Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on July 12, I was returning to Washington from the NAACP Annual Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and, therefore, missed four recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote number 359, ``yes'' on recorded vote number 360, ``no'' on recorded vote number 361, and ``yes'' on recorded vote number 362.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan legislation, the Project BioShield Act. The anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001 brought the once distant threat of biological weapons into these very buildings. It is not a question of if, but when terrorists will strike again. Project BioShield marks an important step toward preparedness to deter or defeat the next terrorist attack using deadly pathogens.

I am particularly pleased that the legislation clarified some ambiguity that I had raised during the bill's initial consideration regarding safeguards for the application of medical products during emergencies for military personnel. Initially, the legislation appeared to allow the President or Secretary of HHS to remove safeguards for military personnel that were available to the general population. This legislation addressed those concerns.

This legislation will provide $5.6 billion over 10 years to develop and procure effective countermeasures against biological, chemical and radiological weapons. To counter the grave and changing threat, the bill gives the Secretary of HHS new, flexible authorities to conduct and support research and development for new vaccines and drugs. Most importantly, Project BioShield removes barriers and provides important incentives to the private sector to spur the advance of biotechnologies. If used aggressively and wisely, the authorities in this legislation will result in significantly strengthened defenses against bioterrorism.

Two words of caution: First, implementation of BioShield must be linked to the threat. Vaccines and antidotes against exotic agents may present easier, near-term opportunities for quick successes. But the Center for Disease Control and the intelligence community maintain a threat list of pathogens, and that list should focus and guide BioShield investments. Botulinum toxin ranks right behind anthrax as a known biological threat. But testimony before the Select Committee on Homeland Security concluded development of botulinum anti-toxin stocks could take up to 10 years. If Project BioShield is going to provide anything more than a symbolic barrier against biological attack, that estimate has to change.

And, the success of BioShield also depends upon broader bio- preparedness priorities. The Government Reform National Security Subcommittee, which I chair, has held several hearings on bioterrorism preparedness. We learned that massive caches of stockpiled vaccines, antibiotics and drugs will protect no one if they cannot be administered quickly and safely. Public health capacity is a critical enabler to BioShield success. Surveillance systems, diagnostic tools and trained medical personnel are prerequisites to any effective defense against natural and man-made biological outbreaks.

Terrorism thrives on uncertainty. We cannot expect to vaccinate everyone against every possible pathogen. Instead, we need a well- equipped, well-trained public health system that can rapidly respond to health emergencies.

Mr. Speaker, Project Bioshield is a much needed initiative, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support for this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4012, which helps level the playing field for the students of D.C. by permanently expanding opportunities for affordable higher education at colleges and universities across the nation.

Too many children in our Nation's Capital are not getting the higher education they need and deserve, and this program gives many the opportunity to go to college.

D.C. residents do not have access to a network of in-state universities like residents of States. The D.C. College Access Program provides D.C. high school graduates access to colleges and universities throughout the country at in-State tuition rates.

The program has been a tremendous success since it was implemented in 1999. The number of D.C. high school graduates continuing on to college increased from 1,750 in 1998 to 2,230 in 2002. That's a 28 percent increase since the program was created.

It also provides an incentive to families to stay in the District. Before the program existed, families would often move to Virginia or Maryland to take advantage of in-State tuition rates for their children. This was a drain on the District's economy, exacerbating the District's dependence on the federal government.

By encouraging families to stay in D.C., we are helping to stabilize the District's tax base and reduce the local jurisdiction's financial dependence on the Federal Government.

The D.C. College Access Program is clearly having a positive impact on the educational opportunities available to D.C. high school students, and it is clear that students are becoming more aware of and choosing to take advantage of these opportunities.

Because of the program's tremendous success, and the support it gives to the youth in our Nation's Capital, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Maloney amendment to H.R. 4766.

If the FDA finds a drug to be safe and effective for over-the-counter use, it should not go on to withhold the drug from over-the-counter use for any other reason. Not for political reasons. Not for ideological reasons.

This amendment states that once a determination of safety and effectiveness is made, the FDA can't deny a product's approval for over-the-counter status for reasons other than safety and effectiveness.

On May 6, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, turned down Barr Laboratories' application for Plan B emergency contraception to be distributed over the counter.

I was disappointed the FDA went against the advice of the FDA's own expert panel, which in December recommended unrestricted over-the- counter access by a vote of 23 to 4.

A drug is considered acceptable for over-the-counter status if it has low-toxicity, has no potential for overdose or addiction, isn't harmful to an existing pregnancy, does not require medical screening, is self- identifiable, has a uniform dosage and if there are no important drug interactions. Emergency Contraception, EC, was found to meet every single criterion.

That is why, along with 40 of my colleagues, including the gentlelady from New York, I sent a letter to the Acting Commissioner of the FDA, Dr. Lester Crawford, asking him to reconsider the determination on the status of the application to make Emergency Contraception available over the counter.

We have not yet received a response.

The FDA should only make decisions based on science, not politics and ideology. The decision was made despite the significant need for access to emergency contraception.

The fact is, our children are having children. Approximately 82 percent of teen pregnancies are unintended and more than half of these end in abortion.

Expanded access to emergency contraception will decrease the risk of unintended pregnancy and decrease the number of abortions.

I would like to see abortion remain safe and legal, yet rare, which is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would just introduce our remarks by saying I do not think I have done a special order this entire session, but I am doing one tonight because I feel very strongly about an issue, and that is the Oil-for-Food Program. And my subcommittee is working, as is the Committee on International Relations, on the whole issue of oil for food and the outrageous rip- off, probably the biggest rip-off in the history of rip-offs, the $10 billion plus events over the course of many years that Saddam was involved in.

At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for whatever time he would like to consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for a wonderful introduction and outline of the problem.

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a new member to Congress and one who is very active in this issue.

I thank the gentleman very much. I want to say before yielding to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), who has been very active on our committee's investigation, the National Security Committee's investigation, that one of the intriguing things about the whole Oil-for-Food program was that while people knew it was a problem, it did not really catch the attention of the international community until a paper, Al Mada, printed the names of 270 people alleged to be involved in this program.

I smiled because this was an Iraqi newspaper, not an American newspaper, not a European newspaper, and they got their information from a government leak within the Iraqi Governing Council. As I think of Iraq emerging into democracy, I smile a bit thinking that this was one of the first attempts I think of this new Iraqi community to start to enjoy the incredible protection of a free press and a press that has the capability to print what needs to be said.

So they printed the names of 270 individuals. They included Kofi Annan's son. They included Benon Sevan, who ran this program, run by the United Nations, to make sure it was free of any corruption.

I think my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), would agree it is kind of hard to imagine how a program that basically was run in essence by Saddam Hussein but overseen by the U.N. would be a program that would be run well.

Saddam Hussein decided that he did not want to deal in U.S. dollars. So he decided that it would be in euros. So that is what it was. He decided who would buy and who would sell his products. He decided to undersell oil and get a kickback and overpay for commodities and get a kickback.

In the end, we estimate that approximately $5.7 billion was smuggled out of the country through Jordan, through Turkey and primarily through Syria, and that 4.4 were oil surcharges and kickbacks and so-called humanitarian purchases and kickbacks.

There is no innocent explanation for how this could happen, and there is no question that people in the U.N. knew what was happening, and I think we can say, as I recognize now the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), that there is no doubt that the Security Council knew, including the Americans, the Russians, the French, the British, the Chinese, or most people knew that this program was really not working properly, but it took a small paper, Al Mada, printed in Baghdad, to awaken the world to this horrendous scandal.

At this time, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), for any comments he would like to make.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), who is on the Committee on International Relations, we heard from the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) of the Committee on International Relations and also the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) on the Committee on International Relations. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) as well.

That committee, the full committee, is conducting its investigation of the Oil-for-Food Program. Our Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations of the Committee on Government Reform is doing that same investigation. We are working together. We

are comparing notes. We are trying not to be duplicative but trying to make sure that we are able to pierce the veil of what is truly the most outrageous scandal, certainly world scandal, that anyone to date has ever uncovered.

This again is a $5.7 billion smuggling ring and a 4.4 oil surcharge and kickbacks on the sale of oil and the purchase of commodities that were overpaid for and then kickbacks were provided to Saddam.

What is really outrageous about this whole horrific exercise is that the U.N. was in charge to guarantee that it would be run properly, the U.N. comprised of member States like France and Germany and Russia and China, as well as the United States and Great Britain. At times, the United States and Great Britain voiced concern about this program, but the program continued, and it was not until, again, an Iraqi newspaper, Al Mada, really outed 270 people that the world started to think that they needed to pay attention to this issue.

Besides talking about the incredible rip-off, the U.N. was making legitimate dollars, billions of dollars running the program, and we understand why there was a reluctance to no longer have that opportunity. Then what we began to realize is people in the U.N. and member states were making billions of dollars in illegal activities.

It is hard pressed to know why particularly the Russians and the French were so involved in this program, but when you recognize how involved they were, it does give you some indication of their reluctance to want to confront Saddam since he knew so well their involvement in these illegal schemes, and it does suggest, I think, a very real motive for why France in particular and Russia and China were so reluctant to see this dictator's regime end.

If the French had stuck with us, as they had in December through January, instead of being the apologist for Saddam but had stuck with us, it is unlikely we would ever have had to go in because it is very likely and it is very clear Saddam knew we believed we were not going to come in and remove him because the French and the Russians and the Chinese were not with us.

That gave him the confidence to think he could continually stonewall us.

So besides the incredible rip-offs that have been mentioned by the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and others, there is the whole issue of why there was not greater cooperation to force Saddam to do what was required in the 1991 signing of the cease-fire: Fully cooperate with the U.N. and demonstrate and prove that his programs of weapons of mass destruction had ended.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), and thank him for his work in this important investigation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his generous words, but also for his caring about the U.N. I think it is so important to reemphasize the fact that we want a better U.N., and it is absolutely essential that the U.N. do what it can in every way to cooperate. There will then be a redemption, and the U.N. will have greater impact and greater moral authority in the future. Failing to do that, I think the opposite is true.

I thank my colleague for being here, and at this time I wish to reengage my colleague from California in regards to the Oil-for-Food program.

Mr. Speaker, our staff has been through some of the minutes of the U.N. 661 committee of the Security Council members responsible for the sanction monitoring and oversight of the Oil-for- Food program. Those minutes have told our staff a story of diplomatic obfuscation and an obvious purposeful unwillingness to acknowledge the program was being corrupted. Questions about oil or commodity contracts were dismissed as dubious media rumors beneath the dignity of the U.N. to answer while Saddam was given the undeserved benefit of every doubt. That is what is really striking about this whole program.

Bottom line. After the war in the gulf, after we got Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and I would say parenthetically, somehow he never thought we would seek to get him out of Kuwait, he had an obligation. His obligation was to cooperate with U.N. inspectors in terms of chemical, biological and nuclear program. He simply chose not

to. So the sanctions were put in place until he cooperated. The problem was Iraqis were starving and they were not getting their health care. What was obvious to us is Saddam did not care that his own people were dying. He was simply not going to cooperate. In a sense he kind of pushed the world community into doing its best to make sure that Iraqis did not starve and they got some medicine by saying that there would be this Oil-for-Food program that he basically would run with the supervision of the U.N. As has been pointed out, Saddam got to basically choose who could buy from him and he got to choose who he would buy from. He would undersell his oil and then get a kickback because there was so much money to be made in his undervaluing of oil by the parties that could give him a kickback. He would overbuy for commodities as the gentleman from California points out, commodities that were not even necessary, not related to Oil-for-Food. But he did more than that. In some cases he would buy so-called foodstuffs but they were animal stuffs, so they paid far more than would be logical for something that was for animals. In some cases he would purchase things that were never delivered.

One of the things that we are obviously aware of is the U.N. investigation by Mr. Volcker, and I believe he is going to put his heart and soul and is putting his heart and soul in this, he is only looking at the oil surcharges and kickbacks and the humanitarian purchases and only somewhat looking at the $5.7 billion involved in the smuggling of oil through Syria, Turkey and Jordan.

The problem that we have is the following, and I would love to say this in a more lengthy way by first saying that I have been to Iraq five times since the end of the removal of Saddam. I was there a year ago April, in August, December, January, again in April, four times outside the umbrella of the military. I spoke with everyday Iraqis, literally hundreds of them. I went to an Iraqi wedding of over 400 men in attendance. I had a hard time finding the bride at that wedding. I went and met with religious leaders, community leaders, teachers, businessmen and some businesswomen. I met with the poorest of the poor in their homes. Almost every Iraqi told me thank you for ridding us of Saddam and in the same breath they would say, and when are you leaving? It was said with a smile and it was said with this eagerness. They wanted us to go as quickly as possible. They had some criticisms of us and I think it is important to note, because the Oil-for-Food program relates to what we are talking about in Iraq. They were suspicious of us because we were the government. No hard feelings but they never had a government they could trust. Why would they trust us? They blamed us for telling them to rebel against Saddam but we left in place the Republican Guard that annihilated so many of their family members. They blamed us for the sanctions and the program of Oil-for-Food because they basically acknowledged the fact that their world was different after the Gulf War. They could not have commerce with other nations, at least legally. They could only get their food and their medicine from Saddam and he gave it out to the peoples he wanted to give it out to. So many people suffered not just in the early stages before the Oil- for-Food but continually. The Iraqi people were questioning why we broke apart the government and said to the Baathists they could not participate because many of the Iraqis I spoke to had family members that said, how else did you survive in Saddam's world in Iraq unless you could be part of the government, the police or the army? We disbanded all of them.

Mostly they wanted this to be an Iraqi revolution. I say that because I take tremendous satisfaction that this fledgling nation no longer having Saddam, they were the ones that forced the world community to address this issue. They are the ones that forced Kofi Annan to convince the Russians to allow for this investigation. They are the ones that have resulted in Mr. Volcker being hired with a budget and with personnel to do the jobs. The Iraqi people are demanding what happened to $10.1 billion of their money. It is a good question for us as well, because we have put in far more than that. If they had $10.1 billion right now, that would be $10.1 billion we would not have to put into this country.

I am more than grateful that we have moved towards sovereignty for Iraq and I am hoping that when my subcommittee goes into Iraq this August and when we interact with this new Iraqi government that we will get their continued cooperation in helping us pull away the veil of this unbelievably obscene corruption that was managed by Saddam but basically protected and facilitated by the United Nations and many of its member states, particularly some of the biggest apologists for Saddam, particularly some of those that were most vociferous against our forcing Saddam to cooperate and against our removal of this hideous regime, a regime where hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives and can be found in killing fields all throughout Iraq. When you see an Iraqi clutching the clothes and bones of a loved one whom they can identify by the clothes and by the identifications in their pockets, you have to understand beyond a shadow of a doubt what a noble effort this has been on the part of the United States to have freed them from this regime and how important now it is for the United States to do whatever it can to facilitate this investigation.

I yield to my colleague for any remarks that he would like to make.

Mr. Speaker, with the 2 minutes or so I have left, I would just like to summarize. From its inception in 1996, the United Nations Oil-for-Food program was susceptible to political manipulation and financial corruption. Trusting Saddam Hussein to exercise

sovereign control over billions of dollars of oil sales and commodity purchases invited illicit premiums and kickback schemes now coming to light. But there is still much that is not known about the details for the Oil-for-Food transactions and that is why our committee and other committees of Congress are investigating.

This much we know, something went wrong. Saddam Hussein's regime reaped an estimated $10.1 billion from this program, $5.7 in smuggling oil and $4.4 in oil surcharges and kickbacks on humanitarian purchases through the Oil-for-Food program. There was just simply no innocent explanation for this. We want the State Department and the intelligence community and the U.N. to know there has to be a full accounting of all Oil-for-Food transactions even if that unaccustomed degree of transparency embarrasses some members of the Security Council. I appreciate Kofi Annan's call to me to tell me that he wanted to restore faith in the ability of the U.N. to do its job and subsequent appointment of Paul Volcker to lead an independent panel.

But we know Mr. Volker has to depend on the goodwill of the U.N., and we do not have the kind of faith where we believe that some in the U.N. will cooperate, since they were so clearly involved in these illegal acts. But we also need to know more than just what happened at the U.N. We also need to know what happened at the U.S. mission, we need to know what our intelligence community knew and now knows. We need their cooperation as well.

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

I have 70 constituents who lost their rights on September 11; and to hear this debate, I am not sure we seem to care about that. Something told me on September 11 that we had received a wake-up call from hell, and that wake-up call from hell indicated we have to detect and prevent, because the old Cold War philosophy of contain and react and mutually assured destruction went out the window.

On an appropriations bill, we are trying to amend the PATRIOT Act because some librarians find it offensive that we may want to go in and find out who a terrorist talks with when they use a computer, and we are going to have another amendment that basically says we need to tell them first that we think they are a terrorist.

If we are going to detect and prevent, we have to break into these cells, and the only alternative left if we see this amendment pass is that we would then have to go before a grand jury and state our case, without probable cause, I might add, but state our case when we are talking about significant national security issues. We may be talking about a chemical weapon, a nuclear weapon. We may be talking about a biological agent. We may be talking about breaking into a cell to prevent that, and yet we are going to be told now we need to go before a grand jury to do the same things we can do in ordinary criminal cases.

I am amazed beyond comprehension at the lack of recognition that it is not a question of if; it is a question of when, where, and what magnitude we are going to have to face these kinds of attacks.

And I know what is going to happen when these attacks happen. There will be Members coming back to the floor saying how come the CIA did not know? How come our intelligence community did not know? Why did they fail us again? And we are going to tie their hands behind their backs anyway and say we have to let a terrorist know first before we break into a terrorist cell.

The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) can throw his hands any way he wants, but the bottom line is we are at war with terrorists and we want to break into those cells and detect what is going on; and we sure as hell do not want to tell them we're coming.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think we are swallowing camels and straining out gnats. We talked about the fact that you need probable cause under the PATRIOT Act. You do not need it under existing law. You can go to a grand jury under existing law and get this information, right now.

I would submit that we are not thinking straight. We are at war with terrorists. We need to respond to what we most fear: A chemical, biological, or nuclear attack. Or even a conventional weapon used in a pretty horrific way, with dirty weapons, dirty nuclear material. That is a fact. I am not inventing something. I have had 50 hearings on this.

The bottom line is, you remove this from the PATRIOT Act, and they can still do all the bad things they want. Under the PATRIOT Act, you have to go to the Justice Department, you have to go to FISA, and then you have to get a court order. I would submit it is a safer way.

The advantage is you do not have to tell a whole lot of people you are doing it. You get the records of what they are reading, what they are talking about, and then know whether we need to act more strongly.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I will place my full statement in the Record and just make a few other points.

First off, this is a huge scandal. I do not know any scandal that comes close to it. We are talking about a $5.7 billion smuggling of oil, a $4.4 billion underselling of oil and getting kickbacks, and overbuying for commodities and getting kickbacks. We are talking about the outing of U.N. and government officials around the world by, ironically, an Iraqi free press, exposed by a government leak of the Iraqi Governing Council.

This is huge. And I submit to my colleagues that the French and the Russians and the Chinese and U.N. officials never thought it would be known, because they knew they had their records and they would keep them. They would never share them with anyone, and we certainly would not get the records from Iraq because we would never attack Iraq and never free the Iraqi people. I guess that is what people thought.

The problem with this amendment is it is misguided, in the sense that we need the cooperation of the U.N. right now. If we do not get it, and if the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is still here, we should pursue that. But when he asks is anyone concerned, I know the ranking member is concerned. I clearly know the chairman is because he came to me and told me that in conversations with Mr. Volcker he promised him that we would provide all the cooperation and provide him the best resources available. So I appreciate what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has done.

Are we concerned? Absolutely. We have the Committee on Government Reform and my Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, conducting investigations. We have staff dedicated to looking at this. I think we have the Committee on Agriculture looking at this. We have the Committee on International Relations looking at this. We will get to the bottom of the corrupt Oil-For-Food Program with or without U.N. support.

When we do, I do think people will be going to jail. I think it will be extraordinarily embarrassing for some governments. I think it might explain somehow why the French act like the French, and why the Chinese and the Russians were reluctant to confront the Saddam regime. I think it is going to tell us a lot of things about corrupt people, corrupt actions, and the motivations of government. But right now we need as much cooperation as we can get from the U.N.

I would request, frankly, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman withdraw his

amendment and not require folks to vote for or against it, because I think the concern of the Members will be shown of the next few months. But I appreciate the opportunity the gentleman has given us to debate this issue.

Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate and share the gentleman from Michigan's concern about the Oil-For-Food scandal, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Getting to the bottom of this scandal is the reason my Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations convened a hearing on April 21; we want to help pierce the veil of secrecy that still shrouds the largest humanitarian aid effort in history.

This much we know about the Oil-for-Food Program; Something went wrong. The Hussein regime reaped an estimated $10.1 billion from this program: $5.7 in smuggled oil and $4.4 in oil surcharges and kickbacks on humanitarian purchases through the Oil-For-Food Program. There is no innocent explanation for this.

We want the State Department, the intelligence community, and the U.N. to know there has to be a full accounting of all Oil-For-Food transactions, even if that unaccustomed degree of transparency embarrasses some members of the Security Council.

The purpose of our investigation, beyond returning to the Iraqi people that which was stolen from them, should be to improve the United Nations, not to create an excuse to withdraw our support from the body.

In Iraq, and elsewhere, the world needs an impeccably clean, transparent U.N. The dominant instrument of multilateral diplomacy should embody our highest principles and aspirations, not systematically sink to the lowest common denominator of political profiteering.

This emerging scandal is a huge black mark against the United Nations and only a prompt and thorough accounting, including punishment for any found culpable, will restore U.N. credibility and integrity.

That is why it is critical to get to the bottom of the corruption.

In the early 1990s, because of concerns about United Nations operations and the lack of reforms by that body, the United States began withholding its payments to the U.N. and fell into arrears. We subsequently debated this issue for years, and, in November 1999, Congress and the administration finally agreed on a plan to repay our longstanding debt to the U.N. in exchange for significant reforms by the world body.

Mr. Chairman, as the U.N.'s single largest contributor, the United States is granted unparalleled power to craft the U.N.'s agenda and budget. Our financial leadership truly gives us the ability to shape world events.

Countries all over the world are looking to the United States for leadership, yet if this amendment were to pass, what they would see is a very powerful and wealthy country refusing to live up to its international commitments. Why, as a nation, would we want to unnecessarily complicate our diplomatic efforts at a time when we need every ounce of leverage?

While we must continue examining its operations and recommending operational improvements, the United Nations deserves U.S. support as it continues to combat terrorism, promote economic growth and assist countries in moving toward democracy.

I urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Absolutely I do. Because the U.N. needs these resources for a lot of reasons and the nongovernment organizations that are involved in trying to help create some peace in Iraq, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I do not think it is advisable, though, to subtract this money.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Paul Amendment on UNESCO.

During a speech before the UN General Assembly on September 12, 2002, President Bush announced that the United States would return to UNESCO. I support the President's decision, and I oppose efforts to prohibit funding to the organization.

Rejoining UNESCO reflects our national understanding that the body has a decisive role in advancing U.S. foreign policy goals. These goals include promoting education and understanding in areas of the world where desperate populations are susceptible to the preaching of those who would seek to destroy our Nation.

UNESCO is actively pursuing the UN's Millennium Development Goals, including achieving universal primary education in all countries by 2015; eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education by 2005; helping countries implement a national strategy for sustainable development by 2005; and reversing current trends in the loss of environmental resources by 2015.

Why wouldn't the United States want to be an active participant and contributor to this process?

We've debated these issues, and this body has decided the United States should continue to be a member in good standing at the UN and rejoin UNESCO.

Prohibiting funding sends a particularly bad message to the global community at a time when international support is needed for many of our initiatives, including the war on terror.

As a contributor and participant, the United States is granted owner to influence UNESCO's goals, programs and management. We should not pass up that opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this very harmful amendment, the Paul Amendment on U.N. funding.

In the early 1990s, because of concerns about United Nation's operations and the lack of reforms by that body, the United States began withholding its payments to the U.N. and fell into arrears.

We subsequently debated this issue for years, and, in November 1999, Congress and the Administration finally agreed on a plan to repay our longstanding debt to the U.N. in exchange for significant reforms by the world body.

This agreement conditioned U.S. payments of $819 million on substantial reforms at the U.N. In return for the United States making good on its commitment, the U.N. reduced our contributions to its regular budget from 25 to 20 percent, and to the peacekeeping budget from 31 to 25 percent. The U.N. also agreed to open up its financial books to the United States and to establish an office of an Inspector General at each of its program offices.

We've debated these issues, and this body has decided the United States should continue to be a member in good standing at the U.N. This amendment would send us back to a debate settled more than three years ago.

Mr. Chairman, as the U.N.'s single largest contributor, the United States is granted unparalleled power to craft the U.N.'s agenda and budget. Our financial leadership truly gives us the ability to shape world events.

Countries all over the world are looking to the United States for leadership, yet if this amendment were to pass, what they would see is a very powerful and wealthy country refusing to live up to its international commitments. Why, as a nation, would we want to unnecessarily complicate our diplomatic efforts at a time when we need every ounce of leverage?

While we must continue examining its operations and recommending operational improvements, the United Nations deserves U.S. support as it continues to combat terrorism, promote economic growth and assist countries in moving towards democracy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment to H.R. 4754, the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. I strongly support the Small Business Administration's (SBA), 7(a) business loan program and have joined some of my colleagues from Connecticut in advocating improvements and increases in the program.

I understand the serious issues facing small businesses today and believe that, as the backbone of our community, it is vital we do what we can to help them thrive and I appreciate the spirit of the amendment.

But this is not what the amendment does in its entirety. It cuts $60 million out of the Department of Justice and $10 million out of the National Endowment For Democracy. And so, therefore, the amendment is fatally flawed.

If my colleagues believe that the cold war still exists, they could probably make an argument for this amendment. They could probably say we do not need the National Endowment For Democracy as much as we do today, and they could probably say that the Department of Justice does not need the initiatives that it needs; but the Cold War is over, and the world is a far more dangerous place. We have to deal with the issues that confront us.

The idea that we would contain and react to threats and have mutually assured destruction in the days of the Cold War has been replaced by the need for detection and prevention. Our actions may have to be maybe preemptive and maybe sometimes even unilateral, but the key part is prevention and detection; and there is no way we are going to be able to detect and prevent, in my judgment, if we are not doing more to give our intelligence community the skills to detect and to prevent.

We have a letter from the Department of Justice that makes clear that, to accommodate an additional $10 million cut in the OIPR budget for intelligence, they would need to forego requested adjustments to base, including the funding needed to support the annualization of second-year costs for 16 OIPR positions. This would further degrade OIPR's ability to process FISA's applications for intelligence searches and surveillances before the foreign intelligence surveillance court of review, when the number of applications has increased significantly since September 11, 2001. The letter goes on.

This is crazy at this time to act like somehow this is pre-September 11.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, from its inception in 1996, the United Nations' Oil-for-Food Program (OFF) was susceptible to political manipulation and financial corruption. Trusting Saddam Hussein to exercise sovereign control over billions of dollars of oil sales and commodity purchases invited the illicit premiums and kickback schemes now coming to light.

But much is still not known about the exact details of Oil-for-Food transactions. That is one reason my Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations convened a hearing on April 21st to help pierce the veil of secrecy that still shrouds the largest humanitarian aid effort in history.

This much we know: The Hussein regime reaped an estimated $10.1 billion from this program: $5.7 billion in smuggled oil; and $4.4 billion in oil surcharges and kickbacks on humanitarian purchases through the Oil-for-Food Program. There is no innocent explanation for this.

At the hearing, the Subcommittee heard the program, while successful in many ways, was riddled with corruption and the independent efforts of the Iraqis to investigate the fraud was being stifled by the Coalition Provisional Authority.

We want the State Department, the CPA, the intelligence community, and the U.N. to know there has to be a full accounting of all Oil-for- Food transactions, even if that unaccustomed degree of transparency embarrasses some members of the Security Council.

Two months ago, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan assured me he wants to get to the bottom of this scandal and restore faith in the ability of the U.N. to do its job. Subsequently, the Secretary General appointed Paul Volcker to lead an independent panel to look into the Oil-for-Food Program.

While Mr. Volcker brings expertise and prestige to the task, we are concerned about the slow pace of the U.N. investigation. The Volcker panel has just announced the hiring of senior staff. Nevertheless, they continue to say an interim report, possibly this summer, will address the conduct of UN employees and allegations about the Secretary General's son's involvement.

But we also need to know more than what just happened at the U.N. We also need to know what happened at the US Mission. We

need to know what our intelligence community knew and knows.

Many of the allegations are true, we just don't know which ones yet. We should be long past asking whether something went wrong in OFF. It's time to find out exactly what went wrong and who is responsible.

Our staff has been through the minutes of the U.N. ``661 (six-six- one) Committee'' of Security Council members responsible for sanctions monitoring and oversight of OFF. Those minutes tell a story of diplomatic obfuscation and an obvious, purposeful unwillingness to acknowledge the program was being corrupted. Questions about oil or commodity contracts were dismissed as dubious media rumors beneath the dignity of the U.N. to answer, while Saddam was given the undeserved benefit of every doubt.

We cannot ignore the profoundly serious allegations of malfeasance in the Oil-for-Food Program. To do so would be to deny the Iraqi people the accounting they deserve and leave the U.N. under an ominous cloud. This is the Iraqi's money we're talking about, so the Iraqi Governing Council and its successor should get cooperation from the CPA and the State Department in conducting its inquiries.

In Iraq, and elsewhere, the world needs an impeccably clean, transparent U.N. The dominant instrument of multilateral diplomacy should embody our highest principles and aspirations, not systematically sink to the lowest common denominator of politics profiteering.

This emerging scandal is a huge black mark against the United Nations and only a prompt and thorough accounting, including punishment for any found culpable, will restore U.N. credibility and integrity.

That is why it is critical to get to the bottom of the corruption. In order to do that we need to the intelligence community to better assist the Congress in its investigations.

Mr. Chairman, this Sense of Congress will help address the difficulties many committees have had obtaining information and documents--especially from the intelligence community--pertaining to the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program. This amendment should reinforce the importance Congress places on the Oil-for-Food investigations.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 4614, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, which contains funding for four important dredging projects in my district.

The maritime industry in Connecticut has enormous potential and these projects play pivotal roles in that industry.

With these much-needed funds, the Army Corps of Engineers will be able to advance dredging projects in Bridgeport, Norwalk and Southport Harbors, as well as Mill River in Stamford, ensuring our ports remain viable for recreation and commerce.

Long Island Sound is a valuable resource to our state both environmentally and economically--providing a watershed for 10 percent of the American population and contributing $6 billion annually to the regional economy--and it is critical we treat it well. Dredging is necessary to maintain the Sound's safe navigation and long-term viability and vitality.

In Bridgeport, the funds will support efforts to find an environmentally sound disposal method for toxic sediment in Bridgeport Harbor. The harbor has not been dredged for 40 years due to contaminants in the dredged material that would be unsuitable for disposal in open water and the result is a shallow harbor, which restricts commercial viability.

In Norwalk, the money will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to complete the necessary planning to begin dredging Norwalk Harbor. Norwalk Harbor Federal Navigation Project has not been maintained since 1981. The channel's depths have become so low that the passage of commercial and recreational vessels is restricted to the point that public safety and the viability of water-dependent businesses have been adversely affected.

The funding for Southport will be used to dredge Southport Harbor, which has long served as a center of boating activity in western Long Island Sound and as a vital centerpiece of a historic district included on the National Register of Historic Places. The Southport Harbor FNP has not been maintained since 1962 and consequently the navigability is restricted by shoaling in a number of locations.

In Stamford, the funding will be used for a design project to address ecosystem restoration, sedimentation, and dredging issues at the Mill River. The Mill River ecosystem has been severely degraded by years of polluted urban runoff, thwarting public enjoyment of the resource and threatening its natural values. The funding will assist a multi-year effort to restore the shoreline and aquatic ecosystem of the

Mill River, acquire and preserve shoreline properties, reduce polluted urban runoff into the Long Island Sound, foster commercial and ferry navigation, and create public recreational facilities and other mixed- used development.

Bridgeport, Norwalk, Southport and Stamford desperately need this money to continue, or complete, essential dredging projects that will help alleviate the state's transportation issues while benefiting our state's economy and mitigating air pollution. I am grateful these critical funds are included in H.R. 4614 and am hopeful the House will approve the bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

My favorite Member of Congress is the gentleman who just spoke, Robert Andrews of New Jersey. I consider him the most articulate Member of Congress; but I think as articulate as he was on this issue, he is missing the whole point.

This is a bill that spends more money and increases taxes. And we believe with all our hearts and souls that when we added 58 percent more on veterans' spending in the last 4 years, that is a spending increase for a very good cause and has enabled us to improve veterans' services every year, we are continuing to include more and more for our veterans. Only in Washington when you spend so much more money do people call it a cut.

On No Child Left Behind, we have increased spending by 40 percent in the last 4 years. It is not funded at the highest level the authorizers have allowed but we are spending far more than we have ever spent.

We are at war. We are at war not just in Iraq, but against terrorism around the world. And I think a 9 percent increase in Defense and Homeland Security is a huge increase in spending. The huge increases in spending that we have in our entitlements shows a tremendous amount of concern that our government has for the people of our country.

But when President Bush inherited a recession and then inherited September 11, and then inherited a breakdown in the structure of the business community with Enron and WorldCom, it is remarkable how well our economy has grown, with new jobs being created and new revenue coming into our coffers, and an incredible increase in productivity.

We believe in large measure growth in our economy is the result of economic policy centered around tax cuts.

And so for me I am happy to have this debate, happy to go into the election this fall and emphasize we are against tax increases and ever increasing spending.

When we had the budget meeting and the budget votes, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said we voted against veterans, we voted against this, we voted against that. They failed to say in each one of those amendments was a tax increase. We voted against the amendments because there were tax increases at a time when we think it is unwise. So we have a difference of opinion that we will obviously fight out this fall.

So I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for providing this opportunity to distinguish the differences between the two parties. We do not want a tax increase. We do not want a lot more government spending.

Let me end by saying this: 5 percent of the American people pay 55 percent of the taxes. 50 percent of the American people pay 96 percent of the taxes. When we passed our tax cuts, we gave the tax cuts to the people who pay taxes. That is the reality of what we did.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act today.

I support child nutrition programs. The link between child nutrition and academic performance is a strong one, and I believe we need

to do everything we can to make sure these programs are available to the children who need them most.

Under current law, reduced-price school meals are offered only to children with family incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level. Many families in the reduced-price income category find it difficult to pay the fee. As a result, many children who could benefit from the program do not.

I am pleased the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act incorporates a pilot program to evaluate the effect of legislation I introduced which provides free meals under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to all children whose family incomes are less than 185 percent of the poverty line.

Under my legislation, each year the income eligibility threshold for free meals would rise, so that by the beginning of the school year that begins July 1, 2008, all children who are currently eligible for a reduced-price meal would be eligible for a free meal.

For Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District, this means 3,943 more children would be eligible for free meals, an increase of 13 percent.

S. 2507 would authorize a demonstration program in five States or parts of States to evaluate the impact of eliminating the reduced-price meal category.

The bottom line is reducing school hunger will increase academic performance.

Children cannot learn on an empty stomach. We need to ensure all children who can't afford lunches have guaranteed access to free meals. With the bounty of food we have in America, there is no reason for a child to be hungry in school. I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and it is a privilege to speak on the resolution of two people for whom I have the utmost respect, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations. I thank them for this resolution.

I have been in Iraq five times, and four of those times I have been outside the umbrella of the military as well as being under the umbrella of the military. I have talked to everyday Iraqis, attended a wedding, visited schools, hospitals, businesses, met with community and religious leaders, as well as visited the very poorest of the poor in their own homes, and slept in Iraqi villages. I cannot tell you how important June 30 is. There is not an Iraqi I spoke to who did not tell me they want this to be an Iraqi revolution, not an American revolution. They are eager to run their own country.

Now, we have made some mistakes. It is clear that we should have prevented the looting. It is also clear to me we should not have disbanded the government, the army or the police. Certainly the bad folks within should have been taken out. So we have made some mistakes.

When you speak to Iraqis, they will tell you they are suspicious of the United States because to them we are strangers. As good a Nation as we are, and as important as removing Saddam is, they never had a government they could trust. So why would they trust a foreign government to lead them for a year? They blame the United States for the sanctions, not Saddam, ironically. And they also told me of the loved ones they lost when we told them to rebel against Saddam, but we left the Republican Guard in place to kill their loved ones. They ae angry about this.

They would tell me all those things, and they mean them. But in spite of their suspiction and anger they are so grateful to be free from Saddam. The most important decision the President made was to say, against the opposition of some, on June 30 sovereignty will be passed to the Iraqi people in an interim government. It is their country, and they should run their own country and they are eager to do it.

I am so proud to be in the presence of those Iraqis who have taken the mantle of leadership. If you asked me are their lives in danger and how likely is it they will be there a year from now, I cannot tell you with any confidence they will survive. But they are willing to take on this task in spite of the dangers they face.

So I salute our troops for the 840 men and women we have lost and for the thousands that have been injured, I salute the Iraqi people, who have done everything they can to be free people and now have the chance to run their own country. I particularly appreciate that we have an opportunity to speak on a resolution that says, uncategorically, on June 30, the Iraqi people reign. They will run their own country. Ambassador Negroponte will not be a Mr. Bremer. He is our ambassador who is there at the invitation of the Iraqi people.

May God bless Iraq, may God bless the United States of America. I put my hand to my heart in appreciation for what we are doing and with appreciation and gratitude for the friends I have made with so many good and brave Iraqis.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read. It is short.

Mr. Chairman, I obviously move the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not think I need to use the whole debate, particularly given the gracious support of both sides of the aisle, the chairman of the full committee and ranking member, and say that they have always been a pleasure to work with. I thank the gentlewoman from California so much for all the work that she does and the gentleman from Florida. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) has been a tremendous supporter for our efforts. The gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) has really brought out a lot in the hearing that we had.

We know that we could not allow the sanctions to deprive Iraqi citizens of food and medicine. The problem was they did not get the food they paid for and they did not get the medicines they paid for, because Saddam Hussein was basically allowed to run the program with the oversight of the U.N. that chose not to provide oversight, particularly the Chinese and the Russians who did not believe that there should even be sanctions and did not go out of their way to make this system work.

So we had countries that knowingly allowed Saddam to rip off his own people. He undersold oil and then got huge kickbacks, and he overpaid for commodities and got huge kickbacks, $4.4 billion in the overcharges, the surcharges for the oil and the kickbacks on humanitarian purchases and an estimated $5.7 billion going through Syria. The Syrians and the Russians and, frankly, the French were not helpful in this process.

What I rejoice in was that this story was really outed by the free press in Iraq. We all knew that this was a corrupt program; but what happened was the Iraqi Governing Council, some in it, leaked information to their now free press that printed the names of almost 300 people. Well over 200. They were high-ranking government officials including, frankly, Kofi Annan's son allegedly involved, Benon Sevan in charge of the program, and so we have now an investigation of the U.N.

But Mr. Volker will tell you, it is kind of like being in the Senate. It is unanimous consent. He has to get the cooperation of everyone. He does not have the ability to just say, I want this information. If I don't get it we're going to subpoena it. So he is first looking at the U.N. and what they are doing to try to, in my judgment, go carefully to build credibility so he can go after what he thinks are more serious problems. The bottom line is we need to encourage much more aggressive activity on the part of the U.N. We can only do that if we get the information, information from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and our criminal justice system. I want to also compliment the Committee on International Relations. They are working so well with our subcommittee and our subcommittee is working so well with them.

We are trading information. There is more than any one committee can do, and ultimately I think we will get to the truth of it. I just would say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) was absolutely correct when he said that this is one of the largest rip-offs to any country, and it was a community rip-off by other nations. They allowed Saddam to make billions of dollars at the expense of his own people.

And it really suggests why in some cases some countries may not have been interested in our allowing the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, getting this information that will expose him. I think they all thought it would just be quiet and that this program would continue ad infinitum.

I have spoken longer that I have chosen. I do not really have anything else to say other than to thank my colleagues and to them on a bipartisan basis we are going to get at the truth.

From its inception in 1996, the United Nations' Oil-for-Food Program (OFF) was susceptible to political manipulation and financial corruption. Trusting Saddam Hussein to exercise sovereign control over billions of dollars of oil sales and commodity purchases invited the illicit premiums and kickback schemes now coming to light.

But much is still not known about the exact details of Oil-for-Food transactions. That is one reason my Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations convened a hearing on April 21st: to help pierce the veil of secrecy that still shrouds the largest humanitarian aid effort in history.

This much we know: The Hussein regime reaped an estimated $10.1 billion from this

program: $5.7 in smuggled oil; $4.4 in oil surcharges and kickbacks on humanitarian purchases through the Oil-for-Food Program. There is no innocent explanation for this.

At the hearing, the Subcommittee heard the program, while successful in many ways, was riddled with corruption and the independent efforts of the Iraqis to investigate the fraud was being stifled by the Coalition Provisional Authority.

We want the State Department, the CPA, the intelligence community, and the U.N. to know there has to be a full accounting of all Oil-for- Food transactions, even if that unaccustomed degree of transparency embarrasses some members of the Security Council.

Two months ago, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan assured me he wants to get to the bottom of this scandal and restore faith in the ability of the U.N. to do its job. Subsequently, the Secretary General appointed Paul Volcker to lead an independent panel to look into the Oil-for-Food Program.

While Mr. Volcker brings expertise and prestige to the task, we are concerned about the slow pace of the U.N. investigation. The Volcker panel has just announced the hiring of senior staff. Nevertheless, they continue to say an interim report, possibly this summer, will address the conduct of U.N. employees and allegations about the Secretary General's son involvement.

But we also need to know more than what just happened at the U.N. We also need to know what happened at the U.S. Mission. We need to know what our intelligence community knew and knows.

Many of the allegations are true, we just don't know which ones yet. We should be long past asking whether something went wrong in OFF. It's time to find out exactly what went wrong and who is responsible.

Our staff has been through the minutes of the U.N. ``661 Committee'' of Security Council members responsible for sanctions monitoring and oversight of OFF. Those minutes tell a story of diplomatic obfuscation and an obvious, purposeful unwillingness to acknowledge the program was being corrupted. Questions about oil or commodity contracts were dismissed as dubious media rumors beneath the dignity of the U.N. to answer, while Saddam was given the undeserved benefit of every doubt.

We cannot ignore the profoundly serious allegations of malfeasance in the Oil-for-Food Program. To do so would be to deny the Iraqi people the accounting they deserve and leave the U.N. under an ominous cloud. This is the Iraqi's money we're talking about, so the Iraqi Governing Council and its successor should get cooperation from the CPA and the State Department in conducting its inquiries.

In Iraq, and elsewhere, the world needs an impeccably clean, transparent U.N. The dominant instrument of multilateral diplomacy should embody our highest principles and aspirations, not systematically sink to the lowest common denominator of political profiteering.

This emerging scandal is a huge black mark against the United Nations and only a prompt and thorough accounting, including punishment for any found culpable, will restore U.N. credibility and integrity.

That is why it is critical to get to the bottom of the corruption. In order to do that we need for the intelligence community to better assist the Congress in its investigations.

Mr. Chairman, this Sense of Congress will help address the difficulties many committees have had obtaining information and documents--especially from the intelligence community--pertaining to the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program. This amendment should reinforce the importance Congress places on the Oil-for-Food investigations.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just take the floor to thank both the chairman and ranking member for their assistance.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take a lot of time in this first pass but just to say, when I hear the presentation of both the gentleman from Massachusetts and our very distinguished chairman, it scares the heck out of me, because the bottom line is we are being told, and it is true, you can get explosives on a passenger airplane; and then we are being told we cannot do anything about it because it is impractical, we do not have the equipment, and so on. I think the story is somewhere in between.

The bottom line is we have people on passenger airplanes who believe that we check the baggage that is in the cargo of those airplanes. I think maybe at a minimum we should at least give them a little notice when they step on that airplane because it is the truth, that would say that when you go on this airplane, all the baggage brought on by passengers is screened, but the cargo that is on this airplane is not screened for explosives.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I do not believe that. With all due respect, I do not believe it. I do not believe that the passenger aircraft are dependent on cargo in order to be able to take passengers. I just do not buy it. I at least think, though, that the American people deserve the truth, whatever the truth is. This is a debate we need to have, and frankly it needs to be a debate that is more than 40 minutes. The American people are entitled to the truth, whatever that is.

When we started out talking about the baggage on passenger aircraft, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) came in with an amendment in 2002, and he asked me to cosponsor it. He said, We do not check baggage. We check some, but we do not check all of it. I said, You have got to be kidding me. He said, We do not. And we have no time line.

So we offered an amendment that said by the end of 2004 we would check, and everyone opposed the amendment because they said we could not check by the end of 2004. They said, we do not have the equipment, we do not have the money, it is too costly and the passenger aircraft would just simply not be able to fly. That is what we were told. That is what the record said.

Our amendment passed, and an interesting thing happened. When it came back from the conference committee, instead of the end of 2004 that we would check for baggage, it said the end of 2003. I went up to one of the members and said, How come if we could not do it by the end of 2004, we could do it by the end of 2003? What I was told was, We did not want to put in writing that we could not check until the end of 2004 and we put the end of 2003 and we did not quite make that deadline, we met it sometime a little later in 2004, but we met it before the end of 2004. We did it because it mattered and the American people would not fly if they did not think the baggage was checked.

But what we at least need to say, I will say it as often as I can, 23 percent of what is in the belly of an aircraft is cargo. It for the most part is unchecked. Saying that we check because we have a known shipper is simply to say that we know who shipped it. It does not mean that we check the baggage. It amazes me that somehow we say that that is a protective system.

So for me, it is quite simple. We have got to give them a target. We have got to give them a deadline. We have got to be willing to spend the money. If six planes are blown out of the sky a week from now or 2 weeks from now, are all of us supposed to go back into our district and say, we could not afford to do it? I cannot do that. I cannot look my constituents in the eye and say, we could not afford to do it.

When we vote, I want every Member to know what we are saying. If you vote for the Markey amendment, you are voting to say we have got to have this stuff checked. And when it comes back from the conference committee, maybe we will come back with a deadline or something that you feel is more realistic, but we have got to have something better than what we have now. I feel strongly about that. I feel as strongly about that as I have ever felt about anything. I have had 50 hearings on terrorist issues on my subcommittee, and this of anything that we have looked at scares me the most.

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this debate trying to understand what kind of contribution I can make and what kind of things we are listening to, and I feel that three of the most respected Members of Congress, I respect for their knowledge on this issue, are saying things that, if true, are more shocking than what I thought was the case. I mean we have a Member of Congress who basically has said that it is foolish to deal with cargo admittedly for the money and the technology, which are valid reasons that I understand, but because we do not even really check the baggage on the belly of aircraft that we say we do but we do not. And I do not know how to process that because I tell my constituents that we are doing that, and I am not aware of any request on this floor by this chairman or anyone else who has said we need this amount of money to fulfill that act. If that is known by some in some committee, then let us debate it on the floor.

Because it is my understanding that we checked the baggage on the belly of an aircraft for explosives, and if we do not, I think we should say where we do not and how long it is going to take and why we are not conforming to the law; and then all of us need to deal with that. That is fair, but to use that as an argument for then not checking the cargo that goes on the belly of an aircraft on a passenger plane to me is just like a weird argument.

Now, if we cannot check big packages, then let us check small packages. If we cannot do it this year, then let us have in the law that it will be done by this time. Let us not just be so casual about it that we just say, well, we went from 5 percent to 10 percent, and we need more time to do the technology.

So what I was thinking as I was sitting here is that what I would like to do if this amendment does not pass or if it passes and gets lost in conference, I want to come in with an amendment, and it is going to be truth to the passenger, and it is going to spell out to the passenger in plain, simple language what is the risk when they fly.

In other words, I think if a plane has not been checked for explosives in the belly of an aircraft that is baggage, then tell them; and if that has been but we have cargo and 20 percent of this cargo or 30 percent of what is in the belly of the aircraft is cargo and has not been checked, then tell them. I know what I know. I will not fly that aircraft, and then I will like to know, and maybe others will, maybe we will just have to suck it up and be brave, but I think it is not safe. And I am living with the fact that someone in my district found out in the middle of the day that maybe her child was on Pan Am 103, and I was at her home at 11:30 at night when it was confirmed and this was her best friend, her daughter.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.