Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of a normal year, the Coast Guard rescues 5,000 people. In the last 16 days they have saved more than 33,000 lives. We have all marveled at the daring rooftop rescues, the heroism, the professionalism that they have demonstrated.

Since Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast, the men and women of the Coast Guard have been working backbreaking long hours, pushing themselves and their equipment to operational limits. In some cases they have used sledge hammers and axes to break through rooftops to rescue trapped residents. They have been delivering food, water, and medicine to those in need. They have responded to 284 fuel spills. And the Coast Guard's chief of staff, Thad Allen, has brought much needed order and structure to the relief efforts. It has truly been one of the Coast Guard's finest hours, and all America is profoundly grateful.

What Americans do not know is that even before the destructive power of Katrina hit the gulf coast, the Coast Guard had pre-positioned a number of aircraft and ships in the area ready to launch search and rescue efforts as soon as the weather cleared. In fact,

the very first rescue occurred when the eye of the storm passed over the region, and it happens that that first rescue was from a helicopter based at Air Station Cape Cod in my district, and I am proud.

The Coast Guard was ready. But also what most Americans do not realize is that the Coast Guard operates the second oldest naval fleet in the world. Their ships and planes are so old they are euphemistically described as ``legacy assets.'' Many of these legacy assets are riddled with structural defects, putting Coast Guard personnel and the people who call on them for help at risk, like the nine crew members aboard the cutter Storis that was built in 1942 who were nearly killed when the davit lowering their lifeboat ripped away from the steel superstructure, crashing them into the frigid Bering Sea. The rescuers, in fact, had to be rescued.

Remember last year the Coast Guard's main search and rescue helicopter, the Jayhawk, experienced in-flight engine failures at a rate of 329 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The FAA-acceptable standards is one per 100,000 flight hours. These failures limit the Jayhawk's ability to hover and place the lives of its crew, passengers, and those below in grave danger. The same helicopters are flying over the skies of the gulf coast right now.

The indisputable fact is that the demands on the Coast Guard have vastly outpaced its resources, and that is why it is incredibly important that we accelerate the Deepwater program and encourage the purchase of additional cutters and aircraft, as my friend from Florida has indicated.

As negotiations on the conference report for the homeland security appropriations bill continue, I implore our colleagues to bear this in mind and do all that they can do to give the Coast Guard the financial resources it needs to speed up, accelerate the Deepwater program.

It is essential if the Coast Guard is to continue to honor their motto of ``Semper Paratus.''

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today with news that the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have reached an important agreement. The Mashpee will be placed on the BIA's active consideration list for federal recognition. This agreement is an important milestone on what has been an exceedingly long and arduous road for the Mashpee.

As some of my colleagues know, the Mashpee are long-time residents of Cape Cod in our area 5,000 years before there was a United States of America, much less the Tenth Congressional District of Massachusetts. The Mashpee literally met the Mayflower in 1620 and were the Native Americans who aided the Pilgrims through their difficult first months and who attended the first Thanksgiving feast.

The history of the Mashpee Wampanoag in American life goes back to that meeting in 1620, but that only tells the most recent chapters of the story. With an unbroken chain of habitation spanning five millennia, the Mashpee accepted the Pilgrims and others--and went out of their way to offer assistance. And then, when European culture gave way to a fledgling United States, the Mashpee Wampanoag embraced their roles as both Native Americans and Americans. Mashpee Wampanoag Indians have served honorably in the U.S. armed forces in every war from the Revolution through Iraq. The Tribe's current Chief was part of the Allied invasion of Normandy in the Second World War, and the Chairman of the Tribal Council is a survivor of the siege on Khe Sanh. Mashpee Wampanoag Indians continue to serve and sacrifice with so many other Americans.

But the Mashpee have a dream: Formal recognition of their cultural identity by the Federal Government. They have sought a decision from the Bureau of Indian Affairs since 1978. Today I am pleased to tell you that the Bureau has agreed to place the Mashpee's application on active status and has committed to issuing a decision by April of next year. This process, I have no doubt, will lead to recognition of the tribe by the federal government, as Massachusetts has since the early days of the Commonwealth.

Many in this chamber are familiar with this issue and I thank my colleagues and their staffs for helping so much to this point. I ask for your continued support as the day of decision draws near. We all remember the Mayflower. It's now time to remember those who stood on the shore the day she landed, and, with open arms, embraced the Pilgrims--the Mashpee Wampanoag Indians.

New Englanders are accustomed to harsh winters. We know all too well that frozen rivers and blocked harbors can impede tankers carrying goods and barges laden with home heating oil stocks, resulting in lost commerce and putting lives in danger.

The people of the Great Lakes are no strangers to these problems too--which is why I am so pleased that the state-of-the-art Ice Breaker Mackinaw was recently delivered to the U.S. Coast Guard. The Mackinaw replacement project couldn't have happened without the support and hard work of our colleague, and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Dave Obey.

As many of my colleagues know, the new Mackinaw replaces a World War II-era icebreaker of the same name. For 60 years, she never missed a winter. However, the elements were beginning to take their toll on the ship, and it was becoming clear that a replacement vessel was needed.

Toward that end, Congressman Obey has worked tirelessly to ensure the Coast Guard got the funding it needed for the Great Lakes Ice Breaker replacement project. His involvement with all aspects of the project-- from concept to commissioning--means that the newly christened Mackinaw will continue the legacy of her namesake well into the 21st century.

But the Mackinaw is more than just an ice breaker. It is a homeland security platform complete with the necessary tools to carry out law enforcement operations on the Great Lakes. Additionally, its expanded decks will allow the cutter to tend to the lakes more than 2,500 navigational aids.

Without Congressman Obey's leadership we'd still be waiting to commence construction of the new Mackinaw. In the meantime, the lakes would have continued to freeze-over and access to vital harbors would have been blocked. The result would have been millions of dollars of lost commerce and lost livelihoods. The people of the Great Lakes region and the Nation--as well as the U.S. Coast Guard--are truly the beneficiaries of his stewardship.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I had a revelation during the course of the exchange about capping premiums. What I found particularly fascinating was that my good friend from Georgia, our own Dr. Phil, is an advocate for wage control. In other words, cap those fees as long as, I guess, it is lawyers. Maybe not for CEOs, but at least we know that he is a proponent of wage controls for lawyers.

But when it comes to price control, it seems that the majority has a problem. So you are in favor of capping wages, but not in favor of capping prices, because really that is what it comes down to. I guess it is a new tradition within the Republican Party.

In any event, for all the reasons that others have suggested, I think not only does this qualify as a bad bill because it is not going to accomplish the goal of lowering premiums, but I think, and I would suggest, it is a cruel bill, because this cap on so-called noneconomic damages impacts the most vulnerable among us, mothers who stay at home and particularly children, because they have no economic damages. They do not have such economic damages as the loss of potential earnings. So apart from their medical bills, all of their losses are noneconomic, like a lifelong physical impairment, or maybe a mental disability, or disfigurement. This bill will deny them the possibility of a life that at least has a modicum of respect and dignity in compensation for their loss, a loss which, by the way, they had no involvement in other than being the victim.

Mr. Speaker, as we prepare next month to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II, Americans will again turn their thoughts to those who sacrificed on the battlefield and the home front.

The Greatest Generation of soldiers came from cities and towns all across our Nation. They were ordinary men called to a great crusade. Their mission was nothing short of making the world safe for democracy.

Six decades ago, the soldiers of the 95th Infantry Division slogged their way through German-occupied France--one field, one bridge, one city at a time. They went to Europe, not as part of a conquering army, but as liberators to restore freedom to the land of Lafayette.

Some of the men in the 95th Infantry Division never made it home. They rest in fields once made infamous by the fury of war, and now where peace holds its gentle sway. These men made the ultimate sacrifice for a noble idea. A simple, immutable truth as old as our Republic: That all people, everywhere, have the right to life and liberty.

We're reminded of their sacrifice whenever we see children in a cemetery planting small flags near the headstones of our fallen soldiers; or in the expression of an aging veteran summoning all his strength to stand at respectful attention during the national anthem.

They offered the last full measure of devotion to ensure our liberty for posterity.

However, we are not the only ones who are grateful for their sacrifice. All around the globe, monuments and plaques recount the acts of bravery that secured for an oppressed people freedom from their Nazi occupiers. No where is this more evident--and appreciated--than in the villages of France.

These commemorations have taken on a new significance this year as the world celebrates the 60th Anniversary of V-E Day.

In one particular French town, Metzervisse, the Police Chief, Pascal Moretti, has made it his personal mission to remind succeeding generations about the critical role of American troops in liberating the community. When asked why he was interested in organizing these celebrations, ``Our children must understand the price of liberty,'' Moretti said. ``The blood they shed. What they did for us is wonderful. They gave us the most beautiful gift in the world: freedom.''

Toward this end, he created the Moselle River 1944 Organization to honor the Allied soldiers who liberated the cities and towns that border the East Bank of the Moselle River. Last month, more than 50 veterans returned to Metzervisse. This time instead of being met with a hail of gunfire or the thundering sounds of artillery, they were greeted with bands and a chorus of thank-you.

For his work, Chief Moretti has been recognized with the Freedom Award at the America's Freedom Festival in Provo, Utah. Yet perhaps his greatest reward comes from the satisfaction of knowing that a new generation of French children is learning about a time when it seemed that liberty in their country was about to be eradicated by the Nazi regime, and the world responded to beat back the darkness.

American school children learn that in the 18th century it was Lafayette and the French who helped secure the establishment of the United States. It seems altogether fitting that French school children in the 21st century should learn that the Smiths and Messinas of the United States returned the favor during World War II.

I commend Chief Moretti for his efforts to honor our veterans of World War II and doing his part to sustain the historic bonds of friendship between our two nations.

With preparations underway to commemorate the 60th anniversary of V-E and V-J Day next month at the National World War II Memorial, this admirer of the Greatest Generation, reminds us all that we should take a moment and thank those who served--and are now serving. And we must never forget those 400,000 Americans who gave their lives during the War so that the lamp of liberty would continue to shine.

Mr. Chairman, I want to comment and express my appreciation for the remarks of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) when he suggested that this has been a good process. We have significant disagreements, and they are healthy disagreements, I would add.

But I think he made the point. There is no one, no Democrat and no Republican who wants to reconstruct that metaphorical wall that prevented the sharing of information. I do not know of anyone on either side. And that was the key and the linchpin, I would suggest, of the success of the PATRIOT Act.

Now, some have suggested that there has been no abuse discovered by the Department of Justice, and I will accept that premise. But I would also put forth that the reality of the sunsets were an encouragement on the part of the Department of Justice to ensure full compliance with the law as it was then written. If you will, one could argue that it served as a deterrence,

that it encouraged good behavior; and that is why some of us here on this side of the aisle are so passionate about the issue of sunsets.

It is my understanding that this morning in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, there were a number of sunsets on various provisions that were approved, and they were full-year sunsets. I dare say, if various amendments relative to sunsets had been allowed and made in order, this debate could have been cut in half in terms of the time.

I also want to speak to the issue of library records. My good friend and colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), talked about some using the library provision, if you will, as a red herring. Well, the reality is that library records under section 215 can be gleaned under section 215. Yes, according to the Attorney General, it has never been used, which just leads me to ask the question, well, why do we need it? But, yes, it ought to be a concern.

I would further suggest that in terms of if there is no concern about libraries, if it is a red herring, why does the first amendment that we will consider that was made in order have to do with the issue?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the simple point that the amendment that was offered that was not made in order by myself, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) would not have allowed, under any circumstances, a safe haven anywhere for terrorists. It was a different approach. The standards were higher. I think that is an important point to make as a matter of record.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren). And I also want to address the issue of oversight. And let me be very clear. The chairman has been most aggressive when it comes to oversight, and I want to publicly commend him, not just in terms of the PATRIOT Act, but many other issues that are within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee.

However, this is not about this particular chairman. It is about the responsibility of future members of the

Judiciary Committee to exercise that responsibility. And I have a concern about oversight because, let us be honest, it is not easy dealing with the executive branch. We have all had that experience. We reach conclusions, but we really do not know.

I can remember when the chairman himself discussed issuing a subpoena to bring the former Attorney General, Mr. Ashcroft, before the committee to provide us information on the so-called heavy guidelines. That is what was necessary.

Just recently, I read where the vice chair of the Government Reform Committee, looking into the expenditures of monies involving the development for the Fund of Iraq, expressed frustration with the lack of cooperation coming from the Pentagon.

I have served on an invitation basis under Chairman Dan Burton investigating the misconduct of the FBI in the Boston office, and again, it required the threat of a contempt petition to gain information from the Department of Justice. If we need to go that far then to exercise our oversight constitutional responsibility, it is not an easy job to do. So that is why all of the discussions today about oversight are framed in that context.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I applaud the cosponsors of this particular amendment because it is a significant amendment.

As it was indicated, under the PATRIOT Act the FBI can merely assert at this point in time that records are relevant to an intelligence investigation. That can be just simply about foreign policy objectives. In addition, it added a permanent nondisclosure requirement which, if violated, imposed severe sanctions on the recipient of the so-called national security letter.

This was truly a profound expansion of government power where the subject of the order need not be suspected of any involvement in terrorism whatsoever, where there was no judicial review, where there was no statutory right to challenge, and where the order gags the recipient from telling anyone about it. A Federal District Court in New York has already ruled that the national security letters for communication records, as amended by the PATRIOT Act, are unconstitutional because they are coercive and violate the fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and the first amendment as a result of the gag order.

This amendment, I would submit, attempts to salvage the use of national security letters in intelligence investigations so as to comply with constitutional standards. It gives the recipient of a national security letter his day in court. He can consult a lawyer. A judge can reject or modify the FBI demand upon a finding that compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.

The recipient can also seek to modify or set aside the gag order if the court makes certain findings that it was unnecessary. The amendment goes further to modify the nondisclosure requirement so that the recipients can tell other people with whom they work about the demand so that they can comply with the order.

As I suggested, the current law is of dubious constitutionality, and I would suggest this amendment would permit appropriate use of so- called national security letters that would not only pass constitutional muster but would be sound policy. It also, I believe, strikes a more reasonable balance between privacy and freedom on the one hand and national security on the other with only a negligible burden imposed on the government, and so I urge passage.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, again, this is an amendment. My cosponsors are the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

But, again, let me begin by saying this is not about Cuba. So let us make that very clear. This is about domestic terrorism and the definition of domestic terrorism. And while it does not create a new crime under the PATRIOT Act, the definition triggers an array of expanded governmental authorities, including enhanced civil asset seizure powers. It is so broadly defined that it could include acts of civil disobedience because they may involve acts that endanger human life, one of the elements that goes into the definition of domestic terrorism.

For example, they could implicate anti-abortion protesters who illegally block access to federal clinics, which could be interpreted by a liberal activist Attorney General as endangering the lives of those seeking abortions, or environmental protesters who trespass on private land and climb trees to prevent logging, which could be interpreted by a conservative activist Attorney General as endangering their own lives or the lives of the loggers. Since such actions are usually undertaken to influence government policy, another of the elements that go into the definition of domestic terrorism, such activities could be treated in such a way as to have severe unintended consequences, particularly with regard to the government seizure of property and/or assets.

For example, any property used to facilitate the acts, such as a church basement, or property affording a source of influence over the group, like a bank account of a major donor to a direct action anti- abortion group, could be seized without any criminal conviction and without a prior hearing notice under section 806, which is implicated into the PATRIOT Act.

This amendment curbs those unintended consequences and possibilities and appropriately limits the qualifying offenses for domestic terrorism to those that constitute a Federal, substantive crime of terrorism, instead of any Federal or State crime. It also limits the definition to actions that are actually intended to influence government policy on a civilian population by coercion or intimidation, instead of the current standard that the actions ``appear to be intended'' to have that effect.

I would conclude by reminding my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary that this amendment is drawn from the version of the PATRIOT Act that was unanimously approved by the Committee on the Judiciary in October of 2001, and I urge its passage.

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

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

I thank the chairman for his support, and I thank the gentleman from Arizona in helping draft this particular amendment, and I particularly appreciate the example that he enumerated.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with sending messages about terrorism. It is trying to find out what is happening in the Federal Government today, and we do not know. We have heard a lot today about oversight and accountability. That is what we are trying to do here.

Remember the so-called Total Information Program that was the brainchild of the former National Security Administrator that we funded to the tune of $170 million, and then defunded it? It was too late. We wasted $170 million. That is what this is about. It is providing the tools to the United States Congress to do its constitutional job of oversight.

Mr. Chairman, do you know what? We do not know what is happening. That is the real secret as far as the American people are concerned. We stumble on these things.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would be remiss not to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for his sincere and measured remarks.

But I am here today, Mr. Speaker, to speak of Uzbekistan. President Bush stated that the United States ``will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend . . . that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.'' Certainly noble words.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and I offered an amendment that would have provided real meaning to those noble words, but the Committee on Rules did not make our amendment in order, thereby failing the democratic aspirations of the people of a nation in Central Asia called Uzbekistan.

One of our partners in the Coalition of the Willing is a bully. His name is Islam Karimov, and he is the thug who rules Uzbekistan. According to our own State Department, Karimov runs a regime that does not allow freedom of speech or religion, that makes a mockery of elections, that holds thousands of political prisoners where security forces customarily utilize torture. Some of their victims have literally been boiled alive, and 2 months ago his security forces massacred hundreds of civilians who were simply asking for liberty and justice. Yet we have given this thug some $350 million in aid. Our amendment would have use that leverage to push Karimov to democratize, to respect human rights, and to accept an independent investigation into that massacre. As Bill Kristol said in the Weekly Standard just recently, ``It would be unfortunate if the spring of 2005 went down in the history books as a turning point, in favor of dictators.''

The choice is simple and we have made the wrong choice today. We are standing with a thug rather than standing for democracy, and I urge defeat of the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am joined here this evening by two of my colleagues, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan). In the past, since the commencement of military action in Iraq, four of us came together and created what we called the Iraq Watch, which was an effort to assess the situation in the Middle East with a particular focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, and the global implications for our national security and for the role of the United States in the world.

For some 19 months, we would convene here on the floor and have a dialogue among us. Some of our colleagues are not here this evening, but our regulars include the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the same State that is represented by Mr. Ryan, who is a welcome new addition to the Iraq Watch. So we welcome the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

I would like to begin by just examining the current security situation in Iraq and reporting to my colleagues and to the American people.

Through July 17, 1,764 U.S. soldiers have died, and 13,483 have been wounded in Iraq since the invasion. Now, I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have visited our wounded military personnel in the naval hospital in Bethesda and at Walter Reed. It is, to say the least, a moving, poignant, and profoundly disturbing experience; and I know we share, all of us share the absolute best

wishes for them as they move forward in their lives. We know that they have many hurdles and many obstacles ahead of them, but that same courage and that same heroism that they displayed in the war we know will be with them as they proceed through life.

But it is our obligation here in this Congress, in this House to make sure that they have every single benefit that they deserve and that all of our programs are fully funded. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) serves on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and has been a leader in that regard, and I congratulate him.

Since June 2003, 2,642 Iraqi soldiers and police have died. Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths since the beginning of the invasion range up to 60,800. The New York Times recently cited Iraqi government figures reporting that an average of 500 Iraqis are killed each month by so- called insurgents. Over a 10-month period ending in May, that rate had escalated to some 800 a month.

So those are the statistics. Those are the cold, hard statistics.

Now, I know that my colleague, the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee), has an obligation in about 20 minutes, so I am going to call on him and ask him for his observations to begin our conversation.

I think it is interesting to go back a bit and to remember that the Department of State had worked for months on a plan, a plan that was fleshed out by bringing in experts from outside, by bringing in those with different perspectives. And yet, because there was some suspicion on the part of the Pentagon that State was not enthusiastically in support of the military invasion of Iraq, that that had to be put aside. And now we find ourselves, obviously, in a real mess

I would like to make an interesting observation, because during the debate tomorrow and during the debate today, and during the course of our committee hearings, we constantly hear of a profound concern by this administration and this government about Iran. If you remember, Iran was described as a charter member, if you will, of the Axis of Evil club. And there are legitimate concerns about the development of nuclear weapons by Iran.

And here we are in Iraq, we have already appropriated in excess of $330 billion. That is $330 billion. Estimates range that by the time we have discharged our obligation, which is difficult to quantify, we will be looking at $1 trillion from American taxpayers.

However, while we are expressing this concern about Iran, a story appears in the Washington Post dated Tuesday, July 12, and the headline reads as follows: Iraqi official says Iran will not train troops. But there appears to be some confusion because the Iraq defense minister reached an agreement, a military agreement with Iran the previous week. And he claims it does not include any provision for the Iranian armed forces to help train Iraqi troops. But this was contradicted by his Iranian counterpart.

So here we are, America. We now have a military agreement between Iraq, where we have expended billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the blood of more than 1,700 Americans killed in action, and yet what do we have? We have a military agreement between Iraq and the Republic of Iran. And tomorrow, I can assure you, as we debate the reauthorization legislation in terms of the Department of State, there will be much said about Iran. There will be a pounding of fists and there will be considerable consternation about Iran.

And yet, here we are, it is publicly disclosed, the Iranians and the Iraqis have reached an accord in a military agreement. So maybe that will take care of the training of Iraqi troops so that Americans can learn. The Iranians can attract them.

Of course I yield to my friend from Hawaii and one of the original members of Iraq Watch.

Those numbers are mind boggling. And before I yield to my friend from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), I have a question. And I need someone to at least assist me in trying to understand how Iran, again, and a charter member of the axis of evil, is now a military ally of Iraq. And we are promoting democracy in Iraq.

It also should be noted again, according to this Washington Post story, that while the Minister of Defense in the interim government claims that, no, the Iranians are not going to train troops, but he did acknowledge that Iran has pledged $1 billion in reconstruction aid to the Iraqi government, some of which would be to the defense ministry. Is this Allies in Wonderland? Is up down and down is up? The Iranians and the Iraqis are engaged in a military accord?

This is the kind of information that we tried to bring out during the course of our conversations once a week. We have just begun them again after a hiatus of some 6 months. But that to me is inexplicable because that will give Iran, Iran, that many on the floor tomorrow will say is a potential enemy and something has got to be done. What is happening?

The burden is being carried almost exclusively by the American military and the American taxpayer. And we have been joined by 2 colleagues, our friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), and, again, one of the original members of the Iraq Watch, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

I yield, since he is one of the originals I have to yield first of course, to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and welcome him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

No, the gentleman's remarks are excellent, and, Mr. Speaker, they are on point. The tragic reality is that this is an American war, with some help from the British. This is becoming every day almost an exclusive American venture, both militarily and in terms of the reconstruction phase.

A recent report indicated that Italy is prepared to withdraw its 3,000 troops come this fall. This fall is 2 months away. The coalition of the willing is ``getting out of Dodge.'' That is the tragic reality here. Because they are hearing from the people in their societies who are saying we do not want to participate.

We find ourselves in a real conundrum. And my colleague was absolutely right, in the aftermath of 9/11 every single one of us stood here and voted in favor of going after al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan, along with the Taliban, and we prevailed. But then, then we became distracted and we took resources from Afghanistan. What is happening in Afghanistan? It has become a narco state. President Karzai has a terrible situation on his hands.

And I know we all remember here that the day after 9/11 the entire world was with us. The French, their leading newspaper Le Monde, summed it up when it said ``Today We Are All Americans.'' We had that good will. And now? And now what do we see because of these policies? Well, I will tell you what we see. According to the independent nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, and the American people should know that that is an arm of the U.S. Congress, this is what they had to say just this past April:

``Recent polling data show that anti-Americanism is spreading and deepening around the world. Such anti-American sentiments can increase foreign public support for terrorism directed against Americans. It impacts the cost and effectiveness of military operations, thereby escalating the cost of supporting our troops in the multiple venues that they presently patrol, and it weakens the United States' ability to align with other nations in pursuit of common policy objectives and dampen foreign publics' enthusiasm for U.S. business services and products.''

This has huge implications for the American people. It is absolutely stunning to see some of this polling that has currently become available. When posed this question, ``Please tell me if you think each of the following are having a mainly positive or mainly negative influence in the world,'' and they single out the United States, in Great Britain, our most staunch ally, 44 percent say it is mainly positive, with fifty percent saying it is mostly negative. That is Great Britain.

In Australia, 40 percent say it is mostly positive and 52 percent say American influence in the world today is mostly negative. Our neighbors to the north, in Canada, 34 percent say American influence in terms of the international order is mostly positive, 34 percent, and 60 percent say it is mostly negative. Germany, 27 percent positive, 64 percent negative. Japan, 24 percent positive, 31 percent negative. Mexico, our neighbors to the south, 11 percent mostly positive in terms of American influence in the international community, and 57 percent mostly negative.

I could go on and on and on.

And hopefully that will also staunch that rising virulent, anti-Americanism that does such harm to our national security, that breeds terrorists and directs their anger toward the United States.

We saw what happened in London. Again, we hear from those in the Islamic world that by virtue of what we are doing in our policy, why we speak of democracy and our rhetoric is comprised of the most noble of word, we are not seen that way because our actions belie them.

If I may go to that issue of anti-Americanism once more, it was interesting during the course of the debate today on the reauthorization of the Department of State when during consideration of the rule an amendment put forth by myself and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) was not made in order because I would suggest that the seeds of that anti-Americanism is a perception that the United States operates on two different standards, and that is interpreted by many in this world to be rank hypocrisy.

It was the President that said during his inaugural address that the United States ``will persistently clarify the choice for every ruler and every Nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom which is eternally right. America will not pretend that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. We will encourage reform in other governments by making it clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.''

Noble words, a noble cause, and we all of course embrace that. Yet when we put forth this amendment which would have admonished and required a certification by the President that the thug, the bully, if you will, that rules Uzbekistan would change his ways, it was not made in order. One of our partners in this coalition of the willing is the thug, and I will take a moment here and put his picture up so Members and the viewing audience can see. This is Islam Karimov. This victim here was boiled alive in water, scalding water. This is a member of the coalition of the willing.

According to our own State Department, Karimov heads a regime that does not allow freedom of speech or religion, that makes a mockery of elections, that holds thousands of political prisoners, and where security forces routinely use torture. This is the product of the thug Karimov's security forces utilization of torture, torture that goes back to the medieval times.

And then 2 months ago his troops massacred hundreds of civilians who were simply protesting for justice and for liberty. And yet we continue to give him military assistance, some $400 million to date. The amendment that was offered by myself and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) would have terminated that aid unless Karimov changed his behavior.

Exactly.

Mr. Speaker, just think of the message that this sends to the rest of the world. When crowds were demonstrating in the Ukraine, we were cheering. We approved. We welcomed the so-called Orange Revolution. And we speak about bringing the fire of freedom to dark corners of the world, and yet here is one dark corner of the world where there is no light, there is no hope, and we do not bring the fire of freedom. And we wonder why polling data indicates that country after country, our traditional allies, look at us as having a mainly negative influence in the world, all because of the war in Iraq. That was the genesis.

Mr. Speaker, it will have implications for us.

Mr. Chairman, for my district--coastal Massachusetts-- our waterways are as important as our roadways. They are a vital part of the Nation's transportation infrastructure.

It is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers to help keep our harbors, rivers and other channels in navigable condition. Out of the blue, the rules have been changed to dramatically favor larger, commercial waterways. This constitutes complete abandonment of Federal responsibility and quite simply, is an assault on smaller communities all over the country, putting lives and livelihoods at risk.

The rationale for these changes is that financial constraints require us to abruptly change Army Corps' priorities to favor projects with ``true value to the Nation.'' This sounds good--but is dangerously misleading. The changed formula focuses only on commercial tonnage and mileage, so smaller projects do not have a chance--even though they are critical to the economy and public safety.

When waterways close due to sediment build-up, the commercial fishing industry suffers. Tourism is compromised. And our transport stops-- sometimes dead in the water. The Coast Guard can't undertake ``search and rescue'' because they can't move--literally.

Just as a deteriorating highway or bridge needs repair, our waterways need maintenance. If the traffic through a harbor requires an eight- foot draft and sediment builds up, leaving only five feet available, vessels cannot pass. It is larger, commercial vessels like tankers, fishing boats and barges that face the greatest difficulty and are most likely to run aground.

Entire portions of our local economy are organized around the sea and the easy transport of people and products in and out of our harbors. When you consider our island communities--such as Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket--the waterways carry all the necessities for local citizens, everything from food and water to lumber and heating oil.

In Chatham Harbor, which hosts the largest fleet of commercial fishing vessels in my district, we face a constant problem with shoaling. It is a 900-foot channel and when it is not clear, millions of dollars are at risk. For the first time in many years, the FY06 budget does not include dredging for Chatham because it does not meet these new criteria.

Then there's Green Harbor in Marshfield, the second highest lobster catch harbor in New England. Green Harbor would be shut down next year, costing millions of lost dollars in lobster catch alone, and untold tourist and other fisheries revenue.

In Woods Hole, we have a major Coast Guard station which launches many cutter search-and-rescue missions a year. Without regular dredging, that emergency equipment is land-bound. Tell that to the family of a fishing boat crew that can't reach shore. In that same harbor, the Federal government has invested millions in a state-of-the- art NOAA research vessel. It currently cannot dock at its home station, the world-renowned Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, because the harbor is clogged with sediment.

For coastal communities, waterways are the arteries. Dredging is vital for the lifeblood of commerce to flow through these arteries for the economic health and safety of our coastal communities.

Mr. Speaker, on June 8, 2005, I inadvertently voted in the negative on rollcall 233 on H.R. 2744. It was my intention to be recorded as ``yes'' on this measure and I offer this clarification for the Record.

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

I would direct the gentleman, the chairman, for whom I have profound respect, to an editorial that appeared today in The Weekly Standard, which indicates that President Karzai of Afghanistan is more than willing to provide the bases necessary that the gentleman alludes to for the global war on terror, and I dare say I would much prefer to do business with President Karzai than with this gentleman here who is Islam Karimov.

He is the dictator who runs Uzbekistan, which is a Nation of some 25 million in central Asia, about the size of California. He is a murderer and he is a thug. He holds in his gulag some 6,000 political prisoners. He will not allow opposition parties, making any

elections a farce. He restricts freedom of religion. There is no free press, and as my friend from Texas indicated, he recently ordered the slaughter of hundreds of innocent civilians who were protesting the systemic abuse of fundamental human rights, but maybe they were lucky. At least they were not boiled alive in water.

This thug has created a culture of torture, and it has been reported in media outlets that the CIA has sent recalcitrant individuals there under the so-called rendition concept, to torture them and to provide intelligence in the war on terrorism.

Now we know that Saddam has been alluded to as the butcher of Baghdad. I would suggest that Islam Karimov can appropriately be described as the tyrant of Tashkent.

As the gentleman from Texas said, we have a problem. Karimov is a thug, but he is our thug. This photo to my right depicts him with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who has praised the thug's wonderful cooperation with the United States, and it was President Bush's former Secretary of the Treasury who expressed admiration of the thug's, and I am quoting here, ``very keen intellect and deep passion for improving the lives of his people.'' I presume he did not read the Department of State's human rights reports enumerating the abuses that the people of Uzbekistan endure on a regular basis.

In his inaugural address, President Bush promised oppressed people that we would not excuse your oppressors, and when you stand for liberty, we will stand with you, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corner of this world.

Well, I would suggest that now is the time to go to that dark corner of the world called Uzbekistan and say enough. We can begin by cutting off aid, both military and economic, to this thug. We should begin to walk the democratic walk and not just indulge in the democratic rhetoric because in the end, it is in our best interest as well as the people of Uzbekistan.

A recent GAO report said, ``Recent polling data show that anti- Americanism is spreading and deepening around the world. Such anti- American sentiments can increase foreign public support for terrorism directed against Americans, impact the cost and effectiveness of military operations, weakening the United States' ability to align with other nations in pursuit of common policy objectives, and dampen foreign publics' enthusiasm for U.S. business services and products.''

Given how we are supporting this particular thug, is it any wonder that we are being charged with hypocrisy and that people doubt the President's words. This perceived hypocrisy hurts us. It undermines our credibility. And as de Tocqueville said, America is great because America is good and if America ever ceases to be good and not express its values, then we lose our greatness.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to my colleagues that in the 1980s we dealt with a thug by the name of Saddam Hussein because we believed we had common mutual interests, particularly during the course of the war between Iraq and Iran.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, we allied ourselves with Osama bin Laden against the Soviets, and what did we get for it. Let us be careful.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary Flotilla 11-08 D1NR for their distinguished service at Air Station Cape Cod. As a

former member of the Coast Guard Reserve, and as Co-Chair of the Congressional Coast Guard Caucus, I know full well the vital role that Auxillarists carry out. They are an integral and valued part of the Coast Guard family.

I commend to my colleagues the following article from The Navigator, which showcases the dedicated efforts of Auxillarists like the men at Air Station Cape Cod.

[From the Navigator, Spring 2005]

Valued Service

Cape Cod.--Members of Auxiliary Flotilla 11-08 D1NR just

surpassed the one year milestone in their volunteer service

to Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod.

A dedicated team of seven Auxilarists has been providing an

extremely valuable service in the Aviation Engineering

Department of Air Station Cape Cod since November 2003.

By performing administrative tasks, which require

meticulous attention to detail and frequent repetition, they

freed up over 300 work hours that would have otherwise been a

burden on the over tasked active duty workforce.

Aircraft maintenance technicians, who also serve as flight

crewmembers, are frequently task-saturated with flying duties

related to search and rescue, law enforcement, and Homeland

Security missions.

When they are not flying, the active duty workforce is

fully employed with HU-25 and HH-60 maintenance

responsibilities. The regular presence of trained volunteers

to assume critically important administrative functions has

had an extremely positive effect on aircraft and crew

readiness postures.

Working together in cohesive teams, Auxiliary volunteers

dedicate as much as 15 hours per week to administrative tasks

related to aircraft maintenance.

One of the first and most successful projects this team

took on was the monthly audit of the aircraft maintenance

logbooks for the eight aircraft assigned to Air Station Cape

Cod.

Working teams of two, these Auxiliarists compared the

computer printed configuration reports of all installed

components to the detailed component history reports.

Ensuring that the lists of installed components matched the

component history reports was an arduous task requiring great

attention to detail.

An accurately performed logbook audit required that each

component be cross checked for the proper serial number and

part number against two computer generated reports for all

major airframe and engine instillations. With over 240 such

components per aircraft, this monthly review normally

consumes eight to ten man hours per month.

Another vital maintenance support role that the Auxiliary

recently performed was a comprehensive audit of the technical

publications library.

Semi-annual audits of the technical publications library

are required to ensure that vital technical publications are

updated with the latest revisions. Not only did the dedicated

Auxiliary team complete the audit, they also performed

several page changes to aircraft technical manuals that are

used by technicians on a regular basis.

The Auxiliary team drew from their diverse work experience

to develop processes that increased the efficiency of each

hour dedicated to administrative actions. In the classic

case of working smarter to avoid the need to work harder,

they created a photographic archive of all tools requiring

calibration and cataloged them in an easy to use binder.

This made tracking tool locations and calibration

intervals much easier.

With aircraft tools and avionics test sets distributed

among five different shops and two separate hangars, the

Auxiliary team had a daunting task ahead of them.

Fortunately, their previous work experience lent itself

well to the arduous task and they made great progress. One of

their first initiatives was to catalog each tool according to

its location and function in a binder complete with digital

photographs which they took themselves. This greatly eased

the burden of sorting through the Precision Measurement

Equipment Lab (PMEL) report which lists the items that were

due for calibration.

By relieving active duty members of certain administrative

functions, the Auxiliary team has significantly enhanced

productivity and morale. Auxiliary members committed over 400

hours in direct support of aviation maintenance activities.

Representing a significant departure from the traditional

uses of Auxiliary members at air stations, the innovative

management practices of this Auxiliary team made it possible

for active duty members to be relieved of support roles and

assigned to maintenance or flight related tasks.

This was only possible because the highly talented

Auxiliary team gained the skill and ability to act

autonomously within the scope of their responsibilities after

receiving initial training and guidance from active duty

members.

The Auxiliary members also represent a degree of continuity

that, as a result of frequent job rotations within the

enlisted workforce, has historically resulted in frequent

learning curves. Realizing the impact of their commitment,

technicians on the hangar deck accept the Auxiliary members

as part of the team that makes Air Station Cape Cod one of

the best units in the Coast Guard.

Mr. Speaker, on June 8, 2005, I inadvertently voted in the affirmative on rollcall No. 234 on H.R. 2744. It was my intention to be recorded as ``no'' on this measure and I offer this clarification for the Record.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that the former Speaker of this institution Mr. Gingrich considers that this is a moment where reform is attainable without the necessity of mandatory, automatic withholding of United Nations dues.

Let me read an excerpt from a press conference that the former Speaker held back on April 15 of this year: ``I know of no occasion where there has been as wide an agreement that the U.N. has to be reformed. I know of no occasion where we have had a Secretary General as open and direct as Kofi Annan has been the last 2 months about the need for reform. And I think the very reason that Senator Mitchell and I were willing to chair this particular project is our belief that this could be a remarkable moment to get some significant things done that will give the world a more transparent, a more accountable and a more effective United Nations.''

Mr. Chairman, I think what is particularly important about the Gingrich-Mitchell task force report is that it does not recommend the automatic withholding of dues. Presumably they agree with those eight former United States Ambassadors to the United Nations, individuals like Jeane Kirkpatrick, who is an icon to many who are of the politically conservative persuasion. And this is what those eight former U.S. Ambassadors had to say, that the base bill would ``create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform.''

Do we just simply want to ignore their warnings? Do we want to proceed in a manner that is going to defeat what is clearly a consensus in this institution about the need for reform? This is being practical. This is about an effort to secure a more effective, more transparent organization.

The stars are aligned, I would suggest. Yes, as Speaker Gingrich says, this is a propitious moment for reform, and we, I would suggest, could very well derail that effort.

I would like to just make a brief observation about the Oil-for-Food program, and I see my friend, the Chair of my subcommittee, here. Let me suggest that the base bill, and even the substitute for that matter, does not address, if you will, a fundamental problem that very well may be inherent in the institution, because, as I have said over and over and over again, we can reform the Secretariat. I do not think that is a difficult chore. But we ignore the fact that it was the Security Council, the Security Council itself.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,

Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the observation of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and comment regarding the former Speaker in terms of the issue of withholding. It was yesterday that Mr. Gingrich said, and I am quoting again from reports of his statement, ``Withholding should not be our first resort, but should remain as our last resort.'' I would submit that this is precisely the logic that is put forth in the Lantos substitute.

One further comment, and I am not going to speak of the Stockholm Syndrome, but with all due respect to my dear friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), his amendment is dangerous because he very well might be jeopardizing investigations, criminal investigations that are ongoing now, because we know what happens when this institution receives information. It appears in the press.

Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic that the Volcker action is supported by a former Attorney General of the United States, Dick Thornburgh, in a very thoughtful op ed piece, because he understands what investigations are about.

I would describe the amendment put forth by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) as the tip-off amendment. Give the information so that in the course of an investigation, those who might be targets or subjects of an investigation know what you have and can anticipate the questions.

I would also comment, and I have never met Mr. Volcker, but I have read the reports to date. They have been extremely harsh and critical and underline the need for reform.

At the same time, a comment was made, and I think it has to be addressed. Everyone involved in the independent inquiry under the leadership of Mr. Volcker and the jurists from South Africa is not a United Nations employee. In fact, many of them are former career Federal prosecutors from our own Department of Justice. I had an opportunity to discuss this matter with them. They understand how to conduct an investigation. Let them conclude their investigation, and then I am sure they would be happy to disseminate any documents they might have.