Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 400) expressing the sense of Congress that the Government of Venezuela should actively support strategies for ensuring secure airport facilities that meet international certifications to prevent trafficking of controlled substances, narcotics, and laundered money, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my vice chairman of the committee, Mr. Weller, let me just make a couple of points.

First of all, I have high regard for my Democrat friend from Massachusetts. He and I are friends. We have a strong disagreement on this issue.

Let me just make a couple of points.

First of all, we were told by the Venezuelan government and the DEA was told by the Venezuelan government that they were going to work to reach an agreement on this draft agreement some time ago. Then they asked for an extension to July 8. And we were going to bring this resolution to the floor some time ago, and we decided, okay, we will wait until July 8. My friend from Massachusetts and Mr. Meeks asked me to hold up on this. I think Mr. Meeks asked. I can't remember. Mr. Delahunt did. And we held the resolution until July 8. We pulled it off the calendar and held it until July 8.

July 8 came, and we were told by the DEA that they refused to sign it, and Hugo Chavez said that he was not going to give us a time frame within which he would even consider signing it. So they asked for more time, we gave them more time, and when the time came they refused to sign, it and they won't give us a date to sign it now.

Now we are not trying to embarrass the government of Venezuela, but they have done such things as accused our DEA agents, who are fighting the drug war for the people of this country, of being spies for the United States. They have done everything they can to hamper the DEA's operation down there. And there have been $100 million of cocaine that was confiscated at the Mexican airport that came from the Caracas Venezuela airport. And so we have not had any cooperation whatsoever.

I don't know much about what kind of publicity this is going to generate in Venezuela, but the fact of the matter is Mr. Chavez needs to be put on notice that the American people are not going to stand idly by and let Venezuela be a transit point for drugs into this country and killing American people.

Mr. Speaker, I will now yield to my colleague, Mr. Weller, for 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my colleague from California, let me just take 1 minute.

First of all, when my colleague and good friend (Mr. Meeks) says that we have a delicate relationship with Venezuela, I would like to point out to him that President Chavez is in Tehran today. He is over there talking to the ayatollahs who he has invited to Venezuela. He has been buying thousands of AK-47s. He is trying to expand his military operation down there. He goes on television every Sunday for 5 hours, and he calls the President of the United States a donkey and other names.

So if you are talking about a delicate relationship being in jeopardy, let me just say the reason for the delicate relationship being in jeopardy is because Mr. Chavez is shooting off his mouth. I have met with him several times with you folks, and he always says he is going to tone down the rhetoric, and he never does.

Regarding the $100 million of cocaine that came out of Venezuela into the Mexican airport, we have talked to intelligence sources and they said there was no information coming from Venezuela about that shipment. They said that is totally false.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend from California (Mr. Royce) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, in answer to your question, I do not think anything is going to accelerate this until Mr. Chavez decides what he wants to do, and Mr. Chavez was given, if the gentleman will let me finish, Mr. Chavez and you, my good friend, asked for us to give them an extension to July 8. We did that, and on July 8, they did not sign it, and they would not give us a date after that. You know that.

So what we are trying to do is point out to the United States and the Venezuelan people that they reneged on their commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

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

I have listened to with great interest the rhetoric coming from the other side, and now I intend to get to the facts of the matter. So I hope my friend from Massachusetts will indulge me and listen to me as attentively as I have listened to him.

First of all, let me just show, we have here a map from the maritime authorities, the Joint Interagency Task Force, showing from January 1 to December 31, 2005, the number of maritime trips involving drug activity originating in Venezuela, and it is 385 times.

Suspected air activity from January 1 to December 31, 2005, again from the Joint Interagency Task Force, 137 trips involving drug trafficking originating in Venezuela.

Let me just go through some of the issues that are very, very important to this debate.

First of all, DEA agents in August 2005 were accused of being spies for the United States and not doing their job as DEA agents. The fact of the matter is that was not the case. Nobody has proven or really indicated with any degree of authority that our DEA agents are doing anything more than trying to interdict drugs coming into the United States.

We received credible reports that traffickers are paying Venezuelan airport authorities a percentage of the money and drugs transported through the Simon Bolivar International Airport. Furthermore, the government of Venezuela has not taken any steps, any at all, unilaterally to prosecute any corrupt airport officials.

There are estimates that as much as 2,000 kilograms of cocaine and 200 kilograms of heroin were seized at the Simon Bolivar International Airport over the last 12 months. There are almost estimates there are 10 times that amount of cocaine, perhaps 20 times that amount of heroin, could be smuggled through that airport.

Seizure statistics at the Simon Bolivar Airport are not produced by the Venezuelans. The Venezuelan government does not track those statistics. Information regarding any seizures at the airport were not shared by the Venezuelan government with the DEA last year.

On April 11, 2006, a commercial plane, which we talked about earlier, originating in Caracas was seized in Mexico carrying 5.6 tons, tons of cocaine with an estimated street value of $100 million. Counternarcotics experts who we consulted agreed a 5.6 ton load of cocaine is not a test run. We can only speculate how this route was exploited by traffickers previously, how many millions of dollars and hundreds of tons of cocaine came through that route. And we know, as I said, there were 137 trips on that route last year.

The Venezuelan government has claimed the interdiction in Mexico was the result of a Venezuelan tip-off. That is what they said. So we checked. We have received assurances from our intelligence sources and other intelligence sources that those claims are categorically false. The Mexican police and government found that when that plane landed. They were not tipped off by anybody in Venezuela. Quite the contrary. The belief is that the Venezuelan people who are working at the airport were involved in the transport of these drugs amounting to $100 billion.

It is widely reported that the government of Venezuela is providing safe haven and logistical support to members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC, the FARC guerrillas, which is designated as a foreign terrorist organization and was in 1997. And there is strong evidence that the Venezuelans are supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the FARC, with ammunition, safe houses, documentation, training, and weapons.

There is no formal mechanism to designate entities as drug trafficking organizations, but links between the FARC and drug trafficking were evident as far back as the mid to late 1980s, according to our State Department. It is precisely through this support for the FARC that we have estimates of as much as half of the Colombian cocaine moving to the United States and Europe as passing through Venezuela. Almost half of the cocaine coming into this country is coming through Venezuela.

You know, I have had the opportunity, with Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Meeks, to go down and meet with President Chavez in Venezuela, and at the U.N. in New York. He is a very engaging fellow. He is Clintonesque, if you will, in the way he meets people. He was very engaging. I was impressed with the fella. When we talked to him about toning down the rhetoric that would lead to a better relationship, or a relationship between Venezuela and the United States, he said he was going to do that. But he didn't.

Every week on television, for 5 hours, and I watched the tapes and I have listened to the translations, he maligns and beats up on not only the President but the Secretary of State. He says very demeaning things about Condoleezza Rice, our Secretary of State, and they are things that don't lead to any kind of a relationship between us and the Venezuelan leadership.

In addition to that, he is tied in very closely and he considers Fidel Castro, a Communist leader who wanted to revolutionize all of South America, he sent Che Guevara down there back in the 1980s to try to destroy any semblance of democracy throughout our hemisphere, and Che Guevara was killed. Now Chavez' mentor is Fidel Castro.

He is also tied in with Daniel Ortega and Mr. Morales of Bolivia, and all of these people want to move the South American continent to the left. And these are things we cannot tolerate. So the drug trafficking is only part of it.

Regarding Chavez' current trip, he is going to North Korea, he is going to Tehran, and he is meeting with what we consider the cabal of terrorists. He has also invited these people to visit him in Venezuela. In addition, as my colleague from California said a while ago, he is buying all kinds of military equipment, which really isn't necessary because there is no big threat to him down there, all kinds of military equipment to build up a huge military operation in South America and Venezuela.

We have got big problems down there. We want to talk to Mr. Chavez. We want to work with Mr. Chavez, but when we say to him we have an agreement that we have worked out, and his people hammered out the agreement with us, and he said he needed more time, until July 8, and you asked me for more time, Mr. Delahunt, we gave them more time, and when July 8 came, they would not sign the agreement nor would they give us a date certain when they would sign the agreement, and that is why this resolution is here on the floor tonight.

We want to have peace in our hemisphere. We want to work with all the presidents in our hemisphere, but we don't want revolution and we certainly don't want drugs coming through Venezuela into the United States damaging American women and children and hurting their families.

I will yield for one question, yes.

He is not going to North Korea?

He is not going to Tehran, either?

Reclaiming my time, and I just want to say this. If there is a problem that has evolved out

of this discussion tonight, it lays at the feet of Hugo Chavez. It lays at his feet. Because there was an agreement that was hammered out between his people and the DEA here in the United States. He asked for more time, we gave them more time. He wouldn't sign it nor would he give us a date certain when he would sign it.

How long do you wait? How long do you wait for drugs to continue to come into the United States before we get an agreement saying we are going to allow the DEA to do their job?

Well, I didn't yield any more time to my colleague, he just started talking. But that is okay, I have a high regard for him.

Let me just say once again that we have gone the extra mile on this agreement with Mr. Chavez. He wouldn't sign it, nor would he give us a date certain when he would sign it. We adhered to my colleague and others' requests to extend the time period, he wouldn't sign it, and that is why we have this resolution tonight.

I don't know how it is going to play in Caracas, all I can say is it is time we get an agreement, and the DEA needs to be able to do its job.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in many years, two high-ranking delegations--one representing Serbia, the other the Serbian province of Kosovo--met in Vienna, Austria to discuss the future political status of Kosovo, which has been administered by the United Nations since 1999. The Vienna meeting was the first time that the Serbian President and Prime Minister met with their political counterparts from Kosovo.

Both sides presented and explained their position on Kosovo's future political status. The Serbian delegation presented a practical plan for the highest possible autonomy for Kosovo inside Serbia's borders, while Kosovo's leaders presented their plan for independence.

Although the parties reached no agreement, the Vienna meeting was very positive, and I believe it should be commended. It allowed both sides to present their platforms in a constructive and diplomatic manner, and provided the international community with strong assurances that events in the Balkans can be solved in a peaceful and civilized way.

Serbia proved once again that is ready to seek a final solution for Kosovo based on the tenets of territorial integrity, international law and regional stability. Serbia's position highlighted the necessity to broker a final agreement that will keep democracy and reform in Serbia intact.

An imposed solution for Kosovo would be a dangerous precedent and may serve as the fatal blow for the economic and political processes in Serbia. There is a slim but very real possibility that radical elements in Serbian politics would seize power in Belgrade if Kosovo is granted independence from the UN, without ironclad-guarantees for Kosovo's Serb population and the firm commitment to protect Serbian historical, cultural and religious sites in Kosovo.

Serbia is a new country with new leadership. It is a country led by reformers, like President Boris Tadic, who helped topple Slobodan Milosevic from power and had the fortitude to transfer him to the Hague Tribunal to answer for his crimes against humanity.

This new Serbia is a thriving, free market democracy, based on transparency, the rule of law and the protection of human rights. Serbia is a member of international organizations, and it is on the path toward membership in the European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The Serbia of today is working with the United States to spread democracy and freedom and now the United States has the unique opportunity to stand with its democratic allies in Serbia, and to work to advance a mutually acceptable solution to the future political status of Kosovo; one which won't leave Serbia and its fragile democracy in tatters,

The mishandling of Kosovo's final political status might reverse these advances in Serbia and endanger a region just recovering from dictatorship, ethnic strife, isolation and war.

Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House came down to the floor just a few minutes ago and talked about Helen, who worked in the Cloakroom for probably 40 or 50 years and told about what a wonderful lady she was. I don't want to be redundant, but I want to say that there are an awful lot of people that serve in this body that the people of America never see that make it so worthwhile and so important to be here. Helen was one of those people. She was so nice to every Member of Congress. She treated us all like family.

She served with many Presidents, from Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy. All of those guys, regardless of party, liked Helen. They all had pictures with her, and she kept them back there in the Cloakroom and was very proud of each and every picture she had with Presidents. And they all admired her. As the Speaker said, they all came to visit her when they came to the Capitol.

Let me just say that Helen was one of the most wonderful people that I ever met, and I haven't had many occasions since I have been here to feel a little weak in the knees when something happens; but when I heard that Helen died today, I felt a little pain in the knees because she was such a wonderful person.

So to Helen's family, if they happen to be paying attention to this, Mr. Speaker, we send our deepest sympathy because she was one of the finest people that I ever met, and she is surely going to be missed by everybody in the House.

Mr. Speaker, in the weeks leading up to the G- 8 summit, there was some speculation that the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia might be invited to attend the summit as an incentive to help spur further progress on peace negotiations between the two countries over the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Unfortunately, it appears that that did not happen; and I am deeply disappointed that the world has missed the opportunity this summit offered to help promote peace in a region which has been in conflict for far too long.

Although, in my opinion, a good opportunity to advance peace has been lost, I have not lost hope that, together with other nations, we can help Azerbaijan and Armenia achieve peace, and settle once and for all the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, which I believe has significantly stunted the development of both nations as well as the broader region.

In 1992, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe--CSCE-- now the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--OSCE-- created the Minsk Group, a coalition of member states dedicated to facilitating a peaceful resolution of the conflict. The co-chairs of the Minsk Group--Russia, France, and the United States--have served as mediators, trying to work in close and effective cooperation with all parties towards a fair and effective settlement of the issues.

I believe though that our success and credibility as a mediator stems from the policy of never appearing to favor one nation's claims over the other. I believe that even the modest steps towards peace which we have witnessed, are a direct result of this neutrality. According to the United States State Department's 2005 Fact Sheet: ``The United States does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country, and its leadership is not recognized internationally or by the United States. The United States supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and holds that the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter of negotiation between the parties.'' This has been the policy of the United States towards this issue through both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and it is important in my opinion that it remains the same. Any outside influence, any shift in neutrality can only result in a false peace. That is why I am deeply concerned when I hear some of my colleagues throwing barbs at the Azeris and attempting to lay all the blame for this complicated issue at their doorstep.

For example, one of my colleagues once said, ``I have long supported the right of self-determination for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and greatly admire the efforts of the people of this historically Armenian region to build democracy and a market economy in the face of hostility from Azerbaijan.'' So far as I know, the Nagorno-Karabakh region has never been a part of Armenia. To suggest otherwise, and to suggest that the problems in Nagorno-Karabakh are caused solely by Azerbaijan seem to me to distort the facts and potentially undermine our good faith efforts to see this conflict resolved; and to see peace and prosperity come to the people of both Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all of my colleagues to both maintain our neutrality in policy, and to also realize that choosing one side over the other at this point in time is a setback to peace, especially when the side they appear to be choosing may be distorting the facts for its own benefit.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss my amendment.

Congressman Stark and I both realized a problem that exists in the redrawing of the floodplain maps across this country. FEMA is in the process of reshooting the maps in several parts of the country, and the only way people who are in the affected areas know about it is, in the classified section of the newspaper, there is some very fine print that says that there is going to be a meeting discussing the elevations of the new floodplains. We had about 3 or 400 people in my district that didn't know anything about this until after the fact.

Now, the problem is, once FEMA has redrawn these maps and they have been approved, the only way a person in a projected floodplain knows about it is if the insurance company contacts him and says you have 45 days to buy insurance or else we will add it to your mortgage payment. We had about 300 people in moderate income areas that were going to be hit with an extra thousand or $2,000 a year for flood insurance when there hadn't been a flood there for 100 or 150 years. In fact, nobody ever heard of having a flood in this area. Yet these people have been adversely affected.

Once these maps have been drawn and approved, the only way a person in a newly affected area can have restitution is to go and spend maybe a thousand or $2,000 hiring a lawyer and then fighting the governmental process, the agency, to prove that they are not in a floodplain.

What my bill does and Mr. Stark's bill does is simply say that FEMA has to send a first-class letter to everybody in the affected area so they know there is going to be a meeting talking about them being in a newly designated floodplain. It will cost maybe 35 to 40 cents a letter, maybe even less than that if they would use bulk mail.

In this particular case, the 300 families in the affected area, it would have cost $120 to notify them that there was a change in their status. There had not been a flood there in anybody's recollection, at least not in 100 or 150 years.

I think this is a very important amendment. It helps people all across the country. I really appreciate the chairman of the committee and the ranking member saying they would approve this amendment. So I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member.

I yield to my colleague, Mr. Stark.

Once again, I want to thank my colleague for being a cosponsor; and I want to thank the chairman for accepting.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Thank you, Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Barney.

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

Offered By: Mr. Burton of Indiana

Amendment No. 1: Page 29, after line 2, insert the

following new section:

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the House overwhelmingly approved House Resolution 323--a resolution I am proud to be a co-sponsor of--offered by my good friend Congresswoman Deborah Pryce of Ohio. H. Res. 323 is a straightforward bill which expresses the House of Representatives' support for increasing childhood cancer awareness, treatment, and research.

The word ``cancer'' evokes powerful emotions. Along with many of my colleagues, I know first-hand how devastating cancer can be to the individual who has been diagnosed, as well as their family. It is thankfully true that more and more people are continuing to lead full and productive lives both during and after cancer, but the sad fact is that lives once touched by this insidious disease are never truly the same again. The tragedy perhaps becomes even worse when cancer invades the life of a child.

I pray for the day when a cure is found and cancer is finally and forever eradicated from the face of the earth. In the meantime, as my colleague Mr. Deal of Georgia said in his remarks, through research, public awareness, education and wise public policy, we can make powerful strides towards winning the fight against childhood cancer. I hope that the resolution we passed today will help call attention to the problem of childhood cancer and the importance of bringing improved diagnosis and treatment techniques to bear in this life and death struggle. I commend Ms. Pryce for her leadership on this issue, and I applaud all of my colleagues for their support of this critically important resolution.

But I believe we can do more and that we should do more to address the scourge of cancer before this Congress adjourns for the year.

For example, prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in the United States. It is also the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in men, claiming around 27,000 lives in 2005 alone according to the National Prostate Cancer Coalition. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2005 our Nation likely saw more than 230,000 new cases of prostate cancer, meaning that some 2 million American men are living with prostate cancer at this time. Statistics also tell us that prostate cancer will strike one in six men. Yet tragically, the state of prostate cancer care is decades behind what it should be.

The current screening methods of digital rectal exams and PSA blood tests are good tools--but they are not enough. A study funded by the National Cancer Institute showed that PSA blood screening tests, the most common form of testing for prostate cancer, result in both false positives and false negatives. In fact, as evidence suggests that as high as 15 percent of men with normal PSA levels actually have prostate cancer. We need to start getting serious about our diagnostic and treatment options. I firmly believe that men need to continue to get tested, even with the chance that the results may be misleading at times but I also firmly believe that we should not be satisfied with the current state of care. Our fathers, our brothers and our sons deserve more accurate technology, more reliable weapons in the fight against prostate cancer--tools like digital imaging.

That is why I am proud to co-sponsor--along with my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Cummings--House Resolution 863, to bring attention to the urgent need to develop better tools in the fight against prostate cancer. Our Resolution simply expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress and the Executive Branch should recognize the successful use of advanced imaging technologies in the fight against breast cancer and provide additional support for the research and development of technologies for prostate cancer detection and treatment comparable to state-of-the-art mammograms.

Likewise, I am a proud co-sponsor and passionate supporter of Johanna's Law: ``The Gynecologic Cancer Education Act (H.R. 1245)''. Ovarian Cancer is the deadliest of the gynecologic cancers, and it is the fourth leading cause of cancer death among women living in the United States. In 2004, it is estimated that over 25,000 women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and an estimated 16,000 or so American women died as a result of this devastating disease. This is a national tragedy, and what makes it even more tragic is the fact that many of those deaths could have been prevented if more women and their doctors knew the risk factors and recognized the early warning signs of ovarian cancer and other gynecological cancers.

When it is detected early, ovarian cancer is very treatable, unfortunately, ovarian cancer is one of the most difficult cancers to diagnose because symptoms are sometimes subtle and may be easily confused with those of other diseases. As a result, only 29 percent of ovarian cancer cases in the U.S. are diagnosed in the early stages. When the disease is detected before it has spread beyond the ovaries, more than 95 percent of women will survive longer than five years. But, in cases where the disease is not detected until it reaches the advanced stage, the five-year survival rate plummets to a devastating 25 percent.

As there is still no reliable and easy-to-administer screening test for ovarian cancer, like

the Pap smear for cervical cancer or the mammogram for breast cancer, early recognition of symptoms is clearly the best way to save a woman's live. Without increased education about ovarian cancer and recognition of women who are at higher risk for developing ovarian cancer, many women and their doctors will continue to ignore or misinterpret the symptoms of the disease. Any woman is at risk for developing a gynecologic cancer. As we owe it to our fathers, brothers and sons, we also owe it to our mothers, our wives and our daughters to do all we can to both raise awareness of these terrible diseases, and to fund the research necessary to stamp out this kind of cancer once and for all.

Johanna's Law will be a giant step forward because for the first time ever, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have explicit authority to carry out a national campaign to increase the awareness and knowledge of women with respect to gynecologic cancers, which shall include: (1) maintaining a supply of written materials to provide information to the public on gynecologic cancers; and (2) developing and placing public service announcements to encourage women to discuss their risks of gynecologic cancers with their physicians. The bill also requires the Secretary to award grants to nonprofit private entities to test different outreach and education strategies for increasing such awareness among women and health professionals.

I am confident that with a national Public Service Announcements campaign describing risk factors and symptoms and encouraging women to talk to their doctors about their risk of gynecological cancers, that we can and will increase early detection of these deadly cancers, and, when possible, help women reduce their risk of ever contracting them in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, both House Resolution 863 and H.R. 1245 are currently pending before the Energy and Commerce Committee. In closing, I would respectfully ask all of my colleagues on the Committee to read these two bills because I am confident that after you read them you will come to the same conclusion that I have; namely these are good bills, good public policy and we need to bring these bills before the full House for a vote now. This is literally a matter of life and death.

Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall vote 288, final passage of H. Res. 861: Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary. Had I been able to be here I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 288.

We are in a world war against terrorism, a world war, and Iraq is a major battlefield of that war right now. The reason we are not being attacked in large part here in the United States, in my opinion, is because our your men and women in uniform serving in Iraq are making sacrifices over there, in the middle of the storm, where terrorism has its genesis, where Iran and Syria and other countries are supporting terrorism. The terrorists and their state-sponsors do not want democracy to flourish over there, because they know their days will be numbered if democracy succeeds. The killing of Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shows that our young men and women fighting over there are making the terrorist days numbered, in my opinion.

I would like to just make one quote from Sir Winston Churchill, when I think about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and they start talking about how we have to get out of there right now. Sir Winston Churchill, who was one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century, he said in a speech that he made entitled ``We Shall Fight on the Beaches,'' which is very famous, he says: ``Wars are not won by evacuations.'' You do not win by retreating.

Mr. Speaker, I call for the immediate resignation of United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown.

Last week, Mark Malloch Brown, the U.N.'s number two man behind Secretary-General Kofi Annan, gave an anti-American speech at a left- wing seminar.

The event, entitled, Power and Superpower: Global Leadership in the 21st Century was sponsored by the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress, which receives funding from the Blame-America-First- Expert, George Soros.

At the event, Malloch Brown derided America's foreign policy objectives and accused American news journalists, such as Rush Limbaugh and those at Fox News channel of detracting and misleading U.N. successes, especially with stealth diplomacy in Middle America. In effect, he criticized Middle America--inferring we don't understand the U.N. and are being manipulated.

Malloch Brown's comments were completely out of line and unwarranted. He singled out a U.N. member-State, the United States, outside of normal protocol, derided the U.S. and its leading contributions to the U.N. reform effort, and involved himself and the U.N. in internal U.S. politics.

I do not have to remind Mark Malloch Brown that the United States provides one quarter of the entire U.N. budget and there are serious calls in Congress, that I believe we should consider, to withhold all future funding to the U.N. until accountable, effective and transparent reform is achieved.

If the United Nations is serious about reform, it has to reform itself from the inside. And that is why, today, I call on Mark Malloch Brown to immediately step down as Deputy Secretary-General, for the good of the United Nations as well as for the pride of the American people.

The United States cannot have faith in the U.N. if its senior leaders have such a biased opinion of the people and policies of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the suicide of three suspected dedicated terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has once again provided fodder for the enemies of the U.S.-led Global War on Terror. They are using the suicides to attack one of the most important components of this war: our ability to detain dangerous men and women and extract important information from them that will help protect American lives.

The critics, who come from the media, Congress, the blame-America first crowd and even the terrorists themselves, have long sought the psychological victory that would come with the closing of the military prison at Gitmo, and now even President Bush has been swayed by their criticism, saying that the prison is damaging the image of the U.S. at home and abroad.

After the fire at the Pentagon was extinguished, the rubble was cleared at Ground Zero, and the remains of the last victim were buried, it seems that the memory of the September 11th attacks has slowly faded away from the minds of many people. I would urge those people to consider that the memory of that day would be a daily reality were it not for the brave men and women who serve in our military and have apprehended the heinous thugs and criminals housed at Guantanamo Bay.

To make matters worse, the blame-America first crowd is not only demanding that we close Guantanamo Bay, but they are also suggesting that those imprisoned there be released, so they can return to their homelands and plot more attacks against America; a move which the Bush administration has said it absolutely would not make. As the President said, ``there are some, if put on the streets, who would create grave harm to American citizens and other citizens of the world.''

Moving prisoners to another facility would simply move the controversy from Gitmo to a new prison. Creating a Guantanamo Bay military prison somewhere else would do nothing to satisfy its critics, and in fact, would embolden the terrorists by providing them with a marvelous psychological victory by allowing them to praise that Gitmo is no more.

I wish the prison at Gitmo was not necessary and its cells were empty, but that's not the reality we live with today. There are fanatic and committed terrorists and Islamofascists throughout the world who are set on hurting Americans and the West, and they need to be captured and detained. The face of Gitmo may be ugly to some, Mr. Speaker, but so was the sight of human beings jumping from the top of the World Trade Center. The terrorists brought this war to us, and I believe we need to stand firm, and keep Gitmo in business until the Global War on Terror is finally won.

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has had a myriad of problems over the last 4, 5, 6 years. There has been tremendous scandals, there has been waste, fraud and abuse. There have been atrocities perpetrated by the U.N. peacekeeping forces in Africa where they raped women and maimed other people. We had the Oil-for-Food scandal. It just goes on and on and on. And as a result our new U.N. Ambassador has been over there trying to clean up that mess and make sure that they start straightening up and dealing with their fiscal problems as well as these other problems.

As a result, the second in command at the United Nations, a U.N. Deputy Secretary, General Mark Malloch Brown, last week made a very aggressive speech about the United States of America. He said that middle America, in effect, was too stupid to understand what the U.N. was all about. He indicated that news broadcasts from valued news resources such as Fox News and news commentators such as Rush Limbaugh were way out of line and didn't understand what was going on at the U.N. And he criticized roundly the entire United States approach to the U.N. and to world problems.

Now, there is an unwritten law at the United Nations and that is that the leadership over there and the people that are involved in leadership don't criticize member states. They just don't do it. Malloch Brown did, and he is the Chief Deputy to Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations.

And it is my opinion, because of this terrible misstatement that he made, that he should be replaced. He should either resign or be fired. If we are going to work with the U.N., and we pay 25 percent of the dues over there for the whole world, 25 percent, then we need to have a good working relationship, and this is not conducive to this relationship when the second in command over there is criticizing the United States for taking issue with what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, negotiations for a free trade agreement (FTA) between the United States and the Republic of Korea commenced last week in Washington, DC. I would like to recognize this historic undertaking and emphasize the significance of a U.S. trade accord with the Republic of Korea.

On February 2, 2006, then-U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Rob Portman and Korean Minister of Trade Hyun-Chong Kim announced our two countries would negotiate an FTA. Both sides hope to complete negotiations by March 2007.

I applaud the decision by the United States to negotiate a bi- lateral, free and fair trade agreement with a country that is not only a strong economic partner, but an important geographic ally as well. As my good friend and former USTR Rob Portman has noted, this agreement, if successfully concluded, will constitute the largest and most commercially significant FTA the United States has negotiated in 15 years.

The numbers are truly impressive. Korea is the 10th largest economy in the world with a GDP or nearly $1 trillion and a per capita income of over $20,000. It is the United States' 7th largest trading partner and our 5th largest market for U.S. agricultural products.

Trade between our countries surpassed $72 billion last year alone and U.S. exports to Republic of Korea reached nearly $28 billion during the same year, and included important goods like computer chips, industrial machinery, organic chemicals, agricultural produce, and civilian aircrafts.

Bolstered by an FTA, U.S. exports to Korea will no doubt increase substantially. A study by the U.S. International Trade Commission in 2001 revealed that an FTA with Korea could increase U.S. exports by over 50 percent, and agricultural exports by more than 200 percent within four years.

South Korea's average tariff on goods is just over 11 percent--three times higher than the U.S. equivalent. The average tariff applied by Korea on agricultural products is even higher--52 percent, An FTA will lock in duty-free access and help to reduce other non-tariff barriers for U.S. goods and agricultural products, providing significant opportunities for U.S. businesses, farmers, and ranchers, and provide another lucrative market for America's auto manufacturers and U.S. beef and beef-product exporters.

This FTA will also help to stimulate job growth in the United States, not only as a result of increased trade but increased domestic investment as well. Koreans have invested nearly $20 billion in the United States, and have created American jobs through companies like Hyundai Motors, Samsung Electronics, and Kia Motors. And as the largest investor in Korea, the United States already has a leading presence in that country as well.

An FTA would also benefit the great State of Indiana, which I proudly represent in Congress. Korea is Indiana's 10th largest export market, and Indiana exports $303 million in goods to Korea annually. And outside the realm of international economics, almost 10,000 Korean- Americans reside in the State of Indiana and more than 2,000 Korean students study at Indiana's prestigious academic institutions.

In fact, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and his staff are actually preparing to return to Asia to visit Japan and South Korea later this week so they can develop better economic and trading partnerships between Indiana and Asia. Governor Daniels is determined to make long- lasting economic relationships in Asia, especially with Korean companies, as he works to improve Indiana's economy, create new and better Hoosier jobs, and ultimately drive ahead Indiana's economy well into the 21st Century.

In addition to being a strong economic partner, Korea is a key U.S. ally and a very important one strategically. The United States and Korea have a mutual defense treaty that dates back to 1953, and Korea has supported U.S. military efforts abroad, as recently as in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Further, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Korea pledged over $30 million in aid for relief and recovery efforts--the 4th largest amount donated by any foreign country.

This new partnership between the United States and South Korea is sure to be a win-win for both of our countries. I look forward to working closely with the U.S. and Korean negotiators as talks proceed, so that we can ensure the best opportunities for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to extend my remarks to recognize the historic occasion of the start of formal trade negotiations between the United States and the Republic of Korea last week. I strongly encourage my colleagues to offer their own expressions of support for this important endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my strong support for the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery conference report. I especially want to thank Speaker Hastert, Chairmen Lewis and Chairman Kolbe for providing critically needed funding in this bill to help the Colombian Navy fight the war against drugs and global terrorism in our own hemisphere.

The bill provides monies to purchase one fully and properly equipped DC-3 Marine Patrol Aircraft (MPA) for maritime interdiction of drugs headed towards the United States. This DC-3 will be flown by the professional and proven Colombian Navy, and it will help better monitor and interdict drugs which are killing our kids and financially supporting internal terrorism in Colombia--often aimed at Americans-- and violence along the Mexican border where an estimated 90 percent of the cocaine from Colombia is entering our country.

Unfortunately, because budget limitations are always a major factor in conference, the Conferees were unable to fund the two properly and fully equipped DC-3s added to the House passed War Supplemental on a strong 250 to 172 bi-partisan vote last March 30th. Two aircraft would have enabled the Colombia Navy to cover both their Pacific and Caribbean coasts.

One aircraft is infinitely better than no aircraft, but we know that one MPA is not enough since the drug traffickers move narcotics north to the USA both from the Pacific an Caribbean coasts. If we cover only one coast, they will just move their deadly trade to the other coast. We need two Marine Patrol Aircraft in the region and I appreciate the assurances we have received from both Appropriations and House leadership staff that the Fiscal Year 2007 foreign operations FMF monies for Colombia, in addition to the plus-up of the aid for the Colombian National Police helicopters, will also obligate the monies or the second MPA for the Colombian Navy. Again, I want to thank Speaker Hastert, Chairman Lewis and Chairman Kolbe for making this happen.

Two MPAs will get the job done on both the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean coasts and once in place, I am confident these aircraft will help indict these illicit drugs long before they reach the Mexican American border and the street of our communities.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support the conference report on the Iraq/Afghanistan War. I welcome this chance to especially thank both Speaker Hastert, along with Chairmen Lewis and Kolbe for their strong support to also provide aid to the Colombian Navy to fight yet another war against drugs and global terrorism in our own hemisphere.

The bill provides monies to purchase one fully and properly equipped DC-3 Marine Patrol Aircraft (MPA) for maritime interdiction of drugs headed our way. This asset will be utilized by the professional and proven Colombian Navy. This asset will help better monitor and interdict drugs supporting the internal terrorism in Colombia often aimed at Americans, violence along the Mexican border where an estimated 90 percent of the cocaine from Colombia is entering our country, and in our communities.

While in the original House-passed war Supplemental we provided on a strong 250 to 172 bi-partisan vote last March 30th enough monies for at least two properly and fully equipped DC-3s for the MPA function for the Colombian Navy so that they could cover both their Pacific and Caribbean coasts, we know budget limitations became a major factor at the conference.

We also know that one MPA is not enough since the drug traffickers move narcotics north to the USA both from the Pacific and Caribbean coasts. If we cover only one coasts, they will just move their deadly trade to the other coast. We cannot let that happen. We need two Marine Patrol Aircraft.

However, we have assurances from both Appropriations and House leadership staffs that the FY `07 foreign operations FMF monies for Colombia in addition to the plus-up of the aid to the Colombian National Police helicopters, will also obligate the monies for the second MPA for the Colombian Navy. That is good enough for me.

This will get the job done to promptly fill the MPA gap on both the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean with two MPAs, and help get these illicit drugs long before they reach the Mexican border and our communities here at home.

I urge adoption of the conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

I cannot understand why anybody would want to start cutting funding to Colombia for the war against terror. It would be a terrible mistake to do that right now. President Uribe was just reelected. He is doing everything possible to stop the drug cartels from sending drugs to the United States and other parts of the world. After just being reelected and meeting with many of us in Costa Rica a few weeks ago, for us to start cutting funding when they need more resources to fight the war against drugs is absolutely insane, in my opinion.

The Speaker of the House is very aware of this issue. He just worked with me to get three additional platform aircraft to police the drugs coming through the Caribbean. If we didn't have those resources, the drug cartels would have a free rein to go through the Caribbean. We need additional helicopters and there is additional money in there for that. And for us to start cutting that right now would give the drug cartels all kinds of reasons to invest more money to start expanding the drug operation down there.

In addition, let me say that we have talked about these 11 policemen who were murdered by the Colombian military. I am confident, and I have talked to President Uribe about this, they are going to investigate this thoroughly. And if there are military personnel that actually did the killing, and we believe that is the case, they will be brought to justice. And no money, none of this money is going to go to any military unit that is involved in any activity like this.

So the bottom line is it is extremely important if we believe in keeping drugs off the streets of America that this fight continue. And to start cutting back dramatically and sending this money someplace else because of budgetary constraints is the wrong thing to do.

Visitors from across this country will tell you the number one issue facing this country is the drug problem, and the drugs which are killing our kids and ruining their lives.

This is a very important issue, and it must not take a back seat to any other issue. We must make sure that the resources to continue the war against drugs are given to the people that need it. Colombia is in the forefront, and President Uribe has done an outstanding job, and he needs all of the help he can get and we need to give it to him.

I rise in very strong opposition to the proposed cut in narco- terrorism fighting assistance to our good friend and ally Colombia, especially so, at this critical point in the global war on terror.

While the amendment's author wants to talk about more and more coca, he doesn't want to talk about the more than a half dozen helicopters the Committee has wisely provided the new means for the world renowned Colombian National Police (CNP) anti-drug unit to use to take on the increased coca we have now discovered. The committee also wisely

freed up at least 10 more helicopters to be used by the Colombian Army for drug interdiction and additional eradication to take on the new coca challenge as well. That is a total of 16 more helicopters for the drug fight.

We found the coca in more remote areas of Colombia where the narco- terrorists flee our joint aerial eradication. This new helicopter allocation will permit us to go after that new crop. They may well soon run out of places to hide if we do our job right. We cannot cut and run now.

In addition, I note also little reference by the gentleman from Massachusetts to opium and heroin and the progress and lives saved from our eradication and other efforts against that even more deadly and addictive drug (14 percent more addictive) from nearby Colombia. Until we went after the heroin at the source in Colombia, South American heroin was spreading rapidly across America from New York, Baltimore, Boston and other areas on the East Coast, on into places like Chicago in the Midwest, and further west.

There was a major breakup in December 2005 of a Colombian heroin ring in the Boston, Lawrence, Lynn, and Everett Massachusetts area by our DEA and local police with the cooperation of the Colombian National Police (CNP), who benefit from Plan Colombia aid. We cannot and ought not end those law enforcement efforts as well in places like the Boston area.

Prices have risen by 30 percent and purity has fallen 22 percent from 2003 to 2004 in the once deadly heroin from Colombia according to ONDCP data released this past November.

Young lives have been saved and many overdoses avoided here because of our eradication and other Plan Colombia efforts against South American heroin.

Unlike cocaine, which you can interdict in the multiton loads, heroin comes in concealed, one deadly kilo at a time in shoes, cloths, or baggage, and is nearly impossible to interdict after it leaves Colombia. Either spray it, or you will find it on the streets and communities of America taking lives and creating havoc. We have done this with South American heroin. The critics are silent on that part of Plan Colombia and the success we have witnessed.

``Just say no'' to this ill-advised and unproductive cut in aid for Colombia, a key strategic partner in the global war on terrorism in our own backyard and around the globe, including in Afghanistan where the Colombian National Police will soon be helping train the Afghan anti- drug units.

We owe them, and our kids as well, a Stay-the-Course Approach. Vote ``no.''

First of all, the Saudis don't need our money. They are one of the biggest oil producers in the world. And so why are we giving them $400,000 or $500,000 or a million, or whatever it happens to be?

I understand this is symbolic, but the fact of the matter is we want to send a message today to the Saudis. And the message is that we don't want them supporting Wahabism, which teaches hatred and teaches people to want to hate to the degree they would kill Christians and Jews and anybody that doesn't agree with them.

They are not only giving money to teach Wahabism in Saudi Arabia, but they are doing it in countries around the world. They are doing it in Canada, where 17 people were just captured the other day from a mosque up there that was teaching Wahabism and who were going to behead the Prime Minister of Canada.

Now, they should be very careful about where they are spending their money. And the way to let them know that is not to give them any of our money, which they don't need anyhow. They are also giving money to terrorist organizations like Hamas, and they are giving money to the families of people who blow themselves up, killing innocent women and children.

The Saudis should be responsible in using their money and teaching brotherly love and human rights and dignity of man instead of teaching Wahabism, which teaches just the opposite, hatred, murder, killing of people who don't agree with them and trying to spread in a prolific way the hatred of Wahabism.

I understand the concern of my colleague, but this is a signal that we are sending today. It is not going to amount to very much money, but it is a signal that needs to be sent to the Saudis that the world, not just the United States but the world, does not want organizations teaching hatred of Christians and Jews and anybody that doesn't agree with them. And that is being taught, as my colleague Mr. Weiner just pointed out very vividly on the floor.

In their textbooks, in their teaching they are teaching hatred, and that is not a thing we should be supporting in any way. And although this isn't much money, it is a message that should be sent, and I agree very strongly and hope everybody supports this amendment, as they did last year.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, we are coming down here to honor one of the greatest orators that has ever been a Member of the House of Representatives. Henry Hyde, I have known for about 24 years, and I do not think there is a finer Member of Congress that has ever served in this body.

He, along with another great orator named Claude Pepper on the Democrat side, made great speeches, speeches that are in the history books and in the record here in Congress, but speeches that I wish everybody in America could have heard.

Henry has been a great defender of human rights, of the right to life. He is one of the leaders on the right-to-life issue in the Congress, and he has been fighting for human rights and human life for a long, long time, and he has no peer in that area.

He has also been the chairman of the International Relations Committee and he serves in that position today. He is retiring at the end of this term, and I can tell you right now, everybody that knows Henry is going to miss him, miss him not only because he was a great chairman or is a great chairman, but because he has been a great inspiration to us and a great leader in this body.

I have a lot of things I want to put in the Record tonight. I will not go into all those things because I am sure my colleagues will mention a lot of them, but Henry has honorary degrees from a whole slew of institutions, universities and colleges around this country. He has been honored in so many ways because of his leadership, and he is a man that everybody in America could look up to if they knew him as well as we do.

So, tonight, I would just like to say, Henry, if you are home watching this, and there is probably better things on TV than watching me talk, let me just say that we love you, buddy. We are going to miss you, and we think you are one of the greatest Americans that ever served in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I have known Henry Hyde for many years and I admire him immensely. Henry's voice has been a voice of reason over years often marked by turbulence and discord. He has always offered a hopeful view of international affairs. His reassuring calm wit, and his profound analytical skills and intellect have contributed to all of our understanding of the many dimensions of foreign affairs--and America's role in the global community.

Today, I want to talk about the legacy that he has created and that we will carry forward as colleagues in the realm of foreign affairs, and in many ways, as students of his stewardship of congressional oversight of the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Henry was sworn into the House of Representatives in 1975, and when he took over the chairmanship of this committee he wasted no time to make his mark:

Chairman Hyde was instrumental in leading the charge to establish the Millennium Challenge Account to provide increased support for developing countries that are tackling corruption and instituting democratic reform and the rule of law. Henry always paid attention to the fine details in any discussion about the impact and effectiveness of United States foreign assistance; about public diplomacy, about dispute resolution and conflict situations.

Chairman Hyde's oversight of the Oil-for-Food Investigation has been steady and determined. The United Nations Reform Act of 2005 establishes a timetable for 46 specific reforms using U.S. dues payments as leverage for change.

Henry has made massive contributions to the fight against HIV/AIDS, helping push forward commitments to invest $15 billion over next 5 years to reduce infections from HIV/AIDS worldwide and provide lifesaving care and drugs to millions already infected.

Microenterprise owners in some of the poorest countries around the world are benefiting from important legislation that Henry has advocated to make more efficient the U.S. foreign assistance programs that target loans and grant assistance for small enterprises.

Henry's views on the Global War on Terrorism have been instructive and reassuring. He has steadfastly advocated key post-September 11th measures to improve how intelligence is gathered and managed, to tighten identification infrastructure, root out terrorists from so- called safe sanctuaries; and Henry has advocated much more proactive public diplomacy programs in the Muslim world. These are just a few of his contributions.

Henry has also been a human rights defender, strong voice for freedom to every comer of the planet, from Burma and North Korea, to Haiti, Cuba, Iraq, Iran and Darfur. We have worked together on many key issues, and a recurring theme is the nexus between terrorism and drug trafficking in places like the Andean Region in South America, and the social degradation and violence that captures communities in vicious cycles. Together we have looked for innovative ways to break these cycles. I have enjoyed working with Henry immensely.

Most recently I have listened carefully to Henry's public statements about rising powers like China and India, their management of the challenges of globalization, and how we can engage these rising powers in the areas of non-proliferation, economic security, and democratic institution building.

Henry has been a tireless warrior and an inspiration to us all. As we pay tribute to our friend today, I want to add my voice and say Thank you Henry.

Other Biographical Information

Education

Graduated 1942, St. George High School, Evanston, Illinois

B.S., 1947, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. (Also

attended Duke University, Durham, N.C.)

J.D., 1949, Loyola University School of Law, Chicago,

Illinois

Doctor of Laws (Hon.), St. Joseph's College, Standish,

Maine

Doctor of Laws (Hon.), Allentown College, Center Valley,

Pennsylvania

Doctor of Laws (Hon.), Campbell University, Buies Creek,

North Carolina

Doctor of Laws (Hon.), University of Dallas, Dallas, Texas

Doctor of Humane Letters (Hon.), Illinois Benedictine

College, Lisle, Illinois

Doctor of Humanities (Hon.), Lewis University, Romeoville,

Illinois

Director of Public Administration (Hon.), Midwest College

of Engineering, Lombard, Illinois

Associate in Arts (Hon.), Triton College, River Grove,

Illinois

Military Service

Enlisted U.S. Navy, November 11, 1942

Attended Navy V-12 Program at Duke University and Notre

Dame University, 1943-44, Midshipman's School, 1944

Commissioned Ensign, USNR, October, 1944, and served in

South Pacific, New Guinea and in combat in the Philippines

until August 1946

Served in the U.S. Naval Reserve, 1946-68; retired at the

rank of Commander, after serving as officer in charge, U.S.

Naval Intelligence Reserve Unit, Chicago

Professional

Admitted to Illinois Bar, January 9, 1950, and entered

private practice specializing in litigation

Past President of Trial Lawyers Club of Chicago

Past Chairman, Illinois Crime Investigating Commission

Awards and Honors

National D-Day Museum's American Spirit Medallion, 2004

Great Defender of Life Award, the Human Life Foundation,

2003

Chairman's Award, the DuPage County Workforce Board, 2003

True Blue Award, the Family Research Council, 2003

Friend of the Year, Marklund Children's Home, 2000

Life: the Choice for a New Millennium Award, Georgetown

University Council of the Knights of Columbus, 2000

Michael Kuhn Award, National Hemophilia Foundation, 1999

Statesmanship Award, Claremont Institute, 1999

Sword of Loyola for Service to Country, Respect for Life,

and Leadership in Government, Stritch School of Medicine of

Loyola University, 1995

Catholic American of the Year, Catholic Campaign for

America, 1994

Watchdog of the Treasury Award, annually from 1975 to

present. Given to legislators for their votes to curb federal

spending.

Guardian of Small Business, given annually by the National

Federation of Independent Business for voting record on

issues important to America's small and family-owned

businesses

Grace Caucus Award, Citizens Against Government Waste

Sound Dollar Award, Free Congress Foundation

National Security Leadership Award, Disabled American

Veterans

Distinguished Service Award, Disabled American Veterans

Alumni Medal of Excellence, Loyola University School of Law

Distinguished Citizens Citation, Creighton University,

Omaha, Nebraska