Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 300.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 300, which honors the outstanding contributions of the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of Christian colleges and universities. I am pleased that 28 of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have joined as cosponsors of this resolution which also recognizes October as Christian Higher Education Month, in honor of the 367-year history of Christian higher education in our Nation. Unfortunately, due to the full legislative schedule and the debate surrounding the supplemental appropriations bill, we were unable to schedule this resolution during the month of October, when many faith- based institutions celebrated their religious heritage. The United States has a rich tradition of Christian higher education. Many of our Nation's oldest and most highly esteemed colleges and universities have their roots in Christian religious traditions, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Rutgers and Dartmouth. Today, the array of opportunities in higher education are at an all- time high. According to the U.S. Department of Education, there are 6,250 different institutions eligible for Federal assistance under the Higher Education Act. Of these, 4,200 are degree-granting institutions of higher education in the United States. Approximately 1,600 of these are private, nonprofit campuses; and about 900 of these identify themselves as having some religious heritage or affiliation. This adds to the rich diversity of higher education in the United States. Among these hundreds of campuses are Members who are affiliates of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, CCCU, an association founded in 1976 to support Christian higher education and to help its institutions transform lives by integrating faith, scholarship, and service. These 127 campuses are located in 32 States, enroll over 200,000 students, and have more than 15,000 faculty on staff. Council member institutions also represent more than 30 different denominational traditions. It was this association that took the initiative to focus on a specific month to honor all institutions of higher education whose faith tradition is an important element in their history and ongoing mission. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, during the last decade, there was an overall increase in enrollment across the country among public and private institutions of higher education. Interestingly, while enrollment at public colleges and universities increased at a rate of 4 percent and at private institutions they increased by 17 percent, at CCCU member institutions, student enrollment grew by 47 percent during the 1990s. Enrollment at these faith-based institutions of higher education is not just growing; it is thriving. Council institutions generally have a smaller student body than their private and public counterparts, which produces several benefits for the students who choose to attend these institutions, including smaller student-faculty ratios, which gives students the opportunity for more personal interaction with their professors, a greater participation in extracurricular activities, and a greater sense of community with their fellow classmates. Nearly all students at council institutions participate in some form of service and learning through extracurricular activities during their college tenure. A study of council alumni reported that their college education helped them develop moral principles and a sense of purpose. They place a high priority on community service, helping the disadvantaged and promoting civic engagement. The Nation benefits from the rich diversity of all the different colleges and universities which make up higher education in our Nation. I am an ardent supporter of our system of higher education because it allows individuals to make choices based upon their own unique needs, personal goals, and interests. I strongly believe that ours is one of the best education models that exists due to its embracement of diversity, its rigorous standards and the manner in which it empowers students to make the choices that complement their individuality. This resolution that we are considering today specifically recognizes those campuses whose faith traditions add to the mosaic of opportunities in post-secondary education. I am pleased that we are able to recognize them in this way and urge my colleagues to support this expression of appreciation. Again, we are recognizing many of our Nation's oldest and most highly esteemed colleges and universities that have their roots in Christian education, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Rutgers, Dartmouth, and Hope College. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 300) recognizing the outstanding contributions of the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of Christian colleges and universities, as amended.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3076) to amend title VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure graduate opportunities in postsecondary education, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for those kind words.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to, once again, thank my colleague for working with us. I think we have developed a great partnership on this subcommittee. We had a great hearing down in the gentleman's district, a couple of weeks ago, in Texas. We had a very, very good hearing, a very, very good roundtable, and a delicious dinner together with great hospitality. And I just want to publicly express my appreciation for the cooperation in that process and also the continued partnership on the legislation coming through this committee.

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3076, the Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education Act, a bill that will not only build upon the successes of our graduate education programs, but will also help fulfill areas of critical National need which will help trigger improvement at all levels of education, including K-12. I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) who, again, we have been very able to work very well together, and his cooperation has been able to bring these bills together in a bipartisan way. We all recognize the importance of graduate education, particularly as we work to meet the challenges of the No Child Left Behind Act and place a highly-qualified teacher in every public school classroom by the 2005-2006 school year. I believe the legislation before us today will help our States and schools as they strive to achieve that important goal. The Federal Government has long been involved with graduate-level education, providing fellowships that assist students who excel in their chosen fields to complete education beyond the baccalaureate level. These programs have been tremendously successful, encouraging in-depth study and creating knowledgable experts, particularly in subject areas facing national need. Graduate education authorized under Title VII of the Higher Education Act produces immeasurable benefits for our Nation. Not only do these programs enrich our citizenry, but they also nurture discovery and innovation that will some day lead to medical and technological advancements. Graduate programs train the next generation of teachers, researchers, engineers, doctors, lawyers, poets and professors. These individuals will be vitally important in preparing the United States to meet the challenges of the future. Title VII of the Higher Education Act authorizes three graduate fellowship programs, the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need program, the Jacob K. Javits Fellowship program, and the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity program. Collectively, they encourage students to advance their knowledge in scientific and technical fields, the arts and humanities, and legal studies by providing financial assistance as well as support services to those displaying academic excellence in their field of study. Each year, Congress appropriates nearly $45 million to assist these students in pursuing their goals. The Graduate Opportunities and Higher Education Act seeks to build upon the success of these programs by targeting fellowships in subject areas facing national need, not only at the graduate level, but also by encouraging study of subject areas where there are shortages in K-12 education as well. This will help to expand the number of educators prepared to train the teachers of tomorrow in critical subject areas such as math, science, and special education. By placing a priority on these subject areas with a demonstrated national need, graduate fellowships will serve to strengthen education from the halls of universities down to the classrooms filled with children. In addition to placing a priority on these three subject areas, the Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education Act also recognizes the rapidly-growing need for teachers prepared to meet the needs of students with limited English proficiency. The Graduate Opportunities and Higher Education Act is an essential piece of our higher-education reform efforts. By strengthening graduate education and targeting the Federal investment towards those areas facing demonstrated need, we cannot only improve graduate education but education at all levels in this Nation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation and help make our already successful graduate education programs even better. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3076.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3077) to amend title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to enhance international education programs, as amended.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3077, the bill under consideration.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in strong support of H.R. 3077, the International Studies in Higher Education Act, a bill I offered to build on programs that encourage the study of international issues and foreign languages in higher education. Such programs not only foster knowledge of the world, but, importantly, these programs train experts prepared to meet America's national security needs. Title VI of the Higher Education Act provides support for a critically important group of programs at colleges and universities which work to advance knowledge of world regions, encourage the study of foreign languages, and train American students to have the international expertise and understanding to fulfill pressing national security needs. As we continue efforts to reauthorize the Higher Education Act and strengthen and improve the state of higher education in America, we cannot neglect these important programs for international studies. The bill before us, which I am proud to have crafted in a bipartisan fashion, updates the programs under title VI to reflect our national security needs in a post-9/11 era, as well as in the current international climate. Again, I would particularly like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the ranking minority member on the subcommittee for his cooperation in moving this bill forward. In the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, the International Studies in Higher Education Act moved through our committee and stands before us today with positive reforms that will strengthen and enhance international and foreign language studies programs that play such a critical role in training experts at colleges and universities across our Nation. The International Studies in Higher Education Act would increase coordination between these important international and foreign language studies programs to better meet America's national and international security needs. The bill also clarifies that programs under title VI of the Higher Education Act are to support and coordinate with other Federal programs in the areas of foreign language, area studies, and other international affairs. International and foreign language studies have taken on increased importance in today's word climate, and as such, it is more important than ever that Congress and the Secretary of Education do all we can to ensure these programs are fulfilling their purpose. For that reason, the bill would create a new International Education Advisory Board, in consultation with homeland security agencies, for all title VI programs to increase accountability by providing advice, counsel, and recommendations to the Secretary of Education and Congress on international education issues for higher education. This board is advisory in nature and will not be responsible for dictating curriculum or administrating the programs. However, the advisory board will serve as an important new resource for those of us at the Federal level as we work to ensure the continued success of international and foreign language studies programs at campuses across our Nation. Taken together, the reforms included in the International Studies in Higher Education Act will continue our efforts to strengthen higher education as a whole, while at the same time helping to ensure international studies programs are working to fulfill our critical national and international security needs. I stand in strong support of this legislation and encourage my colleagues to join me in our efforts to build on the success of these programs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleague in thanking our staff for the work that they have done not only on this bill but also the previous bill. It is their work behind the scenes so often which enables us to come together and work out our differences and come to the floor on a bipartisan basis. Again, these programs, the international education programs, they work to advance the knowledge for our young people of world regions. As we found in a post-9/11 world, it is very, very important that we train more of our young people in the area of foreign languages. It is a critical need. It is an area where we are woefully short of the resources that we need. It is a weakness that we face, so this bill will help encourage the study of foreign language. It will train Americans to have the international expertise and the understanding to fulfill pressing national security needs. This bill will encourage the coordination between these important international and foreign language study programs and America's national and international security needs. Since 9/11, we have seen and received heightened awareness of how important these types of programs are. We have found that these no longer are nice to have, but these are now essential programs that we need to build the expertise within the United States to face some of the international security threats that we face. H.R. 3077 also seeks to strengthen and improve international education programs to ensure they are reaching their full potential to expand opportunities for international studies and enhance international knowledge and understanding. As my colleague mentioned, the bill also creates an education advisory board. There were those who were concerned as we began this process that the language was not clearly written and that the end result would be that the advisory board would become more than an advisory board and that it would become a board that could dictate curricula. Working together, we were able to clarify that language to make sure that everyone understands that this is clearly an advisory board intended to provide feedback to the Department of Education, provide feedback to Congress, and provide feedback to the institutions as the best way to get the maximum amount of benefit out of each and every one of these programs and the dollars that are administered, and also to foster cooperation between various universities so that they can learn from each other as to what the most effective practices are, what the new innovative programs might be, and how colleges and campuses can move forward aggressively. So this bill is a significant step forward. It builds on the long-term successes that we have had. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time and allowing me the opportunity to speak on this bill. I am enthusiastic about this bill. It has bipartisan support, supported by development organizations. It is supported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Education Association of the University Centers. So it has clearly met the needs of a number of folks. But as we take a look at what the bill does specifically, it creates a new program that allows for the designation of special impact areas which allows the Secretary to waive certain planning requirements to help isolated areas in distressed communities. This designation, I think, really will enable the Secretary to respond more quickly to get help to those areas, to get economic help to those communities that need it; and when they need it, they need it quickly. It creates a performance-based incentive program that rewards high performance, as determined by criteria established in regulation, with a bonus of up to 10 percent of the project cost that can be used on other eligible activities. Again, these reforms focus on getting better results. It creates a planning performance award equal to 5 percent of the grant amount, which may be awarded prior to closeout of a grant if the recipient satisfies four mandated criteria. And as with any program or any reform, it removes outdated and burdensome administrative procedures. It updates several citations and allows for subgranting of assistance to eligible recipients. It also authorizes the issuance of grants for brownfields redevelopment. Again, important in many communities because if we want to revitalize a community, what we want to do is we want to revitalize those areas that we classify as brownfields. It also allows the EDA to explore the use of photovoltaic technology in brownfield redevelopment on a limited basis, again, enabling us to use perhaps break-through technology in cleaning up the brownfields. So I rise in strong support of H.R. 2535, the Economic Development Administration Reauthorization bill, and I thank my colleague.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mother Teresa, a beloved humanitarian revered throughout the world for her charity toward the poor and afflicted. Mother Teresa, who died on September 5, 1997, at 87 years old in her Missionaries of Charity home in central Calcutta, India, was truly a spiritual guide whom we admire and respect for her uncompromising generosity. Her impact was felt by millions worldwide, and she made all those she touched view the world with a kinder and gentler eye. A Roman Catholic nun and missionary, she served impoverished people unselfishly, never asking for anything in return. She firmly believed that the poorest of the poor required self-esteem and hope to escape poverty, and she devoted her life to providing it one person at a time until the day that she died. She was rightfully awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 following a lifetime of reaching out to the needy, the suffering and the dying. Her efforts have inspired generations to contribute to the well-being of humanity in both large and small ways. Mr. Speaker, I offer these remarks to honor the beatification of Mother Teresa by Pope John Paul II on October 19, 2003, in Rome. Her tireless, inspirational work is missed, but her legacy will live on for eternity.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I come out to speak against this amendment. In the global war on terror, Iraq is a major theater of conflict. We chose to take the war to the terrorists, where they live, where they seek refuge, and not allow them to again gather strength and the resources to attack us in the United States. We removed Saddam Hussein's regime. But the job is only partially complete. We must finish our duty by securing and stabilizing Iraq. This rebuilding effort cannot be done on the cheap. It is an investment in the safety and the security of the United States and its allies. It is a long-term investment. Our troops must have the resources necessary to win the war on terror. This supplemental will enable the American-led coalition the opportunity to leave Iraq under the stable and secure control of the Iraqi people. It will also assist the Iraqi people in rebuilding their country. While Saddam Hussein built dozens of palaces for himself and his family and funded the accumulation of weapons and a massive military buildup, he allowed the infrastructure such as the water and sewer systems and electrical grid to crumble. As a result, Iraq is more than $100 billion in debt and unable to tap the full potential of its resources. As Iraq rebuilds its economy and infrastructure, it will assume more of the costs on its own. The supplemental will provide an important bridge, a bridge that provides the resources necessary to continue rebuilding Iraq and the opportunity to create jobs for Iraqis. The funding cannot be a loan to be paid back with oil revenue, or it will send the message to the world that we removed Saddam Hussein's regime for Iraq's oil. That is not why we did it. We did it to build a model of representative government and freedom and democracy for the rest of the Middle East and the rest of the world to see. It is important that the United States demonstrate its commitment by passing the supplemental before a donor conference next week. The Coalition is making great progress and has avoided many pitfalls, and it needs funding to complete its job. To date, most major Iraqi cities and most towns have municipal councils and the Iraqi Governing Council has appointed a cabinet. An independent Iraqi Central Bank has been established and a new currency announced. Five thousand small businesses have been opened since the liberation, and foreign banks are competing to get into Iraq. Virtually all major hospitals and universities have been reopened and hundreds of schools, until a few months ago used as weapons caches, have been rebuilt and are ready for the fall semester. This does not mean that all is well in Iraq. I have been to Iraq twice during the last 2\1/2\ months. We know the dangers that our troops face there each and every day. It is a dangerous place. We are making progress. We need to pass this supplemental and continue the good work that is going on.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, tonight I wish to spend a few minutes talking about a couple of issues; number one, the progress and the commitment and the hope that I have observed in Iraq in two different trips, two different opportunities I have had to travel to Iraq, once in August and going back in September; and then I want to talk a little bit about the statement today by Dr. David Kay on the interim progress of the Iraqi Survey Group. The Iraqi Survey Group is the group that is working in Iraq and doing the search and the delineation of exactly what the WMD, the weapons of mass destruction, program consisted of in Iraq before and during the Operation Iraqi Freedom. First, let me talk about my trip to Iraq in August and in September. You fly into a city of 5.7 million people and then you fly over Baghdad for half an hour or 40 minutes to get kind of an observation as to exactly what is going on in Baghdad. Remember, I did this in the middle of August. The first observation was that this was not a country and that this was not a city that was destroyed by war and mired in turmoil. Sometimes that is the impression that we get from watching the nightly news. Aside from a few small pockets of destruction in Baghdad, the city appeared to be functioning close to a normal city in the Middle East. There were cars, buses and trucks on the streets. There were people on the streets. The stores were open. Commerce was going on in Baghdad. There had been a lot of progress and a lot of activity going on in Baghdad. We had the opportunity to talk with our troops and to hear about the rebuilding and the reconstruction that they had been involved with in Iraq over the last number of months. They talked about having what I call walking-around money, but it is very closely tracked by the military. The military, at any given time, can print out a list of all the projects that they have been working on. The 101st Division, up in northern Iraq, gave us a list of roughly 1,800 projects that they had been involved with, that they had completed or were still working on in the middle of August. They had 1,800 projects, from repairing clinics, drilling wells, repairing schools, working in hospitals, agricultural projects, and a whole number of different kinds of things that clearly empowered them to go into the communities where they were stationed and where they were trying to provide security and to assist the Iraqis in rebuilding their community, not tomorrow but at that moment and on that day. As these funds were depleted, the troops would get more funds. These funds came from the dollars that were left over in the Iraqi treasury after Saddam Hussein was overthrown. A second thing that kind of struck me. I was impressed by the troops. They are doing an absolutely awesome job there. The other thing that people have asked me, what were you surprised about when you went to Iraq? I was not surprised about the work of our troops in Iraq. I have seen our troops in action in Afghanistan. I have been on aircraft carriers. I have been in Bosnia and Kosovo and had the opportunity to interact. I am not surprised by the work of our troops. I am impressed but not surprised. I have come to expect that because they have demonstrated it over and over. But one of the things that did surprise me is I had heard of the palaces of Saddam in Iraq. I have been to Versailles, I have been to Buckingham Palace, but nothing prepares you for Saddam's lavish spending on himself once you take a look at his palaces in Iraq. The palace in Tikrit has over 100 buildings in it. It probably stretches an area from the Capitol here in Washington down to the White House, if not a larger area. It has a perimeter security system with walls and watchtowers and those types of things; three to four story high buildings, which in terms of their scale are closer in scale to the size of this building, the Capitol of the United States, than what they are of our White House. And again he has these all over the country. We also had the opportunity to meet with Peter McPherson, who is the President of Michigan State University, who for a number of months served in Iraq. He is now back at Michigan State but served as their finance minister. I asked him about one of the allegations that was made about the post-war planning. I said, Peter, there are folks that are saying there is very little planning that went on as to what we were going to do after the war. He kind of laughed and said, you know, a number of the things that typically happen after a war in a country did not happen here in Iraq. Many times the currency will collapse. As a matter of fact, here in Iraq, we had a debate about whether we should keep the Iraqi dinar. Why the debate? Well, the debate was the Iraqi dinar has a picture of Saddam Hussein on it, and the last thing we really wanted to do was to provide to the people of Iraq a constant reminder of the Saddam regime and that Saddam was still out there. But he said, Pete, we went through this conscious decision to keep the Iraqi dinar in circulation so that commerce could continue and so that the economy would not collapse. He also said that by keeping the dinar in circulation and by providing the security into the system, the banks did not collapse, that there was not a run on the banks right after the banks reopened. The banking and the financial institutions stayed in business. As a matter of fact, with the stability that we have there, there are now a number of international banks that are clamoring to get into Iraq. And in a couple of weeks we will be introducing a new currency into Iraq, one that gets rid of the picture of Saddam Hussein on the money. Peter McPherson worked with the Iraqi Governing Council to put in place a tax structure, highest tax rate of 15 percent, to put in a tariff structure and also to come up with rules for international investment. Every industry will now be open for foreign investment, except the energy sector. I also had the opportunity to meet with another individual from Michigan, Jim Haverman, who is serving as kind of the shadow finance minister, or health care minister in Iraq. What he is doing is rebuilding the structure. I asked him the same question. Jim, what about the plan or the lack of planning in the post-war period? He came back and said, we do not get a lot of credit or we get no credit for the things that did not happen here. A lot of times after there has been a war, there will be an outbreak of epidemic diseases, things like cholera, malaria, and other diarrheal diseases. So you notice none of those things happened here in Iraq. We were able to keep the hospitals open, we were able to keep the clinics open, we were able to provide the basic health care necessary to prevent the outbreak of epidemic diseases, and now we have moved forward, that we have distributed 10,000 tons of pharmaceuticals. It is not that many of those pharmaceuticals were not present prior to the war in Iraq. They were present in Iraq, but they were stored in warehouses, and they were there for the elite and not for the masses. But what Jim and the Iraqi health care service have done is they have been focusing on getting quality health care or improved health care out to much of the rest of the country. They have been successful in doing that, and they are now working at upgrading the health care system. Remember, somebody like Saddam Hussein spent about 60 to 70 cents on health care for each and every Iraqi last year, in contrast to what he spent on his palaces. And the joke, though it is not very funny in Iraq, is what Saddam spent his money on. He spent his money on his palaces. He spent it on runways. You will fly over Iraq and you will see military runways all over Iraq, so he was building the military infrastructure. And then he also spent a significant amount of money on munitions. Later on, as I talk about Dr. Kay's report, Dr. Kay outlines that they estimate that they have munitions dumps that will hold over 600,000 tons of munitions. The bottom line, from my perspective and those of the people who I traveled to Iraq with, is that we are making progress in Iraq. We are bringing stability and hope to the Iraqi people. It does not mean that on occasion, and maybe too frequently, we do not have spectacular setbacks, the death of American soldiers or a bombing where the folks that are opposed to us are going after American troops, coalition troops, Iraqis that are helping us, Iraqis that are stepping up and taking leading roles in their government, but we are making progress. It is our hope that once the people of Iraq experience freedom, economic opportunity and a representative democratic government, the hope and expectation is that they will embrace this new way of life and will not foresee ever returning to tyrannical rule by a despotic government that exerts control through fear and oppression. Today in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence we had an opportunity to listen to testimony from Dr. David Kay talking about the progress, the 3-month progress report from the Iraqi survey group. This statement was released by Dr. Kay to the public at 5 p.m. This is a nonsecret version of the testimony that he provided to both the House and the Senate intelligence committees today. It contains a portion of what we heard today, but not everything. Let me just go through some of the materials that Dr. Kay wanted us to fully understand. This was my fourth opportunity to meet with Dr. Kay. I met with him on three different occasions in Iraq and then in front of the committee today. He begins by saying that he cannot strongly enough emphasize that the interim progress report is a snapshot in the context of an ongoing investigation of where we are after our first 3 months of work. It is not a completed report. It only covers the first 3 months. He says that they are still very much in the collection analysis mode, seeking the information and evidence that will allow us to confidently draw comprehensive conclusions to the actual objectives, scope, and dimensions of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Iraq's WMD program spanned more than 2 decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and was elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He goes to say that the result talks about the period from 1991 to 2003 where much of what we expected to find in Iraq was based on very, very limited information. He talked extensively about what they have found and what we have not found. He said, ``What we have not found are stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone.'' Mr. Speaker, why are they having such difficulty? Here are some reasons. All of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror. It is hard to find out what was going on in Iraq. Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation relating to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans- to post-conflict. They destroyed the evidence and the information that would have clearly and quickly outlined for us exactly the programs they had in place. ``Post-Operation Iraqi Freedom looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable materials and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.'' The report covers in detail the significant elements of this looting that were carried out with a clear aim of concealing pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom activities of Saddam Hussein's regime. Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pretrans-conflict period, and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them. Another reason we are having some difficulties, any actual WMD weapons or materials are likely to be small in relationship to the total conventional armaments footprints and difficult-to-near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for and the quantities we would expect to find can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two-car garage. But what have they found? This is not only about why it is difficult. What he is telling us is why we maybe did not just walk into Baghdad or Iraq and say here is the warehouse, and here is all of the information. He is telling us why it is difficult, and he says they have found dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. Continuing on, he gives a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later. They include a clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses that contained equipment subject to U.N. monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research; a prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of biological agents; referenced strains of biological organisms concealed in scientists' homes, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons; new research on biological weapons applicable agents, documents and equipment hidden in scientists' homes that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation; a line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers, 350 kilometers beyond the permissible limit; continued covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles; plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges of up to 1,000 kilometers, well beyond the 150-kilometer range limit imposed by the U.N.; clandestine attempts between 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 kilometer- range ballistic missiles. They faced systematic destruction of documents. With regard to biological warfare activities, he stated that Iraqi survey group teams are uncovering significant information, including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi intelligence service, and possible biological weapon activities and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of biological weapons agents. Debriefings of IIS, Iraqi Intelligence Service, officials and site visits have begun to unravel a clandestine network of laboratories and facilities within the security service apparatus. This network was never declared to the U.N. and was previously unknown. They are still working on determining the extent to which this network was tied to large-scale military efforts or BW terror agents; but this clandestine capability was suitable for preserving BW expertise, BW facilities, and continuing R&D, all key elements for maintaining a capability for resuming BW production. The Iraqi intelligence service also played a prominent role in sponsoring students for overseas graduate studies in the biological sciences. No big deal, except, the quote continues, according to Iraqi scientists and Iraqi intelligence service sources providing an important avenue for furthering BW applicable research. Interestingly enough, this was the only area of graduate work where the Iraqi intelligence service appeared to sponsor students. Another quote, in a similar vein, two key former BW scientists confirmed that Iraq, under the guise of legitimate activity, developed refinements of processes and products relevant to BW agents. The scientists discussed the development of improved simplified fermentation and spray-drying capabilities for the simulant BT that would have been directly applicable to anthrax. One scientist confirmed that the production line for BT could be switched to produce anthrax in one week if the seed stock were available. Another area that needs investigation, another quote out of the report, additional information is beginning to corroborate reporting since 1996 about human testing activities. Let me repeat that: reporting since 1996 about human testing activities using chemical and biological substance, progress in this area is slow given the concern of knowledgeable Iraqi personnel about their being prosecuted for crimes against humanity. I have only got a couple of minutes left; and the report that Dr. Kay has issued is an interim report, and I think that this report is now going to be available, or this portion, the declassified portion is going to be available to the American people. When you read through here and you take a look at the concealment of these different programs from the U.N., the systematic effort to hide and destroy relevant information, and then the things that we have found already, the different labs, the discussion about human testing, the different efforts that they had that were under way, the work that they had going on in a number of different areas, it becomes clear quickly that we need to do two or three things, the first of which is we need to let Dr. Kay finish his report and to finish his work. As he states at the front end, it is too early to draw any conclusions as to exactly what was going on, what was available, and where Saddam Hussein was going. We need to let Dr. Kay finish his work so that we will have a clear understanding of what was and what was not available in Iraq, and that is going to be a very difficult task given the destruction of materials and the environment that we have in Iraq today. The second thing that we need to do is we need to make sure that we give Dr. Kay the resources to get the job done. The third thing we know is there was a lot of stuff going on in Iraq, and the approach that Dr. Kay is taking is exactly the kind of approach that we need to take. Dr. Kay really has three criteria that he talks about before he will reach conclusions on exactly what Iraq has. He wants to find physical evidence, the materials or the equipment that demonstrate that certain programs or activities were under way. He wants to find the documentation that says here is the equipment, here is the documentation that outlines what this equipment was intended to do, and then the third piece that he wants to put with this is these are the Iraqis that were working the plan and working the equipment so that he has put all of the pieces together. That is exactly the kind of approach that we need to take, rather than asking Dr. Kay or others to jump to conclusions based on the piecemeal information that we have today. In this report, Dr. Kay talks about the mobile labs. They have found mobile labs. So they have a piece of the puzzle. They have found mobile labs, but rather than reaching a conclusion and saying what they were or were not used for, since they only found the mobile labs and they have not found the documentation and they have not found the Iraqi personnel that might have been operating these labs, we are at this point in time speculating what they may have been used for and capable of; and Dr. Kay has simply in this report said we are not reaching a conclusion or making a decision as to what we believe that equipment was being used for. We are going to wait until we find the Iraqis; we are going to wait until we have an opportunity to uncover the documents that will outline exactly what these bio labs or what these laboratories, mobile labs, were going to be used for. The professionalism of Dr. Kay and the process that he is going through are exactly what we need to have in place at this point. I think that the report today that was issued, the portions of the report that were made public, the portions of the report that are still classified, should give us the highest degree of confidence that Dr. Kay is going through this in exactly the right way that it needs to be done and that there are a number of very, very serious issues that need to be pursued and that we need to get to the bottom of. It will help us to better determine the accuracy and the effectiveness of our intel before the war, but also it will give us a better understanding as to how far chemical and biological weapons had progressed in Iraq, and we need to know that so that we will also have an idea as to what at some point in time may have been transferred to others who may want to do us harm.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for doing this special order, and maybe we can have a dialogue. The gentleman, myself, along with a couple of our other colleagues had the opportunity to spend 3 days in Iraq in August. I had an opportunity to go back in September to complement that trip and see some things we were not able to see in August; and in coming back, there are some things we agreed on. Number one, we agreed on the quality of our troops. We have very, very talented young men and women who fought a war in Iraq and now are providing the security zone to allow this country to restructure itself.