Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very eloquent introduction. I am not sure I deserve it, but I appreciate it. Let me say to my colleagues who are undecided and my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle, I voted against NAFTA. I voted against GATT. I voted against the World Trade Organization. So why am I for CAFTA? And I want to tell you why, because I think it is extremely important. There are three reasons. First of all, right now as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said a minute ago, the trade balance is in favor of the countries in the Caribbean and the Central American nations because they have duty free into our country, and we have to pay a duty to sell products in their country. CAFTA will change that. It will balance it out so there will be free trade in both directions. That will encourage more trade in both directions. Second, this is a national security issue, and the President of the United States talked about this today, and we need to talk about it right now on this floor. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) talked about what went on in the early 1980s when we had wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and people's bodies were laying all over the place because of this insurrection and these civil wars down there. If we do not do something to stabilize those countries in Central and South America, we will see wars not only in Nicaragua and El Salvador and possibly other Central American countries, we will see them in South America. We have got governments down there that are trying to export revolution right now by undermining some of the fledgling democracies in Central and South America. CAFTA is one of the mechanisms that we could use to stabilize those fledgling democracy by creating more jobs and helping fight poverty in those countries. It is extremely important from a national security standpoint. That is one of my biggest concerns. If there is destabilization in those Central and South American countries, you can rest assured that there will be massive flight from those countries when wars break out, and they will be coming north. We have an immigration problem right now that we must solve, and we have talked about this time and again. But the problem is going to be exacerbated and made a lot worse if we let those countries, those fledgling democracies, starting to be destabilized by revolutionaries. There are governments down there right now that are using their resources to undermine some of these democracies, and we need to do everything we can to countermand that. This is a very important piece of legislation. It is very important. I hope my colleagues will see that and vote for it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleagues who were here back in the early to mid-1980s, some of the older gentry in this body. Do you remember when we saw the Contras and the Sandinistas fighting and the bodies in the streets of Nicaragua, Managua? Do you remember all the wrangling that went on in this place because of the war down there? Do you remember the FMLN in El Salvador and the killing that went on down there? The same people that were involved in the leftist movements down there that Fidel Castro was supporting, the Communists down there that Che Guevara was supporting are the same people that are opposing CAFTA today because they believe in a different form of government and a different approach to government. The Sandinistas are opposed in Nicaragua to CAFTA. The leftists throughout Central and South America are opposed to CAFTA because they do not want free enterprise to flourish down there. They do not want trade to flourish. I would like to say to my colleagues tonight, look back at history. It is extremely important that you think about not only trade, but the security of the United States and immigration. When the wars broke out in Nicaragua and El Salvador, there was a massive migration of people to the United States. Go to Miami today. There are a lot of people who illegally came into this country from El Salvador and Nicaragua because they were fleeing the war down there. The people who could not afford it came up through Mexico and started coming across the border. I submit to you tonight if we do not pass CAFTA and help stabilize those fledgling democracies and deal with the poverty problems down there, that we are going to have more wars down there, we are going to have more civil disorder and insurrection. There are governments down there that are trying to undermine fledgling democracies with their largesse, and they are going to continue to do it. What we have to do to combat that, in my opinion, is to support CAFTA, support trade, which will create more jobs down there and create an economy that will keep people at home and stop massive immigration into the United States. If we do not, in my opinion, there will be wars there, there will be massive immigration, and the security of the United States as well as the immigration problems will increase.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the debate over the potential costs and benefits of the proposed Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, has been contentious; and at times it has been difficult to separate fact from fiction and the myths from reality. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen as many wild and unsubstantiated allegations thrown around about a bill as I have seen during the debate over CAFTA. I rise tonight though because one myth perpetuated by opponents of CAFTA has caused me great deal of concern; namely the myth that CAFTA will restrict American consumers' access to the wide range of vitamin and mineral supplements of varying potencies that are legally sold in the United States. Then there are the related myths that CAFTA will limit the amount and type of information on the labels of dietary supplements sold in the United States or even require that dietary supplements be sold as drugs. I, along with millions of Americans, firmly believe that dietary supplements have been shown through research and historical use to be of immeasurable benefit to human health. As a regular consumer, I know firsthand the health benefits of using dietary supplements on a daily basis. Whether taking a multi-vitamin, herbal product, or specialty supplement, I know that people can and do live healthier lives and save money in long-term health costs by supplementing their diets. Approximately 10 years ago, seeing a need for the Federal Government to address the American consumer's growing interest in dietary products and public safety, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, DSHEA, to make certain that all dietary health products sold in the United States are held to the highest and safest quality standards. This legislation ensures the safety of dietary supplements by requiring manufacturers to follow standards called ``Good Manufacturing Practices,'' or GMPs. Essentially, all ingredients in supplements sold in the United States must be previously approved by the FDA and listed on the bottle label, and distributors must follow strict guidelines on any claims that are made in regard to a particular product--to provide consumers with the most accurate information on supplements. Additionally, if at any time the FDA decides that a particular product or dietary ingredient is detrimental to human health; it reserves the right to have those items removed from the marketplace. This legislation provides the current framework for how the Federal government ensures the safety and efficacy of dietary supplements sold in the United States, and there is no provision in CAFTA that requires the United States to change DSHEA in any way. Nevertheless, I was so concerned about this issue that I asked the U.S. Trade Representative's, USTR, Office to clear up any misunderstanding about CAFTA and DSHEA. I would like to have the text of the USTR's fact sheet on CAFTA and Dietary Supplements placed into the Congressional Record following my statement. CAFTA and Dietary Supplements The CAFTA-DR will not limit consumer access to dietary supplements in any way, nor will it change the way the federal government or U.S. states regulate dietary supplements. Chapter Six of the CAFTA-DR (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures--SPS), which some have claimed could limit access by American consumers to dietary supplements, does not create any substantive rights or obligations. It merely: Says the seven governments do not intend the CAFTA-DR to change their existing SPS rights and obligations under the

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I love you, man. You know that. But I have got to tell you, the Sandinistas and the leftists in Central and South America are against this for the reasons I stated. If you really believe in stability in our hemisphere, and you do not want to see more conflict and massive immigration, this is a good vehicle to vote for. And I love you, man.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Thimerosal was approved as well. You say there is language in here that does exempt vaccines?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who has done yeoman's service to the committee and to this government in fighting for a postal reform measure. He has just done a great job. I want to congratulate him on all of the hard work in bringing this thing to the floor. I want to congratulate our chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). We fought for, I think, 6 years when I was chairman to bring this bill to the floor and pass it, and, Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you on being able to get this thing to the floor. I hope that we are successful in getting it not only through here, but through the Senate as well. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my good buddy, who has one of the best voices in the Congress. If I could talk like him, I would be President. He has got that deep, resonant voice. I want to thank you and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for all of the hard work that you have put in on this bill. I want to congratulate you as well. Let me just say that we have been working on this now for, gosh, I guess at least 10 years, but 6 years when I was chairman and now 4 years that you have been chairman. We have finally brought a bill to the floor. I do not think it is perfect, but it sure is a giant step in the right direction. If we do not do something about postal reform, what is going to happen is the costs are going to go through the roof, and instead of this being an agency that deals with the expenses themselves, we are going to be seeing taxpayers footing the bill for additional costs for postal service. With the advent of faxes and e-mails, you have seen the Postal Service have a lot more problems with revenues than they have had in the past. And it is absolutely essential, if we are going to have a viable Postal Service in this country, that we pass this legislation. So I think this is a very good bill. I believe it will pass tonight, and I hope that all of my colleagues will vote for it. Once again, I want to thank all of those responsible, especially the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for working so hard on this.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my profound concerns over the People's Republic of China's, PRC, persistent efforts to squash religious freedom and religious expression. As a senior member of the House International Relations Committee, I have worked--along with like-minded colleagues in the House and Senate--to send a strong, consistent message to repressive regimes like the PRC that membership in the community of nations requires a real commitment to support and advance democratic governance, political openness, respect for human rights, and promotion and protection for the freedom of speech and religion. Tragically, this message continues to fall upon deaf ears and the persecution of religious freedom continues; as best exemplified by the PRC's campaign of repression against members of the peaceful Falun Gong movement. Many of us have become familiar with the case of the Falun Gong--also known as Falun Dafa--a religious movement which combines a regimen of exercise with meditation. According to its practitioners, the beliefs of Falun Gong are derived from qigong, a set of movements that stimulate the flow of vital energies throughout the body. As I understand it, the practice teaches the virtues of truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance, while warning against moral degeneration and materialism. Since 1999, because the members of this peaceful practice dared to ask their government for official recognition and their constitutional rights to free speech, press, and assembly, the PRC has systematically and ruthlessly cracked down on the practitioners of Falun Gong. Yet the Falun Gong were only one of many groups to face persecution. On October 30, 1999, China's National People's Congress promulgated an ``anti- cult'' law, retroactively suppressing the Falun Gong movement and thousands of other religious sects across the country; closing 67 teaching stations and 1,627 practice sites in Beijing alone. Subsequently, the PRC detained and questioned over 30,000 followers nationwide, and charged Falun Gong leaders with numerous crimes, including: organizing superstitious sects, disrupting public order, leaking state secrets to foreigners, and engaging in unlawful assembly and publication. Between 150 and 450 group leaders and other members were tried and sentenced to terms of up to 18-20 years in prison; and an estimated 10,000 to 100,000 citizens have spent time in detention or ``labor reeducation'' camps solely because of their religious beliefs. In fact, the U.S. State Department's International Religious Freedom Report of 2004 stated that ``the Government [ of China] continued its repression of groups that it categorized as `cults' in general and of the Falun Gong in particular.'' Moreover, the arrest, detention, and imprisonment of Falun Gong practitioners continued as they respectfully refused to recant their beliefs. As a result, they are being continually subjected to harsh treatment in prisons and re-education through labor camps--many times resulting in deaths due to torture and abuse. For example, in December 2003, Falun Gong practitioner Liu Chengjun died after reportedly being abused in custody in the Jilin Province. The report went on to state that the Chinese Government ``tends to perceive unregulated religious gatherings or groups as a potential challenge to its authority, and it attempts to control and regulate religious groups to prevent the rise of groups or sources of authority outside the control of the Government and the CCP.'' The U.S. Department of State--for 6 consecutive years--has designated China as a ``Country of particular concern'' for ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom,'' especially as it pertains to the persecution of Falun Gong members. It is in part due to the brave and courageous writers at The Epoch Times--a Chinese-language newspaper and publisher of the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party--that we have an accounting of this religious persecution and the numerous other dangerous activities of the PRC. The Commentaries present an uncensored and honest history of the Chinese Communist Party, CCP, effectively and poignantly detailing the brutal conditions under the CCP which have prompted over 3 million Chinese to make public statements renouncing all ties to Communism. By now, over 300 public forums of the Nine Commentaries and 100 public rallies--with tens of thousands of supporters--have been held in more than 50 major cities throughout the world. I applaud and commend their tireless efforts to show the world what is truly happening inside China. Mr. Speaker, the right to religious freedom is firmly enshrined in both our own Bill of Rights as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18; and a nation's adherence to this principle is now widely understood to be a strong indicator of the good governance required to protect the rights of minorities and safeguards of social peace. The importance of promoting religious freedom cannot be overstated. In many ways, the promotion of religious freedom is intimately connected to the promotion of other fundamental human and civil rights, as well as to the growth of democracy. Once believers cannot convene, worship, and publish their literature, there is essentially no freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of press. As we work to spread the ideals of democracy to areas of the world that have languished in the shadow of tyranny, we must also carry forward the simple but powerful message that every person has a right to religious freedom and fight to roll back the tide of religious repression whenever and wherever it threatens to spread across the globe. To that end, I ask my colleagues to join with me to support efforts in the U.S. Congress that seek to highlight the plight of and express American support for all the innocent citizens who have been imprisoned unfairly; and to continue to stress to China's leaders that the American people are firmly committed to defending religious freedom throughout the world. In closing, I would respectfully commend to my colleagues' attention an open letter to the world written by Yeong-Ching Foo to rescue her fiance Charles Li, one of the many Falun Gong practitioners persecuted by the People's Republic of China; and I would like to have the text of this letter placed into the Congressional Record following my statement. Open Letter To Rescue Charles Li Fellow Americans: My fiance, a former post doctoral researcher of Massachusetts General Hospital, is jailed by a government which has inflicted on its own people wars, famine, tyranny, massacre, and terror. Now my fiance's life and fate are at its disposal. Over two and a half years have passed since Charles was arrested in China. Since the very beginning of his arrest, every day has been a nightmare. I have not been allowed to hear his voice, but not once have I stopped thinking about how he is doing. I can't imagine the abuse he suffers and the brainwashing sessions he is forced to constantly attend. Charles has been subjected to other forms of torture; I cannot list them all. He could have lost his life twice, and over 2\1/2\ years, the authorities have been trying to take away his soul with brainwashing. We should never have given them the chance to hurt him like that. Charles must be rescued back immediately. In June 2003, after Charles had not had food in his stomach for almost eight days, Chinese guards shoved a tube into his stomach and left it there for 33 hours. In July 2003, Charles was physically forced by inmates that were instigated by the authorities to attend a brainwashing class to renounce his belief in Falun Gong. They knocked Charles down to the ground and dragged him by the feet down a flight of stairs, causing bruises all over his body. In December 2004, Charles was tortured until he experienced fast heart beats and shortness of breath. He was forced to sit up straight with his head facing forward and was not allowed to move for 4 to 7 hours each day. He was tortured like this for 48 consecutive days. Charles went to China trying to stop the persecution of Falun Gong in China by trying to expose the atrocity and brutal persecution of Falun Gong that is based on lies. Persecution of Falun Gong is carried out in a large scale to the extent where the former communist ruler, Jiang Zemin himself handed the propaganda of Falun Gong to high officials outside China; building `6-10 offices', a Gestapo-like organization set up to eradicate Falun Gong throughout the whole world. This was confirmed by Hao Fengjun, a former policeman in the `6-10' office, defected to Australia. He verified that the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China is indeed extremely brutal (See http:// enqlish.epochtimes.com/news/5-6-10/29446.html). For each hour that Charles is held captive in China, his life is endangered. My heart has been bleeding for over 888 days by now! All this time, I have been very strong and forbearing. Actually, without my practice of Falun Gong that teaches me Truthfulness, Compassion and Tolerance, I know I would have gone crazy. Since Charles' arrest, I have appealed to you--Charles' fellow Americans--for support and help in rescuing him. The response has been overwhelming and we are both very grateful. Two summers ago, after a series of van tours across the U.S. when thousands of people expressed their support, Charles' treatment improved. But as public attention turned to other issues, his situation has worsened. As long as Charles is still in jail, I will not stop trying to bring him home, but I need your help. The United States was founded on the principle of freedom of belief, as those who fled religious persecution in England were seeking independence in the New World. The Chinese people also seek spiritual independence and an escape from the lies and hate that have plagued them under the CCP. I am proud of Charles for the risk he took to try and accomplish that in peaceful, non-violent way. I am proud of him for his courage. Charles should be rescued back immediately, and unconditionally. I believe that, together, we, the American people and the US government, will not let him down. ``My family, friends and I are fortunate to have so much help and support from you ever since I have been illegally detained and persecuted. We all appreciate it very much. As time goes by, I believe that the truth will be revealed to you. The persecution of Falun Gong is totally illegal and brutal. And also, as Dr. King says, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Thank you very much! Yours Very Sincerely, Charles Li''--From a letter written in jail by Charles to US officials, May 16, 2003. Let's rescue our fellow US citizen back from the hand of the Chinese Communist Party and let the moral value and conscience be awakened! Thank You! Yours sincerely, Yeong-Ching Foo.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say that my colleagues should never lose sight of the fact that we are in a world war against terrorism. It is not unlike the world war that we faced when my good friend was involved in World War II. It is a different kind of war from the standpoint that it is a hidden, insidious war; but, nevertheless, it is a world war and we have to defeat the terrorists. Right now the center of the battle is in Iraq. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, all of their fellow travelers are trying to destroy our will in Iraq. And if we back down, you may rest assured that we will rue that day because there will be more attacks and more concentrated effort on the United States of America. George M. Cohan wrote the song ``Over There.'' Over there, over there, tell them that the Yanks are coming over there. And that was because we were going over there to defeat the enemy in World War I. In World War II, we took the battle to the enemy, Hitler, in Europe. We did not fight them here at home. And I want to tell my colleague, if we do not defeat the enemy over there, we are going to have more attacks and more concentrated effort by the al Qaeda operatives and other terrorist organizations here in the United States of America. We backed down in Somalia. We left in Somalia, and it was a green light to al Qaeda, because they said the United States is a paper tiger; we do not have the will to win a fight against the terrorist organizations and against the people who want to destroy our way of life. This is a life and death struggle. It is a world war. We must not back down. We must take the battle to the enemy, and we must have the resolve that is necessary to win at all costs.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for their exceptional work on this bill. I think they have done a great job and I think it is something that every Member of the House should support. This amendment is the first of two that I am going to offer today and we brought this up because it was a recommendation made by the House International Relations Committee itself. It would authorize the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement to acquire and transfer to the Colombian Navy two tactical unpressurized DC-3 maritime patrol aircraft to carry out drug interdiction operations in or near the coastal waters of Colombia. We were down in Colombia not too long ago and when we were done there our ambassador and the people who were working for the Colombian military and the Colombian national police indicated to us that they needed additional aircraft to be able to interdict drug trafficking that is starting in Colombia and ending in the United States of America. These two aircraft I think will help in the fight against drug interdiction. We have been successful the last couple of years doing a pretty good of job of interdicting drugs. We picked up a couple of hundred tons more of cocaine last year and the year before that than we did before that. And with these two additional aircraft I think we will be able to do an even better job. So this is something I think that is not that controversial. It is an authorization. The cost would be between 10 and $20 million. It is something that is needed if we are going to continue the war against drugs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, let me say there are a multitude of problems in Colombia. We have had the drug cartels. We have had the terrorist organizations down there, the FARC guerillas, the ELN. These are all problems that must be addressed. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are well aware of that. And the poverty issue that was just raised by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is also a very real issue. But the issue at hand right now is whether or not we are going to put these two additional aircraft down there to be able to track drug cartels in the distribution of cocaine and other narcotics that reach the shores of the United States that kill and maim young Americans. It is extremely important that we do whatever is necessary right now. These two planes are a modest step in that direction. This additional equipment is asked for by our ambassador down there, by the Colombian National Police, by the Colombian military, our drug interdiction agencies, and everybody else who realizes how important this is. I would urge my colleagues to take all of that into consideration and vote for this amendment. It is a modest step, but it is something that is very necessary in the war against drugs. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A number of the staff members of the Committee on International Relations recently got back from Ecuador where they talked with government officials and our government officials down there, and they found that there is a terrible problem with smuggling of people, illegal aliens, illegal immigrants into the United States from Ecuador. You can actually go to the seashore of Ecuador and see them making the boats within which they are going to put these people, women and children, send them out to sea, send them up the coast to Mexico, and then they are smuggled across the Mexican-American border into the United States of America. The problem is obvious. First of all, it is going to cause a lot of problems to the taxpayers of the United States paying for the benefits for these people when they come into the United States; and even more importantly, it is a national security risk. Right now, terrorists can get in those boats, come up the coast, come through Mexico into the United States, and become a threat to the security of this country. So it is extremely important we do something about it. Right now, the Coast Guard of the United States, which is supposed to be using its resources down there to interdict drug trafficking that goes through the high seas into the United States, is spending a great deal of its time intercepting these boats with women and children in them that have been abandoned on the high seas, many of them, that are coming north to the United States of America. This amendment simply says that the State Department should conduct a study to find out whether or not the resources that we are spending down there are being used wisely. There needs to be a cost-benefit analysis done, and the State Department is the agency that can do that. So I would just like to say, Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I think is very important in dealing with the drug trafficking problem coming out of South America and also in dealing with the illegal immigration that is emanating from Ecuador and other countries down in that area. It also will help the Coast Guard, because the Coast Guard will not have to do as much of the interdicting of illegal aliens on the high seas as it has in the past, and it can devote its time and resources to the purpose that it is supposed to, and that is interdicting drugs on the high seas. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my very eloquent friend, for his kind remarks, and I would like to once again congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for the great work he has done on the International Relations Committee as chairman. The gentleman is a real titan in this place and we love him. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, most of my colleagues and the people of this country are not aware that the shoe bomber that was on the plane that was going to blow up that plane and kill all those innocent people was recently convicted and sentenced. People across this country did not see on television the judge's decision or hear what the judge said, so I want to read to the American people and my colleagues part of what Judge William Young said in that decision in putting that man in jail for two or three life sentences. He said, We are not afraid of you or your terrorist conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. You are not an enemy combatant, you are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or if you think you are a soldier, you are not. You are a terrorist, and we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice, so war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow, but are not that big. You are no warrior, I have known warriors. You are a terrorist, a species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when he first took you off the plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and TV were, and he said, You are no big deal. You are no big deal. What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with, and what I have as honesty as I know how, have tried to grapple with is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you to this courtroom today? I have listened respectfully to what you have had to say, and I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty of doing and what you admitted you were doing. And I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know. It seems to me that you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here in this society, the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here today in this beautiful courtroom so that everyone can see, can truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges. We as Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden, pay any price to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom and mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here today. The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten. But this, however, will long endure. Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is, in fact, being done. The very President of the United States, through his officers, will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice. You see that flag, Mr. Reid? That is the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this and you will all be forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. And it always will. Mr. Custody Officer, stand him down. Ruling by Judge William Young, U.S. District Court: Sentencing of Shoe Bomber Richard C. Reid Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say. His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his ``allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah,'' defiantly stated ``I think I will not apologize for my actions,'' and told the court ``I am at war with your country. `` Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below: January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid. Judge Young: ``Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you. ``On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. ``On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the other. ``That's 80 years. ``On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed. ``The Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million. ``The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines. ``The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment. ``The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. ``But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further. ``This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. ``It is a fair and just sentence. ``It is a righteous sentence. ``Let me explain this to you. ``We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co- conspirators, Mr. Reid. ``We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. ``There is all too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. ``Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. ``As human beings, we reach out for justice. ``You are not an enemy combatant. ``You are a terrorist. ``You are not a soldier in any war. ``You are a terrorist. ``To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. ``Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or if you think you are a soldier. ``You are not--you are a terrorist. ``And we do not negotiate with terrorists. ``We do not meet with terrorists. ``We do not sign documents with terrorists. ``We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice. ``So war talk is way out of line in this court. ``You are a big fellow. ``But you are not that big. ``You're no warrior. ``I've known warriors. ``You are a terrorist. ``A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. ``In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were, and he said: `You're no big deal.' ``You are no big deal. ``What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. ``What was it that led you here to this courtroom today? ``I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. ``And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing. ``And I have an answer for you. ``It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know. ``It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. ``You hate our freedom. ``Our individual freedom. ``Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. ``Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom. ``It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. ``It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. ``So that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. ``It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges. ``We Americans are all about freedom. ``Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. ``Make no mistake though. ``It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. ``Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. ``The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. ``Day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure. ``Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done. ``The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice. ``See that flag, Mr. Reid? ``That's the flag of the United States of America. ``That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. ``That flag stands for freedom. And it always will. ``Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Serbian President Boris Tadic for the courage and humility he displayed by attending the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre. Although time has yet to fully heal the wounds of hatred borne in war, President Tadic's actions stand out as a crucial first step in the process of peace. His attendance at the Srebrenica commemoration was a strong show of statesmanship and a demonstration of his firm commitment to reconciliation in that still unsettled region. President Tadic's attendance marked the first time any Serbian representative attended the commemoration of the Srebrenica massacre. His visit to Srebrenica is an important outreach to the Bosnian people and an appropriate homage to the thousands of victims who were brutally murdered. President Tadic's presence also demonstrated Serbia's renewed commitment to cooperation and democracy and its rebuttal of nationalism and xenophobia. His attendance was also marked by his fellow democratic politicians in the Serbian Parliament in Belgrade who held a moment of silence for the victims of Srebrenica. The Srebrenica commemoration was not the first time President Tadic made a bold statement underscoring his desire to achieve reconciliation. Eight months ago, he personally apologized to the Bosnian people for any crimes committed in the name of Serbia or the Serbian people when he visited Bosnia. Tragically, despite President Tadic's firm leadership, dedication, and example, many Serbs still refuse to acknowledge the Srebrenica massacre; making his visit perhaps even more momentous. These actions, noble in their intent are not without dissent and protest back home in Serbia. Serbia's ultra-nationalist party, the Serbian Radical Party boycotted the Srebrenica commemoration, and even protested the moment of silence for the victims, as well as criticized President Tadic's attendance and actions. Such intense divisions within Serbia between nationalists and democratic reformers, unthinkable a few years ago, only serve to underscore that thanks to the leadership of President Tadic, and other like-minded Serbs, Serbia is ready to face the war crimes of the past and condemn the heinous and brutal extermination of Bosnian males in Srebrenica 10 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I believe President Tadic's actions should be a sign to the world and the Bosnians alike that there is a profound difference between Serbia's citizens and Serbian war criminals; and I know that President Tadic is firmly committed to bringing those responsible for war crimes, especially those responsible for the Srebrenica massacre, including General Ratko Mladic, to justice before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at The Hague where they will be tried for their crimes against humanity. I believe that President Tadic deserves the United States' respect and support as a democratic and reformist leader in a historically unstable region. He has fought for democracy and equality against the tide or nationalistic fervor unleashed by former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, and in many ways his actions speak loudly of his leadership and bravery. He is leading his country in a bold, new direction of cooperation with the West and is diligently working to ensure Serbia's integration into the European Union and NATO, as well as partner with the United States. President Tadic represents the future of Serbia and the Balkans and we should support him in his struggles and endeavors. I ask my colleagues to join with me to commend his leadership, applaud his courage, and renew our commitment to peace and stability in the Balkans.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations regarding the fiscal year 2006 budget for counternarcotics programs in Peru. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I have been extensively involved in United States counternarcotics efforts in Central and South America. As a result, I was deeply disappointed to see that the President's fiscal year 2006 request for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative for Peru is 16 percent below last year's enacted level. The President's budget aims to reduce the U.S. assistance for Peruvian counternarcotic eradication and interdiction from a level of $62 million enacted in 2005 to a request of $54 million in 2006, and reduces alternative development funds from a level of $54 million to $43 million. I believe this is absolutely the wrong time for such a cut and such a low level of funding, if enacted, will only jeopardize the gains we have made in Peru in the areas of coca eradication, interdiction and alternative development. In 2004, with the assistance of the United States, Peru eradicated almost 10,000 hectares of coca, of which 7,500 hectares were eradicated manually by the Peruvian police, and another 2,500 hectares were voluntarily eradicated by Peruvian communities in exchange for community development programs. Moreover, alternative development programs supported legally grown crops on almost 20,000 more hectares of Peruvian farmland. Historically, Colombian narcotraffickers sent cocaine base from Peru to Colombia for conversion into cocaine HCL, but in recent years the traffickers have relied more on coca cultivation and base production in Colombia. But the traffickers in Colombia are under increasing pressure from the Colombian Government, thanks to the successes of Plan Colombia. So far we have successfully avoided a so-called ``balloon effect'' from the successes of Plan Colombia in terms of seeing Colombian traffickers substantially shifting cultivation of narcotics crops back to Peru. But there are warning signs, indications that coca cultivation is starting to spring up outside the traditional cultivation zones in Peru that point to this happening if we do not take steps to prevent it. Additionally, there is good intelligence that appears to indicate an upward trend in terms of poppy cultivation in Peru regarding heroin. I have spoken to officials in Peru, and they are deeply concerned about these warning signs, as well as the emerging opium threat. Recent Ministry of Peru data indicates that Peru now may have 1,400 hectares of opium crops, mostly in the north near the Ecuadorian and Colombian borders, and there are strong indications that opium latex is now being moved by Colombian drug dealers through Ecuador into Colombia for processing into heroin. A recent seizure of 4,440 kilos of opium in Peru, nearly half a ton of opium, potentially 40 kilos of processed heroin, shows just how serious the growth of opium is becoming. Taken as a whole, I believe, as do my colleagues in Peru, that this data indicate that enacting drastic cuts for Peruvian counternarcotic efforts at this time would seriously undermine Peru's coca eradication efforts in the long term and the ability of Peru to implement a similar opium eradication program. So, Mr. Chairman, the government and, more importantly, the people of Peru have recognized the dangers of narcotics to their society. Public polls last year consistently found that Peruvians see narcotics as the second most serious problem in the country after the state of the economy. The people of Peru have taken a courageous stand against the drug traffickers; and like the people of Colombia, they are taking their country back from the criminals and terrorists. Now is not the time to reduce U.S. support for their efforts. I would like to yield to my colleague from Arizona to hear his views about this funding.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. I really appreciate his hard work in this effort. We can count on the gentleman, I know.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have heard what they are against. What are you for? We have got a drug problem that we are trying to deal with. Plan Colombia, according to the statistical data that has been quoted time and time and time again by my colleagues, and I am quoting a little bit about that, shows that we are making progress. You are against it, but what are you for? I mean, we have got a war against drugs and you are standing here saying, okay, let us not do this, let us not do this, but the drug problem exists so what do you want to do about it? Unless you have got some constructive alternative, I think you ought to take a hard look at what has been talked about here today by the colleagues on our side of the aisle. Now, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' to my colleagues and I would like to read you a little bit about what is in his ``Dear Colleague.'' Aerial eradication has reduced coca cultivation by 33 percent. That is a plus. Reduced coca cultivation by 16 percent in the Andean region in 2003 and by an additional 5 percent in 2004. That is a plus. Opium poppy cultivation in Colombia dropped 52 percent in 2004, the third straight year of decline. That is a plus. They have got alternative development programs. Since 2000 we have supported and they have supported more than 63,000 hectares of legal crops, some substitutions. That is a plus. Resulted in the manual eradication of 23,200 hectares of illicit crops, coca and opium. That is a plus. Security. Police presence is extended to all 158 municipalities in Colombia that did not have any police protection before. That is a big plus. Colombia has extradited 271 Colombian citizens to the U.S. since August of 2002, mostly on narcotics-related cases. Another plus. Human rights. Kidnappings were down 34 percent in 2004 and a further 60.9 percent through May of this year. Another plus. Homicides are down 14.2 percent and another 22.3 percent through May of this year. There were 137,315 newly displaced persons in 2004. That is a drop of 67.5 percent. Those are all pluses. Those are things that are being accomplished. Yes, we still have problems. Yes, there are narcotics in America. Yes, they are coming into this country. But we are making progress. And what you folks want to do is stop the progress. So what is your alternative? I do not hear anything but complaints. This is the wrong time and it is the wrong message to send to our allies, President Uribe, who is making progress down there. It is also the wrong signal to send to the surrounding countries that have to deal with this drug problem and the drug cartel. I guess I am out of time, but I think the point has been made. Unless you have a constructive alternative, I suggest you do what the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has suggested. Read his ``Dear Colleague.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my congratulations and best wishes to one of my dearest friends, Robert ``Cy'' Laughter, on the upcoming occasion of his 80th birthday on July 26, 2005. As birthdays are often a time for reflection, I think it is fitting to pause and pay tribute to this truly remarkable man, and share some of his more memorable exploits. As a devoted husband, a father, grandfather and great-grandfather, industrious businessman, philanthropist, and veteran of World War II, Cy has truly led a full and distinguished life. A life-long native of Dayton, Ohio--but to me an Honorary Hoosier--Cy is probably best known to his friends and neighbors as an industrialist and founder of the famous Bogie Busters Golf Tournament. Held for over 35 years in Dayton Ohio this charity tournament always drew a distinguished list of participants including a few former U.S. Presidents and Vice-Presidents, Cabinet members, Members of Congress, governors, athletes, celebrities and national business leaders. Numerous organizations, including the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Johnny Bench Scholarship Fund, the Dayton's Children's Medical Center, and the City of Dayton itself received invaluable financial support and recognition through the Bogie Busters Tournament thanks to Cy's extraordinary efforts. Over the years, Cy has given of himself in other ways, most notably by serving on the board of directors of Wendy's International, and as a trustee for Sinclair Community College and Wright State University of Dayton Ohio. And when President George Herbert Walker Bush called, Cy did not hesitate to answer that call to duty and service on the Federal Home Loan Board and the Battlefields and Monument Commission; just as Cy did not hesitate to answer his Nation's call to service during World War II in which he served as a U.S. Army light infantry foot soldier, and was awarded the Purple Heart for serious injuries sustained in combat during the legendary Battle of the Bulge. Cy recently came to Washington, D.C., to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the D-day invasion and listening to him talk about his experiences during the war it was obvious how profoundly he was changed by those events and how proud he is to have been a small part of saving the world from oppression and tyranny. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply honored to consider Cy Laughter one of my dearest friends, and I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Cy's lifetime of service to our Nation. I'm sure that Cy's family, longtime friends and colleagues will also join me in wishing him many more years of happiness. Happy birthday, Mr. Laughter.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Congressional Serbian Caucus, and a long-time champion of human rights, I was pleased to work with Chairman Smith to bring this important resolution to the House Floor; and I thank the Chairman and his staff, particularly Bob Hand, for their hard work. Nevertheless, despite all of our efforts, at the end of the day I still have a few small concerns over the resolution's wording. Let me be perfectly clear though. The Srebrenica Massacre was a horrible event in world history that should never have occurred, should never be condoned, and should never be accepted by the international community. It was a truly horrifying experience and scarring for all those involved, from those directly participating in the slaughter, to those who sat idly by while the killing took place. Now, almost 10 years later, it is only appropriate for this House to pause and remember the victims of this horrendous crime and pledge anew that such atrocities will never happen again. But, this Resolution misses the mark by singling out only one group for condemnation. This House, as well as the leaders of the Balkans, should speak unequivocally and with one voice to condemn all the atrocities that occurred during the Balkan Wars of the 1990s on all sides; whether committed by Serb, Croat or Bosnian. Furthermore, this House should encourage all parties in the region to renew their commitments to fully comply with all international treaties and regulations, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, by handing over all outstanding war criminals. For only then can the region, as a whole, move forward to a more peaceful, stable, and democratic Trans-Atlantic future, with eventual membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union. Once again, I commend my colleague, Chairman Smith for bringing this issue before the House. I wish we had been able to strike an understanding on some of the broader issues but I still believe that House Resolution 199 has great merit and I vote ``aye.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, due to illness I was regrettably delayed in my return to Washington, DC, and therefore unable to be on the House floor for rollcall votes 322 and 323. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall vote 323, and ``yea'' with reservation for rollcall vote 322 on House Resolution 199, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995.