Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Medicare trustees have reported that the Medicare trust fund is in trouble. Imagine what would happen if the Democrat minority had successfully passed their bill. The reforms that we passed to preserve the life of the Medicare system would have disappeared and the trillion-dollar-plus price tag of the Democratic bill would have ended Medicare as we know it. We would have no choice but to make painful cuts or increase taxes to pay for the Democrats' Medicare bill.

The irony is that now that we are so close to finally implementing the law and finally getting cheaper prescription drug benefits for seniors, the Democrats want to repeal it. What we should do, Mr. Speaker, is not take away the prescription drug coverage for American seniors, but rather we should try to improve upon it, modify it and eventually make it fiscally responsible and highly workable.

Mr. Speaker, I missed the following vote due to a personal family reason:

On Roll Call Vote No. 58 to H.Res. 551, Thanking C-SPAN for its Service to the House of Representatives on the 25th Anniversary of its First Coverage of the Proceedings of the House, had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 8 years since Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. DOMA, as it is called, passed the Senate by a vote of 85-14 and the House by a vote of 342-67. I was honored to have cosponsored and vote for final passage of this bipartisan legislation which President Clinton signed into law.

We passed DOMA in response to a State court decision because we were concerned that activist judges in Hawaii would force 49 other States to accept gay marriages. We clarified the full faith and credit clause to mean that States do not need to recognize same-sex marriages performed and validated in other States.

At the time, DOMA was a reasonable response to a real problem. Nobody wanted a handful of judges overturning the will of the individual States and millions of American citizens. DOMA relied on the principle of federalism to defend States rights and to preserve the sanctity of marriage. It was a perfect match.

But several momentous events occurred in the next few years which have put DOMA in a difficult light. In 1997 and 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned two duly enacted States' laws regarding homosexuals. In the Lawrence case, the Court even went so far as to overturn one of its previous decisions. More recently, the Supreme Court and other Federal courts have even blatantly disregarded the 2000 Dale decision which gave the Boy Scouts the right to exclude avowed homosexuals from positions of leadership.

In Vermont, the State Supreme Court ordered the State legislature to provide the benefits of marriage to gay couples. Finally, gay marriages have been legalized in several Canadian provinces. These decisions have given

opponents of DOMA ammunition to challenge it in court.

But in order to challenge DOMA, plaintiffs need standing to sue. That was accomplished a month ago when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision set the stage for a constitutional challenge. There is no doubt if couples start getting married in Massachusetts on May 17, as planned, they will move back to their home States where they will demand that their union be recognized and accepted.

When their States refuse to embrace this new arrangement under the Federal DOMA or one of 39 other ``little DOMAs,'' then there will probably be a challenge to the State or Federal DOMA. It would not be difficult to imagine many Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, using legal precedents and their own personal belief to rule on DOMA's constitutionality.

Let me be clear. As we stand now, DOMA prevents same-sex marriages from being imposed on the individual States. Of course since no State enacted same-sex marriages, there has been no explicit challenge to DOMA. There was a Federal tax evasion case in 2002 in which the defendant claimed that he and his domestic partner were ``economic partners'' who should be afforded filing status equivalent to that of a married couple and argued that DOMA was unconstitutional. But since the defendant did not even try to have his same-sex union recognized as a marriage under State law, and since DOMA was not even in effect when the defendant was scamming the Federal Government, this argument was not even considered by the court. But as they say on Wall Street, ``Past performance is no guarantee of future results.''

Lawsuits will continue to be filed, and State laws defining marriage as being between a man and woman will continue to be mocked and ignored by public officials, judges, and bureaucrats. Look at what has happened in San Francisco, New York City, Oregon, New Mexico and many other places over the last month or so. The blatant disregard for the rule of law is astonishing.

These events and rulings over the last few years have compelled many of my colleagues and I, and the administration, to seriously consider the proposed constitutional amendment to our Constitution defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. I have chosen to cosponsor this legislation. We passed DOMA. Thirty-nine States have enacted their own Defense of Marriage Act. The vast majority of Americans oppose gay marriage and do not want such an arrangement forced upon them. We have tried every legal and political avenue possible, but 8 years since DOMA was passed has shown us now that a constitutional amendment may be a better and another way to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Mr. Speaker, on the 1-year anniversary of the war in Iraq, I rise to applaud the Iraqi civil leaders who last Monday on March 8 signed the interim constitution, the Transitional Administrative Law. With the adoption of this law, the governing council has taken a historic step forward towards a democratic Iraq. It took only 12 months, Mr. Speaker, to defeat Saddam Hussein and transition to an interim constitution.

Now, my colleagues, it took 6 years for the first State in the Union, Delaware, to ratify our Constitution, and several more years before the original 13 finally ratified.

Iraq is moving at a much faster pace. One year ago, the naysayers said we did not have enough forces in place to defeat Iraq's military. Naysayers said we could never find Saddam Hussein; and naysayers doubted that we could get Kurds, Shia, and Sunni Muslims to agree on anything.

Mr. Speaker, 1 year later the naysayers are wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I am here this morning to talk about the recent tragedy in Spain. The real winner in the Spanish general elections was not the Socialist Party or its new Prime Minister or the Spanish people. The real winners were the terrorists who murdered 201 and wounded over 1,500 Spaniards.

The results in Spain's general elections, in which Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's party was defeated while the antiwar Socialist Party came to power after 8 years out of office, can be almost entirely attributed to the devastating terrorist attacks just 3 days before.

Is it a stretch to credit these terrorists with winning the election? Consider this: The day before the train bombings, Aznar's party was predicted to win comfortably. A mere 3 days and a changed nation later, the Socialist Party, whose main election year promise was to pull the Spanish troops out of Iraq, won by 5 percentage points.

It was an incredible change in just 72 hours. All it took was a note from people claiming to be al Qaeda saying they were responsible for the bombing. Prime Minister Aznar was blamed by his countrymen for the bombings, which they linked to his strong support of the war in Iraq. Now the newly elected Spanish Prime Minister is poised to withdraw Spain's 1,300 soldiers in Iraq.

Spain is not the only country under retribution for fighting against terror. Pakistan's President General Musharraf confirmed yesterday that al Qaeda was behind two assassination attempts against him in December.

Mr. Speaker, we have reached a critical moment in the international war on terror. Al Qaeda has long threatened to attack any country that dares to help us. But now a true and valued ally has been hit, and they have chosen to withdraw from the coalition of the willing.

We extend our sympathies and hand in friendship to the people in Spain, but we must realize that the surest way to encourage terrorism is to let terrorists think that their bombs will make us do their bidding. Retreat will result in more terrorism, not less. Appeasement begets more appeasement, which leads to war. We can either abdicate our responsibilities or face these terrorists with steely resolve.

The Spaniards have their reasons for voting out the Aznar government. They have experienced a shocking ordeal and they responded the only way they knew how in the short time they were given. But the people of America also had to vote against terrorist attacks with a threat of war approaching. In November 2003, the American people stood up to thugs like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and defied off-year election history by choosing Members of Congress from the President's party who supported our war against terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that al Qaeda is an enemy of us and Western civilization, not just against our allies in the war who are fighting terror. In the international alignment of us versus them, the opponents are not the coalition of the willing or, quote, Old Europe, not warriors or pacifists. The two sides are tyranny and democracy. Al Qaeda's mission is

not about particular countries; its hate transcends borders. As cited by David Brooks in the New York Times today, quote, ``You love life and we love death,'' unquote, the purported terrorist said in the videotape found in Madrid.

We are distinguished not by nationality but that we choose freedom and the rule of law and the terrorists choose rule by force. We resolve our disputes at the ballot box, they with bombs.

Furthermore, just because a country does not back the war in Iraq does not mean that it is safe from terror either. Of Spain itself, Osama bin Laden himself said long ago about Spain, modern Spain was al Qaeda's enemy because in 1492 the Spaniards removed all Muslims from their country. But also Osama bin Laden named Canada as one of al Qaeda's enemies, even though our northern neighbor has been especially vocal in opposing intervention in Iraq. Turkey refused to let us invade Iraq from its territory but it, too, suffered terrorist attacks anyway.

Mr. Speaker, these terrorists may use the excuse of Iraq to justify their massacre of innocents, but the fact of the matter is that their groups and these groups like al Qaeda are irrational and remorseless. They are barbarians and their only goal is the death of the West. For we, the freedom-loving people, appeasement, capitulation, and negotiation with terrorists are not options. How the civilized world responds to this challenge will determine the future of our society.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 58 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article for the Record. Surely this is evidence of a vast human tragedy.

A Vast Human Tragedy

(By Andrew Natsios)

In a decade and a half of humanitarian work I have

witnessed the aftermath of much human tragedy, including the

Rwandan genocide and the killing fields of Cambodia. In June

2003, I visited Iraq's mass graves, the most recent addition

to mankind's legacy of mass murder.

Rows of white bundles containing bones filled room after

room. Families filed by, searching for signs of those who had

disappeared, some stolen during the night, others taken in

daylight. Even small children were not spared the butchery.

The graves that Saddam Hussein's henchmen dug and filled

with human beings are a bitter sign that mankind still has a

long way to go before every person has the basic human rights

promised by all our religions and cultures--the rights of

life and liberty.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the United

Nations that under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was ``a murderous

tyranny that lasted over 35 years.'' ``Today we are

unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament,''

Zebari said.

I walked across the sandy plains of Iraq and saw the mass

graves that were just found and are beginning to yield their

tragic secrets. The bones tell a story of horror and shame:

arms bound together, skulls pierced from behind. Hundreds in

one long trench.

Those who survived inside Iraq, and those who watched

helplessly from abroad, have joined together to begin the

long, painful process of accounting for the dead. British

Prime Minister Tony Blair said on November 20, 2003, that as

many as 400,000 Iraqis lie in these mass graves.

They are Kurds, killed because of their ethnicity. They are

Shiites, killed because of their religion. They are Sunnis,

killed for their political views. They are Egyptians,

Kuwaitis, and Iranians, killed because their lives meant

nothing to Saddam Hussein, his sons, and their followers.

As Saddam's evil regime collapsed in April and May, 2003,

and his Baath Party mass murderers retreated into the

shadows, Iraqis began to act on their formerly hidden grief.

They searched for their loved ones rounded up over the years

in campaigns of terror. They had heard rumors about shots in

the night, mass burials, and vanished prisoners. Now they

followed those bloody trails to the mounds of earth they

suspected entombed their beloved children and parents.

The new leaders in Al Hillah, Karbala, Najaf, and a dozen

other cities and towns around Iraq worked with U.S. and

British forces to try and protect some of the mass graves. We

hope to preserve the evidence of these crimes against

humanity.

Human rights groups have formed, assisted by USAID and

working with the Coalition Provisional Authority, to urge

people to record the names of those being exhumed and

describe the circumstances under which they were seized and

slain.

Yes--people want to find the remains of their loved ones

and give them a proper burial in consecrated ground. But the

Iraqi people also want justice--to punish those who callously

killed their fellow citizens by the busload, day after day,

year after year.

Above all, if people in Iraq and around the world hope to

learn from the crimes of the past, the mass graves of Iraq

must be documented, reported, and never forgotten or denied.

This booklet is a small, early marker on that path.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. David Kay, former Iraqi weapons inspector, gave an interview on the Today Show on January 27. Let me quote from what he said:

``Iraq was a country that had the capabilities in weapons of mass destruction areas and in which terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it. We found that the Iraqi government, particularly Saddam Hussein and his senior leadership, had an intention to continue to pursue their WMD activities; that they, in fact, had a large number of weapons of mass destruction program-related activities.''

Some in this body must have a hearing problem. To say that the President and the administration have misled the American people in building the case for the war with Iraq is wrong. Dr. Kay, like many others, is confident that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. In fact, Saddam Hussein even used these weapons of mass destruction on his own people.

I hope the American voters see through the false charges against the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, last week the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, gave some seniors all over the country a little bit of a scare. But his suggestion that Congress should consider reducing Social Security benefits for future retirees was just that, a suggestion by the chairman. Current beneficiaries and near retirees should not worry. All of us, including myself, will fight to protect the benefits of current and near retirees. They should receive nothing less than 100 percent of what they have been promised.

What seniors should take from this conversation, though, is that Social Security is just that, a promise from our government. It is not a real asset in your name. If it were, you would have a little more flexibility and decision-making on how you plan to use it for your retirement. Currently, Social Security gives retirees a one-two punch: first, taxing their benefits; and, second, discouraging productivity among early retirees by limiting their earnings.

I would like to talk about the first of these shortcomings today, taxation of benefits after you receive the check.

Until 1984, Social Security benefits were exempt from the Federal income tax. For years, many analysts questioned the basis for the IRS rulings and advocated that the tax treatment of Social Security be the same as for other pension income, because there are other options for retirement planning today than traditional pensions, other options that are taxed differently, thereby serving as an alternative retirement planning tool. I am referring to the nearly 7-year-old Roth IRA account. But first let me explain further about Social Security taxation of benefits.

If a Social Security beneficiary files a Federal tax return as an individual and his combined income is between $25,000 and $34,000, he may have to pay income tax on 50 percent of those benefits. If his combined income is above $34,000, up to 85 percent of his Social Security benefit is subject to income tax. That hurts. If he files a joint return, he may have to pay taxes on 50 percent of his benefits if the spouse's combined income is between $32,000 and $44,000. But, Mr. Speaker, if that couple's combined income is more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of those folks' Social Security benefits are subject to income tax. Of course, to help discipline your money management, the pain of the IRS withholding the taxes along the way is available. So after a lifetime of seeing your paycheck eroded by taxation, inflation, you are not done when you are a senior receiving your Social Security benefits.

My objection, Mr. Speaker, to this is that we are limiting retirees' options on how they plan for their own retirement. For some of us, a preferred option while we are young in our working years might be to not have our retirement savings withheld before payroll taxes. Maybe we are willing to pay annual income taxes on all of it each year in exchange for the long-term security of knowing it will be free from taxation later, on earnings and withdrawal. Some would rather pay Uncle Sam up front like this. This is why the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 authorized the new Roth IRA to provide tax-free income from after-tax contributions.

But there is a bill that remedies this taxation of benefits when a senior thought he or she was on the receiving end, not the contributing end, of life. I am proud to cosponsor the bill of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), H.R. 434, the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act of 2003, which would repeal the 1993 income tax increase on Social Security benefits that President Clinton signed as a bill.

Again, this is all about choices. Social Security is one of our government's most popular domestic programs. Since its inception at the heart of the Great Depression, it has become the primary and often sole source of income for millions of Americans. However, it, like so many other staid Federal Government programs, is a one-size-fits-all program for an American people who want to try different sizes and have different choices. Just as we prefer choice in our health care, rather than a government-run system, some retirees, at least future ones, might

prefer choice in retirement vehicles, and Social Security does not offer that.

I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that current and near retirees need not fear alteration of their current benefits. But we should glean something from Chairman Greenspan's comments. As examination of the program occurs, let us consider all the aspects, lack of individual assets; noninheritability to one's children; penalties for early, partial retirement; and the taxation of one's benefits, that make it less than a truly secure choice and system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for her leadership on this important issue.

Poll after poll show that the vast majority of Americans believe that if someone attacks or murders a pregnant woman and kills her unborn child, then the criminal should be charged with two separate crimes. Sixty-nine percent of registered voters who call themselves pro-choice also agree that violent thugs should be charged with two offenses if they kill a woman's unborn child during the commission of a brutal crime.

The widespread support by the American people is reflected here in the House of Representatives where we have passed this legislation twice before, each time by impressive margins, and each time with both parties working together. As of today, 29 State legislatures have overwhelmingly passed their own laws recognizing two victims in a violent crime against a pregnant woman. This number is growing with each passing day.

I would like to read to my colleague from the Old Testament. He mentioned that. Exodus 21:22-23. I could also go to the Talmud. It is also observed in the Talmud the same thing that is in the Old Testament, namely, ``If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.''

I think it is clear that if the mischief includes the death of the embryo, of the live human being in the womb, then it is eye for eye, tooth for tooth. I urge the passage of this bill.

I. Introduction

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act.''

II. Broad Public Support of H.R. 1997

It's always satisfying when we get to debate and vote on legislation that has such broad, bipartisan support across the country.

How broad is this support? Poll after poll show that the vast majority of Americans believe that if someone attacks or murders a pregnant woman, and kills her unborn child, then that criminal should be charged with two separate crimes.

How bipartisan is that support? 69% of registered voters who call themselves ``pro-choice'' also agree that violent thugs should be charged with two offenses if they kill a woman's unborn child during the commission of a brutal crime.

This widespread support by the American people has been reflected here in the House of Representatives, where we have passed this legislation twice before, each time by impressive margins, and each time with both parties working together.

And as of today, 29 state legislatures have overwhelmingly passed their own laws recognizing two victims in a violent crime against a pregnant woman.

This number is growing with each passing day.

III. Legal and Academic Support for H.R. 1997

In the academic and legal world, there is a consensus that these efforts will strengthen our criminal justice system, and agreement that this legislation is perfectly constitutional.

In terms of our criminal justice system, it's clear that this law will serve as a deterrent to future attacks on women of childbearing age.

This is important because in Maryland, New York and Illinois, homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women.

According to a recent study, up to 324,000 pregnant women will experience physical violence in the United States this year.

If we join those 29 states in enacting this legislation, we are telling potential attackers that they will face two times the punishment for hurting a pregnant woman.

Would-be attackers need to know that they could be charged with the murder of an unborn child if they attack his mother.

By creating legal consequences for killing an unborn against her mother's will, the law will provide greater protection for women from crimes of violence.

Indeed, in 1990, the Supreme Court of Minnesota said, in upholding the conviction of a man with two counts of murder, that ``The possibility that a female homicide victim of child-bearing age may be pregnant is a possibility that an assaulter may not safely exclude.''

From an academic point of view, scholars are in agreement that laws protecting unborn children from violence are constitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to strike down Missouri's unborn victims of violence law because it ``does not by its terms regulate abortion.''

Every single unborn victims law passed by state legislatures that has been challenged in court has been upheld.

A large number of pro-choice scholars concede that this bill will not infringe upon anyone's rights.

IV. Moral Reasons to Support H.R. 1997

Not only does this legislation make sense from a legal point of view, it's also compassionate.

It's compassionate because we are saying to these women and their families, ``You have intrinsic worth, and your unborn baby's life had meaning, too.''

No woman should ever be told she lost nothing when she loses her child to a brutal attacker. Women deserve better than this.

Even the Bible has something to say about violence against pregnant women. Exodus 21:21-23 tells how if a woman is harmed and her baby is uninjured, then the punishment is only for what happened to the woman. But if a woman is harmed and her unborn child subsequently dies, then the attacker ``shalt give life for life.''

Conclusion

As I've said, it's good when we get to take up an issue on which the vast majority of Americans agree.

But what's most important is that what we are doing today is the right thing to do.

It's time to make the law apply to federal jurisdiction, so that if a man stalks his pregnant wife across state lines and attacks her, or commits any other federal crime, injuring her and killing their unborn child, that man can be prosecuted under federal law for the loss of the baby's life.

Passage of ``Laci and Conner's'' law is a win-win situation on every level--for the American people, for our criminal justice and legal systems, and for the protection of pregnant women and their unborn children.

The only losers with this bill are the cowardly criminals who would dare attack a pregnant woman. They'll be getting what they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to do the right thing and pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague from Ohio that President Clinton of his party supported a lot of this free trade. In fact, President Clinton was very active in getting passed in previous Congresses many of these free trade agreements that the gentleman from Ohio is complaining about. So I think it is just a question of whether one is for free trade or not. I am for fair trade not free trade.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about a deficit that is continuing quite dramatically, and now all of us are faced with a tough task of balancing the budget the next 5 years, and the President is committed to that.

One of the reasons this budget is in a deficit mode is because of the recession that President Bush inherited; also what happened on 9/11. It changed this country's perspective completely and, of course, with it our efforts to secure our homeland borders and security within our buildings. So, obviously, we have had to expend extra money to do that; and the President rightly did so and Congress agreed to reduce taxes so we could help the economy.

Obviously, there is no quick fix for the deficit. However, we must act decisively today in the budget process so that we do not put undue burden on future generations.

I believe that Members of Congress realize how accountability works. We want to support reduced spending around here, and that is why I am introducing a bill this day to underscore accountability that will connect all of us here in Congress with the rest of the country.

Year in and year out, we all have to explain to our constituents why we automatically receive a pay raise regardless of the deficit that occurs here in Congress. So why not have a bill simply to say that no automatic pay adjustments will be made for Members of Congress in the year following a fiscal year in which there is a Federal budget deficit? Something very simple. My bill, the Deficit Accountability Act of 2004, basically says that, again, no automatic pay adjustments are made for us here in Congress unless we balance the budget.

If this Congress can work together, I think we can control spending. We must lead by example, and I believe this simple measure could do just that. The bill would provide a real-world incentive for Members of Congress to curtail wasteful and abusive spending.

So it is a good-faith measure, Mr. Speaker. It is in a small way just symbolic, but I think our constituents would appreciate that, and that is why I am offering this bill today.

All of us have returned from our respective retreats, the Democrats and Republicans, and all of us, of course, are resolved to have a tougher stance on spending and try to balance the budget. There has been some talk again about having a line item veto. I would like to see that effort reenergized, reenacted; and I believe now is the time to support the shift in this fiscal environment towards a balanced budget.

Momentum is building in this House to write a congressional budget resolution that would freeze outright nondefense, nonhomeland security appropriations. Furthermore, many Members have introduced legislation that seeks to make deep cuts in the discretionary spending of the various departments. These departments have lots of accountability problems. There is waste and fraud in some of these Departments. The President's budget proposal makes a strong effort to address these problems.

Mr. Speaker, I just bring to my colleagues' attention a recent GAO report that showed that the collective departments, across the board every department in the budget reported a staggering $17.3 billion in unreconciled transactions in 2002. That is, to put it bluntly, we have lost $17 billion. It is unaccounted for. I know all Members will agree that these lost funds are staggering, and something must be done to get to the bottom of this, and obviously in this budget process we should do this.

At this time, we clearly have an opportunity to curtail wasteful spending and at the same time support our President as he seeks to balance the budget in the next 5 years. I believe starting today this body can make a statement of how we want spending in this Congress to proceed and also how to pay ourselves in the event we have a deficit. Mr. Speaker, we must draw a line on spending, and hopefully we can now remember it is the American taxpayers who occupy the most prominent position at the negotiating table here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to sort of elaborate on David Kay's comments dealing with weapons of mass destruction. He is a chief weapons of mass destruction hunter for the United States and he resigned recently, but he made some very interesting statements regarding Iraq's pursuit of the WMD and the possible deception of Iraqi scientists against Saddam Hussein regarding weapons programs. I think it is important to look at the totality of what David Kay said and not just what some of the political pundits have pulled out of his speech. He said that the CIA and other intelligence agencies did not realize that Iraq scientists had presented ``ambitious but fanciful weapons programs to Saddam Hussein,'' and had them use the money that they were going to use for these things for other purposes.

At present, we have not found a huge stockpile of WMD. The search continues. However, we know a few facts. According to a recent New York Times story, Dr. Kay also reported ``Iraq attempted to revise its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2000 and 2001, but never got as far towards making a bomb as Iran and Libya did.'' He also said ``Baghdad was actively working to produce a biological weapon, using the poison ricin until the American invasion last March.'' We have all become familiar with this toxin given recent events in the news because of what happened at the Senate office building yesterday.

Many of this administration's detractors have begun using Kay's statements to bolster their particular points of view regarding weapons of mass destruction and Iraq. But let us not forget that the Clinton administration also declared Iraq had WMD and was actively pursuing those types of programs. Dr. Kay's information then supports the assertion of the Clinton administration that Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction programs.

Saddam Hussein made it clear that he wanted to see the State of Israel and the United States destroyed. He saw himself as a lion standing up to the powerful United States. Although he could not directly attack the United States, it is not unreasonable to conclude that he would transfer weapons of mass destruction, the technology, the weapons themselves and items to a terrorist organization, or to any other rogue nation, to use in a direct attack on our soil; and that is why the President's proposal to look at all of the intelligence activities dealing with weapons of mass destruction, not just in Iraq, but also in other rogue nations, is very important and he is to be commended.

Dr. Kay said the CIA and other agencies failed to recognize that Iraq had all but abandoned its efforts to produce large quantities of chemical or biological weapons after the first Persian Gulf War in 1991. He also stated that contrary to certain allegations, he was convinced that the analysts were not pressed by the Bush administration to make certain their prewar intelligence reports conformed to a White House agenda on Iraq.

The allegations that our intelligence agencies failed to detect the supposed deception within the Iraqi Government and its weapons programs goes to the heart of our problem that many of our colleagues have talked about over the years regarding our intelligence ability. We are far too short of human intelligence, the exact kind of intelligence that can provide what is going on in the minds of our adversaries. CIA does not have people on the inside, to the best of our knowledge. Satellite coverage is great, electronic signals and intercepts are vital, but without human assets on the ground, these intelligence items can project an incomplete picture. They cannot tell what the officials are thinking and what the mood is on the street, or alert analysts to the possibility of deceptive tactics within a particular government.

As a Nation, we must continuously learn from our success and failures. I support President Bush's national security policy and his decision to seek a separate intelligence inquiry. Our credibility is vital if we are to bring more Nations into this fight against terrorism, but we must look at David Kay's statements in their totality.

Mr. Speaker, I commend President Bush for seeking this commission.

Mr. Speaker, good afternoon. With our Nation's dedication to homeland security after the horrors of September 11, most citizens believe today that it is time to strengthen, secure our borders and reform our immigration policies.

It appears that some type of reforms are on the horizon. And reforms are needed. Many of us on this floor believe that above all else, we should enforce our immigration laws that are currently on the books. It is the men and women who stand on our borders today, enforcing these laws every day, but they may be confused. Unsure of their relevance, border agents are now questioning why they must fight each day to secure our borders in light of the proposed ``guest worker'' program.

This program was to help Mexico's President Fox as part of a large amnesty plan that has been in the works since September 11 after the terrorist attacks. But, Mr. Speaker, a question could be asked, why are we rewarding a country that has been opposed to our war on terror?

According to the Subcommittee on Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means, benefits paid to retirees will exceed revenues in just 15 years. The pay-as-you-go system could have serious financial problems in the year 2030. These projections do not take into account the economic impact of the ``guest worker'' proposal, which would allow untold millions of illegal aliens from Mexico to collect benefits for themselves and their families from their home country without having to work the required number of years that law-abiding citizens must work to be eligible for these same payouts.

The deal may cost overburdened U.S. taxpayers over the next 20 years also. Supporters of this ``guest worker'' program call this program, ``totalization.'' I am not sure what they mean. But, this proposed agreement could be thought of as a transfer of wealth from those who play by the rules the American way to those who willingly and knowingly mock our own immigration and tax laws.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time for Mr. Fox, the President of Mexico, to look to his own country for reform instead of his continuing to lobby to change U.S. policy. Vital reforms in Mexico will break down the barriers to economic growth and provide more and better opportunities for the people of Mexico. Similar reform in other regional countries will reduce the incentives to make the difficult trek into our country. The President's plan, although convenient, merely, I believe, postpones our reckoning with a situation in which over 8 million people are here illegally.

I certainly hope that the administration will take a hard look at this ``guest worker'' program that is being proposed and perhaps look for real immigration reform first, and that, Mr. Speaker, could start with reform in the state of Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1 I was unavoidably detailed and regret missing the quorum call. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present.''

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Chairman Tauzin, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Messrs. Dingell and Burr, and

Mrs. Wilson in supporting a good consumer protection bill that I hope will help us, as consumers, fight the scourge that is spam.

No one disputes the great utility of e-mail, the fact that it has brought great efficiency and productivity gains, not only to our professional lives but also our personal lives. Nonetheless, our daily routine of scouring through and reviewing our e-mail also tells us that e-mail as a critical communications medium is under assault from unwanted e-mail--most peddling goods or services ranging from the real to the absurd. I do not have a problem with e-marketing per se, after all, our consumer based economy is highly dependent on marketing. However, e-mail communications make accountability more difficult. Therefore, unscrupulous people use it to advance fraudulent and deceptive acts and even good commercial actors are tempted to take advantage of this lack of accountability.

Effective and narrowly tailored legislation, like the one before us today, can help bring greater accountability to e-mail solicitations. That greater accountability is achieved by making sure that fraud and deception is prosecuted and subjected to severe penalties.

Legislation is only part of the solution, and in my view a smaller part. Rather, technology, consumer education, and industry cooperation, in my view, are the key tools in combating spam and injecting real and effective accountability. Finally, combating spam requires international cooperation. I think my bi-partisan bill, H.R. 3143, which strengthens the Federal Trade Commission's ability to address the growing problem of transnational fraud, will go a long way in fighting spam that is not home grown.