Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the special congressional panel looking into the September 11 attacks issued its report. It said the intelligence community could have done a much better job in protecting the American people. That truly is an understatement. But what stands out is the fact that the Bush administration has taken secrecy to a new unacceptable level. The administration insists on keeping secret 28 pages of that report. It is widely believed that these 28 pages deal with the possible involvement of foreign governments in the 9/11 tragedy and specifically Saudi Arabia. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration clearly exaggerated the immediate threat to the United States posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war in Iraq, and, indeed, I have supported the calls for an independent commission to get to the bottom of that deception. The administration's credibility has been greatly damaged by the revelations about the manipulated statements in the President's State of the Union address. Now we have 28 pages of a report of a vitally important study that are being kept away from the American people. Do the American people not deserve to know the truth, whole truth, the whole story about 9/11? Do the families of 9/11 not deserve to know? What is the Bush administration now hiding about Saudi Arabia's possible involvement? How can the Bush administration justify keeping this secret from the American people? In an editorial entitled ``Deception and Denial,'' the London-based Financial Times this morning says the following about the Bush administration: ``The scale of the Bush administration's official obstruction is clear.'' And the article goes on to say `` `The Bush administration has done everything they can do to make sure that's not the focus,' said William Wechsler, a former White House official who coauthored a recent report critical of the Saudi failure to cut off financing for terrorist troops.'' The Bush administration wants `` `to talk about tactical breakdown, but they do not want to talk about the elephant in the room,' '' i.e., specifically Saudi Arabia. According to the Financial Times, ``the tantalizing glimpses of the Saudi role that survived the censor's pencil are by far the report's most potentially explosive aspects.'' We know there were meetings between some of the hijackers and Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi citizen. What does that mean in the context of 9/ 11? There are reports that al-Bayoumi supplied at least some of the hijackers with cash. Is that true? Unless the Bush administration drops its insistence on secrecy, the American people and families of the victims of 9/11 might never know the truth. The Bush administration says it cannot tell the American people the whole truth because of national security concerns. One should ask, is it national security that the Bush administration cares about or is it political security? Or could it be access to Saudi oil? As the Financial Times said this morning, ``It is hard to avoid suspicion that some of the coyness may have political origins.'' The decision to keep this information secret adds ``a new layer of haze over its credibility,'' says the Financial Times. It is time for the Bush administration to tell the families and to tell the American people what it knows about the possible involvement of foreign governments or foreign nationals in the events of September 11, and no one should be exempt from that scrutiny. No country, no person. It is time for an end to the Bush administration's secrecy. [From the Financial Times, July 25, 2003] Report Raises New Questions on Saudi Role in 9/11 Attacks (By Marianne Brun-Rovet and Edward Alden) Washington.--The September 11 hijackers received foreign- government support while they were in the US plotting the attacks on New York and Washington, the leader of a congressional inquiry charged. The conclusion, which is strongly hinted at in the declassified parts of the inquiry's 900-page report released yesterday, will raise new questions about the role of Saudi Arabia in particular. The Bush administration insisted on deleting a 28-page section of the report that focused on the link to foreign governments. Senator Bob Graham, the former Democratic intelligence committee chairman who led the investigation, said the hijackers ``received, during most of this time [in the US], significant assistance from a foreign government which further facilitated their ability to be so lethal''. He would not identify the government. But he charged the Bush administration with refusing to release the information ``to protect the country or countries . . . that were providing direct assistance to some of the hijackers''. The report also contains new evidence that US intelligence agencies and the Federal Bureau of Investigation knew far more about some of the hijackers activities than has been revealed. While the administration has insisted that the plot could not have been unraveled from the information available, a congressional official said: ``There was no smoking gun in the sense of all the details and the specifics in one piece of intelligence . . . But that is not the same as saying that this attack could not have been prevented.'' Despite the deletions demanded by the administration, which held up the report's release for nearly seven months, it contains new evidence that indicates the Saudis may have had ties to supporters of the September 11 hijackers. It focuses on the activities of Omar al-Bayoumi, who some in the FBI believed to be a Saudi intelligence agent, though the Saudi government has denied the allegation. Mr. Bayoumi played a vital role in establishing Nawaf al- Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, two of the hijackers, when they arrived in the U.S. before the attacks. U.S. intelligence agencies knew as early as 1999 that the two were linked with al-Qaeda and that they had attended a CIA-monitored high- level meeting of the terror network's operatives in Malaysia in January 2000. Mr. Bayoumi met the pair in Los Angeles shortly after he was observed entering and leaving a meeting at the Saudi consulate. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., said yesterday that the country was facing ``false accusations . . . made by some for political purposes'' despite its widespread co-operation with the U.S. in the war on terrorism. ``It is disappointing that despite everything we are doing, outrageous charges continue.'' The report also revealed another serious U.S. intelligence failure before the attacks, which represented ``perhaps the intelligence community's best chance to unravel the September 11 plot''. The FBI had recruited an informant in San Diego who met repeatedly with Mr. Hazmi and Mr. Mihdhar. However, the FBI did not act on his information because the CIA had not told the FBI of the pair's suspected links to al-Qaeda. The FBI agent handling the informant said ``we would have done everything'' had the CIA revealed what it knew. [From the Financial Times, July 25, 2003] Deception and Denial (Part Two)--The White House's Intelligence Problems Get Bigger It is often the case with lengthy inquiries into government failures that what gets left out of the final report is more interesting than what goes in it. Politicians are not unduly burdened by a capacity for self-criticism and if they can hide behind spurious claims of national security to avoid providing potentially damning evidence to hungry investigators, you can generally guarantee that they will. The publication yesterday of the results of the congressional investigation into the performance of the US intelligence services in the run-up to the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks is a case in point. We knew already that the White House had been most unhelpful in its dealings with the congressional investigators, failing to make available critical material such as presidential briefings on the scale of the al-Qaeda threat. Now, in the form of dozens of blank pages in the 900- page volume, the scale of official obstruction becomes clear. Though the report still reaches some valid conclusions about the failures of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency in acting on what they knew about the hijackers, the overall effect of the administration's behaviour is to produce more questions. Most disturbing is the White House's unwillingness to disclose important new information on Saudi Arabia's role in the terrorist plot. The long list of errors by the FBI and the CIA remains the central finding. The fact that officials had opportunities to track the movements of at least two of the hijackers in the months before the attacks represents the largest single failing and highlights flaws in intelligence co-ordination that still need to be put right. In addition the lack of reliable intelligence overseas prevented either the Clinton or the Bush administration from taking preemptive action against al-Qaeda that might have scuppered the plot. But the tantalising glimpses of the Saudi role that survived the censor's pencil are by far the report's most potentially explosive aspects. Meetings between some of the hijackers and Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi citizen, are well documented, as are indications that he supplied them with cash. But instead of detailed investigation of Mr. al-Bayoumi and his alleged links to the Saudi government, there are only blank spaces. The administration says it could not agree to publication of this and other material for national security reasons. That may be true. But it is hard to avoid suspicion that some of the coyness may have political origins. The Bush administration is already under fire for its dubious disclosures about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Now the White House has added a new layer of haze over its credibility. In the end the congressional report is not so much an indictment of the intelligence agencies, though it clearly highlights their faults. It is an indictment of the needless obfuscation surrounding too much of this administration's national security policy. [From the Financial Times, July 25, 2002] September 11 Investigation Undermines Bush's Claims (By Edward Alden and Marianne Brun-Rovet) For the past 18 months the administration of President George W. Bush has clung firmly to the argument that, while there were certainly intelligence failings, the September 11, 2001 attacks could not have been prevented. The release yesterday of the declassified final report of the congressional investigation will make that argument much harder to sustain, and could ignite fresh controversy for an administration already under scrutiny for manipulating intelligence information before the war on Iraq. The report contains few entirely new revelations about the missed opportunities to unravel the plot of the 19 hijackers. But the detailed evidence of how much the U.S. knew of their movements before the attacks belies the assertion made to the investigators last year by Robert Mueller, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's director, that ``as far as we know, they contacted no known terrorist sympathizers in the U.S.''. The report points out that five of the hijackers had met a total of 14 people who had come to the FBI's attention as part of counter-terrorism investigations. Four of those 14 were under active FBI investigation when the hijackers were in the U.S. The hijackers who led the attacks were not isolated but instead were backed by what U.S. intelligence knew to be ``a radical Islamic network in the U.S. that could support al- Qaeda and other terrorist operatives.'' As early as June 2001 the CIA had learned that senior al- Qaeda planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was recruiting people for operations in the U.S. The report also revealed that an informant for the FBI had numerous meetings with two of the hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, when they were living in San Diego. But the San Diego FBI was unaware that the Central Intelligence Agency had in 2000 identified the two men as al- Qaeda operatives, so never acted on the information. The FBI had also opened in 1998 a counter-terrorism investigation of Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi who co-signed the lease on an apartment in San Diego rented by the two hijackers, paid the first month's rent and organised a party to welcome them into the community. Mr. Bayoumi became the subject of attention late last year after it was revealed that the wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., had indirectly deposited tens of thousands of dollars into an account held by Mr. Bayoumi's wife. The Saudis have said they had no knowledge that the money, which was part of a charitable contribution, had ended up in her accounts. The report says that although Mr. Bayoumi was a student, he ``had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia'', and at one time made a $400,000 donation to a Kurdish mosque in San Diego. It adds: ``One of the FBI's best sources in San Diego informed the FBI that he thought that Mr. Bayoumi must be an intelligence officer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power.'' The Saudi government denies the charge, saying he has no connection to the Saudi government. The most controversial element of the report will be what it does not contain. At the insistence of the Bush administration, 28 pages discussing evidence of foreign government support for the hijackers was deleted from the declassified version. ``The Bush administration has done everything they can do to make sure that's not the focus,'' said William Wechsler, a former White House official who co-authored a recent report critical of the Saudi failure to cut off financing for terrorist groups. ``They want to talk about tactical breakdown but they don't want to talk about the elephant in the room.'' U.S. officials note that Saudi co-operation in counter- terrorism investigations has improved markedly, particularly following al-Qaeda attack's in Riyadh in May that left more than 30 people dead. The Saudis responded angrily yesterday that ``we cannot respond to blank pages''. But the investigation showed that even well after the September 11 attacks, Saudi Arabia continued to impede U.S. efforts in areas such as shutting down financing for terrorism. While the congressional investigation was a bipartisan undertaking, its conclusions will fuel a partisan battle over whether the Bush administration has responded fully to the lessons of September 11. Democrats have homed in on intelligence failures, both in the war on terrorism and before the war on Iraq, as the vulnerable spot for an administration that has been widely trusted by Americans on national security since the attacks. The report challenges whether the administration has yet made sufficient efforts to improve intelligence gathering and sharing in response to the serious breakdowns uncovered by the investigation. On foreign support for terrorists, the report says ``only recently'', and in part due to the pressure from the congressional inquiry, had the agencies tried to determine the extent of the problem. ``This gap in US intelligence coverage is unacceptable, given the magnitude and immediacy of the potential risk to US national security,'' it says. Democratic hopefuls for the next presidential election, including Senator Bob Graham, the former intelligence committee chairman, are already seizing on the problems identified by the inquiry to criticise the administration's actions since September 11. The controversy over what is missing in the report will only deepen those charges. Senator Joseph Lieberman, another Democratic candidate, said yesterday that the administration ``has, even today, failed to demand a full accounting of intelligence failures, in order to ensure that they have been corrected''.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity today to recognize the contributions to Catholic education made by Sister Janet Doyle, O.P. of the Toledo Catholic Diocese. Sr. Janet leaves her position as Superintendent of the diocese's Catholic Youth and Social Services, having developed the office into a comprehensive network of services for young people including schools, sports, social activities, and ministry. During her long tenure, Sr. Janet has overseen 83 elementary schools, 10 high schools, 4 private high schools, and 2 colleges in the diocese's nineteen county Northwest Ohio area through which tens of thousands of children have been educated. Under her leadership, the schools expanded enrollment to include children of all faiths, offering opportunities for them to learn in an interfaith environment. Sr. Janet's stewardship has been marked by the Catholic educators' credo that ``we believe our Catholic School is not only a school, but a community of Faith; we believe those entrusted to us are not only students, but children of God; we believe we are not only educators, but ministers of the Gospel; we believe the values we teach are not only character development, but a call to Holiness; we believe our courses of study are not only academic pursuits, but a search for Truth; we believe the purpose of education is not only for personal gain and the development of society, but for the Transformation of the world.'' Under her capable guidance, the diocese's schools have demonstrated they are at the forefront of a quality education with rigorous academic standards, and at the same time giving students a safe haven in which to learn and grow. Thank you Sister! Sr. Janet leaves as her legacy the fulfillment of the mission of the office of Catholic Youth and School Services to ``assist the Bishop in his teaching mission by serving, challenging, and supporting the leaders of youth formation and education who minister in schools and parishes in the Diocese of Toledo.'' Though her daily presence will be missed, Toledo's Catholic youth services bear her imprimatur.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this important issue and rise in support of H.R. 2427. I wish to say, last year, average drug prices in our country were 67 percent higher than in Canada and double that of Europe. The real issue is that pharmaceutical companies have been gouging the American public for far too long, and the leadership in this Congress has allowed them to do that. This bill requires the FDA to do what it must to assure safety, but more than that, it finally blows the whistle on an industry that has been taking America's seniors to the cleaners. It is time their gig is up. Support H.R. 2427.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, Head Start works. It should not be dismantled. The Republican Party should not dismantle Head Start.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman would yield, I thank the gentleman very much for his courtesy. I just wish to also mention that there are designations in the bill also for Armenia.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, could I, with all due respect, ask the gentleman, is there not in the bill a $90 million earmark for Russia?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I say to the chairman of the subcommittee, I hope at some point the reservation can be withdrawn. I offer this amendment today on behalf of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and myself in order that both Russia and Ukraine be treated evenhandedly in terms of U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, the underlying bill seriously alters priorities relative to the former Soviet Union and the Newly Independent States. It singles out Russia for special treatment while completely eliminating, indeed, zeroing out Ukraine in the account assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union. I ask my colleagues to think about this very important region of the world. It is a little over a decade since independence became possible for all the states of the former Soviet Union. Many challenges lie before us in persevering with the peoples of these nations to complete their transition to open societies. And thus, the underlying bill is flawed and surprising in that it shows a deep preference, indeed, a prejudice towards Russia over Ukraine; and I would argue that this does not serve U.S. interests geopolitically for the long term. Indeed, it creates the impression that the United States is picking favorites, and that really we should be adopting a policy that has equanimity, balance, impartiality and even-handedness. As this chart clearly demonstrates, since the 1990s we have tried to be balanced in the assistance that we have given to U.S. organizations working in both nations. For example, in the year of 2002 we provided to U.S. organizations helping the transition about $154 million in Ukraine and approximately $159 million in Russia. We have tried in both nations to give about a hundred to $200 million to U.S. groups aiding that transition. This year, however, the administration has asked us for $94 million for Ukraine and $73 million for Russia. But this bill, the underlying bill provides $90 million for Russia, more than the administration requested by almost $20 million, and zeros out Ukraine. I would have to say that we know that there are problems in both countries. We know that they are not part of Europe, yet they are both trying to accede to Europe and the United States, especially in this region, has to be very careful about signaling that it has preference of one country over another. Let me remind my colleagues also that Ukraine has supported the United States in the war on Iraq and also Afghanistan. It permitted us to use air space and it has already deployed a nuclear, biological and chemical battalion to Kuwait and it has started relocating 1,800 troops to Iraq, thus contributing one of the four largest stabilization forces to the coalition. These deployments will cost Ukraine about $2.5 million per month. In addition, let me remind my colleagues Ukraine also stopped its intended sale of turbines to Iran several years ago, causing severe unemployment in one of its largest cities in the eastern half of the country in Kharkiv. Now, though Ukraine has miles to go in democratic transition as does Russia, to argue that Russia is more deserving or further ahead somehow in the transition has severe underlying problems. And both nations are still dealing with corruption, with election fraud, with problems of rule of law, but to say that one is better than the other and therefore deserves so much more support I believe to be foolish. Both nations have severe internal difficulties, but for this bill to favor one over the other creates further imbalance in a region that can only be made healthy by the transition of all those countries to full democratic status. So I would just plead with my colleagues in the majority as well as on my side of the aisle to support the Kaptur-Weldon amendment and provide $94 million in assistance as the administration has requested to Ukraine while still maintaining the bill's level of support to Russia at the level of $90 million. Please treat them even-handedly. It really is in America's strategic interest.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I am sorry, I will not yield. You have only given me 2 minutes under your limited rule, as millions of people in this country lose their jobs and lose their futures. There is so much suffering we can lay to your hands as one of those who voted for NAFTA in 1993. I want you to meet the people who have lost their jobs all over this country, over 3 million people just in the last 3 years alone. Look at NAFTA and these trade deficits. You told us in 1993 that this template for trade, which you now want to extend to Singapore and to Chile, would work, that it would give us jobs. It has been just the reverse. Our jobs have been cashed out, and Mexico has turned into an export platform to the United States, and the wages of Mexico's people have been cut by half. By half! You have hurt people in both countries due to those who voted for NAFTA. So we now have lost jobs and growing trade deficits. You told us our trade accounts would be better. We now have half a trillion dollars of trade debt in this country. One million lost jobs alone this year are related to that half a trillion in deficit and every year in the last 10 years, deeper and deeper deficit, more lost jobs. Your plan is not working. We have trade deficits, not surpluses, and we have job losses not jobs created. In my home community of Toledo, unemployment now is 10 percent. Every year it gets worse and the Fed has invented a new term, ``jobless recovery.'' What is that? And, finally, on China after PNTR, we experienced huge trade deficits with more lost jobs. Your record is indefensible. Vote no on this Singapore and Chile expansion of the NAFTA trade template. It has not worked before, and it surely will not work now.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for the opportunity to urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule which restricts debate today to 2 hours, as has happened on every so-called free trade agreement that has come before this body in the last 20 years. Restricted time means no opportunity to really take a look at what has happened. Many of us have served here long enough to know that the NAFTA idea of trade does not work. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my good friend, you told me when you voted for NAFTA back in 1993 it would create jobs. In fact, it has done exactly the opposite. We have historic trade deficits with Mexico, this year alone close to $50 billion.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this week U.S. deaths in the war in Iraq surpassed the number of lives lost in the first Persian Gulf War, 220 Americans have died, another today, with over 740 wounded. If you recall back in February, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, a soldier's soldier, testified to this Congress that several hundred thousand soldiers might be necessary for the occupation of Iraq. He was immediately attacked by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who termed General Shinseki's assessments as wildly off the mark. Wolfowitz said, ``I am reasonably certain that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down.'' Secretary of the Army Thomas White sided with Shinseki, not Wolfowitz, sealing his own fate. White announced his resignation 2 months later. General Shinseki himself stepped down as Army Chief of Staff and retired from the military about 5 weeks ago, June 11; and neither Secretary Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz attended the ceremonies honoring General Shinseki for his lifetime of service to our country. Then last week, Secretary Rumsfeld admitted that the Bush administration does not know how long the occupation of Iraq will last. Secretary Rumsfeld also was forced to admit he does not know how much the occupation will cost. Indeed, the costs have doubled from $2 billion a month now to $4 billion a month, and the costs are rising daily. There are approximately 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld would say only that they may be there for the foreseeable future and the number could be increased if necessary. Mr. Wolfowitz has not been heard to say that Secretary Rumsfeld's estimate is not wildly off the mark, even though it is very close to what General Shinseki predicted. As far as the Wolfowitz prediction that Americans would be greeted as liberators and that would keep the force level low, it bears noting that more than 30 Americans have been killed in Iraq, with more casualties every day, since President Bush landed on that flight deck and said that peace was at hand. A close look at the record will reveal that Secretary Rumsfeld's predictions about U.S. force levels in Iraq are skyrocketing. As recently as 2 months ago, he was predicting that our force levels could be reduced by 30,000 by the end of the year; but a Time Magazine article I will include in the Record tonight shows that the idea appears to be shifting closer to what General Shinseki told us initially, and today General Wesley Clark warned that our U.S. Armed Forces are overstretched because of Iraq and we need to take measures to take care of our men and women in uniform. Reserves need to be called up and we need a rotation plan because, let us face it, we are going to have to sustain the force in Iraq for some time. And I would add, sending Marines trained for aggressive combat to do policing is an absolutely inappropriate deployment. We can look back to the date of May 1 when our soldiers were led to believe that they would be coming home in June. Then they were told on May 24 that maybe they would come home in August. And then Secretary Rumsfeld said last week they would be home by September. And then Major General Buford Blount said today that troop levels must remain at the current level and all bets are off. This is not the way to treat the men and women who are giving their lives in the interest of this country. I have a very simple statement and that is: stop jerking our forces around. Treat them with the respect that they are due. It is very odd to me that General Tommy Franks announced his retirement with 160,000 men and women under his command in the field. I can remember back to Vietnam, when General Abrams stayed the course right to the very end; in World War II, when our generals stuck it out through thick and thin. Strange things are happening. Maybe we do not know all the facts, but I want to voice my concerns tonight about the safety of our men and women in uniform and the importance of rotation and a definite time when they can take a break. They deserve it. If that requires a draft in our country, so be it, but no General or any President or any Secretary of Defense or any Under Secretary of Defense should have our men and women in harm's way without the rotation that they are due for the absolutely incredible job that they have done for us. In the Record tonight I would like to place several articles that document the statements of many of our soldiers who are in Iraq today, and I would commend them to my colleagues and say God bless those who are in the field for us. We are thinking of you every minute that we hold these positions here in Washington. We want to bring you home as quickly as possible. We want to meet our worldwide obligations, but, absolutely, you deserve a break, especially those who have been there in the Persian Gulf for over a year now. It is long overdue. [From Reuters.com, July 16, 2003] U.S. Soldiers Complain of Low Morale in Iraq (By Sue Pleming) Washington.--Fed up with being in Iraq and demoralized by their role as peacekeepers in a risky place, a group of U.S. soldiers aired their plight on U.S. television on Wednesday and said they had lost faith in the Army. Told several times they would be going home only to have their hopes dashed this week, a small group of soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq spoke of poor morale and disillusionment with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ``If Donald Rumsfeld were here, I'd ask him for his resignation,'' one disgruntled soldier told ABC's ``Good Morning America'' show. Asked by a reporter what his message would be for Rumsfeld, one said: ``I would ask him why we are still here. I don't have any clue as to why we are still in Iraq.'' About 146,000 U.S. troops are serving amid mounting security threats in postwar Iraq. The death toll has now equaled the number killed in the 1991 Gulf War. Sgt. Filipe Vega said they had expected to return home soon after the fall of Baghdad on April 9. ``We were told the fastest way back home is through Baghdad and that's what we did. Now we are still here,'' he complained. The 3rd Infantry Division was the first U.S. unit to enter Baghdad after driving through southern Iraq through Kuwait. Sgt. Terry Gilmore described a phone call with his wife Stacey when he told her he would not be coming home soon. ``When I told her she started crying and I almost started crying. I just felt like my heart was broken. I could not figure out . . . how they could keep us here after they told us we were coming home.'' In Washington, a Pentagon spokeswoman said she understood the frustration, but said morale was still high. ``It's obviously a frustrating situation for some of them, but it does not represent the entire 3rd Division.'' She added: ``When you get down to the individual soldier level, you can clearly see the dedication.'' The wives of two of the soldiers appeared on the same show. ``Just send my husband home--send all the soldiers home. They have done the job they were supposed to do,'' said Rhonda Vega from Hinesville, Georgia. Stacey Gilmore said U.S. troops were ill-prepared for the post-war phase. ``They were told after the fighting ended they were coming home. All I know is that morale is low and they are just hanging in there, sticking through it.''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my good friend from Iowa for that, and I just for purposes of the Record wish to state that this amendment concerns the recent allegations that have been put forward about individuals at the Department of Agriculture misusing their Federal credit cards that they possess on behalf of the agency. We look forward to working with the majority to ensure prompt prosecution and also actions being taken by the Department of Agriculture for us to monitor them as they move forward to make sure that this never happens again. I thank the gentleman for his support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to plant the seeds of biofuels in the U.S. Department of Agriculture budget for the year 2004.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in strong support of the amendment by my very dedicated colleague from New York. His amendment would prohibit for human consumption any meat or meat food product derived from a downed animal. I might say to my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), a recognized leader in agriculture, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has already as part of its procedures adopted regulations that ban the purchase of meat from downed animals by its own procurement agencies. So let there be no mistake that our Department of Agriculture believes that it already has the authority to take that action internally. Let me also say that the Department has estimated that nationally about 190,000 animals every year get so sick that they are unable to stand or walk and they are dragged to slaughter facilities and many of them end up in our food supply. But only about 5 percent of those animals are tested for serious diseases such as mad cow disease. Now, many probably know that the recent mad cow found in Canada was a downed animal; that the president of the Alberta Beef Producers remarked about ``cows too sick to walk, too sick to stand have no business being part of the food system. This animal should have never left the farm.'' A 2001 study from Germany found that downed animals were anywhere from 10 to 240 times more likely to test positive for BSE than were ambulatory cows. And we all agree, I think we all know, that downed cattle have a higher risk of having BSE, and we should not be sending these animals to slaughter where they may ultimately end up on somebody's dinner table. Farm Sanctuary used the Freedom of Information Act to analyze USDA slaughter house records for 938 facilities from 1999 through June 2001. They found 73 percent of downed animals passed for human consumption while 27 percent were condemned. But startlingly, among the downed animals approved for human consumption, included afflictions such as gangrene, malignant cancers and pneumonia. These were common. I think the heart of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman) proposal is, why are we sending these animals that should be euthanized and disposed of to auction markets and slaughter houses where they will contaminate healthy animals and, indeed, human health? The August 2001 issue of ``Dairy Herd Management'' named downed animals as the most important area where the industry needs to clean up its act. So I want to rise in support of the Ackerman amendment. I think the gentleman is moving us all, moving the country toward a better standard, a higher standard. The USDA has already recognized that standard and adopted on its own meat procurement practices. I want to thank the gentleman for helping move America ahead. I think this amendment's consideration today will go a long way in helping to clean up this problem for the American people.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the gentlewoman from Guam for bringing these issues to our attention and to say what a great leader she is on agriculture for the insular areas. We really, without her leadership, would not have been made aware. I know both the chairman and I, as ranking member, are very grateful to her, and we look forward to working with her through conference and for a final bill to be produced.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I wanted to say that I think the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has a very worthy amendment here. I was particularly struck by one of his arguments: the linkage between crime and the mistreatment of animals and the increasing spread of Exotic Newcastle Disease across our country which, by the way, also has a cost. It comes to us in the form of trying to remediate and to make whole those whose flocks have been devastated. I do not think that it is widely known that, as the gentleman mentioned, some of the animals might have come in from another country. We know how poorly our borders are inspected. So I want to commend the gentleman for taking the offset for his amendment from the buildings accounts, as opposed to from our research accounts or our animal plant health inspection accounts, or our border inspections, et cetera. I think that the matter is that the people who are doing this are doing it illegally; and now there is a linkage to the spread of disease, serious disease. I think that the gentleman's amendment is very reasonable. He is asking for $800,000 for the Office of the Inspector General who, when they are given the authority, do a great job, to try to remedy this animal fighting across our country and, I think importantly, to stem any disease that may spread as a result of it. So I just wanted the speak on behalf of the gentleman's amendment and to thank him for the responsible manner in which he has found an offset to try to find the funds for the Inspector General. I might say, one of the bad things about the way the laws concerning the Inspector General have been written, even if wrongdoers are found and fines are levied, under the laws of our country the Inspector General has to return those funds to the Department of Treasury. It does not go to the Department of Agriculture for further prosecution and further investigation. I have never liked that aspect of the law, because I think we ought to reward the Inspectors General that are doing a good job in apprehending wrongdoers across this country. So I want to thank the gentleman for his very appropriate amendment here, and I urge my colleagues for their support.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise in very strong support of the gentleman from Alabama's (Mr. Davis) amendment. I think it is a very important one to support our land grant institutions, and those that are historically black colleges and Tuskegee Institute. If you think about it, if you look at the budget the President presented to the Congress, the funding for the 1890 land grant institutions was actually cut three times as deeply as funding for the 1862 land grant institutions under the President's submittal. And so the cuts fall more harshly on those institutions that have an enormous load to carry in helping to bring up the talent to perform the research at those colleges which often gets shortchanged because people are spending so much of their time teaching. I think only an administration that really does not understand what these institutions do could cut the funding three times as deeply as the other trims that were made in the budget. It has been very interesting to watch the President tour Africa. In having worked with our colleagues over the years to try to get linkages between our historically black colleges and Tuskegee Institute with African institutions to try to draw linkages halfway across the world, I know how difficult it has been. It has been hard to get those kinds of agreements to occur, to give these institutions a chance to embrace the 21st century and create the kind of global connections and specialized knowledge that rests in these institutions. So I think the gentleman makes a very reasonable proposal here for $1.5 million to be directed to the institutions for facilities and $2 million for capacity building for the 1890s institutions, offsetting that $3.5 million from the common computing environment. When I look at what happened over the weekend with all the news coming out about credit cards over at the Department of Agriculture and some of the internal problems that they are having, I know one thing: when you invest in the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the Tuskegee Institute, you are investing in people; you are investing in the future where knowledge is so important to propel economic growth including in some of the most hollowed out parts of the country where agriculture has to be the lodestar industry. These institutions provide hope and opportunity for people who were traditionally excluded from other institutions of learning in this country. So I think that the gentleman has correctly awakened this Congress and the administration to what is not just fair but appropriate and will help to provide opportunity in many quarters. So I want to strongly support the Davis amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the testimony of Wenonah Hauter of Public Citizen before the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. This testimony was inadvertently omitted from the printed hearings of the Subcommittee. Testimony of Wenonah Hauter Director of the Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program Public Citizen Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member Kaptur and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Wenonah Hauter. I am the Director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. As you know, Public Citizen is a national consumer organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971. We represent 150,000 members. We welcome this opportunity to present our views on the FY 2004 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) We are adamantly opposed to the Administration's proposal to collect $122 million in user fees to recover the cost of providing inspection services beyond an approved eight-hour primary shift. We believe that such a proposal could compromise the effectiveness of FSIS inspectors. Furthermore, FSIS has already taken action to de-list foreign establishments that had been previously approved to export their meat and poultry products to the United States on the basis that inspection services were paid by the companies involved instead of by the foreign government. Implementation of the Administration's proposal to institute user fees would be hypocritical. Additionally, we are concerned that the current proposal to hire approximately 80 more FSIS inspectors will be inadequate to fill current vacancies and to make up for previous year's cuts. We recommend that at least 200 line inspectors be hired this year. The alarming number and magnitude of meat and poultry recalls in the past year indicate that there are some serious problems with the implementation of the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HAACP) program. We have been arguing for the past three years that HACCP has turned over too much authority to industry to police itself and has severely undercut the ability of FSIS inspection personnel to their jobs. We have heard directly from inspection personnel who state that they are very confused and concerned over their roles in HAACP. More troubling is the fact that the economic well-being of companies is placed ahead of the public's welfare by the management at FSIS. In June 2002, we were able to obtain instructions to FSIS inspectors assigned to a large Kansas slaughter plant in which they were admonished that should they err on the side of public health and stop a slaughter line for suspected fecal contamination they could be personally liable for their decision. We are also concerned about the failure of supervisors and management to back up FSIS inspectors when they discover food safety hazards. Since last year's massive ConAgra recall, it has come to light that USDA was notified of potential problems at the Greeley, Colorado plant as early as February 2002--some three months before the first recall notice went out. Warnings came from John Munsell, president of Montana Quality Foods and Processing, after FSIS personnel assigned to his plant confirmed that the source of contaminated meat ground at Montana Quality Foods and Processing was the ConAgra plant in Greeley, Colorado. Instead of applauding Mr. Munsell and the FSIS personnel for their investigative work, they have been maligned by top FSIS officials and have been told they had no authority to point the finger at ConAgra. The same can be said of the Wampler recall. A twenty-year veteran FSIS inspector, Vincent Erthal, had tried to warn his supervisors for several months of the unsanitary conditions at the Wampler plant in Franconia, Pennsylvania. His concerns went unheeded. This fall, the second largest recall in FSIS history was issued for possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination of product coming out of that plant. After much soul-searching, Mr. Erthal decided to come forward to reveal how his attempts to warn FSIS supervision of his concerns were thwarted. Again, instead of backing their own employee, FSIS management has circled the wagons and launched a campaign to discredit Mr. Erthal. With all of the problems that FSIS has already experienced with their implementation of HAACP in processing plants, the proposed FY 2004 budget contains language that would expand the HACCP-based Inspection Models Project (HIMP) in slaughter facilities. HIMP is yet another attempt at weakening the authority of FSIS inspection personnel and turning that responsibility over to company personnel. In a December 17, 2001 report, staff from the General Accounting Office found glaring methodological deficiencies in FSIS' current pilot project. There has not been any evidence to show that those deficiencies have been addressed. Therefore, we would urge that this expansion of HIMP not go forward until all data from the current project has been evaluated. While we applaud additional funds to support food safety education, we believe that the money will actually be used to promote irradiation. In her written remarks to the Subcommittee, Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elsa Murano stated it was her intent to devote resources to educate the public about food irradiation. Her remarks also indicate that she will attempt to blur the definition of pasteurization to include irradiation as part of the education campaign. In focus groups conducted for FSIS in 2002, consumers in St. Louis, Missouri; Raleigh, North Carolina; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania were asked whether they considered irradiation to be a form of pasteurization, and overwhelmingly consumers responded that making such an assertion would be misleading. Those findings corroborated findings from focus groups conducted for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in three different cities during the summer of 2001. We urge you not to fund any additional efforts to change labeling requirements for irradiated food by allowing ``pasteurization'' to be used. Lastly, we are concerned about the recent revelations that FSIS still has not addressed problems identified by the USDA Inspector General (IG) regarding the agency's reinspection program for imported meat and poultry products. In 2000, the IG noted some 18 deficiencies in the FSIS reinspection program. In her recent audit, the IG stated that FSIS has still not corrected 14 of those deficiencies--even though they had agreed to do so three years ago. In light of the heightened concerns about the security of our food supply, this is unconscionable. We urge you to instruct FSIS to comply with the recommendations in the 2000 Inspector General report. usda--food and nutrition service/agricultural marketing service The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the Farm Bill) contains a provision (section 4201 (1)) that directs the Secretary of Agriculture not to prohibit the use of approved food safety technologies in any commodity purchased by the USDA for various government-sponsored nutrition programs, including the National School Lunch and National Breakfast Programs. The USDA has decided this means that they should lift the current ban on the use of irradiation as an intervention for ground beef products purchased for these programs. And, it seems irradiation is the only approved food safety technology they are pursuing. Section 4201(l) received no scrutiny from any congressional committee, in either the House or Senate. It never received any floor debate in either the House or Senate. It was placed in the Senate version of the Farm Bill at the last minute as part of a 400-page manager's amendment. The conferees on the Farm Bill never even discussed it in open session. On November 22, 2002, the USDA announced that it would solicit comments from the public on the implementation of Section 4201(l) of the Farm Bill and specifically wanted comments on irradiation. The comments are being collected by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Of the comments posted on the AMS website as of March 19, 2003, by over a 5 to 1 margin, citizens have expressed their opposition to lifting the ban on irradiation--with thousands of comments still left to be posted. Comments opposing such action have come from nearly all fifty states, while those supporting the technology have come primarily from those who have direct ties to the irradiation industry. In order to promote this technology, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has funded an irradiation ``education'' program in three Minnesota school districts. The program is being administered by proponents of irradiation--with no access for critics of the technology to present alternative views. In addition, the steering committee for the program is dominated by one irradiation company and its affiliates. In essence, FNS is funding a government-sponsored advertising campaign for one company. Recent research indicates that some chemicals formed when certain foods are irradiated may be harmful when consumed. The new studies call into question the long-held position of the FDA and the food industry that irradiated foods are generally safe for human consumption. But the studies confirm research published in 1998 and 2001 showing that concentrations of chemicals called 2-alkylcyclobutanones (or 2-ACBs)--which are found only in irradiated foods--caused DNA damage in human cells. Among the new findings, 2-ACBs were shown to promote tumor development in rat colons. The 2-ACBs are formed when foods that contain fat are irradiated, such as beef, chicken, eggs and certain fruits--all of which can legally be irradiated. There is even less research into the long-term health effects experienced by children who are exposed to toxic chemicals in foods. Dr. William Au, a toxicologist at the Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, has argued that the lack of understanding regarding the ill effects suffered by children who consume toxic chemicals in foods extends to ``the toxicological risk with respect to eating irradiated food.'' If implemented, Section 4201 (1) will create the largest mass-feeding of irradiated food to children in history. We urge the committee not to fund the purchase of irradiated food for federal government nutrition programs. Food and Drug Administration We are concerned about the lack of funding for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for import reinspections. Even after the additional funding the agency received in FY 2003 to hire more staff to perform food import reinspections, the agency is only capable of reinspecting a paltry 1.3 percent of imported food over which it has jurisdiction. This needs to be addressed with additional funding, with the goal of reaching at least the 20 percent reinspection rate that FSIS is able to perform for imported meat and poultry products. Furthermore, FDA should be granted the same authority that FSIS currently possesses to inspect foreign establishments that can export their food to the United States. We are also concerned with the repeated attempts to weaken the labeling for irradiated foods. The FDA has visited this issue repeatedly since 1997--primarily at the direction of Congress. Each time, the FDA finds that consumers do not see eye-to-eye on this issue with the irradiation industry and their supporters in Congress. It seems that there are those who want to keep on trying until we get it wrong. In the conference committee report that accompanied the FY 2001 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, the conferees stated: ``The conferees expect FDA to make final the regulations regarding labeling of irradiated foods by March 1, 2002, and report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status by November 15, 2000. This agreement changes the dates proposed for final regulations by the House of September 30, 2001, and by the Senate of October 30, 2001.'' In its report to the Appropriations Committees, the FDA explained that it had published an Advanced Notice for Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in 1999 on food irradiation labeling as the agency was directed to do under the FDA Modernization Act conference committee report in 1997. In evaluating the comments that the agency received from the ANPR, FDA stated: ``The majority of these comments were letters that urged the agency to retain special labeling for irradiated foods but did not address the specific issues on which FDA requested comment. A preliminary analysis of the comments suggests no consensus about what alternative language for disclosure of irradiation processing would be truthful and not misleading. Because the public comments provided no clear direction for agency rulemaking, FDA believes that 1999 ANPR fulfills the Agency's obligations under the FDAMA Conference Report.'' The FDA went on to say in its report to Congress that it intended to impanel consumer focus groups to attempt to obtain further guidance on the labeling issue. During the summer of 2001, the FDA commissioned six consumer focus groups in suburban Washington, DC; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Sacramento, California. In all of the focus groups, the moderator attempted to make a strong association between pasteurization and irradiation. This was significant since there have been some irradiation proponents who have argued that a more appropriate term to describe irradiation is either ``cold pasteurization'' or ``electronic pasteurization.'' In a 2002 report to Congress, the FDA summarized the results of those focus groups: ``Most of the participants viewed alternate terms such as `cold pasteurization' and `electronic pasteurization' as misleading, because they appeared to conceal rather than disclose information about irradiated food products. Participants did not see the current disclosure labeling as a warning . . . Everyone agreed that irradiated foods should be labeled honestly. They indicated that the current FDA required statement is a straightforward way for labeling irradiated foods.'' Furthermore, in his 2002 testimony before the House Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations, Dr. Lester Crawford, Deputy Commissioner of the FDA stated: ``(W)hen we did focus groups at FDA on cold pasteurization, the general feeling of the average citizen was that this was kind of a ruse or a means to conceal the fact that the food had been irradiated. And so we are kind of back to square one. We don't have a good synonym for irradiation and we would like to have one. We don't want to mislead the public.'' The public has been very consistent on the issue--in focus groups for USDA and FDA and in public comments solicited by FDA. Consumers do not want labeling rules for irradiated food to allow euphemisms like ``electronic pasteurization.'' In fact, rather than changing the words that are permitted to describe irradiated food, FDA should instead focus on expanding the current rules beyond retail establishments, so that irradiated food served in restaurants, hospitals and schools must be labeled. There have already been too many resources devoted to this issue within FDA. The driving force ought to be what the consumers believe to be honest and straightforward labeling--not what some in industry think will make it easier to sell their product. The FDA has more important things to do than devising ways to confuse and mislead consumers. We urge you not to find further attempts to change labeling rules for irradiated foods. Thank you.