Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), for yielding me time.

I rise in strong opposition to this agreement. It seems to me that before we rush into yet another free trade agreement we should spend a little bit of time assessing the horrendous impact that past free trade agreements have had on the middle class and working families of this country. If you have a policy which is failing, failing and failing, why do you want to continue going along that path?

Mr. Speaker, for many years now, corporate America and the big money interests have told us how good unfettered free trade would be if they spent a fortune getting these agreements passed. What they forgot to tell us is that while these free trade agreements are in fact good for the big corporations and their well-paid CEOs, they have been a disaster for the middle class and working families of our country.

The reality is, despite tremendous increases in technology and productivity, the average American today is working longer hours for lower wages. The gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider, and poverty is increasing. The middle class in America is collapsing, and unfettered free trade is one of the reasons.

In the last 3 years alone, we have lost 2.7 million good manufacturing jobs, over 16 percent of the total, and now after the collapse of manufacturing we are beginning to see the hemorrhaging of good-paying information technology jobs. While large corporations throw American workers out on the streets and move to China, India, Mexico and other low-wage countries, the new jobs being created here for our people are mostly low wage with minimal benefits. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7 out of 10 of the fastest-growing professions in the next 10 years are going to be with high school degrees, minimal benefits, lower wages.

Is that the future that we want for our country?

To add insult to injury, Mr. Chairman, the President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue, the leader of our country's big business organization, has urged, has urged American companies to send our jobs overseas. Urged them. That is the kind of contempt that corporate America has for the working families of this country. By continuing to pass unfettered free trade agreements, we accommodate Mr. Donohue's goal; and we will see the loss of more and more good-paying jobs in this country.

I understand that Australia is not China, and I understand that workers there earn comparable wages, and I understand they do not go to jail when they stand up for their rights, and we could perhaps negotiate good agreements here and there with Australia, but an unfettered free trade agreement is not good.

Let me conclude by mentioning two specific objections I have.

Number one, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is right about reimportation and prescription drugs. I worry very much about the precedent, if we want to lower prescription drug costs in this country by this agreement.

Second of all, dairy farmers in Vermont, New England and America will be significantly and negatively impacted by the importation of a lot of dairy products over the years from Australia.

Offered By: Mr. Sanders

Amendment No. 19: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

limitation on provision by export-import bank of credit to entities

reincorporating overseas

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the chairman very much.

If I may just very briefly tell the Members what the amendment is. I very much appreciate the chairman's support for this amendment. I know the ranking member is also supportive.

Mr. Chairman, all over rural America, we are seeing the decline of family-based agriculture. And while we want to look at the broader picture as to how we can help family farmers in dairy or in any other commodity, I think one way that we can move forward, and I am glad that the majority agrees, is to start emphasizing agritourism. All over this country, in Vermont and in rural America, billions of dollars are being spent by tourists who go to rural areas. Yet, unfortunately, family farmers who in most cases are the folks who are keeping the land open and keeping the land beautiful are not receiving the kinds of funds from the tourists that they should and that they deserve.

To my mind, as we see the decline of family-based agriculture, what we are seeing in Vermont and all over this country is that agritourism is putting hard cash into the pockets of family farmers.

Mr. Chairman, from the experience of my own State, I can tell the Members that there is a lot of support for agritourism nationwide, and I know that there is in this body in a bipartisan way. My own State of Vermont has been working on this concept for many years now, in part with funding provided by the USDA some years ago.

Some of the successes of Vermont's agritourism model include on-farm technical assistance in using the Internet and helping farmers get business through the Internet, setting up cooperative marketing with various commodity groups, the Chamber of Commerce and the Vermont Departments of Tourism and Agriculture. In addition, a regional marketing Web site was established that received over 40,000 hits in any average month. Vermont's agritourism initiative was highlighted by the travel book company Frommer's. In addition, the six New England States held an agritourism summit to coordinate their efforts in this area.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for their support of the concept of agritourism, and I very much appreciate that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I have a bipartisan amendment at the desk which is cosponsored by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

This amendment, which addresses section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, is supported by citizens across the ideological spectrum, from conservative to progressive. This amendment is a narrower version of H.R. 1157, the Freedom to Read Protection Act, a bill I introduced last year and which now has 145 bipartisan cosponsors.

To date, 181 national and regional library, publishing, civil liberty and privacy groups have endorsed this legislation, including the American Library Association, the American Book Sellers Association and the NIA. In fact, book sellers are way on their way to securing 1 million signatures on a petition drive on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, as the Members of this House are well aware, in October 2001, Congress hastily passed the USA Patriot Act. This Patriot Act significantly broadened the government's investigational powers. Unfortunately, given the speed with which the Congress passed the Patriot Act, it should come as little surprise that this new law has created consequences that many Members did not intend.

Every Member of this body was appalled by the terrorist attack of 9/ 11, and I know that we all are going to work together to do everything we can

to protect the American people from future attacks, but I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of the Members of this body when I say that while we fight terrorism vigorously, we must do it in a way that does not undermine the basic constitutional rights of the American people, what makes us a free country.

That is what this amendment is all about.

Mr. Chairman, this concern about protecting constitutional rights while we fight terrorism is not an ideological issue. Again, on this point I agree with people who I often disagree with. Let me quote Republican majority leader, former leader Dick Armey, when he said, ``Are we going to save ourselves from international terrorism in order to deny the fundamental liberties we protect to ourselves?''

I agree with Dick Armey. I agree with Newt Gingrich, who also voiced concerns about the USA PATRIOT Act. But also what we have are four State legislatures, including my own State of Vermont, 332 municipalities all across the country, conservative, progressive, going on record in passing resolutions expressing their concerns about this or that aspect of the PATRIOT Act.

Now, one of the areas of the PATRIOT Act that has received the most attention is section 215 as it relates to the government's ability to gain access to the files of America's libraries and bookstores. Mr. Chairman, under 215, government agents can go into a secret FISA court and get an order requiring that a library or bookstore turn over records that would tell them what innocent Americans are reading. They do this by informing the judge that they are doing an investigation on international terrorism, and having said that, a judge in the FISA court is obliged to give them a warrant to go into a library or into a bookstore so that they can determine the books that innocent Americans are reading. They do not need to have probable cause or specific information on an individual who is alleged to be a terrorist.

Mr. Chairman, just so the Members of this House understand how broad this authority is, let me quote from an October 29, 2003, declassified memo from the FBI's general counsel to all field offices. The memo expressly states that a request under section 215 ``is not limited to the records of the target of a full investigation. The request must simply be sought for a full investigation. Thus, if the records relating to one person are relevant to the full investigation of another person, those records can be obtained, despite the fact that there is no open investigation of the person to whom the subject of the records pertain.''

To make matters even worse, Mr. Chairman, all the proceedings are secret, so the innocent persons whose records are sought will not even know that his or her records have been seized.

Mr. Chairman, there are opponents of this amendment who are suggesting that if we pass this, the FBI and law enforcement officials will be unable to go into libraries and bookstores to track terrorists and that exempting libraries would ``create a terrorist safety zone.'' This is absolutely not the case, not the case. This amendment does not except libraries and book sellers from searches.

The FBI will still have many legal tools at its disposal as it always has, including search warrants and criminal grand jury subpoenas to attain library and bookstore records.

Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity today to show the American people, yes, we are going to fight terrorism vigorously; but we are going to do it while we protect the constitutional rights of our people. Conservatives, progressive, moderates agree, let us pass this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds before I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) to tell my friends that it is not accurate that under this amendment that the FBI cannot go into libraries and book stores. They sure can. They can get subpoenas. They can go to the grand jury. They can do it in the conventional way. We have no objection to that. But they cannot have a carte blanche, no probable cause to check on the reading records of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. George Miller of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, a hero of many.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude. I am distressed by anybody in this body who suggests that any Member of this body is not going to do everything that he or she can to fight terrorism. We are all in that together. But in the process of fighting terrorism, it is imperative that this body maintain the basic constitutional rights which have made us a free country.

There is nothing in this amendment which prohibits the FBI or the government from going into libraries or bookstores as quickly as they can when they have to. This legislation that we are supporting is supported by conservatives, by moderates, by progressives, by people who are fighting hard, not only against terrorism, but fighting hard to maintain the basic freedoms which make our country the envy of the world and a free Nation. And in the fight against terrorism, we have got to keep our eyes on two prizes, the terrorists and the United States Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is allowed for a vote to be cast? My understanding is 17 minutes.

Will the gentleman tell me how much time has expired on this vote at this point?

My understanding is over 24 minutes have expired.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. NADLER (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the 191 Democrats and 18 Republicans who voted for that important amendment, but I am not going to discuss the substance of that amendment, because that debate took place, and I respect the people on both sides of that debate.

But what I do not respect is that when we are having a debate about basic American democratic rights and what our Constitution is supposed to be, I resent bitterly, on behalf of the American people, that the Republican leadership rigged the game. That is wrong. At the end of nine innings of a baseball game, at the end of nine innings of a baseball game, the team that has the most runs wins. At the end of the 17 minutes tonight, our side won, and it was not even close.

Now, what kind of lesson, what kind of lesson are we showing the children of America when we tell them, get involved in the political process, that we are a free country, that we are fighting

abroad for democracy, when we rig a vote on this floor? Shame, shame, shame.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for their excellent efforts on this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about a limitation amendment that I will be offering at the end of this bill. That amendment is modeled after H.R. 1157, the Freedom to Read Protection Act, which I have offered and which has 145 bipartisan cosponsors. This legislation is supported by a wide range of groups across the ideological spectrum, from those who are very conservative to those who are very progressive.

The amendment I will be offering later is cosponsored by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). This amendment addresses section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, and it is a section which has engendered a great deal of controversy.

Mr. Chairman, there is no disagreement in this body or in the United States of America that our country has got to do everything that it can to prevent another 9/11, to prevent acts of

terrorism against the American people. But I think there is also widespread belief in this body and throughout this country that we can and must fight terrorism without undermining the basic constitutional rights that have made this a free country.

All over this country, in hundreds of cities which have passed resolutions, in four States which have passed resolutions, among hundreds of different organizations, there is a concern that within the USA PATRIOT Act in section 215 it gives the right of the government, with virtually no probable cause, to go into our libraries, to go into our bookstores and to ascertain the reading habits of the American people. That is not, I believe, what this country is about or what this body believes in.

So we are going to be offering an amendment that would disallow the government from gaining the reading records of people who buy books at bookstores or take books out of the library or use Internet service in the library.

I am delighted we have so much support for this legislation.

Offered By: Mr. Sanders

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new title:

Offered By: Mr. Sanders

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new title:

Offered By: Mr. Sanders

Amendment No. 3: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new title:

Mr. Speaker, it is a very great personal pleasure to extend best wishes on his eightieth birthday to Governor Philip H. Hoff of Vermont.

During my own years of service to Vermont, I have found no finer example, no better counselor, no more steadfast friend, than Phil Hoff, the Governor of Vermont from 1962 to 1969.

Educated at Williams College and Cornell University, Phil Hoff ran for Governor of Vermont in 1962. His was an uphill battle: Although Democrat William Meyer had been elected to one term in the U.S. House in 1958, no Democrat had won the governorship in the state of Vermont since before the Civil War. Vermont was steadfastly, resolutely, a one- party state, even resisting national plebiscites for Democratic candidates, standing alone with Utah in voting for William Taft in the Woodrow Wilson victory in 1912, alone with Maine in the Franklin Delano Roosevelt landslide in 1936.

With energy, vision and a great personal warmth that touched voters deeply, Phil Hoff boldly took a simple message to Vermont's citizens: It was time for a change. And people listened, and agreed. Phil Hoff was elected Governor of Vermont in 1962 by defeating the incumbent chief executive, F. Ray Keyser Jr. His vigor was put in service of his dual linked commitments, to social justice and to making those changes that would bring it about. During the next six years, everything in Vermont was changed, opened up, made more responsive to the people, reshaped in the visionary spirit of those exciting times of growth and renewed democracy. With Phil Hoff as governor, it seemed anything was possible: Stale tradition, entrenched power, historical limitations, all gave way to the bold vision and active involvement of this remarkable human being.

While we have many differences, many different points of view, in our state, for many years Vermont has been to people all over America a beacon for what politics can be. Here, ideological conservatism does not rule, nor narrow self-interest, nor recriminations of one group against another. Our political figures far more often than not speak out on the side of justice and fairness. That is the legacy of Phil Hoff, who not only governed our state but left a legacy that ever afterwards politics would be about inclusion and not exclusion, about moving confidently into the future rather than cowering in the shadow of the past.

Phil Hoff kept up an active life in the public sector, serving in more recent years as a Vermont State Senator, as a Trustee and

President of Vermont Law School, as Chairperson of Vermont Advisory Committee of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. His greatest honors have come not from institutions, corporations, bureaucracies, but from the place held for him in the hearts of his fellow citizens. Deeply honored and revered by all in Vermont, Phil Hoff remains accessible and warm, a good neighbor, a good friend, a model citizen, to thousands and thousands of Vermonters.

On my own behalf and on behalf of the entire state of Vermont, Let me conclude by wishing Phil Hoff, our finest public citizen, our model of what a human being can and should be, a very, very happy eightieth birthday. Phil, the nation, as well as Vermont, is proud of you.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Ranking Member Visclosky) for all of their hard work on this important legislation.

The amendment that I am offering is cosponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals, in fact, with one of the important issues of our time, and that is, whether the United States Government will take the bold step to break our dependency on fossil fuels, break our dependency on nuclear power and move forward as aggressively as we can into the new world of safe, clean, cost- effective, sustainable energy.

The truth is that we have made some progress in recent years, but the truth also is that we have a long, long way to go; and this amendment will help us move in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, specifically, the legislative intent of this amendment is to increase funding for renewable energy programs such as solar energy, wind, biomass, clean hydrogen, and geothermal by $30 million, to be offset by a decrease of $30 million in funding for the nuclear weapons advance simulation and computing program in the weapons activities budget. That offset, by the way, is a decrease of less than 5 percent for this program and a tiny fraction of the $6.5 billion for weapons that are funded in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bolster critical research and development so that we can deliver unlimited clean energy for generations to come. Improving the technology for sustainable energy is a huge step forward in protecting our environment,

improving our economy and making this world a safer place so that our foreign policy is not significantly dictated by energy needs.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is supported by every major environmental organization in the country, including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, American Rivers, U.S. PIRG and Public Citizen.

Mr. Chairman, if one looks at the big picture, it is clear that we are on the cusp of a historic opportunity to move from finite polluting fossil fuels to abundant, nonpolluting, clean energy sources that can be developed, refined, and manufactured here in the United States of America, not in the Mideast. The potential for these technologies is without limits as long as we adequately fund the research and development now.

The programs increased under this amendment, solar, wind, clean hydrogen, biomass and geothermal, offer our country a new path of abundant clean energy that will revolutionize our impact on this planet.

Passage of this amendment would send a message to the Nation that we are going to take the right path, that we are going to break from our destructive fossil fuel habits of the past and commit to a sane, clean, and cost effective energy future. When taken together, the funding for renewable energy sources in this bill falls $31.6 million below the President's own request. So this amendment for $30 million simply brings us up to what the President wants, which is, by no means, a radical concept.

Certainly we can add a modest amount of money to research, develop, discriminate and disseminate these technologies, which will prevent smog, acid rain, and global climate change. Certainly we can redirect a mere $30 million in a bill of over $28 billion to R&D that promises to dramatically reduce lung damaging sulfur dioxide and neurotoxic mercury in the air we breathe and the water we drink.

For those who might wonder whether we are already doing enough to support renewable energy, let me put our Government's support for different energy sources in historic perspective. From 1943 through 1999, cumulative Federal Government subsidies to nuclear photovoltaic, solar thermal and wind electric generating technologies, excluding hydropower, totaled about $151 billion. The nuclear industry received $145 billion, or over 96 percent of the subsidies.

Remarkably, even the alternative technology available today, which has been subsidized at a fraction of the amount we have historically thrown at nuclear power and fossil fuels, is competitive in the market and can eliminate substantial amounts of toxins from the air. If it is competitive in the marketplace today, let us think about what we can do if we adequately fund research.

In solar, we are making significant progress, but we are not funding solar any more today than we did in 1993. In wind, we are making progress, making real efforts to lower the cost of generating electricity from wind, but we are not adequately funding wind. Biomass, in my State of Vermont, 23 schools are now heated with wood chips. We are making progress. But everybody understands we can do a lot more. Geothermal the same, hydrogen the same.

Mr. Chairman, this is a modest amendment, but it is an important step forward in telling the world that we understand that a revolution can happen in breaking our dependency on fossil fuels, on nuclear power, and moving forward to clean, safe, sustainable energy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will close in a minute by saying that what we are talking about here is not a huge sum of money. It is $30 million. And one can always argue that where you take the money there is a reason for that money, and I respect that. But I think the evidence is overwhelming that we are on the cusp of major breakthroughs which can change our entire use of energy in this country and lead us and the entire world to move toward clean, sustainable energy and away from nuclear power, of which we do not know how to dispose of today, and away from fossil fuels, which are causing so many serious environmental problems.

So this amendment is not just a $30 million amendment, but I think it is an indication of the sentiment of this Congress to tell the American people and the world that we are prepared to go forward in a bold new way with huge potential, and so I would urge support for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Sanders

Amendment No. 5. Page 19, line 14, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

Page 23, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Sanders

Amendment No. 5. Page 19, line 14, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

Page 23, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I were originally going to offer an amendment, but we are not going to do that. We are withdrawing the amendment; and instead, we look forward to engaging in a colloquy with the chairman and the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, the issue that we are discussing today is of extraordinary importance. In the midst of Iraq and Afghanistan, let us never forget that 100,000 veterans from the first Gulf War continue to suffer from a yet not fully understood debilitating illness commonly known as Gulf War Illness.

The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I for a number of years have been working together on this issue, and I want to applaud him for his leadership. The fact of the matter is that over the years, while the Congress has appropriated many, many millions of dollars to research and tried to understand Gulf War Illness, in fact, much of that money has not been effective in getting us to better understand this problem.

As many will recall, at the beginning of this discussion, the DOD and the VA were both saying, hey, there is no problem; and then more and more veterans came forward and they said, well, there is a problem, but it is stress related. Finally, after many, many years, I think both the VA and the DOD now understand that we have a very serious physical problem.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to inform my colleagues that the good news is that real progress is now being made in our understanding of Gulf War Illness. Medical researchers like Dr. Robert Haley of the University of Texas and other researchers can now measure real physical neurological damage in many Gulf War Illness sufferers. These injuries are likely the result of low-level exposure to chemical nerve agents during the first Gulf War. Much of the evidence suggests that exposure to these nerve agents is the direct result of the destruction of a major chemical weapons dump in Iraq by the U.S. military that created a plume of chemicals that may have exposed hundreds of thousands of U.S. military personnel and civilians in the region.

In hearings held by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) in the last couple of weeks, we heard from Dr. Haley about the status of his research. Dr. Haley's findings were corroborated at the hearing by Dr. Paul Greengard, a 2000 Nobel Laureate and head of the Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience at the Rockefeller University. He agreed that research into neurological damage caused by low-level nerve agents is the most promising in terms of finding a cause and a treatment for Gulf War Illness.

There has also been a change in attitude in the Pentagon and the VA about this illness. It appears that both now acknowledge that this is a very real physical injury. Secretary of VA Anthony Principi has taken an active interest in supporting Gulf War Illness research and has committed $15 million to continuing the fight.

Mr. Chairman, I would introduce into the Record at this point a letter from Jim Binns, who is the chairman of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses, who supports this line of research.

VA Eastern Kansas

Healthcare System,

Topeka, KS, June 22, 2004.

Hon. Christopher Shays,

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats

and International Relations, Committee on Government

Reform, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to testify

before your subcommittee on June 1. As you could tell from

the hearing, we are at a moment of truth on Gulf War

illnesses. On the one hand, the science is finally there to

show that this is a medical problem, an important component

of which is neurological in nature. Furthermore, researchers

like Dr. Paul Greengard of Rockefeller University are waiting

in the wings with projects that have a real chance of

producing a cure. As you know, Dr. Greengard received the

Nobel Prize in medicine in 2000 for his work to uncover the

brain mechanisms involved in Parkinsons disease and to

develop a treatment for that disease, and he testified that

the same approach can succeed in Gulf War illnesses. In

response to these new scientific findings, research managers

at VA and DoD recognize the opportunity to pursue this type

of research.

On the other hand, while Secretary Principi is going to

increase VA funding to $15 million, DoD, which has

historically funded three-quarters of Gulf War illnesses

research, is currently funding no new projects in this area

because of its internal priorities. In addition to the

financial implications, this withdrawal of DoD from Gulf War

illnesses research dramatically limits the universe of

researchers whose talents can be brought to bear, because VA

by law can only fund VA internal research. Unlike DoD or NIH,

VA cannot give grants to outside researchers. Thus,

researchers like Dr. Greengard and others who have done

important, DoD-funded work in the past, cannot be funded with

the possible exception of minor sub-contractor roles. Other

respected scientists with relevant expertise similarly cannot

be engaged unless they work for VA. So just as there is

finally something solid to research, and a willingness on the

part of the research managers to spend in the right places,

funding is dramatically down, and the cadre of potential

researchers is dramatically limited.

On behalf of the membership of the Research Advisory

Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses, I urgently request

you to seek an amendment to the DoD appropriations bill to

provide $30 million to the U.S. Army Medical Research and

Materiel Command for Gulf War illnesses research in FY 2005.

I have been told that Gulf War illnesses formerly was a line

item in the DoD budget, in the period when federal spending

was at the $45 million annual level (direct and indirect) in

1999-2002.

It would also be constructive to include language requiring

that ninety percent of this funding be placed with non-

governmental researchers, that DoD develop with VA and NIH

(specifically the National Institute of Neurological

Disorders and Stroke) a comprehensive federal research plan

for Gulf War veterans illnesses, and that DoD seek the input

and review of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War

Veterans Illnesses in the creation of this plan and decisions

on which research to fund in pursuit of the plan.

I apologize not to have brought this matter to your

attention earlier, but our energies have been focuses on VA.

Thank you for your consideration of this request at this

critical juncture.

Respectfully,

James H. Binns,

Chairman, Research Advisory

Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses.

Mr. Chairman, I would also enter into the Record at this point a letter from Ross Perot, who has been one of the leaders on this issue over the years, who also understands that we are dealing with neurological illness.

Plano, TX,

June 22, 2004.

Congressmen Bernie Sanders and Chris Shays,

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressmen Sanders and Shays: As you both know, I

have long been active in promoting and funding research to

find treatments and a cure for Gulf War Illness--which now

affects over 100,000 veterans of the first Gulf War.

In recent years, great strides have been made in our

understanding of the actual physical harm that these veterans

have suffered. Researchers like Dr. Haley and others have

been able to detect brain damage that likely resulted from

exposure to low levels of sarin nerve agents.

While the advances have been impressive, so much more still

needs to be done. That is why I am pleased to support your

amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations bill to

provide $30 million in Gulf War Illness research.

Not only will this type of research help victims of Gulf

War Illness, but it could provide us with knowledge that

would increase our ability to defend soldiers and civilians

against future chemical attacks.

This research could also provide clues to other illnesses

in both the military and civilian context that may be caused

by low level chemical exposure.

Once again, I strongly support this amendment and look

forward to working together to end the terrible suffering

that so many Gulf War veterans are suffering.

Sincerely,

Ross Perot.

Mr. Chairman, I now move into the colloquy between the chairman and the ranking member, if I might.

Am I correct that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) are committing to work with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and me to secure additional

funding for Gulf War Illness research when the bill goes to conference?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Does that commitment include the gentleman's willingness to support higher funding for Gulf War Illness research that might be included in the Senate version of the bill?

Mr. Chairman, would the gentlemen be willing to work with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and me to develop conference report language that would indicate the conference's expectation that the Department of Defense make a significant commitment to continue the breakthrough research which has recently indicated that the neurological damage associated with Gulf War Illness is caused by low-level chemical exposure?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) very, very much for their support for this important breakthrough.

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have to convince any Member of this body that the American people are outraged by the extremely high prices they are currently paying for gasoline. I am sure that you are getting the same calls that I get in my office in Vermont.

As we all know, these exorbitant prices are a serious drag on our economy. They affect small business and farmers, they affect airlines and the trucking industry, they affect middle-income people who drive to work every day and are seeing their wage increases going into their gas tanks. This is a serious national problem.

Now, I understand that there are differences of opinion in this body about long-term solutions to this crisis. We have debated that over the last couple of days. I personally believe we have to take a hard look at OPEC, the cartel which today functions directly in opposition to international free trade law. I think we have to deal with the increased concentration of ownership in the oil industry, and I think the time is long overdue that we have to break our dependency on fossil fuels and move to sustainable energy.

But whether one agrees with my long-term solutions or not, there should be no debate about the need for us to come together now to provide immediate short-term relief to the American people who are hurting from high gas prices.

The concept I am introducing in this amendment has had support from Democrats and Republicans, people from all political views, and I hope and believe that it will win strongly today.

Specifically, this amendment would suspend oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and cap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at 647 million barrels of oil, the level that it was in in March of this year, just a few months ago. In other words, we would immediately stop the purchase of more oil for the reserve and release into the market 15 million barrels of oil. This action would have the very immediate impact of substantially lowering gas prices in America.

Mr. Chairman, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently contains approximately 662 million barrels and the administration is pushing to increase that number to some 700 million barrels. My amendment would increase the amount of oil on the market and lead to lower cash prices immediately upon its implementation. It would also keep gas prices down by making sure the government is not competing against consumers in the marketplace at a time that gas prices are so high.

Mr. Chairman, extrapolating from at least three economic studies done by Goldman Sachs; the largest crude oil trader in the world, the Air Transport Association; and petroleum economist Phillip Burleger, the estimate is that this amendment could reduce gasoline prices at the pump by 10 to 25 cents per gallon. It is not going to solve the whole problem, but 10 to 25 cents per gallon is not an insignificant step in helping the American consumer.

Mr. Chairman, even the staff at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve recommended against buying more oil for the SPRO in the spring of 2002. They state, ``Commercial inventories are low, retail prices are high, and economic growth is slow. The government should avoid acquiring oil for the reserve under these circumstances.''

Mr. Chairman, a lot of people have come up with this idea. This is not just mine. Members may remember that in March of this year, 53 Members of the House, including 39 of our Republican colleagues, wrote to President Bush calling for a halt of oil deliveries into the SPRO. Let me quote from this letter: ``Dear Mr. President, we are writing to urge that you suspend shipments of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and allow more oil to remain on the market and available to consumers when supplies are tight.''

I agree with those 39 Republicans and other Democrats who made that request of the President. They are right.

Mr. Chairman, in addition, on March 16 of this year, the Senate passed an amendment by Senators Carl Levin and Susan Collins with a bipartisan majority of 52 to 43 to suspend oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Frankly, there is nothing magical about the 647 million barrels of oil in this bill which this amendment proposes; that is the cap we propose. In conference, that number could be changed. That number simply came about with this amendment because it is where the SPR was in mid-March when the Senate passed its resolution and when the 53 Members of the House, including 39 Republicans, wrote their letter to the President.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I am not quite sure I understand the chairman's confusion on this issue.

The gentleman is correct. No money would go to maintain the SPR unless oil was released, and that certainly can be done, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) indicated, through a swap. That is not a difficult process.

What we are saying very clearly is that millions of working people are paying through the nose in high gas prices; it is imperative that this Congress act. We have had Republican presidents, Democratic presidents, Republican Members of the House, Democratic, Independent Members of this House, who have shown sympathy to this idea. It is a simple idea. It could lower the price of gas, and we should go forward on it. It is a totally practical approach.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention for the record that if this amendment passes, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would have 93 percent of its capacity, and we could fill it as soon as the oil prices went down. And, again, when people talk about concern about national security, we are all concerned. Let me remind that 53 Members of this House urged the President to do this, including 39 Republicans. The Senate passed a bipartisan resolution.

So as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has indicated, the issue is will we finally stand up for the American consumer and lower the cost of gasoline.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I heard a moment ago an estimate from the DOE that this amendment would lower the cost of gas by one cent. Well, let me tell my colleagues that Goldman Sachs has studies which suggests that it would be 10 to 25 cents. They are the largest crude oil trader in the world, 10 to 25 cents a gallon.

People say this is a new and radical idea. It is not a new and radical idea. George Bush, the first, did it; Bill Clinton did it; and in both instances, it was successful. It drove down the price of gas that consumers were purchasing.

This is an amendment and a concept supported by Republicans and Democrats.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very modest amendment and I would hope that in fact both sides could accept it. It does not add any more money to this bill. It simply shifts within the Rebuild America program $1 million dedicated to the Energy Smart Schools program which will encourage schools all over America to become more energy efficient.

Mr. Chairman, I got into this issue because a number of months ago I went to a high school in Vermont called U-32 outside of Montpelier, Vermont. They escorted me around the school after I spoke to the kids and what I discovered is that in that school they were heating that building, a large campus, with wood chips. They were heating with a virtually nonpollutant fuel, they were creating jobs within our local economy and they were saving taxpayers' money. It was a win-win-win situation. It turns out, I later discovered, that 23 schools in the State of Vermont are doing that. It seems to me that we all around our country have a lot to teach each other about energy efficiency, how we can save taxpayers' money in terms of making our schools sustainable, cost effective and energy efficient.

All that this amendment does is take $1 million from the Rebuild America program and dedicate it to the Energy Smart Schools program. The Department of Energy is running a good program. It is teaching young people about energy efficiency. It is saving taxpayers' money. I would urge support for this amendment and hopefully we could have both sides accept it.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.