blair in Great Britain, but some of our friends are pounding more on us than they are on the evil regimes of North Korea and Iraq.

   Remember, that cancer that we find in North Korea and Iraq cannot be denied. No serious assessment of either of those countries, or Iran, frankly, could justify what those nations have done to their own citizens or could justify in any way whatsoever what those nations intend to do to the rest of the world.

   There is no question in my mind or in the mind of anybody who has studied this, anybody of any consequence who has studied this at any length, that Iraq would utilize whatever weapon it had at its disposal, whether it was a chemical weapon, whether it was a nuclear warhead, whether it was the arm of terrorism, they will use whatever is necessary for an attack upon the free world. We must go against that.

   Let me also say that the United States of America feels very strongly about the religion of Islam, very strongly about the Muslims who are United States citizens and the Muslims throughout the world who are not United States citizens. The evilness of the terrorist acts of September 11 do not represent that religion. Even in that religion where there is an exception for violence in a jihad, the definitions of a jihad do not fit the acts of September 11.

   This Nation reaches out to all people of all colors, and we say we want individual rights, and we can come together as a team. There is a cancer that we have discovered. We must destroy that cancer, and we as a team can do it.

   Finally, let me say that again, I cannot stress it strong enough, and I am saying this from the center of my heart, our President has made absolutely the right decision to go full speed ahead, to provide the citizens of this country with a defense against missiles of other countries, with a missile defensive system.

   Right now many of our citizens believe that if a missile was fired against the United States of America that somehow we could defend against it. Our only defense at this point is a retaliatory strike. Is a retaliatory strike the best response? In my opinion, most of the time a retaliatory strike is not the best response. The best response is to neutralize the weapons being utilized against our citizens. We have an opportunity to neutralize one of the horrible weapons that could be used against the citizens of the United States and our friends.

   Madam Speaker, I commend the President and my colleagues who are supportive of the missile defensive system, and I beg those few Members who oppose the missile defensive system to reconsider. We need your support. We need to give this President the budgetary support that is necessary; and, frankly, I am confident that we will from both sides of the aisle. We will give this President the financial tools that are necessary to defend the interests of the United States

END

2B) China's Long-Range Missile Program

Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have addressed this House on the matter of National Security and the threat to it posed by China's aggressive arms buildup. Particularly, with regard to China's long-range missile program, America's vulnerability is growing, not shrinking.

While I applaud the leadership of our President to advance a national missile defense program, Congress must rely upon complete, accurate, and candid assessments of the threat posed by China, or any other nation. Without such candid assessments, Americans are burdened by excessive risk.

I hereby submit for the RECORD, a letter I have today posted to Mr. George Tenant, who heads America's Central Intelligence Agency. I urge each of our colleagues to review this letter and respond to its contents or reinforce its sentiments to the Director, and to the President.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit the following for the RECORD.

DEAR MR. TENET:

Perhaps the unclassified National Intelligence Estimate was meant to conceal from foreign eyes what the CIA really thinks or knows. But this government has a duty to defend the lives and freedom of its citizens. A large part of that defense is informing the American people of the threats they face rather than downplaying, for example, China's ballistic missile and military buildup.

In this regard, I protest the inferior quality and lack of information compared to Department of Defense reports such as the Soviet Military Power series initiated by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in the 1980's, which addressed the Soviet military threat in detail, providing numbers of missile, bombers, and warheads, and location of forces.

Your report is an issue because China has focused on a buildup of ballistic missiles to defeat the United States. In addition to its ballistic missile and information warfare buildup, you yourself have noted the threat posed by China's growing anti-satellite capabilities. China is engaged in economic and surrogate terrorism, and diplomatic initiatives using its mouth to promise friendship while preparing for war. America needs to be informed and warned.

Without adequate intelligence about the ballistic missile threat, or the courage to act on the intelligence it has, the United States will not be able to defend itself. President Bush's proposed defense budget understates the need to accelerate ballistic missile defense programs, and emphasizes a poor design for a ballistic missile defense using groundbased defenses over space-based defenses that can provide boost phase interception, global coverage, and multiple opportunities for interception.

One point is how China's program for multiple reentry vehicles for its road-mobile ICBMs and SLBMs is ``encountering significant technical hurdles and would be costly,'' giving an impression that China may not develop a MIRV capability, at least in the near future.

In contrast, in 1999 defense analyst Richard D. Fisher, Jr., could convincingly write, ``Both the DF-31 and DF-41 ICBMs are expected to incorporate multiple independently targeted reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads.'' Fisher further noted China has been suspected of trying to develop MIRVs for years, and that in 1998 Air force General Eugene Harbinger said China is developing MIRVs for its ICBMs. One would suspect that China would have made some progress since Fisher's analysis in 1999, especially given technological assistance from the United States and Russia. In January 2002 Fisher noted the CIA report appeared to be too low in its estimates of China's threat.

On the issue of MIRVs, the report appears to understate how China's spy and intelligence gathering program, highlighted by the 1999 Congressional Cox Committee report, was focused on obtaining information on U.S. nuclear warheads and ballistic missile technology, which makes extensive use of MIRVs. In addition to U.S. missile, nuclear warhead, and satellite technology that could be used for MIRVs, China has obtained considerable technological help from Russia. China is one of Russia's largest arms customers and has signed a strategic partnership with it. Russia has perfected the technology for multiple warheads in its advanced rail and road-mobile ICBMs--the SS-24 and SS-27 Topol-M, and reportedly transferred to China SS-18 technology that would presumably include MIRV technology as the SS-18 was designed to carry 10 nuclear warheads, and could be fitted with even more.

Of surprise is the CIA statement that ``China could begin deploying the DF-31 ICBM during the first half of the decade.'' In contrast to the uncertainties contained in the CIA report, in May 2001 Taipei Times defense reporter Brian Hsu noted China has built two bases for housing the DF-31 and plans to build more. It would be very reasonable to assume that these bases house DF-31s. In addition, according to a story by Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz, China was expected to obtain an operational capability for the DF-31 by the end of 2001, before the release of the CIA report.

If China's deployment of the DF-31 ICBM follows its pattern of deploying short-range road-mobile ballistic missiles over a number of bases as it has done with its ballistic missile buildup aimed at Taiwan, the United States should expect China to deploy the DF-31 over more than two bases to blunt the effect of any potential counterattacks or preemptive strikes.

The CIA report, rather than telling the American people how China is taking steps to deploy the DF-31 and apparently has achieved an operational capability, is content to word its analysis as a possibility. In addition, it overlooks why China is building the DF-31--its ballistic missile strategy.

The Taipei Times noted that China's buildup of the DF-31 is part of its ``Long Wall Project'' that ``is aimed at the US, not Taiwan,'' and said that ``The Chinese military leadership plans to put longer-range ballistic missiles in the southeastern provinces so that they can cover US military targets in the Pacific.''

The CIA report, moreover, appears remiss with respect to China's buildup of intermediate-range ballistic missiles such as the DF-21-X and DF-25, which can attack U.S. forces and bases in the Far East and Pacific. The report also projects that by 2005 China will have a force of short-range ballistic missiles that will number ``several hundred missiles.'' Yet, throughout 2000 and 2001 China was reported as having massed 300-350 short-range ballistic missiles against Taiwan in a number of news accounts, and increased production to more than 50 per year. China already has an arsenal exceeding ``several hundred missiles.''

China's view on using its long-range ballistic missiles is very aggressive. It does not believe in a ``balance of power'' dictated by equal numbers of missiles or nuclear warheads. Rather, according to one Chinese analyst, China believes that ``It is not necessary for China to seek a nuclear balance with the US. If we have the capacity to launch a nuclear counterattack, there will be no difference between 10 and 10,000 nuclear warheads.'' This same view appeared in an August 1999 planning document of China's Central Military Commission headed by President Jiang Zemin.

In May 2000, the late Congressman Floyd Spence, quoting the Liberation Army Daily, noted that China ``is a country that has certain abilities of launching a strategic counterattack and the capacity of launching a long-distance strike ...... It is not a wise move to be at war with a country such as China, a point which the U.S. policymakers know fairly well also.'' In 1995 PLA General Xiong Guangkai issued a similar threat.

China has used its ballistic missiles to intimidate, seen in its launch of ballistic missiles off Taiwan in 1995 and 1996. While the diplomatic failure which occurred resulted in the tempering of its diplomacy, the fact that China has changed its diplomatic tactics toward Taiwan and the United States should not obscure its strategy for using its ballistic missiles for aggression. China's words of friendship are a mask for its ballistic missile and military buildup.

American should be concerned with its defense. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 showed what can happen with a lack of vigilance. The United States needs to realize that China is engaged in a military and ballistic missile buildup pointed at Americans. We must take the necessary steps to defend our citizens, and we should build a space-based ballistic missile defense. We must have better information about China's ballistic missile threat. Regrettably, your report on this matter is insufficient.

Very truly yours,

3A) Congressional War Powers -- Take Caution in Approach to Iraq

   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the war drums are beating, louder and louder. Iraq, Iran, and NorthKorea have been forewarned. Plans have been laid and, for all we know, already initiated for the overthrow and assassination of Saddam Hussein.

   There has been talk of sabotage, psychological warfare, arming domestic rebels, killing Hussein and even an outright invasion of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. All we hear about in the biased media is the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein, with little regard of how this, in itself, might totally destabilize the entire Middle East and Central Asia. It could, in fact, make the Iraqi problem much worse.

   The assumption is that, with our success in Afghanistan, we should now pursue this same policy against any country we choose, no matter how flimsy the justification. It hardly can be argued that it is because authoritarian governments deserve our wrath, considering the number of current and past such governments that we have not only tolerated but subsidized.

   Protestations from our Arab allies are silenced by our dumping more American taxpayers' dollars on them.

   European criticism that the U.S. is now following a unilateral approach is brushed off by the United States, which only causes more apprehension in the European Community. Widespread support from the eager media pumps the public to support the warmongers in the administration.

   The pros and cons of how dangerous Saddam Hussein actually is are legitimate. However, it is rarely pointed out that the CIA has found no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9-11.

   Rarely do we hear that Iraq has never committed any aggression against the United States. No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq.

   The Iraqis' defense of their homeland can hardly be characterized as aggression against those who rain bombs down on them. We had to go over 6,000 miles to pick this fight against a Third-World nation with little ability to defend itself.

   Our policies have actually served to generate support for Saddam Hussein, in spite of his brutal control of the Iraqi people. He is as strong today, if not stronger, as he was prior to the Persian Gulf War 12 years ago.

   Even today, our jingoism ironically is driving a closer alliance between Iraq and Iran, long-time, bitter enemies.

   While we trade with and subsidize to the hilt the questionable government of China, we place sanctions on and refuse to trade with Iran and Iraq, which only causes greater antagonism. But if the warmongers' goal is to have a war regardless of international law and the Constitution, current policy serves their interests.

   Could it be that only by war and removal of certain governments we can maintain control of the oil in this region? Could it be all about oil and have nothing to do with U.S. national security?

   Too often when we dictate who will lead another country, we only replace one group of thugs with another, as we just did in Afghanistan, with the only difference being that the thugs who we support are expected to be puppet-like and remain loyal to the United States, or else.

   Although bits and pieces of the administration's plans to wage war against Iraq and possibly Iran and North Korea are garnered, we never hear any mention of the authority to do so. It seems that Tony Blair's approval is more important than the approval of the American people.

   Congress never complains about its lost prerogatives to be the sole declarer of war. Astoundingly, Congress is only too eager to give war powers to our presidents through the back door by the use of some fuzzy resolution that the president can use as his justification. Once the hostilities begin, the money always follows, because Congress fears criticism for not ``supporting the troops.'' But putting troops in harm's way without proper authority and unnecessarily can hardly be the way to ``support the troops.''

   Let it be clearly understood: There is no authority to wage war against Iraq without the Congress passing a Declaration of War. H.J. Res. 65, passed in the aftermath of 9-11, does not even suggest that this authority exists. A U.N. resolution authorizing an Iraqi invasion, even if it were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the United States going to war as precisely defined in the Constitution. We must remember, a covert war is no more justifiable and is even more reprehensible.

   Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a declaration of war is illegal. It is unwise because of the many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with U.S. security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us.

   Besides, the American people become less secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commercial interests and not authorized in a proper manner by the Congress. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable.

3B) Poverty and Terrorism

   Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Mr. Richard Perle is currently Resident Fellow at American Enterprise Institute and chairman of the Defense Policy Board of the Department of Defense, and served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy in the Reagan administration. He gave this testimony at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing this morning on the subject of ``How do We Promote Democratization, Poverty Alleviation, and Human Rights To Build A More Secure Future?'' Mr. Perle's testimony was superb, and I commend it to all.

   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement by Richard Perle be placed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Statement of Richard Perle, Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate

   Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your invitation to participate in the Committee's hearing which poses the question ``How do we promote democratization, poverty alleviation and human rights to build a more secure world?'' These three ideas, poverty, democracy and human rights that are often linked as we try to think our way through the vexing problems of national and international security.

   The phrase ``a more secure world'' is almost certainly prompted by the discovery, on September 11, of how insecure we turned out to be on that day. In any case, hardly any discussion takes place these days that is not somehow related to terrorism and the war against it. For my part, this morning will be no exception.

   Let me say, at the outset, that the idea that poverty is a cause of terrorism , although widely believed and frequently argued, remains essentially unproven. That poverty is not merely a cause, but a ``root cause,'' which implies that it is an essential source of terrorist violence, is an almost certainly false, and even a dangerous idea, often invoked to absolve terrorists of responsibility or mitigate their culpability. It is a liberal conceit which, if heeded, may channel the war against terror into the cul de sac of grand development schemes in the third world and the elevation of do-good/feel-good NGO's to a role they cannot and should not play.

   What we know of the September 11 terrorists suggests they were neither impoverished themselves nor motivated by concerns about the poverty of others. After all, their avowed aim, the destruction of the United States, would, if successful, deal a terrible blow to the growth potential of the world economy. Their devotion to Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which excluded half the Afghan work force from the economy and aimed to keep them illiterate as well as poor, casts conclusive doubt on their interest in alleviating poverty.

   Poverty--or poverty and despair--is the most commonly adumbrated explanation for terrorism abroad--and crime at home. Identifying poverty as a source of conduct invariably confuses the matter. We will never know what went through the mind of Mohammed Atta as he plotted the death of thousands of innocent men, women and children, including a number of Moslems. We do know that he lived in relative comfort as did most, perhaps all, of the 19 terrorists--15 of them from affluent Saudi Arabia.

   If we accept poverty as an explanation we will stop searching for a true, and useful, explanation. We may not notice the poisonous extremist doctrine propagated, often with Saudi oil money, in mosques and religious institutions around the world.

   If we attribute terrorism to poverty, we may fail to demand that President Mubarak of Egypt silence the sermons, from mosques throughout Egypt, preaching hatred of the United States. As you authorize $2 billion a year for Egypt, please remember that these same clerics are employees of the Egyptian government. It is not a stretch to say that U.S. taxpayer dollars are helping to pay for the most inflammatory anti-American ranting.

   So when you hear about poverty as the root cause of terrorism , I urge you to examine the manipulation of young Muslim men sent on suicidal missions by wealthy fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, whose motives are religious and ideological in nature and have nothing to do with poverty or privation.

   Mr. Chairman, this hearing is about building a more secure future; and I know it will come as no surprise if I argue that doing that in the near term will require an effective military establishment to take the war on terrorism to the terrorists, to fight them over there because they are well on the way to achieving their murderous objectives when we are forced to fight them over here. For once those who wish to destroy Americans gain entry to the United States and exploit the institutions of our open society, the likelihood that we will stop them is greatly diminished.

   This is why President Bush was right to declare on September 11 that ``We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.'' This was not the policy of the last Democratic administration or the Republican one before it. It is not a policy universally applauded by our allies. But it is a right and bold and courageous policy and the only policy that has a reasonable prospect of protecting the American people from further terrorist acts.

   Dealing effectively with the states that support or condone terrorism against us (or even remain indifferent to it) is the only way to deprive terrorists of the sanctuary from which they operate, whether that sanctuary is in Afghanistan or North Korea or Iran or Iraq or elsewhere. The regimes in control of these ``rogue'' states--a term used widely before the last administration substituted the flaccid term ``states of concern''--pose an immediate threat to the United States. The first priority of American policy must be to transform or destroy rogue regimes.

   And while some states will observe the destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and decide to end their support for terrorism rather than risk a similar fate, others will not.

   It is with respect to those regimes that persist in supporting and harboring terrorists that the question of the role of democratization and human rights is particularly salient. And foremost among these regimes is Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

   The transformation of Iraq from a brutal dictatorship, in which human rights are unknown, to a democratic state protecting the rights of individuals would not only make the world more secure, it would bring immediate benefits to all the people of Iraq (except the small number of corrupt officials who surround Saddam Hussein).

   I believe that this is well understood in the Congress, which has repeatedly called on the administration to support the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella group made up of organizations opposed to Saddam's dictatorship. The INC is pledged to institute democratic political institutions, protect human rights and renounce weapons of mass destruction. As we think through the best way to change the regime in Iraq, it is precisely the proponents of democracy who deserve our support, not the disaffected officer who simply wishes to substitute his dictatorship for that of Saddam Hussein.

   I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Congress, which has been well ahead of the executive

[Page: S1246]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that democracies that respect human rights, and especially the right to speak and publish and organize freely, are far less likely to make war or countenance terrorism than dictatorships in which power is concentrated in the hands of a few men whose control of the instruments of war and violence is unopposed. As a general rule, democracies do not initiate wars or undertake campaigns of terror. Indeed, democracies are generally loath to build the instruments of war, to finance large military budgets or keep large numbers of their citizens in military establishments. Nations that embrace fundamental human rights will not be found planning the destruction of innocent civilians. I can't think of a single example of a democracy planning acts of terror like those of September 11.

   We could discuss at length why democratic political institutions and a belief in the rights of individuals militate against war and terror and violence. But the more difficult questions have to do with how effectively we oppose those regimes that are not democratic and deny their citizens those fundamental human rights, the exercise of which constitutes a major restraint on the use of force and violence.

   Here the issue is frequently one of whether we ``engage'' them in the hope that our engagement will lead to reform and liberalization, or whether we oppose and isolate them. I know of no general prescription. Each case, it seems to me, must be treated individually because no two cases are alike. Take the three cases of the ``axis of evil.''

   In the case of Iraq, I believe engagement is pointless. Saddam Hussein is a murderous thug and it makes no more sense to think of engaging his regime than it would a mafia family.

   In the case of Iran, I doubt that the goals of democratization and human rights would be advanced by engaging the current regime in Teheran. There is sufficient disaffection with the mullahs, impressive in its breadth and depth, to commend continued isolation--and patience. The spontaneous demonstrations of sympathy with the United States are brave and moving. We owe those who have marched in sympathy with us the support that comes from refusing to collaborate with the regime in power. The people of Iran may well throw off the tyrannical and ineffective dictatorship that oppresses them. We should encourage them and give them time.

   In the case of North Korea end the policy of bribing them. Such a policy invites blackmail, by them or others who observe their manipulation of us--and it certainly moves them no closer to democracy or respect for human rights. We must watch them closely and remain ready to move against any installation that may place weapons of mass destruction or long-range delivery within their reach.

   Mr. Chairman, I have only one recommendation for the Committee and it is this: to support enthusiastically, and specifically with substantially larger budgets, the National Endowment for Democracy. On a shoestring it has been a source of innovative, creative programs for the building of democratic institutions, often working in places where democracy and respect for human rights is only a distant dream. It may well be the most cost-effective program in the entire arsenal of weapons in the war against terror and for a more secure world. The Endowment, and even more the organizations that benefit from the Endowment's support, need and deserve all the help we can give them.

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3448) to improve the ability of the United States to prevent, prepare for, and respond to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SIMPSON). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?

   There was no objection.

   MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MS. ESHOO

   Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

   The Clerk read as follows:

    Ms. ESHOO moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill H.R. 3448 be instructed--

    (1) to work diligently to reconcile the differences between the two Houses in order to promote public health security and address potential bioterrorist threats;

    (2) to recognize that Federal resources to combat bioterrorism and other public health emergencies have been increased through recent appropriations bills, to enhance preparedness and response to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies for fiscal year 2002, and that the managers on the part of the House should be careful not to disrupt or delay this much needed funding for fiscal year 2002;

    (3) to recognize the pressing need to establish a national system for tracking the possession and use of deadly biological agents;

    (4) to recognize the need to prioritize Federal and State resources to address potential threats to the food supply;

    (5) to acknowledge the need to work with the Administration to ensure feasibility of enhanced food safety regulatory programs; and

    (6) to provide for vulnerability assessments, emergency response plans, and other actions with respect to public drinking water supplies.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. ESHOO) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. TAUZIN) will be recognized for 30 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. ESHOO).

   Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in support of this motion of the House bill and emphasize the need for conferees to address and quickly resolve their differences on the bioterrorism legislation.

   We live in unsettling times. Our hope is that we never again experience an act of terrorism , but we have to plan and prepare to respond to further attacks. The conferees face a complex task. The bills passed by the House and Senate cover many subjects including grants to our first responders, regulation of select agents, protection of our food supply, and protection of our water systems.

   The motion recognizes the need for conferees to coordinate the final legislation with ongoing efforts to support existing plans and programs. Bioterrorist threats and public health emergencies can come in many forms, in many places; and the House bill is sensitive to that fact. We want an aggressive response to this problem.

   Title I of H.R. 3448 provides a funding structure that focuses resources towards first responders with a minimum of delay and with maximum efficiency. This bill is a down payment, not a full measure of what will be needed for our citizens and our community to prevent, prepare for, and respond to terrorist attacks.

   Title III of H.R. 3448, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2001 which we overwhelmingly passed on December 11, 2001, establishes important new regulatory authorities for the protection of our Nation's food supply. These new authorities enable the Food and Drug Administration to allocate its limited inspection resources more effectively where they are needed the most, at the ports of entry into the United States. In addition, the bill authorizes the appropriations of new funds for increased inspections of food, the development of rapid testing technologies, and an assessment of threats for the adulteration of food.

   Along with improving FDA's information management systems as they pertain to imported food, the bill mandates that FDA notify relevant States when it has information indicating that a shipment of food presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences and requests that such States take appropriate remedial action.

   Mr. Speaker, this is a motion on which I would expect all of my colleagues would agree. The bill passed the House by a vote of 418 to 2, and I believe my colleagues are unified in their desire to pass this legislation as soon as possible, and I urge them to do that.

   I would also like to add that, as we have emphasized, a good part of the legislation is built around first responders, that what they will have in their hands, the tools that they will use, represent the best of the biotechnology industry of our country, the technology industry and high technology, both of which find a home in the 14th Congressional District of California. So America's best will be placed in America's best hands as first responders. I am very proud of that, and I know that my colleagues are as well.

   Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for the work that has been done on one of the most important bills that the House of Representatives will pass.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by my dear friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. ESHOO), a valued member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and thank her for this motion.

   This motion is obviously to instruct the conferees on H.R. 3448, the other Tauzin-Dingell bill, the Tauzin-Dingell Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act; and also I want to, obviously, thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for again an extraordinary bipartisan effort to do what I think is something awfully important and necessary for our country.

   As the gentlewoman explained, this bill came out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in December and passed the House by 418 to 2, again a remarkable expression of the concern all Members have on both sides of the aisle for protecting America from these chemical and bioterrorism attacks. I believe that now we have to work even more diligently to reconcile the differences between our House-passed bill and the bill the Senate eventually passed in late December and go to a conference and get this bill accomplished as quickly as possible.

   At its core, H.R. 3448 is about the safety and about the security of our country, a country that is now faced with profound new threats ofterrorism and public health emergencies. Increasing Federal resources available to identify, to prevent, to deter and to respond to threats of bioterrorism is probably the most important thing we can do now in improving our readiness to face an enemy that is now here at home and threatens a free and prosperous society.

   For fiscal year 2002 we have already addressed increasing the funding to combat bioterrorism through appropriations bills and by administrative actions. We must be careful not to disrupt or delay this very much needed funding by unnecessarily imposing substantial new requirements on the grants or the funding for fiscal year 2002. We must also enact a strong framework that combines smart, innovative policy with these additional resources to prepare our country for these bioterrorism threats, to improve our abilities to respond, as the gentlewoman said, quickly and efficiently if, in fact, those threats not only arise but are carried out as many predict al Qaeda and other members are still attempting to do.

   Title I of the House-passed bill is intended to step up our preparedness and our capacity to identify and respond to these kinds of threats. The title will improve communications between and among the levels of government, public health officials, first responders, the health care providers and the facilities that must obviously take care of victims in the case of those emergencies.

   As we work to reconcile the House- and Senate-passed bills, we must also enhance the controls on deadly biological agents in order to help prevent bioterrorism, establish a national database on dangerous pathogens. Even today we do not have a national system in place for tracking the possession and use of the anthrax that has already killed and injured citizens and continues to pose a threat to our national and economic security and public health and welfare, not to mention the lives of our postal workers and others in our society who are threatened by such an attack.

   Title II of the House-passed bill imposes new registration requirements on all the possessors of the 36 most dangerous biological agents and toxins. It mandates tough new safety and security requirements to ensure that only legitimate scientists working in appropriate laboratory facilities can gain access to these potential weapons of mass personal destruction.

   Title III of the House bill protects the food and drug supplies by increasing Food and Drug Administration resources to hire more inspectors at the border where so little of our food is inspected and by providing additional authority for the FDA to detain food and to investigate credible evidence of contamination and to improve access to records to assist in investigating any threats to our food supplies.

   Finally, we must recognize the need to provide for the vulnerability assessments, emergency response plans and other actions with respect to public drinking water supplies. All of us should pay special attention to what is happening in Rome where tunnels were found and suspects arrested who had materials on hand designed to infect the water supplies of the Americans who work in our embassy there and could possibly have poisoned them and damaged them or hurt them or killed them. That single incident in Rome ought to stand as a stock warning to everyone in this country that it can happen here, too, if we are not careful.

   Title IV of the House-passed bill requires a comprehensive review of the ways to detect and respond to chemical, biological, radiological contamination of drinking water, as well as ways to prevent and mitigate the effects of physical attacks upon those assets.

   Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL) and the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on both sides of the aisle for their tireless, extraordinary efforts to produce H.R. 3448. Once again, the House led the Senate in getting this legislation passed, but the Senate has done its job, too, now, and we need to reconcile the differences between the legislation.

   I look forward to working expeditiously with the House and Senate managers to resolve those differences so this country can quickly get a strong public health security and bioterrorism response bill to the President's desk, not just this year but hopefully by the time we conclude in another month. We ought to get this thing done not in months but in days and weeks, and we ought to put it on the President's desk so the country can have the benefit of this kind of security.

   I urge my colleagues to support this motion and commend the gentlewoman for presenting it to the House.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   I would like to congratulate the chairman of our committee for the extraordinary work that has been done on this bill and to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL) our ranking member.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. JACKSON-LEE).

   (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. ESHOO) for her leadership on this issue and her energy on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and also on the Homeland Security Task Force.

   I thank the chairman and the ranking member of this full committee and stand to support this legislation, particularly as it relates to authorizing funding to develop antidote drugs in case of attacks, grants for emergency preparedness, aid to hospitals and other health and food programs.

   This bill, along with the Justice Department reauthorization bill, H.R. 2215, is expected to deal with issues of terrorism , and of course, all of us are singularly committed to fighting against terrorism but also protecting the homeland.

   I am particularly gratified that this legislation will help us stockpile vaccines and drugs, strengthen public health systems and promote other efforts to defend against biological attacks. We must reconcile the Senate bill with what we are attempting to do.

   What I like about this legislation is it expands the role of the Centers for Disease Control. Many of us visited the Centers for Disease Control right after the September 11 tragic incident and right after the anthrax, and we saw there was great need in reinforcing its fund, reinforcing its expanse, because it relates to the public health system and also giving it money to help restore its physical plant. This is a very important aspect of this legislation.

   As the chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, let me say how glad I am that we have established the National Task Force on Children and Terrorism and the Emergency Public Information Communications Task Force. One of the greater or silent victims of September 11 was all of the children that were impacted by terrorism .

   I am interested also in the funding source, and I might raise this, I am concerned with first responders and local government. If someone comes out of local government, I am a former city council member, and I would like to make sure that those dollars get to the first responders and local governments. I know that we are dealing with block grants, and if I might put on the RECORD that it is very important that our mayors and county commissioners and those who are first responders are the ones that actually get those dollars.

   I hope as we are resolving this legislation that we can assure that the ground firefighters and police and the emergency paramedics and hospitals get those dollars. As I met with those groups in my own congressional district, I can assure my colleagues that that is an important issue to us.

   As I close, let me say that in my community we are establishing a biomedical center. Also, NASA is very much involved in biomedicine, and I believe we have a lot of good collaborators that can work with us on this issue, and I simply hope that, as we work together on these particular issues, we will make sure that those dollars get to those who need it.

   Finally, might I say the food safety and security is extremely important. I do not know if we realize that the food supply of our farm animals even, the seed, needs to be protected, because that then generates into a potential for devastation among our population.

   I rise again to ask support for this legislation, hope in conference some of my concerns will be addressed.

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. SHIMKUS) from the Committee on Energy and Commerce who played an instrumental role in fashioning the very important frame upon which H.R. 3448 was built and who will be joining us on the conference committee with the Senate.

   Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. TAUZIN) for yielding me the time. I appreciate the ranking member and this motion to recommit, and I want to associate with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. JACKSON-LEE).

   On Monday I met with over 150 firefighters as they tried to figure out how to competitively complete work on the fire grant acts and try to get up to snuff to be able to respond. Of great concern to them is responding to bioterrorism. And I am a Federalist, I believe in Federal responsibilities and local responsibilities, but this new world, there is something new that has emerged.

   We have a responsibility if we want to rely on these people to respond to these great crises that could face our country. They have to be trained. They have to be equipped. They have to be able to be there. Because no matter, as an Army officer, no matter how we drop in a field medical office, those firefighters, those police officers, those local sheriffs are going to be there and they better be equipped and trained and be able to perform the mission, not only them but our local hospitals.

   This whole health care debate and the changing from hospital rooms, I think now there is a big gap. If there is a great crisis, where are these sick people going to go? How are we going to be able to respond? So the local hospitals, the community health clinics and those things are just critical, and I know this is a way that we are going to try to wrestle out some of those problems and get a way that we can help the local responders, and I am honored to be able to serve on the conference.

   I look forward to working hard.

   Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers; and I yield back the balance of my time.

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers; and I yield back the balance of my time.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SIMPSON). Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.

   There was no objection.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. ESHOO).

   The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

[Top]