Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the day after Christmas 2002, The Honorable Walter J. Krasniewski passed from this life at the age of 73 years. He was surrounded by his family. Judge Krasniewski served the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of Ohio for 32 years, retiring in 1997. The author of more than 500 legal opinions, during his tenure many of his opinions established case law for the Sixth Circuit. At his retirement before a packed courtroom of judges, attorneys, family and friends there to pay him tribute, Judge Krasniewski was recognized as one of the ten longest-serving judges in U.S. history. A dedicated promoter of the noble profession of the law, Judge Krasniewski was mentor to many people he encouraged in the pursuit of a law career. Walter Krasniewski graduated from Xavier University, then obtained his law degree from the University of Toledo. After a time in private practice, he was employed by the State of Ohio as an assistant attorney. In 1963, he was appointed by Attorney General Robert Kennedy as an assistant U.S. attorney. He began his long career as a bankruptcy court judge in 1965. Devoted to his family, Judge Krasniewski also paid careful attention to his community. He was involved in many civic activities and fraternal organizations. His thoughtful countenance was as well known to his associates as it was to those who appeared in his courtroom. Always a gentleman, he was also a true statesman. Walter Krasniewski was a man committed to family, his faith, his profession, and his country. Truly we will miss this man of vision and integrity. Our heartfelt sympathy to his wife of 45 years, Mary Lou, his children Linda, Leslie, Laurie, and Lawrence, his brothers John and William, his grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article to be included in the Record. [From the New York Times, Jan. 30, 2003] What the World Hears When the President Speaks; The Wrong Words (By Abdel Monem Said) Probably no area of the world had a keener interest in President Bush's address on Tuesday night than the Middle East. And probably nowhere will there be greater disappointment. People in moderate Arab states will conclude that the president is woefully misguided in his approach to the region's troubles. First, the American government seems to have divided the Middle East into a set of separate problems, each in its own little box: Iraq, Iran, the Palestinians and the Israelis, fundamentalism, terrorism. To an Arab, these are all related issues. The United States should concentrate on the problem whose resolution would, ultimately, solve all the other problems. That problem isn't Iraq. In fact, tackling Iraq will worsen the situation in the Middle East. It is the Palestinian question whose resolution has the best potential for a positive impact on the region and beyond. Unfortunately, it received only a passing reference in the president's speech, Second, Arabs do not agree with the rosy American view of an invasion of Iraq. Mr. Bush seems to believe that the Iraqi people will look at American soldiers as liberators. In three or four weeks Saddam Hussein and his cronies will be toppled. In a year or so, Iraq will be a shining example of a democratic and prosperous country. Arabs have a drastically different view. Some Iraqis will look at Americans as new colonialists. Various Iraqi factions and ethnic groups will take the chance to settle old scores. Iraq will descend into chaos. Turkey and Iran will interfere. The fragile countries of the eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf will suffer. The Arab-Israeli conflict will become increasingly volatile as violence and fundamentalism cross national borders. Third, Mr. Bush sees the war on Iraq as part of the global war against terrorism, In the absence of clear evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, Arabs see the Iraq campaign as a deviation and distraction from the real fight. Iraq, now greatly weakened, is incapable of threatening its neighbors. Terrorism remains a greater threat. By going after Iraq, the United States is taking the easy way out: a classic war where it can find a capital to bomb, a regime to overthrow and weapons to dismantle. The war on terrorism is a completely different one, with political and socioeconomic dimensions that call for patience and agonizing time. The historical bond between the United States and the moderate Arab states and mainstream Arabs in general contributed to the stability of the Middle East. For half a century, the bond worked well--to thwart Communist expansion in the cold war, to contain the waves of Iranian Islamic revolution and to end in 1991 Saddam Hussein's radical and regional ambitions. Now, it seems for the Arabs, the major force for instability in the region is the United States itself, which is moving militarily to Iraq, ignoring the Arab-Israeli peace process, giving Ariel Sharon a free hand in Israel, and insinuating a radical program for change in the region without building strategic understanding for it.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article to be included in the Record: [From the New York Times, Jan. 30, 2003] What the World Hears When the President Speaks; Calming Fears (By Bill Emmott) Before President Bush's State of the Union address, worry about war and suspicion of America were the prevailing views in the outside world. After his address, worry and suspicion still prevail. But there is now hope that the suspicion, at least, could soon ease. Don't misunderstand. I have long supported America's effort to enforce the United Nations resolutions calling on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and have felt that only under an ever- nearing threat of war was there any chance that this might be achieved, peacefully or otherwise. Few of my fellow Europeans (and surprisingly few Britons) have felt the same. Every time they have seen Mr. Bush speaking informally about this issue, their fears and suspicions have grown. However, every time they have seen him make a big, formal speech (as at the United Nations in September and before Congress on Tuesday) they have felt reassured. This time, the reassurance did not come from his deliberately reassuring gestures, such as the promise to put up $15 billion to combat H.I.V. and AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean or the $1.2 billion for research into pollution- free cars. It came from his announcement that on Feb. 5 Secretary of State Colin Powell would reveal evidence of Iraq's weapons concealment to the Security Council. It was reassuring because it suggests that some proof exists. Admittedly, the lust for evidence represents a sort of mass self-delusion, a belief that somehow the 1990's didn't happen and that no weapons programs were found then. It also represents topsy-turvy thinking: that the burden of proof is on Mr. Bush, not Saddam Hussein. Still, such thinking is a reality that the White House needs to face. Such evidence is not needed on technical, moral or legal grounds. But it is needed to secure a broad coalition, which in turn is highly desirable if the risks of war--and an unstable aftermath of war--are to be reduced. At least from this vantage point in London, the recent opposition to war heard from France and Russia looks shallow. Some credible, publicly usable evidence is all that is needed for them to be able to back a second United Nations resolution and even to offer military support. Following President Bush's address, therefore, an extremely favorable situation looks to be within America's grasp--a broad coalition and a second resolution, both just at the time when the military buildup is reaching its peak. Saddam Hussein, no doubt, will have fresh delaying tactics up his sleeve, such as apparent, partial admissions or concessions about weapons programs with which he will hope to sow new divisions and confusion. The wider the coalition against him, and the shorter the time he has available, the lower will be his chances of success. The president's speech brought that prospect closer. Now Colin Powell must clinch it.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article to be included in the Record: [From The Halifax Daily News, Feb. 11, 2003] The Wrong Question: It's Not Whether Saddam Has Chemical Weapons, It's Whether He'll Use Them (By Gwynne Dyer) U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell did a good job at the United Nations last week of laying out the evidence that Saddam Hussein has kept some of the chemical and biological weapons that he had before the Gulf War of 1990-91, and maybe even made more since then. If you doubted it before, you shouldn't doubt it any more. But it was the right answer to the wrong question. Saddam should be forced to comply with his obligations and destroy all those weapons, but if you are planning to launch a war next month that will probably snuff out tens of thousands of lives, you have to answer a different question. Is there a big enough risk that Saddam will use those weapons himself in the near future, or give them to terrorists to use, to justify pulling the inspectors out and killing all those people now? No, there is not. Saddam Hussein has had these weapons for at least 20 years, and he hasn't given them to anyone in all that time,. And why would terrorists need to get these weapons from Iraq anyway, when they could just steal their poison gas from the huge, poorly guarded stocks in Russia (secured, in some cases, with bicycle padlocks)--or mix them up in the kitchen sink like the Aum Shinrikyo cult did for its attacks on the Tokyo subway in 1995? Besides, Saddam Hussein is no friend of al-Qaida. He is the kind of Arab leader the Islamists hate most: a secular, westernizing socialist who liberates women and makes deals with the West. Osama bin Laden says he is an ``infidel'' and has been calling for his overthrow for years. Saddam is a thoroughly nasty dictator, but he is neither mad nor expansionist. In fact, if you were looking for a European parallel to Saddam Hussein's regime, it would be something like Nicolae Ceasescu's long reign in Communist Romania--except that Ceasescu, safely contained within the Soviet bloc, never had a war with his neighbours. Saddam Hussein, who is 66 this year, comes from the Arab generation that believed in modernization through revolutionary socialism on the Eastern European model. During the 1970s he behaved like a classic Communist leader, eliminating his rivals but taking the task of raising people's living standards quite seriously. With abundant oil revenues available, he built an Iraq where most people had decent jobs, the children were all in school, and women were freer than anywhere else in the Arab world. Then came the war with Iran, and everything went wrong. Saddam always dreamed of becoming the hero-leader of the Arab world on the model of Egypt's Gamal Abdul Nasser, which is why he had a nuclear weapons program. (The first Arab leader to acquire a deterrent against Israel's nuclear monopoly automatically becomes an Arab hero.) He never showed any desire to conquer his neighbors, but Iraq did have territorial disputes with Iran and Kuwait, both dating back to before he was born--and he did not manage them well. He signed a treaty with Iran in 1975 settling the dispute over the Iraq-Iran border, but it unravelled after the Shah was overthrown in 1978, and the new Islamic government of Ayatollah Khomeini began inciting the majority of Iraqi Arabs who share Iran's Shia religious heritage to throw off Saddam's godless socialist rule. In the great blunder of his life, Saddam went to war with Iran in 1980. Iranians outnumber Iraqis three-to-one, and without huge amounts of U.S. aid and those chemical weapons we keep hearing about (which the Reagan administration knew all about), he would not have survived. Iraq emerged from that war in 1988 with hundreds of thousands dead, the welfare state in ruins--and $60 billion in debt to its Gulf Arab neighbours. Saddam asked them to cancel the debt, since Iraq's sacrifices had ``saved'' them from revolutionary Iran. When they refused, he invaded Kuwait (which all the rulers of independent Iraqi have claimed as part of Iraq) in August 1990. He thought he had cleared this with his American allies, but neither party understood what the other was saying in his famous conversation with the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad. When Saddam Hussein contacted U.S. President George W. Bush four days after the invasion and offered the U.S. unlimited Kuwaiti oil at one-third of world market price in return for a deal on Kuwaiti sovereignty, Bush Senior coldly ordered him out of Kuwait. He refused, the Gulf War followed, and he has been under UN sanctions ever since, clinging to power in the ruins of the country he once raised to prosperity. He has been a disaster for Iraq, but he is not the new Hitler. He is not even a visceral anti-American, though U.S.-Iraqi relations have been bitterly hostile since 1990, So, the right questions are: is Saddam likely to give chemical or biological weapons to the Islamist terrorists he loathes this month or next, when he has not done so in the past 20 years? If not, why do we need a war with Iraq now that will kill a great many people with old-fashioned high explosives?

Mr. KAPTUR

Mr. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article to be included in the Record: [From The New York Times, Jan. 30, 2003] Bait and Switch (By Bob Herbert) President Bush has learned how to deliver a moving speech. But Tuesday night's State of the Union Message did not address the most important question facing the American people: What kind of nation are we becoming? The president spoke passionately about bringing ``food and medicines and supplies and freedom'' to the Iraqi people. But he is leading a hard-right administration here at home that is seriously eroding the economic security, the access to health care, the civil rights and civil liberties and the environmental protections of the American people. The first part of the president's speech was crafted to create exactly the opposite impression. He promised an economy ``that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job.'' He proposed a prescription drug benefit for some retirees. And he said he was ready to commit $1.2 billion to research into environmentally friendly hydrogen-powered automobiles. But those were largely bait-and-switch proposals. Despite rising unemployment, the president's plan for the economy was simply a continuation of his tax-cut mania. There was nothing in the way of a job-creation program or a real economic stimulus. And there was absolutely zero help offered to the states and local governments whose budgetary knees are buckling under the weight of their worst fiscal crisis since World War II. The president's prescription drug benefit, tempting at first glance, is tied to a restructuring of Medicare that will curtail, not enhance, the delivery of health services to the elderly. It was designed to look like an act of compassion. It's not. The hydrogen cars initiative was a particularly deft touch for a president who has been hammered for his environmental policies. Hydrogen-powered autos could make a difference in the long term, say 20 or 30 years from now, or more. But what is much more significant is that Mr. Bush has stood like a rock with the opponents of increased fuel efficiency for the cars we're driving right now. The payoff for immediately improving vehicle fuel economy would be huge. In addition to saving money for motorists, it would cut pollution, curtail our contribution to the greenhouse effect and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We heard nothing about that in the speech. The Bush administration is changing the nation in fundamental ways. However one feels about a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, over the long term a bullying, go-it-alone foreign policy wedded to a military doctrine of preemption is a recipe for destabilization and paranoia around the world. And despite its professed commitment to compassionate policies at home, the administration's obsession with tax cuts is proving destructive on two fronts: It is draining the nation's coffers of money for social programs (including Medicare and Social Security), and blocking any real attempt to invest in a range of programs and infrastructure initiatives that are crucial to the nation's long-term future. Some of those programs relate directly to domestic security. These issues get short shrift in an atmosphere of imminent war. But I doubt that this is the kind of country most Americans want. And we are already beginning to pay the price. Local taxes are soaring and services are breaking down. On the night of the president's speech, the governor of New Jersey, James McGreevey, announced that he would be cutting state aid to colleges and universities by 10 percent because of a $5 billion state budget gap, In Connecticut, nearly 3,000 state workers have been laid off and Gov. John Rowland said another 1,000 needed to go. In some states the public school week is being curtailed. In some, prisoners are being furloughed. These are telling indications of the real state of the union. As the most powerful nation on earth, and the world's only superpower, the United States has a particular obligation to use its might wisely abroad and to distribute its benefits fairly at home. That is not an easy mission for a hard-right-wing administration, which is why the Bush administration puts such a premium on the rhetoric of compassion. Behind the veil of rhetoric is a Darwinian political philosophy that, if clearly understood, would repel the majority of Americans. http://www.nytimes.com.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article to be included in the Record: [From the New York Times, Jan. 30, 2003] What the World Hears When the President Speaks; Remember Us? (By Enrique Krauze) Focused on its enemies, the Bush administration has forgotten its friends. Only one world region went entirely unmentioned in the State of the Union speech: Latin America. In another, far distant age--five days before terror struck New York and Washington--President Bush pledged a new alliance with President Vicente Fox of Mexico, on the grounds that a strong Mexico makes for a stronger United States. After 9/11, however, everything changed. All of Latin America now seems aware that the United States has returned to an essentially reactive diplomacy that seems to come to life only when there are missiles pointing at its shores, Marxist guerrillas in the jungles, or revolutionary governments in the old banana republics. This is unfortunate because Latin America (with the exception of Cuba) has for a decade been abandoning its old grievances, drawing closer to the United States, opting for democracy and rejecting militarism, statism and Marxism. What is needed to make Washington take this Copernican shift seriously and support it in tangible ways? Maybe what is needed is for the miracle to end. And it may indeed end, if, in the face of American neglect, Latin Americans turn toward the biggest specter of the past: populism, the age-old temptation to put power in the hands of a heaven-sent strongman--yesterday in Alberto Fujimori's Peru, today in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, and tomorrow perhaps in a charismatic Mexican politician. Unfortunately, populist sentiment has been reinforced by Washington's mistakes. It lost democratic credibility by not condemning the coup against the populist but democratically elected Mr. Chavez. There was the scolding of Brazil and Argentina by Paul H. O'Neill, the former Treasury secretary, which sent their currencies tumbling. And there is the supreme shortsightedness of the economic blockade of Cuba. More worrisome still is the administration's attitude toward its neighbor. The shelving of the 2001 immigration agreement was a mistake that has been compounded by new subsidies for American farmers, which fly in the face of the reforms required of Mexican agriculture under Nafta. Mexico's rural regions are its most sensitive. It was peasants who fought the Mexican Revolution 90 years ago, and it is from rural Mexico that the next explosion would likely come. I agree with Mr. Bush that if Saddam Hussein is not evil ``then evil has no meaning.'' But to combat evil, one must find strength in friendship. In dealing with the south, George W. Bush should try a different doctrine: pre-emptive cooperation.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the end of the year 2002 brings with it the retirement of a distinguished public servant in Ohio. William Copeland will be retiring as a Lucas County, Ohio, Commissioner, bringing to a close 28 years in service to the people of our region. Raised in Toledo, Ohio, Bill was a stand-out baseball and basketball player at Woodward High School and gained All-City recognition. After high school, he earned a degree in education from South Carolina State University. Following college, Bill played basketball for New York's Komedy Kings, a semiprofessional team, which won sixty consecutive games during Bill's tenure. This feat earned Bill an invitation to join the Harlem Globetrotters. During this time, Bill was also working in Toledo and a member of the Laborers Union Local 500. For over 30 years he served the union as representative, business manager, and business agent. Funds were raised under his stewardship to build a hall which now bears his name in thanks from his union brothers and sisters. In 1974, Bill was persuaded to run for Toledo City Council and won. In 1983, having been the highest vote-getter, he was elected by his council colleagues as Vice Mayor. With his 1985 election as county recorder, Bill became the first African-American to hold a county office. He was appointed to the Board of Lucas County Commissioners in 1990--again making history as the first African-American County Commissioner. For many years, he was the only African-American serving on a board of county commissioners among Ohio's 88 counties. Commissioner Copeland has handily won reelection to three successive terms. He diligently pursued many major projects including new home ownership and housing rehabilitation initiatives, a regional water study, new ballpark, juvenile justice center, and the establishment of the Corporation for Effective Government to name but a few. An integral member of our community, Bill Copeland has devoted himself to public service while actively participating in numerous organizations. While an elected official, Bill worked with the Toledo Zoological Society, Kidney Foundation, Indiana Avenue Missionary Baptist Church, Lucas County Democratic Executive Committee, YMCA, NAACP, Labor-Management Citizens Committee, AFL-CIO, Frederick Douglass Community Center, American Heart Association, Old Newsboys, COMPASS, Toledo Jazz Society, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, and Toledo Civic Breakfast Club. It was often said and very true, that Bill Copeland was everywhere. Though he will receive dozens of accolades upon his retirement, I believe a statement made by Toledo Blade associate editor Rose Russell sums up Bill Copeland best: ``With so much power at his fingertips for more than two decades, he will go down in Toledo history as a political stalwart who hasn't found it necessary to boast, be arrogant, or snub anyone. He merely has gone his way and worked for the people who elected him.'' Humbly, quietly, with grace, honor, kindness and dignity always, Bill Copeland went about the job he was elected to do. Lucas County government will miss his dignified presence and thoughtful governance. Politically, Bill spurred people to get out and vote, giving people in the central city the inspiration to change their lives through their power at the polls. These skills are his true legacy, and I join with the chorus from our community in a heartfelt ``Thank You.''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record. For the Fallen Soldiers (By Amanda Escareno) For the soldiers that fought the wars, U.S. Army, Navy, Air force and the corps. As you lie here deep beneath the ground, there's not a single sound. Now you lay here in a deep sleep, While the others weep. They know that when you died, you were showered with pride. You gave your happy lie, with your kids and your wife. Now we stand here above your grave, and cherished all that you saved. the tears cried is for the blood shed, and the life that you led. Let a salute be gave and the flight of a dove, for America the land that you love.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record. (By David Johnston and James Risen) A draft report by the joint Congressional committee looking into the Sept. 11 attacks has concluded that the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., in their investigations, did not aggressively pursue leads that might have linked the terrorists to Saudi Arabia, senior government officials said today. The report charged among other things that the authorities had failed to investigate the possibility that two of the hijackers, Saudis named Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhazmi, received Saudi money from two Saudi men they met with in California in the year before the attacks. The committee's preliminary findings, which also accuse the Saudi government of a lack of cooperation with American investigators, have caused a bitter behind-the-scenes dispute between the panel's staff and officials at the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. At each agency, officials have disagreed with draft findings, saying investigators vigorously pursued all available information related to Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, but little is known about their backgrounds and how they were recruited for the attacks. Most of the Saudis were part of a group that investigators refer to as the ``muscle.'' These were men recruited late in the planning for the operation, not as pilots, but as an unskilled security force for the hijacking operation. Their job was to keep passengers at bay as the planes were commandeered and flown to their intended targets. In a rebuttal report sent to the committee in recent days, the F.B.I. has tried to disprove several specific allegations by the committee. One of them was about Mr. Midhar and Mr. Alhazmi, who lived in Sand Diego a year before the attacks. While in California, the two met with Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassnan, each of whom was receiving financial support from the Saudi government. The men were receiving stipends, although officials said it was not exactly clear what kind. The committee staff concluded in its draft findings that investigators should have followed up on the meetings of the four men to determine whether there might have been a Saudi link to the hijacking plot. The F.B.I. is still investigating how much financial support, if any, was provided by Mr. Bayoumi and Mr. Bassnan to the two men who later turned out to be hijackers. The bureau is also looking into whether senior Saudi officials in the United States may have played some role in distributing funds to Mr. Bayoumi and Mr. Bassnan. Today, the F.B.I. said in a statement that it had ``aggressively pursued investigative leads regarding terrorist support and activity.'' It added that Mr. Bayoumi and Mr. Bassnan had both been charged with visa fraud after the attacks. But by that time, Mr. Bayoumi was already in Britain, where he was temporarily detained and then released because visa fraud was not an extraditable offense. The F.B.I. statement did not say where the two men were now or clarify the status of the cases against them. Although the disagreement has not been publicly disclosed until now, the debate over possible Saudi connections raises a very sensitive political issue for the Bush administration. Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producer in the world and one of the United States' closest and most important allies in the Persian Gulf at a time when the administration is preparing for a possible war with Iraq. In its report to the committee, the F.B.I. said that it was no uncommon for Saudis in the United States to receive financial support from their government and that an inquiry into the two me after the attacks had failed to produce evidence that they had any link to the Sept. 11 plot. A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment about the joint inquiry's investigation of the Saudi matter. Counterterrorism officials have said Mr. Midhar and Mr. Alhazmi had paid for more of their expenses with cash, which has made the investigation more difficult. They have also denied finding any evidence that funds for the attacks were channeled through Saudi Arabia or that the Riyadh government had any connection to the hijackers. It remains unclear whether the draft conclusions about Saudi Arabia will be included in the joint committee's final report, which is to be completed in December in classified form. An edited version is not expected to be made public until next year, officials said. The Bush administration has sought to maintain close ties with Riyadh even as investigators examining the backgrounds of the hijackers have complained that they have received little cooperation from the Saudi government. Investigators have yet to determine how the Saudi hijackers were selected for the plot, who chose them or whether they had help inside Saudi Arabia. Some American officials have theorized that Mr. Midhar and Mr. Alhazmi may have returned to Saudi Arabia from the United States to pick the Saudi hijackers, but investigators have no firm conclusions. For their part, Saudi officials have said that they have assisted in important aspects of the investigation--for instance, providing confirmation of the identities of the Saudi hijackers. The officials have also said the hijackers' anti-American extremism did not represent mainstream thinking in the kingdom, even though some American officials have long regarded Islamic militancy as a serious problem that could destabilize the authoritarian government. The tension between the joint inquiry staff and the F.B.I. and C.I.A. is the latest to evolve from the inquiry into lapses by intelligence and law enforcement agencies related to the Sept. 11 attacks. In a series of interim reports released during committee hearings in recent months, the joint panel had repeatedly criticized the performance of the two agencies. Those sometimes scathing reports prompted officials at both the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., including the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, to criticize the joint panel's methods. Officials have complained that it reached conclusions based on scant evidence and that it took evidence out of context. The joint committee has already held at least one closed hearing on the F.B.I.'s relationship with a San Diego informer, the landlord of Mr. Midhar and Mr. Alhazmi a year before the attacks. The informer's role has become important because his former tenants are the hijackers who have come under the most intense scrutiny in the joint inquiry. Mr. Midhar and Mr. Alhazmi, who were aboard the American Airlines plane that crashed into the Pentagon, were identified as Qaeda operatives by the C.I.A. in January 2001. But the C.I.A. did not ask the State Department to place their names on a watch list intended to prevent entry into the United States until late August. By then, they were both in the country. The C.I.A. sent information about the two men to the F.B.I. in late August, but by then there was little time left for the bureau to track them down. The committee investigating the hijackers was also told by a retired F.B.I. agent who was the bureau's contact with the San Diego informer that he might have uncovered a hint of the plot through his informer network if the C.I.A. had provided the F.B.I. with more information earlier about the two men. http://www.nytimes.com

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, of course our Nation is on the verge of war, a war against what is called terrorism. It is interesting to think about that word. It is kind of a nebulous term. The enemy moves around the world. I think it is important to take a look at what is happening here at home and to think about who it was that crashed into those trade towers and where they originated from and what might have propelled the hatred that was directed against the people of our country on our home soil. It is very interesting that the majority of hijackers came from the nation of Saudi Arabia. We look at where they came from, where they were educated and what their motives really were. It is interesting that Saudi Arabia remains the country from which the United States is importing the greatest share of petroleum, and if we look at the balance of accounts today, the primary area in which we have yielded a trade deficit with the world is in imported petroleum. Oil prices are going up over $33 a barrel. Every time we go to the gas pump and we buy a gallon, over half of what we spend goes to countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria. It is very clear what has been happening. In fact, the current recession we are in, starting in March 2001, was triggered by rising oil prices, and in fact, rising prices at the pump are driving us into deeper recession every day. When will America see who is controlling the innards of this economy and how where we are importing this oil from is affecting the politics of the world? Today, I have introduced a bill that will create a biofuels independence initiative for our country. It is time for America to erase our key strategic vulnerability, and that is to imported petroleum and the evil politics that it yields globally. America has not been serious. Over the decade of the 1980s and 1990s, in spite of four recessions and major oil embargoes, we have continued to import more and more petroleum, which by the year 2050 will indeed be a scarce world resource. Armed forces from throughout the United States have been building air fields in the Middle East. We are being asked to appropriate over $100 billion to defend the Occidental pipeline in the nation of Colombia. And Venezuela teeters as we sit here this evening. It is time to pay attention to where the oil comes from, and it is time to do something here at home to revive the sagging and critical state of rural America and, at the same time, create jobs from coast to coast. One of the most important and neglected areas that we can do something about, if we are serious, is to create the kind of umbrella across our country, as we did with the National Rural Electrification Administration and the National Telephone Administration. We can do the same with the National Biofuels Corporation, so that from coast to coast, where acres can be turned to productive use and move farmers from farming for a government check by going to their mailbox, to farming the marketplace and producing new, renewable clean fuels for America, we will have a win-win-win across every State in this Union. There are other answers to our energy crisis: cleaning up coal in the Coal Belt that lies between Pennsylvania and Illinois, which has more Btus under the ground than the entire Middle East. Why can we not see it? Why can we not, a Nation that can clean up chemical weapons in Pine Bluff, not find a way to clean up coal? We are not serious. The bill that we are introducing today says America is long overdue from sending her Marines around the world in special forces to protect the oil highways over the seas. It is time to produce our way to energy independence and create real growth inside this economy. It should be interesting also for people to know that with every billion dollars of trade deficit that we rack up, that we cannot pay for here at home because of our imports, we have to bond our indebtedness. Today, the United States of America is in hock to about 12 nations around the world, including those very same oil kingdoms, but also nations like China. Not exactly a democratic state. So I say, think about it, America. Take a look at our Energy Independence Act, H.R. 103. Think about making America energy independent in 10 years. It is time. And it is time to bring our troops home, not conducting any wars for oil on any continent.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, every single one of those families would spend that money on basics. They would be buying food.

Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank my very able colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for participating and spearheading this special order this evening. I think when the gentleman from New Jersey reminded us that the current recession was triggered back in March of 2001, we have to ask ourselves, well, what happened there? What happened was again rising oil prices in the global market, which America does not control because we are totally dependent on imports, thrust us into a recession which has only gotten worse and all the pump priming on Wall Street cannot draw us out of it because we are not energy independent. Oil just went up to $33 a barrel. There is instability obviously in the Middle East, certainly in Venezuela, Colombia, all these places where we are getting our oil, and the kind of short-term stimulus package that you are talking about would be an immediate shot in the arm here in the United States of America, whether it is building bridges, whether it is putting a small tax refund in the pockets of Americans that they can go out and buy things, ordinary Americans who are having trouble meeting ends from paycheck to paycheck. But beyond that, looking at how we can create entire new industries in this country so that we do not have to send our men and women to war for oil but, rather, that we can invest here at home. Can you imagine the sentinel call it would be across just rural America if we really racheted up biofuels production and ethanol and biodiesel from coast to coast, what we could do to replace 25 percent of what we are importing today? I really wanted to say to both of my dear colleagues that there was an editorial in the New York Times on January 5 by Tom Friedman called ``A War for Oil.'' I would like to place it in the Record this evening as a part of this discussion and to say with all the pomp and circumstance that occurred here in the House today, the reality is we are faced with a likelihood that we will be at war with Iraq very soon. To do so at a time when we are suffering this major recession here at home, where we have got these rising oil prices globally and we are not energy independent, we are going into huge debt in terms of the government with all these tax payouts left and right to some of the wealthiest people in our country and no help for job creation here in this country, even in the key industry where we are totally vulnerable, that is, new fuels production. We are importing over 60 percent of what we consume today and paying exorbitant prices for it, and Mr. Friedman says in his article that any war we launch in Iraq will certainly be in part about oil and that the Bush team is preparing to launch that war for oil and to deny the fact is actually laughable. And he says that the Bush policy towards North Korea has made it abundantly clear that the war with Iraq indeed is about oil. The question is whether it is only about oil. And I am sure that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who has been a leader in new-fuels production and energy independence for America, in his own region when we consider the biomass that is out there that could be turned to new- fuels production we can see the jobs and the investment here in the United States that could happen if we would really propel this new industry forward. What good does it do to give shareholders in multinational oil companies on Wall Street more dividends when those dollars do not have to be invested in this country at all? So much of what Wall Street has been doing is not investing in the United States. They have been moving jobs to Mexico. The other day I just bought some windshield wipers for my car, turned the package over, made in Mexico. In fact I have a question. Is anything made in America anymore? If we look at this past holiday shopping season, what is actually out there that we make? I am glad we can still make bridges if we would only fund them in our country, but try to find an American-made clock, American-made clothing. I just talked to a gentleman today downstairs. He said, Boy, I wish I could find a good pair of shoes. He said, My feet are killing me. And I said, Well, they are not made in America anymore. What is it that we do make that is not being outsourced somewhere else? So the recession is being exacerbated by the fact that so much of what Wall Street has done with the money is not to put it here but to put it elsewhere where they can pay slave wages to people and then ship all those goods back here. So all this investment, I would be very interested in entertaining a proposal from the Bush administration to require that any benefits to Wall Street be invested in the USA and to do it in a stimulus plan in some of the key sectors where we are strategically vulnerable, including energy, where we are totally dependent on these international imports now more and more every day. And when we think about the fact that Iraq has the second largest reserves in the world, one of my questions of the Bush administration is, if they are going to go in and take over these reserves, who is going to benefit? Which companies are going to get the benefit of that? Maybe we should do some windfall profits taxes on the companies that are going to be getting all these Iraqi oil concessions and then use those dollars to buy down our public debt and pay off some of the bills that are being added every day with the tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country. So I just am very interested in what Tom Friedman said here, and he even talks about handing out drilling concessions to U.S. oil companies and how are those decisions going to be made by the administration. How is the administration going to get through this issue of nation- building in Iraq? Is this going to be like Somalia? I thought we were not supposed to be involved in nation-building. We are not out of Afghanistan yet. We are paying more and more and more every day. Our troops are on the ground there. Of course there is a press blackout; so you really do not know everything that is happening. We are not going to be out of there for years. The President of Afghanistan was on the board of Unical Oil Company, and when one looks at the movement of oil globally, it is obvious that control of that country and the movement of pipelines is really very essential to the global movement of oil, which is a diminishing world resource. So the real question I have is, if we are going to have a stimulus package, how do we get investment here at home and how do we displace particularly in the energy area the kind of imports that have now moved us to the brink of war again in the most oil-rich region of the world? I am deeply concerned about the direction of this country and whether or not we have an exit strategy from Iraq. And when we look at the amount of money we are going to be spending on defense in order to move these troops and planes and ships for long periods of time now, the Ohio National Guard just had the longest deployment in Ohio history in that part of the world, and they have just returned home, building airfields, preparing. This is costing an enormous amount. Imagine if we could invest those dollars here at home and create entire new industries, not just off biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel in the rural countryside, but what about photovoltaics to really rachet up our knowledge in that key area and manufacture those systems here in the United States not just for use here at home but for use abroad, to really move us into renewable resources of energy for the future. What an incredible job creator that would be, good jobs, high-paying jobs coast to coast in order to buy America true national security and energy independence here at home. So I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to share in this Special Order this evening and to say that I agree with Tom Friedman. I am not somebody who wants to go to war for oil. I think we should invest those dollars here at home and help America move beyond the petroleum age into a new age of renewables. I thank both gentlemen. I include the following editorial for the Record: [From the New York Times, Jan. 5, 2003] A War for Oil? (By Thomas L. Friedman) Our family spent winter vacation in Colorado, and one day I saw the most unusual site: two women marching around the Aspen Mountain ski lift, waving signs protesting against war in Iraq. One sign said: ``Just war or Just Oil?'' As I watched this two-woman demonstration, I couldn't help notice the auto traffic whizzing by them: one gas-guzzling S.U.V. or Jeep after another, with even a Humvee or two tossed in for good measure. The whole scene made me wonder whether those two women weren't--indeed--asking the right question: Is the war that the Bush team is preparing to launch in Iraq really a war for oil? My short answer is yes. Any war we launch in Iraq will certainly be--in part--about oil. To deny that is laughable. But whether it is seen to be only about oil will depend on how we behave before an invasion and what we try to build once we're there. I say this possible Iraq war is partly about oil because it is impossible to explain the Bush team's behavior otherwise. Why are they going after Saddam Hussein with the 82nd Airborne and North Korea with diplomatic kid gloves--when North Korea already has nuclear weapons, the missiles to deliver them, a record of selling dangerous weapons to anyone with cash, 100,000 U.S. troops in its missile range and a leader who is even more cruel to his own people than Saddam? One reason, of course, is that it is easier to go after Saddam. But the other reason is oil--even if the president doesn't want to admit it. (Mr. Bush's recent attempt to hype the Iraqi threat by saying that an Iraqi attack on America-- which is most unlikely--``would cripple our economy'' was embarrassing. It made the president as if he was groping for an excuse to go to war, absent a smoking gun. Let's cut the nonsense. The primary reason the Bush team is more focused on Saddam is because if he were to acquire weapons of mass destruction, it might give him the leverage he has long sought--not to attack us, but to extend his influence over the world's largest source of oil, the Persian Gulf. But wait a minute. There is nothing illegitimate or immoral about the U.S. being concerned that an evil, megalomaniacal dictator might acquire excessive influence over the natural resource that powers the world's industrial base. ``Would those women protesting in Aspen prefer that Saddam Hussien control the oil instead--is that morally better?'' asks Michael Mandelbaum, the John Hopkins foreign policy expert and author of ``The Ideas That Conquered the World.'' ``Up to now, Saddam has used this oil wealth not to benefit his people, but to wage war against all his neighbors, build lavish palaces and acquire weapons of mass destruction.'' This is a good point, but the Bush team would have a stronger case for fighting a war partly for oil if it made clear by its behavior that it was acting for the benefit of the planet, not simply to fuel American excesses. I have no problem with a war for oil--if we accompany it with a real program for energy conservation. But when we tell the world that we couldn't care less about climate change, that we feel entitled to drive whatever big cars we feel like, that we feel entitled to consume however much oil we like, the message we send is that a war for oil in the gulf is not a war to protect the world's right to economic survival--but our right to indulge. Now that will be seen as immoral. And should we end up occupying Iraq, and the first thing we do is hand out drilling concessions to U.S. oil companies alone, that perception would only be intensified. And that leads to my second point. If we occupy Iraq and simply install a more pro-U.S. autocrat to run the Iraqi gas station (as we have in other Arab oil states), then this war partly for oil would also be immoral If, on the other hand, the Bush team, and the American people, prove willing to stay in Iraq and pay the full price, in money and manpower, needed to help Iraqis build a more progressive, democratizing Arab state--one that would use its oil income for the benefit of all its people and serve as a model for its neighbors--then a war partly over oil would be quite legitimate. It would be a critical step toward building a better Middle East. So, I have no problem with a war for oil--provided that it is to fuel the first progressive Arab regime, and not just our S.U.V.'s, and provided we behave in a way that makes clear to the world we are protecting everyone's access to oil at reasonable prices--not simply our right to binge on it.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say to the gentleman, if one looks at the last 25 years, it is very important to point out that our last four recessions were all related to rising oil prices going back to the 1970's, the 1980's, and now the new 21st century. And if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it; and what has happened over a period of time is that there has been more and more military presence placed around the world in order to guard the oil lanes coming in here, and it truly would be destabilizing to our country if those paths were eliminated, but the answer for America is not to become more and more dependent on foreign supplies but rather to use not just the short-term stimulus package but the long-term economic growth strategy for our country to create energy independence so that we are not so vulnerable, and every time some oil baron or king wants to make it a little tough on America, they raise prices and then we are thrown into recession. They know they do not want us to go into deep, deep depression because then they lose some of their revenue, but the point is we are like a puppet on the end of a string and we are not controlling our own destiny. So I would hope that as we move forward, pass this short-term stimulus package that the Democratic Party has offered, and then move into long-term economic growth, that we really look at energy independence as a major pathway to new job creation and investment here at home.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, in the State of Ohio it was 24,000 people who fell off their benefits right before the New Year and 1,100 additional people in my own congressional district.

Ms. KAPTUR. From local small businesses. They would be shopping at local stores. They would be making their mortgage payments, if they can hold on to their houses.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the fact that here we are on the very first day of the 108th Congress, and I am proud to say it is the Democratic Party that is down here on the floor tonight talking about the economy and the recession and how we invest our way out of it; we are talking about war, how we avoid it; we are talking about new job creation for our country. I do not hear anything from the other side. I mean, it is easy to go to cocktail parties and leave for dinners because it is kind of a day of pomp and circumstance; on the other hand, we are a serious party, we are true to our traditions, and I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for being a part of this this evening. I am very proud to be a Democrat tonight. We are doing our job.

Ms. KAPTUR. I thought we would have extended the unemployment benefits today. I promised my constituents that it would be my top priority when I came back here to Washington; and, quite frankly, I was surprised that that bill was not offered today.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would have to say this also, that when the Bush administration's unemployment proposal was talked about, the President talked about this before the first of the year; he did not say what his proposal really was. His original proposal would have only taken care of the unemployed in three States. The State of Oregon was one of them, but our State was left out, the State of Ohio. I fail to see how an unemployed worker in Ohio who has exhausted his benefits is any different than an unemployed worker in Oregon or New Jersey. Then there was the issue of how many weeks and at what level for benefits they had worked for. These are working people. They are people who have believed in our system of enterprise and have tried to make a difference in their lives. I was just amazed that none of the press talked about the difference in the bills, that we were as the Democratic Party talking about every State in the Union, every unemployed worker who had fallen off of benefits, and that we were talking about a realistic number of weeks, not just 6 weeks or 7 weeks, but so that people could plan, 26 weeks, which has been historic here.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word about Amtrak. I represent the largest passenger terminal in Ohio, and it has been amazing to me to watch under this administration's purview how service has been cut back. I travel around the world, and I ride trains that so far surpass anything that we have over land in this country. It is actually embarrassing. We talk about a stimulus package. What about high-speed rail? Why has it taken us as a country to this point in the 21st century where we have an antiquated system that needs new stimulus, that needs new investment, coast-to-coast, in order to meet all of the congestion problems we have at our airports; to provide a real, third rail, one might say over the road, in the air, and over land, not counting the sea ways, but to take a look at our rail system and the investment that is needed in it, and to think that we are cutting back to allow Wall Street to put our investment in China or Mexico or somewhere else.

Ms. KAPTUR. Very interesting. Maybe some of those Wall Street dollars are going to China rather than inside the United States. That is why it is important to target the investment here and to make sure that it builds wealth in our country, not someplace else. When the gentleman mentioned about infrastructure, that really struck me because northern Ohio has been seriously diminished in its ability to move passengers. And the equipment, the trackage, everything that we need really has been underinvested, and this is a system that when one goes around the world, I do not care whether it is France, Japan, the gentleman mentioned China, we are falling behind, falling behind.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) very much for his leadership in assembling this tribute this evening on behalf of our beloved colleague Wayne Owens who passed, as others have said, in Tel Aviv, as a witness for peace, and I would like to encourage my friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), to consider perhaps in Congressman Owens' memory that we, on a bipartisan basis, might create, as the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) has very wisely suggested, a Middle Eastern study group oriented toward peace in that region and to do so on a bipartisan basis, naming it after Congressman Owens who showed us the way in that troubled and war- torn region of the world. He was walking the path to peace and peace requires heroes and it requires heroics; and Wayne Owens, for our Nation, is such a hero. My heart goes out to his wife, Marlene, his five children, two sisters, a brother, 14 grandchildren who truly have a hero to admire. At age 65 he did not have to go on that painstaking journey, 7 days of intensive work, trying to find those keyholes to peace, and yet he did that. He could have been living a comfortable life in some condo on some ski slope enjoying himself, but his whole life showed that Wayne Owens was not afraid of hard work. In 1989, he cofounded the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation here in our Nation's capital and established working relationships with leaders from Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and was making a difference for all of us as the world and our own country is perched on the verge of war in that region. He was trying to show us a different path. He was not afraid of hard work in his own life. I mean, from the time he washed dishes to work his way through school, to walking across his own State in the entire second congressional district and winning election here, this was a man who endured and who rose above common effort to heroic level to try to help the world, to remove from the television every evening those terrible images of death in the Middle East that infect every child in every nation on Earth, certainly our own. To his family, may I please extend the deepest sympathy of the people of our community. I had the great honor of being able to work with Wayne in our efforts here to find a peaceful road in the Middle East. I am forever indebted to him, to the organization that he founded and to the friendships that he made on both sides of the aisle that helped us find a better way forward. As mission president for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Montreal, Canada, for 3 years, Wayne Owens took his own peace quest to a much higher level and took it to ground zero in the battle for peace in the Middle East. Madam Speaker, I will place in the Record an article that was in Roll Call this week in his honor and also thank the gentleman from Utah very much for yielding to me this evening. Former Representative Owens Dies (By Bree Hocking) Wayne Owens, a relentless advocate for Arab-Israeli peace and former Democratic Representative from Utah, died Dec. 18 while walking on a beach in Tel Aviv. Owens, who was 65, succumbed to a massive heart attack while traveling with a Congressional delegation to the region. The four-term Congressman served in the House from 1973 to 1975 and from 1987 to 1993, representing the Salt Lake city area. During his Congressional career, he made two unsuccessful bids for the Senate. In 1974, he lost to Republican Jake Garn and in 1992 he was defeated by Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah). He also ran unsuccessfully for governor of the Beehive State in 1984. A devout Mormon, Owens served as president of the Montreal mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the mid- to late 1970s. Despite his liberal credentials--he was the Western states coordinator for the presidential bids of both Robert Kennedy and now-Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), and also was a staffer to the later Kennedy--Owens was admired by Members from both sides of the aisle for his tireless work for peace in the Middle East. In 1989, he co-founded the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic cooperation and served as its president. Owens attended the University of Utah, latter earning a law degree from that institution. He is survived by his wife, Marlene, five children, two sisters, a brother and 14 grandchildren.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert the following articles into the Record. [lsqb]From the New York Times, Oct. 17, 2002[rsqb] U.S. Is Putting Heavy Pressure on France and Other Skeptics for a U.N. Resolution (By Steven R. Weisman) The Bush administration is mounting a campaign of public pressure and private diplomatic and economic concessions to persuade France and other skeptical members of the United Nations Security Council to go along with a single resolution threatening military force against Iraq. With rising concern in Washington that time is short for passage of such a resolution--many experts say military action would be easier in the winter--talks on the resolution's wording are accelerating at the United Nations and in meetings and telephone calls in and between capitals. ``There's no sense that the French don't want to do this,`` an administration official said, referring to a tough United Nations resolution on Iraq. ``But there is a growing frustration that we don't yet have an agreement.'' President Jacques Chirac of France, in another sign of disagreement with the United States, appeared in remarks published today to take issue with President Bush's arguments that Iraq is cultivating links with Al Qaeda and wants, as he said on Monday, to use it as ``a forward army.'' ``As far as I know, no proof has been found, or at least been made official, for a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda,'' Mr. Chirac said in the interview in the Beirut-based, French- language newspaper L'Orient-Le Jour. ``Even if certain terrorists could have been able to find refuge in Iraq, we must not mix up the issues. The first objective of action by the international community is Iraq, and that means disarmament.'' Last month, Mr. Bush won praise, especially among war opponents in Europe, for promising to go to the United Nations for approval before taking military action against Saddam Hussein's government in Baghdad. But after intense discussions and a certain impatience in Washington, now France, Russia and China--which have vetoes on the Security Council--remain opposed to giving the administration an automatic option to use force if Iraq fails to comply with new weapons inspections. France wants the United States to go to a second stage and get later authorization for using force if Mr. Hussein rebuffs the United Nations inspectors. France, which has a history of going its own way in NATO and maintains strong links to the Arab world, has emerged as a bigger stumbling block than Russia or China, which do not consider themselves American allies, administration officials said. American officials express confidence that if they can persuade Mr. Chirac to go along with a single United Nations resolution, Moscow and Beijing will follow suit by either agreeing to it or not vetoing it. At least so far, officials say, France is resisting an administration proposal to have the resolution threaten unspecified ``consequences,'' rather than a more explicit reference to force, if the inspection process collapses. Diplomats familiar with the negotiations said the Bush Administration could interpret the word ``consequences'' as tantamount to pre-approval for military action. At the same time, they said Washington was offering private assurances that the United States would not ignore the Security Council. ``This could end up with something that is not a one-stage or a two-stage process,'' said a diplomat familiar with the talks. ``The word is that it will be one-and-a-half stages.'' ``The French really do want to be with us,'' a senior State Department official said. ``The French are worried that if the first resolution authorizes all necessary means to enforce inspections, we might go to war without checking with them. What they want is to keep the Security Council in the picture. We believe that can be done in the context of one resolution. That's our goal.'' In a sense, the negotiations at the United Nations are running along the same lines as Mr. Bush's talks with Congress over the last month. The administration won support of skeptical lawmakers in part because of personal assurances from Mr. Bush that Congress would be consulted in the event of a war. Similarly, the United States is making promises of consultation with United Nations allies if a conflict occurs. In the background are firm and even threatening words from Mr. Bush, who declared today that the United Nations must ``face up'' to the danger from the Hussein government. ``Those who choose to live in denial may eventually be forced to live in fear,'' he said at a ceremony at which he signed the resolution passed by Congress last week authorizing the use of force against Baghdad. A White House official said he was not referring to any particular nation. Mr. Chirac, who was in Alexandria, Egypt, today for the beginning of a Middle East trip, reiterated his support for a two-stage resolution process. He said the Security Council should authorize force only as a last resort if the Iraqis were not acting in good faith. A separate drama is playing itself out behind the scenes, some administration officials said. That is the role of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who is the administration's main advocate of diplomacy as a means to address Iraq, rather than simply threats of force. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld are said to be most skeptical that diplomacy can work. Their fear, according to officials, is that Mr. Hussein can drag out the diplomatic and inspection process. Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney are also the ones demanding a single resolution at the United Nations that explicitly threatens force if the inspection route fails, officials said. They are also said to want a swift timetable for inspections and additional measures, like armed escorts for inspectors and removing Iraqi scientists and their families from the country for interviews. Diplomats in and out of the government say France wants to see the United Nations play a continuing role so that the French can remain part of the process. ``The French want to look like they constrained or shaped what the United States ends up doing,'' said Dennis Ross, the former Middle East negotiator in the Clinton and first Bush administrations. ``They want to be relevant and to make sure that the Security Council remains relevant. But they don't want to be left out if the United States goes to war.'' Many experts say France's potential economic interests in a future Iraq are a factor in its wanting eventually to be on the side of Washington if Mr. Hussein is overthrown. Russia also has strong oil interests in Iraq. ``Obviously French oil companies would want to be major players in Iraqi oil fields and in the export and refining of Iraqi oil in a post-Saddam Iraq,'' said Paul Sullivan, a professor of economics at the National Defense University in Washington. ``The French signed oil deals in Iraq, but these deals cannot be implemented until after the sanctions against Iraq are taken off.'' The Bush administration has gone out of its way to assure Moscow that in the event of a ``regime change'' in Baghdad, Russian interests will be looked after. Recently Secretary Powell told the U.S.-Russia Business Council that the United States fully understood Russia's desire to play a role in Iraq's oil industry. ``We are taking fully into account the interest of the nations in the region and the economic impact such a transition might have on them,'' he said.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the contributions to our Nation by Christine Taylor of Grover Hill, OH. In June of this year, Christine was elected State President of the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States on June 30, 2002. Born in Eye, Suffolk, England and the oldest of the four children, Christine immigrated with her family to the United States in 1955. She graduated from Oxnard (California) High School in 1964 and became a naturalized citizen the following year. She married Roger Taylor, a Navy Seabee veteran in the Vietnam War, in August 1966 and they moved to Ohio. Roger and Christine are the proud parents of three children, Kent, Jennifer, and Matt, and the grandparents of Krystal and Dustin Taylor. Since 1975, Chris has been employed as a legal secretary and office manager for the DeMuth Law Office in Paulding, OH. In 1974 she joined the Ladies Auxiliary to the V.F.W. as a charter member of the Grover Hill Auxiliary 2873, under the eligibility of her husband. Serving as the auxiliary's first Treasurer, she progressed through the various chairs to serve as Auxiliary President in 1980- 1982. She currently serves as Auxiliary Trustee and program chairman. Chris's activity on the District level started when she was asked by her friend, Susie Moon, to serve as District Secretary in 1981-1982. Elected as Conductress in 1985, she progressed through the district chairs to serve as District #1 President in 1988-1989, being named as runner-up Outstanding District President for that year. Commencing in 1987-1988, Chris served as State chairman for number programs, including National Home, Youth Activities and the Voice of Democracy, Community Service, Cancer Aid & Research, Americanism, Buddy Poppy, Safety, Hospital, and Historian, in addition to serving as Assistant Conductress and Chief of Staff. Elected as Department Guard in 1977, Chris has served as a State officer, culminating in her election and installation as the leader of the Ohio V.F.W. Ladies Auxiliary. During her term of office, Chris will lead the 51,600 members of the Ohio delegation under her theme of ``Teamwork--The Key to Success.'' Mr. Speaker, I salute the dedication, patriotism, and commitment of Christine Taylor and congratulate her on her election as leader of the Ohio V.F.W. Ladies Auxiliary.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about Social Security, a program that will affect or is affecting every single American, the premier program initiated in the last century by the Democratic Party which has helped to raise a generation of our seniors out of poverty and keeps the current generation out of poverty. Most seniors in America receive upwards of around $580 per month. For them Social Security is a lifeline. Without Social Security and Medicare, they simply could not survive. Because the Bush administration and its allies inside this Chamber cannot afford to pay for the extravagant tax giveaways, especially to the superrich in this country like Kenneth Lay from Enron, who will get $245 million in a rebate this year, and because our country is moving into deficit, the Republicans in this Chamber are raiding Social Security every day, the Social Security trust fund, to try to make up that shortfall. Back in June when I started clocking the Republican raid on Social Security, at that point they had raided over $207 billion out of the Social Security trust fund after us having taken seven votes here that said we would protect the lockbox and not permit that kind of borrowing against the Social Security and Medicare trust fund; but to date, they have now, as of this week, October 16, they have now raided $318,369,863,013 from the Social Security trust fund. That averages out per American over $1,100 out of their pocket. To be exact, $1,104.36 out of the funds that are deserved by every single American who has paid into this fund. As long as Republicans continue to raid the Social Security trust fund in violation of the promises we have made and passed here in this Congress, it is my intention to be here on this floor, clocking their raid with this debt clock. I also will be reviewing the history of those who created Social Security for our country and who historically opposed it, the Republican Party. In fact, in 1935 in the deliberations in the Committee on Ways and Means right outside this room here, the Republican Members of the House Committee on Ways and Means voted to kill the original bill that created the Social Security program that our parents, our grandparents, and great-grandparents had benefited from since the mid-1930s. When that bill moved to the floor, it was the Democratic Party that passed that bill, and I think it is very important that history be recorded for the present generation because if we look at what has been happening with the accumulation of additional debt in our country, and I would like to just put up an additional chart here, as we look back during more modern times to the early chart here focuses on the Johnson administration and the Nixon and Ford administration and the Carter administration. And we begin to look at when did this Social Security trust fund really start going into the red. It was during the Reagan- Bush administration and now during the George W. Bush administration, billions and billions and billions of dollars. It was only during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore that we began to move the Social Security trust fund back into surplus again. We have over $6 trillion of debt that we are financing in this country, much of it due to the giveaways that this administration has promoted. As an example, with the inheritance tax, Gary Winnick of Global Crossing, with assets of over three quarters of a billion dollars, will get $366 million in a tax windfall. And where do my colleagues think that money is going to come from? It comes right out of here, the Social Security trust fund. Or Dennis Kozlowski from Tyco Corporation, the one that is in all that trouble, he is going to get $149 million. And where do my colleagues think that money is going to come from? This administration and House Republicans should put seniors first. They have earned it. They have earned it, and reverse this raid. We should continue to commit the savings in the Social Security trust fund as we have promised. It is important for us to tell the truth to the American people using these red numbers and this debt clock to demonstrate and remind ourselves what is really going on. The Democratic Party historically has been the party that believed in and supported Social Security as an insurance and disability fund for every single American. It is a condition of living in this country. It is not a privilege. It is a right. Mr. Speaker, we do not need to be borrowing from the trust fund in order to give benefits to the superrich. I hope as the elections approach, the public will remember and vote for the Democratic Party which has always supported Social Security.