Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member. The amendment I am offering today is straightforward and noncontroversial. It would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to transfer a small parcel of land to the city of Bremerton, Washington, my hometown in my district. The property in question sits on the eastern end of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and has been determined to be surplused on the Navy's immediate and future needs. It has been used in the past several years largely as a laydown area for steel. The shipyard has found ways to reduce its inventory of steel and transferred the storage of this material closer to the machine shop where it is used. The property is not well positioned for any other shipyard function, and the installation would prefer not to pay for the upkeep of the property in an empty condition. The City of Bremerton has proposed to use the property for a Maritime Park and Naval Museum, functions that are consistent with the security needs of the Navy industry and which enhance the mission of the shipyard. The shipyard is also acquiring other property in the City for security purposes. The conveyance of this unneeded property will keep the shipyard footprint from growing substantially and avoid increasing the maintenance costs of the installation to the Navy. The amendment includes provisions for the city to compensate the Navy through renovations to Navy property acceptable to both sides. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is good for the Navy and good for the taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to support it and to support the en bloc amendments.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment for two reasons. Conventional precision guided munitions are a better technical solution than the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator for hardened and deeply buried targets, and because the fallout, both figurative and literal, from the use of nuclear weapons will make the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator an expensive showpiece rather than a usable weapon. If we start this program it is more likely to be simply A BUST, rather than RO-BUST. I've had the opportunity to visit this Spring with the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base. The 509th operates the 21 B-2 bombers that constitute the most advanced and effective weapons in the United States military arsenal. These were the pilots who were assigned the mission in Iraq to attack the very kinds of targets we are discussing today, hardened and deeply buried targets. I can tell you that the 509th today can attack, disable, and destroy, these targets. The 509th employs a penetrating version of the JDAM, as well as a 5000 lb. bunker buster. These weapons already beat the ground penetration capability of any nuclear weapon in our arsenal, and new capabilities will do even more. The B-2 will soon be able to employ the EGBU-28 bunker buster thanks to support in Congress to field this capability. And advanced research of binary warhead weapons and the use of conventional highly energetic materials will yield even more effective approaches for conventional alternatives. Indeed, the Tauscher amendment would add funding to three program elements of the Air Force and OSD R&D budgets which are working on just these conventional ground penetration approaches. I believe these conventional capabilities offer technical solutions not just equal to, but superior to those offered by even so-called ``low-yield'' nuclear approaches. Vote for the Tauscher amendment and support the development of weapons our military can really use.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all again congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for the way they crafted this legislation. We have made the Defense Department be accountable for this money. But I must say, cutting $19 million out of this fund, or $19 billion, excuse me, is not going to help the troops. We are in the middle of a war. This money must be replenished. We have used 10,000 precision weapons very effectively. We have these troops in the field, and they need to have the resources in order to complete this task and get this job done. I do not mind people making their speeches and exhorting their position on the issues; but when it is going to hurt the people in the field, it is unacceptable. This will hurt the troops in the field. I urge the House to reject overwhelmingly the Kucinich amendment, which I will request a record vote on.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman from California is a valued member of our subcommittee, and on almost all defense issues we agree. Unfortunately, today, I must rise in opposition to this amendment. As everyone here knows, yesterday Secretary Powell met with the leadership of Turkey. Immediately following that meeting, the border was opened and supplies on trucks were flowing into northern Iraq for the U.S. forces that are there. These are supplies, not ammunition or weapons; but it is a significant step forward. Also, we were able to use the air space of Turkey in order to bring in forces into northern Iraq by air lift. Bombers have flown into Iraq using turkey's airspace. So I think they have made a very significant contribution, and people sometimes forget that 90 percent of the people in Turkey are opposed to this war. They are on the border with Iraq. It was much different in 1991 when Saddam Hussein was invading another country like Kuwait, and therefore, they could join as a NATO ally and work with the United States to get Saddam out of Kuwait. This is a different circumstance. I think they have done almost everything they could. If 90 percent of the people in the United States were opposed to this war, we might not be there. I think we have to understand, this is a new government with a new parliament; and Turkey has been a reliable ally for many, many years. This was in the President's budget request. Condoleezza Rice has written a letter to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) expressing the support of the administration for keeping this money in this bill. We also have to look at the long term. Once we get through with this war, and I hope and pray it is over very quickly, we are going to have to rebuild our alliances, not only with NATO, but with all the countries in the region; and I think showing some good faith at this point and supporting this $1 billion to help Turkey, who has serious financial problems that were caused by their participation in the original Gulf War in 1990 and 1991. They have been hurt economically by this because of humanitarian problems and economic problems that they are facing. They desperately need this aid and assistance, and they are a democratic secular country that in my mind deserves the support of the United States. They have been involved with us in every military conflict since the Korean War and through Afghanistan; and on the floor of the House, to undercut the agreement that was reached just yesterday with Secretary Powell, I think, would be a terrible mistake. We should show Turkey that we understand their problem and we want them to recover economically and we want them to work with us through NATO to be a good ally and a good friend. Please vote against the Cunningham amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I guarantee my colleague we are being careful, careful almost to the extent where I think we are leaving the country vulnerable, and I really do disagree. I think we have got a responsibility to get a plan in all the States. We do not have all 50 States under the National Guard program, to give each State a unit in support of local officials in a crisis. We still do not have that done. There is a lot of things we need to do, and money is important in getting it done.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Cunningham amendment. Condoleezza Rice, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, wrote us a letter: ``Secretary Powell addressed important military, political, and economic issues when he met this week with the Turkish leadership. Both sides agreed to an unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid to north Iraq, and access by American forces to supplies sent through Turkey. Turkey continues to grant overflight rights, and is committed to enhance cooperation on terrorist threats and possible refugee flows into the region, without moving additional Turkish military forces into Iraq. These are very positive steps.'' The President of the United States has requested this $1 billion. We will be acting like the Turkish Parliament acted if we cut this money out. It will be a mistake. This is not the way to rebuild and treat a NATO ally. Let us defeat the Cunningham amendment and move this bill forward.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, outside groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, Senator Rudman, Senator Hart, the Brookings Institute, they have looked at these numbers, and they have said they are completely inadequate to do the job. That is why we are so upset that we have not been offered the chance to present an amendment today. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) presented it in the full committee. It was a close vote. This is something that worries me deeply. I think we do a great job in Iraq and in Afghanistan, but we are not doing the job we need to do right here at home to protect the United States of America; and it is not right, and we have got to do something better than that. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this supplemental appropriations bill. I want to compliment the chairman and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for giving specificity to this bill in terms of how the money was appropriated. I think that was the right decision, defending the constitutional prerogatives of the legislative branch. We are all proud of what our men and women are doing over in Iraq. The gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and I had a chance to visit right before the war started and to see the troops. It was truly outstanding. We also had a chance to see the great work that is being done in the area of intelligence, the Predator, and all of the new capabilities that we have given our troops to know where the enemy is. The thing that I am most proud of are the tremendous aerial capabilities that we have been able to provide with the B-2 bomber, the B-1, the B-52, giving smart weapons to them, smart conventional weapons which have worked so effectively in degrading the military capabilities of the Iraqis. We have seen this in the last few days with the collapse of the Medina and Baghdad divisions of the Republican Guard. This is an enormously important bill because we have to replenish these smart weapons that we have used, because 10,000 smart weapons, precision weapons, have been used. We have flown over 21,000 sorties. The one thing that is wrong with this bill is we have not done enough for homeland security. I completely concur with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who has taken the time to go out and investigate the needs of all of these agencies. We are underfunding the security of the United States of America here at home by not adequately funding homeland security. We are doing a great job in Iraq; we are doing a great job in Afghanistan, but we are only doing a marginal job here at home in terms of protecting our ports, our cities. This is us. This is our families. This is our children, our grandchildren. We have to get serious about this. This administration has to get serious about this. They can not continue to not provide the resources necessary for homeland security. Maybe we will not correct it here today, but I guarantee you once the American people understand that we are not providing the necessary resources, they will make certain that we correct it and hopefully in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments, I just want to point out on the Interior appropriations bill, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out and I did as we discussed the rule, our only major concern is the fact that on the conservation spending category we, for 2 years, kept a commitment that was made by the Republican and Democratic leadership of the Committee on Appropriations; and this year we did not get a good allocation in the conference, and we had to cut approximately $700 million out of our bill. A lot of the most important conservation spending categories were substantially reduced, which I deeply regret, because we had made a commitment to people outside of the Congress that we were going to stay with this trust fund and increase the level of conservation spending by about $160 million each year until we got up to $2.4 billion. Of course, this year we did not make our goal. I just would point out to my colleagues that the League of Conservation Voters urges us to support a motion to recommit, which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will offer, on the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill. They say, ``We strongly oppose the numerous antienvironmental riders that were added in conference and by the Senate, and we are concerned about the substantial funding cut the bill makes to the conservation trust fund.'' I would also point out to my colleagues, many on both sides supported a very modest amendment to create increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Both sides put an increase in, but when we got to conference, it was stripped out at the direction of the leadership on the Republican side. I think the Endowment for the Arts and Humanities does wonderful things for our country, and I was really kind of shaken by the fact that after this was cut in half during the Reagan administration and we were starting to move in the right direction, giving modest increases for both the arts and the humanities, that that money was, that increase was, stripped out. So I wish I could tell my colleagues that this bill, when it left the House this year, was a very good bill. But now that we get the conference report, we are now $800 million below where we were when this bill was before the House. I must point out also there are a whole series of categories within the Forest Service where we borrowed money last year to fight forest fires, and much of that money has not been repaid. So I hope, as we go through the year, if we have a supplemental appropriations bill, that we can go and readdress some of these important issues and do a better job. The fact that we are below the President's request on the Park Service, or the House level on the Park Service, is also of concern to me. I am going to vote for this bill. We have to preserve the prerogatives of the Congress. And I see the Speaker here on the floor. When the Speaker was elected he made a speech and he said, we are going to run these railroads on time. Well, I am confident this year we are going to go back to the regular order and pass our 13 appropriation bills in time, and I support that endeavor.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the rule for the omnibus appropriations bill to support the motion to recommit that will be offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The motion to recommit would direct the conferees to strip three controversial provisions added to the Interior section of the omnibus during conference negotiations and ask that certain critical natural resource programs are increased to levels requested by the President. The three legislative provisions include section 335, which exempts the Tongass National Forest plan from all administrative or judicial review; section 323, which significantly expands the Forest Service's stewardship contracting project to a permanent program with little agency oversight of private-contract timber harvest; and language that removes the House provision restricting funds for activities related to oil drilling in ANWR. Additionally, the motion to recommit would direct the conferees to add back funding to key programs in the Interior title to bring them up to the level requested by the President in his request for fiscal year 2003. This motion would direct the conferees to add not less than $193 million above the level provided in this agreement for key natural and cultural resources programs funding through the Interior appropriations bill. The current conference agreement provides $110 million less than the President requested for the National Park Service, $30 million less than the President requested for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and it completely eliminates the Urban Parks Program, which is a very good program. In short, the conference agreement fails to honor the Conservation Trust Fund agreement made 3 years ago that conservation spending would be a priority. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to vote for the Obey motion to recommit. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). I have been on the committee for 26 years. Not bringing these bills to the floor is a failure of the Republican leadership. I do not blame the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our good and decent chairman, for that. It was the powers over him that made it impossible to get these bills to the floor. I hope that they will keep the word they are putting out on the street that that will not happen this year. I think they owe it not only to the Congress, to all of us, but they owe it to the American people to get this train back on the track and to do the regular procedure. I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) wants to do that, I want to do it, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wants to do it. This year really was a disgrace for the American people, and this should never have happened. I hope that it will not happen in the future.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American, Mr. David K. Morris. After 8 years as the Superintendent of the Olympic National Forest, David has accepted a position in the Peace Corps as the Country Director for the African country of Zambia. David has worked for the National Forest Service for 37 years, including as the Superintendent at Crater Lake National Park and Katmai National Park. In addition, he served as assistant superintendent for Canyonlands and Arches National Parks and Natural Bridges National Monument. David has also served the Park Service in Hawaii and San Francisco. David began his service as the Superintendent of the beautiful Olympic National Park in November 1994. During his tenure at Olympic, David has overseen a number of important improvements and accomplishments, including purchase of the two Elwha River darns, establishment of the Friends of Olympic National Park and initiation of the park's General Management Plan. In addition, he has worked toward the general rehabilitation of visitor's centers, park roads, and over 600 miles of park trails. Under David's leadership, the Olympic National Park has become one of the most visited National Parks in the Nation. The National Park Service has recognized David's work with two awards, the Superior Service Award in 1991 and the Meritorious Service Award in 1999. David's career has included two foreign assignments, first as a Peace Corps park planner in Malawi, Africa, between 1974 and 1976 and later as a National Park advisor to Sri Lanka from 1987 to 1988. Additionally, he completed short-term advisory assignments in American Samoa, Costa Rica, Hungary, Argentina, the Republic of Georgia, Russia, United Arab Emirates, and South Africa. I thank David for his tremendous service to the Olympic National Park. I wish David all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation to reinstate the extended unemployment benefits program. These are bad economic times we are living in and few places have it tougher than my home state of Washington which had a 6.6 percent unemployment rate in November. I know from my constituents that these extra weeks of benefits are a vital lifeline which I wish we had extended back in December. While I am relieved that we finally are passing this bill, I wish that we had the chance to vote on an unemployment package that more fully meets the needs of those Americans who are out of work. While I am grateful that this bill contains a provision that provides an additional 13 weeks of extended benefits for states with exceptionally high jobless rates--which includes Washington State and two others--it is a mistake that the eligibility requirements are so stringent that the jobless in 47 states cannot receive them. These additional benefits will result in 26 weeks of extended benefits for those of my constituents who have been unable to find new employment. But I do not understand why those unfortunate people living in other states who find themselves in a similar dire situation are limited to only 13 weeks of extended benefits because the unemployment rate is lower in their home state. Being out of work is devastating for people and their families wherever they live and Congress should pass a bill reflecting that reality. The extended benefits authorized by this legislation expire at the end of May. It is doubtful that the economy will have improved significantly by then. Therefore, we will need to re-visit this issue before these benefits expire. I hope at that time we will pass legislation that better meets the tremendous needs of those Americans who are having a hard time finding new jobs. Compassion demands that action.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, Once again I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a news report concerning the ongoing undemocratic actions of the President of Kazakhstan. In the Wall Street Journal report that I would ask to insert into the Record today, the correspondent Steve LeVine detailed a series of bizarre actions by President Nazarbayev to silence his critics from within the government, to silence any opposition from the news media and to further consolidate his power. I believe it is important for members of this body to pay closer attention to developments in the former Soviet Republics in central Asia, particularly as some drift quickly away from democratic rule. [lsqb]From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 12, 2002[rsqb] Caspian Intrigue: Odd Family Drama In Kazakhstan Dims Democratic Hopes --Petroleum-Rich Land's Ruler Smacks Down Son-in-Law And Sundry Challengers--Oil Companies Feel Heat, Too (By Steve LeVine) Almaty, Kazakhstan.--In three frenzied days last November, government troops raided a television station, offices and homes and took up positions at the airport. Their target: anything connected to a powerful son-in-law of Kazakhstan's long-ruling president, Nursultan Nazarbayev. ``Karavan newspaper has been closed, KTK-TV has been closed and censorship has been imposed in the country,'' read a message greeting viewers tuned to the TV station, which, like the newspaper, belonged to the family of the son-in-law, Rakhat Alliyev. He, meanwhile, played a cat-and-mouse game with his father-in-law, stealing in and out of Western embassies and hinting that he might like political protection abroad. So began a bizarre drama in this oil-rich Central Asian land while the world's eyes were riveted on a war just to its south, in Afghanistan. It is a drama that does nothing to encourage those hoping for a softening of authoritarian rule in the region. The events include the sidelining not only of Mr. Aliyev but of nearly all other potential challengers to the Kazakh president. One politician who proposed limits on presidential power has just drawn a seven-year prison term. Eight journalists or news organizations that criticized members of the Kazakhstan first family have faced harassment, one paper finding a headless dog on the doorstep. The crackdown reflects a broad trend in a region about which the U.S. had high hopes. Since the early 1990s, former Soviet republics in Central Asia and the Caucasus have drawn intense interest from the U.S. America has been eager to tap into these countries' energy reserves--of which Kazakhstan's are by far the richest--and to see them establish open economies and democratic rule. And in the past year, the U.S. has developed another vital interest in this region: military alliances for the war on terrorism. As U.S. forces moved into Afghanistan last fall, the U.S. established military arrangements with six former Soviet republics. Mr. Nazarbayev has wholeheartedly supported the war on terrorism and permitted the U.S. to use Kazakhstan airfields for emergency landings. Though the Central Asian countries initially encouraged hopes for democratic rule, they have veered further and further from the democratic path. Uzbekistan, for instance, tolerates no political dissent, despite the destruction in Afghanistan last year of its exiled Islamic opposition. Turkmenistan's president, Saparmurat Niyazov, has just renamed the days of the week and the months of the year in honor of himself and matters dear to his heart. Mr. Nazarbayev's crackdown has been especially dispiriting, because the 62-year-old Kazakh president has been considered one of the region's more tolerant leaders. Day-to-day life in Kazakhstan, with busy Internet cafes and vibrant shopping, is open and relaxed. But this doesn't include venturing into politics without the president's blessing. His reassertion of power leaves another of the world's major oil-producing nations under authoritarian rule. A U.S. State Department spokesman, Phil Recker, said last month: ``The U.S. believes that recent developments in Kazakhstan, such as the new restrictive legislation regarding political parties and the ongoing harassment of opposition figures and the independent media, pose a serious threat to the country's democratic process.'' Mr. Nazarbayev and others in his government declined repeated requests for comment. Politics isn't the only arena feeling the Kazakh government's new assertiveness. The government is pressuring some Western companies operating here to renegotiate long- signed contracts. For instance, the government has fined Chevron Texaco Corp. $73 million for storing sulfur. Chevron says its contract permits this and is fighting the fine. Washington has protested the recent business interference. These are the latest trials for a land that has seen many, including great tragedies. In the 1930s, Stalin forced the nomadic Kazakbs, accustomed to wandering the steppes with sheep and camels, to settle down and learn to raise crops. An estimated 1.5 million people died of starvation during this period. Stalin also used Kazakhstan, a sprawling land of temperature extremes, as a kind of western Siberia. He exiled hundreds of thousands here--including the whole population of Chechnya, relocated en masse in 1944. The Soviets also did their nuclear testing in one corner of Kazakhstan. Mr. Nazarbayev, a former steelworker who rose through Communist Party ranks, has ruled Kazakhstan since 1989 through a simple lever: the power to name and shuffle virtually every minister, governor and judge. Early on, he appointed enough young, reform-minded officials to fuel the optimism of those who hoped for a democratic future. But in the mid-1990s, he began moving relatives into powerful positions. Then three years ago, he grew more self-protective after coming under suspicion of stowing funds in Swiss bank accounts. Mr. Nazarbayev named his eldest son-in-law, Mr. Aliyev, now 39, to senior positions first in the Tax Police and then the security agency KNB, local successor to the KGB. Another son- in-law, Timur Kulibayev, 35, was put in charge of oil-and-gas transportation and now is deputy chief of an agency that oversees most oil industry. Both became powerful in business as well. Mr. Aliyev grew rich through sugar trading and other enterprises. Members of his family bought control of three TV stations, a bank called Nurbank, a regional carrier called Atyrau Airlines and the largest-circulation newspaper, Karavan. The other son-in-law, Mr. Kulibayev, gained control of another bank, oil-field interests and a caviar-trading monopoly, say people familiar with the deals. In one instance, a government company Mr. Kulibayev headed did a $150 million Eurobond financing to help build an export pipeline to an oil field called Alibekmola--a field in which, say people familiar with the matter, Mr. Kulibayev himself owns a 17.5% stake. Mr. Kulibayev declined to be interviewed. Mr. Aliyev, in interviews before his clash with the president, said his own business dealings were appropriate. President Nazarbayev has said it is fine for his relatives to be in business and government simultaneously so long as they don't break the law. In recent years, new laws have tightened Mr. Nazarbayev's grip on power. One passed in 1998 barred anyone convicted of a legal infraction from running for election--a potent tool, since among illegal acts here is any criticism that ``insults the honor and dignity of the president.'' In 1999, a Swiss judge, suspecting money laundering, froze about 11 Swiss bank accounts that he said appeared to belong to Mr. Nazarbayev or other leading Kazakhs. The U.S. Justice Department joined the probe in 2000. It empaneled a grand jury to hear allegations that $35 million of oil-company money had been funneled to Swiss accounts appearing to belong to Kazakhstan political figures. The U.S. probe advanced a bit this week as a federal judge in New York endorsed the grand jury's right to see certain documents. In Kazakhstan, however, it was Mr. Aliyev, the oldest son- in-law of the president, who was becoming the lightning rod. As head of the Tax Police, he raised hackles by moving about Almaty with hulking policemen trained in martial arts, staging televised raids on suspected tax-dodgers, terrorists and narcotics traders. Business rivals and political opponents saw his tactics as intimidation. Mr. Aliyev dismissed his critics as people who thought they were above the law. ``To force someone to abide by the law is difficult, and nobody likes it when discipline and order are demanded of them,'' he said in an interview a year ago. But last fall, two prominent Kazakhs--a provincial governor and a tycoon--launched a campaign against Mr. Aliyev. Their allies stood up in parliament to accuse him of demanding ``tribute'' from businessmen. The critics also suggested Mr. Aliyev was disloyal to the president. One critic, Galimzhan Zhakianov, the provincial governor, linked Mr. Aliyev to a Web site that had carried allegations of bribe-taking by the president. (Mr. Aliyev denied the link.) A newspaper owned by the other critic, media and banking tycoon Mukhtar Ablyazov, stated that Mr. Aliyev was ``pushing to become the top leader of the country. The President is in danger. . . . It's his time to act!'' As rumors grew that Mr. Aliyev was plotting a coup, the campaign against him found allies among top aides to his father-in-law, the president. One presidential aide demanded Mr. Aliyev's resignation. Mr. Aliyev said he would quit only at the president's personal request. And in a veiled threat to reveal corruption, he warned the aide there would be ``big, big problems'' if anything happened to him. Mr. Aliyev then vanished. The next day, Nov. 16, armed troops staged their sweep through Almaty in search of him. Mr. Aliyev slipped into the U.S. and French embassies, hinting that he might exchange sensational revelations in return for protection, according to one diplomat. The strange standoff ended on the third day, as President Nazarbayev and Mr. Aliyev made a joint television appearance. The president said his son-in-law would now serve on his personal guard, which was a big demotion from his previous role. Mr. Aliyev said he was the victim of ``slanderous'' talk, and was just fighting the ``scum that [blocks] healthy forces in society.'' But Mr. Aliyev's demotion had emboldened his critics--and they now overplayed their hand. The two main critics made plans to release documents concerning Kazakh-owned Swiss bank accounts, according to their political associates. They also announced a new political party, in league with certain reform-minded businessmen and members of the government. The president asked them one by one what they wanted. They pressed him to loosen his grip on power, strengthen Parliament and allow the election of local leaders. Mr. Zhakianov, in particular, may have gone too far. He warned the president that he risked a fate like that of Indonesia's Suharto, who was forced ignominiously from office. Mr. Nazarbayev seemed taken aback, Mr. Zhakianov said in an interview last December. ``He was shocked over what happened with Rakhat [Aliyev]. . . . He was in shock over what happened with us because young people working under him were talking about political reform and the need to change the system.'' Still, the reformers were convinced Mr. Nazarbayev would meet at least a few of their demands. Instead, three days later, he fired all the political appointees in the group--Mr. Zhakianov, a minister and three deputy ministers. Later, he branded the critics ``Bolsheviks,'' likening their call for greater parliamentary authority to an early Communist refrain. Then followed a series of unexplained assaults on the Kazakh news media. The body of a headless dog was found in front of a weekly paper called the Republic, and the dog's head outside the editor's apartment. Four journalists were seriously beaten. Shortly after a journalist named Lira Baisetova wrote a story critical of Mr. Nazarbayev, her 25-year-old daughter, Leyla, vanished, then died. The authorities said she hanged herself while in police custody. Human Rights Watch in New York and the Paris-based Journalists Without Borders raised questions about how she died, after opposition figures claimed she had been beaten. The government said it had nothing to do with her death or with any of the attacks on the news media. In March, the government arrested one of the leading governmental critics, Mr. Ablyazov, the publishing and banking tycoon. Now it was the turn of Mr. Zhakianov, the reform-minded provincial governor, to find himself on the run and in hiding. Police raided a hotel, searching room to room for him. He was there, but eluded the troops, and then slipped away to a scheduled meeting at the French embassy. Police learned of the meeting and encircled the embassy. They pried off manhole covers to make sure their quarry didn't escape through the sewers. Supported by British, German and French diplomats who all had offices in the building, Mr. Zhakianov holed up for six days, until Kazakh authorities and the diplomats reached an agreement: Mr. Zhakianov would be held in his own Almaty home and the diplomats would have access to him. But a few weeks later, Kazakh officials flew Mr. Zhakianov 620 miles north to confinement in the city of Pavlodar. On the day he was arrested, the government acknowledged the existence of one Swiss bank account--containing $1.2 billion. It said this was government cash from oil deals and was used by Mr. Nazarbayev as a rainy-day fund to help the country weather crises. The two leading critics went on trial. Mr. Ablyazov, the tycoon, was convicted of embezzling $3.6 million from the state and sentenced in July to six years in prison. Mr. Zhakianov, the former provincial governor, was convicted last month of selling state enterprises at illegitimately low prices. He got seven years in prison. And Mr. Aliyev, the ambitious son-in-law? In a time-honored form of banishment for out-of-favor officials here, he was sent off to be an ambassador, in this case to Austria. ``In the end,'' says one local participant in the political maneuvering, ``the president simply took power back into his own hands.''

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 114, which expresses the support of Congress for the Administration's efforts to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions mandating the disarmament of Iraq. Passage of this measure by the Congress will authorize the President to use American military forces to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. Let me state at the outset that it is my judgment that the situation in Iraq is very serious and very perilous. I have served on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for 24 years, and on the Intelligence Committee for eight of those years. I have thus had a continuing interest in the campaign of deceit waged by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ever since the day he agreed to abandon his weapons of mass destruction following the Gulf War. Based on the briefings I have had, and based on the information provided by our intelligence agencies to Members of Congress, I now believe there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he me be close to developing a nuclear weapon. And furthermore, I believe he will not hesitate to use these and any other weapons he has in his arsenal against America and against our ships and bases in the Middle East region. The CIA's most recent report on Iraq clearly indicates that, after the ejection of weapons inspectors in 1998, Iraq continued its chemical weapons program, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons. Furthermore, Iraq's growing ability to sell oil--despite the ban--increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance weapons of mass destruction programs. Using these funds, it largely has rebuilt the missile and biological weapons facilities that were damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production. The Iraqis have also exceeded UN range limits of 150 kilometers for their ballistic missiles and they are also developing unmanned aerial vehicles, which would allow for a more effective and more lethal means to deliver biological and chemical warfare agents. Beyond these weapons programs, there is the question of nuclear weapons. In 1991, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency uncovered a secret Iraqi effort to build nuclear weapons after they intercepted a shipment of trucks loaded with huge electromagnetic isotope separators used to make weapons-grade uranium. These inspectors remained on the ground, working with U.N. arms inspectors, until the day they were thrown out of Iraq by Saddam Hussein, flagrantly violating the terms of the disarmament agreements he signed to save himself in the Gulf War cease fire. Since 1998, there is credible evidence that he has attempted to purchase uranium and the hardware necessary to produce the kind of weapon that could inflict infinitely greater damage than any of the destruction we witnessed on September 11th of last year. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein represents a growing menace. In the four years since he expelled United Nations arms inspectors from Iraq, he has become an emboldened dictator whose hatred of the United States has only grown stronger as he has regained his military capability. I believe that it is extremely important that we continue our diplomatic efforts to gain international support for action. Saddam Hussein has blatantly violated 16 important UN Resolutions as he has continued the arms buildup he pledged to curtail. With the growing threat of those weapons, with the assistance Iraq is providing to terrorist groups--including al Qaeda--and with the compelling need to assert the authority of the international community, President Bush has appropriately urged the UN to enforce the sanctions that its members have approved over the last 11 years. I believe H.J. Res. 114--by showing Congress's strong support for the President's position on the issue--will substantially strengthen our effort to develop a consensus at the United Nations for a new and stronger resolution demanding the verifiable removal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I believe that it is important, in the language of our Joint Resolution in Congress, to emphasize that we are determined in this cause: that if these efforts to build an international coalition within the United Nations are not successful, we believe that the United States must still take action, joined by the British and other nations who support us already, to ensure that Iraq is never able to use the weapons of mass destruction it has and those it is actively developing. In my judgment, the possibility of Saddam Hussein using these weapons against U.S. targets or our allies in the region justifies the commitment of American military forces, however much I truly hope that diplomatic efforts can succeed and that war can be avoided. Mr. Speaker, for our own safety and national security, I believe that we should support the position that the President expressed at the United Nations last month. It is time for action. We can no longer ignore the reality of what Saddam Hussein is doing and we should no longer postpone our response to the growing dangers of this weapons programs. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.J.Res. 114.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month one of the most visionary builders of my home community of Bremerton died, leaving a legacy of public works improvements that made the City a better place in which to live and work. Fred S. Shoneman spent the early part of his career working for the City of Bremerton, serving for a long tenure as the Public Works Commissioner. Later he served for many years as a Commissioner of the Port of Bremerton. During this time, I enjoyed working with him and I was always impressed by his vision and his desire to solve problems that confront cities in transition such as Bremerton. Fred loved Bremerton for what it was, and even more importantly for what it could be--and that was the secret of his vision. As Public Works Commissioner, he oversaw the locations of bridges that were essential for the growth of the city and its major public employer, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. He took care of the public works needs of our neighborhoods and small business districts, and he made sure the city's infrastructure was kept up to date. His later contributions as Port Commissioner represented an era of growth for Bremerton National Airport as well as a time of substantial new construction at the marinas. In all of these works he was serving the public: he was a man who was constantly available and seeking input from citizens in order to do his job better. What was most remarkable about Fred, and what was certainly evident at the Memorial Service held at the Manette Community Church, was his positive attitude that was almost contagious. Everyone who worked with him and around him appreciated the way he was always more focused on how we CAN get things done, rather thinking up reasons why we should not. So in addition to his legacy of public works, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to note today in the House of Representatives that Fred Shoneman has also left a great legacy of friendship in Bremerton. I am proud to say that I was among those who knew him, who worked with him, and who are greatly saddened by his passing. I would like to enter into the Record the full text of the news story in The Sun, Bremerton's daily newspaper, noting how much Fred left an indelible mark on our city.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Speaker, since the passage of the President's tax cut bill last year, I have been very concerned about the effects such a massive decrease in federal revenues could have on our ability to meet the other critical needs of the United States--Social Security, Medicare, education and national security among them. In Monday's New York Times, Janet Yellen, a professor of economics and business at the University of California at Berkeley, wrote this interesting analysis of the tax cut and its long term effects on the national economy. I would like to submit this article for the Record for consideration by my colleagues. [From the New York Times, July 22, 2002] The Binge Mentality in the Federal Budget (By Janet Yellen) Berkeley, Calif.--We read in the news of the plight of older Americans as their nest eggs, invested in the stock market, have dwindled. Some can no longer afford to retire as planned; others are going back to work. The stock market binge of the late 1990's, with its dreams of double-digit gains as far as the eye could see, was based on illusion, not reality. Now we know it. Irrational exuberance fed the bubble. Accounting tricks that inflated reported corporate earnings reinforced investor optimism. Insiders reaped huge gains; investors and employees saw their savings tank. Another equally pernicious set of illusions--created by the same binge mentality--surrounds the federal budget, but has so far received less public notice because the negative effects have not yet surfaced. The budget binge is supported by the same kinds of unrealistic projections of future revenues, low-balling of spending and obfuscatory accounting that are now the focus of the Wall Street scandals. But the impact in this arena could prove even more enduring than the current problems on Wall Street. Those counting on Social Security for their retirement, along with future taxpayers, in due course will be left high and dry. The perpetrators of the budget binge--President Bush and Congress--are sacrificing the public's long-term welfare for their own short-term political gains. In the case of Enron, the company's long-run stability was sacrificed for inflated stock prices in the short run. In the case of the federal budget, the health of Social Security and other programs is being sacrificed for unaffordable tax cuts. The motivation is the same: the decision makers don't believe they should be accountable for the long-run problems. Kenneth Lay walked away from Enron with millions. And the president and most lawmakers in Congress will be gone from office before the effects of the budget policies are fully felt. Americans are told that we can have it all: more defense and more education; more homeland security and more agricultural subsidies; and a Medicare prescription drug benefit, in addition to last year's multi-trillion dollar tax cut. On top of all this, we're told that it's possible to fix Social Security--which is expected to exhaust its trust fund in 2041 if no action is taken. These promises, of course, did not add up even in official budget projections, which unrealistically assumed no growth at all in inflation-adjusted discretionary spending, no relief for the 33 million taxpayers who, in the absence of a remedy, will unexpectedly face an alternative minimum tax, and the expiration without renewal of popular business tax incentives like the research tax credit. None of this could be sustained in reality. But the problem is even worse than merely having too little in federal revenues to do what politicians promised voters. The deeper problem is that the wayward budget takes off the table the resources that are needed to reform Social Security if we are to avoid politically unacceptable benefit cuts. In his campaign, George W. Bush promised that Social Security could be repaired painlessly, by allowing younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll tax into individual accounts. Since the stock market has historically offered higher returns than government bonds and substantially higher returns than Social Security, he suggested that such new-found investment freedom would repair the finances of the retirement system. With the fall in the stock market we now see that a secure, defined-benefit pension has its merits after all. Imagine the political pressures for bailouts in the face of the current stock market decline if Social Security included individual accounts! Even absent the failing stock market, privatization of Social Security has a fatal flaw: it can only be achieved at huge budgetary cost. Under the current system, the younger generation's payroll taxes pay the older generation's benefits. If Social Security is privatized, so that the younger generation diverts part of its taxes into individual accounts, then the government must finance, at enormous cost, the retirement of the older generation. It's like a family that hands down its clothes from one brother to the next: if somewhere along the way a brother gets to keep his clothes, the family has to head to the mall. The price tag for the missing generation of clothes was disclosed in December, but without the emphasis it deserved, in the report of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. This commission was supposed to devise a scheme of individual accounts without jeopardizing the benefits of current or near-term retirees. Two plans proposed by the commission would eliminate the long-term deficit in Social Security. Both plans entail large benefit reductions for future retirees while still requiring substantial infusions of cash into the Social Security system. This is the bottom line: there is no silver bullet to fix Social Security. Any realistic plan is likely to require a lot of cash to make it politically viable. Yet Mr. Bush allocates trillions of dollars to permanent tax cuts, mainly for the rich, and not a single additional dime to Social Security. Forgoing parts of the president's tax cut that will take effect over the next decade could provide the funds necessary to address the Social Security gap. We can't afford this budget binge of irresponsible tax policies based on unrealistic accounting. Earnings projections that sounded far too good to be true on Wall Street have turned out to be illusions, even though the public desperately wanted to believe in those numbers. The same is true with bad numbers in the federal budget--the principles of arithmetic can't be denied. If the tax cuts are left in place, high-income individuals, including billionaires exempted from estate taxes, stand to gain while future retirees and taxpayers will lose. President Bush has called for honest accounting in corporate America. The administration could set an example with an honest budget that ensures that retirees will have the nest egg they depend on most, their Social Security benefits. And to make that a reality, Congress should repeal the tax cuts that have not yet been phased in.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object. The Committee is not in order. The gentleman deserves to be heard. He is making a very eloquent statement and I think the Members ought to pay attention.

Mr. DICKS. But does the gentleman not agree, Mr. Chairman, that we could fix it in the conference committee between the House and Senate committees? We have done that many times in the past. If the committee wants to change this commission and make it broader, make it more effective, and cover the broad range, we could do that in the conference between the House and the Senate, and we could agree to it when the conference report comes back.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, on the point that the gentleman made about that this amendment is not perfect. This amendment could be perfected in the conference committee between the House and the Senate. I would suggest to the chairman and the ranking member, if they have some problems with this particular amendment, work it out in the conference committee. That is what we have done over the years.

Mr. DICKS

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