Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Steven Hadley, the Deputy National Security Advisor, tried to take the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Advisor off the biggest hook in town by accepting the blame for the President falsely claiming in the State of the Union that Iraq was trying to go nuclear.

Hadley says he had ``forgotten'' the previous memos from Director Tenet discounting an Iraq-Niger uranium connection and neglected to remove this information from the speech.

So the American people are being asked to believe that the bogus major cause of war against Iraq eliminating a nuclear threat was advanced because a lower-level functionary simply overlooked a memo from a higher functionary, and that the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Advisor were all blissfully unaware of the fact that false nuclear claims they were circulating about Iraq were simply the result of a memo misfiled by a national security clerk named Hadley.

Hadley? Hardly. Hadley? Hardly. Hadley? Hardly.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of the McGovern-Skelton amendment to transfer a small amount of money for military funding for Colombia to increase funding for bilateral HIV/AIDS, TB, and other infectious diseases programs. This amendment says much about what we believe the priorities of our country should be in providing overseas assistance. Instead of providing more tax dollars to an ineffective drug eradication program and to the Colombian military, which is linked to human rights abuses, we should focus on alleviating the human rights tragedies that are the result of HIV/AIDS.

Aid to Colombia has failed to end the drug flow to America, and it has failed to protect human rights. Strong ties between the Colombian military and the paramilitary group AUC, which has been listed by the United States as a terrorist organization, are deeply disturbing, given the atrocious human rights abuses committed by the AUC. Most interestingly, The Washington Post recently published the findings of a report commissioned by President Uribe that showed the AUC, which frequently fights alongside the Colombian military, is a drug- trafficking organization. The report estimated that as much as 80 percent of the AUC's funding comes from drug trafficking. This means that the U.S. is funding a military that is working with a terrorist drug-trafficking organization in an effort to eradicate drugs. Does this not seem a little paradoxical?

The AUC's close relationship with the Colombian military is also disturbing because it implicates the United States in human rights abuses. How can the U.S. fund a military which has combined forces with a terrorist group responsible for torture, executions, and disappearances of innocent Colombian citizens? Until the Colombian government ceases its relationship with violent paramilitary groups that terrorize ordinary citizens, the United States must not directly fund it.

Furthermore, the process in which the drug eradication program is conducted through fumigation is conflict-ridden. Fumigation seems to chase coca cultivation from one area to another. The State Department's international narcotics control strategy reports for 2000 and 2002 show that coca production in Colombia's neighbors, Peru and Bolivia, and other areas of Colombia totaled 184,900 hectares in 2000 and rose to 205,400 hectares by the end of 2002. In the end, coca production persists because it is the most economically viable option for very poor peasant farmers in the area. Coca control initiatives must focus on alternative development assistance to small farmers so they are able to make the transition to legal crops. Effective development assistance coupled with manual eradication efforts is the only sustainable solution to the problem of coca cultivation.

Further, fumigation destroys the alternate development projects set up to sustain the lives of peasants. In the Putumayo village of La Isla, both a livestock and aquaculture project was destroyed, killing the chickens and the fish that represented economic opportunity for residents. Despite U.S. denials, fumigation affects health. It causes skin outbreaks and gastrointestinal disorders and respiratory ailments, particularly among young children, according to local physicians.

Ineffective and highly questionable funding of the Colombian military should not continue. U.S. taxpayer dollars should not be given to a military that is conducting human rights abuses against its own citizens. Instead, taxpayer dollars should be spent on worthy initiatives such as the HIV/AIDS programs that would genuinely benefit millions of suffering people.

The McGovern-Skelton amendment makes a modest step in that direction and it deserves a ``yes'' vote. I urge my colleagues join me in voting ``yes'' in support of the McGovern-Skelton amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hefley amendment, which would cut all international military and education and training IMET funding for Indonesia. We in Congress ended IMET funding for Indonesia due to horrendous human rights abuses committed by Indonesia's military. Mr. Chairman, nothing has changed. Indonesia's military has continued to engage in horrific human rights violations against its own people, especially in Aceh and Papua, has obstructed the investigation of the death of two U.S. and one Indonesian citizen, and deliberately evaded accountability for crimes against humanity in East Timor.

Of great concern to me is Indonesia's failure to resolve and provide meaningful justice for the murder of two U.S. citizens and an Indonesian on the Freeport McMoRan mining road in Papua in August 2002. The TNI, which has been labeled as culpable for the crime by independent monitors, has threatened parties investigating the crime and has resisted cooperation with the FBI.

The Indonesian military has launched a major military offensive in Aceh, the largest since its 1975 invasion of East Timor, which within a few years resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands. In early December 2002, the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement, GAM, signed a peace accord in Geneva called the Cessations of Hostilities Agreement. This agreement has since collapsed, and on May 19, 2003, the Indonesian government declared martial law in Aceh.

The TNI has since committed extrajudicial executions, it has committed torture, rape, and mass displacement of civilians. International humanitarian and human rights organizations, as well as foreign journalists, have been denied access to Aceh.

Access for Indonesian journalists is severely restricted. Human rights monitors and defenders have been particularly targeted. TNI-sponsored militia thugs have attacked their offices. U.S. journalist William Nessen has been detained and faces a possible 5-year sentence for so- called visa violations. When Nessen originally tried to surrender to military forces they apparently shot at him.

Finally, the trial process of the Indonesian ad hoc Human Rights Court in East Timor has been a grave distortion of truth and an internationally recognized travesty of justice. As of now, the court has acquitted 12 and convicted 5, delivering light sentences. Four of the five are less than the legal minimum under Indonesian law, and those convicted remain free pending appeal.

To date, the Indonesian government has not provided the documentation, executed arrest warrants, or facilitated witness interviews as requested by the joint U.N.-East Timor Serious Crimes Unit. Senior level government official in Indonesia responded to an SCU indictment of high-level Indonesian security forces personnel for crimes against humanity for murder, deportation and persecution by publicly snubbing the indictments and openly threatening East Timor.

Congress has already provided significant carrots outside of the provision of IMET millions in counter-terrorism training for the TNI and the police, multilateral military exercises, and senior-level contacts despite these and other inexcusable actions by the Indonesian armed forces and government.

Resuming IMET funding this year will send the wrong signal and it will reward bad behavior. This Congress should vote ``yes'' on the Hefley amendment, and I urge my colleagues to strongly support the Hefley amendment, which would cut all international military and education training funding for Indonesia.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the United States to get out of Iraq. But this administration, whose entry strategy was based on falsehood, with no exit strategy, has trapped our troops in Iraq and exposed them to greater harm. The total number of American casualties is now 232.

Here is what needs to be done diplomatically: the United Nations must be brought in. Negotiations for an exit must begin now. An exit agreement with the United Nations must involve the U.S. letting go of the contracting process; Halliburton, Brown and Root, et cetera. The U.S. must also take over the management, accounting, and distribution to the Iraqi people of the oil. Additionally, a transition from U.N. control to a self-determining governing structure by and for the Iraqi people must be planned. Finally, the administration, which unwisely ordered the bombing, must fund the reconstruction.

It was wrong to go into Iraq. It is wrong to stay in Iraq. U.S. out. U.N. in. Let us support our troops by bringing them home.

Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I request a division of the House.

No.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The Federal Communications Act of 1934 mandated that the electronic broadcasting industry operate in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. The idea behind the FCC Act of 1934 was that we the people own the airwaves and that we grant a license for people to operate in the public interest, but that the first claim on those airwaves belongs to the people.

How far we have come in America, to a position where we the people are begging corporate broadcast interests to allow us the right to free speech. How far we have come in America, to a condition where the Federal Communications Commission, which was created to make sure that the public interest is represented, instead has been captured by the very industry they are to regulate. It is a matter of public record. Indeed, it has been recorded by the Center for Public Integrity which examined the travel records of FCC employees that they have accepted over a period of 8 years 2,500 trips costing nearly $2.8 million and that these trips were paid for by telecommunications and broadcast industries which are regulated by the FCC. This on top of the trips that the taxpayers paid for.

There is no question that the Federal Communications Commission, which has been created to represent the public interest, represents instead the private interest. And so then the public's right to the airwaves, to control of the airwaves, and to access to the airwaves becomes diminished, damaged, and degraded by a system which has now been captured by media corporations. This then must be a cause of great debate in our democracy because we understand as wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer hands there is less democracy, and we understand as concentration in the media occurs and there are fewer and fewer independent media outlets, it is to the detriment of our democracy, it is a lessening of freedom of speech in our Nation.

If we are to remain one Nation, we cannot be one Nation and at the same time have one broadcast power, a private one. We have to ensure that there is a multiplicity of media outlets. We must ensure that the media responds to the public interest. We must regain what it truly means to have a public spirited debate in a democracy which can only occur if there are significant numbers of outlets in the media and that each community has the opportunity to have a balance of media interests.

When our Constitution was established and when our Bill of Rights was set in motion establishing freedom of speech, our founders did not countenance that freedom of the press would belong to the man who owns one. Our founders did not countenance that freedom of broadcast media or freedom of speech would belong to the broadcast media. The Hinchey amendment seeks to strike once again a balance on behalf of the public interest to set aside the FCC's action which resulted in a stunning ruling which permitted the country's largest media conglomerates to achieve a level of multiple ownership that could only be said to be totally against the interest of our democracy.

We stand here every day in debating the great questions of our time. How often those questions receive attention is a matter of the private interest. We need to regain the public interest here. That is why this amendment achieves a great amount of importance. The public needs to remember once again that they are ultimately the owners of the airwaves, that the airwaves do not belong to corporations. They do not have any primary right to those airwaves. Those airwaves are the product of a free Nation and those airwaves should always be regulated in the public interest. They are not being regulated in the public interest, and it is only this Congress which can rescue the public interest.

Vote for the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and am proud to join with him and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) in cosponsoring it.

It has been said that Members may not know the impact of this amendment. This amendment seeks to deny funds which would be used to carry out section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows for so-called sneak-and-peak searches. It has been said that Members may not know the impact of this amendment.

Let it be stated here that when this House passed the PATRIOT Act, most Members, as diligent as they are, nevertheless did not have access to see the very bill they were voting on, that, in fact, we were not voting on at 6 o'clock in the afternoon, we were voting on in the dead of night. In an atmosphere of apprehension and confusion and chaos, the Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, which has led to a destructive undermining of numerous provisions of the Bill of Rights. The amendment of the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) is the first opportunity that we have had

in this House to correct something that has been a grievous assault on our Constitution.

We are offering this amendment to restore integrity to the fourth amendment by denying funds from being used to carry out section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, that section which allows for the sneak-and-peak searches. Common law has always required that the government cannot enter your property without you and must, therefore, give you notice before it executes a search. That knock-and-announce principle has long been recognized as having been codified in the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution.

The PATRIOT Act, however, unconstitutionally amended the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search has been executed. Let me tell you what this means. This means that under this law, this law which was passed by the Congress, the government can enter your house, your apartment, your office, with a search warrant, when the occupants are away, search through your property, take photographs, and, in some cases, even seize property and not tell you until later. This effectively guts the fourth amendment protections.

In response to questioning by the Committee on the Judiciary, the Department of Justice makes it clear that the fourth amendment is already in peril as a result of section 213. Listen to this box score of their activity: the Department of Justice reports that sneak-and- peak searches have been used on 47 separate occasions and that the period of delay for notification has been sought almost 250 times. I would suggest to you just once constitutes a threat to our Bill of Rights.

These secret warrants have been used in Federal criminal investigations not necessarily related to terrorist investigations.

Notice with a warrant is a crucial check on the government's power. It forces authorities to operate in the open. It allows citizens to protect their constitutional rights. For example, it allows subjects to point out problems with a warrant, for instance, if the police are at the wrong address or if the scope of the warrant is obviously being exceeded.

If, for example, authorities in search of a stolen car go into someone's apartment and rifle through a dresser drawer, search warrants rightly contain limits on what may be searched. But when the searching authorities have utter control and discretion over a search, American citizens are unable to defend their constitutional rights.

This assault on the fourth amendment is wrong, it is unconstitutional, it is un-American; and it must stop. I would ask my colleagues to recall the oft-invoked words of a great American, Benjamin Franklin, who once said: ``Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.''

I say today that section 213 of the PATRIOT Act destroys an essential liberty. The Otter amendment restores it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

There is a context here which is worth reflecting on, and that is the law enforcement policies of an administration which cannot effectively meet the challenge of international terrorism, but is ready to wage a phony drug war, including locking up people dying of cancer simply because those poor souls seek relief from horrible pain.

I ask, can we truly be so lacking in compassion? This is not about legalizing marijuana. That is just a smoke screen. It is an amendment to end Federal raids on medical marijuana patients and providers in States where medical marijuana is legal. Despite marijuana's recognized therapeutic value, including a National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine report, recommending its use in certain circumstances, Federal law refuses to recognize the importance and safety of medicinal marijuana.

Instead, Federal penalties for all marijuana use, regardless of purpose, include up to a year in prison for the possession of even small amounts.

Let us reflect again on how cynical and how dark it is to even contemplate sending someone to prison for a year when they may not even have that much time left in their life; but since 1996, eight States have enacted laws to allow very ill patients to use medical marijuana in spite of Federal law. The present administration has sought to override such State statutes, viewing the use of medicinal marijuana for purposes in the same light as heroin or cocaine.

Last year, Federal agents raided the Women and Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, an organization that under California State law legally dispensed marijuana to patients whose doctors had recommended it for pain and suffering. Eighty-five percent of this organization's 225 members were terminally ill with cancer or AIDS.

This is about compassion. The Federal Government should use its power to help terminally ill citizens, not arrest them. And States deserve to have the right to make their own decisions regarding the use of medical marijuana. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday The Washington Post revealed yet another piece of shaky intelligence used by this administration to go to war against Iraq. The claim that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes was made twice by President Bush in a September Rose Garden appearance and in a Saturday radio address. This terrifying scenario, which was outlined in the famous ``British Dossier,'' has since been called into serious question.

The White House now admits it did not seek CIA approval for this claim. How is it that the President can make unequivocal statements about evidence of Iraq's weapons to Congress and the American people and not seek to see if it is true? The White House's admission reveals the administration's determination to take this country to war without regard to evidence.

The truth must be revealed about the administration's other claims to justify the war, such as Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons and alleged connections to al Qaeda.

Why did the U.S. really go to war against Iraq? The American people have a right to know.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Charles Whitman

Jones, United States Veteran, beloved husband and father, educator and administrator, and friend and mentor to countless people.

Armed with intelligence, educational achievement, integrity, motivation and a strong work ethic, Mr. Jones overcame the challenges of racial discrimination with grace and dignity. Mr. Jones had a vision for himself and for his family--a vision of happiness, success and accomplishment--that would not be thwarted during the dark days of racial inequity in America.

The accomplishments of Charles Whitman Jones are many, varied and significant. He was named class valedictorian in high school, but was not allowed to give the address because of his race. After high school, he received academic honors in both college and graduate school. Beyond his outstanding educational achievement, Mr. Jones was a superior athlete. He was awarded fourteen varsity letters during high school, and during college, he was a track, baseball and boxing champion. His outstanding baseball talent was such that he could have played in the Major Leagues, yet at that time, there was no possibility of his acceptance into a League exclusive to white players. Charles Whitman Jones was later inducted into the Myers University Athletic Hall of Fame, and was named ``Father of the Year''--just two of the many awards and honors bestowed upon Mr. Jones throughout his lifetime.

Following graduation from Ohio University, Mr. Jones was inducted into the United States Army. He was selected to become one of the elite Tuskegee Airmen, and rose to the rank of Lieutenant. Following his service in the Army, Mr. Jones worked as a teacher, then chemist at Standard Oil Company in Cleveland. He married his childhood sweetheart, Diane, and together they raised their son, Peter. His commitment to others led him to leave Standard Oil to join Neighbors Organized for Action in Ohio (NOAH) as its executive director. This non-profit agency focused on constructing and providing decent and affordable housing for residents in the Hough area of Cleveland. Later, Mr. Jones was asked to join the administration at Myers University, where he served as Director of Admissions, Athletic Director, Director of Student Services, and Assistant to the President for Community Affairs.

Throughout his lifetime, Charles Whitman Jones consistently reached beyond the racial barriers of the day and held strong to his dream, purpose and focus--his wife and son, his commitment to others, and his professional and individual achievements. He paved the way for others to succeed, with great dignity, strength and grace--gently leading and always inspiring.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Charles Whitman Jones, an outstanding American citizen whose integrity, warmth, wit and concern for others have left an unwavering mark upon our Cleveland community. I extend my deepest condolences to Mr. Jones' cherished wife of fifty-four years, Diane; his beloved son, Peter Lawson Jones; his beloved daughter-in-law, Lisa Payne Jones; his beloved grandchildren, Ryan, Leah and Evan; and his many extended family members and friends. Although he will be deeply missed, the wonderful life and legacy of Charles Whitman Jones will live on in the hearts of all whom he loved and inspired--especially his family and closest friends--today, and for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Fairview Auxiliary Board to Fairview General Hospital, whose selfless efforts exemplify a model of benevolence and altruism.

Over fifty years ago this organization was founded under the auspices of providing essential resources to the hospital for equipment, building funds, and scholarships. Today, this organization has blossomed to staff over 140 volunteers dedicated to this proposition. Their hours of volunteered time have resulted in astounding success. Volunteers have contributed over 30,000 hours and raised more than $600,000 in the past ten years alone.

Mr. Speaker, please join me today in commending the members of the Fairview Auxiliary Board. We must encourage organizations such as theirs to continue to volunteer their time and effort in the interest of the betterment of the world.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to revoke the operating license of the Davis Besse nuclear power plant. I do so because of the substantial safety issues at this reactor and the poor response by the plant owner and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I offer this amendment to ensure the safety of the residents of the 10th Congressional District of Ohio who live less than 100 miles from the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station. Due to its proximity to the plant and the prevailing wind conditions, people and property within the 10th Congressional District would be detrimentally affected if a nuclear accident were to occur at the Davis Besse facility.

This amendment is not a permanent shutdown. It would merely require the Davis Besse owners to reapply for a new license. This would force a vastly improved assessment of the nuclear plant before it restarts. The basic fact

is that Davis Besse came far too close to a serious loss of coolant accident. The reactor core, the heart at the reactor, at the Davis Besse nuclear plant, sits within a metal pot designed to withstand pressures of up to 2,500 pounds per square inch.

The pot, called the reactor vessel, has carbon steel walls nearly 6 inches thick to provide the necessary strength. Because the water cooling the reactor contains boric acid, which is highly corrosive to carbon steel, the entire inner surface of the reactor vessel is covered with 3/16-inch stainless steel protection. This is the first line of defense to protect us from radiation.

I want to point to this picture here. Water routinely leaked onto the reactor vessel's outer surface, and because the outer surface lacked a protective steel coating, boric acid ate its way through the carbon steel wall until it reached the back side of the inner liner. The cavity was 7 inches long, 6 inches wide and 6 inches deep. High pressure from the reactor vessel pushed the stainless steel outward into the cavity formed by the boric acid.

An engineering analysis by First Energy revealed that the bulging stainless steel was beginning to crack. These cracks certainly suggest that given enough time, the reactor wall would have ruptured. Any tear or rupture in this wall would drain the reactor and require the emergency backup safety systems to work properly to avoid a major accident.

Experts have concluded that if the hole was not discovered, the reactor would have ruptured in the next year of operation. In short, a small leak in a critical area that began around 1996 came far too close to creating a serious nuclear accident.

I want to point to another card here that illustrates what happened when the NRC asked for information about what was going on at Davis- Besse. First Energy, the company running this plant, removed the photograph of the reactor head that was taken during April of 2000. This is the photograph. This company removed this photograph from a packet of information that was given to the NRC. Damage from the corrosion is clearly indicated in the photograph. There is an evident red river of boric acid flowing from the top of the reactor head. This company removed this photograph from a file in order to cover up the kind and extent of damage that was occurring.

A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled, ``Davis-Besse: The Reactor With a Hole in Its Head,'' documented the potential failures of the safety systems that would have been necessary if the steel liner had ruptured. The report concludes that the nuclear industry backup safety systems fail all too often for the nuclear industry to depend on them.

Last week, First Energy made public that an essential safety system was inoperable since the plant began its operation in 1977. A valve that needed to be open to supply cooling water to measure explosive hydrogen in a loss-of-cooling accident has been closed for 25 years and is now rusted shut. According to First Energy, a crack developed in a control nozzle in 1990. By 1995, the crack grew all the way through the nozzle. Boric acid from the water leaking through the crack began attacking the reactor vessel head. By 1999, the reactor vessel head corrosion was bad enough that iron oxide, rust particles, were being detected in the containment atmosphere. Once it opened, the hole widened by nearly 2 inches per year.

It is clear that First Energy and the NRC have failed my constituents. Of course, complacency on the part of the plant's owner and the NRC really caused the hole in the reactor head.

The following are examples of this complacency:

Workers did not discover the damage during visual inspections of the reactor vessel head in 1998 and again in 2000. Boric acid crystals coated the reactor vessel head masking the metal surface.

When problems with leaking CRDM flanges surfaced years ago, workers at Davis-Besse proposed a modification that would enable better inspections of the reactor vessel head. Management approved this modification, but then deferred its implementation.

When boric acid crystals were repeatedly found coating the outer surface of the reactor vessel head, workers at Davis-Besse merely tried cleaning them away. The plant's design required all components coming into contact with reactor water to be made of corrosion-resistant materials or to be clad with a protective layer of stainless steel. The outer surface of the reactor vessel head was neither corrosion- resistant nor coated with stainless steel. Management tolerated a degraded condition prohibited by the plant's design.

Armed with knowledge about leaking CRDM flanges at Davis-Besse causing the outer surface of the reactor vessel to be coated with boric acid crystals, about the high likelihood that one or more CRDM nozzles would be cracked, and about elevated iron oxide levels within the containment building, management lobbied the NRC in fall 2001 to allow it to skip the reactor vessel head inspection mandated by the end of the year.

There is also evidence of complacency by the NRC.

The NCR's Inspector General recently concluded:

During the review of the potentially hazardous condition at Davis- Besse, the NRC staff considered the financial impact to the licensee of an unscheduled plant shut down. The fact that FENOC sought and staff allowed Davis-Besse to operate past December 31, 2001, without performing inspections was driven in large part by a desire to lessen the financial impact on FENOC that would result from an early shutdoen.

NRC appears to have informally established an unreasonably high burden of requiring absolute proof of a safety problem, versus lack of reasonable assurance of maintaining public health and safety, before it will act to shut down a power plant. The staff articulated this standard to OIG as a rationale for allowing Davis-Besse to operate until February 16, 2002.

There is significant evidence that FirstEnergy falsely represented the condition of the pressure vessel and associated piping in order to avoid an NRC-ordered shutdown, and knowingly and recklessly exposed the people of Ohio to a grave and preventable safety risk.

Unfortunately, the NRC has recently issued a draft decision to deny my petition. They just don't get it. The NRC must place the safety of people before the profits of the nuclear industry.

The gentleman insisting upon the point of order, I will withdraw the amendment using this opportunity to call this to the attention of the public.

Mr. Speaker, today CIA Director George Tenet will testify behind closed doors. Yesterday I held a public briefing with two veteran intelligence officers about the misuse of intelligence which took us into war. Ray McGovern, briefed Vice Presidents during his 27 years with the CIA. He said, ``In my day, we did our analyses among ourselves. We knew what the requirements were. We knew what the interests were on the part of the policymakers. But thank you very much, we did not need policymakers at the table to tell us how to shape the intelligence.'' So much for the current Vice President's multiple CIA visits.

Andrew Wilke, a key intelligence analyst in Australia was on the Iraq case and received intelligence received by the U.S. in the run-up to the war. He said, ``In that time, I saw not a single piece of critical hard evidence to substantiate the claim of any cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda.''

Was the intelligence-gathering apparatus of our Nation corrupted for base political concerns? Did the U.S. go to war based on lies? Congress must find out in open public hearings to get the answers about phantom nuclear weapons and other myths which sent us to war.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill.

The 45 million people of Burma have lived in virtual imprisonment for over 40 years, when Burma's military junta first came to power. It has only been in the past 15 years that people around the world have come to learn of this great country, its ruthless and brutal dictators, and its celebrated freedom fighter, Nobel Peace Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Burmese military regime is notorious for its human rights practices. In 1988, the regime, known then as the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), brutally killed thousands of activists in a nonviolent cry for freedom and democracy. In 1990, when the people of Burma voted over 82 percent of the parliamentary seats to the National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi's party, the junta nullified the elections.

Earlier this year, the State Department condemned Burma's military for using rape as a weapon. Human Rights Watch has documented Burma as having the largest number of child soldiers than anywhere else in the world. The International Labor Organization has repeatedly condemned the military for using forced--or slave--labor.

Three years ago, U.N. Special Envoy Razali Ismail initiated negotiations for a power sharing settlement between the military junta and the NLD. These talks have since collapsed. Burma's military junta has instead shown absolute contempt for the NLD, Aung San Suu Kyi, and the negotiations process. On May 30, 2003, the regime staged a violent attack on Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters as they traveled in Northern Burma. They have shut down NLD offices, detained dozens of activists, closed universities, and once again imprisoned Daw Suu.

The United States should not respond to Burma's military junta with appeasement, engagement, or tolerance. It is time for the United States to respond with action. The people of Burma have continually called for a nonviolent course of action in the form of stronger sanctions, which will directly affect the pockets of the dictators. An import ban, visa ban, and the freezing of assets will not only limit the money propping up the regime, but will also send a message to the people of Burma supporting their hopes for human rights and democracy. In a 1997 speech smuggled out of the country Aung San Suu Kyi said, ``Please use your liberty to promote ours.'' Let us do just that.

Mr. Speaker, today at 11 a.m. in Rayburn 2203 I will be hosting a briefing featuring two veteran intelligence officers to discuss the Bush administration's misuse of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. The first speaker, Ray McGovern, is a 27-year veteran of the analytic ranks of the CIA who cofounded the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. The second speaker, Andrew Wilkie, was a senior intelligence analyst at Australia's Office of National Assessment until his resignation a week before the war.

The Bush Administration's recent blame shifting and back-pedaling on the Iraq uranium claim is profoundly embarrassing to this Nation. In an effort to protect the Bush presidency, Secretary Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Rice have decided to blame CIA Director Tenet for not removing the ``16 words'' from the President's State of the Union address.

They, of course, have completely neglected to mention that the claim was disputed by Tenet in October, 2002, and that the Vice President's office learned of the forged evidence back in February of 2002. They have refused to divulge what transpired during Vice President Cheney's multiple unusual visits to meet personally with CIA Iraq analysts, in which they reportedly felt pressured.

It is time for the American people to know the truth, and today at 11 a.m. in Rayburn 2203 we are going to continue on the path to get the truth.

Mr. Chairman, in opposing the amendment we recognize that reproductive rights embrace certain human rights. We respect the rights of women to make personal decisions on the number, spacing, and timing of children they wish to bear, what type of birth control she chooses, and the right for health, including sexual health.

The UNPF is one of the most successful foreign aid programs that achieves these goals. By denying UNFPA funding to women in poor countries, we deprive them of human rights. UNFPA estimates that $69 million could prevent 4 million unwanted pregnancies, prevent 1.6 million abortions, prevent 9,400 maternal deaths and prevent 1,200 cases of serious material injury and illness.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It fails to fully protect farmers and consumers. The legislation permits big corporate agriculture to reap massive profits while small family farmers struggle to make a dollar. With respect to meatpacker audits, the administration has asked for $1 million for the Grain-Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration to audit the four largest steer and heifer meatpackers, for compliance with the Packers and Stockyards Act. This might sound like a routine request, but it is not. This will be the first time in the 82-year history of the Packers and Stockyards Act that the agency has audited a large packer, but the bill does not provide this funding. Republicans must know that such an audit would show significant problems with the meatpackers, thus their refusal to fund it. At a time when the four largest meatpackers control 80 percent of the market, the American public should at least know the truth.

I want to indicate my agreement with the minority committee report that was so ably represented by the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). The report pointed out that with respect to the Conservation Security Program that this bill eliminates all funding for this program. This is despite the fact that this program will provide assistance to farmers to adopt conservation methods on working farms. This is unlike a number of other programs that take land out of production for conservation; and assistance for conservation on working farms has been sorely neglected in the past, and this program represents an essential attempt that would remedy that problem.

The Wetlands Reserve Program, in a recent publication, the committee has pointed out that the USDA referred to this program as the ``premier wetland restoration program,'' but the bill cuts new enrollment in this program by 20 percent in 2004. The program has a backlog of over 736,000 acres. That is why the farm conferees increased allowable acreage, and this amendment unfortunately will thwart that effort.

The Environmental Quality Incentive program is one that has gained a lot of discussion in this country. The bill reduces this program by $25 million in 2004. This will mean there will be a cut of 1,450 producers who will not be able to get equipped funding in 2004. And in addition, the backlog last year for the program was $1.5 billion, which caused many producers to give up on the program. Another limit will discourage those who still want to participate.

The guides to renewable energy, the minority report has correctly pointed out that the bill zeroes out funding for this program. This program would provide grants and loans to farmers and ranchers and small rural businesses to buy renewable energy systems and to make energy efficiency improvements. Now, here we are at a time when we are seeing sharp increases in electric prices. We have seen spikes in natural gas prices, and we are expecting more increases. These increases could devastate small farmers, ranchers, and businesses. Any bill that would zero out renewable energy, therefore, is not advisable.

With respect to country-of-origin labeling, the minority committee report has appropriately pointed out that the bill prevents the implementation of country-of-origin labels for meat and meat products. We have to understand that it is really basically a consumer's right to know where the goods they are consuming come from.

The House unanimously supported this idea when it instructed its conferees on the farm bill to support country of origin labeling for both meat and perishable products. All Americans are concerned about food safety and inspection. The bill provides about $12 million less than requested for food safety and inspection.

The minority committee report points out that under the budget request these funds would not have gone directly into inspection activities, but, given the large number of recalls in 2002 and the ongoing concern about the agency's performance, the $12 million should have been provided for increased inspection and sampling.

There are very few areas where the American public has a greater interest than the area of food safety and inspection. People really want to be assured that our government is doing what it can to make sure that the food which people are consuming has in fact been inspected and is in fact safe. This is another deficiency in this bill.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Ballance

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think it is important for the House to understand that what we are talking about here is trying to assist minority farmers to be able to get experts in the field to help them obtain the best technology and environmental improvements in farming, to be able to be more competitive.

We know that, historically, whenever family farmers are having difficulties, it is always the minority farmers who find it most troubling to be able to survive.

This bill, when the work was being done, discovered a disturbing discrepancy for funding our Nation's land grant colleges of agriculture between funding for those land grant institutions established in 1890, all of which are historically black colleges and universities, and those established in 1962, which are predominantly non-minority.

I think the sponsors of this are trying to do the right thing in making sure that the inequities that have been long-standing and historic are addressed and that efforts are made in these difficult times to be able to establish fairness. Because this really is a question of fairness, whether or not we are going to be able to have an agricultural program that is going to make sure that minorities who have worked very hard to try to establish a place in agriculture will have available to them the kind of expertise that is available to many farmers generally.

So I rise in support of this amendment, and I urge Members to do likewise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blumenauer- Tancredo amendment. The amendment is designed to improve enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.

I think that when we recognize that so many Americans are concerned about animal abuse, we look at this as being one of the most egregious areas where dogfighting and cockfighting takes place. As the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) pointed out, it is not only a matter of animal abuse, it is a matter of illegal gambling, drug trafficking, and violence against other people. Violence breeds violence. I think that this amendment, in seeking to bring an appropriate Federal role through funding through the Inspector General, would help the local communities understand that a Federal focus means that more attention needs to be paid to local enforcement as well.

As somebody who served in municipal government over the years, this is something that came up in terms of activities that were taking place in some of the neighborhoods in my own community, and certainly people who heard about them and who were involved in the community understood that the level of violence and the level of animal cruelty was something that needed public attention.

We should have no tolerance for animal cruelty. We should have no tolerance for a system which degrades these creatures of God. And we also need to understand that, as the honorable chairman pointed out, the observation that was made by an official concerning the quality of ants and children, I do not think that he actually meant to equate the importance of an ant to a child, but what the statement meant to say was that all life here ought to be regarded with some degree of respect and that, in effect, when we try to come forward here and support animal welfare and support the rights of animals to not be treated cruelly, what we are doing here is, in effect, elevating our own humanity.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of this amendment. I think the American consumers have a right to know where the food they are consuming comes from and where it is made. I mean, think about this. Any of us here could look at the labels on our own clothes and know where the country of origin is. Why should we not be able to have that right when it comes to the food we consume?

This is not only a matter of right to know. It is a matter of assuring that American agriculture will be able to have the full impact and benefit from the American market because American consumers prefer American agriculture. We have got to make sure that American agriculture has the support that it needs.

Indeed, we are talking here about an agriculture bill. This idea of right-to-know and protection of the market are only some of the reasons why so many consumer groups and so many farmer groups across this country promote this country of origin labeling amendment.

I want to cite the following in the time that I have remaining as groups that are supportive of this legislation so there can be no mistake about it, notwithstanding the remarks that have been made here that there is plenty of support for country of origin labeling across the country: The Alabama Farmers Federation, the American Agriculture Movement, Incorporated, the American Agriculture Movement of Arkansas, the American Agriculture Movement of Oklahoma, the American Corn Growers Association, the American Corn Growers Association of Nebraska, the American Meat Goat Association, the Arkansas Farmers Union, the Baker County Livestock Association, the Beartooth Stock Association, the Bitter Root Stockgrowers Association, the Bull Mountain Land Alliance, the Burleigh County Farm Bureau, the Calaveras County Cattlemen's Association, the California Farmers Union, the California National Farmers Organization, the Campaign to Reclaim Rural America, the Carbon County Stockgrowers Association all support country of origin labeling.

The C.A.S.A. del Llano, the Catfish Farmers of America, the Center for Rural Affairs, the Cochise-Graham Cattle Growers Association, the Consumer Federation of America all support country of origin labeling.

Crazy Mountain Stockgrowers Association, Dakota Resource Council, Dakota Rural Action, Dawson Resource Council, Dunlap Livestock Auction, Eagle County Cattlemen's Association, Eastern Montana Angus Association, Fall River and Big Valley Cattlemen's Association, Fillmore County Cattlemen's Association, Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Farmers, Incorporated, Florida Fruit and Vegetables Association, Florida Tomato Exchange, Georgia Peanut Commission, Georgia Poultry Justice, Glacial Ridge Cattlemen's Association all support country of origin labeling.

The Grant County Cattlemen's Association, Grant County Stockgrowers Association, Holy Cross Cattlemen's Association, Houston Company Cattlemen's Association, the Idaho Farmers Union, the Illinois Farmers Union all support country of origin labeling.

The Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas, the Indiana Farmers

Union, the Indiana National Farmers Organization, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Iowa Farmers Union all support country of origin labeling.

Just Food, Kansas Cattlemen's Association, Kansas Farmers Union, Kansas Hereford Association, Kemper County Farm Bureau, Kern County Cattlemen's Association, Kit Carson County Cattlemen's Association, Land Stewardship Project, the Lincoln County Stockmans Association all support country of origin labeling.

The Livestock Marketing Association, the Madera County Cattlemen's Association, the Malheur County Cattlemen's Association, the McCone Agricultural Protection Organization, the Merced-Mariposa Cattlemen's Association, the Michigan Farmers Union, the Minnesota Farmers Union, the Missouri Farmers Union all support country of origin labeling.

The Missouri National Farmers Organization, the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, the Missouri Stockgrowers Association, the Modoc County Cattlemen's Association, the Montana Agri-Women, the Montana Cattlemen's Association, the Montana Farmers Union all support country of origin labeling.

The Montana National Farmers Organization, the Montana Stockgrowers' Association, the National Association of Farmer Elected Committees, the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, the National Consumers League all support country of origin labeling, and there is dozens and dozens more.

Support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, seniors must have a guaranteed drug coverage plan. Has the private market through Medicare+Choice plans been able to do this? On the contrary.

The privatization experiment with Medicare+Choice has shown that privatization is a failure. Privatized health care works by limiting coverage to healthy people and shifting more costs onto patients. Medicare HMOs have done just that by raising premiums and co-payments and dropping patients every year. Last year, the Medicare+Choice program eliminated coverage for half a million seniors. For those few seniors who still have coverage, they pay more and they get less.

This experience should teach Congress that relying solely on the private market is a losing strategy for seniors. Only Medicare has been able to provide reliable, stable coverage. Only Medicare has been able to minimize excess waste and overhead in order to keep costs down. To compare, private plans have 15 percent administrative costs compared to 2 percent for Medicare. A GAO report has confirmed that Medicare HMOs are responsible for increasing Medicare costs.