Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I get a big kick out of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, for whom I have great respect.

You know, I remember when Jimmy Carter was President of the United States, we had those gas lines that went all of the way around the block, and people carrying gas cans to get 3 gallons.

They said, we are going to become energy independent. We are not going to rely on the Saudis, or we are not going to rely on the Middle East or anybody else. That is what the Democrats in charge said they were going to do. That was back in the 1970s. In the 1970s.

And we drill for oil in California. And we drill for oil in Texas. And we drill for oil in Oklahoma. And we drill for oil in Kansas. All of those are very densely populated areas of the United States. We are all concerned about the environment and everything.

And yet I have been up to the ANWR in Alaska. There is nothing up there. Alaska is three and a half times the size of Texas, and we can get between 1 and 2 million barrels of oil a day, which would reduce the problem of supply and demand, and yet almost all of my Democratic colleagues who are down here hollering to high heaven tonight about the energy prices, they voted against it.

They sold out to the environmental people saying, oh, my gosh we cannot drill in the ANWR, which is 5,000 miles from nowhere. We cannot drill in the ANWR because we want to protect some animal that is not up there.

Then they came down here and have the unmitigated gall to tell the American people the reason the price of gasoline is so high is because of the Republicans, when they have, since the 1970s, not done a darn thing to deal with the energy problem, even when they were in the majority for 40 years.

It really bothers me. It bothers me a great deal. We have got a 500- year supply of natural gas in the ground in this country, in the continental States of the United States, and yet we have not drilled. Do you know why? Because the environmental nut cases have your party in their iron grip. You will not drill for it. You can do it in an environmentally safe way.

We can put natural gas in almost every car in America that is being produced today. It would be environmentally safe, would not hurt the environment in one way, would not hurt the atmosphere in one little bit, and yet you will not allow us to drill for it. Why not? Because you sold out to the environmentalists. And then you come down here and say, oh, my gosh, we are responsible for the high gas prices. The fact of the matter is before you start criticizing the Republicans, you ought to look in our own house. You ought to get with the program.

If we are going to be energy independent, what we are going to have to do is start drilling in the United States so we can do it in an environmentally safe way.

We ought to drill in the ANWR. We passed an energy bill in this House that would produce at least 1 million barrels of oil a day, and it went to the Senate, and your Democrat colleagues, the environmental nut cases took it out of the bill. And Senator Stevens from Alaska was beside himself. He is the Senator from up there. And yet you guys who are complaining about high gas prices today killed it. You killed it.

And so if I were talking to the American people tonight, I would say, if you want lower gasoline prices, if you want lower natural gas prices, if you want to see the United States move towards energy independence, then elect people who will drill for those products here in the United States where we have quite a bit of them, a pretty good supply.

And yet they will come down here tonight and blame everybody because they want your vote in November. But they got to earn it. They have got to do what is necessary to make us energy independent and quit just talking about it.

Mr. Speaker, Iran, as my colleague leaves the floor, is a terrorist state. They are trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the world and the United States cannot tolerate that. We will rue the day if we allow them to go forward with their nuclear weapons program. We will try diplomatic means, we will try economic sanctions, we will try anything to stop them; but we cannot allow them to build a nuclear capability, because they are a known terrorist state, period.

And I want to say one more thing about my colleague's comments about weapons of mass destruction not being found in Iraq. Many people thought that Iraq sent those weapons out of the country. Well, one of our special ops organizations in the last two or three days found 800 canisters, 800 canisters, of chemical weapons, the type that was used to kill the Kurds, 10,000 women and children, Kurdish children, during the regime of Saddam Hussein, and also the kinds of weapons that were used in the Iran-Iraq war.

So saying there were no weapons of mass destruction, when we have actually found 800 canisters in just the last few days, proves that that is not correct.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we are drilling for oil in Texas, California, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. How did the gentleman vote when we wanted to drill in the ANWR, which is 3.5 times the size of Texas? We could have gotten almost 2 million barrels of oil a day, and it would have helped these prices.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that bothers me is how some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle come down here and paint a picture using history as a guide that is totally inconsistent with what I, as a Member of Congress for 24 years, have seen and believe.

The President of the United States and the Congress's number one responsibility is to protect this country from enemies, both domestic and foreign. After the attack on 9/11, the President of the United States went after the bad guys, the terrorists. And Saddam Hussein, we were told, was building weapons of mass destruction. In the early 1980s the Israelis attacked a nuclear production site in Iraq because he was trying to build a nuclear weapon. In the Iran/Iraq war he used chemical weapons to kill Iranians during that war. He killed thousands and thousands of innocent women and children, Kurds, using chemical weapons. And in just the last couple of days, some of our expert military personnel in Iraq have found 800 canisters, 800 canisters of chemical weapons, the type that were used to kill Kurds and kill people in the Iran/Iraq war. That is a weapon of mass destruction. We just found it. And so people that say that there are no weapons of mass destruction, or were none, we are starting to find those. And we believe that many of those weapons were carted out of the country before we invaded.

And when I hear my colleagues say there was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and we had no reason to go in there, the fact of the matter is we know that Uday, Saddam Hussein's son, had leaders of the al Qaeda movement in Baghdad in the hospital and at other get- togethers many, many times. There was a loose-knit association between the Taliban, al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and others who want to do the Free World ill. That is a fact. And how we see people trying to distort history to say, oh, my gosh, America's made a terrible mistake by going into Iraq really bothers me. The President is doing his dead level best to defeat the terrorists and protect this Nation and the world. There have been attacks in Spain, in France, in England, the United States and other places, in Bali, the terrorists in Egypt just recently. And we cannot back down to the terrorists. We cannot appease them. The President is doing the right things.

Now, regarding Iraq, we are turning the war over to the Iraqis. Eleven million people went to the polls and voted for freedom, democracy and a government; and that government will be formed. It is being formed as we speak.

But we are reducing our troop forces. I understand we have gone from 161,000 just recently to a troop reduction of 30,000 down to 131,000. So we are reducing our forces, and we are turning it over to the Iraqis as they are able to take care of the problems themselves.

The terrorists are going to continue to try to tear up jack over there. They are going to try to drive everybody out and destroy democracy. But it is in our interest and the Free World's to stay the course. And if we don't, we will rue the day that we didn't.

And I want to end up one more time by saying to my colleagues who were talking about Iran early today, the gentleman from Washington, Iran is a terrorist state. We cannot allow them to develop a nuclear capability. And if we do that, we will be dead sorry we did.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, the war on terror goes beyond just worrying about our borders and fighting in other parts of the world against known terrorists.

Money from the Middle East has been coming into our universities in large amounts to try to indoctrinate young American students into taking a different position than our government has taken in fighting the war against terrorists and terror around the world.

One of the things that I think is extremely important is that while we are protecting first amendment rights for people to assemble and express themselves, even if they do not agree with our government, we ought to know where this money is coming from.

Millions and millions of dollars have been coming from Middle Eastern interests into colleges and universities around this country, espousing Middle Eastern positions and Middle Eastern studies. While not all of these Middle Eastern study programs are a problem, some of them are advocating the destruction of Israel and taking an opposing view to the United States Government's in dealing with the war against terror.

I think it is extremely important, Mr. Chairman, that we have a reporting policy so that we know where this money is coming from. I do not believe we should cut off people's first amendment right to assemble and discuss governmental policy, but I think we ought to know where the money is coming from.

All this amendment does is, it says very clearly that if money comes in from Middle Eastern interests or other interests around the world, the colleges and universities need to put it on a reporting form. This reporting form is also required once a year so we are not adding any additional workload to the colleges and universities.

All we are saying is, if you are getting money from Middle Eastern interests or other interests around the world, you have to report it. That gives our government the ability to watch what is going on and where the money is coming from, and if it is coming from proterrorist organizations, we can track it. We think it is extremely important for the protection of the United States and the security of the United States.

It does not cost any money. This amendment costs no money. It imposes no additional workload, and it does not violate the first amendment rights of the people of this country.

What it does do is it says we are going to find out where the money is coming from.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this. I think it is a very important amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago on March 22nd, 12 Americans--all from B'nai B'rith International--a Jewish organization committed to fighting human rights abuses--lost their lives in a tragic bus accident in the mountains of Chile. What should have been a relaxing day excursion for these 12 senior citizens to Chile's beautiful Lauca National Park instead became a horrible nightmare as their tour bus tumbled more than 300 feet down a cliff, killing all but four on board. The driver of the bus remains under investigation as Chilean authorities try to determine the exact cause of the wreck.

As Chairman of the House International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I have visited Chile, and I know first hand its beautiful land and culture. I understand what drives Americans to visit this great country, and I am deeply saddened that this part of Chile will be forever marked by tragedy.

I know all the victims of this terrible tragedy will be sadly missed by all who knew and loved them. I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me in sending the deepest sympathies and heartfelt prayers to their families. May God bless them and help them get through this very difficult time.

Offered By: Mr. Burton of Indiana

Amendment No. 2: At the end of title VI of the Amendment,

add the following new section:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have discussed at length with the chairman of the subcommittee from Arizona and the chairman of the full committee the problems that we faced with Plan Colombia.

In the last 5 or 6 years, there have been 23 aircraft lost that are vitally important to the drug interdiction problem that we are facing. This chart shows you where the drugs are coming from and where they are going according to our intelligence agencies. And once drugs, heroin and cocaine, get beyond Colombia, 65 percent of them, almost two-thirds of them, work their way into the United States onto the streets, into the schools, into the playgrounds of this country.

President Uribe just came out up here recently and told us without the additional assets that are asked for in this amendment, he will not be able to do the job in dealing with the drug problem that we face here in America. So we have to decide as a Congress are we going to continue to fight the war against drugs or are we going to start acquiescing? Are we going to start caving in?

According to President Uribe, they need 23 aircraft. We have talked to the appropriators, and I really appreciate Mr. Kolbe for working on this, and Mr. Lewis, the chairman. We have decided on a compromise right now. I hope that will help President Uribe. It is not going to solve the problem, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

What it does is provides three DC-3s, which will be able to surveil the area and help us interdict these drugs that are getting beyond Colombia and up into the United States. They have been doing a good job without all the assets they need, and with these additional DC-3s, which have all the technology that is necessary to police this area, it should help a great deal.

Make no mistake about it. We still need the Hueys. We still need the Blackhawks. Something like 70 percent of the aircraft they have used in this area have been destroyed in the last 5 or 6 years, and they need help down there. And President Uribe himself came all the way to the United States to make a plea for this help.

I have talked to the Speaker about it as well as the leaders of the Committee on Appropriations. And I hope my colleagues on the Democrat side as well will see fit to support this. We have a war against drugs. I have some colleagues who serve with me on the Government Reform Committee that told me in Baltimore there is an 80 percent increase in the amount of heroin usage in the minority community. If we are going to deal with that problem, we have to provide the resources for President Uribe and the Colombian national police and the Colombian military to deal with this problem.

In addition to that, we have other problems in South America and Central America that need to be dealt with which this equipment will also help us with. And we also have the problem with possible terrorists coming in. This surveillance effort will help in that regard as well.

I have a lot more things I would like to say, but I understand my time is about expired. I hope you will accept this amendment and I really appreciate you working with us.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Hyde, chairman Davis, Congressman Souder, Congressman Chabot and the staff of the International Relations Committee for their exceptional work on crafting this critically important amendment.

Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is a key ally in the War on Drugs and a strong ally in Latin America. Last year, under his leadership and with U.S. and international support, Colombia succeeded in destroying 170,000 hectares of illegal coca (aerial and manual eradication), thus removing a potential 150 metric tons of cocaine with a street value of over $15 billion. Colombia's police and military forces captured or shared in the capture of another 223 metric tons of cocaine and cocaine base.

Despite these many successes, experience has taught us that if the cocaine and heroin make it to the coasts of Colombia, it has a 65 percent chance of getting into the United States. This is due, in part, to the reduction in assets monitoring the trafficking routes. We have excellent intelligence, we know where the smugglers are going but we lack the assets in theater to properly intercept the drugs headed our way.

Since 2000, we have witnessed--and thanks to aggressive oversight efforts by this Congress exposed--a nearly 70 percent reduction in military Marine Patrol Aircraft (MPA) used to interdict these deadly drugs after they reach the Colombian coast.

Furthermore, more than 23 aircraft including fixed wing spray planes and helicopters of the Colombian National Police (CNP) have been lost in action. The losses include both Black Hawk and Huey 2 helicopters used by the police anti-drug units in support of high altitude eradication of the opium corp. In 2003 alone, nearly 25 percent of the aircraft used in spray operations were lost, and they have not been replaced as of yet.

We cannot continue to enjoy even modest success at interdicting and destroying these drugs unless we make up these losses.

The Burton Amendment will restore critical anti-narcotic air and surface assets in the Colombian Navy and National police. The Amendment provides for $99.4 million in counter-drug emergency assistance to help replace some of the 23 Colombian National Police (CNP) aircraft lost in the fight against narco-terrorism since 2000. The money will also would provide three (3) new aircraft to serve as Marine Patrol Aircraft (MPA) for the Colombian Navy's drug interdiction efforts. In addition, the proposal will cover the operational and maintenance expenses for two year for these new aircraft.

I know that many of my colleagues are concerned about the cost of this amendment and the fact that we've asked for the funds to be considered as emergency spending.

I would respectfully remind those of my colleagues who oppose this amendment that the streets of America are awash in drugs. Because many of our own military maritime and air interdiction assets were removed from the Caribbean basin to deal with the challenges of homeland security after 9/11, we have left critical gaps in our drug interdiction net. The end result is that today the Central American Transit Zone is being exploited by drug-traffickers like never before.

We ignore this problem at our own peril, as the very routes being used to ship dangers narcotics to our shores could just as easily be used to smuggle in terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. Although there is no solid evidence yet of Central and South America traffickers and Al-Qaeda, many law enforcement officials have commented on the positive benefits to both groups from such a linkage. I believe it is not a question of if Al-Qaeda will try to exploit this glaring hole in our security net but when. The emergency is now and it is very real.

Spending this modest sum now to consolidate the major gains of the Plan Colombia program and strengthen our homeland security effort will save us far more money in comparison to the potential cost of cleaning up the mess should we allow Plan Colombia to ultimately fail, or al- Qaeda to exploit this situation to kill thousands more innocent Americans.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, due to illness I was regrettably unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 19 and 20, final passage of H.R. 4054--the ``Dewey F. Bartlett Post Office Designation Act'' and S. 2271--the ``USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006,'' respectively.

Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 19, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 20.

Mr. Speaker, due to illness I was regrettably unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall vote No. 18, providing for the consideration of H.R. 4167, the ``National Uniformity for Food Act.''

Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 18.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend and congratulate the Peace Corps, and its many volunteers, on the 45th Anniversary of its inception. During a 1960 visit to the University of Michigan, then-Senator John F. Kennedy challenged students to not only better themselves academically, but to serve the call of duty and help promote and facilitate peace throughout the globe.

As a result of this proclamation, the Peace Corps was established with the noble goal in mind of promoting peace and friendship between the United States and other countries around the world. If President Kennedy were alive today, he would no doubt look upon the Peace Corps with great pride and admiration for what it has evolved in to: a vessel which fosters an in-depth understanding between Americans and the indigenous peoples of the countries in which they serve, helping the rest of us to better understand a plethora of different customs, traditions and ways of life.

Since its founding 45 years ago, more than 182,000 Peace Corps Volunteers have been invited by 138 host countries to help countless individuals who want to build a better life for themselves, their children, and their communities. Whether empowering seemingly helpless people to take control of their own lives, assisting with AIDS relief in poverty-stricken countries, developing greater business opportunities, expanding agriculture development, or--most recently-- coming to the rescue of their own countrymen whose entire lives were uprooted by the devastating destruction of Hurricane Katrina, these volunteers provide a faithful service to this great Nation, and they should be proud of their achievement. And we are certainly proud of each and every volunteer and what they represent. In fact, from my own district in Indiana, there are currently 20 volunteers who are giving their time to this country, away from their families, to help strangers make a better life for themselves, and I would personally like to thank my fellow Hoosiers for their commitment.

As we all know, the Peace Corps has made life better for millions of people worldwide, and has enriched the lives of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have devoted their time, energy and passion into answering the Peace Corps' call to duty. I would respectfully encourage my fellow colleagues to congratulate, commend, and encourage the continued advancement and success of the Peace Corps and all that its volunteers represent.

Mr. Speaker, due to illness I was regrettably unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall vote 17, final passage of H. Res. 357, a bill to honor Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the occasion of her retirement from the United States Supreme Court and to commend her for her hard work and dedication to the law.

Had I been here I would have unquestionably voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 17.

Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of weeks in the newspapers and on television and on the radios across this country people have been warned not to eat too much tuna and other seafood because of the mercury content in the fish. They said that women who are pregnant and women and men who are eating a lot of these seafood products could have neurological problems created because they are eating so much seafood with mercury in them.

I think that it is good that they are telling the American people that. But

at the same time that that is going on, our health agencies are allowing mercury to be put into almost every vaccine an adult gets and many of the vaccines that children get.

Since the late 1920s and early 1930s, there has been a product called Thimerosal put into many of the vaccines, in fact, most of the vaccines that people get today. Thimerosal is 50 percent ethyl mercury, and mercury is toxic to the neurological system of the human being. Yet we have talked about this for 4, 5, 6 years now, and we cannot get the mercury out of the vaccines. It is being used as a preservative.

The interesting thing about it is that it has never been tested. You might say it was tested back in 1929, because they said they tested it on 27 people that had meningitis. All of them died from meningitis, but none of them died from the mercury they were being injected with. But they died anyhow from the meningitis. There wasn't enough time to find out about the neurological problems that might ensue because they were having mercury injected into their bodies.

Our children today, before they go to the first grade, get between 25 and 30 shots. Most of those shots used to contain mercury. Now there are only about three or four that contain mercury. Nevertheless, it has caused severe neurological problems in children.

We have gone from where 1 in 10,000 children were found to be autistic to one in 166. It is an absolute epidemic. We have also seen a tremendous increase in people that have Alzheimer's and other neurological diseases. Yet we continue to allow our health agencies to allow the pharmaceutical industry to put mercury into the vaccines going into every single human being into this country, and in particular our military personnel overseas.

Now we are hearing about the bird flu, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to spend billions of dollars preparing this country for a possible bird flu epidemic. That means they are going to create vaccines, and those vaccines, in all probability, will have mercury in them, which means that every single person that is vaccinated with the bird flu vaccine will probably be getting Thimerosal in them, which is 50 percent ethyl mercury.

It does cause severe neurological problems when it is given over a long period of time. Your brain accumulates this mercury. It doesn't chelate out of the body in a very efficient way. So if you get 10 shots, that mercury stays and keeps building up, and it gets worse and worse as time goes by. The health agencies know this is a problem, and yet we continue to allow mercury to be put into these vaccines.

So today, since the people of this country are being warned about not eating too much fish that contains mercury like tuna and so forth, I think it is high time that the health agencies of this country get the mercury out of all vaccines that are being injected into children and adults in this country because of the danger to their neurological system. It is extremely important.

It can be done. This Thimerosal is supposedly a preservative. If we go to single shot vials, which don't cost much more than the multi-shot vials being used, you can take the mercury out of them because you don't need that preservative in there, you don't need that kind of purifying agent, if you will, in that vaccine.

It is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, that we get mercury out of all vaccines. Right now, with the warnings being given to people not to eat too much fish with mercury in them, it is high time our health agencies get mercury out of all vaccines.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and former member of my staff, Ms. Elizabeth Ann Birt, who died following an auto accident while on vacation in Colorado late last year. Liz is survived by her three children: Sarah, Matthew, and Andrew.

In 1996, Liz's son Matthew was diagnosed with autism, a devastating neurological disorder that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now afflicts approximately 1 in 166 American children. My own grandson is autistic so I know first-hand how traumatic this news can be for parents of newly diagnosed autistic children. All too often, parents give up on the search for answers because raising a child with autism requires so much more time and energy than raising a so-called average child.

Liz, however, did not back away from the fight. No matter how tired and discouraged she might have been, Liz was determined to show the world that one person can make a difference just by asking questions. Her courageous and infectious enthusiasm ignited a quest for truth and justice for the autistic children of this country. There can be no doubt that Liz fought hard for what she believed in and in the end, her brilliant mind, strong spirit, and passion for the truth made her a hero to the autism community.

In fact, it is through her work on autism that I first came to know Liz; and not long after I became Chairman of the Government Reform Committee in 1997, I invited her to join my

staff to help lead the Committee's investigation into the autism epidemic sweeping our country. As a valued legal advisor/investigator for the Committee, Liz helped us to elevate the level of public debate about this disease, as well as educate policymakers at all levels of government about the evolving science concerning the toxic effects of thimerosal--a mercury-based preservative commonly used in vaccines.

Like many of us who have been involved in this debate over the years, when Liz first heard about the connection between autism and thimerosal, she was skeptical. But she read everything she could find, requested government documents and studies, and in the end became convinced that thimerosal was in fact the cause of her son Matthew's autism. Armed with this knowledge, Liz helped to co-write the groundbreaking congressional staff report, ``Mercury in Medicine-- Taking Unnecessary Risks,'' published in the Congressional Record in 2003, which challenged the conventional thinking of the Federal Government, the public health systems, the medical communities, and the pharmaceutical companies on the subject of thimerosal and autism- spectrum disorders.

In addition to her government service, Liz served the autism community through her leadership in many nonprofit organizations. As the co-founder of the ``Coalition for SafeMinds'' (Sensible Action for Ending Mercury-induced Neurological Disorders), founder of Medical Interventions for Autism, founding board member of the National Autism Association, and co-creator of the Extreme Sports Camp in Aspen, Colorado, Liz brought joy, hope, and inspiration to many autistic children and their parents. In addition, Liz was one of the founding members of the autism community's first political action organization, A-CHAMP (Advocates for Children's Health Affected by Mercury Poisoning). Liz was especially proud of this venture; and in a short period of time A-CHAMP has become one of the driving forces behind the growing and highly successful movement to ban mercury at the State level.

I believe, as Liz did, that strong evidence points to the mercury unnecessarily used in vaccines as part of the autism problem, and that thimerosal played a key role in my grandson developing autism. The science is undeniable: mercury is a base element--and it remains a base element even when mixed with other materials--and the most toxic substance known to man outside of radioactive materials.

The fact is that no one has ever identified a positive health benefit to mercury in the human body, and as more science accumulates and more people learn about the dangers of mercury, more time runs out for those who continue to advocate that mercury in vaccines and other medical devices is safe. Eventually, even they will have to admit that it flies in the face of logic to suggest, much less believe, that a substance so dangerously toxic outside the body is harmless once injected into the human body.

Until that day comes, I know that I, and others like Liz who believe as I do, will not be silent about this issue or give up in our fight to make our world a safer and healthier place. And when that day does come, we will all owe a debt of gratitude to Liz Birt for leading the way and becoming a leader in a fight she would rather not have been fighting.

Liz will be sadly missed by all who knew and loved her. I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me in sending their deepest sympathies and heartfelt prayers to Liz's family. May God bless them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to tell him that he is aging himself when he talks about Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy in that movie.

Let me start off by saying that I looked at this bill, and 95 percent of it I agree with; but there is one area I do not. I am probably going to vote for the rule, but I have a terrible problem with this Avian Flu Pandemic Compensation Fund, so-called. I think my colleagues need to know really what is in this language, this 40-some pages that were added very late in the day.

First of all, I do not believe anybody is going to be able to collect any money at all. The fund does not have any money in it, number one. Number two, when you look at the language, it gives carte blanche authority to the vaccine companies, but it does not provide a mechanism for people to get compensation if they are damaged or injured.

Let me just read to you what it says. It says: ``The plaintiff,'' that is the person who was injured by the vaccine, ``shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence willful misconduct by each covered person,'' i.e. the manufacturers, ``sued and that such willful misconduct caused death or serious injury.'' However, a manufacturer is presumed not to have engaged in willful misconduct if they ``acted consistent with guidelines or recommendations by the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding the administration'' of the vaccine.

So, basically, the manufacturers are protected no matter what. No matter what. And then it goes on to say that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has to decide whether or not they engaged in willful misconduct, and that is a determination that he would have to make. And if he does not make that determination, there is no action whatsoever a damaged person could take.

Now, we had a similar problem with the smallpox vaccination problem in 2003, and first responders would not be vaccinated because there was not adequate provisions for compensation in the event they were damaged. They would not take the vaccination.

Now, what would happen if we had an avian flu pandemic and people found out there might be damage caused to them by the vaccination and there was no recourse for them whatsoever, which is the case, in my opinion? Would they take the vaccination knowing they might be damaged, or would they risk not getting the avian flu and maybe be a conductor of this epidemic and spread it all over the country?

I really believe this language should not have been put in this bill. I believe we should give liability protection to the pharmaceutical companies, but we should do it in conjunction with things that are going to protect the American public from vaccinations that hurt them. And this does not do that. It just does not do that. And I am very sorry that this was added to this legislation at the 11th hour. I think it is a tragic mistake and God help us, God help us if we have the kind of problems that could happen with people being damaged by the thousands by this vaccination. It will not be checked out. We will not have time if we have an epidemic for it to be tested again and again. And you could have tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands people die or hurt from the vaccination itself and they would have no recourse whatsoever.