Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I am proud to rise in support of this legislation.

At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me extend my sincerest thanks and gratitude to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for the leadership he has shown on this issue and being in the forefront of putting forth the Walsh visas, which have done so much, not just on a very practical level of providing training and opportunity for Catholics and Protestants, Republicans and Loyalists, Nationalists and Unionists from the north of Ireland and also from the border counties on the northern border, but also for making it clear the United States retains a lasting commitment to the peace process in the north of Ireland.

Several years ago, none of us would have thought that we would see the resolution, or almost the resolution, of the centuries-old struggle that has been going on among the Irish and the British and so many of the forces on the island of Ireland. But today we have gone so far. We are approaching what I believe will be the ultimate resolution of the struggle in Northern Ireland. This legislation, providing the Walsh visas, providing economic opportunity, and letting the people in those areas know that the United States remains committed to peace and justice and to the peace process really is worth its weight in gold.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) referred to this as low-risk, high-investment. That could not be more true. This is so important to the

peace process. It is so important, really, to the image of the United States around the world. It is so important to the people who have suffered for so many years on both sides of the divide, on both sides of the border, those who have lived in poverty, those who are struggling to work their way up. This is such an important symbol to them. It also has the practical effect of providing the training they need.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I am proud to support it, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1900) to award a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), in recognition of his many contributions to the Nation, and to express the sense of the Congress that there should be a national day in recognition of Jackie Robinson.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1900, and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation which is long overdue. If there was anyone over the past half century that has warranted the Congressional Gold Medal, it is Jackie Robinson. The reason this legislation is on the floor today, the reason it has advanced this far is because of the efforts of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the man who initiated this legislation, who has worked relentlessly to get the amount of support necessary to bring it to the floor. I commend the gentleman for it, and I thank him for giving me an opportunity to sign onto the bill as the lead cosponsor.

I have a personal interest because as a young kid growing up in New York, Jackie Robinson was certainly one of my heroes. I was a Brooklyn Dodgers fan, I attended many games at Ebbets Field, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) thinks I fantasize these things, but these are true. As a kid, there is probably no ball player who excited New York in that era more than Jackie Robinson. He really just caused all attention to be focused on himself, both through his ability and also because of his dynamism. The first game I went to, Jackie Robinson scored the winning run in the 10th inning. I saw him play a number of positions. He was on six World Series teams with the Brooklyn Dodgers. He was a major player when they won the World Series in 1955, he was a perennial All-Star in the National League, and he really excelled as a ball player. And after he retired, he was elected to the Hall of Fame.

Of course, he was not just an outstanding ball player; he will go down in history for the fact and what he did in breaking the color barrier in the United States. When he broke into organized baseball in 1946 in the minor leagues and in 1947 in the major leagues with the Brooklyn Dodgers, baseball truly was the national pastime. All attention was focused on organized baseball, and there were no African Americans whatsoever allowed into organized baseball.

When Jackie Robinson broke that barrier, he really broke barriers throughout the country and set an example and a standard that our country has been attempting to live up to ever since.

I mentioned that as a kid I used to follow Jackie Robinson as a ball player. It is only as I became older that I

realized the solitary anguish he must have been going through as a ball player during those years for a while when he was the only African American ball player at all. And even after other black players came into the major leagues, it was Jackie Robinson against whom so much of the hatred and venom was aimed. What he had to go through, the way he was attacked and criticized in stadium after stadium, it took enormous courage on his part to stand up to that, and he did. He always showed class and dignity. He was always tough, but he always lived up to the highest ideals of Americanism. Because of that our society has advanced as much as it has.

In awarding the Congressional Gold Medal, we try to single out those individuals who have really made special contributions; and I cannot think of anyone, whether in the world of sports, the civil rights movement, or emerging American society, who has done more to make contributions than Jackie Robinson.

On a personal note, as great as it was for me to watch Jackie Robinson, I also had the anguish as a high school student from my high school window watching them tear down Ebbets Field. To many people, that marked the destruction of the Brooklyn Dodger image and tradition.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is, they could tear everything down, but no one could ever tear down the image of Jackie Robinson; no one could ever tear down the lasting impact that he has had on American society. So this is, as I said, a resolution which is long overdue. It is legislation that is long overdue, but it is something which is fully warranted and deserved.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, regarding the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and the courage he has shown, I think it is important for the record to state that back in the years when Jackie Robinson was playing in the World Series against the New York Yankees, I was rooting for Jackie Robinson, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) was rooting for the New York Yankees.

In spite of that, we do believe in the ultimate power of redemption; we are glad the gentleman is attempting to atone for his sins today by advancing this legislation, and we certainly welcome him as we welcome all sinners who return to the fold.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) touched on many of these issues regarding Jackie Robinson. He was a man who served the United States Army during World War II, he was an All- American athlete in a number of sports at UCLA. He played any number of positions, and started all of them. He showed enormous talent and ability while he had this tremendous burden on him, the incredible pressures, the hatred being launched against him; but despite that, he continued to excel as an outstanding ball player throughout his career.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to statements today in support of this legislation, in support of this great honor being awarded to a great man, Jackie Robinson, with number 42 on his uniform, but who certainly was first in the hearts of so many Americans.

I want to again emphasize my gratitude to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) for his efforts in bringing this forward and also express the personal honor it is to me. When I was a kid growing up in New York, I never thought I would have the opportunity to be supporting legislation for one of my childhood heroes. So it really is a great moment for this country, and I can speak on behalf of the many millions of New Yorkers who lived during the 1940s and 1950s who were thrilled by Jackie Robinson's excellence on the ball field.

But more important than that, I can speak for tens of millions of Americans who will always be in his debt and will always have tremendous gratitude to him for being such a pathfinder, for being so courageous, for having the guts to go forward when very few others would. I ask that this bill be passed.

I include in the Record a statement of Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig.

Statement of Baseball Commissioner Alan H. Selig

I have often said that Jackie Robinson's entry into the Big

Leagues was Baseball's proudest moment and most powerful

social statement.

Today, the United States House of Representatives codifies

the historic importance of Jackie Robinson's legacy by

awarding, posthumously, its prestigious Congressional Gold

Medal to Jackie.

On behalf of Major League Baseball, I express my gratitude

to the House of Representatives for enacting this

legislation, to Congressmen Neal (D-MA) and King (R-NY) for

proposing the bill, to the nearly 300 House co-sponsors, and

especially to those members who worked hard to achieve the

bill's passage.

Before America's Armed Forces were integrated and before

the United States Supreme

Court struck down segregation, Jackie Robinson became the

first black man to step onto a Major League ball field. That

memorable day in 1947, in Brooklyn, New York, our National

Pastime truly achieved greatness. And people of color felt

the promise of greater freedoms to come.

In April of 1997, it was my great honor to retire Jackie

Robinson's Number 42 in perpetuity. It was the first time in

any sport that such a gesture was bestowed upon an athlete.

It was a recognition that Jackie Robinson was an exceptional

man who fought racism by exhibiting athletic greatness on the

ball field and grace off the field.

On behalf of Major League Baseball, Jackie's wife, Rachel,

his children Sharon and David, and Jackie's millions of fans,

I thank the United States House of Representatives for this

special and appropriate tribute to a great ballplayer and an

even greater human being.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of Taiwan's bid for membership in the United Nations (UN).

For the 32nd consecutive year, the U.N. convenes its annual General Assembly without the membership of Taiwan and once again its 23 million citizens will be denied a voice in vitally important global matters. Although Taiwan has long been a significant player in world affairs with a GNP and population larger than three quarters of U.N. member countries, it has repeatedly been denied membership.

The transformation of Taiwan from an impoverished State into an industrial powerhouse, and from a one-party dictatorship into a multi- party democracy, is among the most impressive economic and political marvels of our time. Free and fair elections are held at all levels of government. Taiwan's constitution guarantees its citizens freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and it is a strong supporter of human rights.

Already, Taiwan is an active participant in international organizations as exemplified by its membership in the Asian Development Bank, its admission as a full member to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) group, and its membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Taiwan has also used its successes to become an active contributor to international humanitarian efforts. It has made significant donations to countries devastated by natural disasters and war including relief efforts in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Iraq, to name a few. Taiwan is well prepared and quite willing to actively support U.N. endeavors.

Furthermore, it is not uncommon to have parallel representation of divided countries in

the U.N. such as the case of East and West Germany before German reunification in 1990. This type of representation currently exists with respect to the membership of both the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea.

By large margins, both Houses of Congress have endorsed Taiwan's desire for participation in the United Nations. Taiwan, a country seeking peace and stability in its region, deserves the right to membership in the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of September 10, 2003, I call up the bill (H.R. 1538) to posthumously award Congressional Gold Medals to government workers and others who responded to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and perished and to the people aboard United Airlines Flight 93 who helped resist the hijackers and caused the plane to crash, to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the Spirit of America, recognizing the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation, and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for the assistance they have given in formulating this legislation and for the efforts they have made in helping to rebuild New York and in all they have done since September 11 working together as a united force to bring people together and to focus attention on the tremendous heroism that was demonstrated on that day in New York, at the Pentagon, and, of course, on Flight 93.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to commend those who died in the line of duty on September 11, 2001. It is almost axiomatic today to say that our lives will never be the same since September 11, and they have not. But in many ways from the terrible ashes of death and destruction that occurred on September 11, our country today is stronger than it ever was before. It is stronger morally, it is stronger spiritually, it has a great sense of moral clarity and resolve.

One of the reasons for that is at the time of the attack when America could have fallen back, when America could have retreated and gone into a state of bewilderment, it united immediately and fought back. One of the reasons it did that was because the eyes of the country and the eyes of the world were on the Twin Towers of New York, they were on the Pentagon, and they saw what happened in the fields of Pennsylvania on Flight 93, and they saw those in the eye of the storm fought back.

In New York, we saw the police officers and the firefighters rushing into the Twin Towers. Over 343 firefighters were killed, and many police officers from the Port Authority were killed. I believe it was 37. There were 23 police officers from the New York City police department, all of whom were killed, all of whom, without any hesitation, went into the burning towers to effectuate the largest evacuation in history. More than 25,000 people were evacuated that day, and it was done because of the incredible heroism of those who answered the call, those in the fire department, those in the police department and those from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the police officers who demonstrated their courage.

In addition, there were the EMS workers and the construction workers who went into the Twin Towers to bring people out; that set the tone for our country. That brought us together when the eyes of the world were watching. Just suppose if they had been watching and instead of seeing firefighters rush into the building, they saw them dispersing. Suppose they had seen a state of panic or people being left in those buildings to burn while firefighters and police officers stayed below, but they did not.

All of us in New York have suffered the loss of constituents, of friends, relatives, neighbors, and in many ways the list is too long to begin to enumerate. Certainly in my own community, the Haskell brothers, Tom and Tim, were killed. There was Lieutenant John Perry who was killed. From the adjoining community of Farmingdale, Pete Ganci was the chief of the department, and he was killed. Father Michael Judge, the chaplain of the department was killed. Michael Boyle was killed, as was David Arce. I can go down the whole list of names of people that we knew, people that were friends and neighbors, people who dedicated their lives to the police department, to the fire department.

There was a police captain from the Port Authority, Cathy Mazur, who is responsible for saving untold numbers of lives. She was on the main floor of the World Trade Center, and when people could not get out, she took out her revolver and blew out the windows, and that alone enabled hundreds of people to escape. She was later killed.

But that is typical of the type of courage that was shown that day, the type of determination that was shown that day. There were similar acts of courage at the Pentagon. God knows there were tremendous acts of courage on Flight 93 which, as so many have said, probably saved our lives, saved the lives of those in the White House that day by bringing that plane down.

So I believe that it is important that, as a body, Congress speak on behalf of the American people to really try to begin a down payment on the debt that we owe to all those who gave their lives on September 11. In saying that, in no way should we be diminishing those who were not part of the uniformed services who were killed that day, men and women who went to work, who were doing their job, people at Cantor Fitzgerald, all those firms, they were almost wiped out on September 11, also performed acts of heroism, most of which will never be known because it was not recorded, but we know when the World Trade Center was attacked back in 1993 how heroic those people had been.

There is no doubt that it was done again in 2001. We are singling out and

specifying the uniformed services and the rescue workers for what they did; but at the same time we are acknowledging the tremendous sacrifice of those who were killed just doing their jobs that day and who were targeted. They were targeted by Osama bin Laden because they symbolized the United States. The people in the World Trade Center symbolized the American economy. The people in the Pentagon symbolized the American military. They were targeted. These were not accidents that they were killed that day. They were killed for a reason. That is why the addition of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) to this bill, which provides the commemorative coin to everyone who was killed that day, to me really brings this together in the unity that our country needs, the rescue workers and those who were killed because they were working that day; the country working together, Democrats and Republicans, the House and hopefully the Senate standing together to acknowledge those who paid the ultimate sacrifice on September 11, 2001, and whose memory will always be with us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was going to yield time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), but he has agreed to defer to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me, in conclusion, once again thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the tremendous effort she has made over the past 2 years in doing all she can and working with me in a bipartisan way to move this legislation forward.

Let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who is one of the first who authored a bill after September 11 commemorating those who died on that tragic day, and also has worked so closely with us, all of us trying to put egos aside, and we did definitely put partisan interests aside to move this forward. I think that really in many ways symbolizes the very best of September 11. We realize there is something more than our own narrow parochial interests, that there is a larger cause.

So I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the way they have conducted themselves, for the assistance they have given me and for the dedication they have to this matter.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley), who has been cooperative throughout. I want to thank the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for agreeing to bring this legislation forward on September 11. To me it is the most fitting day of all it could be brought on.

Also, I would say that as we remember those who died, as we honor those who died in the line of duty that day, that we realize that their families are still going forward. So as we honor those who died, let us not forget those who survived them who still, every day, must confront the dilemma of going forward, the emptiness, the sorrow, the tragedy that occurred to them on September 11 and will be with them throughout the remainder of their lives. We should just try to put ourselves in their position, to understand some of the terrible trauma that was inflicted on them. In doing that, that should give us more momentum to make sure this bill not just passes today, but also to work with the Senate to find a way to get it through.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just passing a bill for the sake of passing a bill. I think it is a real duty and obligation on the Congress of the United States that we record and let it be known the way we feel and the respect and the honor that we have for those who died in the line of duty on September 11. And by awarding a Congressional Gold Medal, that is the way that we can pay that tribute, not just to them, but to history, so that history will record exactly what they did and the extent to which we thought about it. And, in doing that, out of that twisted steel and burning rubble of the World Trade Center, out of the terrible destruction at the Pentagon, and out of the plane that was literally obliterated in the fields of Pennsylvania, from those horrible moments will come a greater America and a lesson for future generations to realize what people should do when confronted by crisis. Because all of us in this House, we can all talk a good game, but the reality is, no one ever knows what they will do when they are really put to the test. On September 11 we had so many hundreds of people, if not thousands of people, who were put to the test, and they all passed the test. So by them passing that test that day, by them showing the courage and determination that they did, that has allowed us to go forward as a Nation.

So let us go forward from this bill today, standing together behind our President, behind the united leadership of the House and the Senate, committed to America. We can have partisan differences, we can have differences on tactics, but we should never, ever again disagree on the overriding goal of America destroying the forces of international terrorism, protecting our borders, and doing all we can to ensure that a September 11 will

never again occur, and that these men and women did not die in vain.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 5 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Friday, July 25, 2003, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday, President Bush's adversaries--both in the political arena and the media--have chosen to ignore or distort the facts regarding Iraq's pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. To counter the numerous inaccuracies created by too many people who should know better, I am including in the Record the second half of the declassified portions of the National Intelligence Estimate released by the White House this past Friday.

State/INR Alternative View

. . . acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but

INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support

such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has

launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear

weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an

effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to

project a timeline for the completion of activities it does

not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict

when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.

In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is

central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its

nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the

tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors.

INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes

lraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas

centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds

unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the

case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers

it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another

purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The

very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were

tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to

operational security in the procurement efforts are among the

factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to

conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's

nuclear weapon program.

Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate

High Confidence

Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its

chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary

to UN resolutions.

We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons

and missiles.

Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once

it acquires sufficient weapons grade fissile material.

moderate confidence

Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient

material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007

to 2009.

Low Confidence

When Saddam would use weapons of mass-destruction.

Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against

the U.S. Homeland.

Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or

biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the incessant barrage of attacks of inaccurate and baseless charges being made against President Bush by his political opponents and their allies in the media, I thought it important to include in the Record the declassified portions of the National Intelligence Estimate released by the White House this past Friday. This NIE clearly states the consensus view of our intelligence agencies that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute his nuclear capacity. The first half of these documents are being submitted today and the second half tomorrow. I commend these documents to all willing to approach this vital issue with an open mind.

[From October 2002 NIE]

Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass

destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and

restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as

well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if

left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during

this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these

Key Judgments.)

We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD

efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception

efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate

the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.

We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's

WJMD programs.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its

chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and

invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of

most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons

program.

Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases

Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual

earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from

$580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.

Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons

facilities damaged during

Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and

biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian

production.

Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its

ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial

vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to

deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear

weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent

on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started

reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM

inspectors departed--December 1998.

How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon

depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile

material.

If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad

it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a

year.

Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not

be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to

inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities

to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in

procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.

Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in

and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength

aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors--as well as Iraq's

attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines,

and machine tools--provide compelling evidence that Saddam is

reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's

nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of

the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes

probably are not part of the program.)

Iraq's efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of

weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect

nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is

underway.

All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on

tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable

of producing approximately two weapons' worth of highly

enriched uranium per year.

In a much less likely scenario, Bagbdad could make enough

fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2005 to 2007 if it

obtains suitable centrifuge tubes this year and has all the

other materials and technological expertise necessary to

build production-scale uranium enrichment facilities.

We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of

mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosari), and VX; its capability

probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the

Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life

probably have been improved.

An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has

procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and

equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production

hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry.

Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW

stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric

tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents--much

of it added in the last year.

The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs,

artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that they

possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a

limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with

extended ranges.

We judge that all key aspects--R&D, production, and

weaponization--of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and

that most elements are larger and more advanced than they

were before the Gulf war.

We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents

and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety

of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs,

missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.

Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive

BW program.

Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW

agents.

Bagbdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and

concealed BW agent production capability.

Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and

toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are

highly survivable. Within three to six months* these units

probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total

that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.

Iraq maintains a small missile force and several

development programs, including for a UAV probably intended

to deliver biological warfare agent.

Gaps in Iraqi accounting to UNSCOM suggest that Saddam

retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant

SRBMs with ranges of 650 to 900 km.

lraq is deploying its new al-Samoud and Ababi-100 SRBMs,

which are capable of flying beyond the UN-authorized 150-km

range limit; Iraq has tested an al-Samoud variant beyond 150

km--perhaps as far as 300 km,

Baghdad's UAVs could threaten Iraq's neighbors, U.S. forces

in the Persian Gulf, and if brought close to, or into, the

United States, the U.S. Homeland.

An Iraqi UAV procurement network attempted to procure

commercially available route planning software and an

associated topographic database that would be able to support

targeting of the United States, according to analysis of

special intelligence.

The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance, and

Reconnaissance, U.S. Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is

developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms

for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small

size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of

reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent

capability.

Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile

capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building

specialized facilities, including a test stand for engines

more powerful than those in its current missile force.

We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam

would use WMD.

Saddam could decide to use chemical and biological warfare

(CBW) preemptively against U.S. forces, friends, and allies

in the region in an attempt to disrupt U.S. war preparations

and undermine the political will of the Coalition.

[Corrected per Errata sheet issued in October 2002]

Saddam might use CBW after an initial advance into Iraqi

territory, but early use of WMD could foreclose diplomatic

options for stalling the US advance.

He probably would use CBW when be perceived he

irretrievably had lost control of the military and security

situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches

that point.

We judge that Saddam would be more likely to use chemical

weapons than biological weapons on the battlefield.

Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the

use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency

instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific

circumstances.

Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of

conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against

the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement

would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the

U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the

survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or

possibly for revenge. Such attacks--more likely with

biological than chemical agents--probably would be carried

out by special forces or intelligence operatives.

The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been

directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied

interests in the Middle East in the event the United States

takes action against Iraq. The US probably would be the

primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW

attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific

intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed

attacks against US territory.

Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only

an organization such as al-Qaida--with worldwide reach and

extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a

life-or-death struggle against the United States--could

perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that be would hope to

conduct.

In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme

step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW

attack against the United States would be his last chance to

exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.

Mr. Speaker, as the lead republican sponsor, I rise today in full support of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.

Two months ago, Burmese opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest by Burma's ruling junta after a bloody clash between her supporters and thugs of the military regime.

For the last fifteen years, Suu Kyi has waged a struggle against one of the world's most oppressive governments. Burma's military regime has committed widespread human rights abuses, including forced labor and the use of rape as a weapon against insurgences by ethnic minorities. In addition, this regime supports international narcotic trafficking and provides a safe haven for drug traffickers targeted by the United States for prosecution.

That is why I am proud to be a part of this legislation which will authorize a number of sanctions against the Burmese government and its entities, unless a series of democratic conditions are met. I want to thank the Gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos for his tireless work on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this needed measure.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Financial Services be discharged from the further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 709) to award a congressional gold medal to Prime Minister Tony Blair, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 thereon on S. 709, the Senate bill just passed.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1511) to award a congressional gold medal to Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct privilege today to be able to move this bill awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Throughout our history, there has probably been no country that the United States has had a closer relationship with than Great Britain. Certainly we share certain immutable, transcendent values. Throughout our history we have stood together in a number of noble causes, probably dramatically manifested during World War II when Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt stood together to defeat the forces of fascism and Naziism. But there is probably no British Prime Minister who has been there when America needs him more than Tony Blair.

Certainly during the Clinton administration, it was Prime Minister Blair who stood shoulder to shoulder with President Clinton in the war in Kosovo against Serb aggression, against the dictator Milosevic. But nothing more illustrated the unique relationship between the United States and Britain and the immense courage and dedication of Tony Blair than what happened after our Nation was attacked on September 11, 2001. The first foreign leader to come to this country to express his regrets while the smoke was still there, while the flames were still burning, visited the World Trade Center, visited New York and came here to our Nation's capital was British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

When President Bush addressed a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, just 9 days after the brutal attack on the World Trade Center, it was Prime Minister Blair who sat here in the gallery expressing his solidarity with the United States. On that evening, President Bush said, ``Once again we are joined together in a great cause and we are so honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity of purpose with America. Thank you for coming, friend.''

Indeed, Tony Blair has been a friend of the United States but, just as important as that, he has been a friend and supporter of democratic values. He realizes the unique nature and relationship of the bonds between the United States and Britain and indeed between the United States and Europe. He has been a strong friend of the United States. Certainly in the recent war against Iraq, it was Tony Blair who resisted pressure both from the media, his own party and his own parliament to stand up and be with the United States.

For all those reasons, and I am sure this debate will go on for a while, probably longer than we anticipated it would today, I stand in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me at the outset commend the ranking member the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the tremendous assistance she has given me on this as she has on so many other issues that come before our subcommittee and also the work that she does for the State of New York.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I should bring out is that on a personal level, I had the privilege of working with Prime Minister Blair several years ago on the Irish peace process. I saw firsthand at that time the sense of vision that he had, the sense of daring he had and the courage he had to do the right thing and the fact that he was the first British Prime Minister in history to be able to bring a settlement, to bring an agreement involving all the parties in the north of Ireland. To work with the Republic of Ireland and also to work closely with the United States is just one more demonstration of his courage and his ability to stand up and do what is right.

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

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

Without getting into all of the merits or demerits of the gentleman's statement, I would note that if there is one person in the world who does not care what his poll ratings are, it is Prime Minister Blair. The fact that his disapproval numbers may be high is exactly one of the reasons why he has demonstrated courage. He stands up for what is right. He is not concerned about the naysayers. He is not concerned about the tides of public opinion as they may be that day.

I would just again remind my colleagues that when the United States was at its darkest moment on September 11, 2001, the one leader who stood with us more than anyone else was Prime Minister Blair. He continues to stand with us. He can be proud of his record and we can be proud of our record if we do indeed award him this honor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

(Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

It is really interesting listening to how certain people on the other side who are trying to turn this into a debate of weapons of mass destruction are raising the issue of credibility when their statements themselves seem to be at least lacking some credibility, to put it mildly. I would just emphasize we are talking about what was known and what was not known.

Let us go back to last September when Vice President Gore said based at the time he was Vice President, he had absolutely no doubt that Iraq had an advanced program of weapons of mass destruction and those weapons were hidden throughout Iraq. That was Vice President Gore based on his access to intelligence. Just last month, President Clinton said he does not in any way fault President Bush on the issue of weapons of mass destruction because that is exactly what he was told when he was President of the United States. Just last Friday in the New York Times, Kenneth Pollack who was probably leading spokesman in the Clinton administration on the issue of Iraq said there was absolutely no doubt among any of the intelligence agencies in the world nor in the United States nor in the Clinton and Bush administrations that there were indeed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

And it really is ironic that we have to look to a British foreign minister to stand with our government and give the United States the presumption of the doubt over Saddam Hussein when certain Members of the opposition party do not show that same level of support that Prime Minister Blair is showing, which I think is very significant; and it also demonstrates more than ever why Americans have such a high opinion of Prime Minister Blair.

I would also say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who was heaping

praise on the Republicans for trying to set up this trans-Atlantic relationship with the British and was hoping that perhaps this may manifest itself here on the floor, I would also remind the gentleman and ask him if he supports the fact that Tony Blair is bringing the Labor Party from the left to the right and is certainly being criticized by those in the left in Britain. I wonder if he will also share that in his party and move his party more toward the center.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say that the same critics in Britain who are criticizing Tony Blair's policy on the war would in fact be saying that he is moving his party to the right. So really I was quoting the equivalent critics in the British Parliament who are equivalent to those in this House. Those who oppose Blair's policy on Iraq, very similar to those on the other side who are opposing President Bush's policy on Iraq, are the same ones who are saying that he is moving his party toward the right. So I was just really quoting some of the ideological kinsmen of some of the opponents here today.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, it is very accurate. In fact, anyone who knows Claire Short, and I have known her for over 20 years, can say she was in the far left of the Labor Party. She was in the Blair cabinet very reluctantly, and she was one of those who was critical not just of his war policy but also of his domestic policies.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, actually this has turned into the House of Commons. This is great. But reclaiming my time, I would say that the overwhelming, absolutely categorically overwhelming majority of those in the Labor Party who are opposed to Tony Blair resent also the fact that he is moving the party towards the center.

Reclaiming my time, the beauty of Tony Blair is unlike certain politicians he does not follow the polls. The fact is he stands up for what is right. In the fullness of time he will be vindicated.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the gentleman that there was another option left out and that is the option that Vice President Gore spoke about last September, that the weapons are there, the weapons are hidden, and we will find them.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I would say to the ranking member if he wants to introduce that legislation and obtain 290 signatures,

certainly we will give it consideration at that time. We are very open- minded. We are very liberal on this side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

As I said at the outset, it is a great honor for me personally to be able to stand here and move this legislation today. I must say that I am sure some of my Irish ancestors are appreciating the improbability of this moment that I would be making such an impassioned defense for a British Prime Minister.

The fact is, Tony Blair transcends national politics. He transcends pettiness and partisanship, and that is what we have tried to do here. Yes, obviously, there are differences between Members on this side of the aisle and certain policies of Tony Blair. We are not talking about his policies per se; we are talking about his courage, we are talking about his unique sense of dedication to democratic values and the fact that he is such a close ally of the United States, and that does transcend whatever differences there may be, and that should also transcend whatever differences we might have in recognizing the greatness of an individual and realizing the uniqueness of a very special relationship.

But, if I could just add in closing, because I know there is going to be a record of this and we have gone over different debates, I would just thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for introducing the full column by Mr. Pollack. I would stand by that, and I would say that anyone reading that, any balanced person reading that would see that as an affirmation that weapons of mass destruction did indeed exist, and also honest differences as far as nuclear weapons. It is all there. I will allow the public to look at that, to read it, and come to their judgment. It certainly went far beyond as far as being reasoned, as far as being rational, some of the overheated rhetoric that has been coming forth from others here. And that to me is the type of debate we should be having, an intelligent debate.

Also, I would say there is a difference between a parliamentary system and the system that we have. Indeed we fought a revolution in 1776 to establish our type of government.

But in conclusion, let us get back to the main point. Tony Blair is a unique world leader, an outstanding world leader, a long and dear and absolutely loyal friend of the United States. For that, Mr. Speaker, he deserves this Gold Medal as much as any world leader ever has. I stand with him. I would hope that the overwhelming majority of this Congress would stand with him, stand with the United States Senate in acknowledging the uniqueness and the unique loyalty and sense of courage that Tony Blair has demonstrated.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I would say that when Tony Blair is here, that if we can arrange a private meeting with the ranking member from Massachusetts, I am sure he can impart unique wisdom to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and that would really mean that the Prime Minister has earned his gold medal.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of Taiwan's entry into the World Health Organization (WHO). Time and time again Taiwan has been thwarted from joining this international organization solely because of objections from the People's Republic of China. Most recently this occurred in May at the World Health Assembly in Geneva; even after Congress passed legislation (P.L. 108-028) authorizing the U.S. Government to implement a plan for Taiwan to obtain observer status and Secretary of Health Human Services Tommy Thompson publicly and firmly expressed U.S. support for Taiwan's inclusion in the WHO.

The recent SARS outbreak in Asia has made it very clear how important it is to allow Taiwan to participate in the WHO. While the People's Republic of China was suppressing information and statistics about the disease and covering up its scope, Taiwan, on the other hand, was reporting freely and accurately on SARS. It immediately offered to work with the WHO yet was denied; only later were two WHO experts dispatched to Taiwan. In addition, Beijing was quite unhelpful in alerting the WHO and neighboring countries as to when and where this outbreak originated causing additional infections and deaths.

We all have a responsibility to assist the WHO and inform the world when it comes to global health. For too long, however, Taiwan has not been given this opportunity because of political motivations. It is now time to allow Taiwan to join the WHO or at least allow it to obtain observer status. With the threat of outbreaks such as SARS sweeping across continents and infecting thousands, it is not only absurd but also immoral to keep the 23 million Taiwanese citizens from receiving its assistance. Taiwan, and the world for that matter, will be far better protected when it finally obtains WHO membership.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the leadership demonstrated by Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian. During his three years in office, President Chen has worked diligently to strengthen the friendship between Taiwan and the United States. I have had the privilege meeting with President Chen in the United States and in Taiwan. The relationship between our countries stands as a great example of the cooperation and understanding that can be reached between two nations that share the goals of fostering democracy and human rights, protecting the world against terrorism, and expanding the global economy through trade.

We are extremely grateful for the friendship and support Taiwan has extended us during our own country's very difficult times. President Chen immediately and publicly lent his country's unwavering support to the War on Terrorism. Taiwan has also agreed to devote financial resources and other humanitarian assistance to the recently freed peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq.

As Taiwan and Asia experience the threat of SARS, we see how critical it is to admit Taiwan (or at least allow it observer status) into the World Health Organization (WHO). While some nations suppressed information about this outbreak, Taiwan reported freely on it and offered to work with WHO in combating SARS. The 23 million people of Taiwan ought to be included in the international medical community's efforts to control infectious diseases and the world not deprived of the benefits Taiwan can offer it.

Mr. Speaker, under this President's guidance, Taiwan's vibrant democracy has continued to thrive, human rights have been safeguarded, and freedom of the press has never been stronger. For these reasons I urge all my colleagues to join me in congratulating President Chen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the recent harassment and intimidation of Burmese citizens carried out by General Than Shwe and his military regime. Various attacks have been committed under his command against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and members of the National League for Democracy (NLD). This is yet another example of how Than Shwe's regime continues to employ terror and brutality as a means of retaining power over the Burmese people.

While traveling outside of Rangoon recently, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's convoy was attacked by members of the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), the political arm of Than Shwe's military regime. Yielding machetes, hundreds of USDA members forcibly stopped the convoy, surrounded it, and beat on the doors with their fists and other objects.

Mr. Speaker, in Burma's most recent election, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD were elected to represent the people of Burma winning 82 percent of the seats in parliament. But Than Shwe has refused to honor their will and let those who have been legitimately elected govern. His military regime continues to systematically abuse the human rights of the Burmese people through its campaign of torture, imprisonment, forced child labor, and murder.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the democracy movement have never resorted to the use of violence despite the savage treatment it receives. In fact, for her peaceful efforts to bring about change, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Sakharov Prize, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Mr. Speaker, we must continue to support Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD while at the same time increasing political pressure upon Burma's military regime. Democracy must be restored to this country. I would like to thank President Bush for his strong statement to this effect last April and I urge my colleagues to join in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the lives of the seven astronauts who perished on Saturday as they returned from space aboard the space shuttle Columbia: Commander Rick D. Husband, Pilot William C. McCool, Payload Commander Michael P. Anderson, Mission Specialist Kalpana Chawla, Mission Specialist David M. Brown, Mission Specialist Laurel B. Clark, and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon. These brave people risked their lives to further mankind's understanding of science, medicine, and the universe in which we live.

While we send our condolences to their family, friends, and co- workers, we remember that these individuals died while living out a dream. We cannot forget or neglect this dream. It is our obligation to continue this legacy.

Our hearts go out to the families of these courageous individuals. We will never forget them nor their quest to advance mankind.