Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, this Member, as a cosponsor of the resolution and a committed friend of the Turkish people, rises in strong support of H. Res. 453. This Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for introducing this very timely resolution. Mr. Hastings has worked closely with Members and staff of the Committee on International Relations and its Europe Subcommittee--including the distinguished ranking members of the full committee and subcommittee, Mr. Lantos and Mr. Wexler--to craft the resolution that is before us this morning.

This Member would also like to thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his leadership on this issue and his very thoughtful remarks. Mr. Smith is the leader of the U.S. delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and Mr. Hastings is an active member of that delegation, and this Member commends them for their work.

Madam Speaker, this Member serves as President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA) and Chairman of the House Delegation. Though such assemblies, Members get to know their counterparts from other nations first-hand and to visit these nations to understand more about these lands and their people.

This Member already has written to Mr. Vahit Erdem, the chairman of the Turkish delegation, expressing our deepest sympathies to the Turkish parliament and the Turkish people, particularly the families of the victims.

One year ago, the NATO PA met in Istanbul, in a conference center overlooking the Bosporus straits, separating Europe from Asia. From our hotel rooms, we could look south to see the Taksim neighborhood that was devastated by the bombing of the British Consulate General yesterday. Indeed, several of us had the opportunity at night to stroll the busy, historic streets of that district.

As we discussed the key issues in the transAtlantic relationship, we also had an opportunity to experience the great city of Istanbul, one of the most historically important cities in the world. Istanbul literally lies between Europe and Asia, the only city in the world on two continents, and its history is that of a bridge between east and west.

The reprehensible terrorist attacks of last Saturday, directed against Turks of the Jewish faith, were an attempt to directly assault the religious tolerance that has been a hallmark of the Turkish Republic. Yesterday's attacks, against the British Consulate and a British bank, were an attack on the strong ties between Turkey and its allies in Europe and in North America and on the long and extraordinary transAtlantic relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States of America by further inflaming the British critics of the Iraq war and our transAtlantic relationship.

Sadly, they remind us that international terrorism remains a grave threat to all nations of the North Atlantic Alliance. Two years ago, when NATO invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, both Turkey and the United Kingdom showed that they were prepared to play a leading role in the war against terrorism, both alternatively taking the command of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. We remember their clear and strongly anti-terrorism, pro-American response to the al-Qaeda attacks on the United States, and in this resolution today, we pledge our support to Turkey in response to this latest terrorist atrocity.

NATO already has declared that the September 11, 2001, attacks by al Qaeda constituted an attack on the entire Alliance. Likewise, these attacks on an ally are an attack on all allies. Article 5 has already been invoked against al Qaeda. As a result NATO today is in Afghanistan, working to defeat that terrorist organization and their Taliban allies.

In the words of Lord Robertson, the NATO secretary general: ``If we fail, we will find Afghanistan on all of our doorsteps. Worse still, NATO's credibility will be shattered, along with that of every NATO government. Who will stand with us in the war against terror if we take on a commitment such as this and then fail to deliver?''

The bombings in Istanbul are a vicious reminder of the stakes in the global war on terrorism and the need to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a haven for those who seek to murder our people and destroy our societies. We all must provide the resources needed to win this war and protect our citizens.

Madam Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleague to pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Financial Services Committee and a conferee, this member rises today to express his strong support for the conference report of H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act). This important legislation permanently extends those provisions in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) which relate to the preemption of State laws--a very necessary step in this instance. The current provisions in the FCRA are set to expire on December 31, 2003. Thus when this conference report is enacted into law, it will continue the nationwide credit system while providing important consumer protections.

This member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus, the chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit on which this member serves, for introducing the legislation on which this conference report is largely based. Furthermore, this member would like to thank both the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Oxley, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, the ranking member of this committee, for their outstanding effort in bringing this excellent conference report to the House floor. As was suggested at the conclusion of the conference, this may be an instance where most of the conferees from both the House and Senate believe the conference report is better than either original Chamber's product.

The FCRA is the Federal law which governs the furnishing of reports on the credit worthiness of consumers. This member supports this conference report which would permanently extend the FCRA for many reasons. However, he would like to focus on the following three reasons.

First, this conference report provides for a free credit report annually for consumers. Typically, credit reporting agencies charge consumers up to $9 for the disclosure of the information in their credit files. Under current law, a consumer may receive a free consumer report from a reporting agency only under certain circumstances, such as when a consumer receives a notice of an adverse action by a reporting agency. The FACT Act would provider a free credit report annually for consumers for any reason. This member believes that this provision will promote consumer awareness of a person's credit history as well as provide an opportunity for the consumer to correct any inaccurate information on one's credit report.

Second, this conference report provides important provisions to curb identity theft. To illustrate the need for these provisions, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a survey at the beginning of September of this year which showed that a staggering 27.3 million Americans had been victims of identity theft in the last 5 years, including 9.9 million people in the last year alone. This conference report, among other things, allows consumers to place ``fraud alerts'' in their credit reports to prevent identity thieves from opening accounts in their names.

Lastly, this conference report continues the Federal preemption of State laws as it relates to the corporate affiliate sharing of financial information. During the consideration of the 1996 amendments to the FCRA, this member authored a provision, which was signed into law, that required a consumer opt-out when nontransactional information is shared among corporate affiliates. Examples of nontransaction information include data from a consumer credit report and information on an application such as a consumer's income or assets. This provision on consumer notice is very important as it was the first consumer ``opt out'' on the sharing of financial information that this member is aware of that was signed into Federal Law.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, for the reasons stated above and many others, this member encourages his colleagues to support the conference report of H.R. 2622.

Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to add his support for the Medicare conference report and would like to commend the distinguished Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (Mr. Thomas); the distinguished Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (Mr. Tauzin); and the other Medicare conferees for their leadership, expertise, and good efforts on this comprehensive Medicare reform package. This Member would especially like to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and his staff for the time he spent briefing this Member on the rural health provisions as Medicare conference negotiations were taking place and for his work to bring greater equity to the rural health care delivery system.

This measure may well be one of the most complex and important bills that this Member has ever had to consider during his tenure in Congress. Although the conference report lacks immediate controls on the high cost of pharmaceuticals--the market-oriented and pro- competition cost-containment provisions provided for the existing Medicare program are critically important reforms. The conference report makes Health Savings Accounts available for the first time ever to all Americans, and includes the undoubtedly controversial, but necessary means-testing of Part B premiums on a sliding scale, beginning at $80,000 (for singles). The rural health care reforms are also exceedingly important for millions of Americans. The conference report is certainly not perfect, for the prescription drug benefits may be both unaffordable and a huge disappointment to the intended beneficiaries. Yet, the Medicare reform and greater Medicare equity for citizens of rural and non-metropolitan areas make this conference report on H.R. 1 worthy of an ``aye'' vote. Congress will have ample time and opportunity to address concerns, enhance, revise, and improve upon this historic legislation.

Until this year, there has been nothing but gridlock and delay in terms of how to reform the Medicare program. The Medicare conferees worked long and diligently to develop the Medicare reform agreement before us today. We cannot afford to let this prospect of Medicare reforms slip away.

Mr. Speaker, the rising cost of prescription drugs has become an issue that simply must be addressed. Senior citizens in Nebraska and throughout the United States should not have to compromise their quality of life or their health because the cost of their prescriptions is more than their income allows. Without an end to the ever higher prescription drug cost--the product largely of huge international cost- shifting onto the backs of American consumers--the prescription drug benefits we are adding will cost more than the $400 billion allocated-- it will quickly be too expensive for our Nation to bear, even with Federal taxpayer funds. Therefore, this Member is very concerned that the measure lacks immediate restraints on the high cost of pharmaceuticals.

This Member is extraordinarily disappointed, but not surprised, with the intentionally unimplementable reimportation language included in the conference report. Drug re-importation from Canada was not the best approach to meeting the problem of escalating drug costs and it could be only an interim approach, but it is the only tool now available. The provisions of the bill allow for the importation of drugs from Canada, but the measure contains language in which the Department of Health and Human Services can say it cannot responsibly or legally implement the provision, as it has done on two previous congressional efforts. This language is the ``poison pill,'' and it is wholly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Speaker, it is additionally important that the conference agreement authorizes $50 million for fiscal year 2004 for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to conduct research on health care outcomes, comparative clinical effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care items and services--including prescription drugs. This Member has been a strong advocate for such research, as evidenced by his amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill (H.R. 2660).

Americans deserve the best health care for their dollar. Clinicians, patients, and those financing health care services need credible, objective information on the benefits, risks, and costs of prescription drugs so that they can make informed decisions about the prescriptions they consume and prescribe. Consumers need information regarding the effectiveness, quality, and cost-effectiveness of new drugs, in comparison with existing alternatives, especially when new drugs can cost much more than those now on the market. This Member is pleased that the conference report language authorizes the AHRQ to conduct such research and that comparative clinical effectiveness is referenced but is concerned that cost-effectiveness is also not mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to adding a long overdue prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program, the conference report provides for robust reform of the rural health care delivery system. It is the best bill ever for the health care of citizens living in rural and non- metropolitan areas; it moves them to a more equitable position with respect to their urban counterparts.

This Member is extremely pleased that the Medicare conference report includes a substantial amount of funding specifically for rural areas and small communities. As the Interim Co-Chair of the House Rural Health Care Coalition, this Member has been working diligently to address rural health care issues and the needs of those individuals who practice, work, and live in rural areas. This conference report includes funding that is dedicated to assisting community hospitals, outpatient facilities, home health agencies, skilled nursing facilities, ambulance service providers, rural physicians, and other skilled health professionals. Such funding is crucial for cash-strapped rural facilities which are near a breaking point and in need of urgent aid.

This Member is especially pleased that the Medicare conference report includes language to address the significant differential in Medicare reimbursement levels to urban and rural skilled health care professionals. For the past 2 years, this Member has introduced the Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Act to assure that physician work is valued, irrespective of the geographic location of the physician. The Medicare conference report establishes a 1.0 floor on the Medicare physician work adjuster from 2004 to 2006, thereby raising all localities with a work adjuster below 1.0 to that level. This is a huge victory for this Member, my very able legislative assistant, Ms. Michelle Spence, for Nebraska, and for all Medicare localities with a physician work adjuster below 1.0.

Several other provisions are included in the Medicare conference report to assist rural areas physicians and other skilled health professionals. For example, the measure protects senior citizens' access to physicians by replacing a 4.5 percent across-the-board physician payment cut--scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2004-- with 2 years of payment increases. Additionally, this Medicare agreement provides a five percent bonus payment for primary and speciality care physicians who practice in scarcity areas.

This Member is also pleased that the Medicare conference report addresses hospital payment disparities to ensure that facilities in rural areas and small cities can stay in business and continue serving patients who need care by permanently extending the standardized base payment. This policy will help maintain access to care in rural and less populated urban areas of the country by better aligning hospital payments to actual costs. The estimated impact of eliminating the base rate differential will result in $26.7 million over 10 years for Nebraska hospitals in the First Congressional District, according to the American Hospital Association.

Additionally, the Medicare conference report lowers the labor share of hospital wage index to 62 percent. This change will increase inpatient reimbursement for many rural hospitals and will more accurately reflect the labor costs of many rural facilities. According to the American Hospital Association, this provision would bring $3.3 million over 10 years to the First Congressional District of Nebraska.

Several other provisions are included in the Medicare conference report to address rural hospitals. For example, the agreement increases disproportionate share hospital payments for small rural and urban hospitals and increases critical access hospital payments to 101 percent of reasonable costs.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member supports the Medicare conference report. It finally gives the American people some of the critical reforms that are essential if the system is to avoid fiscal disaster or unaffordable burdens on American employers and employees. And, on what is a gamble, at least until we reduce the huge international pharmaceutical cost-shifting onto Americans, it will provide senior citizens with access to prescription drugs when they need them most and it will greatly improve health care for Americans living in rural areas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the authorization legislation, and I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

The conference report takes important steps to strengthen the intelligence community's ability to provide global analysis. I think it is an excellent report and an excellent effort on the part of the chairman, ranking member, and all Members and our staffs.

We are all aware that we are waging an aggressive war against terrorism. In addition, U.S. military forces are fighting the remnants of the former regime of Saddam Hussein. Yet we have global interests, for despite the immediate threats that we face, we must not devote all of our intelligence energies to Iraq and al Qaeda.

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus my remarks on two primary points. The first is related to human intelligence. The gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), I am sure, will cover that subject very well, since it is a primary responsibility of the subcommittee he chairs, so I will move to the second area. This relates to attacking the terrorists' finances. The gentlewoman from California talked about that to some extent just a few minutes ago. The distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has been very supportive in the progress that is being made in this legislation through his leadership. I think the important point is what we have done through this legislation within the Treasury Department.

Terrorist networks like al Qaeda obviously cannot function without significant financial backing. These terrorists, supported by (A) a shadowy network of fund-raisers, money lenders and shakedown artists; (B) businesses and charities serving as front organizations; and (C) unscrupulous facilitators and middlemen.

Now, prior to the attacks of September 11, the Treasury Department was not organized or equipped to take steps such as the freezing of terrorist bank accounts or assets. Frankly, it has never been as high a priority in Treasury as it should have been. H.R. 2417, this bill, creates an Office of Intelligence and Analysis within the Department of Treasury headed by an Assistant Secretary and tasked with the receipt, analysis, and dissemination of relevant foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information. In short, the conference report makes the Department of Treasury a real player, which can be an effective partner agency, in the global war on terrorism. This Members extends his appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services for working in a constructive manner to include this important provision in our legislation today. This Member also congratulates the staff for the exceptional work here.

I think that the leadership presented by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman, and the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member, has been demonstrated in bringing forth a genuinely bipartisan product.

The conference report is a very serious effort to improve our intelligence capacity. Each and every member of the committee and its staff dedicated long hours to the drafting of this legislation. Each member recognizes the importance of our actions and responsibilities and things yet to come. This body can justifiably, I believe, be proud of the efforts of the HPSCI in this case and, in particular, the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, this Member urges strong adoption of the conference report to H.R. 2417.

Together, these endeavors have severely tested the capabilities of our intelligence resources. However, America's interests remain global, and we must not devote all our energies to Iraq and al Qa'ida. The Intelligence Community must continue to provide timely, actionable intelligence on a host of potential threats--from nuclear proliferation threats on the Korean peninsula, to narco-traffickers in the jungles of Colombia, to collapsing regimes in West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a new world, and face new and more terrible threats. In many ways, information gathering was easier when the threat was the Soviet Union. Frankly, the Intelligence Community has been slow in adapting to this new environment. Our intelligence services did not reach out aggressively to recruit the ``human intelligence'' sources that could have provided us invaluable information. We lost far too many of the skilled analysts whose job is to provide early warning. H.R. 2417 provides much-needed funding to rebuild a dynamic, wide- ranging, global analytic capability. But we should be under no illusions--it takes years to develop skilled analysts who are able to ``connect the dots'' and provide our policymakers with timely information.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me additional time.

I did want to mention in response to what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) said about the language issue, I have been charged with the responsibility, with the help of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), for taking on this subject and seeking broadly the sources of information to give us the best product. My hope is that we will have a separate bill on the subject of language training and recruitment before the House some 4 to 6 months after the next session of Congress is convened.

I also wanted to speak further on the HUMIT issue. Our distinguished colleague from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) has emphasized the importance of this issue very well, but I want to bring up a couple of other points.

I mentioned, of course, that we are focussed heavily on the terrorist conflicts that create so many problems for us in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. However, we do have global responsibilities. So the intelligence community needs to continue to provide timely, actionable intelligence on a host of potential threats from nuclear proliferation threats on the Korean peninsula, from narcotraffickers in the jungles of Colombia, from collapsing regimes in West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize for our colleagues, and all Americans, that we live in a new world and face new and more terrible threats. In many ways, information gathering was easier when the threat was the Soviet Union. Frankly, the intelligence community has been slow in adapting to this new environment.

In the judgment of this Member, our intelligence service did not reach out aggressively to recruit the human intelligence sources that would have provided us with valuable information.

In our previous authorization bill, we corrected one of the reasons for that failure in asset recruitment. Also, because of budgetary restraints, the intelligence community in the mid-1990s lost far too many of its skilled analysts whose job was to provide early warning. This legislation provides much-needed funding to further rebuild a dynamic, wide-ranging global analytical capability. But we should be under no illusion. It takes years to develop skilled analysts who are able to connect the dots and provide our policy makers with timely information.

Mr. Speaker, we have made a start here. This is good legislation. I urge its support and I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 209) commending the signing of the United States-Adriatic Charter, a charter of partnership among the United States, Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia.

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

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

The resolution before the House expresses the support of the Congress for the Adriatic Charter. The charter was signed on May 2 in the Albanian capital of Tirana by Secretary of State Powell and the foreign ministers of Albania, Croatia, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the three currently remaining NATO aspirant countries which have not yet been accepted for NATO membership.

The resolution, introduced by the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), is virtually identical to the one that was agreed to in this Chamber on June 23 by a 381 to 1 vote. When the Senate passed this concurrent resolution in July, it made a minor change in the name of one of the countries being recognized, changing the word ``Macedonia,'' which was used in the Adriatic Charter itself, to ``Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,'' which is the name by which this country is internationally recognized by most countries.

The Adriatic Charter pledges the United States to support efforts by Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia to join Euro-Atlantic institutions like NATO and the European Union.

In this agreement, the three aspirant nations commit themselves to accelerate their democratic reforms, protect human rights, implement market-oriented economic policies, and enhance their mutual cooperation. Also very importantly, under the Adriatic Charter, the United States and these three countries pledge to consult whenever the security of one of them is threatened. For their part, the aspirant countries promise to continue defense reforms and to undertake steps to enhance border security so they can contribute to regional stability.

Mr. Speaker, this Member urges the House to agree to this resolution.

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

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

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

I have just a couple of concluding remarks. I would begin by first thanking the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for his initiative in introducing this legislation in the first place and for working with us to ensure its final action here today.

During the past several weeks, I have had the occasion to have Foreign Ministry leaders of these three countries in my office. No doubt that has happened with a number of us, and I must say that the progress that they are making is very dramatic. And in part that progress is driven by the fact that both the European Union and NATO have formal and informal criteria for membership, and it is pushing them along to make some of the important changes that mean we are going to have peace and stability, economic progress, civilian control of the military, transparency in military budgets, and so on. Those kinds of things that are extremely important.

Most importantly, to move these countries along towards a rule of law and towards democratic institutions.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think we can take some pleasure in their accomplishments and continue to urge them to make all the efforts necessary for membership, because I certainly want to see these three countries become members of the European Union, and especially NATO, as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the distinguished gentlemen from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and (Mr. Ney) the chairman and subcommittee chairman, and the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for his tenaciousness and support for quite a number of years on this issue. I think I have been working on it approximately 14 or 16 years now, first with Congressman Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts, but in recent years with the help of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has been a partner in this effort and a tireless advocate of reform of the NFIP.

I want to say that the bill is better coming through committee because of the work of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker). He constantly brought issues to me and particular circumstances in his constituency and individually or collectively we worked out solutions which made the bill better. And he has helped today here in the process of addressing a couple of other concerns that I think are helping to make the bill better.

This bill will give FEMA the needed tools to reduce the number of repetitive loss properties which cost the NFIP about $200 million annually. These properties, while comprising approximately 1 percent of the currently insured properties, are expected to account for 25 to 30 percent of the claims paid. The vast majority of repetitive loss properties are receiving flood insurance premiums at a cost that are below their actuarial risk.

As far as the contents, this legislation authorizes two programs which address repetitive loss properties. First, it authorizes a new pilot program. Second, the bill uses FEMA's existing flood management assistance to provide assistance to repetitive claims properties. At the outset, I think it is important to note that no property owner under this bill is ever denied Federal flood insurance except for fraudulent claims.

This Member will give a brief description of these two programs. The pilot program authorizes up to $40 million a year to be transferred from the National Flood Insurance Fund over 5 years for mitigation assistance to severe repetitive loss properties. The pilot program which expires on September 30, 2008, under this legislation addresses these properties in a simple, straightforward manner. The owners of a severe repetitive loss property will be charged something closer to the actuarial, risk-based rates for a progressive period on their national flood insurance policy. That is a change we made just today in response to concerns brought to us.

The first condition is that there has to be a severe repetitive loss property. The second condition is that the owner of the property must have refused a mitigation measure from a State or locality such as an elevation of the structure or buyout of the property. Furthermore, this bill would allow the director of FEMA to reduce the non-Federal cost share under the pilot program from the current 25 percent to as low as 10 percent in any State that has 5 percent or more of the total number of severe loss properties in the U.S.

In 2002, for example, this benefit would be qualified for Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, North Carolina, New York. So in other words, the non-Federal share is reduced from 25 percent to as low as 10 percent because these States have a number of these repetitive-loss properties.

So we are trying this new step to accommodate those particular costs. This legislation also allows any owner of a severe repetitive-loss property to appeal and increase to anything approaching an actuarial rate of insurance to an independent third party, and one of the grounds for appeal is that the owner of the property will not be able to purchase a replacement primary residence of comparable value that is functionally equivalent to their current residence.

I think it is important to note the broad coalition of groups which are supportive of the legislation: the Heritage Foundation, the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Association of Realtors, America's Community Bankers, The National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the American Bankers Association, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the American Planning Association, the National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group,

American Rivers, The Ocean Conservancy, and the Coast Alliance. And that is a pretty broad coalition.

I want to bring three other things to the attention of the body. First of all, a provision in this bill was deleted which would otherwise have unintentionally provided no Federal disaster assistance to be given to severe and repetitive-loss properties or repetitive- claims properties if the owner refused to accept mitigation. This change was done in our legislation upon the very constructive suggestion of the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

Lastly, a provision was included in H.R. 253 which was offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). His provision addresses the issue of the amount of the buyout offer. Under this bill, the buyout offered by the States or locality would be the highest of three differential rates. And, finally, third, we have changed the title to more accurately reflect the reality that in the process of compromise, only one of these two programs has anything to do with two floods.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

This bill was introduced by this Member on January 8, 2003. It both authorizes the NFIP through September 30, 2008, and makes essential changes to the program as it relates to the mitigation of repetitive loss properties. The NFIP is set to expire on December 31, 2003. This legislation passed the House Financial Services Committee, as amended, without noted dissent by a bipartisan voice vote on July 23, 2003.

This Member believes that it is important that one final public policy point be made. Under the NFIP, a very large regional cross- shifting of the cost of flood insurance is occurring; the policyholders in nonrepetitive loss areas of the country by their higher than appropriate premiums are subsidizing the policyholders in repetitive loss areas of the country. This bill will give FEMA the needed tools to substantially reduce the dramatic cases of this cost-shifting to other NFIP policyholders.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, we need to stop the very expensive treading through the water of repetitive loss after repetitive loss. Passing this legislation is the right thing to do at the right time. This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 253.

Mr. Speaker, on November 17, 2003, this Member unavoidably missed Rollcall Votes Number 620, 621, 622, 623, 624 due to official business off the Hill. Had this Member been present, this Member would have voted ``aye'' on these rollcall votes on three suspensions and one procedural vote. The three suspensions were S. J. Res. 22, a resolution recognizing the Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture for 50 years of outstanding service to the Nation through agricultural research; S. J. Res. 18, a resolution commending the Inspectors General for their efforts to prevent and detect waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, and to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the Federal Government during the past 25 years; and H. Con. Res. 299, a resolution honoring Mr. Sargent Shriver for his dedication and service to the United States of America, for his service in the United States Navy, and for his lifetime of work as an ambassador for the poor and powerless citizens of the United States of America. The fourth vote was a procedural motion changing the hour of meeting for Tuesday, November 18, 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1824) to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to reauthorize the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and for other purposes.

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 bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass the bill before us this afternoon, S. 1824, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation Amendments Act of 2003. This bipartisan measure, which passed the Senate on November 14 by unanimous consent, would extend the authority to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation through September 30, 2007.

This action is necessary in light of the fact that the authority for this important agency originally terminated on September 30 of this year and that its continuation on an emergency basis expires at the end of this week. This Member, therefore, asks his colleagues to pass this bill so it can be sent to the President and signed into law without delay. Its provisions are identical to those contained in H.R. 3145 which was approved by voice vote by the Committee on International Relations on September 25.

The OPIC Amendments Act of 2003 makes technical and conforming changes to OPIC's statutes, allows the corporation to offer its investment insurance in several key markets, including acts of an entity owned or controlled by a foreign government, permits the corporation to provide a guarantee of local currency loans made by a locally-established bank in countries without an established banking presence, and directs the corporation to collect data on the involvement of minority- and women-owned businesses in all of its projects.

This key development agency has compiled an impressive track record since its inception in 1971, supporting U.S. investors in overseas markets in order to help our exporters. At the same time, it has created more than 250,000 jobs in the U.S. and led to $64 billion in U.S. exports. It operates on a self-sustaining basis, returning approximately $200 million each year to the U.S. Treasury, and helps to support other key U.S. development programs.

Members' support of this measure will ensure that OPIC continues to play a developmental role in frontline states such as Pakistan and Afghanistan and will permit it to implement investment and financing programs in Iraq at minimal cost to the American taxpayer. Therefore, this Member urges support of this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his statement and for the cooperation that he and other Members on his side of the aisle and the staff of both sides of the aisle have given us in the advancement of this legislation to reauthorize OPIC.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the reauthorization of this very worthy, important agency.

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

Mr. Speaker, this Member supports the FY2004 Energy and Water Development appropriations conference report and urges his colleagues to vote for it. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, for their exceptional work in bringing this conference report to the Floor.

This Member recognizes that extremely tight budgetary constraints made the job of the subcommittee much more difficult this year. Therefore, the subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in creating such a fiscally responsible measure. In light of these budgetary pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the subcommittee and formally recognize that the Energy and Water Development appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2004 includes funding for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska.

This Member greatly appreciates the $18 million funding level provided for the four-State Missouri River Mitigation Project. The funding is needed to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the Federally sponsored channelization and stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. The islands, wetlands, and flat floodplains needed to support the wildlife and waterfowl that once lived along the river are gone. An estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas have been lost. Today's fishery resources are estimated to be only one-fifth of those which existed in pre-development days.

In 1986, the Congress authorized over $50 million to fund the Missouri River Mitigation Project to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan plan.

Also, this measure provides additional funding for flood-related projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's First Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, flooding in 1993 temporarily closed Interstate 80 and seriously threatened the Lincoln municipal water system, which is located along the Platte River near Ashland, Nebraska. Therefore, this Member is extremely pleased that this conference report continues funding in the amount of $191,000 for the Lower Platte River and Tributaries Flood Control Study. This study should help formulate and develop feasible solutions which will alleviate future flood problems along the Lower Platte River and tributaries.

This Member recognizes that this bill includes $546,000 for the Sand Creek Watershed project in Saunders County, NE, and $318,000 for the Western Sarpy-Clear Creek project. This funding is to be used for pre- construction engineering and design work. This Member is also very pleased that the conference report includes construction funds for several Nebraska projects including $500,000 for Sand Creek, $500,000 for Western Sarpy-Clear Creek, $1.5 million for Antelope Creek,

and $1 million for Missouri National Recreational River.

Funding for the Sand Creek project is particularly urgent. There is a cooperative effort in Nebraska between the State highway agency and water development agencies which makes this project more cost-effective and feasible. Specifically, the dam for this small reservoir is to be a structure that the Nebraska Department of Roads would construct instead of a bridge as part of the new State expressway in the immediate vicinity of Wahoo, NE. Immediate funding would help ensure that this coordinated effort could continue.

This Member appreciates the report language which directs ``the Secretary of the Army to work closely with the local sponsor on the Sand Creek Environmental Restoration project, accepting advance funds offered by the sponsor, and agreeing to credits and reimbursements, as appropriate, for work done by the sponsor, including work performed in connection with the design and construction of seven upstream detention storage structures.''

The Western-Sarpy-Clear Creek Flood Reduction Project is designed to provide protection to the City of Lincoln's water supply, Interstate 80 and U.S. Highway 6, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad/Amtrak line, telecommunication lines and other public facilities. The project completes and strengthens a levee system, most of which is already in place, to channel water and ice downstream away from the confluence of the Elkhorn and Platte Rivers, which is where major flood problems begin.

The purpose of the Antelope Creek project is to implement solutions to multi-faceted problems involving the flood control and drainage problems in Antelope Creek as well as existing transportation and safety problems all within the context of broad land-use issues. This Member continues to have a strong interest in the project since he was responsible for stimulating the City of Lincoln, the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to work jointly and cooperatively with the Army Corps of Engineers to identify an effective flood control system for downtown Lincoln. The Antelope Creek Flood Control Project is a large project and will have a number of phases of right-of-way acquisition and construction.

This Member appreciates the $500,000 included in the conference report for research in Nebraska on improved soybean oil for biodiesel fuel. Biodielsel use is growing rapidly, and an improved oil from soybeans developed for Nebraska growers can open new markets for soybean growers, while contributing to a cleaner environment and reducing our Nation's dependence on non-renewable energy sources. Replacing petroleum-based diesel fuel with biodiesel produced from soybean and other vegetable oils can help make the Nation more self- sufficient in energy and reduce air pollution, including emission of ``greenhouse gases'' contributing to global warming. Biodiesel holds significant potential for expanding markets for soybean growers and processors.

Finally, this Member also is pleased that the conference report includes $1 million in funds from the Drought Emergency Assistance Program for emergency assistance in Nebraska.

Again Mr. Speaker, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their support of projects which are important to Nebraska and the First Congressional District, as well as to the people living in the Missouri River Basin.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the way that the chairman started the discussion about our bipartisan cooperation in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and actually being referred to by Members on both sides of the aisle today. I think that is one of our strong points that we need to work hard at preserving. My colleague from Iowa, my neighbor, said it is important to ask the tough questions in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I absolutely agree and I think all of us would. I do not believe we have been timid about doing that, not just recently, but throughout.

And I believe that the administration and the intelligence community, regardless of the administration in the office at the moment, is likely to have more confidence that they can speak candidly, forthrightly, that we do not have to pull things out of them begrudgingly if they understand that we use that work well and that we keep the matters that are classified very carefully, close to the chest, and use it well.

I would say that I think I would certainly disagree, and I have not heard it here, but I would certainly disagree with any broad-brush, sweeping indictment that there were severe problems with intelligence collection analysis or the way the policy makers used the information. We will be looking at that. We do know that there were gaps in intelligence collection, and all of us, I think, have spoken frequently about the problems we have with adequate language and cultural affinity and certainly about the lack of HUMINT.

Now, if there is one area of the world, about three or four where we had a real gap in HUMINT, it was, of course, in Iraq. And gaps equate to information that does not flow to the intelligence community which they cannot use, which they cannot respond to us on. So I would say that a collection problem

would exist if senior managers in the ISC were not taking active steps to address the known gaps in collection.

We have heard something just a few minutes ago about lessons learned. And, of course, those lessons to be learned do not suddenly appear at some point in time in the future. I believe we have been learning lessons throughout this last several weeks and months. And I believe that the intelligence authorization bill, which we are prepared to bring a conference report to this floor soon, does, in fact, reflect some of the lessons we have learned in the conflict in Afghanistan and in Iraq and the intelligence operations that preceded and continue to be conducted in those countries. So lessons learned are being acted on, and there is more that we can learn.

And I think there is no hesitation on having the kind of review that will make Members comfortable that we are taking the right steps to support the community and, in fact, to demand responses and demand actions where changes need to be made.

So with those comments, Mr. Speaker, I heard the acceptance of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) of the language of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), and I think we can move forward in a bipartisan way. I hope, therefore, that our colleagues in the House will continue to have confidence in this Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and that in this House, we are operating to the maximum extent possible with bipartisan support of the Members and the bipartisan activities involving all Members actively involved in the process.

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support for the conference report on H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This Member would like to offer particular thanks to the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the Ranking Minority Member on the Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their work on this important bill. Furthermore, this Member would like to thank the Chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Readiness, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), and the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Readiness, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), for their critical work on authorizing $3 million for the frontage levee segment protecting the Nebraska National Guard Camp at Ashland, Nebraska. Indeed, this Member is very appreciative for the inclusion of this provision in the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, the Nebraska National Guard Camp Frontage Levee Segment is a central element of the Clear Creek portion of the Western Sarpy Levee project. Completion of the Guard camp segment must coincide with the other elements of the Western Sarpy project to assure coordinate progress on completing this governmentally complicated flood protection project. Indeed, without building this section of the levee along the Platte River simultaneously with the construction of the entire levee system it will not work; there would be a gap in the levee that would only accentuate the flooding risks and flood volume that would affect the Nebraska National Guard Camp unless this project moves forward with the rest of the levee construction project.

Previously, the Clear Creek Project was authorized at $15.6 million in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000) to provide protection to the City of Lincoln's water supply, I-80, and U.S. 6, BNSF RR (Amtrak Line), telecommunication lines and other public facilities. In the FY2003 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress included $500,000 for construction start-up costs.

The Nebraska National Guard Camp at Ashland, Nebraska, provides training for Nebraska and other states' Army guard units to maintain mission readiness. The Ashland Guard Camp levee is an essential element of the Clear Creek structure on the western side of the Platte River since it also is that part of Clear Creek nearest to the Lincoln wellfield. Planning and design funds for the Guard's segment have been previously provided by the Congress to the Department of Defense through the Military Construction appropriations bill. Planning has resulted in development of a more cost-effective frontage levee to replace a previous ring-levee approach.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member again expresses his appreciation and urges his colleagues to vote in support of the conference report for H.R. 1588.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of the House may have until 6 a.m. Friday, November 7, 2003, to file a conference report on the bill, (H.R. 1588) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, this week's issue of Congressional Quarterly Weekly reports that on the subject of drug reimportation, FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan said the following in an October 20 speech to the National Press Club, ``These Members are out of touch with the realities of keeping our drug supply safe, and the clear and present dangers to America's supply of drugs that their bills would create.''

Evidently, it is Mr. McClellan who is out of touch with reality. Millions of Americans are finding prescription drug reimportation from Canada and other countries to be a viable and necessary alternative to high-priced drugs in the United States. The number of those Americans is growing every day. It would be wrong for Members of Congress to ignore this reality and to ignore the excessive cost of prescription drugs in America.

If Mr. McClellan thinks Americans are content to allow price gouging on prescriptions to continue, he is mistaken. American consumers are understandably fed up.

Large pharmaceutical manufacturers have long been gouging American consumers by charging substantially more, in some cases up to 90 percent more, for prescription drugs sold in the United States than in Canada and other industrialized countries. Americans refuse to be exploited by the pharmaceutical industry any longer. The exploitation of American consumers must end. The excuse that most of the world's pharmaceutical research and development takes place in America does not justify the continued degree of cost shifting onto the backs of American consumers. Profit levels of American, foreign, and multi- national pharmaceutical firms are huge, as is the

level of their advertising budgets and their level of inducements offered to prescribing physicians.

This Member firmly believes that many of the safety issues which opponents have brought to the forefront in this debate are really red herrings. The real issue is the prices Americans pay for the medicines they need.

According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, there is strong support for opening drug markets, despite warnings by FDA that it cannot guarantee the safety of these life-saving medicines. Even with the possibility of a drug safety issue being mentioned in the question, more than two-thirds, or 69 percent of respondents, said it should be legal for Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada or other industrialized countries. In fact, 12 percent of those surveyed said that they or a family member had purchased prescription drugs from Canada or other country in order to obtain a better price.

The reimportation debate is not a battle of right versus left, it is a battle of right versus wrong. It is simply wrong to require Americans to pay the world's highest prices for prescription drugs, so they thereby can subsidize consumers everywhere else on earth to generate the research, advertising and profit revenues for pharmaceutical companies.

As a Member of Congress serving in the people's House, this Member has a responsibility to do what is right for Nebraskans and all Americans. This Member supports prescription drug reimportation because Americans deserve access to quality drugs at world market prices and reimportation seems to be the only solution immediately available to reduce the gross overcharge of American consumers for prescription drugs.

A typically cynical comment was made by an unnamed health care lobbyist found in the November 1, 2003, Congressional Quarterly Weekly regarding the Medicare bill and the likelihood that the final bill will include importation provisions that will never be implemented. The unnamed source is quoted as saying, ``You tell them that this will only kick in after FDA has appropriated $100 million for border safety, or FDA has a counterfeit, tamper-resistant device packaging system in place.'' The lobbyist concluded, ``Whatever the trigger is, just say it will never be met.''

Mr. Speaker, there have been rumors that the Medicare conference report will come out of committee with a drug reimportation provision which will contain language under which the FDA can say they cannot responsibly or legally implement, as they did on two previous congressional efforts to provide for prescription drug reimportation. This is unacceptable.

Governor Rod Blagojevich, our former colleague in the House, is asking the FDA to allow Illinois to explore a plan to import approved medications from Canada, and knows this issue well. He recently said, ``It is awfully hard to stop an idea whose time has come.'' He is absolutely right in that assessment. Americans will find a way to buy FDA-approved drugs from abroad, either legally or illegally. The FDA needs to face the fact and get on with the method of discharging its responsibilities given those realities.

Mr. Speaker, there is a serious call for action from the American people. We must open the drug markets so Americans can obtain the prescription drugs they need when they need them most and at affordable prices.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article published in the Los Angeles Times today entitled, ``Open Door to Drug Imports.''

[From the Los Angeles Times, Nov. 6, 2003]

Open Door to Drug Imports

In the 2002 election cycle, the U.S. drug industry gave

political candidates nearly $30 million. For the 2004 cycle

it has already spent more than $3 million, two-thirds of it

on GOP members of Congress. The industry is getting a good

return on its money. Bush administration officials and

sympathetic legislators are still trying to add a $400-

billion drug benefit to Medicare that prohibits, not just

omits, cost controls. House and Senate conferees have

proposed forbidding the federal government to negotiate

better prices, as such countries as Canada and agencies as

the Department of Veterans Affairs do.

The glimmer of good news is that at least one consumer-

friendly reform may survive. The conferees, pressured by

state and local leaders, last week began considering an

amendment to let consumers buy drugs directly and more

cheaply from Canada.

The Bush administration and most legislators on the

conference committee, including some Democrats, say it is

dangerous to legalize drug purchases from Canada. They echo

Food and Drug Administration head Mark B. McClellan's line

that the agency can't guarantee the safety of drugs that

aren't manufactured, stored and distributed under FDA

guidelines. McClellan says he fears tampering by shippers as

well. Canada, however, has one of the world's most stringent

pharmaceutical quality oversight systems. As for adulteration

in shipping, that can happen in any mail-order operation.

Californians are right to ask why importation from Mexico,

which also has lower prices than the U.S., was excluded.

Legislators argue that Mexico's prescription drug oversight

is too lax, but it's also because strong proponents of drug

importation--Reps. Bernard Sanders (I-VT.), Gil Gutknecht (R-

Minn.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.)--are in states closer to

Canada.

A temporary solution, which the Canada measure would be,

is better than no solution. Plenty of individuals and even

municipalities are already importing from Canada, mostly over

the Internet. Legalizing the practice would allow for better

safety regulations.

On Tuesday, two top negotiators on the conference

committee, Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Bakersfield) and Sen. Edward

M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), said the Medicare drug benefit was ``on

life support,'' imperiled by partisan disagreements. That's

good news, because the bill would create a gigantic, cost-

ineffective benefits shaped behind closed conference doors.

Regional leaders whose budgets are being busted by drug

prices--including Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and New York

City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, both Republicans--are

pressuring the conferees to pass the Canada measure even if a

larger Medicare drug benefit dies. As Pawlenty recently

framed the issue: ``There's a rebellion brewing across

America. It is the prescription drug equivalent of the Boston

Tea Party.''

Mr. Speaker, in recent days, Dr. David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, has visited Washington to provide an interim report detailing what he has thus far uncovered regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Dr. Kay's initial findings make it clear that Saddam Hussein maintained a large, undeclared WMD infrastructure, much of which has escaped the attention of UN arms inspectors. So far, Dr. Kay's teams have uncovered dozens of WMD-related activity programs, a series of clandestine chemical/biological weapons labs, huge amounts of laboratory equipment suitable for WMD research and productions, and secret UAV production lines tailored for WMD delivery. As a recent editorial in the Omaha World-Herald correctly noted, ``the larger picture of these findings shows that Saddam Hussein was a threat to his neighbors, to his own people (just ask the Kurds) and potentially to anyone else on the planet whom he viewed as his enemies.''

Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask to place into the Record an editorial entitled ``An ever-present threat'' from the October 11, 2003, edition of the Omaha World-Herald. This Member commends these insightful remarks to his colleagues.

[From the Omaha World-Herald, Oct. 11, 2003]

An Ever-Present Threat

with or without wmd, iraq under saddam was violating u.n. sanctions

left and right

Much attention in recent days has been given--

appropriately--to the fact that arms inspector David Kay and

his Iraq Survey Group thus far have uncovered no weapons of

mass destruction in that country. But that finding shouldn't

be allowed to obscure the fact that the team found abundant

evidence of obfuscation, concealment and destruction of

evidence.

The Kay report (which, it should be remembered, is an

interim document) strongly suggests a scenario that

transcends the question of present-day existence of the

weapons. Perhaps the Saddam Hussein regime didn't have WMD by

the time liberation forces fought their way into the country.

But there's ample evidence that it was poised and eager to

buy or make such weapons, as soon as it felt the

international spotlight had turned away.

Finding WMD, if they existed, was by no means the Kay

team's sole mission.

It was equally tasked with determining whether the Saddam

regime was in violation of U.N. limitations imposed after the

Persian Gulf War and more particularly in violation of U.N.

Resolution 1441, passed last November. (That was Saddam's

supposed last chance to comply with inspection demands.)

Here, the answer is an emphatic ``yes.''

The report unambiguously shows that Iraq was trying to

extend the range of its ballistic missiles beyond limits set

by the United Nations; was trying to hide evidence of past

and potential weapons programs (burned files, destroyed

computer disk drives, meticulously scrubbed lab equipment);

had organisms hidden in a scientist's home. And more: Kay's

congressional statement about the report may be found on the

Internet at www.cia.gov/.

In short, Saddam Hussein was preserving his options. And it

makes no sense to believe that his intentions were any less

malevolent than they had been throughout his sordid history.

Perhaps inspection teams will not find weapons of mass

destruction in Iraq. First, as we have noted before, it's a

big and complex place. Second, perhaps there really was

nothing there to find. If that's the case, clearly there was

an intelligence debacle--so big that President Bush ought to

get to the bottom of it and act to forestall a recurrence.

But even in that case, the larger picture of these findings

shows that Saddam Hussein was a threat to his neighbors, to

his own people (just ask the Kurds) and potentially to anyone

on the planet whom he viewed as his enemies. He was a human

time bomb, always poised to start ticking again when he

believed the time was right.

Even if the effort to rebuild and stabilize Iraq is not

proceeding as tidily as had been hoped, the United States and

its allies removed a clear and terrible danger from the world

scene. About that, the world should have no second thoughts.