Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for personal reasons I had to return to my District in Indiana and I was therefore unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, and 228.

Had I been here I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall vote 223, ``no'' for rollcall vote 224, ``aye'' for rollcall vote 225, ``aye'' for rollcall vote 226, ``aye'' for rollcall vote 227, and ``aye'' for rollcall vote 228.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer some reflections on this past Memorial Day. Every year, we as a Nation take time at the end of May to remember those men and women who have given the ultimate sacrifice--their lives--to protect and defend our great country.

For many, Memorial Day Weekend has become the traditional start of the summer season. Parades and celebrations are held across the country, and many families take their first trip of summer to the beach, or hold a big backyard barbeque, or go swimming at the newly reopened community pool. In Indianapolis, we spend the holiday weekend hosting this country's greatest auto race--the Indy 500--where we revel in the thrill of speed and marvel at the latest advancements in automotive design and engine development. The Indy Car fans and the Indy Car family of racers have shown themselves to be among the most patriotic of Americans, and I'm proud to celebrate Memorial Day weekend with such a tremendous group of people year after year. Yet, I fear that in the rush to enjoy the fruits of summer, we all too often forget that we are only able to hold these celebrations, and enjoy the freedom to travel where we want when we want, because of generations of men and women who put their lives on the line to protect and preserve our freedoms.

As our young men and women risk their lives in a global War on Terror, and continue to fight for peace and stability for those who spent years living under tyranny and oppression in Afghanistan and Iraq, I would hope that each of us will pause to remember the true meaning of Memorial Day, then give thanks, and perhaps pray, for those who have willingly put themselves in harm's way to keep us free. Each one--from the most decorated General and Admiral to the lowest ranking enlisted man or woman--from the fighter pilots and gunners to the mechanics, quartermasters, and the cooks--each and every one is a hero.

Mr. Speaker, soon Ambassador C.J. Chen of the Republic of China (ROC) will be returning to Taiwan after serving as his country's chief representative in the United States for the last four years. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and salute Ambassador Chen for everything he has done to improve the political, economic, and cultural ties between the United States and Taiwan during his service here in Washington, D.C.

The Republic of China has been one of our most important and loyal allies in the World; and Ambassador Chen has worked diligently to strengthen the ties that bind our two great Nations despite the lack of formal diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Taiwan. Today, U.S.- Taiwan relations are the best they have been since the late 1970s. In fact, Taiwan and the United States are friends and partners, not merely allies, and I think that in large measure this is due to the tireless efforts of Ambassador Chen.

An expert in international law and diplomacy, Ambassador Chen has spent 37 years in the diplomatic service of the Republic of China on Taiwan--with over half of his career spent here in the United States. In fact, he has been assigned to Washington, D.C., three different times, beginning as a third secretary in the ROC Embassy in 1971. In 1983, he began a seven-year stint as Deputy Representative far Taiwan's Representative Office, and in 2000, he started his present job as Representative. Over the course of his long and distinguished career, C.J. has also held several prominent positions within Taiwan's government, serving as Foreign Minister, Government Spokesman, and Legislator.

During the past four years, Ambassador Chen has forged many close personal relationships and made hundreds of friends--I am proud to count myself among that company--proving that he was one of the hardest-working diplomats and also one of the most gracious hosts, on Embassy Row. With respect, graciousness, and a keen sense of humor, whit, Ambassador Chen has helped many American audiences, large and small to more fully understand the sometimes difficult issues relating to Taiwan, such as Taiwan's recent Presidential elections and national referendum. He has also helped put into perspective Taiwan's military needs, Taiwan's efforts to join international organizations like the World Health Organization, and Taiwan's economic and political achievements, especially in the area of human rights and freedom of the press, where the actions of Taiwan stand in stark contrast to the brutal perpetrators of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Mr. Speaker, I am personally sad that Ambassador Chen and his beautiful wife, Yolanda Ho, are leaving Washington. It is a little- known fact that Yolanda--a renowned designer in Taiwan's textile and apparel industry--actually designed the wedding gown for Linda Hall Daschle when she married the current Senate Minority leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota. I hope that they will both look back fondly upon their years in Washington as a valuable and rewarding time. The diplomatic and cultural community of Washington will certainly be diminished by their absence. Nevertheless, we are grateful for the time they could spend here, and I know that they will both continue to make lasting contributions to the future enrichment of relations between Taipei and Washington. I wish them all the best for a successful and happy future, which they so deeply deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in observance of Memorial Day and to honor three fallen soldiers from the Fifth District of Indiana who so bravely sacrificed their own lives in Iraq so that Iraqi citizens may one day share in the same freedoms as citizens of our great Nation.

America collectively grieves at the loss of her sons and daughters, but we cannot fully appreciate the enormity of the losses their family and friends have suffered. All we can do is remember that the price of our liberty bears an enormous cost. I am reminded of the words of General George S. Patton, who commanded the U.S. Third Army in the Second World War: ``We should not mourn these brave men, but rather thank God that such men lived.'' It is the determination and willingness of these young men and women to defend our Nation that safeguards all our freedom. We should not and will not soon forget our sons' and daughters' heroic service.

Private First Class Deryk Lyell Hallal (Marine Corps; April 7, 2004), Private First Class Christopher E. Hudson (Army; March 21, 2004), and Sergeant Jarrod W. Black (Army; December 12, 2003) from the Fifth District of Indiana will forever be remembered in the hearts and minds of their family and friends. These three soldiers gave their lives helping free an enslaved people while protecting the world from the scourge of terrorism. We are grateful that there are men like these who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our great Nation. Memorial Day will forever serve as a reminder of their sacrifices as well as all of the past, present, and future heroes who have fought and will so bravely fight to protect our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of concern over the past year or so about whether or not Saddam Hussein was tied in with Osama bin Laden and the terrorist network and al Qaeda.

There is an article in The Weekly Standard this week called ``The Connection,'' and I would urge all of my colleagues to read this article. It shows a picture of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and some other terrorists on the front page of the magazine. The article is written by a gentleman named Stephen Hayes, and it follows an article that was written in the Wall Street Journal last week, and I would like to read some information from the two articles that I think verifies without much doubt that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations were working together to try to destroy the United States and Western Civilization.

Let me read from the Wall Street Journal of May 27, 2004:

``One striking bit of new evidence is that the name of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of lieutenant colonel. This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned'' the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

``Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda `summit' in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.''

The fact is he was an officer in the elite military of Saddam. He worked with his son Uday, and he was there when they planned the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Further, the article goes on to say: ``The CIA has confirmed that al Qaeda's number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad

in 1992 and 1998. There is irrefutable evidence that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic jihad was merging with al Qaeda. Four sources have confirmed the payment.''

So here again is another connection.

``Since Operating Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence Iraq and al Qaeda discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. We have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members. Through interrogations of high-level Iraqi detainees, we have evidence that al Qaeda members visited Baghdad, sought weapons and training in areas such as poisons, gases, and conventional bomb making.''

Another item: ``Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, has admitted meeting senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. It is believed Hijazi met with Osama bin Laden and offered him safe haven in Iraq in 1998.'' That is another example.

``Al Qaeda operatives held in Guantanamo have corroborated reports of a series of meetings in Khartoum, Sudan, home to al Qaeda during the mid-1990s. Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi,'' an al Qaeda weapons of mass destruction specialist, ``was sent by Osama bin Laden to seek WMD training, and possibly weapons, from the Iraqi regime. His associates held meetings in Baghdad with Uday,'' Saddam's son, ``in April 1998.'' Another example.

``Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. in December 2002 detailed intelligence showing that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian jihadist and known al Qaeda associate, traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment. Among al-Zarqawi's many crimes, he is a key suspect'' we just saw recently on television ``in the abduction and beheading of American Nicholas Berg.''

It is believed Saddam Hussein's nephew, Yasser al-Sabawi, and their Fedeyyen Saddam paramilitary cronies worked with Al Zarqawi and his accomplices in the abduction, transfer, and execution of Mr. Berg. That investigation is still in progress, but the linkage between Saddam and al Qaeda is reinforced by video and other evidence collected thus far. There is a high probability that Zarqawi was the masked man who beheaded Berg. Saddam's nephew is described as the ringleader of suspects in the case.

Another item: Statements by Iraqi defectors have been corroborated by new evidence seized by Coalition troops that Saddam's regime trained non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a camp in Salman Pak, South of Baghdad. The existence of this training camp was verified by U.N. inspectors. A Boeing 707 was used at the camp to simulate terrorist hijackings.

Another item: In February, 2003, the government of the Philippines asked a senior Iraqi diplomat, Hisham al Hussein, to leave the country after establishing frequent contact with leaders of Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda affiliate in Southeast Asia. This Iraqi official had contact with Abu Sayyaf immediately before and after they detonated a bomb in Zamboanga city that killed two Filipinos and an American Special Forces soldier.

High ranking Czech officials have confirmed that Mohammed Atta, the lead 911 hijacker, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer, 5 months before the hijacking.

Ansar al-Islam, the Al Qaeda cell formed in Northern Iraq in June 2001, has expanded its attacks against Kurds and has joined with remnants of Saddam's regime in their insurgency against Coalition forces. It is believed that the bombing of the U.N. headquarters was a result of a joint operation between Baathists and the Al Qaeda affiliate, Ansar al-Islam.

When Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa against America in February 1998 there is evidence Saddam Hussein paid $300,000 to bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record the article by Stephen Hayes I referred to earlier:

[From the Weekly Standard, June 7, 2004]

The Connection

(By Stephen F. Hayes)

``The president convinced the country with a mixture of

documents that turned out to be forged and blatant false

assertions that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda,'' claimed

former Vice President Al Gore last Wednesday.

``There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting

al Qaeda, ever,'' declared Richard Clarke, former

counterterrorism official under George W. Bush and Bill

Clinton, in an interview on March 21, 2004.

The editor of the Los Angeles Times labeled as ``myth'' the

claim that links between Iraq and al Qaeda had been proved. A

recent dispatch from Reuters simply asserted, ``There is no

link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.'' 60 Minutes anchor

Lesley Stahl was equally certain: ``There was no

connection.''

And on it goes. This conventional wisdom--that our two most

determined enemies were not in league, now or ever--is

comforting. It is also wrong.

In late February 2004, Christopher Carney made an

astonishing discovery. Carney, a political science professor

from Pennsylvania on leave to work at the Pentagon, was

poring over a list of officers in Saddam Hussein's much-

feared security force, the Fedayeen Saddam. One name stood

out: Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. The name was not

spelled exactly as Carney has seen it before, but such

discrepancies are common. Having studied the relationship

between Iraq and al Qaeda for 18 months, he immediately

recognized the potential significance of his find. According

to a report last week in the Wall Street Journal, Shakir

appears on three different lists of Fedayeen officers.

An Iraqi of that name, Carney knew, had been present at an

al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on January 5-8,

2000. U.S. intelligence officials believe this was a chief

planning meeting for the September 11 attacks. Shakir had

been nominally employed as a ``greeter'' by Malaysian

Airlines, a job he told associates he had gotten through a

contact a the Iraqi embassy. More curious, Shakir's Iraqi

embassy contact controlled his schedule, telling him when

to show up for work and when to take a day off.

A greeter typically meets VIPs upon arrival and accompanies

them through the sometimes onerous procedures of foreign

travel. Shakir was instructed to work on January 5, 2000, and

on that day, he escorted one Khalid al Mihdhar from his plane

to a waiting car. Rather than bid his guest farewell at that

point, as a greeter typically would have, Shakir climbed into

the car with al Mihdhar and accompanied him to the Kuala

Lumpur condominium of Yazid Sufaat, the American-born al

Qaeda terrorist who hosted the planning meeting.

The meeting lasted for three days. Khalid al Mihdhar

departed Kuala Lumpur for Bangkok and eventually Los Angeles.

Twenty months later, he was aboard American Airlines Flight

77 when it plunged into the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. on

September 11. So were Nawaf al Hazmi and his younger brother,

Salem, both of whom were also present at the Kuala Lumpur

meeting.

Six days after September 11, Shakir was captured in Doha,

Qatar. He had in his possession contact information for

several senior al Qaeda terrorists: Zahid Sheikh Mohammed,

brother of September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed;

Musab Yasin, brother of Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi who

helped mix the chemicals for the first World Trade Center

attack and was given safe haven upon his return to Baghdad;

and Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, otherwise known as Abu Hajer al

Iraqi, described by one top al Qaeda detainee as Osama bin

Laden's ``best friend.''

Despite all of this, Shakir was released. On October 21,

2001, he boarded a plane for Baghdad, via Amman, Jordan. He

never made the connection. Shakir was detained by Jordanian

intelligence. Immediately following his capture, according to

U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence of Shakir, the

Iraqi government began exerting pressure on the Jordanians to

release him. Some U.S. intelligence officials--primarily at

the CIA--believed that Iraq's demand for Shakir's release

was pro forma, no different from the requests governments

regularly make on behalf of citizens detained by foreign

governments. But others, pointing to the flurry of phone

calls and personal appeals from the Iraqi government to

the Jordanians, disagreed. This panicked reaction, they

said, reflected an interest in Shakir at the highest

levels of Saddam Hussein's regime.

CIA officials who interviewed Shakir in Jordan reported

that he was generally uncooperative. But even in refusing to

talk, he provided some important information: The

interrogators concluded that his evasive answers reflected

counterinterrogation techniques so sophisticated that he had

probably learned them from a government intelligence service.

Shakir's Iraqi nationality, his contacts with the Iraqi

embassy in Malaysia, the keen interest of Baghdad in his

case, and now the appearance of his name on the rolls of

Fedayeen officers--all this makes the Iraqi intelligence

service the most likely source of his training.

The Jordanians, convinced that Shakir worked for Iraqi

intelligence, went to the CIA with a bold proposal: Let's

flip him. That is, the Jordanians would allow Shakir to

return to Iraq on condition that he agree to report back on

the activities of Iraqi intelligence. And, in one of the most

egregious mistakes by U.S. intelligence after September 11,

the CIA agreed to Shakir's release. He posted a modest bail

and returned to Iraq.

He hasn't been heard from since.

The Shakir story is perhaps the government's strongest

indication that Saddam and al Qaeda may have worked together

on September 11. It is far from conclusive; conceivably there

were two Ahmed Hikmat Shakirs.

And in itself, the evidence does not show that Saddam Hussein

personally had foreknowledge of the attacks. Still--like the

long, on-again-off-again relationship between Iraq and al

Qaeda--it cannot be dismissed.

There was a time not long ago when the conventional wisdom

skewed heavily toward a Saddam-al Qaeda links. In 1998 and

early 1999, the Iraq-al Qaeda connection was widely reported

in the American and international media. Former intelligence

officers and government officials speculated about the

relationship and its dangerous implications for the world.

The information in the news reports came from foreign and

domestic intelligence services. It was featured in mainstream

media outlets including international wire services,

prominent newsweeklies, and network radio and television

broadcasts.

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999,

issue headed ``Saddam + Bin Laden?'' ``Here's what is known

so far,'' it read:

Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting

terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network

overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a

terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to

Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama

bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding

the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.

Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported

that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had

offered asylum to bin Laden:

Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with

the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist

government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass

destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an

Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's

ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to

meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC

News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost

certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be

welcome in Baghdad.

NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro,

former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered

this report:

Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at

least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source,

Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to

Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be

nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi

Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might

be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to

obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George

Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate

Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning

additional attacks on American targets.

By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the

need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda

relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the

Washington Post ended this way: ``The Iraqi President

Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly

supports Iraq against Western powers.''

Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin

Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from

high-ranking Clinton administration officials.

In the spring of 1998--well before the U.S. embassy

bombings in East Africa--the Clinton administration indicted

Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later,

prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to collaborate with

Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Justice

Department had been concerned about negative public reaction

to its potentially capturing bin Laden without ``a vehicle

for extradition,'' official paperwork charging him with a

crime. It was ``not an afterthought'' to include the al

Qaeda-Iraq connection in the indictment, says an official

familiar with the deliberations. ``It couldn't have gotten

into the indictment unless someone was willing to testify to

it under oath.'' The Clinton administration's indictment read

unequivocally:

``Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of

Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and

that on particular projects, specifically including weapons

development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the

Government of Iraq.''

On August 7, 1998, al Qaeda terrorists struck almost

simultaneously at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The

blasts killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and wounded

nearly 5,000. The Clinton administration determined within

five days that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks and

moved swiftly to retaliate. One of the targets would be in

Afghanistan. But the Clinton national security team wanted to

strike hard simultaneously, much as the terrorists had. ``The

decision to go to [Sudan] was an add-on,'' says a senior

intelligence officer involved in the targeting. ``They wanted

a dual strike.''

A small group of Clinton administration officials, led by

CIA director George Tenet and national security adviser Sandy

Berger, reviewed a number of al Qaeda-linked targets in

Sudan. Although bin Laden had left the African nation two

years earlier, U.S. officials believed that he was still

deeply involved in the Sudanese government-run Military

Industrial Corporation (MIC).

The United States retaliated on August 20, 1998, striking

al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and the al Shifa

pharmaceutical plant outside Khartoum. ``Let me be very clear

about this,'' said President Bill Clinton, addressing the

nation after the strikes. ``There is no question in my mind

that the Sudanese factory was producing chemicals that are

used--and can be used--in VX gas. This was a plant that was

producing chemical warfare-related weapons, and we have

physical evidence of that.''

The physical evidence was a soil sample containing EMPTA, a

precursor for VX nerve gas. Almost immediately, the decision

to strike at al Shifa aroused controversy. U.S. officials

expressed skepticism that the plant produced pharmaceuticals

at all, but reporters on the ground in Sudan found aspirin

bottles and a variety of other indications that the plant

had, in fact, manufactured drugs. For journalists and many at

the CIA, the case was hardly clear-cut. For one thing, the

soil sample was collected from outside the plant's front

gate, not within the grounds, and an internal CIA memo issued

a month before the attacks had recommended gathering

additional soil samples from the site before reaching any

conclusions. ``It caused a lot of heartburn at the agency,''

recalls a former top intelligence official.

The Clinton administration sought to dispel doubts about

the targeting and, on August 24, 1998, made available a

``senior intelligence official'' to brief reporters on

background. The briefer cited ``strong ties between the plant

and Iraq'' as one of the justifications for attacking it. The

next day, undersecretary of state for political affairs

Thomas Pickering briefed reporters at the National Press

Club. Pickering explained that the intelligence community had

been monitoring the plant for ``at least two years,'' and

that the evidence was ``quite clear on contacts between Sudan

and Iraq.'' In all, at least six top Clinton administration

officials have defended on the record the strikes in Sudan by

citing a link to Iraq.

The Iraqis, of course denied any involvement. ``The Clinton

government has fabricated yet another lie to the effect that

Iraq had helped Sudan produce this chemical weapon,''

declared the political editor of Radio Iraq. Still, even as

Iraq denied helping Sudan and al Qaeda with weapons of

mass destruction, the regime lauded Osama bin Laden. On

August 27, 1998, 20 days after al Qaeda attacked the U.S.

embassies in Africa, Babel, the government newspaper run

by Saddam's son Uday Hussein, published an editorial

proclaiming bin Laden ``an Arab and Islamic hero.''

Five months later, the same Richard Clarke who would one

day claim that there was ``absolutely no evidence that Iraq

was supporting al Qaeda, ever,'' told the Washington Post

that the U.S. government was ``sure'' that Iraq was behind

the production of the chemical weapons precursor at the al

Shifa plant. ``Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know

how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what

happened to it,'' wrote Post reporter Vernon Lieb, in an

article published January 23, 1999. ``But he said that

intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current

and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the

National Islamic Front in Sudan.''

Later in 1999, the Congressional Research Service published

a report on the psychology of terrorism. The report created a

stir in May 2002 when critics of President Bush cited it to

suggest that his administration should have given more

thought to suicide hijackings. On page 7 of the 178-page

document was a passage about a possible al Qaeda attack on

Washington, D.C., that ``could take several forms.'' In one

scenario, ``suicide bombers belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom

Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high

explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the

headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, or the White

House.''

A network anchor wondered if it was possible that the White

House had somehow missed the report. A senator cited it in

calling for an investigation into the 9/11 attacks. A

journalist read excerpts to the secretary of defense and

raised a familiar question: ``What did you know and when did

you know?''

But another passage of the same report has gone largely

unnoticed. Two paragraphs before, also on page 7, is this:

``If Iraq's Saddam Hussein decide[s] to use terrorists to

attack the continental United States [he] would likely turn

to bin Laden's al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is among the Islmaic groups

recruiting increasingly skilled professionals,'' including

``Iraqi chemical weapons experts and others capable of

helping to develop WMD. Al Qaeda poses the most serious

terrorist threat to U.S. security interests, for al Qaeda's

well-trained terrorists are engaged in a terrorist jihad

against U.S. interests worldwide.''

CIA director George Tenet echoed these sentiments in a

letter to Congress on October 7, 2002:

--Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al

Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying

reliability. Some of the information we have received comes

from detainees, including some of high rank.

--We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between

Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

--Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda

have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

--Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence

of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some

that have been in Baghdad.

--We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought

contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D.

capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has

provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons

and gases and making conventional bombs.

--Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians

coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al

Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will

increase, even absent U.S. military action.

Tenet has never backed away from these assessments. Senator

Mark Dayton, a Democrat from Minnesota, challenged him on the

Iraq-al Qaeda connection in an exchange before the Senate

Armed Services Committee on March 9, 2004. Tenet reiterated

his judgment that there had been numerous ``contacts''

between Iraq and al Qaeda, and that in the days before the

war the Iraqi regime had provided ``training and safe haven''

to al Qaeda associates, including Abu Musab al Zarqawi. What

the U.S. intelligence community could not claim was that the

Iraqi regime has ``command and control'' over al Qaeda

terrorists. Still, said Tenet, ``it was inconceivable to me

that Zarqawi and two dozen [Egyptian Islamic Jihad]

operatives could be operating in Baghdad without Iraq

knowing.''

So what should Washington do now? The first thing the Bush

administration should do is create a team of intelligence

experts--or preferably competing teams, each composed of

terrorism experts and forensic investigators--to explore the

connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. For more than a year,

the 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group has investigated the

nature and scope of Iraq's program to manufacture weapons of

mass destruction. At various times in its brief history, a

small subgroup of ISG investigators (never more than 15

people) has looked into Iraqi connections with al Qaeda. This

is not enough.

Despite the lack of resources devoted to Iraq-al Qaeda

connections, the Iraq Survey Group has obtained some

interesting new information. In the spring of 1992, according

to Iraqi Intelligence documents obtained by the ISG after

the war, Osama bin Laden met with Iraqi Intelligence

officials in Syria. A second document, this one captured

by the Iraqi National Congress and authenticated by the

Defense Intelligence Agency, then listed bin Laden as an

Iraqi Intelligence ``asset'' who ``is in good relationship

with our section in Syria.'' A third Iraqi Intelligence

document, this one an undated internal memo, discusses

strategy for an upcoming meeting between Iraqi

Intelligence, bin Laden, and a representative of the

Taliban. On the agenda: ``attacking American targets.''

This seems significant.

A second critical step would be to declassify as much of

the Iraq-al Qaeda intelligence as possible. Those skeptical

of any connection claim that any evidence of a relationship

must have been ``cherry picked'' from much larger piles of

existing intelligence that makes these Iraq-al Qaeda links

less compelling. Let's see it all, or as much of it as can be

disclosed without compromising sources and methods.

Among the most important items to be declassified: the Iraq

Survey Group documents discussed above; any and all reporting

and documentation--including photographs--pertaining to Ahmed

Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi and alleged Saddam Fedayeen officer

present at the September 11 planning meeting; interview

transcripts with top Iraqi intelligence officers, al Qaeda

terrorists, and leaders of al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al Islam;

documents recovered in postwar Iraq indicating that Abdul

Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi who has admitted mixing the

chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was

given safe haven and financial support by the Iraqi regime

upon returning to Baghdad two weeks after the attack; any

and all reporting and documentation--including

photographs--related to Mohammed Atta's visits to Prague;

portions of the debriefings of Faruq Hijazi, former deputy

director of Iraqi intelligence, who met personally with

bin Laden at least twice, and an evaluation of his

credibility.

It is of course important for the Bush administration and

CIA director George Tenent to back up their assertions of an

Iraq-al Qaeda connection. Similarly, declassifying

intelligence from the 1990s might shed light on why top

Clinton officials were adamant about an Iraq-al Qaeda

connection in Sudan and why the Clinton Justice Department

included the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship in its 1998

indictment of Osama bin Laden. More specifically, what

intelligence did Richard Clarke see that allowed him to tell

the Washington Post that the U.S. government was ``sure''

Iraq had provided a chemical weapons precursor to the al

Qaeda-linked al Shifa facility in Sudan? What would compel

former secretary of defense William Cohen to tell the

September 11 Commission, under oath, that an executive from

the al Qaeda-linked plant ``traveled to Baghdad to meet with

the father of the VX [nerve gas] program? And why did Thomas

Pickering, the undersecretary of state for political affairs,

tell reporters, ``We see evidence that we think is quite

clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa

officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in

touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX

program''? Other Clinton administration figures, including a

``senior intelligence official'' who briefed reporters on

background, cited telephone intercepts between a plant

manager and Emad al Ani, the father of Iraq's chemical

weapons program.

We have seen important elements of the pre-September 11

intelligence available to the Bush administration; it's time

for the American public to see more of the intelligence on

Iraq and al Qaeda from the 1990s, especially the reporting

about the August 1998 attacks in Kenya and Tanzania and the

U.S. counter-strikes two weeks later.

Until this material is declassified, there will be gaps in

our knowledge. Indeed, even after the full record is made

public, some uncertainties will no doubt remain.

The connection between Saddam and al Qaeda isn't one of

them.

Mr. Speaker, the State of Israel has for decades been an unwavering friend and ally of the United States. And Israel has stood in complete solidarity with the United States in the War on Terror. So, it is critically important that we send the message to our Israeli friends that we stand in complete solidarity with them in their fight against terrorism, because you cannot negotiate with terror or trust the promises of terrorists; you can only defeat them. And the establishment of a new terror-supporting regime on the shores of the Mediterranean seems inconsistent with the strategic goal of the U.S. and Israel to defeat terrorism and stabilize the Middle East.

I recently was presented a copy of an interesting advertisement that is running in Israeli newspapers regarding the dangers of ceding Israeli territory to terrorists. This particular ad is the ninth in a series, and it focuses on the Security Significance of Judea & Samaria Mountain Ridges. I would like to have the text of this advertisement placed into the Congressional Record following my statement.

The Jewish State and a Palestinian State: Mutually Exclusive or

Inclusive?

THE SECURITY SIGNIFICANCE OF JUDEA and SAMARIA MOUNTAIN RIDGES

The Demise of Saddam Has Not Waived the Threat to Israel

The Mideast is the world's most violent and unpredictable

region, which requires preparedness for the worst-case

scenario, including an Eastern Front Assault on Israel.

In 1967 Israel crushed Egypt, Syria and Jordan, and grew

over-confident that no Arab attack would be forthcoming. The

1973 War almost annihilated Israel.

Will the U.S. be able to stabilize Iraq? Will Bush retreat

from Iraq? Will his successor (in 2005 or 2009) retreat from

Iraq? A U.S. evacuation of Iraq could produce more terror

than it intended to quell.

Judea and Samaria Mountain Ridges--Irreplaceable for Israel's

Security

Missiles cause damage; they don't bring enemies to

submission. There is a marked difference between a barrage of

missiles on Tel Aviv, and the invasion of Arab tanks to Tel

Aviv.

The centrality of ground forces suggests the centrality of

ground features (Topographic edge and geographic depth).

The eastern mountain ridge of Judea & Samaria--rather than

the Jordan Valley--constitutes the best tank obstacle in the

world (3,000 foot steep slopes, controllable by a small

force).

The western mountain ridge of Judea & Samaria (2,000 foot

moderate slope overtowering Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa)

constitutes an invader's dream platform. A withdrawal from

Judea & Samaria would submit the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv-Haifa

area (80 percent of the Israeli population) to daily terror.

The Judea & Samaria mountain ridges constitute the ``Golan

Heights'' of Israeli's Soft Belly.

Until 1967, Israel limited Jordan's military presence in

Judea & Samaria to 5,000, lest it become a lethal threat. The

40,000 armed Palestinian terrorists in Judea & Samaria amount

to 4 brigades. A withdrawal from Judea & Samaria would make a

1973-style surprise Arab attack a lethal threat.

Technology Cannot Replace Ground Features

High-tech today becomes low-tech tomorrow, but high-ground

today remains high-ground tomorrow.

Every high-tech system is eventually outflanked by an

emerging system. The dominant mountain ridges of Judea &

Samaria can never be outflanked by an emerging ground

feature.

No nation alters its borders per technological

developments.

Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably delayed in my return to Washington, DC and therefore unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 177, 178, and 179. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall vote 177, ``yea'' for rollcall vote 178, and ``yea'' for rollcall vote 179.

Mr. Speaker, I have been watching television like all of my colleagues over the past few days and we are all very disappointed and disgruntled, upset, whatever one wants to call it, about the pictures that we have seen of prisoners in Iraq, and it is really tragic that those sorts of things happen in war. But we have had wars in the past where these things have happened. We had My Lai in Vietnam. We even had a problem in the Revolutionary War where other generals were calling for the resignation of George Washington because they had not won any victories because they had made so many mistakes. And of course they have Valley Forge. He crossed the Delaware, attacked the Hessians at Trenton, and he became a big hero, and we all know that he became the father of our country because of the successes of the Revolutionary War.

There are tragedies in all wars, but what we must not lose sight of is we are in a world war against terrorists. Over 3,000 Americans lost their lives in the World Trade Center. We saw in Fallujah Americans being burned and dragged through the streets and hung up by terrorists. Just these last couple of days we saw an American, an innocent American civilian, who was just working over there, having his head cut off, and they said it was because of the pictures. The terrorists said it was because of the pictures that were shown about what happened in the prisons in Iraq. The fact of the matter is they have been perpetrating these terrorist acts on and on and on because they want to defeat us and our way of life. And we must not let that happen.

And then I hear my colleagues criticizing the President and the Secretary of Defense over and over and over again saying, oh, my gosh, they are making mistakes; they should be doing this and that and the other thing. The fact of the matter is we do not need 535 would-be commander in chiefs. And that is what we see around here, people second-guessing everything that is going on.

As a matter of fact, we are winning the war in Iraq. We are winning the war in Afghanistan. The terrorists are on the defensive. And we must not send any signals to them whatsoever that they have a chance to win this sort of thing. And that is what I am afraid many of my colleagues are doing.

President Bush is doing a very good job. Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, is doing an outstanding job. And we need to stand with them and with our troops in the field and not be casting aspersions on every single thing that goes wrong over there. In war mistakes are made, and we are going to see more mistakes in this war. But we are winning it and we are going to win it as long as we have people like President Bush and Don Rumsfeld at the helm. And I hope my colleagues will think about that before they start shooting off their mouths in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for introducing this bill. He is a good buddy on the committee. I appreciate his concern over this issue.

My grandson became autistic 2 days after he received nine shots in one day, seven of which contained a substance called thimerosal, which is 50 percent mercury. We have gone from one in 10,000 children in this country that are autistic to now there is one in 166. As the gentleman from Massachusetts just said, it is four times more prevalent in boys than it is in young girls.

There are probably many causes of autism, but one of the causes of autism according to scientists and doctors that we have had before my committee from around the world is having the substance of mercury injected into children's bodies at a very, very young age. Mercury, we know, is a very toxic substance. It is one where if you have it spilled on the ground, they will evacuate the room until they get it cleaned up. Yet in most childhood vaccinations up until just recently, they had a substance in there called thimerosal which is a preservative, and it was 50 percent ethyl mercury. Children get as many as 30 shots before they start to grade school and mercury has a cumulative effect in the brain. It is no wonder in my opinion that we now have one in 166 children that are autistic where it used to be one in 10,000 just about 10 or 15 years ago.

We have to get mercury, as one of the causes of autism, out of all vaccinations for children. We have gotten it out of all of them but three, but we still have some of those vaccinations that are on the shelves that are being used by doctors that continue to use these vaccinations that have mercury in them.

I would just like to say to the CDC and the FDA today, we ought to get all those things off the shelves, all those vaccinations off the shelves that contain mercury so we can protect our children; and the three vaccinations that still contain ethyl mercury in the form of thimerosal, we need to get those changed as quickly as possible and go to single-shot vials that do not require these preservatives.

I also want to say to my colleagues that are concerned not only about children but about adults, many, many of the adult vaccinations like the flu vaccine that we get every year to protect this population against the ravages of flu contain thimerosal or mercury. It should not be in any vaccination that human beings are getting. Mercury is toxic to the human body, and it should be taken away and should be eliminated. Our soldiers in the Persian Gulf, in Iraq, get as many as 11 shots in one day. Many of those shots contain thimerosal, which is 50 percent mercury. We need to get it out of there.

In addition to that, as this resolution states very clearly, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for this, we need more research to find out all of the causes of autism so that the children that are coming into the world today are going to be protected in the years to come. The cost to the taxpayers, to this country, is huge. They estimate that there is $90 billion in costs right now when you add up everything as far as the damages to the human beings in this country that are becoming autistic.

We have got a huge problem now, but down the road, these people are not going to die; they are going to grow old and live long lives. Somebody is going to have to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. We need to find a cure for autism, and we need to get mercury out of all vaccines.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 402) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the urgent need for freedom, democratic reform, and international monitoring of elections, human rights and religious liberty in the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

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

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

As the sponsor of H. Res. 402, this resolution which expresses the strong sense of the House in support of election monitors, human rights and religious liberty in Laos is a very important piece of legislation. Since the 1975 overthrow of the Lao monarchy, Laos has been a one- party, Communist state in which the Lao People's Revolutionary Party is the only party allowed by law; and the repression there, Mr. Speaker, is unbelievable.

Although the 1991 Lao Constitution claimed to guarantee a wide range of freedoms, peaceful pro-democracy demonstrations in 1999 were forcibly suppressed. Many of those demonstrators remain in prison. The government of Laos continues to restrict basic freedoms and has been credibly accused of using starvation against civilians and of continuing its persecution of the courageous Hmong ethnic minority.

I sincerely appreciate and support the Hmong people in their fight for freedom and democracy. They and the entire Laotian people deserve our complete support and assistance. We must address the current human rights situation while pressing for real progress in Laos.

H. Res. 402 urges the Lao Government and international bodies to work toward access for international election and human rights monitors, genuine multiparty democracy, and the halt of violence against the Hmong, also the release of political and religious prisoners and the promotion of religious freedom throughout Laos.

These are worthy goals. I urge the Communist government in Laos to change their attitude toward these people. I urge all of my colleagues here in this body to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would like to just say the previous speaker made some very valid points, and I appreciate his remarks. However, the human rights violations in Laos continues to be widespread. There is a lot of suspicion on the part of the Hmongs who are being talked about being relocated, and that suspicion, I think, looking at the history of the Laotian government, is valid. And all I can say in closing, Mr. Speaker, is that human rights are just that, rights, and the Laotian government, which is a communist government, ought to take a hard look at history and realize that communism cannot last as long as it represses its people. And they ought to realize that long-term freedom and democracy is the only way to go, and if they do that, then I think the people in Laos have a bright future. But if they continue under this despotic communist regime, then I think they are in for more problems down the road.

In any event, I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and his support and those who speak before me.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 326) expressing the sense of Congress regarding the arbitrary detention of Dr. Wang Bingzhang by the Government of the People's Republic of China and urging his immediate release.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this concurrent resolution sponsored by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) expressing the indignation of the Congress over the continued arbitrary detention of Dr. Wang Bingzhang by the Government of the People's Republic of China. In recent years, we have all noted Beijing's pattern of using trumped-up charges to arrest and detain Chinese academics and democracy proponents who live outside China during their visits back to their ancestral homeland.

In Dr. Wang's case, however, Beijing has gone one step further in its attempt to muzzle the overseas Chinese community through tactics of fear and intimidation. Dr. Wang was not detained within the borders of China itself. He was instead kidnapped, abducted during a visit to Vietnam, bound and blindfolded, and forcibly transported across the border between Vietnam and China in a clear violation of international law. This case serves to demonstrate that despite historic differences, the communist regimes in Hanoi and Beijing are willing to make common cause when it comes to suppressing the voices of the advocates of democratic reform. This is common among communist brotherhood.

The People's Republic of China's legal transgressions and abuses in this case are so egregious that the United Nations, despite its sensitivity to Beijing's status as a permanent member of the Security Council, declared that the detention of Dr. Wang is a contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Beijing has further attempted to manipulate heightened post-September 11 international concerns over terrorism by charging Dr. Wang with ``the conduct of terrorist activities'' due to his advocacy of labor rights in China. The Working Group of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, however, has rendered a finding that the Chinese government has offered ``no evidence of any specific occasion on which Dr. Wang made the alleged calls to violence,'' further noting that Dr. Wang himself was a victim

of kidnapping by the very Chinese authorities who have accused him. Such false labeling of a victim of abduction as a terrorist is a cynical maneuver which demeans the memory of the victims of genuine terrorist attacks throughout the world. This is a perfect example of some of the things that the Chinese communists do that is just unthinkable, and the world should condemn them for that.

Beijing's border controls not only include cases of bringing people forcibly back into China, as with the case of Dr. Wang and the group of Tibetan refugees who were forcibly repatriated by the Chinese communists in Nepal last year. Beijing also seeks to forcibly keep people from leaving. We have heard that before. Remember the Berlin Wall? The People's Republic of China crossed a new line of inhumanity on the borders last month when, according to a reliable NGO report, Chinese border guards shot in the back and killed a North Korean refugee as he was attempting to cross into Mongolia, where he would have received safe haven and have been free. It reminds us of the Berlin Wall and the German border guards shooting to kill refugees when all they wanted was freedom.

I say here today: Beijing, tear down the walls of oppression, of arbitrary abduction of democracy advocates, and of victimization of refugees on the run who cannot defend themselves.

First, let Dr. Wang go. He is suffering in prison from serious medical conditions. He never had any intention of entering China's territory, and he needs to return to his waiting family, who misses him dearly here in the United States. And second, lift the bamboo curtain of intimidation directed at both its own citizens inside China and the overseas Chinese community which is calling for political as well as economic reform in their homeland.

China has undergone profound change in the last 2 decades. Beijing has increasingly sought, through such actions as participation in international peacekeeping and through hosting the 2008 Olympic Games, to take its place among the advanced countries of the world. But China cannot truly be a great nation until Beijing ends its systematic suppression of individual human rights such as clearly demonstrated in the case of Dr. Wang Bingzhang.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that a country that is economically as strong as China is would stoop to shooting a person in the back who wants to gain freedom just to stop them from getting out of their country, and it boggles my mind that China would actually go into Vietnam, kidnap somebody, blindfold them, and take them forcibly back to China when all they wanted was to see freedom and labor rights in China, and keeping this gentleman from his family, I think, is just unthinkable. So if anybody in the Chinese embassy is paying attention, this is something they should address very quickly and get this man back home to his family.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time as well.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 398) expressing the concern of Congress over Iran's development of the means to produce nuclear weapons.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 398.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 398, a resolution which condemns Iran's continued violations of its obligations and commitments regarding its nuclear program; expresses Congress' grave concern over Iran's efforts to develop the means to produce nuclear weapons, which threaten not only that region, but possibly the world; and calls for a series of steps to be undertaken by various parties to address this threat.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this measure, and I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), on this bipartisan effort and for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, after getting caught with its hand in the cookie jar, the Iranian regime was forced to admit in the fall of 2002 that it had nuclear facilities that it had failed to declare to the International Atomic Energy Agency. From that time onward, Iran has engaged in a systematic campaign of deception and manipulation to hide its true intentions and to keep its large-scale nuclear efforts a secret.

For at least 18 years, the Iranian regime has been pursuing a covert nuclear program. It has undertaken a number of efforts for the manufacture and testing of centrifuge components, most of which, according to recent IAEA reporting, are owned by military industrial organizations.

It has an enrichment facility designed for the simultaneous operation of large numbers of centrifuges, and a large, partially-underground facility at Natanz, intended to house up to 50,000 centrifuges. Concurrently, Iran is pursuing another approach to uranium enrichment which uses lasers, a complex technology rarely used by even the most advanced countries because it is not cost efficient.

Iran has expressed interest in the purchase of up to six additional nuclear power plants and is pursuing a heavy water research reactor at Arak, a type of reactor that would be well-suited for plutonium production. This represents yet another path to nuclear weapons, which endangers not only the region, but the world.

According to the IAEA report of November of last year, the Iranian regime admitted that it had failed to report a large number of activities involving nuclear material, including the separation of a small amount of plutonium. This same report noted that Iran's deceptions have dealt with the most sensitive aspects of the nuclear cycle.

Further, the IAEA could not disprove that Iran's nuclear program was not for weapons development and could not conclude that it was solely for ``peaceful purposes.''

Iran's most recent breaches of its obligations include failing to disclose work on advanced P-2 centrifuges for uranium enrichment and work on Polonium 210, an element which could be used in nuclear explosions.

As a result, Iran has forfeited its right to develop a nuclear fuel cycle and should immediately and unconditionally cease all nuclear enrichment activities.

H. Con. Res. 398 enumerates a series of steps that should be undertaken to, number one, hold the Iranian regime accountable for its nuclear program; and, two, establish a clear precedent that such proliferation efforts, efforts which clearly threaten international peace and security, will not be tolerated. Those who pursue them will have to suffer the consequences.

The Iranian Government needs to think very, very strongly about that.

Among the demands it places on the International Atomic Energy Agency, it urges the IAEA Board of Governors to quickly report the Iranian case to the U.N. Security Council for further action, which should include steps to prevent Iran from engaging in further clandestine nuclear activities. It also urges the U.N. Security Council to declare that non-nuclear weapons states under the NPT who violate their commitments forfeit their rights under this treaty.

As President Bush said on February 11 of this year, ``Proliferators must not be allowed to cynically manipulate the NPT to acquire the material and infrastructure necessary for manufacturing illegal weapons.''

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 398 calls upon the international community, through different venues, to use all appropriate means to deter and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, including ending all nuclear cooperation with Iran until certain conditions are met.

Given the ongoing developments in the political and economic relationship of the European Union countries and Iran, the resolution calls upon the EU countries to suspend bilateral trade agreements with this pariah state until Iran has verifiably and permanently ceased all nuclear weapons development efforts. Also, given the severity of Iran's proliferation activities and heeding the lessons from Libya, H. Con. Res. 398 asks the European Union to go a step further and consider sanctions as a means of compelling Iran to comply with these international obligations and expressed commitments.

It calls on governments whose nationals, businesses, and other entities are implicated in assisting Iranian nuclear activities to, one, fully investigate such a relationship; two, grant full access to the IAEA to conduct its own parallel investigations; and, three, immediately review and rectify export control regulations and practices to prevent further assistance to countries seeking a nuclear weapons capacity.

These are not just in keeping with President Bush's counterproliferation initiatives as outlined in February of this year, but also affirm the tenets of the U.S.-led resolution adopted by the U.N. Security Council just last Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 398 reinforces longstanding congressional efforts to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the funds to pursue and expand their threatening activities, in particular, their proliferation activities. It calls on all countries to take steps to end investment-related efforts that in some way support Iran's energy sector.

This is particularly relevant given plans announced by Iran on Sunday aiming for a six-fold increase in its petrochemical revenues to $20 billion a year by the year 2015. It is further relevant given, for example, the April 25 announcement that French oil giant Total was awarded a $1.2 billion contract to develop phase 11 of the massive South Pars gas field in Iran.

H. Con. Res. 398, therefore, also calls for immediate enforcement of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act with respect to Iran.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would simply like to refer to a recent statement made by Iran's so-called moderate leader, Mohammad Khatami, while Iran was blocking access to IAEA inspectors. He said Iran ``has no obligation toward anybody other than what our interests require.''

Placing this in further context, I draw my colleagues' attention to Iran's display last fall of its newly deployed advanced medium-range ballistic missiles which military analysts say could reach Israel or U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf. Television photographs of the display showed one of the missile carriers with a sign that read, ``We will stomp on America,'' and that says it all, as far as I am concerned. We must stop their nuclear proliferation program.

A terrorist state like Iran must not, cannot, be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapons capability, and we need to do whatever is necessary to stop them. Let us send a clear message to Iran, and to all other potential proliferators, that we will not tolerate this behavior, we will not sit idly by as Iran threatens our Nation, our interests, and global security.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to render their strong support to this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to compliment my colleague on a very fine statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start off by saying you cannot take one section of the bill, and I have great respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). He and I have been colleagues and have worked together on a number of bills, and I have a very high regard for him. However, let us look at the whole bill and not just one or two phrases in it, because I think it clarifies the whole intent of the bill and I think it illuminates the concern I think that the gentleman has.

If we look on page 8 where the gentleman was just talking about, it says ``calls upon all state parties to the Treaty on the Non- proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT, including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, including ending all nuclear and other cooperation with Iran, including the provision of dual use items, until Iran fully implements the Additional Protocol between Iran and the IAEA for the application of safeguards.''

But then we go over to page 10. Understand section 9 there it says it ``further calls upon the European Union to consider what further measures, including sanctions, may be necessary to persuade Iran to fulfill its obligations and commitments to the IAEA.''

Then you go to page 11, section C, and it says, ``calls on all countries to intercede with their commercial entities to ensure that these entities refrain from or cease all investment and investment- related activities that support Iran's energy industry.''

Go down to line 15 and it says, ``calls upon Russia to suspend nuclear cooperation with Iran.''

The thing that I think will really allay some of the gentleman's concerns, on page 12, section 13, it says, ``urges the IAEA Board of Governors at its earliest opportunity to report to the United Nations Security Council that Iran is in non-compliance with its agreements with the IAEA; urges the President of the United States to provide whatever financial, material, or intelligence resources are necessary to the IAEA to enable it to fully investigate Iran's nuclear activities; urges the United Nations Security Council, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Zangger Committee, and other relevant international entities to declare that non-nuclear weapons states under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT, who commit violations of their safeguards agreements regarding uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing, or engage in activities which could support a military nuclear program, thereby forfeit their right under the NPT to engage in nuclear fuel-cycle activities.''

It further states on page 13, and I hope this will allay some of his concerns, under section 16, ``further urges the United Nations Security Council to consider measures necessary to support the inspection efforts by the IAEA and to prevent Iran from further engaging in clandestine nuclear activities; and urges the President to keep the Congress fully and currently informed concerning the matters addressed in this resolution.''

I do not think there is anything in there, and the gentleman and I are good friends, that would give the President carte blanche to go ahead and invade Iran or start a war with them. Although, I think it is important that Iran feel a little uncertainty, although I do not think this bill does it, a little uncertainty about what might happen if they continue this program.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Before I yield back the balance of my time, I just hope that the Iranian leaders realize that when they continue down this path, they ultimately not only endanger the entire Middle East and maybe areas beyond, and who knows maybe ultimately the United States, but they endanger their own security as well; and it would be far better for them to start thinking about complying with the U.N. resolutions and stopping their nuclear program before there are problems down the road.

This resolution, as my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), just said, does not give the President unilateral authority.

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

Mr. Speaker, just 200 miles off the coast of Florida lies the island of Hispaniola, an island that contains two politically diverse countries, Haiti and the Dominican Republic. While Haiti is slowly emerging from civil unrest and developing democratic institutions, their Dominican neighbors will once again exercise their right to elect their nation's next President on May 16th. Since 1966, a little less than 4 decades, the Dominican Republic has elected its President in free and fair elections, and 2004 will likely be no different.

Particularly in light of recent events in neighboring Haiti, it is important for us to recognize this notable moment of democracy in the Dominican Republic. I believe it is essential that we applaud these worthy developments in the Dominican Republic as a noble example for other Caribbean and Latin American nations of the power and strength of democracy.

Relations between Washington and Santo Domingo are strong, and the Dominican Republic is an important ally in the global war on terror. Indeed, they have been a partner in the war against Saddam Hussein's despotic and terrorist regime and the Dominican Republic has also been a committed ally in the war against illegal drugs. Dominican officials have provided invaluable assistance to our immigration officials and have worked closely with our law enforcement agents to cut off the flow of illegal narcotics to our shores.

The Dominican Republic's democratic elections will impact the future of the island of Hispaniola, the greater Caribbean, Americans of Dominican descent, and the foreign policy of the United States. I sincerely hope that the Dominican Republic, its current government and the respective presidential candidates will continue to demonstrate their commitment to democratic stability, and the transparency of the electoral process.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I salute the Dominican people for their willingness and passion to support and promote a free and fair democratic process in their country, and for sharing our common ideals of liberty and the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms. Lisa Herman Ellison for being nominated as one of only five national finalists in the National Council on Economic Education (NCEE) and NASDAQ National Teaching Awards. Lisa was selected from among applicants around the United States for her originality, creativity, and effectiveness in the teaching of economics.

One of the greatest educational challenges we face today is ensuring that students enter

the world financially literate. A sound grounding in economics is necessary for individuals to participate in an increasingly complex global economy. The need for innovative and effective methods for teaching about the global economy has never been greater, and Lisa effectively prepares Kokomo High School students for that environment. Lisa teaches senior-level Advanced Placement Macro- and Microeconomics, Economics, U.S. Government and Advanced Placement Government and Politics at Kokomo High School in my district.

Lisa's creative approach to the topic of economics tasks her students with running a mock corporation. The students develop written and graphic analyses of the effects of international political events, trade policies, and finance issues on their simulated corporations. The students then complete a mock stock market analysis based on their corporation's involvement in international trade and the effects of government policies. Finally, students participate in ``International Day,'' which involves researching and preparing papers and presentations on a country and how government policies, cultural influences, and geography affect that Nation's economy.

Mr. Speaker and my esteemed colleagues, please join me in honoring and recognizing the service and commitment that Ms. Lisa Herman Ellison gives to her students on a daily basis. She is a fine example of the best the teaching profession has to offer.