Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives will vote to borrow $75 billion adding to our $6 trillion mountain of Federal debt. Maybe we would not have to borrow that money if we asked the wealthy people if we could cancel, ask them to contribute a little bit to this crisis, but we will not do that here. What are we going to spend the $75 billion on? $10 billion of foreign aid including $1 billion for Turkey, and remember how

helpful they have been, $1 billion for Turkey which their ambassador says is a unilateral act on the part of the United States of America. They have not asked for it and they do not want it, but we are going to give them that billion. We are going to borrow it, and give it to them.

Billions to rebuild Iraq including 6,000 schools. Universal health care is going to be implemented in Iraq. We already have a request for a proposal online from the United States Government to provide that.

What about here at home? What about our schools? What about the 44 million Americans that do not have health care? Not a penny of emergency spending in this bill for them. And then finally we have of course port security, first responders. Where are the funds we need to defend our country and where is the money the airline workers have been waiting for? For 18 months we promised them they would get money next week, 18 months ago.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would like an idea how many Members are waiting to speak on which side of the issue, and whether that is an adequate amount of time.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, on this side we have at least two or three.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, maybe a little more time is required on this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, the problem is the uncertainty who will get to speak or not get to speak. Can we proceed a little further and then see if we can get a unanimous consent request? Maybe 25 minutes a side.

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

The debate has been a little surreal because we have had such impassioned speeches about Turkey as an ally and how could we do this to them, how could we deprive them of this money, which they did not ask for? The Turkish Ambassador, Faruk Logoglo, said yesterday, ``This is not something Turkey has asked for. It is a unilateral action by the U.S. administration.''

Mr. Chairman, this is $1 billion they did not ask for, they do not expect, and yet now it has become an imperative in this bill, making emergency wartime supplemental appropriations. Why? Why now? Why is it in this bill?

As the gentleman who spoke before me said, there will be a time and place to debate aid to Turkey and the many other worthy nations around the world who need United States assistance. But should not this bill be more focused?

Remember, we are borrowing every penny. Every penny of the $74 billion in this bill will be borrowed. We do not have the money in the bank somewhere. It is not coming from a contingency fund. It is going to be borrowed. So we should borrow $1 billion to send to Turkey who has not asked for it, and if we do not borrow the money to send to Turkey who has not asked for it, we are somehow penalizing them. I do not think they will see it that way. It does not sound like the Ambassador is going there.

There are other needs that are unmet in this bill. The gentleman from Wisconsin attempted to enhance homeland security, port security. I serve on the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee on Homeland Security, and I can tell my colleagues, our ports are not safe. We have not done everything we need to do. We need more funds to make those ports safe. The most likely way of delivering a weapon of mass destruction

in the United States is not an intercontinental ballistic missile, it is a container on a rogue ship. That is how it will get here in all probability.

So why are we not making those investments? We could spend, if we need to borrow this extra $1 billion, there are a lot of ways to spend it. We could even spend it here at home. There is $3.4 billion in this bill to rebuild Iraq: 6,000 new schools, universal health insurance. Guess what? We have 44 million Americans uninsured. We have cut Medicaid in my State. I have thousands of Oregonians who do not have health insurance, that need work. Our schools are crumbling. We cannot run a full school year. We could take this $1 billion and spend it here in the United States of America. I have to question a lot of the foreign aid that is in this bill and the priorities that are being set here.

So therefore, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and if this is successful, that would be good; and if not, I will offer an amendment later to reduce the funds to Turkey to fund National Guard weapons of mass destruction civil support teams which my State and 17 other States do not have, which have been authorized by this Congress, but we do not have enough money to fund them; but we can send $1 billion to a country that did not ask for it and does not want it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is long overdue. Those who are here would recall that in the aftermath of 9-11 when this House was rushing to approve a $15 billion package to help the airlines that we were told that there was not room or time, because it was so urgent to be done before the end of the week, to include the employees; but the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the then-minority leader, and Speaker Hastert engaged in a colloquy where assurances were made that in the very near future in, and this was in September of 2001, that we would consider a bill for employee relief including financial assistance, ability to retain health insurance, training for those in the airline industry.

Since that time 150,000 airline industry employees have been laid off or furloughed, and we are told now by the industry that even if this package is approved, there is a high likelihood that we will see another 70,000 layoffs. Boeing is looking at 30,000 layoffs; and then there are a whole lot of associated industries, travel agents and others, who have been devastated. So this legislation would begin to redress that oversight by this Congress.

The interesting thing about this amendment is it is not in order under the bill, I am going to hear shortly, but this amendment, we would not have to borrow the money to pay for it. We have to borrow the money to send to Pakistan. We have to borrow the money to send to Turkey. We have to borrow for every other function of this bill. We have to borrow the money to build 6,000 schools in Iraq. We have to borrow the money to begin to provide universal health care in Iraq. But to provide extended unemployment benefits to 150,000, headed to more than 200,000, airline employees, we would not have to borrow a penny because the money is already on deposit in the unemployment trust fund.

It is true that the administration does not want to spend the $20- some-odd billion balance in that fund and does not want to extend this benefit to airline employees who have exhausted their unemployment; but the fact is we would not have to borrow the money to do it and it helps Americans. We are borrowing money to help people all around the world. Can we not do something for the airline employees?

The Senate has acted on this issue, and hopefully we will come to a conference agreement that will provide for this long-overdue benefit; but if the House would send a message tonight, if the committee would accept this and waive a point of order against it, again, not having to appropriate funds, only to authorize expenditure of funds from the trust fund, we would begin to help these people who have been sorely hurt by 9-11 and now by this war in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, if I could speak to the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I did last evening go to the Committee on Rules. There was a Republican member who was a principal sponsor of this legislation who was supposed to come to the Committee on Rules and ask for a waiver. He did not, but in his stead I asked the committee to protect this or, even better, to open up this section of the bill which goes to aviation and allow it to be amended outside of the rules of the appropriations process since this section of the bill was written totally, basically, behind closed doors. Unfortunately, apparently the Committee on Rules saw fit not to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that this amendment would be accepted as noncontroversial. It would, at the end of a bill, insert a new section which basically simply recognizes the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of Article I, section 8. This has been reviewed by and edited by the Parliamentarian's Office and I understand that in its current form, it is in order. I had a previous version which was not in order.

It is very simple, and I will read it. Often we debate things that are too long to read, but this says, ``None of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate or launch military actions except as authorized by Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.''

Now, what does that mean? That means that we already have an outstanding authorization for these activities, which I opposed, which was not a declaration of war, but Congress did pass an authorization under the War Powers Act for current activities in the Middle East and any activities that might be pertinent to that. We have another outstanding authorization for anyone who has engaged in, aided, or abetted, or harbored those involved in 9/11. I think that pretty well covers any potential terrorist threat or harboring of terrorists or fugitives responsible for those sorts of actions around the world between those two resolutions.

So this simply says before the administration might use any of the $75 billion in this bill, which we are borrowing and delegating to them for a number of purposes, to engage in a military action outside of those two authorizations dealing with another part of the world or another country, that it would have to be compliant with the Constitution of the United States of America. I believe this is extraordinarily noncontroversial, and I would give the chairman an opportunity to accept it and save 2 minutes;

I probably have 2 minutes left. But he is not jumping to his feet, so I will keep talking for another 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to believe that this House, the people's House, would not feel that in borrowing and transmitting huge amounts of funds to the administration, would not want to protect its constitutional prerogatives and make certain that those funds were not used beyond the purposes of the already existing authorizations. So I would be puzzled if this House would reject this amendment, and I would wonder what they know that I do not know, or what plans to use this money in ways that are not already authorized by law might be out there; and that would cause me grave concern, particularly when I sometimes listen to the Secretary of Defense, who was then contradicted by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I had prior proposed legislation which would have required this House to fulfill its constitutional duties for this particular action, and some 30-some odd people saw fit to put their names on that. This amendment simply refers to the funds in this bill and future actions that are not authorized. So this is actually even more limited in its scope, but it does go directly to the obligations and duties of this House under Article I, section 8.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear what we are saying here. Military actions except as authorized, none of the funds may be used to initiate a launch. This is beyond those already authorized. I had other language which went to that; the Parliamentarian stripped it out. But this is clearly saying we have already authorized the current actions, we authorized them under the 9/11 resolution, Afghanistan and other actions. Those are authorized. This would be future actions outside the scope of the Iraq war, outside the scope of the Afghanistan war and/or the war on terrorism, whatever those might be, and Secretary Rumsfeld has an active mind.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will take part of the time to respond to the chairman, since he did not give me time.

Mr. Chairman, I resent the broad-scale implications about the ``proven linkage'' between Saddam Hussein. They have been able to put Saddam Hussein in the same sentence with al Qaeda; but the CIA, DIA and others have not been able to find or prove a single link, except for the group that he did not control up in the northern part of the country behind the Kurds, who have now been eradicated.

But there are proven links to the Saudis, there are proven links to the Pakistani intelligence service, there are proven links to others who in fact will receive assistance under this bill.

That aside, and we will not get back into that debate again here tonight, but I believe the gentleman mischaracterizes my amendment. This was raised in light of Secretary Rumsfeld threatening to take action against Syria. We have heard that ``real men go to Tehran'' and other things from this administration. I am concerned what adventures they might have in mind in terms of further preemptive wars.

I was trying to make the statement that before we fight any more preemptive wars, that we would live up to our authority under article 1, section 8, which we failed, and we failed the troops and the American people in the Congress in the matter of this current action, although it was authorized under other auspices by this Congress.

My other amendment is really simple. I know it will be opposed, but here it is.

This Congress authorized that we would make the American people safe by setting up National Guard weapons of mass destruction civil support teams in every State of the United States and the territories. Guess what, we have not delivered on that. We do not have enough money. We have been told there are budget constraints. We cannot afford a National Guard weapons of mass destruction civil support team in 17 States, including my own and that of the ranking member of the committee and a number of other States. We cannot afford it; yet we can send $1 billion unsolicited to Turkey.

As I said earlier on the floor tonight, the ambassador of Turkey said these funds were not solicited; they were a unilateral action on the part of the United States of America; essentially a gift or bribe, however we want to characterize it.

Would the American people not be better served by just reducing that by 20 percent? So 20 percent of the $1 billion that we are going to borrow and send to Turkey would be spent here in the United States of America for the National Guard to prevent destruction by weapons of mass destruction.

Now, I know we are going to hear, this would be an insult to the Turks and others. But is it not an insult to the American people that we are not making them as safe as we could? If Members want to talk about patriotism, damn it, protect our people here at home. If Members want to cast aspersions on me, I want this money to be spent in the United States of America. They want to send it to Turkey, plain and simple.

We are going to vote up or down on this. It is real simple. They will get up and say, oh, the Turks, the Turks. We either fund under the law what we said we would or what we were mandated to do, which we say we do not have the money to do, or we do not. This is the simple way to do it. The Turks would still get $800 million that they did not ask for.

Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, tomorrow the United States House of Representatives will vote to borrow $75 billion as an emergency supplemental: some of the funds to support our troops in Iraq; some for large new discretionary or a slush fund to be made available to the President, the Secretary of Defense and others; some $10 billion in foreign aid, military assistance; $2.4 billion for Iraq itself, and now $700 million of that is humanitarian assistance. But the rest is to help rebuild Iraq, and I will go into that in a moment.

But the thing is that the House is going to vote to borrow this money. We are not going to revisit the tax cuts. We are headed toward a record deficit this year; but we will not revisit the tax cuts, more than half of which in this House of Representatives are targeted toward the wealthiest in this country, those who earn over $273,000 a year, an average of $90,000 for every millionaire in those tax cuts. God forbid we should ask them to help contribute to this emergency, that we should reduce their tax cuts and not borrow this money but collect the funds from those who can afford to help contribute. But that is where this House of Representatives is headed.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and I hope to offer an amendment. We will go to the Committee on Rules. I expect we will be denied, but our amendment in principle is very simple, and that is to say if the United States House of Representatives is going to borrow $1.7 billion to begin to implement contracts, which I have here, from the Federal Government of the United States to provide universal health care in Iraq, which of course 44 million Americans have no health insurance whatsoever, tens of thousands of Oregonians, to rebuild their highways and bridges, and we have a $4 billion bridge problem in Oregon, about a $270 billion bridge problem nationwide, we are going to borrow money to do that in Iraq. We are going to borrow to build 6,000 schools in Iraq when we do not have enough money to educate our kids here, and we are going to borrow money for a number of other things: airports, sewer, water, and a whole host of infrastructure. But guess what, there is not a penny in this bill for the economic recovery of the United States of America.

I lost another 800 jobs in my district today. Where is our assistance? Where is our economic stimulus? It is not in the tax cuts for the wealthy and trickle-down. It is not in borrowing more funds to fund this, driving us further in debt and ultimately driving up interest rates in this country. There is a more responsible way to approach this, and there is also a way to approach it so that we are responsible to the American people. Fund this by reducing the tax cuts or eliminating the tax cuts.

The United States of America is at war. This would be the first time in the history of our Nation that we have reduced taxes in a time of war, and we are reducing taxes at a time when we are headed already for a record deficit. We are looking at doubling the national debt probably in the next decade. We are going to have the economic profile of Argentina with a $500 billion trade deficit on top of this, but we are going to borrow the money.

And what are our kids going to come home to if we do not invest here in the United States of America? They are going to come home to the bill, not in the first couple of years they come home; but when they get a little bit older, they are going to come home to that bill. That bill is going to come home to them. And they may well not come home to good jobs because we are failing to stimulate the economy. We could act much more responsibly in this body in approaching this situation, but I fear we will not.

But I will go to the Committee on Rules. I will pretend that this is on the up and up and ask them to allow us a vote on the American Parity Act. That is to say, for every dollar we spend on health care, on schools, bridges, highways, water infrastructure, all needs well documented in our Nation and in Iraq, there should be a comparable dollar sent down to the States; and preferably this money should not come from borrowing. It should come from reducing tax cuts to the wealthiest among us who could at least do a little bit to help share this burden.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 250,000 men and women serving in the United States Armed Forces are deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have just had notice of the first casualties with the crash of a Marine helicopter. I would like to convey my condolences to their families; my heart and prayers are with them at this difficult time.

With the consideration of this resolution, I and every other Member of the United States House of Representatives wish to honor the courage and service of all our troops to this nation. Our thoughts and prayers are with them for their prompt and safe return home to their families.

The House of Representatives could have better demonstrated support this evening for members of the Armed Forces past and present during deliberation and votes on the Budget resolution. The resolution that just passed will cut veterans benefits and fails to fulfill the commitment to lifelong care and care of dependents made to our young men and women at the time of enlistment. I voted against the Republican budget Resolution that mandated the cuts in veterans benefits. Instead I voted for an alternative budget resolution that would have fully funded veterans programs and met our nation's obligation to those who have served selflessly in defense of our freedoms.

I will vote for this resolution to further demonstrate my support for our young men and women in the armed forces. I only wish that all those who join me in this vote had demonstrated a similar commitment when it came to full funding for veterans programs. In casting my aye vote for the troops, I want to note that I would have offered a motion to strike the whereas clause beginning at the bottom of page 2 extending to the top of page 3. I also find that the assertion at the end of line 6 ending on line 7 (p. 4) is not supported by any facts released by the CIA or other intelligence agencies and was, in fact, debunked in a publicly released CIA document last fall.

I have previously made known my concerns with the new policies of pre-emptive and preventative war. I have also spoken of the failure of the United States Congress to fulfill its duty under Article I Section 8, the duty to debate and declare war. Now, as we mourn the first casualties and honor our soldiers still on the front lines, is not the time to continue that debate despite the concerns I expressed earlier. However, there will come a day in the not too distant future when the House will no longer be able to avoid its duties.

Mr. Speaker, some would say that the United States House of Representatives has walked away from its constitutional duties under Article I, Section 8, wherein Congress and only Congress, the House and Senate, have the sole authority to declare war; and then, on the eve of the first ever preemptive war in our Nation's history, that the House of Representatives, under the Republican leadership, has slipped into irrelevance, silent and compliant.

Just this evening we have just finished our regular business, three noncontroversial bills, and the Republicans have fled downtown for what they expect to be the largest ever fundraiser in their history, business as usual, while 300,000 of our young men and women sit in the desert wondering what tomorrow or the day after will bring.

They have not been, I must admit, totally irrelevant over the last few weeks. Just last week, tremendous actions were taken here by House Republican leaders. They launched an attack against French fries. After a flurry of activity, hand-wringing, planning, and massing an assault, they wiped out the dread French fries from Capitol Hill. It is rumored that this week they are planning an assault on Russian dressing, and even tomorrow's turkey menu is a potential target. Meanwhile, 300,000 of our young men and women and a few allies sit in the desert wondering what their elected leaders are doing and thinking.

Have we done everything we could for those young men and women? Did we examine and push toward options short of war, war, which should always be only used in an extreme circumstance and a last case? I do not think so. We voted on October 14 on this issue, under pressure of the coming election, and gave the President a blank check. Since then, not one official act by this body has dealt with the issue of the looming war in Iraq.

Have we given all our young men and women everything they need? We spend a lot of time on the defense contractors, their profits and exotic weaponry, but I hear from dads and moms and from some of the troops themselves that they do not have all the things they need. Some of them were sent over there with the wrong camouflage. They got the forest camouflage. Others are worried about the huge number of defective chemical/biological suits which have slipped into the inventory due to the fraud and criminal acts of some of our defense contractors.

Have we served them well in terms of a plan? Have we had discussions here about how the U.S. will conduct this war? Those are scant. Those are all being kept downtown, or at the Pentagon.

Do we have and have we discussed and pushed to hear about an exit strategy? General Shinseki, in a candid moment which Secretary Rumsfeld tried to squash, and Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz demeaned, says he expects we will have to leave 250,000 to 300,000 of our young men and women in that country as an occupying force for quite some time. He said that. They said, oh, no, he is mistaken. He is only the head of the Army. He does not know anything. Then he came up to Capitol Hill again last week, and he repeated that statement. They did not want to hear it. They do not want the American people to hear it.

They do not have an exit strategy; they have a plan, when I cannot get unemployment benefits extended for the people in my State, to pay 2 million members of the Iraqi military and bureaucracy salaries out of the United States Treasury, and to rebuild the country quickly with U.S. defense contractors when I have bridges crumbling in my State.

If we paid half as much attention to the needs of the American people in our States, or the needs of our young men and women, I do not believe that

this war would have been such an inevitable result and foregone conclusion.

But the clock ticks towards zero, and the President's ultimatum has 25 hours and 12 minutes yet to run. The Republican leadership has adjourned downtown for a big fundraiser, and the House is going dark.

Mr. Speaker, I attempted to offer three of the thirty- one amendments to H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act, last night. Inexplicably, these were disallowed out of hand.

This rule is an abuse of the process. Yes, it might be payback to the Democrats based on some revisionist history, but more importantly, it's a payoff to the Republicans' generous benefactors in the insurance industry, and through this bill, a payoff to the pharmaceutical industry.

The Republicans claim that the underlying bill, H.R. 5, will control insurance costs through so-called ``tort reform.'' This bill won't do that. In fact, in 1999, a senior executive at the American Tort Reform Association conceded that ``We wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.''

This is the third crisis in medical malpractice in 25 years. Each of these ``crises'' happens to coincide with recessions, stock market downturns, and insurance industry investment losses.

The insurance industry is an equal opportunity market abuser. They legally can and regularly do collude to raise rates and limit availability of all lines of insurance. If this ``crisis'' in medical malpractice insurance is due to a malpractice crisis then why also is there a crisis in health insurance, homeowners' insurance, auto insurance, and general liability insurance? Health insurance costs are up 13 percent, homeowners insurance, 8 percent, and auto insurance, 8.5 percent. Maybe it's time the insurance industry was subject to the same laws as other industries.

Mr. Speaker, the solution that will bring relief and improve access to our nation's physicians will start with a repeal of the antitrust exemption of the insurance industry. Legislation like H.R. 5 simply allows the insurance industry to profit off the backs of both doctors and patients.

Madam Speaker, I urge Members to read the Wall Street Journal today wherein the Secretary of Energy, appointed by President Bush, assured Ali Naimi, the Saudi Minister, the man in charge of manipulating oil supply and heading up their negotiations with the cartel to control prices and to constrain supply, he assured him, Mr. Abraham, the Secretary of Energy, assured him the United States would not release oil from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help control the prices being gouged out of Americans by the Saudis and others.

That is outrageous. I cannot believe that the Secretary of Energy appointed by President Bush has cut a deal with the Saudis that we will not release our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help the American consumers, to help keep our airlines from going bankrupt, to help keep our truckers from going bankrupt, and to help keep American families not being able to put food on the table so they can buy a tank of gas for their car. There is something wrong with that. I have sent the Secretary of Energy a letter to ask him to explain his position to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, last weekend when I was home in Oregon I noted that gasoline prices have reached the highest level in history, and I know that my State was not alone. We apparently have the fourth highest prices in the United States. Other States are even higher, and I assume that records were set everywhere.

That might be well and good if it was all due to free market forces and the underlying cost of doing business, but I fear it is not.

We have been through this before. During the first Persian Gulf War, Desert Storm, we saw a huge run-up in oil and diesel prices and aviation fuel which caused a tremendous amount of dislocation in the economy, but the economy was nowhere near as fragile as it is today. Then we found out a little bit later that the oil companies had taken advantage of the war, war profiteering. They had, in fact, raised their prices far in excess of the underlying costs of crude and any other additional costs they might have incurred because of the war in Iraq.

Now here we are a decade later. Again, it appears that the United States will soon be at war in Iraq, and we are seeing record prices at the pump, and again, they are talking about the underlying price of crude and the instability of demand, but the increases at the pump and the increases for the aviation industry and the increases for the truckers far, far, far exceed the increases in the underlying costs of crude, and plus, many of these oil companies are selling themselves their own crude oil or they have hedged the price or they have special deals with the OPEC cartel.

No, plain and simple, they have begun war profiteering this time before the war has started. It is time for Congress to take action.

The economy is weak. Three hundred and eight thousand people lost their job last month. A number of airlines are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and a number of them say that if a war happens and fuel goes up any more, costs them $180 million per penny, they will not be in Chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcy; they will be insolvent and out of business, costing tens of thousands more jobs and more harm to the economy, all so a few multinational oil companies can squeeze excess profits out of American airlines and families and truckers.

The President needs to take action. He could release fuel from the National Petroleum Reserve, the oil reserve, but he has chosen not to do that. So I have introduced a bill to give him more specific direction to give him authority once held by President Richard Nixon to stabilize the price of fuel with a fair rate of return to these oil companies and making them justify a run-up in price beyond a price that has prevailed a year ago today, and secondly, to have the President draw down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to help drive down prices, mitigate supply, require the oil companies now and in the future to maintain minimum inventory levels so they cannot cry wolf and jack up the price every year when they switch from home heating oil to gasoline and all those things they love to do and then they have a refinery fire, nothing anyone could ever expect.

Ban the export of Alaska oil. We are going to hear arguments we should allow drilling in ANWR, but guess what, all the Alaska oil can and probably will be exported because this Congress, against my will, lifted the ban on the export of Alaska oil.

Finally, this administration is all for free trade. OPEC is not free trade. That cartel, those people, Saudis and others, are conspiring to drive up the price of oil, setting the price of oil in violation of all the agreements of the World Trade Organization. I am not a big fan of that organization, but this administration, who loves it and wants to expand its authority, should use the authority it has to object to that price fixing. It violates all of the tenets of GATT and the World Trade Organization.

So it is time for strong action here in Congress and at the White House to stop the war profiteering, the price gouging, driving more Americans out of work, bankrupting the airlines, idling trucks and the commerce of this country, all so a few multinational oil companies can run record profits for the next couple of quarters.

Choice seems pretty easy to me. We will see what my colleagues and the President think.

Mr. Speaker, today we are having a virtually identical debate over the virtually identical bill we had in the 107th Congress. Had I not been required to travel to Oregon for official representational purposes, I would have voted (1) `aye' on the Scott amendment to provide for a GAO study to determine whether the prohibition on human cloning needs to be amended in the future give newer technologies; (2) `no' on the Stearns amendment forcing our moralities on other nations; (3) `aye' on the Greenwood amendment in the nature of a substitute; and (3) `no' on the underlying bill, H.R. 534.

By bringing a bill like this to the floor, the Republican majority has transformed what could have been a rational debate over the merits and limits of emerging technologies into a dogmatic infomercial for the radical-right.

I've consistently opposed human cloning for reproductive purposes. Under current law the federal government is prohibited from funding research that involves human cloning. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority under federal law to prohibit any attempt to clone humans for reproductive purposes and has acted to stop such efforts. I support the FDA's actions.

I believe H.R. 534 goes too far. This legislation would not just ban reproductive cloning, it would create harsh criminal penalties that would significantly restrict a wide range of scientific research efforts in related fields.

This legislation would specifically halt scientific efforts aimed at developing new treatments for those suffering from cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord and burn injuries. These diseases and injuries can be extremely debilitating, costly and dehumanizing for individuals, families and our society. I'm also concerned with provisions in the bill that would ban American's from receiving new treatments developed in other countries that have developed with such research.

If this bill is passed, we're showing the world that our drive for innovation can be derailed by senseless hysteria. Limiting Americans access to new treatments and therapies based on fear and ideology is a backward way to legislate in the twenty-first century.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Kate Wagoner, a 13-year old resident of Eugene, Oregon. Ms. Wagoner, an eighth grader at Thomas Jefferson Middle School, recently won an essay contest held in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The theme of the essay contest was how Americans can be peacefully patriotic, even as the clouds of war loom on the horizon.

In her insightful essay, Ms. Wagoner notes that peaceful change can begin with one individual or one family who cares about others and acts on that compassion. However, she goes on to write that it is equally important for such individuals to influence the decision-making of those in power in order to guarantee a lasting peace.

As Ms. Wagoner concludes, if the United States dedicates itself to helping feed, clothe, house, and educate the needy around the world, then we may be able to achieve the ``nonviolent'' coexistence of which Dr. King spoke, rather than the ``violent co-annihilation'' of which he warned.

I would encourage my colleagues and others to read Ms. Wagoner's essay, which I've included at the end of my remarks.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Essay

Almost 40 years ago, on April 14, 1967, Dr. Martin Luther

King said, ``the greatest 17 purveyor of violence in the

world today (is) my own govenment.''

Dr. King's statement is still a powerful message because

America continues to use violence around the world. President

Bush is pushing for a war in Iraq, while nations like North

Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Israel, and

Palestine suffer from U.S. foreign policy decisions.

How can Americans be peacefully patriotic while our

govemment gives the U.S. military more and more to do around

the globe? To repeat one of my mother's favorite quotes,

``Never believe that a few caring people can't change the

world. For, indeed, that's all who ever have.'' (Margaret

Mead, American anthropologist).

During the holidays, my family gave money to an

organization that helps hungry people all over the world feed

themselves. The families we help receive donations of goats,

sheep, llamas, honey bees, geese, oxen, and other farm

animals so they can be more self-sufficient and live

healthier lives. Peaceful patriotism is like this donation.

Around the world, kids like me are starving. Around the

world kids like me are soldiers and suicide bombers. Around

the world kids like me get sick from drinking dirty water,

get shot by soldiers, and step on land mines. Around the

world, kids like me struggle to survive. Americans, as

peaceful patriots, can help change some of these kids' lives.

Americans have a right to be proud of their country. This

is a nation where people can be and do great things. However,

imagine a world where America is also known as a nation that

helps people around the globe be and do great things. When

the richest and most powerful nation in history dedicates

itself to making sure people everywhere are well-fed, housed,

clothed, educated, and have hope for the future, peaceful

patriotism will change the world.

It is not enough for my family to practice peaceful

patriotism or for your family to make that choice. We have to

have people in power making decisions about our relationships

with other nations who share our hope for the future of

America and of the world. We can each live as peaceful

patriots and help many people now, but if we work together to

create a nation of peaceful patriots tomorrow, we can make

all the world safe; and secure for kids like me.

The message I want quoted in the future because it descibes

America is, ``The greatest purveyor of peace in the world

today is my own govemment,''

Mr. Speaker, Americans are nervous. The United States is on Orange Alert. The reports are that stores have sold out of duct tape, plastic sheeting, bottled water, minimal supplies for people to defend themselves against the unthinkable, chemical or biological attack, and to make themselves safe in their homes. Americans do not feel safe in their homes or here in the United States of America.

We are told by intelligence sources and the FBI that there are hundreds of al Qaeda operatives at large in the United States of America who they are either tracking or cannot find. Yesterday Osama bin Laden, their fanatical leader, gave a speech urging them to attack, suicide attacks against the United States of America.

Osama bin Laden. My colleagues remember him. Remember, the President wanted, dead or alive; we will get him; we will bring him to justice. The President is not allowed to mention his name anymore. It has been more than 10 months since the President has mentioned the name Osama bin Laden because his administration has failed miserably in finding and bringing him to justice. In all probability, he has been given safe haven by the intelligence services in Pakistan, and he, according to our intelligence services and his operatives, according to our FBI and others, presents the greatest threat to the security of Americans and the most immediate threat to the security of Americans.

There are other threats that are out there that are making people nervous. We have here a poster from a rally in Pyongyang a week ago Saturday. Now, Kim Jong-il, psychopathic leader and oppressor of the people of North Korea, he has thrown out the U.N. inspectors, thrown them out, and he is actively pursuing more, not a, more nuclear weapons. He already has them. He is actively building more missiles of longer range.

We were told today by Mr. Tenet he may have already achieved a missile that can reach the western United States and target my home State in addition to Alaska and Hawaii.

He has threatened preemptive strikes against the United States of America or, minimally, against our 36,000 troops who are trying to safeguard the people of South Korea from this fanatic. This is a poster from a rally a week ago Saturday, and it says here, Merciless Punishment to the American Empire, and it depicts the United States Capitol being blown up by a North Korean soldier.

But this is a back-burner issue with the Bush administration. It pales in the face of the real threat to America. Osama bin Laden? No. Saddam Hussein, who is in a box, without nuclear weapons, without the capability of delivering whatever chemical-biological weapons he might have had hidden and he is shuffling around his country, trying to keep them away from the inspectors who are on the ground in Iraq, unlike the inspectors who were thrown out of North Korea.

But the Bush administration says, Do not worry, we will get around to this someday, sometime, maybe later, through diplomacy. This could be settled through diplomacy, a maniac who has nuclear weapons and is encouraging rallies, showing the United States Capitol being blown up, someone who has the capability of actually doing that; we can solve that diplomatically, but somehow we cannot work through the U.N. and the inspectors in Iraq.

We have got Saddam Hussein in a box. Get more inspectors in there. Get the overflights going. Keep him in that box, work with our allies. Keep him in that box. Sooner or later, the inspectors will find and destroy his weapons just as they did in the 1990s. Yeah, he is playing games. Yeah, he is hiding stuff. He did that then. We found it. We destroyed it. We can do that again.

Is the United States so diminished in the eyes of this administration and others that we cannot contain a threat like Saddam Hussein and deal with extraordinary threats like this up front, and find and apprehend and bring to justice Osama bin Laden and his operatives? I think not.

I think the American people have real doubts about this rush to war and real doubts about the priorities that this administration is putting on the threats to our Nation and our country.

I hope the administration begins to deal more seriously with this problem and gets out there and finds Osama bin Laden, and I will support those efforts, and then continue to contain and defang Saddam Hussein. That would make the American people safer in their homes.

Mr. Speaker, these are serious times. The Nation is on Orange Alert. All Americans are urged to buy duct tape, plastic sheeting and other things to create safe havens in their home. That is because of the threat of al Qaeda and terrorist networks. The head of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden--remember him, wanted dead or alive?--the President has not mentioned his name in about 12 months, because he is still very much alive and leading and reorganizing and reenergizing his network, which is the greatest threat to the physical security of the United States.

He did a 1-hour broadcast, or rant, against the United States, which was broadcast on al-Jazeera today. He is still alive and well, probably under the protection of the security services in a part of Pakistan where both the Taliban and al Qaeda have free rein and are organizing further attacks against Afghanistan, which is not yet stabilized, and against the United States and its allies around the world and probably against the Government of Pakistan. Should they be able to take over Pakistan, they would instantly possess nuclear weapons. It sounds like a problem.

But we have others. We have Kim Jong Il, a psychopathic dictator running North Korea, who has threatened to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States of America, and he has nuclear weapons and he has intermediate-range missiles. He can hit Japan and other countries; he has not yet the capability of hitting the United States. But he also gets 25 percent of his income for his country by selling weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated technology to terrorists. He seems like a pretty big threat.

So what is the response of the Bush administration? Attack Saddam Hussein, who does not possess nuclear weapons. He has a few hidden, short-range missiles that do not work very well. Yes, he is probably hiding some anthrax or some chemical weapons. He hid them before. We sent in the inspectors and we persisted over 4\1/2\ years and, guess what, we found them and we destroyed them, without the destabilization of that entire region after the first war in the Gulf.

We could do that again. We could have enhanced inspections. We could move forward and begin to deal with these other threats, these very real threats.

The administration keeps telling us blithely, just sort of in offhand comments, Don't worry, we can multitask. We can take care of Kim Jong Il and his nuclear weapons through diplomacy somehow. But not the Middle East. And, yeah, we'll get around to Osama bin Laden, dead or alive, later. Yeah, it's serious, he's in Pakistan, he's making broadcasts, he's organizing and they are the greatest threat to the United States of America and its citizens, but we don't have time for them right now because we want to go after this little tin pot dictator who's terrorizing his own people and is surrounded in a box in his country in the Middle East with inspectors on the ground and about to have planes flying overhead. Plus the U.S., of course, controls a significant amount of his airspace now. But the response of the administration is, ``That's our highest priority.''

I fear that this administration has misplaced priorities that are not going to provide the protection that our

country warrants, and I know that their priorities are totally misplaced in terms of the economy. I just met yesterday with a group of dislocated workers in my district who are getting retrained, trying desperately to find work. We have the highest unemployment rate in the Nation, yet the economists and other pundits tell us, Well, the clouds of war, the high oil prices and all that, you can't expect the economy to recover right now.

How about if we chose a different path and revitalized our economy and invested there and put people back to work, that is the greatest threat to the security of the people in my district, and then dealt with the real threats to our security, like Osama bin Laden, dead or alive? It is about time the President delivered on that promise. It has been almost 2 years.

And how about Kim Jong Il and his nuclear weapons?

Let us get to the real threats. Let us deal reasonably with the problems in the Middle East, but let us not exaggerate them and say that he is the greatest threat because our intelligence services and all the foreign intelligence services tell us that is just not true. We have got him contained, we have got him where we want him and we can take the time to find and disarm his weapons.

Mr. Speaker, the state of our Union is not sound. Millions of Americans and their families are not secure in their home, not because of some new wave of crime or because of some immediate and compelling threat from Iraq or other hostile foreign nations, but because so many have lost their jobs, or many fear the loss of their job or lay-off in the near future.

One point seven million jobs have been lost since January 2001. The number of people unemployed for more than 6 months has tripled in the last 2 years. One point three million more people have fallen into poverty in the last 2 years, the first increase in a decade.

Bankruptcies are up 23 percent in the last year. Forty-four million Americans have no health insurance. The government surplus has evaporated. We have a huge and growing deficit as far as the eye can see. Social Security lockbox has been broken open and pillaged, and the trust funds are being spent on day-to-day operations of the government. The Pension Benefit Guarantee Fund, which insures the pensions of Americans in case their company or plan should fail, is broke. It has spent its entire reserves in the last 2 years.

State budgets are the worst since the Great Depression. We are in a domestic economic crisis. That is pretty clear, but the question becomes what is the President going to propose? It appears that he is going to propose more of the same.

When the President was a candidate, we had a large surplus and a booming economy. He proposed tax cuts for the wealthy. When the President was newly elected, we had a faltering economy, and he said we still had a surplus, and he proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, and he got many of those proposals through. Now he is in his third year as President. We are in a recession. We have huge and growing deficits, and the President has proposed, surprise, tax cuts for the wealthy.

His plan is to exempt dividends supposedly because of double taxation, except most of the corporations who pay dividends do not pay Federal income taxes. They have taken advantage of loopholes through Bermuda and other places to not pay taxes. They are not double-taxed. That is not the issue, double taxation or fairness. It is to give a huge gift to the wealthy.

The average tax cut for an Oregonian, for my State, with an income of $32,000, people who could use a little help, it will be $40. Do not spend it all in one place. But the average millionaire tax cut, $45,000, those who have already done so well under his previous tax cuts, and it will compound the State's financial problems. It will cost the States $4 billion, this little dividend gift to wealthy investors, and it will cost my State $100 million, a State already in crisis.

There is no credible economist in the United States of America who pretends that this would in any way stimulate the economy, especially since the money will not be refunded to these wealthy folks until next year even if they choose to spend it in a way that might create jobs.

Then the other leg of his way to boost our economy is a war. I believe many are puzzling over what is this about. Is there this a tremendous threat? Well, he has not yet revealed either to me, the United States Congress in any of our classified briefings here on the floor of the House, or in unclassified briefings or in other materials the proof that there is a credible and immediate threat from Saddam Hussein.

We do know that in North Korea they have nuclear weapons. They are building more nuclear weapons. They have tested long-range missiles. We do know in Iran that they have a very advanced nuclear program. Apparently Saddam Hussein does not have one at all, and his missiles that he has, so-called, can reach only a couple of hundred miles.

So how is it that this is the most credible and immediate threat that we should spend hundreds of millions of dollars, potentially thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of lives of innocents in a war against Saddam Hussein while weapons inspectors are in there, when we have gotten what we proposed, which is let us go in there and find if he has weapons of mass destruction. Give the process time to work. There is no reason to rush to war with potentially catastrophic results and one that is certainly not going to help us with these pressing domestic problems at home.

In fact, it is going to rob from that, since the President is now talking about a long-term occupation and rebuilding of Iraq similar to Japan after World War II despite the fact that, of course, basically their culture is not as integrated as that of Japan. In fact, the people who live in Iraq do not get along very well. There is a number of divisive factions. They have no tradition in democracy, and a long- term occupation and democracy-building in that area is going to be very problematic.

So the President should focus on real steps to help real Americans with their real problems at home and real threats to our domestic integrity or our international security. Where is Osama bin Laden? Remember, dead or alive? Guess what. He is still alive. He is still planning attacks on the United States of America. The President needs to refocus his priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and to congratulate Ruth Bascom of Eugene, Oregon. On January 31, 2003, the Eugene City Council will name a bicycle and walking trail system after Ms. Bascom to honor her for her determined advocacy, intelligent leadership, and inspired vision. The Ruth Bascom Riverbank Trail System is a testament to her indomitable spirit and her remarkable civic career.

Ruth Bascom has an impressive record of public service, with over thirty years of active participation. She has been Mayor and City Councilor; served as a member of the Alton Baker Park Advisory Committee, the Mayor's Bicycle Committee, and the Governor's Bicycle Advisory Committee; was president of the Youth Symphony Board and the League of Women Voters; and worked on a variety of campaigns dedicated to enhancing our community.

Ruth Bascom gets things done--and done well. She has helped shape Eugene and is directly responsible for the award-winning bikeway system. In her many civic roles, she tirelessly fostered the riverbank trail system through design, funding, and construction phases. Her wholehearted and unwavering support for a city-wide bicycle-pedestrian trail system rallied community members, elected officials, and staff to her vision.

The opening of the East Bank Trail completes the Ruth Bascom Riverbank Trail System. The project survived ups and downs and detours because Ms. Bascom focused considerable energy, enthusiasm, and ingenuity on its success and delivered the necessary plans, funds, and allies.

Ruth Bascom is an exemplary citizen activist. I am pleased to offer her the hearty congratulations and warm thanks she so richly merits.