Tom Feeney

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time; and I especially thank him for his strong support for America's space program. The Weiner amendment would take $477 million from NASA's space exploration budget, essentially would cripple the CEV-CLV program. Ladies and gentlemen, just so you know what that means, we are scheduled to fly our last shuttle mission in the year 2010. We have a bird on the pad. We hope we get it up July 1 or sometime soon. But we will be down for sure by 2010. We will have no manned space flight program after that unless we continue with the CEV development. This amendment basically wipes out that development in this budget cycle. I will tell you we need a next generation of vehicles or we will not be in the human space flight business. The Weiner amendment raids the account that is necessary to keep the workforce in place. If you allow the workforce to disappear from 2010 to, say, 2015 or 2020, you can never replace these people. The expertise that you lose cannot be put back together again. Once Humpty Dumpty and the skilled workforce is dead and depleted, you can never put it back together. But I am not here just to talk about America's space program. I want to tell my colleagues about a firsthand experience I had. If you are not concerned about space, you ought to be. I was the first American, along with our colleagues Rick Larsen and Mark Kirk, invited to see the Chinese human space flight program. They got started in 1995. They are 35 years behind us in time, but they are remarkable in how fast they have caught up in their human space flight program. The Shenzhou vehicle has flown five times now, twice with Taikonauts that have come back successfully, and they have had extraordinary success. While our workforce is basically keeping healthy a 40-year- old, 30-year-old technology, the young Chinese engineers have put together a remarkable new technology that will be very, very powerful in the future. Mr. Chairman, I want to read the Chinese announcement of their own human space flight program. They say, by 2007, there will be a series of unmanned satellites from the year 2007 through 2015. Starting in 2017, they expect to have unmanned missions to the Moon to bring back lunar samples. By the year 2024, they say they will have landed men and women on the Moon. Folks, I think their real schedule is much more ambitious than that. If and when we get back to the Moon under the Weiner amendment, we will be looking at Chinese flags and maybe Chinese bases when we get there. And if that does not stimulate your competitive interests, I am telling you that they are producing 5 to 600,000 engineers a year, by a factor of 8 or 10 what America is able to produce. Nothing stimulates our math and science brains in middle and high schools more than space exploration. The Weiner amendment would put an end to that. Finally, I will tell you if you are not worried about human space, China is developing the Long March 5 vehicle. It will be able to take 25 tons into orbit. It is not just their human space capabilities that they are working on. They are trying to get space predominance so that they can potentially incapacitate all of our communications satellite and all of the satellites that America depends on for our force multipliers that allow our military to be the most capable in the world. Ladies and gentlemen, please do not gut the human space component of America's exploration; and, if you do, be prepared for what happens when the Chinese beat us to outer space.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern with the potential port management transfer to Dubai Ports World. Less than 1 month ago, our President stood in front of us and told us that homeland security was the number one issue this Nation faces. And, in fact, this administration has a strong and great record in defending our homeland. But last week, when I was home, Americans throughout my district expressed deep concern that this fast track deal had not been given the type of scrutiny that all of us took a constitutional oath to do when we said we would protect our country. I need to say that, although the United Arab Emirates has been recently a good friend, including a friend in the war on terror, this deal deserves much more discourse and much more scrutiny before it goes forward. I plan to support legislation to provide congressional oversight for such important decisions in the future and to put a hold on this deal unless and until Congress satisfies itself, as the administration has, that America's interests and security will not be imperiled.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Calvert and the respective ranking and minority Members. We will recall in the aftermath of the Columbia accident, many of us on Capitol Hill and the space community observed the drift. America's human space program seemed to be adrift in terms of our space flight initiative and vision. The President responded with his vision which has now become America's vision. The conference bill and the report provides unambiguous and bipartisan endorsement of America's Vision for Space Exploration. The direction of human space flight has now been set for future administrations and congresses. I look forward to progressing on this ambitious journey of exploration and science. As we do move forward, Mr. Speaker, I hope we take to heart the Columbia accident investigation board's reminder and admonition that NASA ``is an organization straining to do too much with too little.'' As we work to provide NASA with a focused mission, including but not limited to human space flight, we need to avoid overloading and micromanaging this agency and its fine leader, Mr. Griffin. With that, I thank the chairman for the time.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I want to speak in favor of the manager's amendment, if it is adopted, certainly a great and important bill, and the rule itself. The actual truth of the matter is that housing ownership in America is at an all time high. This Congress and this President have established policies that allow virtually every American that has a job to find a way, if they desire, to own a home. The GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have played an important part in that. They provide liquidity in the secondary market so that there are more opportunities for people to borrow at relatively low rates of interest. We ought to preserve that system, and we ought to protect that system. These are enormous entities. Fannie alone is $1.7 trillion in terms of assets, and both of these entities had some accounting troubles. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) have led the way so that we can reform and have appropriate oversight for those enormous, but important, entities that help the housing market in America flourish. The question here today is whether the rule ought to be adopted. Some of our friends on the other side are very upset, because rather than providing money for bricks and mortar, what they would like to do is to provide money for politics. They want to allow folks that engage in political activity, including voter registration, to have access to money that otherwise would go to low-interest loans or to help affordable housing builders at the local level actually build bricks and mortar. People that want a home do not need a lobbyist; they do not want a politician. They want somebody that will actually build them, with the sticks and the bricks and the mortar, a home to live in. That is what this fight is about. One of the largest advocates, the groups that the other side would like to have receive up to 2 or $3 billion this fund may reach in the next 5 years, is a group called ACORN. Now, ACORN is an important group. They are a first amendment group. The gentleman is right. They have every right to participate in first amendment activity, but not with money that we give them from Congress. Thomas Jefferson said that to force a man to contribute to a cause in which he does not believe is the definition of tyranny. We want to build homes. They want to buy liberal lobbyists and politicians. That is what this debate is about. ACORN had a game plan in the year 2003 in Florida. By the way, they do this in many other competitive States. ACORN wanted to register voters. They argued to the public that this was about support for a minimum wage constitutional amendment in Florida. But their three bottom-line goals here are very important. Increasing the minimum wage was the least important thing as part of their voter registration drive. What they argued to contributors, who have the right to contribute to this activity, who we should not force probably to contribute to this activity, is they had three goals. And I want to read these into the Record. The goals of this campaign are three-fold: To increase voter turnout of working class, mainly Democratic voters without increasing opposition turnout; number two, to increase the power of progressive constituencies by moving a mass agenda, putting together the capacity to get on the ballot and win and by putting our side on the offensive; number three, to deliver a wage increase to hundreds of thousands of Floridians. That was an afterthought. Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker have fashioned a great compromise. Let us build homes. Let us pay for bricks and mortar. Let us not pay for a liberal lobbyist.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 64, a bill originally introduced by Representative Cox of California, for purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprinting pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, but I do so some reservation. While CAFTA should provide economic benefits to most industries in Florida, it does create some difficulties for our State's sugar farmers. I am disappointed that tonight's vote will have a negative impact on an important agricultural industry in our State, but along with this vote comes the broad economic benefits of free trade. I have made a difficult decision tonight to support an agreement that will negatively impact some farmers in my State because of my belief in the principles of free trade. So it would be irresponsible of me not to make several points perfectly clear to my colleagues from other areas of the Nation, particularly the Midwest, whose farmers receive billions of dollars in farm program subsidies each year. Unlike most commodity programs, the U.S. sugar program is designed to operate at no cost to the taxpayer. Unlike other crops, our Nation does not produce too much sugar, in fact we are the fourth largest importer in the world. We don't have to prop up sugar farmers by finding ways to get excess sugar out of the country, and we don't have to write billions of dollars of government checks to sugar farmers to allow them to stay in business. I want to be sure that my colleagues understand that they may be called on to make an equally hard choice in the near future. Some corn groups have been especially critical of their fellow farmers who produce sugar cane and sugar beets. According to the President's budget, corn farmers will receive almost $9 billion in government support for the 2004 crop alone. If sugar farmers received billions of dollars in government subsidies, they might produce a surplus like corn and be less concerned about increased imports. I don't raise this issue in an effort to attack other Members' constituent industries; rather, like many of my colleagues, I am very concerned about Federal Government spending and the deficit. I just ask that those who are so quick to dismiss the concerns of my State's farmers be willing to take the same position of responsibility when you are called on to cut spending to your farmers. There has been a great deal of scrutiny of the sugar program in recent months. It is time we applied that scrutiny to other, high cost, farm programs as well, and all do our part to cut government spending.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful today for the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) for the advancement of science in general and space science in particular. I am grateful that the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), our chairman of the subcommittee, is about to pass the first authorization bill for NASA in some 5 years. It is important now that the President has laid out a grand new vision for the future of space that Congress weigh in and participate, and this is our first opportunity on the House floor. I am grateful for both the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), but I too want to suggest that it is important we have a bipartisan consensus so that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), ranking member, and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) have played an important role in making sure that this is a United States space vision, not a Bush vision, not a Democratic or Republican vision; and this is a great opportunity to start in this new millennium. And, of course, Mike Griffin has done a terrific job. He has got a background with more science credentials than some entire science departments at universities; and he has proven that he can take the bull by the horns, change the entire attitude and culture at NASA in a positive way. And that is going to be necessary because in the aftermath of the Columbia accident, many on Capitol Hill and many in the space community observed there was a drift in the American human space flight program. The President responded with the Vision for Space Exploration, and I am pleased that this bill embraces that vision and enjoys such broad bipartisan support. America's Vision for Space Exploration provides a logical pace and sustainable transition from current vehicles and missions to an exploration and science agenda that breaks out of low Earth orbit and ensures America will be a spacefaring Nation for generations to come. America will return the Shuttle to flight, complete the International Space Station, and then extend our presence to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board correctly observed that NASA ``is an organization straining to do too much with too little.'' As this bill moves forward in the legislative process, I hope that the lessons learned apply to Congress as well as to NASA, that we work to provide NASA with a focused mission, including, but not limited to, human space flight, but avoid overloading and micromanaging this great agency and its leadership.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule. I will tell my colleagues that over the last 8 months, we have had between 12 and 13 hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary and some 35 witnesses over an extended period of time; and 50 members of the Committee on the Judiciary have had a chance to not just question those witnesses, but to go back in the secure intelligence records, which I have done, and review all the FISA reports and the other information that is very sensitive and an important part of our oversight. We have considered some 50 different amendments as part of this extensive hearing process. Today we will be debating all day on the PATRIOT Act and into the evening. We will consider some 20 other proposed amendments. The fact of the matter is, Congress has done a very diligent job balancing civil liberties during this time of great national threat. We watch and pray for our friends in Britain as we do this, but we do it only after serious and thoughtful consideration.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I note that since the 9/11 attacks, in part we all know due to the PATRIOT Act, there have been no new attacks on America. I also think Americans ought to know there is a bookstore in London, in the Leeds section, called the Iqra Bookstore; and among the books that Iqra Learning Center sells are extremist Muslim materials. We now believe that three out of four of the terrorists that attacked London 2 weeks ago and killed 56 people visited frequently this bookstore. If the British authorities had known about the possible link and had a 215 clause, the main clause being attacked by the opponents of the PATRIOT Act, perhaps there would be 56 people alive today. So all the scare tactics can be done away with, all the hysterical allegations. Every American needs to know that this 215, which has been referred to as the library provision, nowhere mentions libraries. But what 215 does do is say a Federal judge must make findings before any warrant would ever be issued. This can only affect non-Americans in the first place, or Americans would only be affected if there is an ongoing terrorism or intelligence investigation. Mr. Chairman, every American needs to know that unless there is an ongoing terror or intelligence investigation, unless a judge makes a decision, no American can ever be affected. To the extent that we want to create safe harbors, either in bookstores or libraries or anywhere else by eliminating 215, we ought to be candid with Americans. We ought to be candid about the fact that we expect and are going to sit back as London-type bombings take place on our subways and bus systems. We may not be able to prevent the next attack, but as long as Americans' liberties are protected by a judge ahead of time, as long as this is a reasonable provision affecting only non-Americans or during an intelligence or ongoing terrorism investigation, it is absolutely appropriate. I would not be doing my duty as a Congressman to not fight for 215 to be reenacted. We have added some protections. Everybody who receives one of these warrants is guaranteed to see a lawyer, and, if they want to, challenge the warrant.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, in recent days, The New York Times and some of our colleagues have publicly encouraged and endorsed the government of Brazil to seize American pharmaceutical patents, citing an urgent need to accommodate a public health crisis in that country. These arguments are false. American drug companies sell life-saving antiretroviral therapies at an almost 90 percent discount in Brazil; furthermore, Brazil's rate of HIV infection is almost the same as it is in the U.S.--well below 1 percent. Brazil appears to be manufacturing reasons to support its intent to develop a generic export capacity. The WorId Trade Organization's 1994 Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), in conjunction with the 2001 Doha Declaration, enables countries to temporarily suspend patents when there is a dire need and when those patents are precluding access to life-saving medicines. In Brazil's case, there are serious concerns that it is willfully manipulating WTO rules for commercial gain. Consider the remarks by Brazil's health minister just this week in Geneva: ``Brazil once again takes a new step forward in the struggle against AIDS . . . This stage may come to represent the first step for introducing a new phase in our local [antiretroviral] production. An additional target is to support our national manufacturing industry in this respect, as we are totally committed in maintaining high quality in the medicines available in the public health services.'' The wholesale theft of American technology for another country's commercial gain was never the intent of the Doha Declaration or TRIPS. The United States should consider any and all retaliatory measures if Brazil proceeds with such blatant theft. The theft of these pharmaceutical patents will cost Americans billions of dollars and take away investment that could otherwise be spent on the development of new drugs ranging from epidemics to the common cold. Please include the following editorials ``Richman? Poorman? Beggarman? Thief? by James Pinkerton and Brazil Mulls Drug Patent Theft as an AIDS Antidote by Anastasia O'Grady. [From the Tech Central Station, June 29, 2005] Richman? Poorman? Beggarman? Thief? (By James Pinkerton) Will the real Brazil please stand up? Is Brazil a poor country that needs more foreign aid from the United States-- even involuntary aid? Or is it an increasingly rich and powerful country that can seize foreign markets for itself? Indeed, is it so powerful that that it doesn't need to play by the rules? One source not to look to for answers is the Brazilian government itself, as we shall see. To an outside observer, it's apparent that the Brazilians clearly want to have it all three ways: being needy when it suits them, being export-y as they are able, being greedy when they think they can get away with it--and if that last stance hurts the U.S. economy, too bad. It's a little complicated, and a little bewildering. And yet Uncle Sam's answer to the ``Brazil Bewilderment'' will help determine America's own wealth, and health, in the 21st Century. Two recent items show the sharp divergence in perspectives on Brazil. The New York Times' editorial page sees Brazil as a destitute place. Which means, of course, that Brazil is a wonderful place--for the Times to preach some politically correct ``compassion.'' Using somebody else's money, of course. In a June 23 editorial, the paper sided with Brazil in its long-running argument with American owners of Intellectual Property (IP); in this case, the fight is with the biotech industry. The Times noted that ``Brazil's free universal treatment program, an indispensable weapon against the AIDS epidemic, locks Brazil's government into buying lifelong daily medicines for 170,000 people, and that number is rising.'' And so, the Times continued, ``Brazil has the right to make sure it can continue to meet this burden by getting medicines at the cheapest possible price.'' And the cheapest possible price can be arrived at, quite often, through simple theft: the violation of IP property rights. In other words, the Times is so in love with government-run ``universal'' health care that it wants the U.S.--or, more precisely, U.S. Pharma companies--to finance such health care in other countries. It would be one thing if the Times simply editorialized in favor of America subsidizing the Brazilian social insurance system. That is, the president and the Congress could simply vote to transfer a few billion dollars a year to Brazil. But of course, no elected officials would ever vote for such an overt wealth-transfer, so the Times finds it expedient to endorse a covert wealth-transfer, in the form of IP ripoff. And obviously the Times couldn't be expected to worry much about anything so bourgeois as the rights of American companies, and their shareholders and stakeholders. As the Times sneeringly put it, ``Rightwing groups in the United States and pharmaceutical manufacturers are calling this theft, and several members of Congress have asked the United States trade representative to apply trade sanctions.'' And yet, the Times advised, ``The American trade representative should make a public statement that the United States will not retaliate against Brazil for exercising its right to save lives.'' In the paper's pro-Brazil policy, we see how p.c. solicitude for AIDS victims joins up with an all-purpose entitlement mentality--to create a ruinous prescription for American well-being, as well as a dire prospect for future medical innovation in a property-rights-wrecking environment. But another Times newspaper has a far different take on Brazil, a country which, after all, boasts the 9th-largest economy in the world today. According to a June 22 article in The Financial Times that ran the same day, under the headline, ``Brazil is yielding farms that can feed the world,'' Brazil is on its way to becoming ``a pivotal nation in the future of world trade. Brazil is to agriculture what India is to business offshoring and China to manufacturing: a powerhouse whose size and efficiency few competitors can match.'' As the FT details, Brazil now enjoys the largest agricultural trade surplus in the world, and the country's balance of trade is helped enormously by IP theft, which often goes by the more polite name of ``compulsory licensing.'' But by any name, it's still theft, and theft is ``zero sum.'' So if Brazil has more, the U.S. has less. From Brazil's narrow point of view, it's easy to see the logic of its current course. In the words of Ken Adelman, former deputy U.S. representative to the United Nations, Brazil's ``earnest commitment to premeditated theft of American assets should prompt the administration to stop considering Brazil a good partner and its president a great friend until they demonstrate a stronger commitment to the Rule of Law and free trade.'' That was on May 9. On June 24, in an important Wall Street Journal column entitled ``Brazil Mulls Drug Patent Theft as an AIDS Antidote,'' Mary Anastasia O'Grady wrote, ``The possible compulsory licensing of AIDS drugs is only part of Brazil's wider assault on intellectual property rights. While China and India are promising to firm up protections and sucking in capital investment, Brazil seems bent on joining the likes of Cuba, Iran and Venezuela. Like IP itself, IP theft is a somewhat obscure topic, but across the board, from movies to music to software to pharmaceutical patents, such theft costs the United States some 750,000 jobs and $200 billion a year annually. Which is to say, it's a lotta money. Indeed, one might ask how The New York Times would feel if, in some alternative universe, the key to treating AIDS patients was discovered to be the breaking of all the Times' copyrights and trademarks. So which Brazil is it? Poverty-stricken victim? Hyper- aggressive trader? Or rogue-nation with a national strategy of IP-pirating? I posed that exact three-part question to Roberto Abdenur, Brazil's ambassador to the U.S., at a June 24 meeting at the Council of the Americas Society in Manhattan. And here's what he said to me in response: ``It is absolutely not true that Brazil would have a national strategy [of IP theft]. Keeping a perfectly straight face, he added, ``Of IP there is something like a revolution taking place in Brazil; . . . we are taking very decisive actions on piracy. Brazil is deeply committed to enforcing TRIPs [trade- related intellectual property rights].'' Well, those were nice and reassuring words. But there was one small problem: they weren't true. That very afternoon, on June 24, came the news that Abdenur's bureaucratic buddies back in Brasilia had announced that the country would impose ``compulsory licensing'' on Abbott laboratories'' anti-HIV drug Kaletra if the company didn't surrender the license first. Sorry, Mr. Ambassador, but your own government has made you into a liar. The irony is that for all Brazil's enthusiasm for IP- mulcting, such a policy is not actually in the country's overall long-term best interest. That was a useful perspective supplied at the same June 24 Council of the Americas discussion by Donna Hrinak, the former U.S. ambassador to Brazil. She reminded the audience, which included Abdenur, that for Brazil, ``the whole issue of IP goes from AIDS treatment to the guy who is selling a pirated CD to the grey market in computers.'' Which is to say, Brazil's IP-lawlessness is endemic. Then she added, ``I never understood Brazil's IP position. It goes against its own interest.'' That is, Brazil would ultimately gain more by working within the world IP system, where rights are respected for the long-term benefit of all property holders. Continuing, Hrinak added, ``Recife would be like Bangalore if Brazil would look to its own interest, and implement its own [IP] laws.'' Better to be supportive of a thriving indigenous high-tech industry, she was saying, than to merely be stealing technology from others. From an American point of view, it's nice to know that some U.S. diplomats see the importance of IP, for the well-being of this country, and also for the well-being of the world property-rights system--which will make all countries better off if it's allowed to work. But so far, at least, there's not much evidence that Brazil is looking to anybody's ultimate well-being, not even its own. However, it does have The New York Times in its corner. Maybe Brazilians can feast on that. [From the Wall Street Journal] Brazil Mulls Drug Patent Theft as an AIDS Antidote (By Mary Anastasia O'Grady) When the Bush administration offered Brazil $40 million for its anti-AIDS program earlier this year, Brasilia turned it down on principle. The terms of the deal required the government to condemn the sexual exploitation of women-- otherwise known as prostitution. Calling the U.S. demand ``theological, fundamentalist and Shiite,'' Brazil rejected the offer. Turning down a $40 million contribution seems like a luxury that a developing country with an estimated HIV-infected population of 600,000 couldn't afford. But as it happens, Brazil has a back-up plan. It is moving to force foreign drug makers to surrender their patents on anti-AIDS drugs at a price dictated by Brasilia, a tiny fraction of the medicine's value. Brazil's lower house passed legislation abridging AIDS drug patent rights earlier this month. The bill specifically names drugs produced by Abbott Laboratories. Gilead Science and Merck. It is not clear whether the Senate will pass the law or Brazilian President Luiz Inacio ``Lula'' da Silva will uphold it or exercise his veto. But steamrolling the rights of patent holders is something that Brazil has been threatening since 2001. The possible compulsory licensing of AIDS drugs is only part of Brazil's wider assault on intellectual property rights. While China and India are promising to firm up protections and sucking in capital investment, Brazil seems bent on joining the likes of Cuba, Iran and Venezuela in cutting its own throat by destroying those rights. The effort pits the short-run benefits of grabbing at little cost today's best medicines--claiming ``humanitarian'' motives--against the long-run damage to research and development that weakened property rights are sure to inflict. Such policy positions could devastate Brazil's stated hopes of attracting a thriving biotech industry. Brazil posits that the WTO's Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) allows it to go after patents in a public health ``crisis.'' Yet more than half the drugs Brazil distributes through its anti-HIV/AIDS program can be copied legally. As to cutting- edge medicines that still have patent protection, Brazil receives sharp discounts from pharmaceutical companies, which try to recoup their research and development costs in wealthier countries like the U.S. To be sure, Brazil is not as rich as the U.S., but it's not among the poorest either, as evidenced by its space program and thriving aircraft industry. One example of drug company generosity is the deal Merck has given Brazil on its anti-retroviral drug Stocrin. According to Grey Warner, senior vice president for Latin America Human Health at the company, ``Stocrin is sold to Brazil at the lowest price in the world outside of the least developed countries, such as sub-Saharan Africa, where we supply the product at no profit. In practical terms, this equates to a price that is about 90% lower than in the U.S., Canada and Western Europe.'' That seems like rather generous treatment of a large country well advanced toward industrialization. Meanwhile, at the strategically critical World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Brazil is leading the charge to weaken intellectual property rights within the World Trade Organization. This week, a second session on ``a development agenda'' for the WIPO was underway. This meeting is a follow-up to the April WIPO session in which the ``Group of Friends of Development,'' led by Brazil, spelled out its objection to intellectual property rights as traditionally defined. The 14 countries in this euphemistically titled alliance include such paragons of sound economic development policy as Iran, Cuba, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela and Sierra Leone. In its April document the group stated that it wants to examine the implications of intellectual property rights protection, ``rather than seek to approach this highly controversial issue as if it were governed by absolute truths, loosely under the one dimensional perspective of the private rights holders, ignoring the broader public interest.'' That's clearly code language for socializing property rights, a view that has dominated Brazilian thought over most of the 20th century and produced the current squalor that so many Brazilians live in. Few people want to invest in a country where legalized theft is government policy. Another egregious attempt to destroy intellectual property rights is the effort by a group of developing nations--again led by Brazil--to include a bizarre amendment to the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, which has been ratified by 188 countries, ostensibly to protect nations' biological resources. The change would give nations the ability to sue for patent rights to a successful biotechnical innovation if they could prove that a plant molecule, animal molecule or some ``traditional knowledge'' originating in their country was used in the development of the product. According to Timothy Wolfe and Ben Zycher, who studied the law for the Pacific Research Institute, this would be ``analytically equivalent to a long-run tax on biotechnological and pharmaceutical research and development investment.'' Their PRI study estimates the effects of such a tax on 27 countries including Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Colombia. By the year 2025, the law ``would reduce the biotechnological and pharmaceutical research and development capital stock by about $144 billion (in year 2004 dollars), or almost 27 percent, for the 27 nations,'' Messrs. Wolfe and Zycher write. ``This implies a loss of 150-200 new drugs.'' As Mr. Zycher points out this is similar to price controls, which have of course wreaked havoc in economies wherever they have been applied. ``You can erode property rights in the short term without much effect, but the long-run effects are far more serious,'' he said. Brazil's actions, ostensibly designed to help people with a terrible disease, will retard economic development and handicap all efforts to improve human health standards. Ailing AIDS patients will need new pharmaceutical developments as the virus mutates and becomes resistant to today's wonder drugs. But what company will volunteer to produce drugs that politicians demand free of charge? Job-seeking Brazilians who would benefit from foreign investment in biotech will have to move to India. Brazil will sink ever lower into underdevelopment. Maybe soon it will legitimately qualify for the same charity as poverty-stricken sub-Saharan Africa.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, there are two things that we can say conclusively since the enactment of the PATRIOT Act. Number one, there has not been another 9/11 attack, thanks in part to the PATRIOT Act and other tools that we have given the law enforcement community here in the United States. And number two, there has been a great deal of hysteria generated around the words ``PATRIOT Act.'' Very little of the actual complaints can ever be pointed to with respect to anything that the PATRIOT Act did, but there is enormous amount of hysteria. For example, the very name of this amendment, the Freedom to Read Act, implies that somehow there is something anywhere in the PATRIOT Act that denies us the freedom to read anything we want. Of course the PATRIOT Act does not do any such thing. We have heard here today that we need to have some showing of probable cause to protect American citizens' privacy. Well, I need to tell you that probable cause is a fine standard after a crime has been committed. The people that believe probable cause is the appropriate thing to demonstrate would have us wait until the next 9/11 attack until we can take efforts and steps to defend ourselves. That does not work when you are dealing with terrorism. Folks, the next 9/11-type attack may not be a plane full of citizens. It may be full of biological or chemical or nuclear weapons. And 3,000 deaths may pale in comparison to the devastation that could be heaped upon American metropolitan areas in the next attack. The 215 provisions are very important to understand. They require a Federal judge, a FISA court to make a determination that, number one, there is a national security investigation already under way about somebody other than an American citizen, this cannot be used against American citizens; and number two, you have to demonstrate that the entire purpose of the 215 subpoena is based on international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. This cannot be used to fight the traditional crimes that most Americans may be concerned about with respect to their liberties and freedoms. We want, and we are protecting, those freedoms. By the way, President Bush's White House, the OMB, has suggested that if there is any effort to undermine their number one priority as our administration, and that is to protect the safety of Americans, they intend to veto this entire appropriations bill. Listen, if there are terrorists in libraries studying how to fly planes; if they are studying how to put together biological weapons; if they are studying how to put together chemical weapons, nuclear weapons; if they are studying how nuclear power plants in America, how the architecture and design is structured so that they can cause a devastating attack, we have to have an avenue through the Federal court system, the FISA intelligence courts, that we can stop the attacks before it occurs. Treating it as a crime and waiting until after we have hundreds of thousands of deaths is an inappropriate way to fight terrorism. It works in crime. It does not work for the next terrorism disaster, and that is what the proponents of this amendment are asking for. 215 allows the FBI to request a judicial order. This has to go through a judge. Over and over we hear that we are going to somehow be snooped upon by Federal agents without some sort of due process. Well, a Federal judge is involved at the very outset. It has never been used in a library. What this amendment seeks to do is to build a sanctuary where every terrorist will know in perpetuity that they will be safe to read, to plan, to do whatever they need to do as long as they do it in a library. It creates a sanctuary that every terrorist will know will protect him or her as they create their evil plots to do awful harm and devastation in the United States of America. That is at all does. We know there are incidents of the terrorists using our libraries. And yes, so far they have primarily involved use of the Internet. But we also know that terrorists used American flight schools. We also know that terrorists are interested in biological, chemical and nuclear capabilities, and I believe it is appropriate that our law enforcement agents, after the proper showing in Federal court, can get these records and prevent the next attack, not react after we lose hundreds of thousands of lives.

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) yielding me this time, and he is exactly right. The Committee on the Judiciary has had no less than 10 hearings on the PATRIOT Act, including one specifically devoted to national security letters. This may be an issue as we move forward on the process to find a way to reform or modify, but there have been no abuses. This is a solution in search of a problem. The fact of the matter is these types of subpoenas are already available to investigate insurance fraud or bad doctors. If we can use these subpoenas to find bad doctors taking advantage of the Medicare or the Medicaid system, why can we not use these subpoenas to track down a terrorist? We are not talking about medical personal records of anybody. We are talking about financial records. Let us say theoretically, since there have been no abuses, let us say hypothetically al-Zawahiri was injured and sought medical attention. We could potentially track down the financing to locate him. Let us suppose we had a known terrorist here in the United States that underwent plastic surgery to change his or her identity. We could track down the financial records to possibly intercept that. These subpoenas have been used since 1996 under the Clinton administration as a tool for health care fraud investigations. If we can use these appropriately under the proper circumstances to find bad doctors, surely a national security letter can be used to track down evil terrorists. I do not think this is a widespread tool being used on a regular basis, but there may come a time when we rue the day that we have taken away one more law enforcement tool to track down the bad guys.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia has done a marvelous job in balancing a lot of important competing priorities. I will tell you that Americans need to be aware of this. We have been the only leader in manned space flight ever since Apollo XIII. But this amendment guts America's future manned space flight program. In the year 2010, we are due to retire the shuttle. Unless we move forward with a new vehicle, which is what this amendment guts, the funding to do the exploration, the design and the research for, we will have a huge gap. There are nine other countries waiting to watch what we do. The Chinese, for example, are going to have a manned space flight program any day now. Yes, it is important to have local law enforcement; and, yes, we support that; and, yes, there is great funding in this bill that Chairman Wolf put together; and, yes, 99 percent of those moneys come from local and State government. But nothing is more important to the long-term security of the United States than space intelligence, space communications, space capability, including manned space flight. What this program does is to take $200 million out of the proposal that the President has to have a continual manned space flight program after the shuttle is retired. We basically are going to say, we are going to have huge personnel reductions, including some of the most talented engineers and scientists in the world that will go do other things. We are going to basically lay off up to 1,000 people, talking about the next generation of human space flight, all so that we can give out local good-feeling grants to local law enforcement agencies on top of what they already have. The vehicle the President is talking about will be more flexible, will have more capabilities, will take us ultimately not just back to the Moon but on to Mars and beyond unless we gut it here today.

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, all of us understand the intent of this amendment. We would like to stop the use and abuse and the sale of methamphetamine and other dangerous drugs. As a matter of fact, this bill does a great deal towards that end. But the problem with the amendment is that it robs Peter to pay Paul because you are gutting other long-standing law enforcement programs to start up new programs that traditionally have been established and protected at the local and State levels. In addition, as I mentioned before, one of the things that we are trying to do is not to lose the next space race. In the year 2010, the United States will, by plan, be out of the manned flight business because we will retire the shuttle. The President has proposed making sure we have a replacement vehicle more flexible and capable for the future. This has huge ramifications for American security, American intelligence, American communications capabilities. The President's proposal and that of Michael Griffin, the new NASA Administrator, is to move up our manned capabilities to the year 2010 so we will have no gap where we have to rely on the Russians or other foreign powers to get us in a manned way into space. By the way, the Chinese are coming. In 2012, they expect to have a vehicle on the Moon. They will have manned flights after that. Please, do not gut America's predominance in space when it comes to manned space flight and undermine law enforcement across America.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his distinguished leadership in this and other matters. Mr. Speaker, it is very sad that as I go back and talk to people in my district about the role of the U.N., Americans know they are very disturbed by the U.N., but they like the idea of having this United Nations as a place where we can promote world peace and world security and do some other things. It is not until you explain the record of the United Nations, and before then the League of Nations, of total failure when it comes to promoting freedom, total failure when it comes to protecting collective security, total failure across the board that they really get frustrated. I want to congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey. The U.N. is in need of deep and drastic and dramatic reform, and it is very sad to see liberals in the United States Senate hold up a reformer like John Bolton's nomination merely because he believes that America's security and freedom should come first, and the United Nations needs a serious dose of reality. I will tell you it has been sad historically to watch the fact that the United Nations, that was primarily the child after World War II of the British Government and the United States Government to promote security for the world and peace, has been a failure. It was NATO that protected the freedom and the peace during the Cold War. The League of Nations, which was started in 1914-1915, failed to deter any major aggressor, including ultimately Hitler's Germany that attacked Western Europe and threatened peace throughout the world. Just like the League of Nations failed to protect the security of free countries, so the U.N. has never once had any impact on protecting freedom-loving, peaceful countries from aggressive totalitarian countries, the Cold War being the biggest example but not the only example. The U.N. was of absolutely no value whatsoever throughout the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and it was NATO that preserved through power the peace. As Lady Thatcher said, it was Ronald Reagan who won the Cold War without firing a single shot. Even in smaller regional conflicts, the U.N. historically has been a total waste of time, money, effort and resources. For example, Cuba having forces in Angola was never deterred by the U.N.; the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan, the Vietnamese and the Korean conflicts, again examples of the complete impotence of the United Nations to the detriment of freedom-loving peoples. As my colleague pointed out, the Saddam Hussein failure has been a dramatic one, but it is just the most recent one, along with the Oil- for-Food scandal, the perverted use of some U.N. troops in undermining the safety of women and children, actually engaging in the rape and torture of these people. Even when it comes to peacekeeping, something you would think the United Nations would be good at, they have a miserable record. In Somalia, it was U.N. troops that presided over the largest genocide in the last 10 years. They actually facilitated the genocide by herding together folks that were ultimately slaughtered. In Rwanda, you had the Tutsis slaughtered by their oppressors. The United Nations was totally useless. In Yugoslovia, you had the horrible situation that resulted from the U.N. embargo, denying one side the arms to protect themselves while the other side engaged in mass slaughter in Bosnia and elsewhere. I want to end, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the gentleman from New Jersey and saying there are some things that the United Nations can help at: distributing food in times of crisis. They are a nice debating society, but they have never once provided any bit of security to the United States or any of our friends. To the extent that they condemn anybody, it is typically our friends like Israel, when they equated Zionism, the belief that the Jewish people ought to have a state where they can be free from threats from oppression and anti-semitism and absolute genocide. It is Israel that has been condemned more than any other nation on Earth by the United Nations. Finally, the United Nations has never been united in any way, shape or form. Some people say it is a democracy, but it is a democracy where a majority of the people that vote are actually dictators, tyrants. The majority of the United Nations is governed by places like the African Union, the Arab League and the Islamic Conference, often not only hostile to America's interests but some of these nations actually promoting terrorism itself. So I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey. U.N. reform is a must. If we are not going to reform the U.N., it is time to pull out of the U.N., put together a group of freedom-loving, peaceful nations that will engage in real collective security, and not engage in this mirage where we pour our money down a rat trap, fund our enemies often, and embarrass ourselves by being a participant. I yield back to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank the gentleman. The United Nations, to the extent it does anything, it distributes food and resources largely provided by the United States of America. There are other non-governmental organizations that do at least as good a job on most occasions. If it was not for the generosity of American taxpayers and American contributions, much of the world would never recover from some of the horrible disasters that occur. But I do believe there is a potential role for the United Nations to play in continuing to be a world welfare organization in times of emergency relief perhaps and maybe a cocktail debating society. But unless there are dramatic reforms, they are good for nothing more. And it is a threat to our security if we even pretend that they ever have deterred an aggressor. As the gentleman points out with his chart, since 1945, their main mission was to deter aggression by hostile countries to freedom. They have failed 300 times to do their main mission. So let us never depend on the United Nations for our security or to protect American interests.

Mr. FEENEY

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

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. We appreciate the chairman and the committee's hard work on this bill. I want to specifically highlight the Rose Bay Ecosystem Project in Florida's 24th Congressional District, which I represent. Here local, county, and State agencies have worked for 10 years now and have spent more than $30 million to restore our natural aquatic ecosystem of Rose Bay. Now this project has stalled, understandably, due to limited funds at a time of war. In the 1940s, Rose Bay was a productive estuary and shellfish harvesting area on the Halifax River in Volusia County. Since the 1990s, local engineers and cities have anted up to their responsibility, and we would hope that the Army Corps of Engineers would live up to the agreed-upon 5-point plan to restore Rose Bay. I would ask the chairman's help, along with the committee's, to do everything we can to get this project back on the appropriate steps forward.

Mr. FEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed that we have descended to this level because I have some great friends that I admire on the other side. The ranking member from Michigan is somebody who has had a distinguished career and I appreciate him. I appreciate the other Members who have spoken tonight and I respect them. I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). We serve on a committee which is not a fluff committee. It often has, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) knows, some very controversial issues. And we typically deal with these issues as ladies and gentlemen with the highest respect for one another, even though we often vehemently disagree. One thing we know is that last week, the United States House of Representatives overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis, passed House Resolution 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. One thing we know is that the purpose of this bill was to prevent sexual abusers from taking vulnerable young girls across State lines for the purpose of abortion without telling that young lady's, young woman's mom or dad. Support for parental notification as we know is widely supported amongst the American public. As a matter of fact, in the State of Florida, which I respect, the people of Florida, amended our Constitution in 2004 and overwhelmingly passed an amendment to our Constitution that provides as follows, ``The legislature is authorized to require by general law for notification to a parent or guardian of a minor before termination of the minor's pregnancy.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary, during its mark-up which I participated in considered several amendments. I have to say that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) who spoke, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) are people that I respect enormously for their passion for their beliefs. They offered amendments. There is nothing in the committee report that disparages any of the intentions of these Members. The committee report does describe the effect of some of the amendments that are offered. There is a huge difference between accurately describing the effect of an amendment and ascribing ill motives to the people who offered the amendments. These are people of great will, of great determination, of great passion, of great belief but we disagree. And as the chairman said, there is no exception provided for grandparents who happen to molest a child, for taxicab drivers, for uncles, for nieces in any of the amendments that were offered. And I did not speak on the amendments. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member said, there was not a whole lot of discussion about some of these amendments and that is try. Not because we did not understand the ramifications. We understood the effect. I did not speak at all because if every one of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary spoke for 5 minutes on each amendment as we are entitled, we would never get through our business protecting children who are impregnated by people that molest them. And so we knew what we were voting on and the job of the committee staff is to describe the effect of the amendment, not the debate. That is what the Congressional Record does. That is what our ability when we insert language into the Record does. It is not the job of the committee staff. As the chairman said, my friend from New York (Mr. Nadler) has frequently compared this bill to the Slave Holders Protection Bill in the 1850s. It is a very different story to protect parents and minor children that have been abused, sexually and molested and impregnated than comparing that to the rights of slave holders. Comparing the rights of parents is something that Americans are for. Protecting the rights of slave holders is something Americans are against. And to compare that I think is very unfair. I will say that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is somebody I respect a great deal, but the effect of his amendment did not shield anybody that might have been an abuser or a molester of these children. With that, I ask respectfully that the gentleman withdraw this motion. We can get back together and agree when we can. But, by golly, we would ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to withdraw this privileged motion.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, as a former Speaker of the Florida House where the ethics process was never partisan, I have been saddened and disappointed at some of the wild ethics charges made by billionaire socialists and repeated by Democratic Members. Let me say, there is no greater ethical sin by a Member, and no greater poison to our Congress, than to make false ethical charges against another Member for partisan gain. The Democratic leadership has created a fog machine to attack Tom DeLay. They claim that the Democratic fog blown at the Leader is smoke; and insist that where there is smoke there must be a fire. For three months Democratic leaders, while smearing our Leader, have instructed their 5 members of the Ethics Committee to kill the ethics process. Yesterday, Chairman Hastings offered to hear allegations against the Leader. The Democratic attack machine refused, pandering to billionaire socialists who are organizing this attack not just on Tom DeLay, but the U.S. House itself. Democrats realize their liberal agenda cannot give them a majority in this House. Realizing they cannot rule the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrats are determined to ruin it.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on December 29 of last year, the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People's Congress took a highly provocative action when it voted to submit an ``Anti-Secession Law'' to the full Congress which convenes on March 5. The text of this proposed law was not made public, but there can be absolutely no doubt about its intent. It is intended to create in China's national law the legal justification for a military attack against Taiwan. The law would spell out a range of activities which, if taken by the Taiwanese people and their democratically elected leaders, would legally constitute secession. Many of these activities, such as Constitutional reform and popular referenda, are the mainstay of any democracy. Yet the Chinese would use them as a legal excuse for a military attack. We all know that Taiwan is caught in a very different bind. On the one hand it is a flourishing democracy, one of the most vibrant in Asia, with unfettered freedoms of speech, the press and assembly and intensely competitive free political parties. On the other hand it is claimed as sovereign territory by its gargantuan neighbor, the very antithesis of a free and open democratic society! And this neighbor regularly threatens to annex Taiwan by force. The United States, under the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act, which is the legal bedrock of our policy, insists that the future of Taiwan be determined by peaceful means. And we have demanded that no actions be taken by either Taiwan or the People's Republic of China, that endanger the tenuous peace and stability that now exists across the Taiwan Strait. Mr. Speaker, we call this situation, difficult as it is, the status quo. We have had, on occasion, to caution Taiwan about actions which might appear to challenge this status quo. Now the PRC, through belligerent and dangerous legislation, would substantially change the so-called status quo. There is still time for China to alter its course. It has seemed to change its normally shrill tone toward Taiwan in recent weeks. I urge the Chinese leadership to put this legislation aside, leave the status quo intact and open itself, instead, to meaningful dialogue and negotiations with the leaders of Taiwan.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, as members of Congress, we have a moral obligation to protect innocent life and not stand idly by while an activist judge seeks to use extreme measures to destroy the life of an innocent woman. By transferring this matter to a Federal court we will ensure Terri is given every possible protection by allowing a Federal judge to see whether her constitutional rights have been violated. Life is precious and I will always work to see that it is protected. With so much controversy surrounding Terri's final wishes and current physical condition, I believe it is imperative that a Federal court take a fresh look at this case. I commend my colleagues from both the House and Senate for working around the clock to determine a legislative solution to ensure that Terri's life and her constitutional rights are protected. Thomas Jefferson once wrote that, ``[t]he care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. I think Jefferson was right. I welcome this opportunity to join my colleagues in this effort to help defend and protect innocent human life.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on the dates of February 8-10, 2005, I was absent from session attending to personal matters following the death of a family member. I was unable to attend 12 votes held during my absence. I would like to note for the record that had I been present I would have voted as follows: ``Yea,'' rollcall 20, February 8, H. Res. 46, on motion to suspend the rules and agree; ``yea,'' rollcall 21, February 8, H.R. 315, on motion to suspend the rules and pass; ``yea,'' rollcall 22, February 8, H.R. 548, on motion to suspend the rules and pass; ``yea,'' rollcall 23, February 9, H. Res. 71, on consideration of the resolution; ``yea,'' rollcall 24, February 9, H. Con. Res. 6, on motion to suspend the rules and pass; ``yea,'' rollcall 25, February 9, H. Con. Res. 26, on motion to suspend the rules and agree; ``yea,'' rollcall 26, February 9, H. Con. Res. 30, on motion to suspend the rules and agree, as amended; ``yea,'' rollcall 27, February 10, H. Res. 75, on agreeing to the resolution; ``nay,'' rollcall 28, February 10, H.R. 418, on agreeing to the amendment (Nadler); ``nay,'' rollcall 29, February 10, H.R. 418, on agreeing to the amendment (Farr); ``nay,'' rollcall 30, February 10, H.R. 418, on motion to recommit with instructions; ``yea,'' rollcall 31, February 10, H.R. 418, on passage.