Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) Defense Appropriations FY 04 - Excerpted Language re: Nuclear Materials

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union, including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-related technology and expertise; for programs relating to the training and support of defense and military personnel for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons components and weapons technology and expertise, and for defense and military contacts, $450,800,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That of the amounts provided under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be available only to support the dismantling and disposal of nuclear submarines, submarine reactor components, and warheads in the Russian Far East.

***************

SEC. 8165. (a) FINDINGS.--The Senate makes the following findings:

    (1) If a terrorist group were to acquire the necessary fissile material for a nuclear explosive device, it would not be difficult for the group to construct such a device, the explosion of which could kill and injure thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of people and destroy a large area of a city.

    (2) If a terrorist group were to acquire a complete nuclear weapon from a nation which has constructed nuclear weapons, it is likely that the group would be able to detonate the device with similar results.

    (3) A nation supplying either complete nuclear weapons or special nuclear material to terrorists might believe that it could escape retaliation by the United States, as the United States would not be able to determine the origin of either a weapon or its fissile material.

    (4) It is possible, however, to determine the country of origin of fissile material after a nuclear explosion, provided that samples of the radioactive debris from the explosion are collected promptly and analyzed in appropriate laboratories.

    (5) If radioactive debris is collected soon enough after a nuclear explosion, it is also possible to determine the characteristics of the nuclear explosive device involved, which information can assist in locating and dismantling other nuclear devices that may threaten the United States.

    (6) If countries that might contemplate supplying nuclear weapons or fissile material to terrorists know that their assistance can be traced, they are much less likely to allow terrorists access to either weapons or material.

    (7) It is in the interest of the United States to acquire a capability to collect promptly the debris from a nuclear explosion that might occur in any part of the Nation.

    (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE ON NUCLEAR DEBRIS COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS CAPABILITY.--It is the sense of the Senate that--

    (1) the Secretary of Defense should develop and deploy a nuclear debris collection and analysis capability sufficient to enable characterization of any nuclear device that might be exploded in the United States;

    (2) the capability should incorporate airborne debris collectors, either permanently installed on dedicated aircraft or available for immediate use on a class of aircraft, stationed so that a properly equipped and manned aircraft is available to collect debris from a nuclear explosion anywhere in the United States and transport such debris to an appropriate laboratory in a timely fashion; and

    (3) to the maximum extent practicable, the capability should be compatible with collection and analysis systems used by the United States to characterize overseas nuclear explosions.

    (c) REPORT.--Not later than March 31, 2004, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the feasibility of developing and deploying the capability described in subsection (b)(1).

1B) Additional Funding for Nonproliferation Programs

NONPROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, DEMINING AND RELATED PROGRAMS

    For necessary expenses for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs and activities, $335,200,000, to carry out the provisions of chapter 8 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for anti-terrorism assistance, chapter 9 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, section 504 of the FREEDOM Support Act, section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for demining activities, the clearance of unexploded ordnance, the destruction of small arms, and related activities, notwithstanding any other provision of law, including activities implemented through nongovernmental and international organizations, and section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for a voluntary contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and for a United States contribution to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Preparatory Commission: Provided further, That of this amount not to exceed $20,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be made available for the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to promote bilateral and multilateral activities relating to nonproliferation and disarmament: Provided further, That such funds may also be used for such countries other than the Independent States of the former Soviet Union and international organizations when it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so following consultation with the appropriate committees of Congress: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading may be made available for the International Atomic Energy Agency only if the Secretary of State determines (and so reports to the Congress) that Israel is not being denied its right to participate in the activities of that Agency: Provided further, That of the funds made available for demining and related activities, not to exceed $690,000, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes, may be used for administrative expenses related to the operation and management of the demining program.

   AMENDMENT NO. 11 OFFERED BY MR. SCHIFF

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

   The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

   The text of the amendment is as follows:

   Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Schiff:

    In the item relating to ``NONPROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, DEMINING AND RELATED PROGRAMS''--

    (1) after the first dollar amount insert the following: ``(increased by $15,000,000)''; and

    (2) after the second dollar amount insert the following: ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

    In the item relating to ``FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM'', after the first dollar amount insert the following: ``(reduced by $90,000,000)''.

   Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the nonproliferation and disarmament funds by $15 million, from $20 million to $35 million. The effect of this amendment, therefore, is to restore the full amount of the President's request for the nonproliferation and disarmament fund. Why should we do that? Why should we meet the President's request for funding of this account?

   Perhaps the single greatest threat we face as a Nation is from terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. It is why we went to war in Iraq. It is why we established the Department of Homeland Security, to address

[Page: H7411]

this significant threat to American lives. And within the threat of terrorist possession of weapons of mass destruction, the greatest danger within that threat is the potential access of terrorists to nuclear material and the ability to create a nuclear weapon.

   We will survive another biological attack like the anthrax attacks. We will survive chemical attacks. But a nuclear attack in this country, on our soil or against our troops around the world would fundamentally change this Nation. And around the world there are literally hundreds of facilities that have some kilos, others that have tons of plutonium or highly enriched uranium in an unsecured condition.

   The technology of the atomic bomb is a half century old. It is not difficult to replicate. Obtaining the nuclear material is the terrorists' main obstacle and that challenge may be far too easily overcome.

   Removing the weapons usable material from the most vulnerable facilities around the world is a national security imperative for this country. What are we waiting for? It is far easier to prevent the theft of nuclear material than to track down the thieves after the material is gone. Fifty million dollars for a global cleanout of this material would be sufficient for several years if we were maximally efficient; $35 million, the President's request, is barely adequate; $20, what we do today, is simply irresponsible.

   The State Department has identified 24 top targeted sites of vulnerable stockpiles. If we look at our pace over the last decade, in August of 2002 in Project Vinca operation we removed 48 kilos of highly enriched uranium, enough to make one to three nuclear bombs from a vulnerable site in Yugoslavia.

   To succeed we had to go hat in hand to a private organization, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, for $5 million. Project Sapphire some years before that airlifted 600 kilos of highly enriched uranium away from a vulnerable location in Kazakhstan.

   We have had a total of three efforts like this in the last 10 years. At that pace our work will never be done. Our risks will be unacceptably high.

   Meeting our national security needs in the post Cold War period means addressing the most immediate threats first and with adequate resources. Restoring the funds to the nonproliferation and disarmament account in an amount requested by the President is what this amendment would do. I ask for Members' support.

   Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

   I thought it was the intention of the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) to withdraw the amendment at the end, but as I understand it he intends to go ahead with this.

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

   Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the chairman was prepared to offer this evening that he would work with me in conference.

   Mr. KOLBE. That was what I intended to say. Is it the gentleman's intention then to withdraw it at that point?

   Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention.

   Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments about this account. I would just like to note that we have recommended $335 million. That is an increase of $31 million in what is called the NADR, the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs.

[Time: 22:15]

   The gentleman's asked for a specific sub-account within there of the nonproliferation and disarmament fund. He has asked for money to be additionally placed in there, and I would just note that we have provided an increase of $5.1 million. That is a 34 percent increase in that account there.

   So I think we have done very well, and I would also note that this particular State Department discretionary fund has not had the best record of expeditiously obligating funds. I would just say the problem we have had is one that the gentleman has correctly identified, or maybe not has correctly identified, but is certainly one of the allocations that we have available to us.

   As I mentioned on the previous amendment, we have an allocation of a full billion dollars less than what is available to the Senate, and I would hope that when we are in conference if we have additional funds available to us to be able to work with the gentleman to increase the funding for this; and with that, Mr. Chairman, if that is satisfactory, if the gentleman would like to respond to that, I would yield to him for the purpose of commenting on that.

   Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

   I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me to try to improve the funding of this account in conference committee. The Senate, my understanding, has gone even beyond the President's request of $45 million. We are currently at $20 million, and I would hope that we would work together to meet the President's request of 35; and based on the Chairman's willingness to work together, I will move to withdraw my amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is withdrawn.

   There was no objection.

1C) Prohibition of Nuclear Exports to Countries that Sponsor Terrorism

SA 1347. Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BAYH, and Mr. BUNNING) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 14, to enhance the energy security of the United States, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

    At the end of subtitle D of title IV, add the following:

   SEC. 443. PROHIBITION ON NUCLEAR EXPORTS TO COUNTRIES THAT SPONSOR TERRORISM.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2158) is amended--

    (1) by inserting ``a.'' before ``No nuclear exports''; and

    (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

    ``b. (1) Notwithstanding subsection a. and except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and

[Page: S9808]

(4), no nuclear materials and equipment or sensitive nuclear technology, including items and assistance authorized by section 57 b. of this Act and regulated under Part 810 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, and nuclear-related items on the Commerce Control List, shall be exported, whether directly or indirectly, to any country that is on the Department of State list of countries that sponsor terrorism.

    ``(2) This subsection shall not apply to Iraq.

    ``(3) This subsection shall not apply to items, services, or information that are used for nuclear safeguards or nonproliferation purposes, including but not limited to surveillance equipment, seals, cameras, tamper-indication devices, nuclear detectors, monitoring systems, or equipment necessary to safely store, transport, or remove hazardous materials, whether such items, services, or information are regulated by the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ``(4) The President may waive the application of paragraph (1) to a country if the President determines and certifies to Congress that the waiver of that paragraph--

    ``(A) is in the vital national security interests of the United States;

    ``(B) is essential to prevent or respond to a serious radiological hazard in the country receiving the waiver that may or does threaten public health and safety; and

    ``(C) will not result in any increased risk that the country receiving the waiver will acquire nuclear weapons or any materials or components of nuclear weapons.

    ``(5) Notwithstanding section 121 of this Act, this subsection shall apply without regard to any international arrangement made after the date of the enactment of this subsection.''.

    (b) APPLICABILITY TO EXPORTS APPROVED FOR TRANSFER BUT NOT TRANSFERRED.--Subsection b. of section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as added by subsection (a) of this section, shall apply with respect to exports that have been approved for transfer as of the date of the enactment of this Act but have not yet been transferred as of that date.

2A) Defense Appropriations FY04 – Excerpted Language re: Missile Defense

SEC. 8093. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $154,800,000 shall be made available for the Arrow missile defense program: Provided, That

[Page: S9654]

of this amount, $10,000,000 shall be available for the purpose of continuing the Arrow System Improvement Program (ASIP), and $80,000,000 shall be available for the purpose of producing Arrow missile components in the United States and Arrow missile components and missiles in Israel to meet Israel's defense requirements, consistent with each nation's laws, regulations and procedures: Provided further, That funds made available under this provision for production of missiles and missile components may be transferred to appropriations available for the procurement of weapons and equipment, to be merged with and to be available for the same time period and the same purposes as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under this provision is in addition to any other transfer authority contained in this Act.

**************

SEC. 8110. None of the funds in this Act may be used for research, development, test, evaluation, procurement or deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense system.

***************

SEC. 8114. Funds available to the Department of Defense under the heading ``RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE'' for the Missile Defense Agency may be used for the development and fielding of an initial set of missile defense capabilities.

***************

SEC. 8140. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this Act under the heading ``RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE'', up to $800,000 may be available for the Tulane Center for Missile Defense, Louisiana.

3A) Defense Appropriations FY04 – Excerpted Language re: CW

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical weapon stockpile, $1,620,076,000, of which $1,169,168,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance to remain available until September 30, 2005; $79,212,000 shall be for Procurement to remain available until September 30, 2006; $251,881,000 shall be for Research, development, test and evaluation to remain available until September 30, 2005; $119,815,000 shall be for military construction to remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, $10,000,000 of the funds available under this heading shall be expended only to fund Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program evacuation route improvements in Calhoun County, Alabama.

3B) Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2003

By Mr. BIDEN:

S. 1441. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to false information regarding certain criminal violations concerning hoax reports of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

   Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2003.'' This bill would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to, make it a Federal crime to knowingly make a hoax report, involving a biological, chemical, nuclear weapon, or other weapon of mass destruction. Likewise, this bill would make it a criminal offense to knowingly send such a hoax weapon to another.

   Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, our Nation has witnessed a number of terror hoax reports. This in turn has triggered an equally large number of reports of suspected biological agents. No part of the Nation has been spared, and my home State of Delaware has had several hundred reports of possible biological agents. The FBI has reported to Congress the staggering statistics involving these bioterrorism hoaxes and other reports of suspected biological agents. Prior to September 11, the FBI had responded to about 100 cases involving potential use of ``weapons of mass destruction,'' 67 of which involved alleged biological weapons. Since mid-September 2001, however, that number has increased by 3,000 percent.

   The good news is that most of these reports were either hoaxes or reports made by well-meaning people whose suspicions were raised. The bad news is that any hoax reports were made in the first place, triggering panic on the part of the public, and often forcing the Federal, State, and local governments to waste valuable time and resources responding to them. In one particularly egregious case, it has been reported that an employee of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection falsely reported to security that he had found a yellowish-white powder on his desk with the misspelled label ``ANTHAX.'' The employee, a 48-year-old solid waste management analyst, knew the material was not toxic, it was determined to be coffee creamer, but persisted in the false account. Eight hundred State employees were evacuated from the building for 2 days while law enforcement officials tested the building, at a cost of $1.5 million in lost worker's time, another $40,000 in decontamination costs, and an undisclosed amount of money spent on rescue and law enforcement. The employee is being charged in Federal court--not for the hoax report, but for lying to Federal officials after the fact.

   Indeed, the Justice Department reported to Congress that there is a gap in the existing Federal law regarding the prosecution of bioterrorism hoaxes. That is, while it is a crime to threaten to use, for example, anthrax as a weapon against another person, it is not a crime to make a hoax anthrax report. Accordingly, the Justice Department has repeatedly asked Congress to enact legislation which specifically addresses hoaxes which involve purported biological substances, as well as chemical, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Just this month, the Justice Department stated in testimony, ``changes in title 18 to expand the reach of the law to prohibit conduct resulting in such hoaxes would provide prosecutors with an appropriate tool to respond to these situations.''

   We should answer the call and act now to give law enforcement the tools they need to combat these despicable crimes. The Federal interest is indisputable, as States and localities are simply not equipped with the expertise or resources to evaluate and respond to these hoaxes. A comprehensive prohibition on such false reports is necessary to preserve scarce and vital Federal resources.

   Accordingly, as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Corrections and Victims' Rights, I introduce a bill today which contains both criminal provisions and civil penalties for the hoax reporting of bioterrorism incidents. My bill simply says that if you knowingly engage in conduct--such as deliberately sending baking powder through the mail to your congressman or calling 911 to falsely report the presence of anthrax in a public building--that is likely to create the false impression concerning the presence of anthrax, or other similar things, that you have committed A Federal offense, punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Moreover, such a person may be fined the greater of either $10,000 or the amount of money expended by the government to respond to the false information. Finally, such a person may also be ordered to reimburse the government if costs were incurred in responding to the false hoax. Let me be clear--this bill will not target innocent mistakes or people who make a report concerning a suspected substance; it is aimed, rather, at deliberate hoax reports by those who know they are spreading false information.

   I have said many times on the floor of this body that the terrorist win if they succeed in sowing seeds of panic into our daily lives. We cannot and will not let that happen. Similarly, we will not let these hoaxers get away with words and deeds which have the same effect. I urge my colleagues to support the Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2003.

3C) Limits on US Contributions to Certain UN Entities

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FOSSELLA

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

   The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

   The text of the amendment is as follows:

   Amendment offered by Mr. Fossella:

    At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

   LIMITATION ON UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN UNITED NATIONS ENTITIES

    SEC. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for a United States contribution to any United Nations commission, organization, or affiliated agency that is chaired or presided over by a country, the government of which the Secretary of State has determined, for purposes of section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)), has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay expenses for any United States delegation to any United Nations commission, organization, or affiliated agency described in the preceding sentence.

[Time: 20:00]

   Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask the body, what do Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and other nations have in common, other than being oppressive, dictatorial regimes? Well, what they have in common is that at one time or another, they have served as Chair of commissions or organizations within the United Nations.

   So what my amendment does, based on legislation introduced earlier this year, is it essentially blocks funding to organizations, commissions, or other bodies headed by nations on a terrorist watch list. Specifically, it would block U.S. taxpayer dollars from being disbursed to the United Nations if the money is used for committees headed by nations that have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.

   Now, by way of example, I think a vivid example, I should say, is essentially what happened earlier this year with the Commission on Human Rights, or the Conference on Disarmament. These very commissions are dominated by nations opposed to the very concepts by which those commissions are named. Last month's outrage was Cuba. The dictatorship's brutal crackdown included the execution of three men for trying to escape Cuba and imprisoned dozens of others for daring to speak out. They have a vital role on the Commission on Human Rights. The U.N. said nothing about the crackdown, but Cuba was then elected to another term to serve on the panel. Ironically, the chairman, or the Chair country of that Commission on Human Rights, is Libya.

   At the beginning of the year, Iraq was going to head the Conference on Disarmament. Iraq did not take over, but remained on the commission, the Commission on Disarmament. Iran

[Page: H7301]

chaired the conference instead. Also on the Disarmament Committee is North Korea. I just think that this is symptomatic of a lot of carelessness at the United Nations.

   There are many who think that the United Nations can play a pivotal and vital role in securing the world's peace. But from time to time, the only language it seems they understand is the power of the purse.

   So all this amendment does is if one of these nations, and I think everybody in good conscience can look at these nations and say they represent not only what the brutal regimes are all about, but really are inconsistent with fundamental universal values, I would suggest that the money is withheld. Very simply put, I think it is common sense. After all, the U.S. provides almost 22 percent of the U.N. budget, which currently stands at about $222 million; and what we are suggesting is that if one of these nations on the State Department list of terrorist nations is heading one of these commissions, the money is withheld.

   With that, I urge adoption of this amendment.

   Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

   Mr. Chairman, the State Department has been in touch with the committee, and I want to share with the Members their position. They said that this is an amendment that they strongly oppose. They go on to say, we the State Department, have taken a hard stand against Libya, a country that supports terrorism and has a dismal human rights record in its election to chair the Commission on Human Rights. In calling for a vote, the State Department said that they forced members to take a stand on this issue, and everyone knew what the U.S. position was.

   They end by saying that withdrawing support by withholding part of our assessed contributions, thus accumulating arrears and eliminating funding for U.S. participation in these bodies, weakens our effectiveness and would be counterproductive.

   That is the position of the State Department.

• [Begin Insert]

   This amendment would prohibit U.S. contributions for activities funded within the budgets of the U.N. or its affiliated agencies whose decision-making bodies (e.g., commission) are chaired by a member state which supports acts of international terrorism (as determined by the Secretary under section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979).

   The Administration fully agrees that U.N. bodies should not be headed or chaired by member states which sponsor or support international terrorism.

   We have made these views abundantly clear over the past year.

   We took a hard stand against Libya, a country that supports terrorism and has a dismal human rights record, in its election to chair the Commission on Human Rights. In calling for a vote, we forced members to take a stand on this issue, and everyone knew the U.S. position.

   We also work hard to keep states that support international terrorism off the U.N. Security Council.

   But we strongly believe that withholding funding for bodies chaired by such states will not help us achieve our policy goals at the U.N.

   To effect change at the U.N., we need to remain fully engaged, which is our goal and our plan.

   Withdrawing support by withholding part of our assessed contributions--thus accumulating arrears--and eliminating funding for U.S. participation in these bodies weakens our effectiveness, and would be counterproductive.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   Mr. Chairman, I think that my colleague from New York makes some very strong points. The problem with his amendment and the reason I rise in opposition to it is that I believe that while we may not be happy with some of the folks that make up some of the organizations that are part of the U.N. and other international organizations, for that matter, it is in the best interests of our country, it is in the best interests of our foreign policy to be engaged in these organizations, rather than withdraw from them and not support them.

   So while his points are well taken, and I am sure that if we sat down around a table we would not disagree on some of the makeup of these organizations, to withdraw from them, not to be supportive, not to pay our dues is, in fact, one, to turn our back on the ability to do some good work by those organizations and secondly, and most importantly, if we sort of take our marbles or take our basketball and go home, we do not get to participate and, therefore, we do not get to speak about the same issues that the gentleman from New York is concerned about.

   So for those reasons, I would join the chairman in opposing the amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

   The amendment was agreed to.

3D) Veterans’ Protection Research

AMENDMENT NO. 12 OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

   The text of the amendment is as follows:

   Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:

   Strike section 114.

   The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

   Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike section 114 of the bill to remove a provision that would bar the VA from using funds to implement provisions of Public Law 107-287, the Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Preparedness Act. This vital veterans legislation would create new research centers to help protect future veterans and current ones from the effects of weapons of mass destruction.

   For the benefit of my colleagues who are not familiar with this law, the VA Emergency Preparedness Act was designed to give the VA health care system better tools and information to prepare for the possibility of injuries and illnesses to servicemembers caused by weapons of mass destruction.

   Dr. Susan Mather, the Chief Public Health and Environmental Hazards Officer, is ready to move forward to let these kinds of programs go forward so the research will be done, so if the unthinkable happens to our men and women in uniform with regards to biological, radiological or chemical, that we will have a more adequate response than we do right now.

   Let me point out that the VA excels in establishing Centers of Excellence. It does it on a myriad of fronts, including for combat and war-related injuries that are suffered on the battlefield. Two recent centers were established for that purpose.

   The VA is ready to go, and Dr. Mather made the point to the Under Secretary of Health that the VA health care system is ``more likely than any large, small, private or public health care system to be required to identify and respond to threats of chemical and biological or other threats to public health or safety.'' Thus, the Medical Emergency Preparedness program will facilitate the best medical care and services to veterans.

   The VA is ready to go. This provision in the bill that precludes that, I think, is unfortunate.

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

   The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek the time in opposition to the amendment?

   Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is recognized for 10 minutes.

   Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds another bureaucratic arm to the Veterans Administration by creating a new assistant secretary. This function, the function of emergency preparedness, is already under the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning. Emergency activities are well planned, managed and executed under the current arrangement.

   Another part of this amendment takes money away from regular medical care. We just heard some debate about the cost of medical care and the need for additional funds for medical care. This would take money out of medical care to create these new crisis centers.

   I believe the money should be prioritized to treating sick veterans. That is the mission of the Veterans Health Administration, and the focus should remain there.

   Emergency response and research centers and activities are already funded under the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense and Health and Human Services, where they rightly belong. I would urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

   Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The amendment makes sense. These types of emergency preparedness activities have historically taken place within the VA. They should continue to take place within the VA, especially at a time when the United States of America is threatened by chemical, biological and possibly even dirty nuclear weapons; especially when our veterans overseas, those in Iraq in particular, have the potential of being exposed to these types of weapons.

   We cannot afford to let some bureaucratic arguments get in the way of implementing this legislation. It is important legislation. We cannot afford to get bureaucratic rules in the way of restoring $1.8 billion to this bill, so we can properly fund veterans' health care.

   I was told earlier this afternoon by a colleague that certain categories of veterans are fully funded. Yes, they are, but that does not meet the obligations and requirements of this body to fund all veterans.

   In 1996, when we in this Chamber passed unanimously H.R. 3118, no ``no'' votes, we opened the Veterans Health Administration to all veterans. All veterans, to all veterans. We have not kept that promise.

   In April of this year, when we passed a budget resolution which adequately funded health care to all veterans, to all veterans, we have walked away from that promise as well.

   I do not blame the chairman of the subcommittee or the ranking member; they have done the best they can with the allocation they have. They have done a brilliant job with the allocation they have. But the allocation they have is inadequate for us to meet the promise to our veterans.

   It is interesting to note that we have money in this bill for cemeteries because if we deny our veterans the health care they deserve and earned, and we have promised to them, we are going to need those cemeteries.

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

   Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I see and hear firsthand the scars of battle borne by our veterans during the carnage of war. Veterans do receive affordable, quality health care. However, in expanding the eligibility requirement for health care in 1996, we now have veterans waiting months for an appointment because we are not keeping up with the funding demands.

   We are obligated to honor the promise this Chamber made to fund veterans' medical care at the March budget leave. As the son of a retired two-star general, I was raised to believe that a man's word is his bond. Those who vote in favor of this bill, whether Republican or Democrat, vote to underfund the needs of those who shed their blood so we can breathe free.

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

   Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, certainly coming from Florida I have a very large veterans population. I have the second largest veterans population in this Congress.

   When I went back home and told them about the amount of funding that was in the budget that we passed, I can tell Members they were delighted. It was not enough even then, but it sure made a big difference.

   Today, the bill that we will be voting on will be cutting $1.8 billion from the veterans' health care appropriation. That is wrong. We are breaking a promise that we made when we went home and told them about the funding that was in the budget. I think veterans deserve better. They have defended our country.

   Tomorrow, I am going to be presenting medals to Korean War veterans, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Korean War. Can we give them a medal and turn our backs on what they may have in health care needs?

   We also have men and women coming home from Iraq. What kind of health care are they going to have?

   I know how hard the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New

[Page: H7688]

York (Mr. Walsh), worked on this and how hard the members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on the Budget worked on this, because I serve on both. We took some tough votes because we were told there would be additional funding in the final appropriations bill that was passed.

   I cannot vote for this bill, and I think that there are many in this Chamber who are really, as we used to say back in New York, having agita over this vote. This is not a vote that I can cast affirmatively.

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

   Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we know it is a very difficult budget year and lots of decisions have to be made. I have 61,000 retired veterans and military retirees, combined, that live in the Third District of North Carolina, the home of Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. And like each and every one of my colleagues, I know we all care about our vets, but let me say that sometimes, for all of us who serve, you get a little bit wondering, what are our priorities? And with all of the responsibilities we have, should those vets be number one for this country?

   I believe those of us who had the privilege to serve--and no, I do not have a military background, but Members do not need a military background to appreciate those who put the uniform on for this country.

   Mr. Chairman, I think about those young kids at Walter Reed and those young kids at Bethesda who lost a limb, many are paralyzed, and in the short term they will be taken care of, but how about 3 and 4 and 5 years down the road? We are losing beds and losing care. America is too great to let this happen.

   Let me say, Mr. Chairman, in closing, that many of my vets ask me, we find this money for foreign aid, we find $15 billion for Africa, and they want to help the AIDS victims in Africa, but they agree and I agree, they should come first. Then if we have extra money, let us help the other people; but for God's sake, let us not forget our vets. We made a promise a few months ago that it would be $1.8 billion.

   I know the chairman and the ranking member are two of the finest men here in the House, and this is not their doing or their fault, but let us reestablish our priorities and let us take care of those who are willing to give their lives for us.

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

   The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has the right to close.

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

   This amendment that has been made in order is not the amendment to add back $1.8 billion, and I say that with great sadness on behalf of our veterans.

   What this amendment would do is lift a prohibition in the underlying bill that would prevent the VA from establishing already authorized medical preparedness centers, Centers of Excellence, to work the issue on weapons of mass destruction.

[Time: 15:00]

   As I said earlier, the VA is ready to go. We already have their time line. It is in print. They are ready to go. They want to do this. I would say to my colleagues that if we are saying we do not have the $5 million approximate in start-up costs, let us grow this budget. That is what we have been saying in this entire debate. I hope my colleagues will vote for this. I would again remind my colleagues that the VA already operates dozens of specialized research centers, the center for limb loss, the center for spinal cord injury, the center for brain rehab, the center for wheelchair and related technology; in May of 2001, two new centers to study war-related illnesses. We are not breaking new ground here; we are moving in a direction that heretofore has not been addressed and that is weapons of mass destruction. I would hope my colleagues would vote for this amendment.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

   Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and a combat veteran.

   Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for his leadership. There are a lot of different individuals here on many different committees that after September 11 did an assessment. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman, also did his assessment. At the same time so were other committees. The real question right now is over the issue on redundancy. I want to applaud the chairman for having his bill passed and it is authorized.

   The real question now is on the funding and the timeliness of that funding. I recognize the present objection of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. With regard to some of the comments from my other colleagues with regard to whether the funding has been underfunded or not and we have been citing back to when we did eligibility reform here on the House floor, I want everybody to note this, that during that time period, the Congressional Budget Office and GAO provided testimony to the House and the Senate. They said, if you change eligibility from the core competencies of the VA and let non-service-connected disabled veterans be treated the same in line with combat- or peace-disabled veterans, you will open up the system and you will have a tremendous cost impact.

   The Committee on Veterans' Affairs staff and members on the House and the Senate did not agree with what the recommendations were nor testimony of CBO and OMB. As a matter of fact, the veterans service community and organizations, some in particular mocked CBO and OMB for their testimony. Their testimony was correct. We were wrong.

   So what we are doing today is we are trying to now catch up. Members may ask, what do you mean catch up? In the last 5 years in which the gentleman from New York has chaired the subcommittee, we have increased the health budget in the VA 50 percent. Members might say, my gosh, 50 percent, why? Because the category 7's and 8's are rushing into the system. Today we have a system called a no-shame system. A no-shame system. There are things in our society, if you are in a food line and you have already eaten and there are people that have not eaten, do you get in line and cut before them? No, that is shameful. What happens today is that you have individuals who are non-service-connected disabled veterans who are in line before combat-disabled veterans. I think that is shameful. Others can disagree with that, but I think that is. Today this present theme has become that every veteran is a veteran is a veteran. That is the present theme, because we do not want to look back and see what the mistakes were that we made. No one in this House wants to accept the responsibility for having gotten it wrong: Oh, please, Steve, don't tell us the mistakes that we made. Just fund it. Just throw more money at it.

   Folks, we are creating a problem. If we do not accept some responsibility here, I am fearful of what is happening to the VA. We need to restore the core competencies of the VA in those categories 1 through 6. I want to applaud the chairman for his work along with the ranking member. It is quality work.

   Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

   The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

   The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

   The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) will be postponed.

********************

AMENDMENT NO. 12 OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY

   The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.

   The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

   The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

   RECORDED VOTE

   The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.

   A recorded vote was ordered.

   The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 347, noes 77, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 451]

AYES--347

   Abercrombie

   Ackerman

   Akin

   Alexander

   Allen

   Andrews

   Baca

   Bachus

   Baird

   Baker

   Baldwin

   Ballance

   Ballenger

   Barrett (SC)

   Bartlett (MD)

   Bass

   Beauprez

   Becerra

   Bell

   Bereuter

   Berkley

   Berman

   Berry

   Bilirakis

   Bishop (GA)

   Bishop (NY)

   Blackburn

   Blumenauer

   Boehlert

   Boehner

   Bono

   Boozman

   Boswell

   Boucher

   Boyd

   Bradley (NH)

   Brady (PA)

   Brown (OH)

   Brown (SC)

   Brown, Corrine

   Brown-Waite, Ginny

   Burgess

   Burns

   Burr

   Burton (IN)

   Calvert

   Camp

   Capito

   Capps

   Capuano

   Cardin

   Cardoza

   Carson (IN)

   Carson (OK)

   Carter

   Case

   Chabot

   Chocola

   Clay

   Clyburn

   Coble

   Cole

   Conyers

   Costello

   Cox

   Cramer

   Crane

   Crenshaw

   Crowley

   Cubin

   Cummings

   Cunningham

   Davis (AL)

   Davis (CA)

   Davis (FL)

   Davis (IL)

   Davis (TN)

   Davis, Jo Ann

   Davis, Tom

   Deal (GA)

   DeFazio

   DeGette

   Delahunt

   DeLauro

   Deutsch

   Diaz-Balart, L.

   Diaz-Balart, M.

   Dicks

   Dingell

   Doggett

   Dooley (CA)

   Doyle

   Edwards

   Emanuel

   Emerson

   Engel

   English

   Eshoo

   Etheridge

   Evans

   Farr

   Fattah

   Feeney

   Ferguson

   Filner

   Forbes

   Ford

   Fossella

   Frank (MA)

   Frost

   Gallegly

   Garrett (NJ)

   Gerlach

   Gibbons

   Gillmor

   Gingrey

   Gonzalez

   Goode

   Goodlatte

   Gordon

   Goss

   Graves

   Green (WI)

   Greenwood

   Grijalva

   Gutierrez

   Gutknecht

   Hall

   Harman

   Harris

   Hart

   Hastings (FL)

   Hayes

   Hayworth

   Hefley

   Hensarling

   Herger

   Hill

   Hinojosa

   Hoeffel

   Hoekstra

   Holden

   Holt

   Honda

   Hooley (OR)

   Hostettler

   Hoyer

   Hunter

   Hyde

   Inslee

   Isakson

   Israel

   Issa

   Jackson (IL)

   Jackson-Lee (TX)

   Janklow

   Jefferson

   Jenkins

   John

   Johnson (CT)

   Johnson (IL)

   Johnson, E. B.

   Jones (NC)

   Jones (OH)

   Kanjorski

   Kaptur

   Keller

   Kelly

   Kennedy (MN)

   Kennedy (RI)

   Kildee

   Kilpatrick

   Kind

   King (IA)

   King (NY)

   Kirk

   Kleczka

   Kucinich

   Lampson

   Langevin

   Lantos

   Larsen (WA)

   Larson (CT)

   Latham

   LaTourette

   Leach

   Lee

   Levin

   Lewis (GA)

   Lewis (KY)

   Linder

   Lipinski

   LoBiondo

   Lofgren

   Lowey

   Lucas (KY)

   Lucas (OK)

   Lynch

   Majette

   Maloney

   Manzullo

   Markey

   Marshall

   Matheson

   Matsui

   McCarthy (MO)

   McCarthy (NY)

   McCollum

   McCotter

   McDermott

   McGovern

   McHugh

   McInnis

   McIntyre

   McKeon

   McNulty

   Meehan

   Meek (FL)

   Meeks (NY)

   Menendez

   Mica

   Michaud

   Millender-McDonald

   Miller (FL)

   Miller (MI)

   Miller (NC)

   Miller, Gary

   Miller, George

   Mollohan

   Moore

[Page: H7709]

   Moran (KS)

   Moran (VA)

   Murphy

   Nadler

   Napolitano

   Neugebauer

   Ney

   Norwood

   Obey

   Olver

   Ortiz

   Ose

   Owens

   Oxley

   Pallone

   Pascrell

   Pastor

   Paul

   Payne

   Pelosi

   Pence

   Peterson (MN)

   Peterson (PA)

   Pickering

   Pitts

   Platts

   Pombo

   Pomeroy

   Porter

   Portman

   Price (NC)

   Rahall

   Ramstad

   Rangel

   Rehberg

   Renzi

   Reyes

   Reynolds

   Rodriguez

   Rogers (AL)

   Rogers (MI)

   Rohrabacher

   Ross

   Rothman

   Roybal-Allard

   Royce

   Ruppersberger

   Rush

   Ryan (OH)

   Ryan (WI)

   Ryun (KS)

   Sabo

   Sanchez, Linda T.

   Sanchez, Loretta

   Sanders

   Sandlin

   Schakowsky

   Schiff

   Scott (GA)

   Scott (VA)

   Sensenbrenner

   Serrano

   Shaw

   Shays

   Sherman

   Shimkus

   Shuster

   Simmons

   Skelton

   Slaughter

   Smith (MI)

   Smith (NJ)

   Smith (TX)

   Smith (WA)

   Snyder

   Solis

   Spratt

   Stark

   Stearns

   Stenholm

   Strickland

   Stupak

   Sweeney

   Tancredo

   Tanner

   Tauscher

   Tauzin

   Taylor (MS)

   Terry

   Thomas

   Thompson (CA)

   Thompson (MS)

   Tierney

   Towns

   Turner (OH)

   Turner (TX)

   Udall (CO)

   Udall (NM)

   Upton

   Van Hollen

   Velazquez

   Visclosky

   Waters

   Watson

   Watt

   Waxman

   Weiner

   Weldon (PA)

   Weller

   Wexler

   Whitfield

   Wilson (NM)

   Wilson (SC)

   Woolsey

   Wu

   Wynn

   Young (AK)

NOES--77

   Aderholt

   Barton (TX)

   Biggert

   Bishop (UT)

   Blunt

   Bonilla

   Bonner

   Brady (TX)

   Buyer

   Cannon

   Cantor

   Castle

   Collins

   Culberson

   DeLay

   DeMint

   Doolittle

   Dreier

   Duncan

   Dunn

   Ehlers

   Everett

   Flake

   Foley

   Franks (AZ)

   Frelinghuysen

   Gilchrest

   Granger

   Hastings (WA)

   Hobson

   Houghton

   Hulshof

   Istook

   Johnson, Sam

   Kingston

   Kline

   Knollenberg

   Kolbe

   LaHood

   Lewis (CA)

   Murtha

   Musgrave

   Myrick

   Nethercutt

   Northup

   Nunes

   Nussle

   Osborne

   Otter

   Pearce

   Petri

   Pryce (OH)

   Putnam

   Quinn

   Radanovich

   Regula

   Rogers (KY)

   Saxton

   Schrock

   Sessions

   Shadegg

   Sherwood

   Simpson

   Souder

   Taylor (NC)

   Thornberry

   Tiahrt

   Tiberi

   Toomey

   Vitter

   Walden (OR)

   Walsh

   Wamp

   Weldon (FL)

   Wicker

   Wolf

   Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

   Cooper

   Fletcher

   Gephardt

   Green (TX)

   Hinchey

   McCrery

   Neal (MA)

   Oberstar

   Ros-Lehtinen

   Sullivan

   ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

   The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

[Time: 17:33]

   Messrs. COLLINS, PETRI, HOUGHTON, FRANKS of Arizona, and WALDEN of Oregon changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

   Ms. KILPATRICK, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mrs. CUBIN and Messrs. SHIMKUS, UPTON, SHUSTER, BURGESS, CALVERT, GARY G. MILLER of California, ROTHMAN, and CUNNINGHAM changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

   So the amendment was agreed to.

4A) Avoiding Entangling Alliances and Internal Affairs of Other Nations

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the truth about whether or not Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium from Niger has dominated the news for the past several weeks. Many of those challenging the administration on this issue are motivated more by politics than by policy. Some doing the challenging were strongly in favor of going to war against Iraq when it appeared politically popular to do so, but are now chagrined that the war is not going as smoothly as was hoped.

    I am sure once the alleged attempt to buy uranium is thoroughly debunked, the other excuses for going to war will be examined with a great deal of scrutiny as well. It is obvious that the evidence used to justify going to war is now less than convincing.

    The charge that Saddam Hussein had aluminum tubes used in manufacturing nuclear weapons was in error.

    A fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles capable of dispensing chemical and biological weapons did not exist.

    The 63,000 liters of anthrax and botulism have not been found, nor have any of the mobile germ labs. There are no signs of the 1 million pounds of sarin, mustard and VX gasses.

    No evidence has been revealed to indicate Iraq was a threat to anyone's security, let alone ours.

    The charge that Saddam Hussein was connected to the al Qaeda was wrong. Saddam Hussein's flaunting of the UN resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction remains unproven.

    How could so many errors have occurred? Some say it was ineptness while others claim outright deception and lies. There are some who say it was selective use of intelligence to promote a particular policy already decided upon. This debate, I am sure, will rage on for a long time, and since motivations are subjective and hard to prove, resolving the controversy will be difficult. However, this should not diminish the importance of sorting out the truth from the fiction, the errors from the malice.

    One question, though, I hope gets asked is why should we use intelligence cited by a foreign government as a justification for going to war? One would think that with the billions we spend, we could fully rely on our own intelligence-gathering agencies.

    Another point of interest, lacking a coherent foreign policy, we have support for war coming from different groups depending on circumstances unrelated to national defense. For instance, those who strenuously objected to Kosovo promoted war in Iraq. And those who objected to Iraq are now anxious to send troops to Liberia. For some, U.N. permission is important and necessary. For others, the U.N. is helpful as long as it endorses the war they want.

    Only a few correctly look to the Constitution and to the Congress to sort out the pros and cons of each conflict and decide whether or not a declaration of war is warranted.

    The sad fact is that we have lost our way. A threat to national security is no longer a litmus test for sending troops hither and yon, and the American people no longer require Congress to declare the wars we fight. Hopefully, some day that will be changed.

    The raging debate over whether or not Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium, as important as it is, distracts from the much more important strategic issue of what is the proper foreign policy in a republic.

    Hopefully, we will soon seriously consider the policy of noninterventionism in the affairs of others. Avoiding entangling alliances and staying out of the internal affairs of other nations is a policy most conducive to peace and prosperity and one the Founders endorsed. Policing the world and nation building are not part of a constitutional republic.

4B) A Constant Drumbeat

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the constant drumbeat in the press goes on. We find it highlighted in this week's national news magazines: a constant attack on the credibility of George W. Bush; a constant drumbeat calling him a liar, at the very least an exaggerator who did it deliberately to mislead the American people and to take us to war.

   Those in the media who get involved need to be reminded just a little bit of their responsibility. It is their responsibility to react not just to the flavor of the moment, in terms of political issues, but to give us a little bit of institutional memory. Since they seem to lack that memory, I will do my best to supply it here this afternoon.

   I remember as a Member of this body some intelligence lapses that occurred and decisions that were made on the basis of those lapses. Let me give you some.

   I remember when the United States bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan because the intelligence said it was a place where biological weapons were being created. This was not a trivial matter. I went to the room here in the Capitol that is reserved for secret briefings. I refer to it as the secret room where secret people tell us secret things, and I had no less than the Secretary of Defense absolutely insist that the intelligence was rock solid that biological weapons were being produced at this plant in Sudan.

   We now know the intelligence was wrong. The plant was not involved in the production of biological or chemical weapons. The intelligence information that led us to believe it had been was flawed, it was old, and the casualties that occurred on that occasion were civilians who needlessly lost their lives because the American intelligence was bad.

   The question is: Would we have been better off if we had not destroyed that plant in the Sudan? And the answer is clearly yes. Intelligence let us down. We made the wrong decision. We killed some civilians. We would have been better off if we had not proceeded.

   The second lapse of intelligence occurred during the bombing in Bosnia. I was involved in this one to a greater degree than the other. This is where the Americans bombed what they thought was a legitimate target and it turned out to be the Chinese Embassy. Furthermore, it was more than just the Chinese Embassy. It was the center of Chinese intelligence activity that covered most of that part of Europe.

   I was in China on a congressional delegation not long after that occurred. One after another Chinese official kept berating me and the other members of the delegation as to why we had deliberately targeted and destroyed a key intelligence center for the Chinese.

   Our answer was that this was an intelligence failure on our part; that the CIA was using an old address book, and we had not realized we were, in fact,

[Page: S9627]  GPO's PDF

destroying a very sensitive Chinese installation.

   I remember the response from a Chinese official as we made that explanation. He said: You Americans have the best intelligence in the world. You have been following what we have been doing in that part of the world for years. You destroyed a major intelligence asset of ours, and you claim it was a mistake? You claim your intelligence assets were so bad you did not realize we had been at that location for years?

   It was very clear from the questions and the tone of voice with which those questions were asked that the Chinese officials did not believe us. They did not believe we were capable of such a stupid mistake.

   The only defense that could be offered, and it was offered by another member of the delegation, was it had to be a mistake because, in fact, it was so stupid. No one would have done that deliberately and damaged the relationship between the United States and the Chinese so seriously.

   It was in response to that the U.S. Embassy in Beijing was stoned. I saw the windows that were broken. I saw the bullet holes that pocked the walls as people fired on the Embassy. It was a major incident.

   Again, the fundamental question: Would we have been better off if we had not done it? And the answer is an unequivocal and overwhelming, yes; we would have been better off if we had not done it.

   I could go on, but let me take those two examples of failed intelligence and those two questions--would we have been better off if we had not done it in the Sudan, and would we have been better off if we had not done it in Belgrade--and put them in the context of today's debate.

   Let's assume for a moment--and I underscore that I do not--that the intelligence that led up to the decision to go ahead in Iraq was as faulty as the administration's critics are now claiming it was, and then ask the same fundamental question: Would the world be better off if we had not gone into Iraq? And the answer is clearly, no. The answer is clearly as Tony Blair laid it out before the joint session of Congress. He made it clear if we made a mistake, history will forgive the mistake because the consequences of it were that we freed the Iraqi people. We brought a degree of credibility and stability into that region that has not been there. We have new leverage to deal with the Israeli/Palestinian question beyond that which any American President has had.

   If, in fact, we blundered into Iraq--and, once again, I underscore the fact I do not believe we did--we did a good thing. Unlike the failed intelligence that caused us to blow up a civilian production facility in the Sudan, which was a bad thing, unlike the failed intelligence that caused us to destroy the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, which was a bad thing, if there was flawed intelligence here that caused us to go into Iraq, it was still a good thing.

   Let me give an example of flawed intelligence with respect to Iraq. We did not know, going into Iraq, the degree to which Saddam Hussein had committed genocide against his own people. With all of the intelligence assets we had on the ground in Iraq, we were unaware of the number and extent of the mass graves that we are still uncovering while we are

   there. If we are going to complain, as those in the media are doing, that the intelligence going into Iraq was flawed, they should complain just as much about the failure of intelligence to tell us the degree of his brutality. But they are not talking about that. We do not get any media reports with each new discovery of a major new mass grave. Those are dismissed in what is called the mainstream media because that might lend support to the idea that going into Iraq was the right thing to have done.

   No, instead we are quibbling over words that appeared in the State of the Union that somehow triggered massive misunderstanding on the part of the American people. I would challenge anyone to go to anyone in America and ask them how many of them remember the 16 words that are being challenged. Well, maybe the American people do not remember those words but certainly the Congress does.

   There is a slight problem with that because the State of the Union Message was given after the Congress had approved the President's intervention in Iraq. The vote was taken on this floor prior to the time the President made those statements. So how can anyone in this body claim that he or she was misled by the President's statement in the State of the Union when the vote was taken prior to the time that statement was made?

   Once again, that is a fact that is conveniently left out of all of the media analysis. They do not tell us that Congress went to the briefings and came to its conclusion as to the rightness of the decision in Iraq before the President made that comment in the State of the Union.

   I went to the briefings. There was a briefing at the Pentagon that I remember very carefully. We went over for breakfast with the Secretary of Defense and he gave us a complete briefing on the entire issue of weapons of mass destruction and where things were in Iraq. I must say I did not see any of the current critics of the President's plan present at that briefing. I remember fairly clearly who was there. I could not name all of the Senators who were there, but I could name all of the Democratic Senators who were there, and none of them is currently engaged in criticizing the President.

   I remember a briefing at the White House in the Roosevelt Room with representatives of the CIA and Condoleezza Rice, where we went through the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction. Once again, I can remember the Senators who were at that briefing. It was open to all. It was not a private thing where a few Senators were requested. Any Senator who wanted could have gone to that briefing. I remember those who were there. Not one of the current critics of the President's position was there at that briefing.

   So I find it a little disingenuous to have them say they were misled when they did not attend the briefings that were given.

   Now let me take my colleagues to that briefing in the Roosevelt Room in the White House and summarize for them what was said there. We were told the following: Four areas of deep concern were raised, and we were told in descending order of how scary these were. The first was biological weapons. The second was Saddam Hussein's capacity to deliver those weapons. The third was chemical weapons. The fourth was nuclear weapons.

   I remember that very clearly because I summarized it back to the briefers and said: Let me be sure I understand what you are saying. You are saying you are most frightened of his capacity in the biological area, slightly less frightened about his ability to deliver those weapons, slightly less frightened about his capacity in the chemical area, and least frightened about his capacity in the nuclear area? And they said, yes, Senator that is the descending order of concern.

   I cite that because we are now being told in the popular press that the entire operation was sold to us because of the threat of nuclear weapons, ignoring the facts that we were given at the briefing to which they did not come.

   The question was raised, Why should we be going against Saddam Hussein at this particular time? That was one of the questions at the briefing. I remember the answer very clearly. If we are just talking about weapons of mass destruction, there are a number of countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, if we went to the country that has the most outside of the United States itself, that would be Russia. Simple possession of weapons of mass destruction, the point was clearly made at the briefing, simple possession of weapons of mass destruction does not justify taking action.

   A brutal dictator who oppresses his own people. Look around the world and there are plenty of brutal dictators who oppress their own people. Being a brutal dictator who oppresses his own people is not justification for the United States to go to war against you. That point was clearly made at the briefing.

   Willingness to invade your neighbors. There have been regimes around the world that have attacked recently their neighbors. Clearly, the United States cannot intervene every time there is a border war or a willingness to attack your neighbors. That, alone, does not justify going against someone in a military fashion.

[Page: S9628]  GPO's PDF

   Using weapons of mass destruction is different from possessing them. Now we are getting kind of narrow because we do not have a great number of examples of regimes that have used weapons of mass destruction. But maybe that alone, again, does not justify going against another regime.

   Put them all together--possession of weapons of mass destruction, using the weapons of mass destruction, crossing borders and invading your neighbors, and being in the hands of a brutal dictator--now we are getting a list and we are coming very close to Saddam Hussein, as the only brutal dictator with weapons of mass destruction, who qualifies for all four of those.

   But there is a fifth that comes into play as a follow-on to September 11: That is financing and harboring terrorists. Let me make it clear at that briefing, no one said there was a heavy al-Qaida presence in Iraq. Once again, people in the media are attacking President Bush for saying something that, in fact, he did not say. What was said at the briefing was Iraq sponsors terrorism, Iraq funds terrorism, and there are intelligence reports of Iraq harboring members of al-Qaida who are fleeing for their lives.

   The statement was never made that there was a major al-Qaida headquarters in Iraq. The statement was simply made that terrorists run through Iraq. A number of terrorist organizations, in addition to al-Qaida, have been represented in Iraq. Iraq funds terrorism throughout the region.

   Here are five different criteria, any one of which might not be enough to justify moving against a foreign government. Indeed, two or even three gathered together might still not justify moving against a foreign government. But the statement was made clearly, when you put all five together and ask yourself where in the world do you find all five at the same time, the answer is in one place and one place only: That place is Iraq.

   That was the intelligence briefing I attended. That was the intelligence information I heard when I made up my mind to be in support of the President and this operation. As I said before, I do not remember--indeed, I am sure that most of the President's congressional critics--indeed, all of--the

   President's congressional critics in this Chamber--were not there. They did not hear the briefings.

   For them to come forward now and say the President misled them, when they did not go, is disingenuous. I do not feel misled. I do not feel uninformed. I do not feel the intelligence was bad. Insufficient? Of course. Intelligence is always insufficient. But that does not mean it was deliberately manipulated; that does not mean it was planted; that does not mean anyone did anything but the very best he or she could do in good faith.

   The fundamental question I posed earlier still stands. Even if you accuse the President of doing all of what his critics are saying he did, was it bad to have gone into Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein? Until critics either in the Congress or the media will come forward and say, we used bad intelligence to make the bad decision and the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power, they cannot, in my view, sustain their criticism. They cannot fault this President unless they are willing to say in this instance what we can say in the two other instances I have described.

   Intelligence was flawed in the Sudan. Would the world be better off if we had not destroyed that plant? Yes. The intelligence was flawed in Belgrade. Would we be better off if we had not destroyed the Chinese Embassy? The answer is yes. If the intelligence was flawed in Iraq, the same question still applies: Would we be better off if we had not toppled Saddam Hussein? Until someone is willing to answer that question yes, I am not willing to give credence to their complaints about this President and this White House.

4C) Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I have been here for a while and listened to the remarks such as those just given by my colleagues from the great State of Texas, but quite honestly I cannot understand how it is possible to criticize the President for the action that he took in Operation Iraqi Freedom and at the same time ask the President to go forward in an action in Liberia.

    That being said, I think it is incumbent upon us on the Republican side of this House to point out that after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it had become apparent that the United States needed, the United States was required to be more vigilant about terrorism and weapons proliferation and pay particular attention to the prospect of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of groups or states that would use them against American interests, American interests either here at home or abroad. And unfortunately, over the prior 10 years we have seen that with attacks in Saudi Arabia, the Khobar Towers, the bombing of the Cole and, of course, the attacks here on September 11.

    The Bush administration, the Clinton administration, indeed, the United Nations all agreed that Saddam Hussein possessed a significant biological and chemical capability in 1998 when the inspectors were withdrawn. There is broad agreement that Saddam Hussein, different from any other leader, had proven himself capable of using these weapons for offensive purposes and not merely in a defensive posture.

    Where those weapons are today falls into one of several categories. They may still be hidden. Saddam Hussein had become a master of concealment. Please remember that in 1995 the United Nations was preparing to lift sanctions believing that Iraq had disarmed. It was only the defection of Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Jamal and the revelation that significant weapons were presented that halted the United Nations from lifting the sanctions in 1995.

    Perhaps Hussein did destroy the weapons after the inspectors left in 1998. It seems preposterous on its face, but while this was unlikely given his other behavior, the burden of proof was clearly still on Saddam Hussein, not the United States, not President Bush and not the United Nations to demonstrate the destruction of the weapons had indeed occurred.

    There is also the possibility that the weapons had degraded over time or were destroyed in the bombing or looted during the first combat phase in Iraqi Freedom. It does not really matter. The disorder and political uncertainty we are witnessing in post-war Iraq, while at one level unsettling, are to some extent a reflection of how completely Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime dominated and dictated Iraqi life.

    There are efforts in the Congress to employ a full investigation into these difficult issues to understand whether any mistakes were made and to take action to fix them in fulfillment of Congress's important oversight responsibilities.

    To date, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence reject a broader probe of the weapons of mass destruction issue.

    I believe that Congress is exercising its oversight authority and has set in place procedures to review comprehensively and on a bipartisan basis the intelligence surrounding Iraq prior to the outbreak of war and to take into account any dissenting views on the Iraqi threat within the intelligence community.

    People who have lived in a police state with no freedom of speech are unlikely to volunteer information until stability and security are achieved in Iraq. We must remember 30 years of living under a dictatorship cannot be reversed overnight.

    But the most important point is this: A free Iraq makes American and its allies safer by removing a destabilizing force in the region, removing a regime that pursued weapons of mass destruction, eliminating a state sponsor of terrorism and, ultimately, by serving as a living example to the people of the Middle East of the benefits of freedom and democracy.

4D) Efforts by North Korea Related to the Proliferation of Nuclear

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HASTINGS OF FLORIDA

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

   The Clerk read as follows:

   Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:

    At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

   EFFORTS BY NORTH KOREA RELATING TO THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

    SEC. __. It is the sense of Congress that the President should utilize all diplomatic options to ensure that the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea does not engage in efforts relating to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.

   The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?

   There was no objection.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss a very serious issue, but I may not need to continue my discussion if I could get the attention of the chairman. I might place my remarks in the RECORD if the Chair would speak with reference to the matter.

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

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

   Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, although a point of order could be made against this amendment, I think it certainly does no harm to restate what is clearly the position of the United States, so I am prepared to accept this amendment.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss a very serious issue--the failure of North Korea to comply with a number of non-proliferation treaties and agreements, and the failure of the President to effectively resolve the escalating tension between the United States and North Korea. So far, little has been achieved and Pyongyang continues its race to manufacture nuclear weapons.

   The existence of a North Korean nuclear weapons program poses a real and imminent threat to the populations of South Korea, Japan, and North Korea, and to the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in that region. But most importantly, it poses a threat to global security interests.

   Given the escalating tensions with North Korea, I have introduced an amendment to the Foreign Operations Bill that urges the President to work towards a peaceful resolution to this impasse before the situation escalates any further.

   My amendment simply says, ``It is the sense of Congress that the President of the United States is called upon to utilize all diplomatic options to redirect North Korean efforts away from nuclear weapons proliferation.''

   I know that most Members of Congress deeply believe that engagement, be it bilateral or multilateral, with North Korea is needed to defuse the tension between the two countries, and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It will take a concerted effort to transform the conflict, engaging many different parts of the system simultaneously, over a period of time.

   A diplomatic track could pave the way to North Korea ending its nuclear program. Engaging rhetoric, alliance building, diplomatic efforts aimed at halting North Korea's nuclear program are all options to successfully redirect North Korean efforts away from nuclear weapons proliferation.

   My amendment calls on the President to use coalitions, arms-control accords, and weapons inspections because these are methods of conflict resolution he has often ignored. If we don't incorporate all available nonproliferation tools to redirect North Korean efforts away from nuclear weapons, then military intervention will again be the only national security policy at our disposal.

   Unless we do develop a plan, this standoff will continue until tensions soar even further. Now is the time for resolute diplomacy that sends a clear message against nuclear proliferation; now is the time for the President to actively engage in renewed dialogue.

   I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

• [End Insert]

   The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

   The amendment was agreed to.

4E) Independent Commission on WMD in Iraq

AMENDMENT NO. 8 OFFERED BY MS. JACKSON-LEE OF TEXAS

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

   The text of the amendment is as follows:

   Amendment No. 8 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:

    At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTUCTION IN IRAQ

    SEC. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to prohibit the establishment of an independent commission to study the basis of the determination of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including any written or oral statements as to the recent purchase by Iraq of uranium in Africa.

   Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona reserves a point of order against the amendment.

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do wish to pose a question before I address my amendment, if I could, to the ranking member of the committee.

   Previously, I had mentioned the importance of involving women in the international peace process. I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from New York on the question of women in the international peace process. I had mentioned that the United Nations had a peace commission established for the purpose of appointing women to that commission. It has not been implemented, to my knowledge. But my general question is the value of encouraging and utilizing women in international peace negotiations around the world.

   Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

   Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentlewoman, because I think this is an absolutely critical point to be made. In countries where women are more involved, where there are more women in government, there clearly is a greater effort towards peace, towards collaboration to avoiding the horrors of war. So I want to applaud the gentlewoman for her initiative and for her focus on women and peace, and I do hope that we can work together to ensure that these kinds of efforts around the world are supported. I thank the gentlewoman.

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am gratified by the response I have gotten from the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations; and I am very pleased that we might be able to work on that.

   The amendment that I wish to discuss very briefly is in the backdrop or on the eve of the announcement of the 9/11 commission's report dealing with the horrific tragedy of 9/11.

   It seems somewhat questioning that this body would not want to support the creation of a commission to deal with the weapons of mass destruction, simply finding out the truth. I do realize that, as we speak, there is an ongoing investigation by the intelligence committees, I believe both in the House and the other body; but it is true that soldiers now are still dying, even after the war was declared over in Iraq. It is also true that the American people deserve the truth, and that the question dealing with the purchase of uranium from Africa in the State of the Union address by the President is not the only question on the issue of intelligence gathering.

   All of the world's eyes were on Secretary of State Powell's presentation before the United Nations utilized to encourage the United Nations Security Council to vote for, if you will, a preemptive attack against Iraq on the basis of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. I believe this is not a question of ``gotcha,'' it is not a question of one-upmanship, it is not a question of partisanship. It is simply a question of telling the truth to the American people.

   There were commissions and investigatory bodies that investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the assassination of Martin Luther King, the incident into the China satellite question, Watergate, Whitewater, if you will. All of these warranted investigations by this government.

   It seems to me less than disingenuous to be able to deny the right of the American people to find out the entire truth about the decision to use a preemptive strike against Iraq on the basis that the United States of America was about to be under imminent attack.

   This debate on a commission has nothing to do with the wrongness of Saddam Hussein and the collective opinion that Saddam Hussein was a despotic and horrific leader.

[Time: 23:30]

   This is nothing to do with the idea of whether or not our brave young men and women are willing to put themselves on the front line to defend this Nation. All it has to do with is for this body to recognize the importance of an independent commission.

   I would say that this commission should not be implemented until the completion of the work of the intelligence committees of both bodies and then, ultimately, when a final report should be rendered. But I do believe that it is extremely important that we have a submission on the weapons of mass destruction and their existence and the paper trail, if you will, and who said what, and what oversight there was with respect to the whole question of the attack on Iraq. There was no declaration of war under the United States Constitution article I, section 8; and because of that, I believe the American people are owed a thorough and full investigation on this question.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004, and I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to support this amendment.

   This amendment says, ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to prohibit the establishment of an independent commission to study the basis of the determination of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including any written or oral statements as to the recent purchase by Iraq of uranium in Africa.''

   This is a simple limiting amendment that will ensure that no funds are utilized to prevent the Members of this Congress and the American people from learning the truth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This amendment prevents the use of funds to prohibit or impede congressional efforts to learn the truth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the accuracy of United States intelligence sources on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

   The events that give rise to this amendment have been well documented. On January 28, 2003, President Bush delivered his State of the Union Address. In that address President Bush said that Saddam Hussein attempted to buy uranium in Africa. The intelligence report that President Bush relied on to make that allegation was proven to be fraudulent. There were also credible indications that the Bush administration had reason to know the intelligence report was fraudulent before the State of the Union Address was delivered.

   All of these allegations raise questions, and show the need for an investigation into U.S. intelligence methods and the use of that intelligence report by the Bush administration. This amendment ensur