Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule. I will tell my colleagues that over the last 8 months, we have had between 12 and 13 hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary and some 35 witnesses over an extended period of time; and 50 members of the Committee on the Judiciary have had a chance to not just question those witnesses, but to go back in the secure intelligence records, which I have done, and review all the FISA reports and the other information that is very sensitive and an important part of our oversight.

We have considered some 50 different amendments as part of this extensive hearing process. Today we will be debating all day on the PATRIOT Act and into the evening. We will consider some 20 other proposed amendments.

The fact of the matter is, Congress has done a very diligent job balancing civil liberties during this time of great national threat. We watch and pray for our friends in Britain as we do this, but we do it only after serious and thoughtful consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I note that since the 9/11 attacks, in part we all know due to the PATRIOT Act, there have been no new attacks on America. I also think Americans ought to know there is a bookstore in London, in the Leeds section, called the Iqra Bookstore; and among the books that Iqra Learning Center sells are extremist Muslim materials. We now believe that three out of four of the terrorists that attacked London 2 weeks ago and killed 56 people visited frequently this bookstore. If the British authorities had known about the possible link and had a 215 clause, the main clause being attacked by the opponents of the PATRIOT Act, perhaps there would be 56 people alive today.

So all the scare tactics can be done away with, all the hysterical allegations. Every American needs to know that this 215, which has been referred to as the library provision, nowhere mentions libraries. But what 215 does do is say a Federal judge must make findings before any warrant would ever be issued. This can only affect non-Americans in the first place, or Americans would only be affected if there is an ongoing terrorism or intelligence investigation.

Mr. Chairman, every American needs to know that unless there is an ongoing terror or intelligence investigation, unless a judge makes a decision, no American can ever be affected.

To the extent that we want to create safe harbors, either in bookstores or libraries or anywhere else by eliminating 215, we ought to be candid with Americans. We ought to be candid about the fact that we expect and are going to sit back as London-type bombings take place on our subways and bus systems.

We may not be able to prevent the next attack, but as long as Americans' liberties are protected by a judge ahead of time, as long as this is a reasonable provision affecting only non-Americans or during an intelligence or ongoing terrorism investigation, it is absolutely appropriate. I would not be doing my duty as a Congressman to not fight for 215 to be reenacted. We have added some protections. Everybody

who receives one of these warrants is guaranteed to see a lawyer, and, if they want to, challenge the warrant.

Mr. Speaker, in recent days, The New York Times and some of our colleagues have publicly encouraged and endorsed the government of Brazil to seize American pharmaceutical patents, citing an urgent need to accommodate a public health crisis in that country.

These arguments are false. American drug companies sell life-saving antiretroviral therapies at an almost 90 percent discount in Brazil; furthermore, Brazil's rate of HIV infection is almost the same as it is in the U.S.--well below 1 percent. Brazil appears to be manufacturing reasons to support its intent to develop a generic export capacity.

The WorId Trade Organization's 1994 Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), in conjunction with the 2001 Doha Declaration, enables countries to temporarily suspend patents when there is a dire need and when those patents are precluding access to life-saving medicines.

In Brazil's case, there are serious concerns that it is willfully manipulating WTO rules for commercial gain. Consider the remarks by Brazil's health minister just this week in Geneva: ``Brazil once again takes a new step forward in the struggle against AIDS . . . This stage may come to represent the first step for introducing a new phase in our local [antiretroviral] production. An additional target is to support our national manufacturing industry in this respect, as we are totally committed in maintaining high quality in the medicines available in the public health services.''

The wholesale theft of American technology for another country's commercial gain was never the intent of the Doha Declaration or TRIPS. The United States should consider any and all retaliatory measures if Brazil proceeds with such blatant theft. The theft of these pharmaceutical patents will cost Americans billions of dollars and take away investment that could otherwise be spent on the development of new drugs ranging from epidemics to the common cold.

Please include the following editorials ``Richman? Poorman? Beggarman? Thief? by James Pinkerton and Brazil Mulls Drug Patent Theft as an AIDS Antidote by Anastasia O'Grady.

[From the Tech Central Station, June 29, 2005]

Richman? Poorman? Beggarman? Thief?

(By James Pinkerton)

Will the real Brazil please stand up? Is Brazil a poor

country that needs more foreign aid from the United States--

even involuntary aid? Or is it an increasingly rich and

powerful country that can seize foreign markets for itself?

Indeed, is it so powerful that that it doesn't need to play

by the rules?

One source not to look to for answers is the Brazilian

government itself, as we shall see.

To an outside observer, it's apparent that the Brazilians

clearly want to have it all three ways: being needy when it

suits them, being export-y as they are able, being greedy

when they think they can get away with it--and if that last

stance hurts the U.S. economy, too bad. It's a little

complicated, and a little bewildering. And yet Uncle Sam's

answer to the ``Brazil Bewilderment'' will help determine

America's own wealth, and health, in the 21st Century.

Two recent items show the sharp divergence in perspectives

on Brazil. The New York Times' editorial page sees Brazil as

a destitute place. Which means, of course, that Brazil is a

wonderful place--for the Times to preach some politically

correct ``compassion.'' Using somebody else's money, of

course. In a June 23 editorial, the paper sided with Brazil

in its long-running argument with American owners of

Intellectual Property (IP); in this case, the fight is with

the biotech industry.

The Times noted that ``Brazil's free universal treatment

program, an indispensable weapon against the AIDS epidemic,

locks Brazil's government into buying lifelong daily

medicines for 170,000 people, and that number is rising.''

And so, the Times continued, ``Brazil has the right to make

sure it can continue to meet this burden by getting medicines

at the cheapest possible price.'' And the cheapest possible

price can be arrived at, quite often, through simple theft:

the violation of IP property rights.

In other words, the Times is so in love with government-run

``universal'' health care that it wants the U.S.--or, more

precisely, U.S. Pharma companies--to finance such health

care in other countries. It would be one thing if the

Times simply editorialized in favor of America subsidizing

the Brazilian social insurance system. That is, the

president and the Congress could simply vote to transfer a

few billion dollars a year to Brazil. But of course, no

elected officials would ever vote for such an overt

wealth-transfer, so the Times finds it expedient to

endorse a covert wealth-transfer, in the form of IP

ripoff.

And obviously the Times couldn't be expected to worry much

about anything so bourgeois as the rights of American

companies, and their shareholders and stakeholders. As the

Times sneeringly put it, ``Rightwing groups in the United

States and pharmaceutical manufacturers are calling this

theft, and several members of Congress have asked the United

States trade representative to apply trade sanctions.'' And

yet, the Times advised, ``The American trade representative

should make a public statement that the United States will

not retaliate against Brazil for exercising its right to save

lives.''

In the paper's pro-Brazil policy, we see how p.c.

solicitude for AIDS victims joins up with an all-purpose

entitlement mentality--to create a ruinous prescription for

American well-being, as well as a dire prospect for future

medical innovation in a property-rights-wrecking environment.

But another Times newspaper has a far different take on

Brazil, a country which, after all, boasts the 9th-largest

economy in the world today. According to a June 22 article in

The Financial Times that ran the same day, under the

headline, ``Brazil is yielding farms that can feed the

world,'' Brazil is on its way to becoming ``a pivotal nation

in the future of world trade. Brazil is to agriculture

what India is to business offshoring and China to

manufacturing: a powerhouse whose size and efficiency few

competitors can match.''

As the FT details, Brazil now enjoys the largest

agricultural trade surplus in the world, and the country's

balance of trade is helped enormously by IP theft, which

often goes by the more polite name of ``compulsory

licensing.'' But by any name, it's still theft, and theft is

``zero sum.'' So if Brazil has more, the U.S. has less. From

Brazil's narrow point of view, it's easy to see the logic of

its current course. In the words of Ken Adelman, former

deputy U.S. representative to the United Nations, Brazil's

``earnest commitment to premeditated theft of American assets

should prompt the administration to stop considering Brazil a

good partner and its president a great friend until they

demonstrate a stronger commitment to the Rule of Law and free

trade.'' That was on May 9. On June 24, in an important Wall

Street Journal column entitled ``Brazil Mulls Drug Patent

Theft as an AIDS Antidote,'' Mary Anastasia O'Grady wrote,

``The possible compulsory licensing of AIDS drugs is only

part of Brazil's wider assault on intellectual property

rights. While China and India are promising to firm up

protections and sucking in capital investment, Brazil

seems bent on joining the likes of Cuba, Iran and

Venezuela.

Like IP itself, IP theft is a somewhat obscure topic, but

across the board, from movies to music to software to

pharmaceutical patents, such theft costs the United States

some 750,000 jobs and $200 billion a year annually. Which is

to say, it's a lotta money. Indeed, one might ask how The New

York Times would feel if, in some alternative universe, the

key to treating AIDS patients was discovered to be the

breaking of all the Times' copyrights and trademarks.

So which Brazil is it? Poverty-stricken victim? Hyper-

aggressive trader? Or rogue-nation with a national strategy

of IP-pirating? I posed that exact three-part question to

Roberto Abdenur, Brazil's ambassador to the U.S., at a June

24 meeting at the Council of the Americas Society in

Manhattan.

And here's what he said to me in response: ``It is

absolutely not true that Brazil would have a national

strategy [of IP theft]. Keeping a perfectly straight face, he

added, ``Of IP there is something like a revolution taking

place in Brazil; . . . we are taking very decisive actions on

piracy. Brazil is deeply committed to enforcing TRIPs [trade-

related intellectual property rights].''

Well, those were nice and reassuring words. But there was

one small problem: they weren't true. That very afternoon, on

June 24, came the news that Abdenur's bureaucratic buddies

back in Brasilia had announced that the country would impose

``compulsory licensing'' on Abbott laboratories'' anti-HIV

drug Kaletra if the company didn't surrender the license

first. Sorry, Mr. Ambassador, but your own government has

made you into a liar.

The irony is that for all Brazil's enthusiasm for IP-

mulcting, such a policy is not actually in the country's

overall long-term best interest. That was a useful

perspective supplied at the same June 24 Council of the

Americas discussion by Donna Hrinak, the former U.S.

ambassador to Brazil. She reminded the audience, which

included Abdenur, that for Brazil, ``the whole issue of IP

goes from AIDS treatment to the guy who is selling a pirated

CD to the grey market in computers.'' Which is to say,

Brazil's IP-lawlessness is endemic.

Then she added, ``I never understood Brazil's IP position.

It goes against its own interest.'' That is, Brazil would

ultimately gain more by working within the world IP system,

where rights are respected for the long-term benefit of all

property holders. Continuing, Hrinak added, ``Recife would be

like Bangalore if Brazil would look to its own interest, and

implement its own [IP] laws.'' Better to be supportive of a

thriving indigenous high-tech industry, she was saying, than

to merely be stealing technology from others.

From an American point of view, it's nice to know that some

U.S. diplomats see the importance of IP, for the well-being

of this country, and also for the well-being of the world

property-rights system--which will make all countries better

off if it's allowed to work. But so far, at least, there's

not much evidence that Brazil is looking to anybody's

ultimate well-being, not even its own. However, it does have

The New York Times in its corner. Maybe Brazilians can feast

on that.

[From the Wall Street Journal]

Brazil Mulls Drug Patent Theft as an AIDS Antidote

(By Mary Anastasia O'Grady)

When the Bush administration offered Brazil $40 million for

its anti-AIDS program earlier this year, Brasilia turned it

down on principle. The terms of the deal required the

government to condemn the sexual exploitation of women--

otherwise known as prostitution. Calling the U.S. demand

``theological, fundamentalist and Shiite,'' Brazil rejected

the offer.

Turning down a $40 million contribution seems like a luxury

that a developing country with an estimated HIV-infected

population of 600,000 couldn't afford. But as it happens,

Brazil has a back-up plan. It is moving to force foreign drug

makers to surrender their patents on anti-AIDS drugs at a

price dictated by Brasilia, a tiny fraction of the medicine's

value.

Brazil's lower house passed legislation abridging AIDS drug

patent rights earlier this month. The bill specifically names

drugs produced by Abbott Laboratories. Gilead Science and

Merck. It is not clear whether the Senate will pass the law

or Brazilian President Luiz Inacio ``Lula'' da Silva will

uphold it or exercise his veto. But steamrolling the rights

of patent holders is something that Brazil has been

threatening since 2001.

The possible compulsory licensing of AIDS drugs is only

part of Brazil's wider assault on intellectual property

rights. While China and India are promising to firm up

protections and sucking in capital investment, Brazil seems

bent on joining the likes of Cuba, Iran and Venezuela in

cutting its own throat by destroying those rights.

The effort pits the short-run benefits of grabbing at

little cost today's best medicines--claiming ``humanitarian''

motives--against the long-run damage to research and

development that weakened property rights are sure to

inflict. Such policy positions could devastate Brazil's

stated hopes of attracting a thriving biotech industry.

Brazil posits that the WTO's Trade-Related Aspects of

Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) allows it to go after

patents in a public health ``crisis.''

Yet more than half the drugs Brazil distributes through its

anti-HIV/AIDS program can be copied legally. As to cutting-

edge medicines that still have patent protection, Brazil

receives sharp discounts from pharmaceutical companies, which

try to recoup their research and development costs in

wealthier countries like the U.S. To be sure, Brazil is not

as rich as the U.S., but it's not among the poorest either,

as evidenced by its space program and thriving aircraft

industry.

One example of drug company generosity is the deal Merck

has given Brazil on its anti-retroviral drug Stocrin.

According to Grey Warner, senior vice president for Latin

America Human Health at the company, ``Stocrin is sold to

Brazil at the lowest price in the world outside of the least

developed countries, such as sub-Saharan Africa, where we

supply the product at no profit. In practical terms, this

equates to a price that is about 90% lower than in the U.S.,

Canada and Western Europe.'' That seems like rather generous

treatment of a large country well advanced toward

industrialization.

Meanwhile, at the strategically critical World Intellectual

Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Brazil is leading the

charge to weaken intellectual property rights within the

World Trade Organization. This week, a second session on ``a

development agenda'' for the WIPO was underway. This meeting

is a follow-up to the April WIPO session in which the ``Group

of Friends of Development,'' led by Brazil, spelled out its

objection to intellectual property rights as traditionally

defined. The 14 countries in this euphemistically titled

alliance include such paragons of sound economic development

policy as Iran, Cuba, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru,

Venezuela and Sierra Leone.

In its April document the group stated that it wants to

examine the implications of intellectual property rights

protection, ``rather than seek to approach this highly

controversial issue as if it were governed by absolute

truths, loosely under the one dimensional perspective of the

private rights holders, ignoring the broader public

interest.''

That's clearly code language for socializing property

rights, a view that has dominated Brazilian thought over most

of the 20th century and produced the current squalor that so

many Brazilians live in. Few people want to invest in a

country where legalized theft is government policy.

Another egregious attempt to destroy intellectual property

rights is the effort by a group of developing nations--again

led by Brazil--to include a bizarre amendment to the 1992

United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, which has been

ratified by 188 countries, ostensibly to protect nations'

biological resources. The change would give nations the

ability to sue for patent rights to a successful biotechnical

innovation if they could prove that a plant molecule, animal

molecule or some ``traditional knowledge'' originating in

their country was used in the development of the product.

According to Timothy Wolfe and Ben Zycher, who studied the

law for the Pacific Research Institute, this would be

``analytically equivalent to a long-run tax on

biotechnological and pharmaceutical research and development

investment.'' Their PRI study estimates the effects of such a

tax on 27 countries including Brazil, Mexico, Peru and

Colombia. By the year 2025, the law ``would reduce the

biotechnological and pharmaceutical research and development

capital stock by about $144 billion (in year 2004 dollars),

or almost 27 percent, for the 27 nations,'' Messrs. Wolfe and

Zycher write. ``This implies a loss of 150-200 new drugs.''

As Mr. Zycher points out this is similar to price controls,

which have of course wreaked havoc in economies wherever they

have been applied. ``You can erode property rights in the

short term without much effect, but the long-run effects are

far more serious,'' he said.

Brazil's actions, ostensibly designed to help people with a

terrible disease, will retard economic development and

handicap all efforts to improve human health standards.

Ailing AIDS patients will need new pharmaceutical

developments as the virus mutates and becomes resistant to

today's wonder

drugs. But what company will volunteer to produce drugs that

politicians demand free of charge? Job-seeking Brazilians who

would benefit from foreign investment in biotech will have to

move to India. Brazil will sink ever lower into

underdevelopment. Maybe soon it will legitimately qualify for

the same charity as poverty-stricken sub-Saharan Africa.

Mr. Chairman, there are two things that we can say conclusively since the enactment of the PATRIOT Act. Number one, there has not been another 9/11 attack, thanks in part to the PATRIOT Act and other tools that we have given the law enforcement community here in the United States.

And number two, there has been a great deal of hysteria generated around the words ``PATRIOT Act.'' Very little of the actual complaints can ever be pointed to with respect to anything that the PATRIOT Act did, but there is enormous amount of hysteria. For example, the very name of this amendment, the Freedom to Read Act, implies that somehow there is something anywhere in the PATRIOT Act that denies us the freedom to read anything we want. Of course the PATRIOT Act does not do any such thing.

We have heard here today that we need to have some showing of probable cause to protect American citizens' privacy. Well, I need to tell you that probable cause is a fine standard after a crime has been committed. The people that believe probable cause is the appropriate thing to demonstrate would have us wait until the next 9/11 attack until we can take efforts and steps to defend ourselves. That does not work when you are dealing with terrorism.

Folks, the next 9/11-type attack may not be a plane full of citizens. It may be full of biological or chemical or nuclear weapons. And 3,000 deaths may pale in comparison to the devastation that could be heaped upon American metropolitan areas in the next attack.

The 215 provisions are very important to understand. They require a Federal judge, a FISA court to make a determination that, number one, there is a national security investigation already under way about somebody other than an American citizen, this cannot be used against American citizens; and number two, you have to demonstrate that the entire purpose of the 215 subpoena is based on international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. This cannot be used to fight the traditional crimes that most Americans may be concerned about with respect to their liberties and freedoms. We want, and we are protecting, those freedoms.

By the way, President Bush's White House, the OMB, has suggested that if there is any effort to undermine their number one priority as our administration, and that is to protect the safety of Americans, they intend to veto this entire appropriations bill.

Listen, if there are terrorists in libraries studying how to fly planes; if they are studying how to put together biological weapons; if they are studying how to put together chemical weapons, nuclear weapons; if they are studying how nuclear power plants in America, how the architecture and design is structured so that they can cause a devastating attack, we have to have an avenue through the Federal court system, the FISA intelligence courts, that we can stop the attacks before it occurs. Treating it as a crime and waiting until after we have hundreds of thousands of deaths is an inappropriate way to fight terrorism. It works in crime. It does not work for the next terrorism disaster, and that is what the proponents of this amendment are asking for.

215 allows the FBI to request a judicial order. This has to go through a judge. Over and over we hear that we are going to somehow be snooped upon by Federal agents without some sort of due process. Well, a Federal judge is involved at the very outset. It has never been used in a library.

What this amendment seeks to do is to build a sanctuary where every terrorist will know in perpetuity that they will be safe to read, to plan, to do whatever they need to do as long as they do it in a library. It creates a sanctuary that every terrorist will know will protect him or her as they create their evil plots to do awful harm and devastation in the United States of America. That is at all does.

We know there are incidents of the terrorists using our libraries. And yes, so far they have primarily involved use of the Internet. But we also know that terrorists used American flight schools. We also know that terrorists are interested in biological, chemical and nuclear capabilities, and I believe it is appropriate that our law enforcement agents, after the proper showing in Federal court, can get these records and prevent the next attack, not react after we lose hundreds of thousands of lives.

Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) yielding me this time, and he is exactly right. The Committee on the Judiciary has had no less than 10 hearings on the PATRIOT Act, including one specifically devoted to national security letters.

This may be an issue as we move forward on the process to find a way to reform or modify, but there have been no abuses. This is a solution in search of a problem. The fact of the matter is these types of subpoenas are already available to investigate insurance fraud or bad doctors. If we can use these subpoenas to find bad doctors taking advantage of the Medicare or the Medicaid system, why can we not use these subpoenas to track down a terrorist? We are not talking about medical personal records of anybody. We are talking about financial records.

Let us say theoretically, since there have been no abuses, let us say hypothetically al-Zawahiri was injured and sought medical attention. We could potentially track down the financing to locate him.

Let us suppose we had a known terrorist here in the United States that underwent plastic surgery to change his or her identity. We could track down the financial records to possibly intercept that.

These subpoenas have been used since 1996 under the Clinton administration as a tool for health care fraud investigations. If we can use these appropriately under the proper circumstances to find bad doctors, surely a national security letter can be used to track down evil terrorists.

I do not think this is a widespread tool being used on a regular basis, but there may come a time when we rue the day that we have taken away one more law enforcement tool to track down the bad guys.

Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia has done a marvelous job in balancing a lot of important competing priorities. I will tell you that Americans need to be aware of this. We have been the only leader in manned space flight ever since Apollo XIII. But this amendment guts America's future manned space flight program.

In the year 2010, we are due to retire the shuttle. Unless we move forward with a new vehicle, which is what this amendment guts, the funding to do the exploration, the design and the research for, we will have a huge gap. There are nine other countries waiting to watch what we do. The Chinese, for example, are going to have a manned space flight program any day now. Yes, it is important to have local law enforcement; and, yes, we support that;

and, yes, there is great funding in this bill that Chairman Wolf put together; and, yes, 99 percent of those moneys come from local and State government.

But nothing is more important to the long-term security of the United States than space intelligence, space communications, space capability, including manned space flight. What this program does is to take $200 million out of the proposal that the President has to have a continual manned space flight program after the shuttle is retired. We basically are going to say, we are going to have huge personnel reductions, including some of the most talented engineers and scientists in the world that will go do other things.

We are going to basically lay off up to 1,000 people, talking about the next generation of human space flight, all so that we can give out local good-feeling grants to local law enforcement agencies on top of what they already have. The vehicle the President is talking about will be more flexible, will have more capabilities, will take us ultimately not just back to the Moon but on to Mars and beyond unless we gut it here today.

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

Mr. Chairman, all of us understand the intent of this amendment. We would like to stop the use and abuse and the sale of methamphetamine and other dangerous drugs. As a matter of fact, this bill does a great deal towards that end. But the problem with the amendment is that it robs Peter to pay Paul because you are gutting other long-standing law enforcement programs to start up new programs that traditionally have been established and protected at the local and State levels.

In addition, as I mentioned before, one of the things that we are trying to do is not to lose the next space race. In the year 2010, the United States will, by plan, be out of the manned flight business because we will retire the shuttle. The President has proposed making sure we have a replacement vehicle more flexible and capable for the future.

This has huge ramifications for American security, American intelligence, American communications capabilities. The President's proposal and that of Michael Griffin, the new NASA Administrator, is to move up our manned capabilities to the year 2010 so we will have no gap where we have to rely on the Russians or other foreign powers to get us in a manned way into space. By the way, the Chinese are coming. In 2012, they expect to have a vehicle on the Moon. They will have manned flights after that.

Please, do not gut America's predominance in space when it comes to manned space flight and undermine law enforcement across America.

Mr. Speaker, in rollcall vote 239 held today on H.J. Res. 27 I was recorded as ``yea.'' This incorrectly represents my view on this resolution. I intended for my vote to be recorded as ``no.'' I have long been a supporter of free trade, and though I believe the WTO may have some faults, I support the United States membership in the organization.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his distinguished leadership in this and other matters.

Mr. Speaker, it is very sad that as I go back and talk to people in my district about the role of the U.N., Americans know they are very disturbed by the U.N., but they like the idea of having this United Nations as a place where we can promote world peace and world security and do some other things. It is not until you explain the record of the United Nations, and before then the League of Nations, of total failure when it comes to promoting freedom, total failure when it comes to protecting collective security, total failure across the board that they really get frustrated.

I want to congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey. The U.N. is in need of deep and drastic and dramatic reform, and it is very sad to see liberals in the United States Senate hold up a reformer like John Bolton's nomination merely because he believes that America's security and freedom should come first, and the United Nations needs a serious dose of reality.

I will tell you it has been sad historically to watch the fact that the United Nations, that was primarily the child after World War II of the British Government and the United States Government to promote security for the world and peace, has been a failure.

It was NATO that protected the freedom and the peace during the Cold War. The League of Nations, which was started in 1914-1915, failed to deter any major aggressor, including ultimately Hitler's Germany that attacked Western Europe and threatened peace throughout the world.

Just like the League of Nations failed to protect the security of free countries, so the U.N. has never once had any impact on protecting freedom-loving, peaceful countries from aggressive totalitarian countries, the Cold War being the biggest example but not the only example. The U.N. was of absolutely no value whatsoever throughout the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and it was NATO that preserved through power the peace. As Lady Thatcher said, it was Ronald Reagan who won the Cold War without firing a single shot.

Even in smaller regional conflicts, the U.N. historically has been a total waste of time, money, effort and resources. For example, Cuba having forces in Angola was never deterred by the U.N.; the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan, the Vietnamese and the Korean conflicts, again examples of the complete impotence of the United Nations to the detriment of freedom-loving peoples.

As my colleague pointed out, the Saddam Hussein failure has been a dramatic one, but it is just the most recent one, along with the Oil- for-Food scandal, the perverted use of some U.N. troops in undermining the safety of women and children, actually engaging in the rape and torture of these people.

Even when it comes to peacekeeping, something you would think the United Nations would be good at, they have a miserable record. In Somalia, it was U.N. troops that presided over the largest genocide in the last 10 years. They

actually facilitated the genocide by herding together folks that were ultimately slaughtered. In Rwanda, you had the Tutsis slaughtered by their oppressors. The United Nations was totally useless. In Yugoslovia, you had the horrible situation that resulted from the U.N. embargo, denying one side the arms to protect themselves while the other side engaged in mass slaughter in Bosnia and elsewhere.

I want to end, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the gentleman from New Jersey and saying there are some things that the United Nations can help at: distributing food in times of crisis. They are a nice debating society, but they have never once provided any bit of security to the United States or any of our friends. To the extent that they condemn anybody, it is typically our friends like Israel, when they equated Zionism, the belief that the Jewish people ought to have a state where they can be free from threats from oppression and anti-semitism and absolute genocide. It is Israel that has been condemned more than any other nation on Earth by the United Nations.

Finally, the United Nations has never been united in any way, shape or form. Some people say it is a democracy, but it is a democracy where a majority of the people that vote are actually dictators, tyrants. The majority of the United Nations is governed by places like the African Union, the Arab League and the Islamic Conference, often not only hostile to America's interests but some of these nations actually promoting terrorism itself.

So I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey. U.N. reform is a must. If we are not going to reform the U.N., it is time to pull out of the U.N., put together a group of freedom-loving, peaceful nations that will engage in real collective security, and not engage in this mirage where we pour our money down a rat trap, fund our enemies often, and embarrass ourselves by being a participant.

I yield back to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank the gentleman.

The United Nations, to the extent it does anything, it distributes food and resources largely provided by the United States of America. There are other non-governmental organizations that do at least as good a job on most occasions. If it was not for the generosity of American taxpayers and American contributions, much of the world would never recover from some of the horrible disasters that occur.

But I do believe there is a potential role for the United Nations to play in continuing to be a world welfare organization in times of emergency relief perhaps and maybe a cocktail debating society. But unless there are dramatic reforms, they are good for nothing more. And it is a threat to our security if we even pretend that they ever have deterred an aggressor.

As the gentleman points out with his chart, since 1945, their main mission was to deter aggression by hostile countries to freedom. They have failed 300 times to do their main mission. So let us never depend on the United Nations for our security or to protect American interests.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. We appreciate the chairman and the committee's hard work on this bill.

I want to specifically highlight the Rose Bay Ecosystem Project in Florida's 24th Congressional District, which I represent. Here local, county, and State agencies have worked for 10 years now and have spent more than $30 million to restore our natural aquatic ecosystem of Rose Bay. Now this project has stalled, understandably, due to limited funds at a time of war. In the 1940s, Rose Bay was a productive estuary and shellfish harvesting area on the Halifax River in Volusia County. Since the 1990s, local engineers and cities have anted up to their responsibility, and we would hope that the Army Corps of Engineers would live up to the agreed-upon 5-point plan to restore Rose Bay.

I would ask the chairman's help, along with the committee's, to do everything we can to get this project back on the appropriate steps forward.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed that we have descended to this level because I have some great friends that I admire on the other side. The ranking member from Michigan is somebody who has had a distinguished career and I appreciate him. I appreciate the other Members who have spoken tonight and I respect them. I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

We serve on a committee which is not a fluff committee. It often has, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) knows, some very controversial issues. And we typically deal with these issues as ladies and gentlemen with the highest respect for one another, even though we often vehemently disagree.

One thing we know is that last week, the United States House of Representatives overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis, passed House Resolution 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.

One thing we know is that the purpose of this bill was to prevent sexual abusers from taking vulnerable young girls across State lines for the purpose of abortion without telling that young lady's, young woman's mom or dad.

Support for parental notification as we know is widely supported amongst the American public. As a matter of fact, in the State of Florida, which I respect, the people of Florida, amended our Constitution in 2004 and overwhelmingly passed an amendment to our Constitution that provides as follows, ``The legislature is authorized to require by general law for notification to a parent or guardian of a minor before termination of the minor's pregnancy.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary, during its mark-up which I participated in considered several amendments. I have to say that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) who spoke, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) are people that I respect enormously for their passion for their beliefs. They offered amendments. There is nothing in the committee report that disparages any of the intentions of these Members. The committee report does describe the effect of some of the amendments that are offered.

There is a huge difference between accurately describing the effect of an amendment and ascribing ill motives to the people who offered the amendments. These are people of great will, of great determination, of great passion, of great belief but we disagree. And as the chairman said, there is no

exception provided for grandparents who happen to molest a child, for taxicab drivers, for uncles, for nieces in any of the amendments that were offered.

And I did not speak on the amendments. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member said, there was not a whole lot of discussion about some of these amendments and that is try. Not because we did not understand the ramifications. We understood the effect. I did not speak at all because if every one of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary spoke for 5 minutes on each amendment as we are entitled, we would never get through our business protecting children who are impregnated by people that molest them.

And so we knew what we were voting on and the job of the committee staff is to describe the effect of the amendment, not the debate. That is what the Congressional Record does. That is what our ability when we insert language into the Record does. It is not the job of the committee staff.

As the chairman said, my friend from New York (Mr. Nadler) has frequently compared this bill to the Slave Holders Protection Bill in the 1850s. It is a very different story to protect parents and minor children that have been abused, sexually and molested and impregnated than comparing that to the rights of slave holders.

Comparing the rights of parents is something that Americans are for. Protecting the rights of slave holders is something Americans are against. And to compare that I think is very unfair.

I will say that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is somebody I respect a great deal, but the effect of his amendment did not shield anybody that might have been an abuser or a molester of these children.

With that, I ask respectfully that the gentleman withdraw this motion. We can get back together and agree when we can. But, by golly, we would ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to withdraw this privileged motion.

Mr. Speaker, as a former Speaker of the Florida House where the ethics process was never partisan, I have been saddened and disappointed at some of the wild ethics charges made by billionaire socialists and repeated by Democratic Members.

Let me say, there is no greater ethical sin by a Member, and no greater poison to our Congress, than to make false ethical charges against another Member for partisan gain.

The Democratic leadership has created a fog machine to attack Tom DeLay. They claim that the Democratic fog blown at the Leader is smoke; and insist that where there is smoke there must be a fire.

For three months Democratic leaders, while smearing our Leader, have instructed their 5 members of the Ethics Committee to kill the ethics process.

Yesterday, Chairman Hastings offered to hear allegations against the Leader. The Democratic attack machine refused, pandering to billionaire socialists who are organizing this attack not just on Tom DeLay, but the U.S. House itself.

Democrats realize their liberal agenda cannot give them a majority in this House. Realizing they cannot rule the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrats are determined to ruin it.

Mr. Speaker, on December 29 of last year, the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People's Congress took a highly provocative action when it voted to submit an ``Anti-Secession Law'' to the full Congress which convenes on March 5.

The text of this proposed law was not made public, but there can be absolutely no doubt about its intent. It is intended to create in China's national law the legal justification for a military attack against Taiwan.

The law would spell out a range of activities which, if taken by the Taiwanese people and their democratically elected leaders, would legally constitute secession. Many of these activities, such as Constitutional reform and popular referenda, are the mainstay of any democracy. Yet the Chinese would use them as a legal excuse for a military attack.

We all know that Taiwan is caught in a very different bind. On the one hand it is a flourishing democracy, one of the most vibrant in Asia, with unfettered freedoms of speech, the press and assembly and intensely competitive free political parties.

On the other hand it is claimed as sovereign territory by its gargantuan neighbor, the very antithesis of a free and open democratic society! And this neighbor regularly threatens to annex Taiwan by force.

The United States, under the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act, which is the legal bedrock of our policy, insists that the future of Taiwan be determined by peaceful means. And we have demanded that no actions be taken by either Taiwan or the People's Republic of China, that endanger the tenuous peace and stability that now exists across the Taiwan Strait.

Mr. Speaker, we call this situation, difficult as it is, the status quo. We have had, on occasion, to caution Taiwan about actions which might appear to challenge this status quo.

Now the PRC, through belligerent and dangerous legislation, would substantially change the so-called status quo.

There is still time for China to alter its course. It has seemed to change its normally shrill tone toward Taiwan in recent weeks. I urge the Chinese leadership to put this legislation aside, leave the status quo intact and open itself, instead, to meaningful dialogue and negotiations with the leaders of Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, as members of Congress, we have a moral obligation to protect innocent life and not stand idly by while an activist judge seeks to use extreme measures to destroy the life of an innocent woman. By transferring this matter to a Federal court we will ensure Terri is given every possible protection by allowing a Federal judge to see whether her constitutional rights have been violated.

Life is precious and I will always work to see that it is protected. With so much controversy surrounding Terri's final wishes and current physical condition, I believe it is imperative that a Federal court take a fresh look at this case.

I commend my colleagues from both the House and Senate for working around the clock to determine a legislative solution to ensure that Terri's life and her constitutional rights are protected.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote that, ``[t]he care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. I think Jefferson was right. I welcome this opportunity to join my colleagues in this effort to help defend and protect innocent human life.

Offered By: Mr. Feeney

Amendment No. 5: In chapter 2 of title II of the bill,

strike the item relating to ``Contributions for International

Peacekeeping Activities''.

Mr. Speaker, on the dates of February 8-10, 2005, I was absent from session attending to personal matters following the death of a family member. I was unable to attend 12 votes held during my absence. I would like to note for the record that had I been present I would have voted as follows:

``Yea,'' rollcall 20, February 8, H. Res. 46, on motion to suspend the rules and agree; ``yea,'' rollcall 21, February 8, H.R. 315, on motion to suspend the rules and pass; ``yea,'' rollcall 22, February 8, H.R. 548, on motion to suspend the rules and pass; ``yea,'' rollcall 23, February 9, H. Res. 71, on consideration of the resolution; ``yea,'' rollcall 24, February 9, H. Con. Res. 6, on motion to suspend the rules and pass; ``yea,'' rollcall 25, February 9, H. Con. Res. 26, on motion to suspend the rules and agree; ``yea,'' rollcall 26, February 9, H. Con. Res. 30, on motion to suspend the rules and agree, as amended; ``yea,'' rollcall 27, February 10, H. Res. 75, on agreeing to the resolution; ``nay,'' rollcall 28, February 10, H.R. 418, on agreeing to the amendment (Nadler); ``nay,'' rollcall 29, February 10, H.R. 418, on agreeing to the amendment (Farr); ``nay,'' rollcall 30, February 10, H.R. 418, on motion to recommit with instructions; ``yea,'' rollcall 31, February 10, H.R. 418, on passage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends from Pennsylvania and Illinois who did a great job describing the sacrifice that Mr. Mastrapa gave to his country on behalf of the citizens of Iraq and, actually, freedom throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, today we honor a man who honored us and dedicated his life to serving others. I thought I would take a few minutes to share some of the hometown effects of the loss of Sergeant Mastrapa.

Arthur Stacey Mastrapa put country and others above self. He possessed a unique calling for both service and optimism that left a mark on the lives of all he met.

His sister-in-law, Tracy Mastrapa, described this calling: ``He dedicated his life to public service, first in active duty as a military police officer, then as a postal worker, and finally as a Reserve MP. He was called to serve his country, which he did proudly with the utmost integrity.''

His calling led him to join the Army in 1992 and then as he left the Army, to reenlist in the Army Reserves after his active duty years ended.

His career outside the Reserve was also in service of his fellow citizens, this time in central Florida. As a postal worker in Altamonte Springs, Florida, he earned the respect of those around him. One of his colleagues said of his work, ``I respected him for his positive outlook and his level head. Also, his customers remarked how much they liked him and appreciated his dedication. He was a hard worker and good family man.''

Two years ago, Sergeant Mastrapa answered the call to serve for what turned out to be the final time. He and his Reserve unit, the 351st Military Police, were deployed to Iraq. Last June in Iraq, Sergeant Mastrapa made the ultimate sacrifice.

All human beings strive to occupy a valued place. One observer has offered this definition for this desire: ``You occupy a valued place if other people would miss you if you were gone.''

Mr. Speaker, Arthur Mastrapa occupied a valued place. He left behind a wife, Jennifer, and two children Marisa and Reese. They, along with the rest of his family, miss him terribly.

His co-workers miss him as well. One described Sergeant Mastrapa as a man who ``loved his job, loved his family, loved his country.''

Another said, ``I only knew him a short time but it was long enough to know what a great guy he was. Arthur was a family man. He loved his kids and wanted them with him all of the time.''

So in an attempt to honor a man who occupied a valued place, his coworkers requested that a special place be named for him, the post office in Altamonte Springs, Florida, the very place Sergeant Mastrapa worked prior to leaving for Iraq for what turned out to be his final journey.

Today, we are here to carry out his colleagues' wish so they are reminded of Arthur Mastrapa when they arrive for work each new day, and so his wife, his children, his family and his friends can come to see his name and remember his service, his sacrifice and his decency.

In closing, I would like to borrow from the words of President Harry Truman who said, ``We know that helping others is the best way, probably the only way to achieve a better future for ourselves.''

Arthur Stacey Mastrapa's desire to help others and serve his country has made the future a better place to live. I urge my colleagues to approve H. Res. 324 and create a lasting memorial to Sergeant Mastrapa's name.