Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from New York for yielding me the time to address this very critical and important issue. This bill has come about as a result of a very labored process, and should it pass here today, which I assume it will, we should not deceive ourselves into believing that we have accomplished the objective that is necessary to accomplish in order to secure the security of the people of the United States. Getting good intelligence and having a good intelligence arrangement is one thing, but the use of that intelligence, the interpretation of that intelligence, the honest use of that intelligence is yet another thing. The intelligence agency must be an objective analyzer of secret and complex information, not just a tool of the White House. The intelligence agency must serve the interests of the Nation as a whole, not serve the President politically. It is increasingly obvious how the administration twisted and tortured and distorted intelligence to support their decision to go to war in Iraq. This bill does not solve that problem. It is up to the membership of this House to deal with that issue, and the issue has not yet been dealt with. We have not exercised the proper oversight to determine why and in what ways the intelligence was distorted. We need to secure the people of this country. The 9/11 Commission and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report tells us that prior to the attack of September 11, the administration had been warned dozens of times that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack the United States, but this administration failed to act on those warnings. Why? This House has not exercised the appropriate oversight to understand why the intelligence was not used by the administration the way it should have been used. The administration insisted on focusing its attention elsewhere, including its obsession with Iraq prior to and after the attack of September 11. Paul Wolfowitz, for example, the Deputy Defense Secretary, and his Under Secretary for Policy argued that there was a terrorist alliance between the Hussein regime in Iraq and al Qaeda, despite the fact that intelligence reports showed that no such alliance existed. Why was that the case, and why has this House not exercised its oversight responsibilities to determine why we were deceived and the American people were deceived? The same is true concerning the missing Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. We were told over and over and over again by everyone across the administration, President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, National Security Adviser, in fact, the President right here in this room from the podium behind me talked about weapons of mass destruction and even gave us the vision of a mushroom cloud, suggesting very clearly that there were atomic weapons that could be used. Why have we not exercised our oversight responsibilities to determine why that information was missing? So that is the issue that we ought to be confronting not just today, but as we go into the next Congress, confronting that issue in the way it needs to be addressed. Yes, it is fine to reform the intelligence procedures and administration, restructure them, modernize them, make them perhaps more compatible than they may have been with present-day needs, improve the communication between one and another. That is one thing, and maybe this bill will do that. But why has the leadership of this House not asked these questions? Why have hearings not been held? Why have the oversight responsibilities of the leadership of the House not been exercised appropriately in the way in which the Constitution requires they be exercised? At no time in the history of our country have we gone to war with another Nation based on information so badly misinterpreted, twisted, distorted and misrepresented. This House has an obligation to find out why that was done, why we have lost so many lives of American servicemen and women on the basis of that twisted, distorted, misrepresented information. Even today, when we are told that everything is going fine in Iraq, we are learning from the intelligence agencies and learning it in ways that are indirect, even surreptitious, that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, that the opposition there is increasing. In spite of the fact that our servicemen were successful in Fallujah, nevertheless the insurgency is growing stronger. That is what we are being told by the intelligence agencies. We are told that indirectly. We do not get it directly from the administration. They want a different picture to be painted entirely, and this is what our responsibility is as Members of the House of Representatives, to find out why this conflict exists and why we are not getting to the bottom of it. Why, when we are told things by the administration and later found out that they are completely untrue, are we just to accept it, gloss over it, pretend it did not happen? That seems to be the attitude that has been taken by the majority here. It ought not to be. If we were living up to our obligations, under the separation of powers, the obligations in the Constitution, we would be adequately exercising our oversight obligations and responsibilities on the issue of the way in which this intelligence was misrepresented, distorted, tortured, and why we are in the situation we are in today as a result.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished career of Dr. David N. Mesches. Since 1961, Dr. Mesches has provided outstanding medical care to the residents of Ulster County and he has worked tirelessly to improve the delivery of health care services not only in Ulster County, but also throughout the Hudson Valley. I am pleased to join the health care community, his family and his friends in honoring Dr. Mesches for his outstanding career. During his four decades of practice in Ulster County, Dr. Mesches has served as Captain in the United States Air Force at Stewart Air Force Base, providing care to servicemen and their families; operated a private practice while serving as Director of the Student Health Center at SUNY New Paltz; served as Director of the Mid-Hudson Rural Family Practice Residency Training Program; and currently, is the Chief Executive Officer of the Mid-Hudson Family Health Institute. Dr. Mesches' membership in a number of medical and scientific societies and committees is a testament to his dedication and desire to provide citizens with the best possible healthcare available. In fact, in his current role as the President and CEO of the Mid-Hudson Family Health Institute, Dr. Mesches has increased access to healthcare for the under-insured and uninsured residents of the Hudson Valley by forging strong alliances. Through his efforts, regional health care agencies have begun to work collaboratively to build a seamless, integrated healthcare delivery system that will effectively be able to identify and address the needs of the most at risk member of our community. In addition to his professional achievements, Dr. Mesches has participated in numerous community activities including, serving as the Chairman of the Ulster County and New Paltz Planning Boards and Ulster County Planned Parenthood, and serving on the Board of Directors of Patterns for Progress, Mid-Hudson Savings Bank, First Union Bank, and Atlantic States Mortgage Corporation. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of Dr. David Mesches. His commitment to improving the lives of people around him has yielded a distinguished record of service and has made Ulster County and much of the Hudson Valley a better, healthier place to live.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Dutchess County Historical Society located in Poughkeepsie New York, which is part of the 22nd Congressional District that I proudly serve. This year marks the 90th anniversary of the Historical Society. I am pleased to recognize the Dutchess County Historical Society, which has dedicated itself to discovering, preserving, and interpreting the extraordinary history of Dutchess County. Originally formed in 1914, the Historical Society received its State Charter in 1918. Although it had been the principal repository for all aspects of Dutchess County history for many years, it was not until 1979 that the organization found a permanent home. It was at that time that Society entered into a cooperative agreement with the State of New York to operate the Governor Clinton House in Poughkeepsie as its headquarters, an agreement that has recently been renewed for a third time. The success of this partnership led to the Society being trusted with the responsibility of managing a second historic site, the City of Poughkeepsie owned Glebe House. During its nine decades the Society has grown and expanded, adding professional staff, new technologies and innovative programs designed to reach a variety of audiences. Known for its publications, the Society has contributed to as many as 14 books on local history, developed a local history curriculum for use in the 4th and 7th grades and, since 1914, published the oldest continuously printed annual in New York State, a ``Year Book'' of articles on local history. In addition to its publications, the Dutchess County Historical Society maintains a collection of archival material, photographs and dimensional objects inclusive of the entire county. Key components in the ongoing success of this exceptional organization are its educational and community outreach activities. The Society's Board of Directors has made diversity a priority and they have extended their reach into new communities and organizations throughout Dutchess County. Exhibits, lectures, conferences, and tours complete the outstanding array of programming that the Society offers its members and the community at large. Organizations like the Dutchess County Historical Society play a vital role in preserving and protecting our nations history, one community at a time. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the 90th Anniversary of the Dutchess County Historical Society and commend its dedicated, professional and caring members for their outstanding efforts.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to claim the time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, on November 2, George W. Bush was reelected President of the United States, and the Republicans expanded their majorities in both the House and the Senate. I congratulate President Bush and his party on this victory. I also congratulate the American people for once again proving the brilliance and foresight of our Founding Fathers who designed a system in which those who hold power are replaced or affirmed, peacefully and according to the rule of law. Never in my lifetime have the American people expressed more emotion over their choice for President. It is a testament to our Founders and to present-day Americans that this passion did not devolve into violence and lawlessness when the results were finally in and the fervent desires of so many of us were rejected. I remain deeply disappointed by the result of the 2004 election. This election exacerbated the main problem that has been at the root of all the other problems that we have experienced over the past 4 years; that is that our usual system of checks and balances has been replaced by a monolithic Federal Government. It is not just that the legislative and executive branches are controlled by the same party that I find disturbing. It is that the leaders of the majority party in Congress refuse to even question the judgment and the policies of the Bush administration. While partisan Republicans would view this as admirable party discipline, I see it as an abdication of constitutional responsibility. Now President Bush is claiming a mandate, saying that he intends to spend political capital he earned during the campaign. He has stated a willingness to reach across party lines, but all his actions and most of his words belie that sentiment. The President seems determined now to surround himself only with those who share his ideology. An administration already known for marching lockstep behind its leader will now have even fewer dissenting voices. Neither will alternative viewpoints be found in the Republican congressional leadership. Witness the attacks on Senator Specter by the conservative base of the Republican party. The Senator apparently must agree to act merely as a rubber stamp on President Bush's judicial nominees or be denied the committee chairmanship that would otherwise be his. Some may look at the Republican electoral majority and this victory and see a much diminished role for the Democrats. On the contrary, never has there been a greater need for a strong and vocal opposition. Considering the closeness of the election that initially brought George W. Bush to the White House in 2000, this administration's lack of regard for dissenting views has been shocking. We can only imagine how much more arrogant the Bush II administration will be on the strength of its 51 percent victory. Where some see a mandate, I see a country deeply and passionately divided in its opinion of this administration. While we respect the Office of the President and the system through which its occupant is selected, we in the opposition have a duty to continue making our voices heard more enthusiastically and more effectively.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to raise some issues today with regard to certain aspects of this conference report and certain authorizations, particularly those dealing with the Defense Intelligence Agency and the responsibility of this Congress to oversee ways in which intelligence is used by the executive branch. There are very disturbing aspects of the way in which intelligence is used. We know that most of the expenditures for intelligence in our country are spent by the Defense Intelligence Agency. I am interested in why the majority party has not exercised its oversight responsibilities with the way in which intelligence has been misused in ways that are misleading. That goes all of the way back to a time prior to the attack of September 11, 2001. We know, for example, that all during the spring and summer of that year we were getting intelligence information talking about an impending attack on the United States. In fact, at one point, George Tenet, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, pointed out that the lights were flashing red. Others indicated that something very, very, very big was about to happen. Then on August 6 of that year, the President received his daily briefing and in the context of that daily briefing, which was entitled ``bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States,'' there were substantial amounts of information about how it was discerned that an attack upon the United States in various ways was imminent, and there was even discussion about the potential use of airplanes, but no actions were taken, not during the spring and summer when the first information came, not after the President's daily briefing of August 6. Nothing was done. And then the attack occurred. Mr. Speaker, why are we not looking into the way in which the intelligence operation is having an effect on the executive branch? Why are we not overseeing those kinds of activities? Then, of course, we had the report just yesterday from the United States weapons inspector in Iraq, Mr. Duefler, which again said very, very clearly that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Prior to that we had the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the 9/11 Commission Report, all of which said, no connection between Iraq and the attack, and also no weapons of mass destruction. It just seems to me that as we make these authorizations, the majority party here, which sets the agenda and has the responsibility of oversight through the committee system of the way in which the executive branch is operating, ought to have paid much more attention to this and ought to be paying much more attention to it now. We are spending tens of billions of dollars. I am not sure what the exact number is at this particular point, soon it will be $200 billion, but at least it is $140-150 billion being spent in Iraq. All of the loss of life, all of the injuries, and all of the destruction of our image around the world, why are we not in this Congress, in this House of Representatives, living up to our obligations and responsibilities for oversight when so much of the intelligence that we have paid for has been ignored, so much of the other intelligence that we are paying for has been misused to mislead this Congress and to mislead the American people? This is an issue that has not been addressed and must be addressed by this House. The sooner it is done, the better off everyone is going to be.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the people of the Republic of China in celebrating their forthcoming National Day on October 10th. I believe it is appropriate to recognize the substantial political and economic achievements of the Taiwanese people during the last few decades and to highlight the strong and important relationship that continues to grow between the people of Taiwan and the people of the United States. Taiwan has established itself as a stable and successful Asian democracy in recent decades. The elected representatives at every level of Taiwan's government have successfully confronted the most significant challenge that faces an emerging democracy--the peaceful transition of power from an incumbent leader to a newly elected leader in accordance with the results of a free, fair, and legitimate election. Additionally, Taiwan boasts a thriving, multi-party democracy in which citizens and elected representatives alike freely debate and discuss the full range of issues that face Taiwan. Just as the state of democracy in Taiwan has continued to strengthen, so too has the relationship between Taiwan and the United States. The relationship between the United States and Taiwan has grown stronger each year since the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979. Both nations have an unwavering commitment to democracy and a firm belief in the protection of fundamental human rights. Furthermore, Taiwan and the United States share important economic interests as well. Bilateral trade between Taiwan and the United States exceeded $65 billion last year, making Taiwan America's eighth largest trading partner. Additionally, last year nearly 30,000 Taiwanese students studied in colleges and universities in the United States; and aside from Asia, the people of Taiwan visit the United States more than any other country--even more evidence of the increasing interconnectivity between the peoples of Taiwan and the United States. Unfortunately, at a time when Taiwan's political and economic example could most benefit the world community of nations, some countries continue to insist on Taiwan's isolation from that community. Restoration of Taiwan's membership to the United Nations and the World Health Organization would serve as beginning steps toward ending that isolation. As other new democracies emerge, I am convinced that the world could greatly benefit from the counsel of a nation that has recently transformed itself into a democracy as effectively and successfully as Taiwan. As an ally and friend to the United States, Taiwan is a nation of great importance, deserving not only of our recognition but also of our support. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on Taiwan's National Day, I would like to salute Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian and the 23 million people of Taiwan for their many and varied accomplishments, and acknowledge the ever-growing bond that exists between Taiwan and the United States.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to also express my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the chairman for their work on this legislation and for the way in which it has been brought to the floor. I very much appreciate all the consideration that has been given to it and the attention it has received. Mr. Speaker, the legislation, as we have heard, will establish a Federal commission to plan, develop and execute programs and activities to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the voyage of Henry Hudson, the 400th anniversary of the voyage of Samuel de Champlain, and the 200th anniversary of the voyage of Robert Fulton. These are events of major historical importance both for the United States and for many other nations as well. In 1609, Englishman Henry Hudson, acting in the service of the Dutch East India Company, was the first European to sail up the river later named for him in the vessel Half Moon, and French explorer Samuel de Champlain was the first European to see the lake that was later named for him. These voyages were two of the most important passages in the European exploration and discovery of North America, and they began two of the earliest contacts in the New World between Europeans and Native Americans. These explorations led to the establishment of Fort Orange by the Dutch, which later became the English settlement of Albany, which later became the capital of New York State. It also led to French settlements as far south as Lake George in New York. From these early settlements came an influence on our history, law, culture, commerce and traditions of liberty, which extends right down to the present day. Furthermore, in 1807, Robert Fulton navigated 150 miles of the Hudson River from New York City to Albany in the steamboat Clermont, successfully inaugurating steam navigation on a commercial basis. This is one of the most important events in the history of naval travel. The trip had previously consumed an average of 4 days. The Clermont under Fulton made the same trip in about 32 hours. Steam navigation revolutionized waterborne commerce on the great rivers of the United States, such as the Hudson, the Missouri and Mississippi River systems; it transformed transoceanic travel and naval warfare and fostered international relations through travel and trade. The Hudson, Fulton and Champlain anniversaries have a rich tradition of commemoration, as well, by our Nation. In 1909, Americans celebrated the 300th anniversary of these events with maritime celebrations and art exhibitions. New York and New Jersey created a Hudson-Fulton Celebration Commission, and there was a Champlain Tercentenary in the Champlain Valley. These celebrations were extensive and international in scope. The Dutch built the first replica of Hudson's ship, the Half Moon, and sent it up the Hudson River for that observance. In 1959, Congress created the Hudson-Champlain Celebration Commission to recognize the 350th anniversary and coordinate Federal participation in those commemoration events. New York, New Jersey and Vermont all participated in the anniversaries. Then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York proclaimed 1959 the Year of History. Events occurred day and night, such as art exhibits, performance of music, drama and historic reenactments. The Netherlands, Canada, Great Britain and France were all enthusiastically involved. In order for our country to showcase to the world the monumental effect that exploration has had on today's society and to celebrate the beauty, history and culture of the Hudson River and Lake Champlain, Federal planning for the 400th anniversary must start now. The States are already planning for these anniversaries. In 2002, the State of New York established a State Hudson-Fulton- Champlain Commission; and in 2003, the State of Vermont established a Lake Champlain Quadricentennial Commission. A Federal commission is important to expand the scope of these State celebrations, attracting and organizing a national and indeed an international organization for these celebrations. The commission established by this bill will coordinate educational, cultural and historic projects, while cooperating in assisting the programs and activities conceived by New York, New Jersey and Vermont. Specifically, the legislation will do the following: It will ensure a suitable national observance of the anniversary through cooperation with and assistance to the programs and activities of New York, New Jersey and Vermont. It will cultivate international involvement in celebration activities and provide an excellent opportunity to strengthen our historic and cultural ties to nations such as the Netherlands, Canada, Great Britain and France. It will also coordinate the activities of Federal Government agencies such as the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, State, Transportation, as well as the National Park Service, all of which have significant resources in the Hudson and Champlain Valleys. It will encourage civic, patriotic, historical, educational, religious, economic and other organizations throughout the United States to organize and participate in anniversary activities that expand the understanding and appreciation of the significance of these voyages. It will provide technical assistance to States, localities, nonprofit organizations to further the commemoration. It will coordinate and facilitate for the public scholarly research on publication about and interpretation of the voyages of Henry Hudson, Samuel de Champlain and Robert Fulton. It will support and facilitate marketing efforts for a commemorative coin, a commemorative stamp, and related activities for the Hudson- Fulton-Champlain 2009 observances. And it will also ensure that the Hudson-Fulton-Champlain 2009 anniversaries provide a lasting legacy and long-term public benefit by assisting in the development of appropriate programs and facilities. I urge all Members to join me in supporting this legislation, and again, I express my appreciation to the gentleman here today for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have reminded us that it has been 10 years since they have controlled this Congress, and I think it is important to reflect upon that record. Since they have been in the majority here, they have managed to shift the tax burden from the most affluent people in America to the white and blue collar working class, raising taxes for working Americans, lowering them for multimillionaires. They have established the conditions for, and presided over, the Enron and other corporate scandals. And since they have controlled not just the legislative branch but the executive branch as well, they have managed to increase the poverty level in America in the last 4 years by 4.3 million people now living in poverty. They have reduced the average income of the average American family by more than $1,500. They have raised the energy costs of the average American family by more than $1,000 a year. They have raised the number of people who are without health insurance, bringing it up to 45 million people without health insurance. The list goes on. And we will have other opportunities to discuss it, I am sure.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for giving me the opportunity to speak on this resolution. I know that most, if not all, Members who have spoken on the resolution have spoken in a positive way; but I feel it is necessary to point out some aspects of the whereas clauses in this resolution that do not stand up to scrutiny and in fact are false. The resolution says that the war in Iraq is a responsible and necessary response to the attack on our country of September 11. I think that this resolution in saying that, which is blatantly false, does a disservice to our country, and does a disservice particularly to all of the victims of the attack of September 11. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with the attack of September 11. We know that from our own study of this issue. Anyone in this body who has read the Senate Intelligence Committee report, 511 pages, knows very well that that report debunks the notion that the war in Iraq is a necessary response to the attack of September 11. The Senate Intelligence Committee report makes it clear that Iraq had nothing to do with the attack of September 11; and that in addition, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, no connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The Senate Intelligence Committee report says so precisely and clearly. Furthermore, the independent commission known as the 9/11 Commission which studied this issue also very closely and very carefully in a bipartisan way came to precisely the same conclusion, that there was no connection between the attack of September 11 and the war in Iraq, and that the President has taken us to war in Iraq without any foundation whatsoever. So this resolution in its whereas clauses presents information as if they were facts, but they are clearly not facts. They are wrong; they are misstatements of the facts. The resolution goes on to say, for example, that the international military coalition is very active here and engaged in this activity, but the fact of the matter is that this international coalition is falling apart. Six nations have already withdrawn. Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Spain, the Philippines, Norway and Nicaragua have already left a coalition that in the first place was not very large. Poland, the Netherlands, and New Zealand are planning to withdraw. So the statement in this resolution, particularly in the whereas clauses, and I wish I had more time because there is a whole host of things that need to be addressed here, the whereas clauses stipulate things which are blatantly untrue. This resolution is unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, this resolution would have been much better if the people who put it on the floor here had not decided to bring us a political document. We ought to be commemorating the event of September 11, 2001. We ought to be thinking of it in a solemn, honest, and sincere way. We ought to have uppermost in our minds the people who were killed in that attack, more than 3,000 of them; but we ought to do it in a way that does honor to their sacrifice, not in a way that dissembles, not in a way that presents information that is not factual, not in a way that is dishonest in our presentation. Unfortunately, that is what this resolution does in its whereas clauses. The resolved clauses I think is fine, but in the whereas clauses it stipulates things that are false and untrue. Why do we have a political document like this on the floor? Why do we have a document that is not clear, not honest, not sincere, not in keeping with the sacrifice made by those people? That is what we ought to have, but unfortunately we do not have.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the City of Poughkeepsie in Dutchess County, New York, which is part of the 22nd Congressional District that I proudly serve. This year marks the 150th Anniversary of the incorporation of the City of Poughkeepsie. I am pleased to recognize the City of Poughkeepsie and the important contributions it has made to Dutchess County and to the State of New York. Located along the banks of the majestic Hudson River, the City of Poughkeepsie is situated in the heart of Dutchess County. European settlers chose the site because it was surrounded by unbroken and abundant waterways. These waterways provided the early settlers with the source of energy needed to power their water wheels and mills, beginning a long tradition of economic ingenuity that the City of Poughkeepsie continues to demonstrate today. Poughkeepsie was the first seat of county government and, during the American Revolution, General George Clinton mobilized the Continental Army activities from the city. Spared from battle during the war, Poughkeepsie became the second capital city of New York State in 1777. In 1788 the Ratification Convention for New York State, including Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, assembled at the courthouse, debated, and ratified the New York version of the Bill of Rights to be included in the Constitution. Poughkeepsie has been home to many milestones over time, including the publication of the first newspaper in New York State which, by 1791, became the Poughkeepsie Journal that is still being read today. Poughkeepsie was also home to the introduction of the magnetic telegraph in 1846. By the 1850's manufacturing had become the city's staple, providing employment at businesses such as the Poughkeepsie Glass Works, Poughkeepsie Iron Works, and J.O. Whitehouse Boot and Shoe Factory. Poughkeepsie was home to Governor George Clinton's recommendation that ``an act for the encouragement of schools'' be passed, leading to the idea of public funding of education in New York State. In subsequent years the city became known as a stanchion for the promotion of education, and was home to numerous learning institutions such as the Eastman Business College and Riverview Military Academy. In 1854 Governor Myron Clark signed the papers making the incorporation of the City of Poughkeepsie official. Since the late nineteenth century, Poughkeepsie has grown by leaps and bounds. Manufacturing jobs at companies like Fiat Motors and Western Publishing have driven economic growth. The construction industry completed such notable projects as the Mid-Hudson Bridge, the Poughkeepsie Railroad Bridge and, under the direction of the Works Progress Administration, the U.S. Post Office. Cultural and social initiatives such as John Collingwood's Bardavon Opera House and Vassar Brother Hospital are still icons in the City of Poughkeepsie. Cities like Poughkeepsie are an essential component of our nation's past, present, and future, and deserve to be honored and recognized for their numerous contributions to our states and country. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the City of Poughkeepsie, New York as it celebrates the 150th Anniversary of its incorporation.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an emerging health problem. People living with HIV/AIDS are not able to afford the cost of the medications that improve their health and extend their lives. People who have traditionally been able to rely on the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) under Title II of the Ryan White Care Act are not able to get the help that they need because we continue to underfund the program. In my home state and many others, the number of clients served by ADAP is on the rise. If enrollment continues to increase at the current rate in New York, we will soon need to implement waiting lists as 11 other states have already been forced to do. In the 2004 fiscal year, New York has a federal shortfall in ADAP funding in the tens of millions of dollars. New York bears about 20% of the national HIV/AIDS epidemic impact, as it has for over two decades. Yet this number extends far beyond just money; it equates to people, specifically, 3,137 people in New York who are HIV positive, with gross incomes of less than $44,000 a year, who cannot afford their AIDS drugs, which can cost as much as $1,000.00 a month, or more. These 3,137 people are obviously in need of ADAP, but are not receiving assistance. According to the federal poverty statistics, these people are impoverished, but they remain unserved by New York's ADAP. Today we have more people living with HIV/AIDS as opposed to dying from HIV/AIDS than ever before. AIDS-related deaths have declined drastically since 1996, which can be attributed to the success of HIV/ AIDS treatment regiments and ADAP. We can't continue to allow Americans to die of HIV/AIDS when we know how to save their lives. Yet, as I stand here today, we are allowing Americans to die who cannot afford their treatment regiments because we are not fully funding the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. We cannot allow Americans to die on waiting lists as they have in Kentucky and West Virginia. ADAP helps people like Annie Ball of New Hampshire, a former nurse who had become too sick to work due to her HIV status. Yet, because of a successful treatment regiment she was able to return to work. Annie relies on ADAP to afford the expensive prescriptions that have allowed her to become a productive member of society again. Yet, if the ADAP program is threatened, Annie will, in her words, ``devastate me, my family and my loved ones, and my community, as I will not be able to work and contribute my talents.'' President Bush just allocated an additional $20 million to help in the relief of the ADAP crisis, however we need a total of $122 million just to clear all of the waiting lists for ADAP and preserve existing drug access in line with federal standards of HIV care. We need to increase funding above that level to deal with expected demand for new enrollment, and for existing patients in the coming 24 months. The true need for ADAP in Fiscal Year 2005 is $217 million; the committee fell far short of that mark in the bill we are considering today. I urge that the conference report on this bill fully fund the program so that no American who qualifies for ADAP will suffer needlessly.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday President Bush got up on his $2.5 million podium and crowed about how his Medicare reform bill was making health care more affordable for seniors. But less than 24 hours later, this administration announced the largest increase in Medicare premiums in history. Beginning in January, retirees and the disabled will see their Medicare premiums rise by $11.60 per month, to $78.20. That is an increase of 17 percent. It comes on the heels of last year's whopping 14 percent increase. The Bush administration deliberately tried to bury this bad news, releasing the information late on Friday in the midst of a hurricane and leading up to a long holiday weekend. They did that in the hopes that seniors would not notice. The Social Security COLA will not be generous either. That is why the Bush administration needed to stifle news coverage about the Medicare premium increase. The Social Security trustees have predicted a 1.3 percent COLA for 2005. For a retiree receiving the average benefit of $895, that amounts to a monthly increase of $11.64. After Medicare's premiums go up, seniors will be left with an additional 4 cents per month to handle rising expenses. Seniors have increasing housing costs, high gas prices, rising grocery bills and the prospects of record heating bills this winter, just like everyone else. Does 4 cents a month sound like enough of a cost-of-living increase to cover inflation and expenses? The retirees I know pay very close attention to information about their health insurance costs because they need to watch every dime. But the same cannot be said of President Bush and the Republican Congress. The so-called Medicare reform bill that they are so quick to praise is largely to blame for the premium increases and Medicare's ongoing financial difficulties. The Medicare reform bill, with a price tag of $549 billion, spends more money to pad the pockets of corporate executives than it does to pay for prescription drugs or for more comprehensive medical coverage for seniors. More than 60 percent of the bill's cost is attributable to $139 billion in overpayments to pharmaceutical companies, $70 billion in subsidies to corporations and $130 billion in overpayments to Medicare HMOs. These expenses do nothing to improve the quality of health care that seniors receive, but they certainly have a negative impact on the affordability of that care. Today's retirees will not be the only ones to pay the price for the shortsighted, irresponsible agenda of President Bush and the Republican Congress. We all will, in today's budget deficits and tomorrow's skyrocketing Medicare costs. None of the Medicare bill's $549 billion price tag was paid for, which means it only adds to the Federal budget deficit. The growing budget deficit in turn means that we will not be able to put any money aside to shore up Medicare's finances for the impending retirement of the baby boom generation. Under this leadership, today's seniors and tomorrow's retirees can expect many years of outrageously high increases. This is just another example of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress saying one thing and doing another. It sounds nice to say that you have added a comprehensive, guaranteed prescription drug benefit; but you did not. It sounds nice to say that you have made seniors' health care better and more affordable, but you have not done that either. President Bush and the Republican leadership have done just the opposite. When seniors get their Social Security checks in January and those checks are only 4 cents more than what they got last January, they will know the difference between your words and your deeds.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is important, because as we have seen in the past, particularly during the Reagan and first Bush administrations, the Commodity Credit Corporation has been manipulated by those administrations, particularly for elicit purposes. After the gassing of the Kurds in Halabjah, for example, the administration in 1988 when that occurred took Iraq off of the list of terrorist states and arranged for them to get substantial amounts of funding in a variety of ways, and principal among those ways was through the Commodity Credit Corporation. Probably more than $4 billion flowed to Iraq through CCC, even though the Commissioner of Agriculture objected to it on many grounds, not the least of which was that they were not likely to be repaid. Nevertheless, the then Vice President of the United States and others in the White House intervened, and the money was sent. Commodities were sent. We are not sure where they went. Weapons were sent. And now we are confronted with a situation where people take a very sanctimonious point of view. Saddam Hussein gassed his own people, the Kurds. Yes, he did, and in a very evil way; and 5,000 people or more were killed. What was the response of the American administration? More support through Commodity Credit Corporation, more weapons, more armaments, more chemical weapons. That was the response, and many of those people were in positions of responsibility in those administrations at the time, those same people who are complaining about that sanctimoniously today. Yes, this is a restatement of the existing law, but obviously the law needs to be restated. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by my colleague Ms. Kaptur is very simple but also critical. During the 1980s and early 1990s, the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush sent billions of dollars in CCC funds to the regime of Saddam Hussein. This money was sent after the United States confirmed that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians. For example, in November of 1983, the State Department confirmed that Iraq was using chemical weapons daily in attacks against the Iranians. At the same time, $413 million in agriculture loan guarantees were sent to Iraq. In 1984, despite Iraq's continued use of chemical weapons, the Reagan administration sent Iraq $513 million in agriculture loan guarantees. These funds enabled Hussein to purchase more weapons and strengthened his grip on the Iraqi people. Oftentimes, this funding was sent only after top ranking officials such as James Baker and George Bush intervened over the objections of their subordinates. An example of this occurred on October 31, 1989 when Secretary of State Baker personally intervened with the Agriculture Secretary to get him to drop opposition to $1 billion in food credits for Iraq. The funds were subsequently sent. These actions clearly were illegal and should never have been permitted. Ms. Kaptur's amendment simply restates the restrictions on CCC loans contained in current law, which were violated by previous administrations. This is extremely prescient because many of the officials responsible for our Iraq policy when these violations occurred are back in power in George W. Bush's administration. They could probably use the reminder. On March 16, 1988, Iraq used mustard gas and other nerve agents against the Kurds in Halabjah, Iraq, killing an estimated 5,000 people. This is an atrocity that is used by many, including the President and members of his cabinet, as justification for invading Iraq. Yet, these same people in both the Reagan and the first Bush administrations worked to increase aid, cooperation, trade and intelligence-sharing with Iraq after the gassing occurred after these atrocities occurred. Secretary of State Colin Powell was Ronald Reagan's National Security Adviser when the Kurds were gassed. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 1989 to 1993. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was a director on the National Security Council from 1989 to 1993. Vice President Dick Cheney was the Republican whip in the House in 1988 and the Secretary of Defense from 1989 until 1993. Even Majority Leader Tom DeLay voted against legislation imposing sanctions on Iraq in September of 1988 in response to the Halabja tragedy. As far as we know, not one of them opposed the massive aid and assistance the Reagan and Bush administrations sent after the Halabja bombing. I urge the adoption of Representative Kaptur's amendment to prevent a repeat of the abuse that occurred under the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. THE CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment cuts $500,000 from the office of the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and adds that money to the FDA's Center For Drug Evaluation and Research. It is my intention that the funds should be cut from the FDA's Office of General Counsel, which is housed in the Commissioner's office, and that those funds be added to the FDA's Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communication, which is located in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. The mission of the Food and Drug Administration is to ensure that the public is protected from unsafe food, drugs and medical products. The FDA's Chief Counsel, however, has taken the agency in a radical new direction, and in doing so has wasted taxpayer money on pursuits that are undermining FDA's basic mission. For the first time in history, FDA's Chief Counsel is actively soliciting private industrial company lawyers to bring him cases in which FDA can intervene in support of drug and medical device manufacturers. The cases he is seeking out are private, State, civil litigation cases. These are cases in which the court has not asked the FDA's opinion. These are cases involving drug companies and medical device manufacturers who are being sued by people who have been harmed by their products. This has never happened before, and according to the FDA, it has spent over 622 hours on these cases. I have also uncovered what amounts to a pattern of collusion between the FDA and the drug companies and medical device manufacturers whom the FDA is defending in State courts. Here are three such cases: One of Mr. Troy's clients, Chief Counsel for the FDA, Mr. Troy's clients at Wiley, Rein was Pfizer, which in the 3 years prior to his appointment in the FDA paid that firm $415,000 for services provided directly by Mr. Troy. In July of 2002, Malcolm Wheeler, an attorney for Pfizer, called Mr. Troy, then FDA's Chief Counsel, and requested that FDA get involved in the private State lawsuit against Pfizer that was ongoing in California. Mr. Troy obliged, and in September, less than 2 months later, FDA through the Department of Justice filed a court brief in support of Pfizer. That same July, Mr. Troy also had a meeting with Ms. Michele Corash from Morrison and Foerster. Morrison and Foerster, one of the world's largest firms, is based in California. At the time of this meeting, it was representing Glaxo Smith Kline in a private lawsuit in California that revolved around California's Proposition 65, or the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. Michelle Corash was the lead attorney in that case. On September 12, less than 2 months after that meeting, Mr. Troy's FDA filed a brief in support of Ms. Corash's client Glaxo Smith Kline. This pattern continued in 2003. On December 12, 2003, FDA filed a statement of interest in the case of Murphree v. Pacesetter in support of the medical device manufacturer Pacesetter. The company was being sued in Tennessee State court for a faulty pacemaker. My office has obtained the letter to FDA dated November 5, 2003, from the law firm of Feldman, Gale and Weber directing FDA on how it should assist its case against the person whose Pacesetter did not work. The firm was representing the Pacesetter. Another pursuit of FDA's Chief Counsel was his publishing in the Federal Register a notice questioning whether FDA's own regulations complied with the first amendment. This notice is troubling because it would surely be used against FDA in lawsuits. Because of the unusual nature of this action, CRS looked for a precedent, and what it found was this: ``We were not able to uncover any similar instance where a Federal agency issued a notice seeking the type of public comment on a constitutional issue and regulatory issue such as this one which was sought out by Mr. Troy.'' After receiving 700 filings and spending 600 hours on this matter, the FDA decided to drop it, once again wasting taxpayer money. But this amendment is about more than just an FDA office wasting money. FDA's Chief Counsel is taking actions to undermine FDA's ability to carry out its mission. He is shutting down avenues used to expose fraud in the drug industry. He is making it easier for drug companies to produce misleading advertisements. Instead of spending taxpayer dollars to make it easier to defraud the public, the FDA should be protecting the public and its interests. My amendment would add funds to FDA's Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communication. This division, which consists now of only seven people, is responsible for reviewing the accuracy of prescription drug consumer-directed advertisements. Last year, these seven people reviewed 38,400 such ads. This is a 6 percent increase over the previous year. However, despite the increase in ads reviewed, the number of enforcement letters sent by FDA to drug manufacturers for false and misleading advertisements dropped 75 percent. They are only doing 25 percent of the work that they did previously. It dropped 75 percent in 2003. The reason for this drop was not the drug companies suddenly cleaned up their act. In fact, all public information indicates the contrary. The real reason is a conscious effort on the part of the FDA to weaken advertising regulations. Shortly after the Bush administration took office, FDA's Chief Counsel instituted a policy that all advertising warning letters go through his office, the Office of Chief Counsel. Prior to this, all letters were sent from the Division of Drug Marketing. So now that they go through the Office of Chief Counsel, we have had this 75 percent reduction in enforcement. This extra money would strengthen FDA's division for drug marketing's ability to identify misleading ads that it sends to the FDA's Chief Counsel's office. It is clear this division is overwhelmed and requires more assistance. I urge support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Francis S. Currey for his heroic service during the Second World War. I am very pleased to submit this tribute to Sergeant Currey, as the Town of Fallsburg in Sullivan County, New York prepares to celebrate ``Francis Currey Day,'' designated for July 10, 2004. The day of festivities will pay homage to the outstanding and invaluable service that Sergeant Currey provided to our nation during World War II, which earned him the Medal of Honor. Mr. Currey is the only living native of Sullivan County to have received this distinguished award. The details of Sergeant Currey's courageous actions are chronicled in a citation dated July 27, 1945 and signed by President Harry S. Truman. At the time of the events depicted in the citation, Francis Currey was nineteen years of age. It reads as follows: ``Sergeant Francis S. Currey, U.S. Army, Company K, 3rd Battalion, 120th Infantry, 30th Infantry Division. He was an automatic rifleman with the 3rd Platoon defending a strong point near Malmedy, Belgium, on 21 December 1944, when the enemy launched a powerful attack. Overrunning tank destroyers and antitank guns located near the strong point, German tanks advanced to the 3rd Platoon's position and, after prolonged fighting, forced the withdrawal of this group to a nearby factory. Sergeant Currey found a bazooka in the building and crossed the street to secure rockets meanwhile enduring intense fire from enemy tanks and hostile infantrymen who had taken up a position at a house a short distance away. In the face of small arms, machine gun, and artillery fire, he, with a companion, knocked out a tank with one shot. Moving to another position, he observed three Germans in the doorway of an enemy-held house. He killed or wounded all three with his automatic rifle. He emerged from cover and advanced alone to within 50 yards of the house, intent on wrecking it with rockets. Covered by friendly fire, he stood erect, and fired a shot which knocked down half of one wall. While in this forward position, he observed five Americans who had been pinned down for hours by fire from the house and three tanks. Realizing that they could not escape until the enemy tank and infantry guns had been silenced, Sergeant Currey crossed the street to a vehicle, where he procured an armful of antitank grenades. These he launched while under heavy enemy fire, driving the tankmen from the vehicles into the house. He then climbed onto a half-track in full view of the Germans and fired a machine gun at the house. Once again changing his position, he manned another machine gun whose crew had been killed; under his covering fire the five soldiers were able to retire to safety. Deprived of tanks and with heavy infantry casualties, the enemy was forced to withdraw. Through his extensive knowledge of weapons and by his heroic and repeated braving of murderous enemy fire, Sergeant Currey was greatly responsible for inflicting heavy losses in men and material on the enemy, for rescuing five comrades, two of whom were wounded, and for stemming an attack which threatened to flank his battalion's position.'' Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the Town of Fallsburg in honoring Francis S. Currey, who repeatedly risked his life in order to protect his fellow soldiers and to halt the Nazi offensive near Malmedy, Belgium during the Battle of the Bulge. The enemy offensive that Sergeant Currey thwarted may have prolonged the duration of the War in Europe and cost the lives of many more American soldiers had it been successful. It is with great pleasure that I hereby recognize Sergeant Currey's courageous and selfless actions and express my deep gratitude and appreciation for his tremendous service to this country.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. I congratulate all Ukrainians in the United States and throughout the world on the 40th anniversary of the unveiling of the Taras Shevchenko monument. Taras Shevchenko was the hero of the national liberation struggle and an inspiration to many generations. He freed himself from serfdom and opened his mind to the vision of an independent Ukraine, free from Russian imperialism. A democratic Ukraine in the midst of other European monarchies was Shevchenko's goal. He inspired the Ukrainian nation to take pride in its heritage and continued struggle for sovereignty and independence. His poetry and political activities were almost exclusively devoted to this goal and his work has ignited the hearts of Ukrainians for almost two centuries. His words inspired the people of Ukraine to persevere, attain independence and rebuild a prosperous and democratic Ukraine. Four decades ago, the Ukrainian American community gathered before his monument to celebrate its unveiling, but more importantly, to inform the world of the horrific crimes that were being committed against Ukrainians. For the first time, the world heard the truth about the genocide inflicted on the Ukrainian nation by the totalitarian Moscow regime in 1932-1933, which claimed the lives of 7-10 millions of innocent people. Ukrainian Americans stood united in their cause to expose the truth and help their brethren in Ukraine lift the yoke of Soviet oppression. Today, I welcome the initiative to unite the Ukrainians American community in order to help Ukraine make a final step toward true democracy. In light of the upcoming presidential elections, which will determine the future course of development in Ukraine, the Ukrainian Americans once again join together to send a clear message to the Government of Ukraine: the world is watching the pre-election campaign in Ukraine and expecting the government to ensure free and fair elections. Ukraine needs this final impetus to break with its totalitarian past and ensure a path toward democracy and a realization of Shevchenko's dream.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I have a great deal of respect for both the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and for the work that they do here, and there is much in this resolution with which I agree. However, there is a lot in here that is misleading. In fact, I think that much of this resolution is an exercise in self-deception as well as an attempt to deceive others. Let me just give my colleagues an example. We have here on page 4, the House of Representatives offers its continued support to the people and government of Iraq as they deal with the consequences of decades of misrule by the former regime of Saddam Hussein. Well, that is interesting and right, but it does not say that we supported that regime of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein took office in 1980. It was not more than 3 years later that the government of President Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to begin a relationship with that country, and the relationship resulted in the transfer of billions of dollars of American material and money to the government of Saddam Hussein right on up to the advent of the first Gulf War. Why are we not talking about that in this resolution, how we supplied the government of Saddam Hussein with money, how we supplied the government of Saddam Hussein with both conventional, biological and chemical weapons from the United States, from France, from Germany and from Chile, all orchestrated by the government under the administration of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush? Why are we not talking about that in this resolution? We are giving our sympathy and our condolences to the innocent people who were killed in Iraq. What about the innocent people who were killed unnecessarily as a result of this unjust, unnecessary war? This is a war that will be a rock around the neck of this country for decades. It will be a long time before we get over the results of this. That is particularly true with regard to the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Camp Cropper and others. Why are we not discussing that in this resolution? There is much to be embarrassed about. This is not something that we should congratulate ourselves about. Try not to deceive ourselves either.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, first I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for cosponsoring this amendment with me. This is an amendment which will protect the Yellowstone bison. The Yellowstone bison are unique, in that they are the last element that traces its genetic strain back to the American bison that roamed the great plains and prairies of America in the early years of our history and of course much before that. In the 18th century, it is estimated that there were between 20 and 40 million American bison in the Midwest and the West of the United States between the Appalachians and the Rockies. By the advent of the 20th century that number had dwindled to 25. The American bison was almost extinct, and it almost followed the path of the passenger pigeon, but due to the intervention of conservationists and the efforts of this House, measures were taken to preserve the American bison. As a result of that, their numbers turned around and they began to prosper once again under that protection. The American bison has become an American icon. It was on one of our coins. It is seen across the country in a variety of ways. It represents the great freedom that was inherent in the vast plains and prairies of America. But now the American bison, the last genetic strain that traces its history back to those that roamed this country and earlier centuries, is in great danger. It is in great danger as a result of the activities of the Park Service and the harassment of these animals out of Yellowstone National Park, west and northwest of the park and then the capture and slaughter of those animals. The amendment that the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and I offer today would restrict funding in this appropriations bill so no money could be used to carry out that capture and slaughtering process for 1 year so we will have an opportunity to look into this situation, examine it closely, see what is being done and understand it better. Now there are some Members who contend that this slaughter is necessary because bison may transmit brucellosis to cattle on the fringes of Yellowstone. First of all, there are hardly any cattle on the fringes of Yellowstone. And what are there, most of those are trucked in in the summertime when the bison are back in the park. Furthermore, according to the National Academy of Sciences, there has never been one single example of the transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle. It has never occurred. Yes, brucellosis can be transmitted from animals in the wild, and it has been shown that brucellosis can be transmitted from elk in Yellowstone and elsewhere to cattle, but there is no program to deal with elk in any way. That causes one to wonder whether brucellosis is really a motivation here at all; I suspect it is not. There is something else going on here, something that we need to get to the bottom of. We need to understand why these animals are being harassed and slaughtered in the way that they are. Now, this argument comes not just from me and other people who may not be directly involved in this in a material way, it also comes from people who live out there in Montana, people who live up on Horse Butte Peninsula, for example, who have contacted my office and told us how the Park Service and people working with them harass these animals with helicopters and snowmobiles and drive them across the park and across their property and block roads. The people who live in those communities are tired of it. We were contacted by the Chamber of Commerce in Gardiner, Montana. They told us people come out there in the wintertime to examine the wildlife of Yellowstone in winter conditions. They do not come out there to see the Yellowstone wildlife, particularly the American bison, captured and slaughtered in the way that the Park Service is doing it. So what we want to do here is stop this outrageous activity from continuing to occur for the extent of this bill over the next year. I hope that the majority of the Members of this House will see the clear inherent benefits and the sensibilities of this and they will join us in supporting this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, if I have understood the arguments that have emanated from the other side of the aisle accurately, they seem to suggest that we should not be doing anything; that is, the government of the United States, should not be doing anything to help consumers, taxpayers, at this moment when they are paying record prices for gasoline out in the marketplace. Well, that does not make any sense. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has offered an opportunity to do something which will hold the price of gasoline and drive it down 10, 15, 20 cents a gallon. That makes a lot of sense. Any time a person can save a dollar or two or three on a tank of gas, that means another quart of milk or another loaf of bread for some people who are having a hard time in this country making things work. The argument that the government should not do anything to try to regulate the price of oil is absurd. Let me just take my colleagues back in history a little bit, not very far, just about a year or so, 15 months. When the leadership of this House brought a resolution to the floor here authorizing the President of the United States to go to war in Iraq, many of us said that there would be terrible consequences and that among those consequences would be this, that that war would destabilize the Middle East and the destabilization of the Middle East would drive up the price of oil and that the American taxpayer/consumer would have to pay more for gasoline and more for heating oil as a result of that war resolution. What do my colleagues know? That is exactly what has happened. The destabilization of the Middle East has driven up the price of gasoline and the price of heating oil. Now we are told we should not do anything about it. What are we doing in Iraq now? This government is asking the American taxpayer to subsidize the price of gasoline in Iraq. Iraqis are paying 5 cents a gallon. We are paying $500 million every quarter to subsidize the price of that gasoline at 5 cents a gallon, $2 billion a year. That comes out of the same pocket, the people who are paying record prices for gasoline today. That is a consequence of the policies of this administration and the majority party in this House. When Halliburton can buy gasoline for 71 cents a gallon and sell it to the Army Corps of Engineers for more than $2.10 a gallon, three times the price they are paying for it, and the government of the United States, the leadership in the administration and here in the Congress, turns a blind eye to it, that drives up the price of gasoline for every American consumer and taxpayer as well. When the administration engages in economic policies which deflate the value of the dollar by 30 percent, that means that everything we buy with that dollar on the international market costs more. So, as a result of the economic policies of this administration, which have deflated the dollar by almost one-third, the American taxpayer-consumer is paying more for gasoline and fuel oil. These are things that this administration, the Bush administration and the leadership here in the Congress, have done to regulate the price of oil. Unfortunately, none of that has been to drive down the price of gasoline or the price of heating oil, but every bit of it has been to drive up the price of gasoline and the price of heating oil. What the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is trying to do is just reverse that a little bit. Let us support him today.