Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. Speaker, I have been down here a lot talking about autism over the years and my committee had many hearings on the issue of autism. My grandson became autistic after receiving 9 shots in one day, 7 of which contained mercury, in a product called thimerosal. And he is doing better but it has been a very difficult time for me and my family.

I strongly believe that there is a link between the mercury that is in the thimerosal in the vaccines and children developing neurological disorders such as autism. In fact, according to a recent study released by collaboration of U.S. medical researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Northeastern University in Boston, and the University of Nebraska and Tufts University that was published in the Vancouver Sun in February of last year and was officially released in the April 2004 edition of the scientific journal Molecular Psychiatry, ``A recent review of vaccine-related adverse events in the U.S. found a significant correlation between shots containing thimerosal,'' i.e. mercury ``and autism.''

The study further concluded that the use of thimerosal-containing shots could account for the rising rates of autism since the early 1980s when more thimerosal-containing vaccinations were added to the government-mandated childhood vaccination schedule.

Scientific evidence aside, we have seen an increase from 1 in 10,000 children who are autistic to 1 in 166 since they started using thimerosal in many, many vaccines in the early eighties and children started getting more of these shots.

I am not against vaccinations but I do believe, as many of my colleagues, including the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) believe, that mercury should be taken out of all childhood vaccines and in fact all vaccines.

We need to ask ourselves one simple question: What is right? The answer I think is very clear. Get mercury out of all vaccinations.

In reality the answer that is given by far too many officials in our government, health agencies and some Members of Congress, sorry, we cannot help you, and the need to protect the pharmaceutical industry is so great, we cannot do much about it.

Some in my party keep talking about changing the law to protect the drug companies against so-called frivolous lawsuits, and we have to do something to help these families who had their children damaged by the mercury vaccines. I am against class action lawsuits in general. I am for tort reform, but we have got to do something to help these families.

We have tried to talk to the pharmaceutical industry about protecting them while at the same time changing the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund in a way that will protect these families and help those who have been damaged, but so far we have gotten absolutely nowhere with them; and it is something I think we need to continue to work on.

Just recently, there was an article that was published in a magazine I normally do not read. It is called Rolling Stone, but this article was brought to my attention, and I think everybody in this body ought to read that article. It was written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., somebody who I normally do not read, but I have to tell my colleagues it is a very well-written article. It goes into great detail and scientific research studies on mercury-connected mental disorders caused by the thimerosal in the mercury in these vaccinations.

I would submit to all my colleagues they really need to read this article. I am going to send a Dear Colleague out to all of my colleagues in the House and the Senate over the next couple of days. It is a fairly lengthy article, but it goes into how government officials met with pharmaceutical company officials and deliberately covered up the connection, deliberately covered up the connection between the thimerosal in vaccines and the problems that are being created, neurological problems that have been created in these children, including autism.

All of my colleagues ought to read this and realize that we have had a collaboration between health officials in our government and the pharmaceutical industry to protect themselves from class action lawsuits at the expense of these young kids and families who have been damaged by neurological disorders, including autism.

So I submit to my colleagues who may be in their offices or here tonight, please read this article. It is extremely important. I do not want to hurt the pharmaceutical industry. I would like to protect them from class action lawsuits; but at the same time, we need to change that Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund to take care of these kids that have been damaged and help their families.

Deadly Immunity

(By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.)

June 16, 2005.--In June 2000, a group of top government

scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the

isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Ga.

Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center,

nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River,

to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public

announcement of the session--only private invitations to 52

attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and

the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist

from the World Health Organization in Geneva, and

representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer,

including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur.

All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials

repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly

``embargoed.'' There would be no

making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them

when they left.

The federal officials and industry representatives had

assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised

alarming questions about the safety of a host of common

childhood vaccines administered to infants and young

children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom

Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency's massive database

containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury

based preservative in the vaccines--thimerosal--appeared to

be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host

of other neurological disorders among children. ``I was

actually stunned by what I saw,'' Verstraeten told those

assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of

earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and

speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and

autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended

that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be

given to extremely young infants--in one case, within hours

of birth--the estimated number of cases of autism had

increased fifteen fold, from one in every 2,500 children to

one in 166 children.

Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting

issues of life and death, the findings were frightening.

``You can play with this all you want,'' Dr. Bill Weil, a

consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the

group. The results ``are statistically significant.'' Dr.

Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the

University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on

the morning of the meeting's first day, was even more

alarmed. ``My gut feeling?'' he said. ``Forgive this personal

comment--I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-

containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.''

But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public

and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and

executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days

discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to

transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act,

many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging

revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine

industry's bottom line.

``We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending

any lawsuits,'' said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the

Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware. ``This

will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in

this country.'' Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the

CDC, expressed relief that'' given the sensitivity of the

information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands

of, let's say, less responsible hands.'' Dr. John Clements,

vaccines advisor at the World Health Organization, declared

flatly that the study ``should not have been done at all''

and warned that the results ``will be taken by others and

will be used in ways beyond the control of this group. The

research results have to be handled.''

In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at

handling the damage than at protecting children's health. The

CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to

whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to

``rule out'' the chemical's link to autism. It withheld

Verstraeten's findings, even though they had been slated for

immediate publication, and told other scientists that his

original data had been ``lost'' and could not be replicated.

And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its

giant database of vaccine records over to a private company,

declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time

Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone

to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the

link between thimerosal and autism.

Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal

out of injections given to American infants--but they

continued to sell off their mercury-based supplies of

vaccines until last year. The CDC and FDA gave them a hand,

buying up the tainted vaccines for export to developing

countries and allowing drug companies to continue using the

preservative in some American vaccines--including several

pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters routinely

given to 11-year-olds.

The drug companies are also getting help from powerful

lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist,

who has received $873,000 in contributions from the

pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine

makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed

by the parents of injured children. On five separate

occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government's

vaccine-related documents--including the Simpsonwood

transcripts--and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of

thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist

quietly slipped a rider known as the ``Eli Lilly Protection

Act'' into a homeland security bill, the company contributed

$10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book

on bioterrorism. Congress repealed the measure in 2003--

but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision

into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation

to children suffering from vaccine-related brain

disorders. ``The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they

could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our

capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists,''

says Andy Olsen, a legislative assistant to Frist.

Even many conservatives are shocked by the government's

effort to cover up the dangers of thimerosal. Rep. Dan

Burton, a Republican from Indiana, oversaw a three-year

investigation of thimerosal after his grandson was diagnosed

with autism. ``Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines

is directly related to the autism epidemic,'' his House

Government Reform Committee concluded in its final report.

``This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or

curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding

a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known

neurotoxin.'' The FDA and other public-health agencies failed

to act, the committee added, out of ``institutional

malfeasance for self protection'' and ``misplaced

protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry.''

The story of how government health agencies colluded with

Big Pharmacy to hide the risks of thimerosal from the public

is a chilling case study of institutional arrogance, power

and greed. I was drawn into the controversy only reluctantly.

As an attorney and environmentalist who has spent years

working on issues of mercury toxicity, I frequently met

mothers of autistic children who were absolutely convinced

that their kids had been injured by vaccines. Privately, I

was skeptical. I doubted that autism could be blamed on a

single source, and I certainly understood the government's

need to reassure parents that vaccinations are safe; the

eradication of deadly childhood diseases depends on it. I

tended to agree with skeptics like Rep. Henry Waxman, a

Democrat from California, who criticized his colleagues on

the House Government Reform Committee for leaping to

conclusions about autism and vaccinations. ``Why should we

scare people about immunization,'' Waxman pointed out at one

hearing, ``until we know the facts?''

It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts,

studying the leading scientific research and talking with

many of the nation's preeminent authorities on mercury that I

became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the

epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. Five of

my own children are members of the Thimerosal Generation--

those born between 1989 and 2003--who received heavy doses of

mercury from vaccines. ``The elementary grades are

overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological

or immune-system damage,'' Patti White, a school nurse, told

the House Government Reform Committee in 1999. ``Vaccines are

supposed to be making us healthier; however, in 25 years of

nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids.

Something very, very wrong is happening to our children.''

More than 500,000 kids currently suffer from autism, and

pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases every year.

The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified

and diagnosed among children born in the months after

thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines in 1931.

Some skeptics dispute that the rise in autism is caused by

thimerosal-tainted vaccinations. They argue that the increase

is a result of better diagnosis--a theory that seems

questionable at best, given that most of the new cases of

autism are clustered within a single generation of children.

``If the epidemic is truly an artifact of poor diagnosis,''

scoffs Dr. Boyd Haley, one of the world's authorities on

mercury toxicity, ``then where are all the 20-year-old

autistics?'' Other researchers point out that Americans are

exposed to a greater cumulative ``load'' of mercury than ever

before, from contaminated fish to dental fillings, and

suggest that thimerosal in vaccines may be only part of a

much larger problem. It's a concern that certainly deserves

far more attention than it has received--but it overlooks the

fact that the mercury concentrations in vaccines dwarf other

sources of exposure to our children.

What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the

leading detectives have gone to ignore--and cover up--the

evidence against thimerosal. From the very beginning, the

scientific case against the mercury additive has been

overwhelming. The preservative, which is used to stem fungi

and bacterial growth in vaccines, contains ethylmercury, a

potent neurotoxin. Truckloads of studies have shown that

mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of primates and

other animals after they are injected with vaccines--and that

the developing brains of infants are particularly

susceptible. In 1977, a Russian study found that adults

exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than

those given to American children still suffered brain damage

years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children's

vaccines 20 years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great

Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since

followed suit.

``You couldn't even construct a study that shows thimerosal

is safe,'' says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at

the University of Kentucky. ``It's just too darn toxic. If

you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken.

If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put

it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things,

it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant

without causing damage.''

Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first

developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product

could cause damage--and even death--in both animals and

humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by

administering it to 22 patients with terminal meningitis, all

of whom died within weeks of being injected--a fact Lilly

didn't

bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In

1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-

Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal's safety

``did not check with ours.'' Half the dogs Pittman injected

with thimerosal-based vaccines became sick, leading

researchers there to declare the preservative

``unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs.''

In the decades that followed, the evidence against

thimerosal continued to mount. During the Second World War,

when the Department of Defense used the preservative in

vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it

``poison.'' In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found

that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines.

Four years later, Lilly's own studies discerned that

thimerosal was ``toxic to tissue cells'' in concentrations as

low as one part per million--100 times weaker than the

concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company

continued to promote thimerosal as ``nontoxic'' and also

incorporated it into topical disinfectants. In 1977, 10

babies at a Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic

preserved with thimerosal was dabbed onto their umbilical

cords.

In 1982, the FDA proposed a ban on over-the-counter

products that contained thimerosal, and in 1991 the agency

considered banning it from animal vaccines. But tragically,

that same year, the CDC recommended that infants be injected

with a series of mercury-laced vaccines. Newborns would be

vaccinated for hepatitis B within 24 hours of birth, and 2-

month-old infants would be immunized for haemophilus

influenzae B and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.

The drug industry knew the additional vaccines posed a

danger. The same year that the CDC approved the new vaccines,

Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck's vaccine

programs, warned the company that 6-month-olds who were

administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to

mercury. He recommended that thimerosal be discontinued,

``especially when used on infants and children,'' noting that

the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. ``The best way to

go,'' he added, ``is to switch to dispensing the actual

vaccines without adding preservatives.''

For Merck and other drug companies, however, the obstacle

was money. Thimerosal enables the pharmaceutical industry to

package vaccines in vials that contain multiple doses, which

require additional protection because they are more easily

contaminated by multiple needle entries. The larger vials

cost half as much to produce as smaller, single-dose vials,

making it cheaper for international agencies to distribute

them to impoverished regions at risk of epidemics. Faced

with this ``cost consideration,'' Merck ignored Hilleman's

warnings, and government officials continued to push more

and more thimerosal-based vaccines for children. Before

1989, American preschoolers received 11 vaccinations--for

polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-

rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal

recommendations, children were receiving a total of 22

immunizations by the time they reached first grade.

As the number of vaccines increased, the rate of autism

among children exploded. During the 1990s, 40 million

children were injected with thimerosal-based vaccines,

receiving unprecedented levels of mercury during a period

critical for brain development. Despite the well-documented

dangers of thimerosal, it appears that no one bothered to add

up the cumulative dose of mercury that children would receive

from the mandated vaccines. ``What took the FDA so long to do

the calculations?'' Peter Patriarca, director of viral

products for the agency, asked in an e-mail to the CDC in

1999. ``Why didn't CDC and the advisory bodies do these

calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood

immunization schedule?''

But by that time, the damage was done. Infants who received

all their vaccines, plus boosters, by the age of six months

were being injected with a total of 187 micrograms of

ethylmercury--a level 40 percent greater than the EPA's limit

for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin.

Although the vaccine industry insists that ethylmercury poses

little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is removed

by the body, several studies--including one published in

April by the National Institutes of Health--suggest that

ethylmercury is actually more toxic to developing brains and

stays in the brain longer than methylmercury. Under the

expanded schedule of vaccinations, multiple shots were often

administered on a single day: At two months, when the infant

brain is still at a critical stage of development, children

routinely received three inoculations that delivered 99 times

the approved limit of mercury.

Officials responsible for childhood immunizations insist

that the additional vaccines were necessary to protect

infants from disease and that thimerosal is still essential

in developing nations, which, they often claim, cannot afford

the single-dose vials that don't require a preservative. Dr.

Paul Offit, one of CDC's top vaccine advisors, told me, ``I

think if we really have an influenza pandemic--and certainly

we will in the next 20 years, because we always do--there's

no way on God's earth that we immunize 280 million people

with single-dose vials. There has to be multidose vials.''

But while public-health officials may have been well-

intentioned, many of those on the CDC advisory committee who

backed the additional vaccines had close ties to the

industry. Dr. Sam Katz, the committee's chair, was a paid

consultant for most of the major vaccine makers and shares a

patent on a measles vaccine with Merck, which also

manufactures the hepatitis B vaccine. Dr. Neal Halsey,

another committee member, worked as a researcher for the

vaccine companies and received honoraria from Abbott Labs for

his research on the hepatitis B vaccine.

Indeed, in the tight circle of scientists who work on

vaccines, such conflicts of interest are common. Rep. Burton

says that the CDC ``routinely allows scientists with blatant

conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory

committees that make recommendations on new vaccines,'' even

though they have ``interests in the products and companies

for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased

oversight.'' The House Government Reform Committee discovered

that four of the eight CDC advisors who approved guidelines

for a rotavirus vaccine ``had financial ties to the

pharmaceutical companies that were developing different

versions of the vaccine.''

Offit, who shares a patent on one of the vaccines,

acknowledged to me that he ``would make money'' if his vote

eventually leads to a marketable product. But he dismissed my

suggestion that a scientist's direct financial stake in CDC

approval might bias his judgment. ``It provides no conflict

for me,'' he insists. ``I have simply been informed by the

process, not corrupted by it. When I sat around that table,

my sole intent was trying to make recommendations that best

benefited the children in this country. It's offensive to say

that physicians and public-health people are in the pocket of

industry and thus are making decisions that they know are

unsafe for children. It's just not the way it works.''

Other vaccine scientists and regulators gave me similar

assurances. Like Offit, they view themselves as enlightened

guardians of children's health, proud of their

``partnerships'' with pharmaceutical companies, immune to the

seductions of personal profit, besieged by irrational

activists whose anti-vaccine campaigns are endangering

children's health. They are often resentful of questioning.

``Science,'' says Offit, ``is best left to scientists.''

Still, some government officials were alarmed by the

apparent conflicts of interest. In his e-mail to CDC

administrators in 1999, Paul Patriarca of the FDA blasted

federal regulators for failing to adequately scrutinize the

danger posed by the added baby vaccines. ``I'm not sure there

will be an easy way out of the potential perception that the

FDA, CDC and immunization-policy bodies may have been asleep

at the switch re: thimerosal until now,'' Patriarca wrote.

The close ties between regulatory officials and the

pharmaceutical industry, he added, ``will also raise

questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive

recommendations for use'' of thimerosal in child vaccines.

If federal regulators and government scientists failed to

grasp the potential risks of thimerosal over the years, no

one could claim ignorance after the secret meeting at

Simpsonwood. But rather than conduct more studies to test the

link to autism and other forms of brain damage, the CDC

placed politics over science. The agency turned its database

on childhood vaccines--which had been developed largely at

taxpayer expense--over to a private agency, America's Health

Insurance Plans, ensuring that it could not be used for

additional research. It also instructed the Institute of

Medicine, an advisory organization that is part of the

National Academy of Sciences, to produce a study debunking

the link between thimerosal and brain disorders. The CDC

``wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty

safe,'' Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM's

Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow

researchers when they first met in January 2001. ``We are not

ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect''

of thimerosal exposure. According to transcripts of the

meeting, the committee's chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton,

predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was

``inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation'' between

thimerosal and autism. That, she added, was the result ``Walt

wants''--a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the

National Immunization Program for the CDC.

For those who had devoted their lives to promoting

vaccination, the revelations about thimerosal threatened to

undermine everything they had worked for. ``We've got a

dragon by the tail here,'' said Dr. Michael Kaback, another

committee member. ``The more negative that [our] presentation

is, the less likely people are to use vaccination,

immunization--and we know what the results of that will be.

We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out of

the trap, I think is the charge.''

Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their

primary goal in studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts

about vaccines. ``Four current studies are taking place to

rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal,''

Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for

vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health,

assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. ``In

order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to

link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we

need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure

parents of safety.'' Douglas

formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where

he ignored warnings about thimerosal's risks.

In May of last year, the Institute of Medicine issued its

final report. Its conclusion: There is no proven link between

autism and thimerosal in vaccines. Rather than reviewing

the large body of literature describing the toxicity of

thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed

epidemiological studies examining European countries,

where children received much smaller doses of thimerosal

than American kids. It also cited a new version of the

Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics,

that had been reworked to reduce the link between

thimerosal and autism. The new study included children too

young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked

others who showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared

the case closed and--in a startling position for a

scientific body--recommended that no further research be

conducted.

The report may have satisfied the CDC, but it convinced no

one. Rep. David Weldon, a Republican physician from Florida

who serves on the House Government Reform Committee, attacked

the Institute of Medicine, saying it relied on a handful of

studies that were ``fatally flawed'' by ``poor design'' and

failed to represent ``all the available scientific and

medical research.'' CDC officials are not interested in an

honest search for the truth, Weldon told me, because ``an

association between vaccines and autism would force them to

admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of

children. Who would want to make that conclusion about

themselves?''

Under pressure from Congress, parents and a few of its own

panel members, the Institute of Medicine reluctantly convened

a second panel to review the findings of the first. In

February, the new panel, composed of different scientists,

criticized the earlier panel for its lack of transparency and

urged the CDC to make its vaccine database available to the

public.

So far, though, only two scientists have managed to gain

access. Dr. Mark Geier, president of the Genetics Center of

America, and his son, David, spent a year battling to obtain

the medical records from the CDC. Since August 2002, when

members of Congress pressured the agency to turn over the

data, the Geiers have completed six studies that demonstrate

a powerful correlation between thimerosal and neurological

damage in children. One study, which compares the cumulative

dose of mercury received by children born between 1981 and

1985 with those born between 1990 and 1996, found a ``very

significant relationship'' between autism and vaccines.

Another study of educational performance found that kids who

received higher doses of thimerosal in vaccines were nearly

three times as likely to be diagnosed with autism and more

than three times as likely to suffer from speech disorders

and mental retardation. Another soon-to-be-published study

shows that autism rates are in decline following the recent

elimination of thimerosal from most vaccines.

As the federal government worked to prevent scientists from

studying vaccines, others have stepped in to study the link

to autism. In April, reporter Dan Olmsted of UPI undertook

one of the more interesting studies himself. Searching for

children who had not been exposed to mercury in vaccines--the

kind of population that scientists typically use as a

``control'' in experiments--Olmsted scoured the Amish of

Lancaster County, Penn., who refuse to immunize their

infants. Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted

calculated that there should be 130 autistics among the

Amish. He found only four. One had been exposed to high

levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three--

including one child adopted from outside the Amish

community--had received their vaccines.

At the state level, many officials have also conducted in-

depth reviews of thimerosal. While the Institute of Medicine

was busy whitewashing the risks, the Iowa Legislature was

carefully combing through all of the available scientific and

biological data. ``After three years of review, I became

convinced there was sufficient credible research to show a

link between mercury and the increased incidences in

autism,'' says state Sen. Ken Veenstra, a Republican who

oversaw the investigation. ``The fact that Iowa's 700 percent

increase in autism began in the 1990s, right after more and

more vaccines were added to the children's vaccine schedules,

is solid evidence alone.'' Last year, Iowa became the first

state to ban mercury in vaccines, followed by California.

Similar bans are now under consideration in 32 other states.

But instead of following suit, the FDA continues to allow

manufacturers to include thimerosal in scores of over-the-

counter medications as well as steroids and injected

collagen. Even more alarming, the government continues to

ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing

countries--some of which are now experiencing a sudden

explosion in autism rates. In China, where the disease was

virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal by

U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that

there are now more than 1.8 million autistics. Although

reliable numbers are hard to come by, autistic disorders also

appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, Nicaragua and other

developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced

vaccines. The World Health Organization continues to insist

thimerosal is safe, but it promises to keep the possibility

that it is linked to neurological disorders ``under review.''

I devoted time to study this issue because I believe that

this is a moral crisis that must be addressed. If, as the

evidence suggests, our public-health authorities knowingly

allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire

generation of American children, their actions arguably

constitute one of the biggest scandals in the annals of

American medicine. ``The CDC is guilty of incompetence and

gross negligence,'' says Mark Blaxill, vice president of Safe

Minds, a nonprofit organization concerned about the role of

mercury in medicines. ``The damage caused by vaccine exposure

is massive. It's bigger than asbestos, bigger than tobacco,

bigger than anything you've ever seen.'' It's hard to

calculate the damage to our country--and to the international

efforts to eradicate epidemic diseases--if Third World

nations come to believe that America's most heralded foreign-

aid initiative is poisoning their children. It's not

difficult to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by

America's enemies abroad. The scientists and researchers--

many of them sincere, even idealistic--who are participating

in efforts to hide the science on thimerosal claim that they

are trying to advance the lofty goal of protecting children

in developing nations from disease pandemics. They are badly

misguided. Their failure to come clean on thimerosal will

come back horribly to haunt our country and the world's

poorest populations.

Mr. Speaker, over the past week or 10 days, we have heard a lot of haranguing about what is going on down at the Guantanamo detention facility regarding the prisoners who were involved in terrorist activities and opposed our troops over in Iraq and elsewhere in the world.

And some people in the Congress have even equated what is going on down there with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and what happened in World War II and the concentration camps. And it is reprehensible that that comparison is even being thought about, let alone being expressed by one of my colleagues.

So I wanted to come tonight and give to the American people who may be paying attention back in their offices some facts about Guantanamo and what is going on down there.

Forgive me for reading this to you, but I think it is extremely important. I want to put everything in context. Our men and women down there are serving with honor and dignity.

Since September 11, 2001, more than 70,000 detainees have been captured in the global war on terror in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Some 800 suspected members of al Qaeda or the Taliban have been sent to GITMO, no one under 18 years of age. Approximately 520 remain.

Approximately 235 have been released, transferred to other countries, and 61 are awaiting release or transfer right now. GITMO houses some of the most dangerous individuals linked to the most dangerous organizations in the world, all wishing harm to the United States of America and our citizens: terrorist trainers and financiers, would-be suicide bombers, bomb makers and Osama bin Laden's own personal body guard. One such terrorist currently being detained at GITMO is Mohammed Al-Khatani, believed to be the intended 20th hijacker that attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and other areas back on 9/11.

Al-Khatani and his fellow murderers and criminals have provided valuable information at GITMO, including organizational structure of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups; the extent of terrorist presence in Europe, the U.S. and the Middle East; al Qaeda's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction; terrorist skill sets; general and specialized operative training; and how to legitimize financial activities that are used to hide terrorist operations.

Mr. Speaker, intelligence gained at Guantanamo has literally prevented terrorist attacks and saved possibly thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of American lives. U.S. misconduct versus detainee misconduct: there has been a lot of misinformation about that. After the much publicized and now retracted May 2005 Newsweek article alleging Koran abuse by the U.S. military officials, Brigadier General Jay Hood conducted an exhaustive investigation.

Brigadier General Hood's investigation determined some interesting findings which run contrary to the claims we are hearing about today. For instance, U.S. soldiers used latex gloves and clean towels while even handling the Koran. U.S. soldiers routinely must search detainees Korans when they refuse to show them for security searches. U.S. soldiers inspect for weapons by touching the Koran through surgical masks. Surgical masks are used to hang detainees' Korans during security searches. And when a guard accidentally knocked one of them off, it was fully investigated and deemed an accident.

An outside contractor stepped on a Koran during an interrogation. After an investigation was completed, the contractor apologized and was terminated because he accidentally stepped on the Koran.

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, Brigadier General Hood's investigation found the detainees themselves regularly displayed less regard for the Koran. For instance, on May 14, 2003, a guard observed a detainee ripping up his Koran in small pieces. July 5, 2003, a guard observed two detainees accuse a third of not being a man. In response, the detainee urinated on one of their Korans. January 19, 2005, four guards witnessed a detainee tear up his Koran and flush it down the toilet. January 23, 2005, four guards witnessed a detainee rip pages out of his Koran and throw them down the toilet. The detainee stated he did so because he wanted to be moved to another camp.

These detainees are trained to resist interrogation. The U.S. discovered a captured al Qaeda training manual, the terrorist training manual, the Manchester document, that instructs members to allege abuse and mistreatment and torture if they are captured.

Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that detainees are only sent to GITMO after a thorough screening process that identifies individuals who pose a threat to the United States of America or who have valuable intelligence information.

Combatant status review tribunals. All detainees have been reviewed by a tribunal. There is an administrative review board which reviews each case at least once annually for possible release based on the threat. More than 130 boards have been completed to date. Military commissions, trials with full and vigorous representation for those suspected of committing war crimes, awaiting resolution of various U.S. Federal court rulings and reviews.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I am out of time. There is more information that needs to be given to my colleagues and the American people. But we have treated those terrorists down there so well compared to the way they treat our people, beheading and everything that has gone on in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. Our troops are doing the humane main thing in accordance with the humanity of their fellow man, and they are treating those terrorists so much better than is being publicized in the press, and the American people have a right to know about it.

So let's talk about what is really going on at GTMO, where I want to stress, that the vast majority of our brave service men and women are serving with honor and dignity.

Since September 11, 2001, more than 70,000 detainees have been captured in the global war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Some 800 suspected members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban have been sent to GTMO (no one under 18 years old).

Approximately 520 remain; approximately 235 have been released/ transferred to other countries; and, 61 are awaiting release or transfer.

GTMO houses some of the most dangerous individuals, linked to the most dangerous organizations in the world, all wishing to harm the U.S., including:

Terrorist trainers and financiers; would-be suicide bombers; bomb makers; and, Osama bin Laden's own bodyguards.

One such terrorist currently being detained at GTMO is Mohammed Al- Khatani, believed to be the intended 20th 9/11 hijacker.

Al-Khatani and his fellow murderers and criminals have provided valuable information, including:

Organization structure of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups; extent of terrorist presence in Europe, the U.S., and the middle east; Al- Qaeda's pursuit of WMD; terrorist skill sets: general and specialized operative training; and, how legitimate financial activities are used to hide terrorist operations.

Mr. Speaker, intelligence gained at Guantanamo has literally prevented terrorist attacks and saved American lives.

After the much publicized--and now retracted--May 2005 Newsweek article alleging Koran abuse by U.S. military officials, Brigadier General Jay Hood conducted an exhaustive investigation.

Brig. Gen. Hood's investigation determined some interesting findings, which run contrary to the claims we are hearing today. For instance:

U.S. soldiers used latex gloves and clean towels while handling the Koran--U.S. soldiers routinely must search detainee's Korans when they refuse to show them for security searches;

U.S. soldiers inspected for weapons by touching Koran through surgical mask--surgical masks are used to hang detainee's Korans during security searches. When a guard accidentally knocked one off it was fully investigated and deemed an accident.

An outside contractor stepped on a Koran during a interrogation-- after an investigation was completed, the contractor apologized and was terminated.

On the contrary Mr. Speaker, Brig. Gen. Hood's investigation found that detainees themselves regularly displayed far less regard for the Koran, for instance:

May 14, 2003--A guard observed a detainee rip his Koran into small pieces.

June 5, 2003--A guard observed two detainees accuse a third of not being a man. In response, the detainee urinated on one of their Korans.

January 19, 2005--Four guards witnessed a detainee tear up his Koran and try to flush it down the toilet.

January 23, 2005--Four guards witnessed a detainee rip pages out of his Koran and throw them down the toilet. The detainee stated he did so because he wanted to be moved to another camp.

These detainees are trained to resist interrogation.

The U.S. discovered a ``captured al Qaeda training manual''--the Manchester Document--that instructs members to allege abuse & torture if captured.

Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that detainees are only sent to GTMO after a thorough screening process that identifies individuals who pose a threat to the U.S. or have valuable intelligence info.

Combatant status review tribunals--All detainees have been reviewed by a tribunal.

Administrative review boards--Review each case at least once annually for possible release based on threat. More than 130 boards completed to date.

Military Commissions--Trials with full and vigorous representation for those suspected of committing war crimes. *Awaiting resolution of various U.S. Federal Court rulings and reviews.

The GTMO detention facility is transparent and has been fully scrutinized.

To set the record straight Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government has released more than 16,000 pages of documents regarding detainee operation, including classified interrogation techniques.

Since 2002, GTMO has provided granted access to the following:

International Red Cross--Had 24/7 access to the facility at it's discretion and a permanent presence; Media--400 visits by 1,000 national and international journalists; 11 Senators, 77 Represenatives, and 99 Congressional staff members; and, lawyers for detainees.

Mr. Speaker, the death of PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership, and the government of Israel's proposed disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank have created a high degree of optimism in the International Community that we are on the cusp of dramatic new openings in the Middle East peace process.

As a senior Member of the House International Relations Committee, I have watched the often turbulent goings on in the Middle East for a few years to say the least, and my experience tells me that our optimism should be tempered by the lessons of the past. In fact, I believe we should take a very cautious view of the current round of Israeli Palestinian peacemaking, particularly with regard to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

I have met Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and I know that he is a fine man. I am sure he firmly believes that this ``strategic retreat'' from the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the West Bank is the best way to guarantee Israel's long-term security by allowing Israel to conserve and consolidate military and security resources, reducing opportunities for further friction with the Palestinians, and potentially reducing pressure on Israel to negotiate a final peace settlement on unfavorable terms. Personally, I will not second guess the Prime Minister's wisdom; I very much hope that he is right. But again, my experience tells me that if you take steps to appease an enemy you only give him a green light to put more pressure on you. In my opinion, it is imperative and critical to U.S. National Security that we as policymakers understand the consequences should the Israeli disengagement plan fail to live up to expectations.

I was recently presented a copy of an interesting opinion piece by Ambassador Yoram Ettinger--former Minister for Congressional Affairs at Israel's Embassy in Washington, Israeli Consul General in Houston, and Director of Israel's Government Press Office; and currently editor of ``Straight from the Jerusalem Cloakroom and Boardroom'' newsletters-- regarding the potential consequences of ceding Israeli territory to terrorists. I would like to have the text of this Op-Ed placed into the Congressional Record following my statement.

[May 26, 2005]

Jerusalem Cloakroom #178: The Impact of Disengagement on U.S. Interests

(By Yoram Ettinger)

1. Escalated Terrorism. The morally/strategically

justifiable demolition of terror regimes in Iraq and

Afghanistan is inconsistent with the creation/bolstering of a

terror regime in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. The 1994-6 series

of disengagement from 85 percent and 40 percent of the

territory (and 100 percent and 95 percent of the population)

of Gaza and Judea and Samaria have established the largest

terrorist base in the world, led/harbored by PLO/PA graduates

of terrorist camps in Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria,

Libya and Tunisia. Since 1993 the PA has harbored anti-U.S.

terrorists. U.S. GIs in Afghanistan and Iraq were encountered

by Palestinian terrorists.

2. Higher U.S. Terror Casualties. The July 2000

disengagement from Southern Lebanon propelled Hizbullah from

a local, to a regional, profile, haunting U.S. GIs in Iraq

and Afghanistan and threatening U.S. homeland security.

3. Contradicting U.S. War on Terrorism. Disengagement is

perceived, by the Mideast, as cut and run, appeasement and

cave-in, in sharp contrast to U.S. war on terrorism: No

negotiation with--and no concession to--terrorists; no

ceasefire with--but destruction of--terrorist regimes; no

political--but military--solution to terrorism.

4. Setback to Peace. The only peace attainable in the

(inter-Arab) Mideast is deterrence-driven peace.

Disengagement undermines deterrence; hence it sets the area

farther from peace and closer to exacerbated terrorism and an

all out war. Every square inch ceded by Israel to the PA,

since the 1994 disengagement, has been transformed into a

platform of hate-education and homicide bombing.

5. Tailwind to Anti-U.S. Terrorists. While the 1976 Israeli

Entebbe Operation constituted a tailwind to the U.S. war on

terrorism, the 1993-2005 retreat by the role-model of

countering terrorism (Israel) in face of the role-model of

terrorism (PLO/PA) has added more fuel to the fire of

terrorism. Disengagement has been heralded by the PLO/PA and

other Arabs as a crucial victory, frequently compared to

the U.S. flight from Beirut (1983) and Somalia (1993). It

would nurture Arab hope that neither the U.S. nor Israel

possess a marathon-like steadfastness, required for a

long-term victory.

6. PA Feeds Anti-U.S. Terrorism. A correlation has existed

between the bolstering of PLO stock since Oslo 1993 on one

hand, and the exacerbation of anti-U.S. terrorism on the

other hand (since the 1993 Twin Towers I, through the 1995

Khobar Towers, the 1998 Kenya and Tanzania U.S. embassies,

the 2000 USS Cole and 2001 Twin Towers II); the wider the

maneuverability of the PLO/PA, the deeper the inspiration to

regional anti-U.S. terrorism, irrespective of (and probably

due to) U.S. and Israeli appeasement of--and unprecedented

concessions to--the PLO/PA.

7. Undermining the Stability of Pro-U.S. Regimes (e.g.

Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar,

etc.). Disengagement would enhance the profile of the PLO/PA,

a lethal threat to the Hashemite regime and a chief ally of

radical regimes in the Mideast and beyond. PLO-Hashemite

relations have been a classic case of zero-sumgame: The

stronger the PLO the weaker the Hashemites. The rise of the

PLO/PA has emboldened subversive anti-U.S. terrorists in

Jordan and in the Gulf area.

8. Strengthening Anti-U.S. Mideast Regimes. Disengagement

would buttress the PLO/PA, which has been a sustained ally of

the Saddam and bin Laden forces, of Khomeini and his

successors in Iran, of the terror regime in Sudan and other

anti-U.S. Mideast regimes. A stronger PA would be a

liability--to the U.S.--in the U.N. and in the context of

Clash of Civilizations.

9. Invigorating Mideast Profile of U.S. Global Rivals. The

strengthening of the PLO/PA would facilitate the road to a

re-assertive Russia in the Mideast. It would improve the

strategic posture of China and North Korea in the region, at

the expense of vital U.S. concerns, including U.S. standard

of living.

10. Ignoring Plight of Christians. The 1995 disengagement

from Bethlehem and Beit Jallah has accelerated the flight of

Christians, caused by PLO/PA oppression and desecration of

churches.

11. Setback to Mideast Democratization. Disengagement would

promote the most corrupt and repressive Arab regime in the

Mideast, rewarding a terrorist regime, thus dealing a blow to

moderate Palestinians.

12. Undermining Israel-Egypt Peace. The 1979 peace treaty

disengaged Israeli and Egyptian military forces from one

another. The Plan of Disengagement would reengage them in a

terror-ridden area, thus fueling unintentional and

intentional confrontations. It could drag the U.S.

unnecessarily into such conflict. Egypt has facilitated/

tolerated the smuggling of terror hardware, missiles and

mortars into Gaza. It has undermined U.S. interests in

Africa, in the Red Sea and in the U.N., and it has

spearheaded anti-Jewish Arab/Palestinian hate education (PA

hate education employs Egyptian school text books).

13. PLO's Track Record of Inter-Arab Treachery. Abu Mazen

Abu Ala', Inc. fled Egypt (late 1950s) for subversive

activities. They escaped Syria (1966) for betraying their

hosts. They were expelled from Jordan for attempting to

topple the Hashemite regimes via terrorism. They exacerbated

a series of civil wars in Lebanon since 1975. They

spearheaded Saddam's invasion of Kuwait (1990), which hosted

them since the 1950s. Their systematic violent violation of

the 1993 Oslo Accords have been consistent with their inter-

Arab back-stabbing. Disengagement would be viewed--by the

PLO/PA as a reward to treachery, which would vindicate the

aforementioned track record.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleagues with great interest tonight.

Three issues seem to have been raised. One is on CAFTA, which I will address tonight, and then we talked about Guantanamo, which I am going to try to address later this week. Then we will talk about Iraq because there are parallels between what we are seeing in Iraq right now and what happened in World War I and World War II, but I cannot cover all those tonight. So I will debate my colleagues on some of those other issues later this week.

Let me talk about CAFTA right now because the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my good friend, for whom I have the highest regard, was just talking about some of the problems that occur with women in Central and South America and the living conditions and the working conditions, and I agree with her.

Because of that, and a number of other reasons, I voted against NAFTA and worked with my colleague on that, and I voted against the WTO and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. So you probably ask, well, why in the world, Danny, would you be in favor of CAFTA if you opposed all those others? So I want to tell my colleagues tonight why I support

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me echo what has been said about the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). There has never been a finer Member of Congress in the history of the Republic than the gentleman from Illinois. He was one of the most eloquent speakers I have ever known in this House. We really appreciate all his hard work on this bill.

Now, let me say to my friend from Massachusetts, I have been listening to this stuff for 20 years. You cannot do anything to put pressure on the United Nations, because if you do, the whole world is going to hate us. The sky is going to fall, Henny Penny. The State Department has been working with the United Nations for the last 20 years that I have been here and working on the Foreign Affairs Committee, International Relations now. The problems still exist. The only difference is, it is worse now than it has ever been.

We have got to do something about it. Mr. Bolton needs to be confirmed on the other side because we need a tough guy over there to force the issue. We have got an Oil-for-Food scandal that is growing daily. Kofi Annan, the head of the United Nations, the Secretary- General, said, Oh, I didn't have anything to do with it. We now are finding memos where he talked to the people in the oil industry saying that he would give them unqualified support.

A few months ago, he said, Oh, I never did that, and he said he would never resign under any circumstances. Now he is hedging his bets on that because the case against him and the Oil-for-Food scandal is growing and growing and growing. He is the head man over there. On his watch, everything has been going haywire.

We have got U.N. peacekeeping forces raping women and kids, and nothing has been done about that. We have got all kinds of problems over there and something must be done. How do you do that? We say, Well, let's follow the same course we have been following for the last 20 years. The State Department says, My gosh, we'll go over there and we'll do something about it. I have high regard for Condoleezza Rice. I think she is a dynamite lady and going to do a dynamite job. But this body needs to put the hammer by using American taxpayers' dollars on the U.N. to clean up that mess over there. We cannot go on day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year letting this thing be completely out of hand.

The gentleman talked about the Mitchell and Gingrich report. They said that it is a mess over there. How do you clean it up? You make a change from top to bottom. How do you do that when the rest of the world or much of the rest of the world says, Oh, my gosh, we don't want the United States dictating to us. I can understand that. We are the big guy on the block. They do not want us dictating to them, and we do not want to dictate to them. We want to work with them. But the fact of the matter is they are not listening in many cases and the corruption goes on and on and on, the mismanagement goes on and on and on, and nothing changes. And the United States keeps pouring in 25 percent, or almost that much, of the funds out of the taxpayers' pockets in this country for that body.

How do you change it? You take out the hammer, and the hammer is the money. You say to the world body, the United Nations, If you don't clean up that mess, we are going to withhold funds. And if we withhold funds, you are going to have a big, big problem over there.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is one of my dearest friends in this place and the gentleman from Massachusetts is not a bad friend, either. We have traveled together. I have high regard for him, even though he is wrong a lot of the time. But I just want to say, something has to be done. There must be something in the water in Massachusetts. I do not know. But something has to be done. And what has to be done is we have got to put pressure on the U.N. and the best way to do it is to say, either you change things over there or we are going to withdraw funds.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my colleagues this is a very serious debate, and when one starts using terminology like is he trying to gild the lily, he is trying to protect American servicemen from any kind of legal action that might be taken against them. So let us be serious about it.

Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably delayed in my return to Washington, DC from an official visit to Venezuela for meetings with various officials and therefore unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 200, 201, and 202. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall vote 200, ``yea'' for rollcall vote 201, and ``yea'' for rollcall vote 202.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the first official visit to the United States by Indonesia's new President, the first directly elected President in that nation's history, His Excellency Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. President Yudhoyono is well known to many in the United States from his years of service in Indonesia's military, and as Minister of Energy and Mines. In fact, earlier in his career, President Yudhoyono studied for two years in the United States. But this first official working visit as President is a special occasion, and one worth marking in the United States Congress.

Barely two months into his term, the historic and devastating December 26th tsunami struck off Sumatra's north and western coasts. President Yudhoyono traveled to the hard hit areas immediately, and directed his new Cabinet to take steps to do everything possible to expedite immediate relief and assistance. His team undertook a groundbreaking effort to put together a detailed recovery plan, and develop open, inclusive, and transparent processes for aiding the hardest hit communities. President Yudhoyono has followed through on all three commitments he made to the international donor community to take the necessary steps to develop processes and institutions to assure the world that the generous outpouring of assistance is well managed, free of corruption, and gets to the people who need it the most.

There is no doubt that there will continue to be bumps along the road as Indonesia tackles the many difficult issues that arise in rebuilding and re-establishing communities. I remain hopeful that President Yudhoyono's personal commitment and leadership will keep the process moving forward to ensure a full recovery for all the people who suffered so terribly in the aftermath of the tsunami.

I am also encouraged by many other steps President Yudhoyono has taken to address longstanding issues and needs, including: an aggressive anti-corruption agenda; a plan to address serious infrastructure needs that are the basis for moving forward with his economic agenda to reduce poverty and unemployment; as well as improved cooperation with the United States and others in critical areas, such as counter-terrorism, maritime safety and law enforcement. During his visit, I hope we will learn more about how cooperation in all of these areas will be strengthened in the near term.

Furthermore, as the United States develops and diversifies sources of energy, it becomes increasingly clear that Indonesia holds enormous potential. Yet Indonesia's oil and gas sector is in need of additional investment to reverse declining production trends. The Government of Indonesia is keen on reinvigorating revenue streams needed to fund key infrastructure projects as well as health and education programs. I am told that U.S. companies have more than $6 billion in projects waiting for approval, and that there is a similar amount available for investment in power generation projects--an infrastructure area that needs immediate attention if shortages are to be avoided in the very near future.

I hope President Yudhoyono's visit will help find a way to break the logjam on some of the policy decisions that are needed to allow these investments to be made. To help jumpstart the process, I would also encourage President Bush and his Administration to re-start and re- invigorate the bilateral energy talks our governments and business partners enjoyed throughout much of the 1990s.

It is also my sincere hope that our governments will find a way to reverse declining educational enrollment by Indonesian students in U.S. colleges and universities. One of the most effective ways to build bridges between our two nations is through educational exchanges, and at this time when Indonesia's new democratic institutions require the development of management and legal skills, I certainly believe that increasing opportunities for Indonesians to study in the United States should be a top priority.

As my colleagues have heard me say many times, I believe the United States needs to devote more time and attention to broadening and expanding our relationship with Indonesia, the world's third largest democracy and the nation with the largest Muslim population. Increased cooperation and improved relationships in a wide range of areas will help us build a strong bridge across the Pacific, which will benefit and strengthen both of our countries. I look forward to the outcomes of President Yudhoyono's visit and to learning how we in Congress can reinforce and strengthen our ties.

Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably delyead in my return to Washington, DC and therefore unable to be on the House floor for rollcall votes 171, 172, and 173. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall vote 171, ``yea'' for rollcall vote 172, and ``yea'' for rollcall vote 173.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Taiwan's application for observer status as a ``Health Entity'' for next week's annual World Health Organization (WHO) Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, and to respectfully encourage other international organizations to more actively engage Taiwan in their activities.

Even though Taiwan was a founding member of WHO, every May, for the past eight years, when the World Health Assembly meets to consider the acceptance of new members to the WHO, it systematically denies Taiwan access to the global health organization. Even with last year's support from the United States and Japan, Taiwan--among the leaders in Asia in important health indicators, such as life expectancy and infant mortality--was once again rejected.

Regardless of the fact that the World Health Assembly has routinely allowed observers to participate in the activities of the Organization, including the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the Holy See, and even the Palestine Liberation Organization; regardless of the fact that Taiwan's population of almost 23,000,000 people is greater than that of \3/4\ of the member states already in the World Health Organization; regardless of the fact that Taiwan has repeatedly expressed a willingness to assist financially and technically in international aid and health activities supported by the WHO; and, regardless of the fact that direct and unobstructed participation in international health cooperation forums and programs is beneficial for all parts of the world, especially today with the great potential for the cross-border spread of various infectious diseases such as the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), tuberculosis, and malaria, our European Union colleagues continue to shortsightedly side with China and exclude Taiwan.

Unfortunately, this political and diplomatic dance has had a real world cost in terms of Taiwanese lives lost during outbreaks of life threatening diseases, including Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and the enterovirus epidemic in 1998. The SARS and avian influenza outbreaks should remind all of us that disease knows no boundaries and reinforce the importance of allowing all people access to the World Health Organization. As the pace of globalization quickens, the spread of infectious disease will only accelerate.

Not only will the Taiwanese benefit from membership in the WHO through engagement with the international community in the common pursuit of raising the quality of public health and providing for the welfare of its citizens, but so will their neighbors throughout

the Asia Pacific region, indeed the world, through interoperability, pooled resources, and the sharing of technical expertise. I firmly believe that Taiwan's inclusion in the WHO will help ensure global health safety and our own national security by allowing all WHO countries to more comprehensively and quickly coordinate global efforts to combat deadly outbreaks of diseases and any future epidemics.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Taiwan deserve the same level of public health as the citizens of every nation on earth, and I stand in support of their continued desire and commitment to be included in the WHO. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in encouraging the United States delegation in Geneva to stand in strong support of Taiwan's application for inclusion into the World Health Organization.

Mr. Speaker, a historic event occurred today in the history of Taiwan-Chinese relations, the Leader of Taiwan's Nationalist Party arrived in China for the first meeting between the party of Chiang Kai-shek and the Communists since the Chinese Civil War ``ended'' nearly six decades ago.

I know that relations across the Taiwan Straits have been much on the minds of many members of Congress in recent months, especially after the Chinese passed the Taiwanese Anti-Secession Law. Although not an official Taiwanese Government visit, the eight-day trip by Lien Chan does represent an opportunity to test the waters, and put the issue of peaceful co-existence between these two historic antagonists back into the realm of public debate.

Analysts and China-watchers disagreed on whether Lien's trip can help ease Taiwan-China tensions. Some have argued that Chen is simply being used by Communist officials to foster a schism in Taiwanese society. Others, such as Robert L. Downen, a former U.S. State Department Policy Advisor for East Asia during the Reagan administration believe that the Lien Chan can win Beijing's trust and cooperation. Mr. Downen has written an interesting Op-Ed piece supporting his position that is worth considering, and I would like to have the text of Mr. Downen's Op-Ed placed into the Congressional Record following my statement.

I do not know which side of this debate is right, and I suspect that it will ultimately be left to the judgment of history to decide whether this trip accomplished anything. Nevertheless, a security crisis over Taiwan is something we all must work to avert and perhaps Lien Chen's visit can in some small way persuade the Chinese Government to reconsider their recent actions and return to the ``Good Neighbor'' policy that has worked so effectively for so long. The quest for peace is worth that small gamble.

Back on Track

(By Robert L. Downen)

Nearly overlooked in a recent series of pessimistic news

stories about rising tensions across the Taiwan Strait is a

small but important initiative. Direct, though unofficial

talks between senior statesmen of China and Taiwan are about

to occur after an interruption of several years. Cross-Strait

talks offer a glimmer of hope in an otherwise stormy policy

arena. There simply has been too long a delay in direct

contact between antagonists in such a sensitive forum as this

one. Face to face communication is overdue.

The set of policy actors on both sides has changed

substantially since talks last occurred in the 1990s, and

post-9/11 global security and political factors form a

different environment. The political stalemate between the

Chinese mainland and the island of Taiwan is an anachronistic

relic of the Cold War demanding attention, and only direct

talks will bring about an accommodation. The present

leadership in Taipei seems unable to break the icy standoff,

and so the opposition Nationalist Party Chairman Lien Chan a

former vice president and premier of Taiwan but now a private

citizen has accepted an invitation to visit China in April

and will meet there with its President Hu Jintao. Lien calls

his mission ``a trip for peace.''

After more than a half-century of deep mistrust between

Beijing and Taipei, further estrangement only aggravates the

situation politically, militarily, and economically. Direct

talks between semi-official representatives of the two sides

in the early 1990s did lead to a few practical agreements on

handling postal exchanges, fishing disputes, and airline

hijackings, as well as a promising agreement to disagree over

the meaning of ``one China.'' But that dialogue eventually

broke down over statements by public officials and missile

tests conducted by China in the Taiwan vicinity. The lapse of

time since then has produced additional misunderstandings and

stagnation. New governments in both Beijing and Taipei have

missed opportunities for contact and occasionally provoked

the situation by careless public remarks and behaviors in

recent years.

In diplomacy, as in private business, if you are not moving

forward you are effectively moving backwards. Inaction is

equivalent to regression. Mistrust and lack of confidence on

both sides has produced accusations and counter-accusations,

fueling arms build-ups

and cross-Strait tensions that increasingly worry the U.S.

and its allies. China's recent enactment of an ``anti-

secession law'' and its continuing ballistic missile build-up

adjacent to the Strait has produced palpable concern in

Washington and European capitals. It has jeopardized the

Asian-Pacific region's promising economic development and

political stability of recent years.

The time has truly come for bold, creative initiative

otherwise known as leadership based on self-confidence, to

break the deadlock. The late President Ronald Reagan believed

in proactive engagement with adversaries, saying old enemies

should ``trust but verify'' as they reach out and seek to

reconcile. Like President Reagan's outreach to the

Soviet Union in its final years, the Lien mission proposes

to go half-way in extending a gesture of peace, to open a

channel of communication to the other side.

Lien's mission is reminiscent of previous milestones when

other statesmen chose to reach out to old adversaries at

opportune moments in history, often placing their personal

reputation and political legacy at risk in the process. His

gesture is not unlike that of President Richard Nixon who

opened doors for dialogue by visiting China in 1972; or

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat who traveled to Jerusalem in

1977 to open discussions with Israel; or even Pope John Paul

II who seized the initiative to visit Communist Eastern

Europe and later Cuba to open historic new contacts that he

believed could change old Cold War relationships.

The international community should welcome this step

towards direct unofficial talks between Taiwan and China.

Dialogue cultivates mutual understanding, nurtures

confidence, builds trust, and creates opportunities for

healing wounds and moving forward to break the deadlock.

Never underestimate the power of personal engagement the

personal touch reduces tensions and prospects for conflict

while introducing very human avenues for potential

cooperation. There can be no harm in a fresh initiative that

energizes the peaceful process across the Strait and promotes

the welfare of the people of Taiwan in so many ways.

Americans can cheer the Lien initiative because it serves

U.S. interests of peace, international stability, and

regional cooperation. It reduces the likelihood that U.S.

naval battle groups will once again have to move into the

Taiwan vicinity to avert possible conflict between the two

sides, as they did in 1996. It greatly improves the prospect

that Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait can forge new

channels of communication and cooperation, leading eventually

to a resolution of one of the world's most dangerous tension

spots. Engagement, not estrangement, is the means to

reconciliation and stability.

Mr. Speaker, in 1991, the former nation of Yugoslavia dissolved into a number of independent nation-states, including the Republic of Macedonia. However, international recognition of Macedonia's independence from Yugoslavia was significantly delayed in large part by Greece's objection to the new state's use of what it considered to be a Hellenic name and symbols.

Greece even went so far as to impose a trade blockade against Macedonia, citing unfounded concerns of potential border destabilization within the region and fears of Macedonian territorial expansion. The Greek government even persuaded the United Nations Security Council to pass United Nations Security Council Resolution 845 in 1993, which proclaimed that for all intents and purposes the Republic of Macedonia would be referred to as the ``the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,'' pending the outcome of negotiations between Greece and Macedonia on a permanent name.

Greece finally lifted its trade blockade against Macedonia in 1995, and the two countries have since agreed to normalize relations. Although inexplicable, even after 12 long years of discussion and debate between the representatives of Greece and Macedonia, and a host of international mediators, differences over Macedonia's official name remain.

Recently, last November, the United States joined 108 other nations in officially recognizing the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia. America's official recognition of the Republic of Macedonia should be seen as a clear message to both sides that this dispute over the name has simply gone on too long.

A new, accelerated round of discussions between officials from Greece and Macedonia--mediated by United States diplomat and United Nations mediator Matthew Nimitz--is scheduled to start before the end of April. For the good of bilateral relations, as well as broader regional stability, I urge both sides, Greek and Macedonian, to work together in a spirit of friendship and open-mindedness with UN envoy Matthew Nimitz, and ultimately conclude this emotionally-embroiled dispute in a mutually acceptable, desirable, and expedient way.

Mr. Speaker, Greece and Macedonia have more to gain by settling this dispute and working together to bring the people and governments of the region into the larger community of nations than they do by continuing this destabilizing dispute. I hope that both sides will seize this opportunity to do the right thing at the April talks and work together to bring this matter to a peaceful conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Greek-Americans on the occasion of Greek Independence Day, and wish all people of Greek descent across the globe, peace, happiness and prosperity. In the same spirit of friendship and brotherhood, I ask all of my Greek friends to use this joyous occasion to renew their commitment to peace by doing all that they can to facilitate and promote the end of the long-standing stalemate on the beautiful Mediterranean island, Cyprus.

Recent remarks made by Greek Foreign Minister Petros Molyviatis with regards to Greece's support for the resumption of negotiations on the Cyprus question along the lines of the United Nations' Plan for a settlement (the ``Annan Plan'') are deeply encouraging, and should be supported by the international community and the United States. Greece's role in facilitating negotiations under U.N. auspices and convincing the Greek Cypriot side,

under the leadership of President Tassos Papadopoulos, to return to the negotiating table cannot be understated.

Now, the time is right for peace and reconciliation on the island. The Turkish Cypriots have already declared that they are ready and willing to sit down and discuss the ``Annan Plan''--a plan they overwhelmingly supported in the referendum held on April 24, 2004--with their Greek Cypriot counterparts. I fervently hope, Mr. Speaker, that all sides will seize the opportunity of Greek Independence Day to come together in a spirit of friendship and cooperation to achieve the final and lasting peace that has so long eluded the people of Cyprus.