Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Army Specialist Adam Froehlich who was killed while serving our country in Baqubah, Iraq on March 25, 2004. He was a member of 2nd Platoon, Charlie Battery, 1st Battalion, 6th Field Artillery, a part of the 1st Infantry Division and stationed in Bamberg, Germany. Specialist Froehlich was a true patriot who, deeply moved by the attacks of September 11th, joined the Army after graduating from Overbrook High School in Pine Hill, New Jersey. At Overbrook High School he was a varsity wrestler. After fulfilling his commitment to the Army, Specialist Froehlich planned to use the GI bill to attend college and become a gym teacher. Specialist Froehlich's love of his country predated his enlistment in the Army. His decision to serve his country was a natural path for him to take. Even at his young age, he understood the connection between the freedom that we all enjoy and the historical sacrifices of those in uniform. Specialist Froehlich is survived by his parents Stephen and Rosemarie, his brothers Steve and Jeff, his sister April and his grandfather John, all of South Jersey. He will be laid to rest with full military honors on Saturday April 3, 2004 in Berlin, New Jersey. I extend my deepest sympathy to the Froehlich family and express my immense gratitude for the heroic service of Specialist Adam Froehlich.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me the time. I would like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Conyers), and especially the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for the outstanding efforts in including in this worthy piece of legislation a provision that has been called the Koby Mandell Act. Koby Mandell was a 13-year-old boy in May of 2001 who until he was in fourth grade had lived in the United States in Maryland and his family moved to Israel. In May of 2001, Kolbe and a friend of his went hiking, and they were never to return. During their youthful enjoyment of a hiking outing, Kolbe and his friend were stoned to death by Palestinian terrorists. Now, when an American citizen leaves this country for purposes of living somewhere else, he or she certainly should not leave behind the protection of justice. Unfortunately for Koby Mandell and his family, the concept that passes for justice in the occupied territories did not protect him. Because since the time of his murder, there has been no meaningful investigation or prosecution to bring to justice those who committed this murder. When our citizens travel around the world and are not protected by the law of other places, it is our responsibility to step forward and protect them. That is what this language does. I especially want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), without whose active participation this would not have happened. He used his considerable legislative skills to shepherd through the committee, with the cooperation of the chairman and ranking member, this language. Here is what it means. The Department of Justice will set up an office that will offer and enforce rewards for those who murder Americans when they are on foreign soil, irrespective of where they are on foreign soil. This office will monitor the outcome of any prosecution or incarceration of a person who has murdered an American citizen. If such a person is released from a prison in another land or is not properly dealt with in another land, this office will have responsibility to extradite and bring to trial in this country a person who has committed a crime against an American citizen, to the extent that our laws would permit such a prosecution. This office will be, further, responsible for making sure that if any official authorities that may have been complicit in the murder of the American are still in place, that is to say, if people who are security agents or police officers responsible for the murder of an American citizen are still in place, that appropriate diplomatic and economic actions would be taken against the government that sponsors those authorities. Sadly, in many parts of the world, those who wear the cloak of authority are responsible for criminal acts, murderous acts against Americans and other innocent people. This provision will by no means stop the murder of innocent Americans when they travel abroad, but it will provide us with a new and meaningful tool that will bring to justice those who would commit such heinous acts against innocent people. It is sad that a 13-year-old boy had to give his life, but it is inspiring that his sacrifice of his life has led this institution to consider this very worthy provision. Again, I am very grateful to the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), to the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and especially to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for their skill in including this measure in the underlying legislation. I hope that we will continue to work together as Republicans and Democrats to see that this newly created office will be properly funded so that it may do the job I just talked about. No American should be without the protection of justice, irrespective of where he or she travels in the world. I believe this is an important provision to help ensure that promise. Once again, I thank the leaders for including it in the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me the time. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for their terrific leadership on this very important bill that helps a lot of children. I am honored to have had the chance to work with the committee on this bill and on four areas in particular that I think are a great step forward. The first is children who are in WIC-eligible families that are eligible for the Women, Infants and Children Program. Some of these children were not enrolled in the school lunch program, even though they were legally entitled to, because the right forms were not filed. This bill gives States the option of automatically enrolling children who are in the WIC program in the school lunch program, which is an excellent idea. The second thing we had the chance to work on was to make sure that children who attend for-profit schools and preschool centers will have a fair opportunity on a continuing basis to receive the benefits of this program. We think that every child, irrespective of the educational setting, ought to have that opportunity. The third group of children that this helps are children in summer schools. We are learning through our research in education that many children benefit from year-round schooling, summer school in particular. This bill extends more school nutrition to more summer school students, and I was proud to help make that a reality. Finally, there are a lot of children who for health or cultural or religious reasons prefer soy milk. The chairman deserves great credit for brokering a very good compromise on this issue, a very contentious issue, where under this bill if a parent sends a note to school with the child, expressing the desire that the child wishes to have soy milk, then the child gets it. That is a significant improvement over present law which requires a doctor's note, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member and the leaders of the subcommittee for making that very fine compromise a reality. A lot of children will be helped by this bill. I am proud to support it. I congratulate its authors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, in October 2002, I voted to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, and I would again. I think it was the right decision for this country. I agree with the resolution statement that the world is safer with the removal of this leader from Baghdad; I believe it is. And the succession of changes that we have seen in Syria, Libya, and Iran are evidence of that. I went to Iraq in January and saw young people serving this country in uniform and the leadership that they showed us, and I was so proud of them. They have never let us down. I think today with this resolution we are letting them down. Leadership is about unifying people; it is about healing wounds; it is about bringing people together. There are many patriotic Members of this body who in good faith believe the world is not safer because Saddam Hussein is gone. I respectfully disagree with them, but we should have been able to come together today on the first anniversary of the initiation of hostilities and focus on the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and the guardsmen, and we should have been able to focus on what we agree on; and what we agree on is we respect their service, we mourn the loss of our dead, we are ready to heal those who have come home wounded, and then we are ready to debate the foreign policy of this country as to how we should go forward. We have let our troops down by this resolution, and it is a shame.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would agree with my friend from North Carolina. I think the Founding Fathers would be appalled that we were invading the 10th amendment purview of the States to determine these questions and imposing this standard for reasons that are lost on me.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Florida, who just spoke, that I respectfully believe that he is in error in two points in criticizing the amendment. First, he says that my amendment imposes regulation on the food industry; that is not the case. It provides the industry with a choice. If it chooses to reach for the immunity granted by the underlying bill, yes, then it is subject to this disclosure requirement. But if it chooses not to reach for that immunity, then it is not subject to the disclosure requirement. Second, the gentleman is critical of the lack of definitions in the amendment. I would submit that this amendment will be defined and interpreted in the same way his underlying bill is, which is to say there will be litigation over the meaning of ambiguous terms and the courts will determine what they mean. Unless I am missing something, I notice that the underlying bill does not define the word ``obesity,'' for example, and there could be a spate of litigation as to whether a suit is over a product associated with obesity or not, because you claim it is associated with diabetes or it is associated with heart disease or it is associated with mental illness. I mean, one could make a lot of different claims to work one's way around the bill. As the gentleman knows, and I know he is a skilled attorney, as the gentleman knows, one of the functions of our judiciary is to provide case law that defines terms not specifically defined in statute. So no one should oppose this amendment if they believe that it imposes regulations on the food industry, because it does not. I would conclude by saying that when the gentleman says that this subject matter is best dealt with through the Committee on Commerce and the Food and Drug Administration, he is right, which is one of the reasons why we should defeat the underlying bill on the floor.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the rationale of the underlying bill, with which I disagree, but the rationale of the underlying bill is that educated and knowing consumers who make a choice as to what they eat are responsible for the consequences of what they eat. So that if someone eats a lot of food that is high in saturated fat and suffers heart disease or other health-related problems as a result, that they are responsible for that result, and it should not be the person who sold them the food. Frankly, I think that the judicial system of the country is reaching the same answer and does not need our interference to push them toward that answer, but that is the underlying premise of the bill. Informed consumer choice trumps litigation. My amendment is designed to provide an informed consumer choice, and here is what it says. It says that if a seller of food is selling genetically-altered food, it can only receive the immunity granted by this bill if the seller of the genetically-altered food fully discloses to the person buying and eating the food the fact that it has been genetically-altered and the nature of the genetic alteration that took place. Let me explain. We have had instances where, for example, the cornmeal that is used for taco shells has been found to be genetically-altered. People have three objections to this. The first is that they are fearful it will make them sick. The jury is out on this. There are people who will say that these foods are dangerous. There are people who will say that the foods are not dangerous. But there are people who want to make that choice for themselves as to whether or not they eat genetically-altered food. The second problem is that people may have allergies to genetically- altered food, but if they are not aware of the fact that the food has been altered in such a way, they may be subjecting themselves to the health hazards associated with an allergic reaction. Thirdly, there are people who, for religious or cultural reasons, do not wish to eat genetically-altered food, particularly if the genes that are used for that genetic alteration come from a food product that they do not ordinarily eat as part of their religious or cultural practices. So what this bill says is that we offer the food purveyor a choice. If the food purveyor discloses fully to the consumer the fact that the food has been genetically-altered and is precise in disclosing the nature of the genetic alteration, then that food purveyor will enjoy the immunity granted by this bill. But if the food purveyor chooses not to make that disclosure, if it chooses not to disclose the fact that the food has been genetically-altered and chooses not to disclose the nature of the genetic alteration, well then, under those circumstances, that food purveyor would not enjoy the immunities granted by this bill. Mr. Chairman, between 1987 and 2000, the United States Department of Agriculture authorized 14 field tests of crops engineered with animal or human genes. An example of some of the combinations being done are chicken genes in corn, wheat, and Creeping Bent Grass. Human genes in barley, corn, tobacco, rice, and sugarcane. Mouse genes in corn, along with human genes. Cow genes in tobacco, carp genes in safflower, pig genes in corn, Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, or SIV and Hepatitis B genes in corn. Now, as I said a minute ago, Mr. Chairman, the jury is out as to whether there are deleterious health effects with respect to genetically-altered food. We are going to have scientific evaluation and come to a conclusion on that question. But I would certainly think the majority, which believes so strongly in informed choice by consumers, would extend that principle to this case and would want consumers to be fully informed that they are choosing genetically- altered food and they would want them to know the nature of the genetic alteration. The idea behind this amendment is to encourage that disclosure, not require it, but to encourage that disclosure by granting the underlying immunity that is granted in the bill to food purveyors who make the disclosure and denying the underlying immunity in the bill to those who fail to make that disclosure. The argument for this bill, as I understand it, is that personal responsibility should trump litigation. If you know what you are eating and you choose to eat it, and you get sick as a result of eating it, you live with the consequences and you cannot visit those consequences through civil litigation on the person who sold you the food. Well, if you accept that underlying principle, then you ought to accept the argument that in the case of genetically-altered food, the consumer has the right to know, because if the consumer does not have the right to know, then the consumer is not making a knowing and intelligent choice as to what he or she is eating. That has consequences for potential health risks, it has consequences for exposure to allergic reaction, and it has consequences for the religious and cultural practices that many of our fellow citizens and many other residents of America follow in their dietary practices. I disagree with the underlying premise of this bill, but I would implore those who disagree with me on that point to embrace this amendment, because if you want to support knowing and voluntary choice in the food you are eating, then let us really make it a knowing and voluntary choice when it comes to the very controversial question of genetically-altered foods. There are many Members of this Chamber who believe that genetically- altered foods are appropriate. They oppose legislation that would limit or prohibit the use of genetically-altered foods. There are other Members who feel strongly that genetically-altered foods should be limited or prohibited. Irrespective of where one comes down on that debate, it seems to me one ought to embrace the position that the consumer has the right to make that choice. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I would like to speak in favor of the Scott amendment. The wisdom of the common law has evolved and worked for centuries. It is older than the United States of America. It is bizarre that this House created one exception to the common law in the case of gun manufacturers, now it is trying to create another one in the case of certain food purveyors. If you can sum up the history of the western jurisprudential system, it is that common law is usually right and statutory interferences with common law is usually wrong.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Watt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I must say with respect to the issue of federalism and the proper role, I think the comparison of this issue to civil rights is completely inapposite. The principle of civil rights is when State legislation or State action violates a fundamental constitutional right, it cannot stand. There is no fundamental constitutional right involved here. This is the power the 10th amendment expressly meant to be reserved to the States, either through their legislatures or their courts.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I must begin by thanking the staff of the House of Representatives for enduring these long nights so we have a chance to speak our minds about the important subjects of the day. We certainly appreciate the Speaker and the staff who stay here into the wee hours. I also extend my appreciation to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for the intense causes in which he believes and for his patriotism. I must say, one of the reasons I love my country so much is we have the academic freedom that decisions about what we teach and how we teach it are made by educators and teachers and not by those of us in this Chamber, and I hope that is always the case. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a challenge to the values that I just made reference to, probably the most important challenge to these values that we have faced in many generations in this country. In the 1970s a young man named Ghollam Nikbin came to the United States from Iran. He came here to study at an American university. While he was here, the fundamentalist revolution in Iran took place and in 1979 his country changed dramatically and he chose not to return to Iran. At the time he came to the United States he was a person who practiced the Islamic faith. While he was in the United States, he met an American citizen who was a member of the Mormon faith and he married this American citizen and he converted. Mr. Nikbin converted to the Mormon faith himself. That marriage subsequently ended in divorce and in 1991, Mr. Nikbin returned to his native Iran to live his life. While there, he met another woman and they decided to get married and he had a wedding. During his wedding, members of the police force in Iran raided the wedding because the men and women at the wedding were engaged in dancing. Men were dancing with women. For this hideous offense, Mr. Nikbin was publicly lashed 40 times with a whip to punish him for his transgression against the prevailing culture. Things grew worse for Mr. Nikbin in Iran. He was a suspicious person because he had converted to the Mormon faith and then attempted to convert back to his native Islamic faith. So in 1995 he tried to leave the country. As he was at the airport, he was intercepted by Iranian authorities who refused to let him leave the country. He was beaten with an electric cable and he was hung upside down by his ankles for extended periods of time. Today he is 56 years old. He has returned to the United States. His family says he was able to return to the United States because they were able to bribe the appropriate officials in Iran to get him released from the country. His crime was that he converted to a faith other than radical Islam. A woman named Zahara Kazemi, a woman of both Iranian and Canadian descent, a 54-year-old woman, last June 23 took an assignment. She was a photo journalist. She took an assignment to go to Iran to do her work as a photo journalist. On the 23rd of June of last year, she was taking photographs of a student demonstration outside of the Evin prison in Iran. She was apprehended by authorities for the hideous crime of taking a photograph of a demonstration. After 77 hours of interrogation in an Iranian prison, she took sick. On the 11th of July of last year, 18 days after she arrived in Iran, she died in an Iranian hospital while in the custody of the Iranian authorities. At first, their report is that she had suffered a stroke and died of natural causes. Many in our sister nation of Canada expressed outrage as to the conditions around Ms. Kazemi's death and the Canadian government was persistent and, finally, 5 days after she died, authorities of the Iranian government indicated that it was not a stroke at all, that she had died from beatings that led to a cerebral hemorrhage, a 54-year-old woman beaten to death in an Iranian prison because she dared to take photographs of a peaceful demonstration. What kind of monstrous spirit would give rise to these atrocities? It is a spirit we have seen before. It is the spirit, the horrible spirit, the horrible poisonous spirit that led 6 million Jews to the gas chambers during the Holocaust. It is the horrifying spirit that sees people strap C4 to their waists and walk into hotels and onto buses and near schools in the Middle East every day. It is the awful animus that led to the bombings in Riyadh, in Ankara within the last year. The victims are of all faiths, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic. They are of all races and all nationalities. What these horrific acts have in common is they are rooted in the poisonous well of an intolerant hatred of anyone who is not like those who practice that intolerant hatred. This poisonous attitude is contrary to everything that we are as Americans. It is against inclusion of people of other races and cultures. It is an attitude that despises the equal treatment of men and women under the law. It is an attitude that looks at other faiths not as an opportunity to learn how other people might live but as a threat to one's own twisted faith. By no means is this poisonous attitude representative of the Islamic faith. I believe the Islamic faith is a faith of peace, of humanity, of inclusion. By no means is this twisted attitude wholly representative of the Arab culture or the Arab ethnicity. I believe that the vast majority of men and women of Arab descent love peace, respect others and wish that their children would grow up in a world where others share those values. But make no mistake about it, the poisonous well from which these acts spring is an attitude that identifies everything Western, everything modern, everything progressive, everything that America loves and everything that Americans are. It is an attitude that identifies all those things as a threat to be detested, defeated and destroyed. It is an attitude that we saw in the rubble of the World Trade Center on September 11 of 2001. It is an attitude that literally blew a hole in the Pentagon. It is an attitude that led dozens of brave Americans to their death in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Many of us believe that September 11, 2001, was not an isolated criminal act. It was an act of war that shocked Americans into a realization that we are in the midst of a great global struggle between those who love and tolerate diversity and those who deplore it and try to destroy it. So the reason we should care about the stories I told you about Ghollam Nikbin, Zahara Kazemi, the stories that I could have told about hundreds of Iranian students who are in Iranian prisons tonight, the reason we should care is that the hateful attitude from which the attacks on them sprung is an attitude that targets us next, an attitude that seeks to destroy us and our way of life. By no means is it fair or accurate to say that such an attitude is common or characteristic of the Iranian people, by no means is it fair or accurate to say that it is characteristic of the history of their nation, and by no means is it accurate to say that this hatred will mar and define the future of the people of Iran. I aspire to a future where the people of the United States and the people of Iran are partners in peace and freedom, where we celebrate each other's differences and respect each other's values. But that is not the case today. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we in this House and we in this country could focus on the very grave and real threat posed to the peace that we enjoy tonight by the presence of the terrorist incubator in Iran. When we consider what our policy should be toward Iran, we should not think about September 11 of 2001 because there frankly is no evidence that I have seen that would suggest that the Iranian government was in any way a sponsor of the atrocious attacks on our country on September 11. In fact, the evidence is rather replete with examples that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization have been at odds with the radical fundamentalist Iranian leadership. But the question is not who allied to attack us on September 11. The issue is who wishes to attack us in the future, where the threats exist for our future. To understand why we want to prevent the next 9/11, why we want to limit the next attack on this country so it does not succeed and so we can defeat such an attack, we need to understand where the first 9/11 came from. In order for terrorists to succeed, they need personnel, they need leadership, they need financial and logistical support, and their leaders need sanctuary. Their leaders need a place where they can plan, plot and eventually execute attacks against the people of the United States of America. September 11 happened because Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization had all four of those elements to attack us. They had the personnel, the 19 twisted individuals who hated us more than they loved life to the point that they were able to turn civilian airliners into weapons of mass destruction. They had the leadership, the odious cadre of dark men who surround Osama bin Laden, who conceived of such a horrific plot. They had the finances and the logistics, passing through international financial organizations, in many cases laundered through Saudi Arabia, laundered through other institutions, many of which to this day refuse to disclose their banking records to us. The terrorists were able to gather the logistics they needed to place the hijackers in America, buy their plane tickets, acquire their training, keep their cover and let them prepare to do their horrible deeds. And, finally, and I think crucially, the September 11 attackers flourished in the terrorist sanctuary of Afghanistan. At the time Afghanistan was run by the Taliban regime, a group that not only tolerated the presence of al Qaeda but actively facilitated the presence of al Qaeda. I think the argument is rather clear. Without a sanctuary in Afghanistan, there would have been no place for Osama bin Laden to plot this attack. Without a place to plot this attack and gather his resources, there would not have been an opportunity to carry out the attack. Without the opportunity to carry out the attack, there certainly would not have been the carnage and pain this country felt and still feels emanating from September 11. What is the lesson of September 11? There are two lessons. The first is if you give terrorists sanctuary, they will exploit that sanctuary and, like a snake that is coiled in the corner, they will wait till precisely the right moment to strike. And the second lesson of September 11 is if you wait for the snake to strike, it always will. If our strategy in the face of this global struggle is to wait and see if terrorists who enjoy sanctuary will attack us, I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that is a question. I think history is conclusive on this point. If you wait for terrorists to attack you, they will. This is the context in which we must understand what is happening in Iran today and why it is important to the United States of America to rethink the way we approach this problem. Iran is a place where terrorist organizations who disrupt the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations find refuge, find weaponry, find cash. It is a place where admittedly significant al Qaeda elements are present tonight. There is an argument as to exactly what they are doing. The Iranian authorities would tell us that they are in the custody of the Iranian government. Some would suggest that the Iranian government are using these al Qaeda leaders as pawns to try to facilitate the release of terrorists held by the Israelis and other law-abiding nations of the world. But irrespective of the purpose for which the Iranian government holds al Qaeda terrorists tonight, the fact is they are present in Iran tonight. They found Iran to be a place that was a willing sanctuary for their activities. There can be no good inured to America's benefit from that sanctuary continuing. What do terrorists need? They need leadership. They need people who are willing to conceive of these terrible plans that spring from this awful wellspring of intolerance and hatred. They need personnel. They need to recruit young men and young women and, in some cases, children who are willing to put their own lives at stake to manifest that hatred by killing thousands of others. They need money and logistics to carry out their attack. They need weaponry, and they need sanctuary. I think it is indisputable that Iran is such a sanctuary. It is indisputable that if tonight the CIA, the National Security Agency, other U.S. intelligence operatives had information that there were terrorists at loose in Iran and they asked for the cooperation of the Iranian government, I think it is indisputable that at best, at best, we would get noninterference; at worst we would get active resistance. Mr. Speaker, if those same terrorists were loose in Jordan, the Jordanian government would help us. If those terrorists were loose in Kuwait, the Kuwaiti government would help us. If they were loose in Israel, the Israeli government would not need our help. They would just find them and take care of the problem. If they were loose in the countries of our European allies, I am quite confident that we would have the assistance of those allies, in South America, in the Philippines. Iran is a place where terrorists will find the medium in which their peculiar form of bacteria need to grow. What logistics might Iran supply to a terrorist who wants to attack the United States of America? Today for every 100 containers that enter the ports of the United States in these huge containers we see out by the ports, for every 100 of those containers that enter the United States, two of them were inspected, 98 were not. It is commonly known that one of the ways that we are at risk is that as the huge influx of trade comes and goes from our country in container ships, that the planting of a small nuclear weapon on a container ship could cause catastrophic results in this country that would dwarf the pain of September 11. Where might terrorists find such a nuclear bomb? Sadly, there are a number of places. One of those places is from hungry former Soviet scientists who were living relatively well under the old regime in the USSR and then found themselves driving cabs and waiting on tables and very hungry and very anxious in the years that follow. It is one of the great bipartisan failures of this country for which we all should take responsibility, myself included, that we have not been sufficiently vigilant since the waning days of the Soviet Empire in identifying, corralling, and destroying weapons of mass destruction that were held by the Soviet Union. There are too many of them in too many places. They are too cheap and too portable. We owe thanks to the great work of former Senator Nunn and present Senator Lugar for giving us the legal authority to solve this problem. We are sadly negligent in not using that legal authority to its greatest extent. Where else might a terrorist find a small nuclear bomb that could be transported in a container ship to the United States? Mr. Speaker, if we would have asked the Iranian government that question 2 years ago, they would have said not here; we are not in the business of trying to make nuclear bombs, not us. For years, for 23 years, since the installation of the present regime in Tehran, the official party line was that the Iranian government was not interested in the manufacture of a nuclear weapon. In December of 2002, that all changed. Iranian dissidents who were fortunate to escape the country began talking to intelligence leaders around the world, and they talked with specificity. They talked about centrifuges, fissile materials. They talked about the enrichment of uranium. They talked about a program of plutonium separation that could lead to the manufacture of a nuclear bomb. And enough of them talked to enough people, and enough enlightened people paid attention, that in December of 2002, while our country was fixated upon the very grave question of what to do about Saddam Hussein in Iraq, while we were grappling with many other problems in our own country, in December of 2002, the government of Iran acknowledged that reports that it was building facilities capable of producing the fissile materials that would lead to a nuclear weapon were true. The Iranian government admitted this. After 23 years of deception, the Iranian government admitted that facilities at Iraq and Natanz in Iran were, in fact, facilities which were capable of producing the fissile materials necessary to make a nuclear bomb. On February 21 of last year, 2003, the leader of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr. ElBaradei, visited Iran after extreme international pressure following the Iranian disclosure. On June 6 of 2003, Mr. ElBaradei issued a report saying that the facilities that I mentioned, in particular the Natanz facility, was an advanced uranium enrichment facility capable of performing the steps necessary and essential to the creation of a nuclear bomb. On September 12 of 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued an ultimatum to the Iranians which said by October 31 of last year, Iranians were to prove to the world that they were not working on building nuclear bombs. The clock ticked. The world was not very specific as to what we would do if the Iranians failed to provide that proof, reminiscent of how the world was similarly negligent in dealing with Saddam Hussein for 12 long years. Finally, on October 21 of 2003, the Iranians invited representatives of the French, German, and British governments to Tehran. They began to negotiate and they worked out a joint communique with the governments of France and Germany and the United Kingdom, which said that the Iranians would permit full inspections, they would suspend their uranium enrichment program, that they would sign international agreements that civilized nations follow with respect to the production of nuclear weapons, and that essentially they would stop trying to build a nuclear weapon. The world reacted with cautious optimism. The Iranians handed over files and files of documents that described what they had been doing over the course of more than 2 decades in the past. Those documents showed that the Iranians had engaged in a secretive uranium enrichment program over at least a 19-year period for which there could be no plausible explanation other than it was leading to the production of a nuclear bomb. The world was divided as to what to do about this, and the consensus on the International Atomic Energy Agency was that we should criticize the Iranians for what they had done and lied about in the past and then warn them not to do it again. Warnings like the ones we gave to the Taliban repeatedly throughout the 1990s not to cooperate with Osama bin Laden, warnings like we gave to Saddam Hussein repeatedly throughout the 1990s that he was to disengage his weapons programs and to leave his neighbors alone. Warnings. The warnings have not had the intended effect. Two weeks ago, the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency released on February 24 of 2004 found some curious evidence, and that is that the Iranians had agreed to stop their program of uranium enrichment, which is one path to build a nuclear bomb; but another path to build a nuclear bomb is called plutonium separation. Obviously, the Iranians who signed this agreement got very good legal advice because they learned how to define their way out of the problem because the Iranians did not breach apparently in the last few months their responsibility not to carry out uranium enrichment programs, but they did evidently step up a program that is involved in the separation of plutonium, yet another path to reach the same horrible result. Mr. ElBaradei said Iran is moving in the right direction with respect to this weapons program, that there is reason for optimism, that there are moderate influences beginning to influence the Iranian government. Well, can we afford to take the chance that he is wrong? International experts suspected for 2 decades that Iran was pursuing the development of a nuclear bomb, but they never knew for sure; and I know that the annals of intelligence estimates are filled with conclusions that the best judgment was that Iran was not marching toward the creation of a nuclear bomb. Those assessments were wrong. If this new set of assessments is wrong, we will find out to our peril what the consequences of that error are. Is the present leadership of Iran capable of placing a small nuclear bomb on a cargo ship in a container and floating it into the harbor of a major American city? Some would say, no, they are not capable. It would not be in their interest to do so. There would be massive retaliation against them by the United States. Others would say they are imminently capable of such atrocities. The family of Zahara Kazemi I would assume would agree with that proposition. Mr. Ghollam Nikbin I assume would agree with that proposition. Those who sit tonight in Iranian prisons and those who have been executed in Iranian prisons in recent days and weeks, if they were alive, would agree with that proposition. Should we wait and see? Should it be our policy to take an educated guess and find out? Many intelligence analysts took an educated guess about the Taliban in Afghanistan 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 3 years ago, and here is what their assessment was: the Taliban are terrible people. Osama bin Laden is an awful force in the world. He was behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. He was behind the attack of the USS Cole in the year 2000. He was involved in the Khobar Towers bombing. Something needs to be done. But the assessment about the Taliban's role in this was that it was ludicrous to think that the Taliban government was a threat to the United States. It is certainly not an imminent threat to the United States. A government that could barely manage its own affairs, a government that was not a threat to its own neighbors militarily, was certainly not a threat to the United States of America. There would have been those who would stand on this floor 3 years ago and argue passionately that for us to aggressively pursue a policy of regime change in Afghanistan would be a gross overreaction. Why should we worry about a regime as weak as that one? On September 11, 2001, we got our answer. Regimes that harbor terrorists, regimes that have the capability of arming terrorists with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, regimes that finance and facilitate terrorism, are a threat to the people of the United States of America. These regimes should not be negotiated with, they should not be heeded, they should not be abided. They should be replaced. Which American tonight would not agree that we would have prospered from regime change in Afghanistan 3 years ago? There is lots of dispute tonight as to whether we are prospering from regime change in Baghdad tonight. I certainly think we are. I think it is one of the reasons that Mu'ammar Qadhafi voluntarily surrendered his nuclear weapons, so he will not wind up living in a spider hole at the end of this year. I think it is one of the reasons that President Assad in Syria for the first time in his tenure as president is furtively working behind the scenes to open negotiations with the Israelis, so that maybe some day he will expel Hamas and Hizbollah from his countries. I think it is one of the reasons why the Saudi Arabians, after years of culpability in terrorism, years of a ``deal with the devil'' in which they looked the other way when terrorists operated within their country, are now more actively cooperating in the crackdown on those terrorists. And I think it is one of the reasons why the Iranians in December of 2002, on the verge of the United States action against Iraq, decided to come clean about 23 years of lying about the development of a nuclear weapon. Regime change in Iran should be the policy of the United States of America; not negotiation, not cooperation, regime change. Regime change does not mean military action. Military action is the final step. Military action is the last, and, if necessary, essential step, if necessary, to regime change. Far more effective to the pursuit of this goal are the diplomatic, economic and moral assets of the United States of America. I am not calling for the use of military force against Iran; I am calling for the concerted, coordinated use of this country's diplomatic, economic force to achieve a regime change in Tehran. I believe it is not only in the interests of human rights, of persecuted citizens of that country, it is in the interests of the national security of the United States of America. What does regime change mean in Iran? Who is the regime? The answer to this question is not self-evident. Iran is a schizophrenic state. On the surface, it is conducting what appears to be a parliamentary government with what appear to be reasonably free elections with what appears to be something resembling democracy. These appearances are lethally deceptive. The President of Iran got 77 percent of the vote in the popular election, but I think realistically he has zero percent of the power in that country. Instead, a council of elders, 12 men, 12, have effective control over the military, over the economic institutions of that country, over the meaningful ebb and flow of life in Iran. Even though those 12 have such control, they are wary, they are reluctant to even let the appearance of that control stray too far. In the last month or so in Iran there were elections scheduled for the national legislative body of that country, and most outside analysts saw those elections as a struggle between the so-called more moderate liberalizing forces of the country and the more conservative cultural forces of that country. 3,600 candidates of the moderate persuasion were removed from the ballot by the council of elders. Twelve people, none of whom were elected, each of whom was appointed through the religious oligarchy of Iran, 12 people used their power to remove 3,600 people from the ballot. 1,000 or so were restored after huge public protests. But I believe that the only conclusion one can draw from this is that the feeble images of democracy in Iran are only a deceptive image, and not a meaningful reality for that country. These are foreboding and difficult thoughts, but there is great reason to be optimistic that the regime change that would benefit America is very much on the minds of young men and women, and older men and women, who live under the oppressive yoke of the medieval government of Iran. So many Iranian Americans are engaged in conversations with their brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers back home. Iranian Americans make a magnificent contribution to this country every day, in our hospitals, in our universities, in our corporations, in our governments, in our military, and these loyal and patriotic Americans, who have had a taste of freedom, a taste of what it means to be respected for your religious differences and not reviled, they have spread the word of this intoxicating freedom to their loved ones back in Iran. Even though Iran is a place where you can be whipped for dancing at a wedding, even though it is a place where you can be beaten to death in prison for taking a photograph of a peaceful demonstration, it is a place where the rulers still cannot stop the flow of technology. The Internet, the fax machine, the cellular phone, these are the most powerful weapons against tyranny in the history of mankind. And even in a place like Iran, the leaders cannot make themselves impervious to the rush of truth that comes into their country in greater torrents with each passing day. I think that people in Iran are looking for a signal from the United States of America. They are not looking for weakness or ambiguity or vacillation. We are students of our own history, and we know that at the time the colonies rebelled against the British, there were many naysayers in America. There were many who said that this was a foolish experiment; that it was reckless for people to pledge their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor to try to do something better. It was suicidal, it was crazy. Some were active opponents of the revolution. Others, and these others may have been more dangerous, sat on the fence. They were not sure what signal they should send. They were not sure whether they were ready to fight for their freedom or not. The United States has sent a powerful signal I think to the world by saying that we are willing to take on, with our allies, the difficult work of introducing that sacred gift of freedom to the people of Iraq. We should not be ambiguous in offering that same gift to the people of Iran. We should not, we should not, be engaged in any overt military acts, unless intelligence would warrant action to the contrary, specific intelligence. I repeat, I am not calling for a policy of military engagement against the Iranian government. But I am absolutely calling for an expression as clear as a bell that the freedom that we enjoy here, the freedom that we aspire to see the people of Iraq enjoy, is the freedom that we wish to see the people of Iran enjoy, and we will not be fooled or deceived by the false front of a faux democratic government. We will not relent in our opposition to that government's effort to build a nuclear bomb. We will not back down in the face of any international criticism as to the purity and import of this evil. It would be horribly wrong and horribly prejudicial to leave anyone with the impression that any significant portion of the 1 billion Muslims in this world are dedicated to the eradication of us and our way of life. They are not. It would be horribly wrong and horribly false to leave anyone with the impression that people of the Arab culture and descent or the Persian culture and descent are dedicated to the destruction of our way of life. They are most emphatically not. I believe that the vast majority of people of the Islamic faith, of the Arab and Persian ethnicities, wish to live in freedom and to celebrate diversity and to join the future, rather than wallowing in the past. But it is irrefutable that there is a force present in the world, a small but malignant force present in the world, that wishes to do us grave harm, that wishes to destroy our way of life and destroy the chance to spread our way of life to those in all corners of the world who would wish to enjoy it, and that force calls itself radical Islam. It is a perversion of the Islamic faith. It is a hijacking of that faith of peace. But it is what those who practice this poisonous attitude call themselves. And where they find sanctuary and where they find money and where they find weaponry and where they find personnel and where they find leadership, these are the places that will incubate the next September 11. There are really two views about terrorism in America, and they are not liberal and conservative, or Republican and Democrat, or military and diplomatic. The two views are these: Some people view terrorism as a series of essentially unrelated crimes; horrible crimes, but crimes that spring from independent criminals. With the exception of the link between the USS Cole bombing and the first World Trade Center and the second one, all of which can be attributed to al Qaeda, proponents of this view would argue that we need to react to each one of these isolated incidents by prosecuting those who committed the offense, shoring up our defenses so it cannot happen again. The other view of terrorism, which I hold and I believe that history teaches us is the correct view, is that these are not a series of isolated incidents; that we are engaged in a struggle between those who would destroy our way of life and those who would stand by us and protect our way of life. The most horrific example of that struggle was the one that he experienced in September of 2001. Shame on us if we do not learn from that example. If we draw the lesson that September 11 was about one terrorist organization operating out of one country that on one occasion was able to succeed in a massive terrorist attack against this country, we are misreading history to our great peril. If instead we understand what happened then differently, if instead we say that the lesson that we learn is that when you give terrorists leadership and personnel and money and weaponry and sanctuary, they will attack. It is not in our interest to make lists of countries that we want to attack. It diminishes our strength. It lessens our standing in the world, and we should not do it. But it is most emphatically in our interest to categorize and understand where the next sanctuary might be. Everyone in this Chamber wishes that he or she had the foresight to know that Afghanistan was such a sanctuary 3 years ago. We could have avoided a calamity of unspeakable proportions in this country. The issue tonight, Mr. Speaker, is where is the next sanctuary. I believe that the heroic actions accomplished by American troops and allied troops in Iraq has gone a long way toward removing Iraq as such a sanctuary. I am certain that the heroic efforts of our troops in Afghanistan have essentially removed Afghanistan as such a potential sanctuary. Tonight our attention should very much be focused on Iran as such a sanctuary. It is a state that is capable of imprisoning and beating innocent people for dancing and taking photographs. It is a state that for 23 years lied about its development of nuclear bombs. It is a state that is either trying to put a good-faith effort forward to stop its weapons program or trying to put the best face on an effort that really is not taking place as the weapons program continues. The lesson of September 11 is do not take chances on estimates. Act and make sure others cannot act against you. I believe that this country should engage in three steps immediately. First, we should unambiguously announce that the policy of the United States of America is to encourage regime change in Iran, by which I mean the Council of Elders that runs the country; and by which I mean the replacement of that Council of Elders with a truly representative group of people chosen by the Iranian people. The second thing we should do is fully enforce the Iran Sanctions Act passed by this Congress a few years ago. We should inventory every trade, aid, economic and regulatory tool at our disposal and use those tools. We should broadcast freedom into Iran more aggressively. We should break down the information barriers and tell young Iranians that we will be on their side if they rise up and fight for freedom. We should encourage the patriotic, law abiding citizens of this country who are of Iranian descent to become actively engaged in encouraging their brothers and sisters in their native land to make the regime change that will benefit them and us. The third step is that we should seek international cooperation on every level for this effort. It will not be easy. There will be those who will say this is yet another American overreaction, that this is a further policy of American unilateralism. We should never be unilateral. We should always seek the cooperation of allies. We should also understand the attacks that are launched by terrorists will be unilateral. They will have one target. They will start with the Israelis. They always do. But they will eventually get to the United States of America. We should ask for and actively seek the cooperation of our European and Asian friends in meeting these efforts. Frankly, the actions of the International Atomic Energy Agency have been very helpful in this regard. We should continue those efforts, but we should not make the mistake of assuming that their security risk here is the same as our security risk. When there is a demonstration sponsored by the medieval elements in a country like Iran, it is not the German flag that they burn. They do not shout death to Germany. They do not destroy likenesses of the Eiffel Tower or Big Ben. They burn the American flag. They smash likenesses of the American Capitol, and they clearly let us know that we are the ones who are in their sights. So be it. If we understand that we are the targets, then we must understand we have a special responsibility to act. I believe that this is a program for peace. I think the best way to achieve peace is to show those who would disrupt peace that you will not tolerate it. It is peace through strength, and after we have been lied to for 23 years about the creation of a nuclear bomb, a nuclear bomb which could be floated into the harbors of this country and used as a weapon of awful destruction against the people of America, after we have seen the torture against innocent people that takes place in Iran every day and is taking place tonight, I think the stakes are clear. If we are true to our conviction of peace through strength, we will make regime change the policy of the United States of America. Not through violence, not through attack, not through aggression, not through war. We should always reserve the right to act in our defense. But we should always understand that the best way to project our power is through our freedom, our economic might, our diplomatic credibility which sadly needs to be rebuilt in many ways. It is my objective as a Member of the United States Congress that I will never again have another day like September 12, 2001, when I came to this building not sure whether it was safe to be in, after a sleepless night, and asked myself what I had failed to do to prevent the mayhem that had occurred in my country the day before. I asked myself whether any of the $3 trillion of the taxpayers' money I had voted to spend on intelligence and defense of this country had done us any good the previous day. I never want to live another September 12. I never again want to have to think what we could have done to learn the lessons of terrorism and stop another terrorist attack. If we take decisive action and, among other things, if we pursue the policy of regime change in Iran, I believe that the likelihood of having another September 12, 2001, will diminish; and more importantly, the likelihood of a catastrophic repeat of September 11, 2001, using a nuclear weapon will diminish greatly. We owe our country nothing less. We owe the decent people of Iran nothing less; and we owe it to our sense of history to get this very important job done. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Paul Bauer of my staff who was very instrumental in getting the research done for this effort. And, again, I would like to thank the staff of the House of Representatives for being with us so I would have this opportunity to speak.

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Taiwanese government's decision to hold a referendum on March 20, 2004, thus allowing their citizens to exhibit a true expression of democracy. It is clearly in the best interests of the United States to promote the spread of democracy, and to defend democracy wherever it exists, and I therefore urge my colleagues as well as the current Administration to support Taiwan's right to hold this referendum free from intimidation or threat of force from any nation. In 2001, President Bush declared that America would do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan. Now it is time for us to act on this promise, not by a show of military force but by a show of vocal support for Taiwan's desire to express its democratic form of government. On March 20, 2004, Taiwan plans to hold a referendum to ask voters two questions on governmental relations with the PRC. First, Taiwanese citizens will be asked if they agree that their government should acquire more advanced anti-missile weapons to strengthen Taiwan's self-defense capabilities if the PRC refuses to remove the missiles it currently has targeting Taiwan. Second, they will be asked if they are in favor of negotiations with the PRC to reach a peaceful resolution to cross- strait differences. The people of Taiwan, and not the Government of the People's Republic of China, should have the sole right and responsibility for determining the future of Taiwan. Within this right of self-determination for the Taiwanese people lies the undeniable right of the Taiwanese government to hold referenda votes, when necessary, to assist the government in making key decisions that will effect the lives of their constituency. As a democracy, Taiwan has shown great promise. Over the past decades, Taiwan has gone from having a one-party, martial law dictatorship to a growing democracy that has shown great respect for human rights and freedoms. It has also become a strong ally of the United States as well as a stabilizing democratic force in the Asian Pacific region. Now, Taiwan is in need of American assistance to preserve and defend the democratic form of government that it has worked so hard to create. President Woodrow Wilson once said, ``Just what is it that America stands for? If she stands for one thing more than another it is for the sovereignty of self-governing people.'' Mr. Speaker, as the foremost promoter of democracy and a country that stands for the sovereignty of the people, the United States cannot allow the collective voice of the Taiwanese people to be muffled due to intimidation from the People's Republic of China. It is the right of the Taiwanese people to be the sovereign rulers of their fate. I urge my colleagues and the administration to support this right as well as the growth of democracy in Taiwan.