Mark Kirk

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a former FBI agent.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will be defeated later on today because it would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Colombia. We see a close connection between narcotics and terrorism. The people of Colombia saw that. When the Medellin cartel killed three major candidates for president, the people elected the last candidate left who wanted to fight the narcoterrorists. In their last election, the people of Colombia chose the candidate who took the hardest line against narcoterrorists, and after September 11, who could blame them? President Uribe of Colombia has asked for our help, and so far, what has our assistance accomplished? Coca growing is down, kidnappings are down, terrorist attacks are down, opium growing is down, several hundred drug kingpins extradited to the United States, and desertions among terrorist groups are up. In a recent poll, 73 percent of Colombians said they supported the U.S. assistance under Plan Colombia. We have seen narcoterrorists in Colombia offer training to other terror groups in other countries; and with these international links, we see Colombian drugs not only poisoning our kids but the profits from their sale are now supporting international terror. If we give up on Colombia, a new narcoterrorist state will rise in our hemisphere, and when a narco-state took power in 1991 in Panama, it took the direct action of the U.S. military to restore democracy. I think we should not give up on democracy in Colombia. We should listen to the voices of their people through their elected president and make sure that he and his team remain in power and that this stays as a Colombian struggle and is not surrendered to become a full blown American one.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. I would like to recognize a very positive and significant development in the continuing growth of the biotech industry in Illinois. On April 1, 2005, Astellas Pharma U.S., Inc. officially opened its North American headquarters in my home Congressional district of Deerfield, Illinois. Astellas Pharma U.S., Inc. is a new global company created by the merger of two leading pharmaceutical firms. Fujisawa Healthcare, Inc., based in Deerfield, and Yamanouchi Pharma America, Inc., based in New Jersey, merged their North American headquarter operations at Fujisawa's former headquarters in Deerfield, Illinois. This merger resulted in the creation and retention of a significant number of biotech industry related jobs for the State of Illinois and the 10th Congressional District. The merger of these two international pharmaceutical entities creates a global company with the mission of improving healthcare around the world through the provision of innovative and reliable pharmaceutical products. In the past, this Deerfield based company has been an excellent corporate citizen and served the local healthcare community well. In addition to developing pharmaceutical therapies, Fugisawa's philanthropic activities included a large endowment to the Pediatric Dermatologic Research conducted through the Children's Memorial Institute for Education and Research. This particular act of philanthropy was the largest gift ever made to Children's Memorial Hospital by a corporation. As the Co-Chair of the Congressional Kidney Caucus, I am aware of some of the lifesaving therapies that Fujisawa and Yamanouchi already pioneered in areas such as solid organ transplantation, immunosuppression and urology. I look forward to working with the global firm of Astellas as it continues to tap the potential of the life sciences and support healthy living for people around the world. I congratulate the people of Astellas and wish them well in their efforts to make contributions to health and employment in Illinois.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, because of the rapid reading of the bill, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and I were both unable to offer our amendments and worked out an agreement to offer it at this time. The amendment that I would have offered would have helped restore funding for the gifted education program under the Javitz program that funds programs in over 20 States and universities. It is this program that has helped out programs like the Bronx Project for creating urban excellence, serving 32,000 poor and minority students. Not only did this program help the gifted students, for example, in that school district, but it improved math and science scores, a 20 percent improvement for the entire school, not just gifted students. The Javitz program has supported programs in 125 State and local education districts since 1989, reaching two million students nationwide. A complete list of the program is available from the Department of Education. I am very concerned that this program was zeroed out. In my attempt to earmark the program, other programs under this title would have been seen as a potential cut, and my colleagues from Hawaii were very concerned about one program there. My concern now is that the program moves forward with zero for gifted education. And the attempted amendment was to correct that, because I do not think for the future of our country, for the future of science and math education that we should move forward with a zero appropriation for gifted education. But I yield to my chairman on this point.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I understand that we are breaking this agreement then? I yield to the distinguished ranking minority member.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, given the fact that we are breaking this agreement, and given the fact that I am not able to offer my amendment, my normal course of action would be to object, but I hold the gentleman from New York in high regard, as the gentleman from Iowa, and so I am not going to be partisan and I am not going to do tit for tat, and I am not going to object, even though objection has been heard from the other side. So I withdraw my point of order. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this amendment because it seeks to overturn two court decisions and what Judge Wedoff said was ``The least of the bad'' alternative ``choices here has got to be the one that keeps the airline functioning, that keeps employees being paid.'' We have to look out for the interests of all people, especially the 62,000 employees of United Airlines right now, just crawling out of bankruptcy, on whom the future of the entire western Chicagoland region, O'Hare Airport, and many of the related businesses depend. If we push United into bankruptcy, and especially if we push her further into liquidation, we will not only have an employee pension problem, but we will have a massive unemployment problem. We will also jeopardize the crown jewel of the economic development programs for Illinois, which is the modernization of O'Hare airport. O'Hare airport and its modernization depends on a functioning United Airlines. And for us to interfere with the two court decisions and the already declared decisions of four unions with United is a great mistake. I think we should make sure that this process moves forward, we should make sure that this airline continues to function, and we should make sure that the 62,000 current employees of United are allowed to find their way back into profitability so they can put food on their table, especially in my district and other Illinois districts.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today urging the conference, when it meets, to restore funding to the Javits gifted and talented program, which was unfortunately zeroed out in this bill. Javits reaches a critical group of diverse gifted children who are not high income. In fact, they are low income, but have extraordinary abilities. In my home State of Illinois, education for gifted kids has been cut completely out of the State's budget. In response I developed my own Tenth District laureates program as a way to challenge gifted students in my own district. The program has become a huge success, providing these students with behind-the-scenes access to top academic and cultural institutions in Chicago and surrounding suburbs. And these gifted children were motivated by this unique opportunity. I think we must fund gifted education on a national level to allow millions of children across the country to have the same types of challenges our Tenth District laureates enjoy. As the only federally funded national gifted program, grants provided through Javits have provided 125 State and local education districts since its inception in 1989, reaching 2 million gifted students nationwide. Last year the program was funded at $11.1 million. It is a program particularly needed, given the low scores of Americans on standard international math and science tests. Positions in the field of science and engineering are growing at a rapid rate, yet the United States is facing a critical shortage in these areas. Just one demonstration program funded by this grant, the project creating urban excellence in the Bronx, resulted in a 20 percent improvement in math and science scores for all students of the entire school. I think we must invest in the future of our children, and I urge the conferees to restore funding for the Javits gifted and talented program.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank my chairman. Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

Mr. KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding that the agreement worked between majority and minority to have the Kirk and Nadler amendments brought up is now being broken?

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support of House Joint Resolution 52, supporting the renewal of the import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. As an original cosponsor of this Resolution, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this resolution. Today we must send a strong message to the ruthless military dictators in Rangoon that their repressive rule over what Secretary Rice deemed an ``outpost of tyranny,'' is antithetical to the fundamental American values of freedom, liberty, and democracy. On May 30, 2003, Congress passed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act in response to the junta's merciless crackdown on democratic reformers. The National League for Democracy's popular elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, was placed under house arrest and many of her colleagues were murdered. This important bill banned imports from Burma, mainly affecting the textile and garment industries, until the junta made major progress to end human rights violations. According to the bill, until the military regime ceases its systemic campaign of repression, aggression, and state-sponsored terror against its own people, meaningful sanctions will persist. Two years later, the junta's extremely poor human rights record has not improved, instead it worsened. Aung San Suu Kyi recently spent her 60th birthday detained under house-arrest in her dilapidated home. Citizens in Burma still do not have the right to criticize their government. Security forces continue to murder political opponents with impunity. Disappearances persist, and security forces rape, torture, beat, and otherwise abuse prisoners and detainees. Hundreds of thousands of displaced persons in eastern Burma have been uprooted from their homes and forced to live in relocation sites under horrendous humanitarian conditions. As the United States is developing its future 21st Century relationship with Southeast Asia, the regime in Burma is stuck in an early 20th Century destabilizing military style of governance. International pressure is mounting on Burma for reform. Burma's neighbors, including Malaysia, are calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. If Burma wants to participate in the international community, and be recognized as the rotating chairman of ASEAN, it must undergo sweeping democratic reforms. The United States ought to continue advocating a policy of zero tolerance by renewing its ban on imports from Burma until such reforms are made. Congress must seize this opportunity to demonstrate its resolve to uphold the highest standards of human rights by supporting House Joint Resolution 52.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, today is election day in Iran. As cochair of the Iran Study Group, with my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), we saw 1,000 people stand for the Presidency of Iran. But the Guardian Council only allowed eight candidates to actually run. We expect that Rafsanjani will win this election today, and when we does, with less than half of the Iranian people voting, he will have a choice before him and his nation: whether to continue Iran's policy of lying to the U.N. about its nuclear weapon program, of supporting terror, and continuing a policy of economic isolation and stagnation, or rejoining the international community and spurring economic growth in a new Iran as part of a worldwide community that does not support terror. Mr. Speaker, we hope, we hope, that the new Iranian Government chooses wisely.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 261 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. When we look at Iran, we have got an election coming up, not only just six candidates, they just added two more, but there is a key choice for the Iranian nation and the government to make, whether to pursue this nuclear weapons program, against the wishes of France, against the wishes of the United Kingdom, against the wishes of Germany and the United Nations, the IAEA and the formal commitments of Iran under the nuclear nonproliferation path, or to join the community of nations and build a growing economy in Central Asia, at peace with her neighbors, offering economic opportunity to her families. But if she chooses the path of nuclear weapons and confrontation with the European Union, we do not have to resort, in my judgment, to any military means. We could impose a gasoline quarantine on Iran that would quickly implode her economy. This gasoline quarantine on Iran could be imposed by a coalition of the willing naval powers. But when you look at the position of anyone trying to import gasoline into Iran under an order of quarantine, you would find quickly that it would make no economic sense to try to run that quarantine. In fact, in my judgment, working with our British allies, Lloyd's of London likely would pull the insurance contracts for nearly all of the tankers attempting to service the Iranian market. And working with our allies in the gulf who largely supply Iran's need for gasoline, they could by bilateral action simply abrogate contracts with Iran, making this quarantine fairly simple to operate and administer. The effect of this would be heavily on Iran, would put a number of people out of work, and with those thousands unemployed, then asking their government, why are we embracing a policy of confrontation, violating treaty commitments of our government and throwing me and my family out of work instead of going the direction that most people under the age of 40 would like to go in Iran, and that is embracing the West and having positive direction. I think this is diplomacy with teeth. This is a way to break out of the intellectual box of either surrendering to an Iranian nuclear program run by a government who has the most extensive terror connections in the world or having some sort of war break out in the Middle East between our Israeli allies and Iran. I for one think that we should embrace a creative diplomatic posture that supports the European Union, that increases their likelihood of success and makes the Iranian government want to embrace a verifiable inspection regime that follows the path of Ukraine, that follows the path of Libya, that follows the path of Brazil and Argentina and South Africa and embraces a non-nuclear future. For us, this is tense times ahead. My colleague talked about reference to the U.N. Security Council and any further action. We think that Iran is quickly moving towards a nuclear capability and, if the Guardian Council gets their way, could bring about a Middle East on a nuclear hair trigger. I think we can do much better. I think pitting our strength against their weakness, we can resolve this in a way that everyone is much more secure. I thank my colleague. I also want to conclude by saying this, before I hand it over to him. We have had this debate on this floor as two colleagues from different parties working together in a bipartisan fashion. We have worked through the problem. We have met with ambassadors, with officials from the State Department, with our Israeli allies and reviewed carefully all of the options. I think on a bipartisan level when you work through all of these options and you listen to our allies and you listen to the experts, you will come to about where we are, a chance for a peaceful resolution of this that enhances security on a bipartisan basis. I think that represents the best traditions of this House, especially in our foreign policy where we set partisan differences aside. I yield to conclude to my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I support diplomacy with teeth. Over the last 18 months, the Iran Study Group has met with our allies, the U.K., Germany and France, and they have formed the EU-3 group to bring Iran back from the brink of an unstable and expensive nuclear arms race. The essence of the EU-3 offer is to provide Iran with a set of carrots, spare parts for civilian aircraft, membership in the WTO, access to loans, all if Iran provides international guarantees and inspections to end the development of nuclear weapons. The EU-3's goal is not quite as idealistic as it may sound. South Africa, Argentina, Brazil and Ukraine all gave up nuclear weapons programs, and recently so did Libya. Iran can, too, if we can find the right mix of diplomatic incentives and disincentives for them. I find the current U.S. policy debate on Iran is too simplistic. It is just two-dimensional: Either let Iran have the bomb, putting the Middle East under a nuclear hair trigger, or let Israel do it and have another war. President Kennedy faced a similar dilemma looking at Cuba, but he broke out of the intellectual box that some would have him in to either let the Cubans have nuclear weapons or invade. He thought of a new policy, a quarantine, which allowed us to resolve the Cuban missile crisis without a shot being fired. Are there policies which we can employ which will help the European Union succeed? I think there are. We all know this matter could be referred to the United Nations Security Council. We know, using its broad powers under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, the Security Council could impose sanctions, putting enormous pressure on Iran and isolate her completely. What could those sanctions look like? We could do small things like outlaw Iran's participation in the Football Soccer World Cup. We could also ban airline flights in and out of Iran. We could block travel of anyone in the Iranian government outside her borders. We could impose comprehensive sanctions that would shrink Iran's economy. All of these means have been authorized by the U.N. Security Council against other countries and could be authorized by the United Nations against Iran if she says no to the European Union. But what if one member of the Security Council vetoes action against Iran? Russia could veto action against Iran. She is, in fact, building a reactor in Iran. China also has extensive and growing relations with Iran. They could also veto action. Some have talked about an oil quarantine against Iran. In fact, 20 percent of Iran's income is dependent on oil sales. An oil quarantine would implode Iran's economy, but it would also hurt our economy. The mullahs have threatened, if their sales were stopped, oil on the world market could hit $100 a barrel. That would hurt us. It would also hurt our allies in Japan and in Europe. Are there other options available? In our bipartisan work in the Congressional Iran Study Group, we found that Iran has a unique vulnerability, one that opens a new window of diplomacy that could help us achieve all of our objectives without a shot being fired, and here is the vulnerability she has. Despite being a leading member of OPEC and one of the largest oil producers in the world, Iran is heavily dependent on foreign gasoline for her economic progress. In fact, one- third of all Iranian gasoline must be imported from overseas. Iran's director of planning at the National Iranian Oil Derivative Distribution Company reported that Iran uses 67 million liters of gasoline. Only 39 million liters can be produced in Iran. Policies to expand oil refining capacity in Iran could in no way meet the demand; and in fact in Tehran they regularly debate rationing gasoline, ironically in a country that is a leading OPEC nation. So we have this lever, a potential gasoline quarantine on Iran, a quarantine which would not affect international oil markets but would heavily affect just Iran alone. And if this policy was discussed, it could give a huge impetus to the European Union effort which my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and I both think offers the best chance for working our way out of this threat without anyone being hurt. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I point out the record of Iran is already clear in the late 1980s and early 1990s when she used chemical weapons and fired several hundred missiles in her war with Iraq. Now, the U.S. and Israel, they are already spending hundreds of millions of dollars building a defense system against incoming Iranian missiles. If Iran's nuclear and missile programs go further, then the United States and Israel will have to commit hundreds of millions of more dollars to make sure that our allies in the Jewish State are able to resist incoming Iranian weapons. I will note that a missile fired from Iran, aimed, for example, at Tel-Aviv would arrive just 11 minutes after lift off, putting the Middle East on a hair trigger. Given all of this, the United Nations' reports of violations, Iran's record of terror, nuclear and missile developments, all reported not by the CIA or MI6, but by the United Nations, what should we do? Some say that we should let Iran have nuclear weapons, that we cannot stop technology, that we should not be able to classify the laws of physics, and so Iran will get nuclear weapons; but if we acquiesce to this, then this policy would commit us to a vast and expensive course of building missile defenses to protect our allies. While the Middle East would descend into a tense hair trigger peace, one irrational leader, one miscalculation and millions could die in a nuclear Jihad. It would also put nuclear weapons in the hands of the Guardian Council, the same council that Presidents Carter and Reagan and Bush and Clinton and Bush all certified were the number one supporters of state terror, the men and women who funded operations like the gentleman said who would put a suitcase or a car bomb in a Western city. I think we can do better. Some might say if this is so bad, then let Israel remove this threat by military means. In fact, in 1981 Israel destroyed Iraq's path to plutonium when it bombed the Osiraq reactor; but when we look at Israel and a potential attack on Iran, we see a vastly complicated operation of great cost and a chance of failure. At best, such an operation could set back Iran for a few years. At worst, it would enrage an enemy who would then use all of the means at her disposal to attack the Jewish homeland. An attack by Israel on Iran would also destroy what is our greatest long-term asset in Iran, her young people, her young people who overwhelmingly report that they support better relations with America. I think we can do better. We can stand between appeasement under an Iranian nuclear trigger or an attack against Iran. What could America do? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. KIRK. Did you lose constituents on September 11?

Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with him and advancing this. We will be introducing our resolution next week.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and I want to emphasize his point that the violations we are talking about were not based on faulty intelligence from the U.S. CIA. These violations that we are talking about are documented in formal, open reports by the United Nations international staff under Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA. Inspections through June of 2003 showed many reporting failures by Iran; and by mid-year, Iran admitted to enriching uranium, purification, reprocessing and later admitted to the United Nations of losing nuclear material that had been covered by her U.N. safeguards agreement. Iran built a centrifuge enrichment plant at Natanz with 1,000 rotors and started construction at another facility with 50,000 rotors. Iran first claimed that it had not enriched uranium at all, and the IAEA reported then that it had found contaminations of enriched uranium at the Kalaye Electric Company, at one place, of 36 percent enriched uranium; at another, 54 percent on imported components; and at another, 70 percent enriched uranium inside its workshop. Until these discoveries by the U.N., Iran had only admitted to enriching uranium once to a level of 7 percent. After the A.Q. Khan network was exposed in Libya, Iran also admitted to using advanced rotors of Pakistani design to enrich uranium. It also admitted in May 2004 that it had separated plutonium in much larger amounts than previously reported. All of these actions point to a continuing effort by Iran to develop nuclear materials beyond an enrichment level ever needed for civilian power, giving us and the United Nations clear and convincing evidence that it is dedicated to the production of a nuclear weapon in violation of its commitment under the non-proliferation treaty at the U.N. Now, Iran also has backed up its public statements with policy and announced just last month enacting legislation requiring the Iranian Government to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment of uranium, but this is not just the only part of the threat. Iran not only has a nuclear program; it also has an aggressive missile development program, based on a North Korean missile, the No Dong, which the Iranians call the Shahab 3. Iran's missile program brings many key U.S. facilities and friends into range, especially Israel. This is a picture of the latest Shahab 3 missile, almost 98 percent North Korean; and when you look at the range of these systems, you see that U.S. facilities like the Fifth Fleet, or our allies in Israel, come clearly into range. When we look at this, we have a real danger now, nuclear weapons and missiles to promptly deliver them that represent a long-term threat to the Jewish State. I yield to my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I would agree. Iran had grand ambitions under the Shah who planned to build 29 nuclear reactors. His plans and those of his successors are ironic given Iran's location atop one of the largest reserves of oil that emerged from the ground at less than a cost of $2 a barrel. With the fall of the Shah, Iran's nuclear ambitions were cut back but then revived with the help of Russia. Based at Bushehr, the Russian nuclear reactor project gives Iran a clear path to the production of plutonium despite Russia's assertions otherwise. Until 2002, we had strong suspicions about Iran, but no clear allegations that she had violated her solemn commitment to the United Nations under the non-proliferation treaty; but then an exile group, the National Council For Resistance of Iran, exposed clear, undeclared nuclear activities, indicating uranium enrichment at that task; and the Arak heavy water production facility gives Iran a clear path towards the refinement of products which would become the center of a nuclear weapon. This was just not according to the exile group. After 2 years of extensive inspections by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency, they reported that Iran had undeclared centrifuge atomic vapor, a laser isotope separation, a molecular laser isotope separation and plutonium separation activities, all in direct violation of Iran's formal obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the safeguards agreement. I yield to my colleague on these points.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). When we review the situation in Iran, we see a nation with a proud Persian language and a culture that now is under a religious regime that has a very weak hold on the voters of its nation. Time and again old revolutionary leaders of Iran have lost elections to reformers, but they keep power through the religious Guardian Council, Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Intelligence Service. These ruling extremists have kept Iran as a pariah nation, unable to build lasting ties to the West. While nearly everyone under 40 in Iran favors good relations with the West and even the United States, Iran's current Guardian Council maintains her isolation. Now, all U.S. Presidents, Republican and Democrat, since 1979 have certified that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, that Hezbollah would collapse in the Middle East without the direct support of Iran's intelligence service, the MOIS. And under the Guardian Council, Iran took a clear turn towards nuclear weapons despite her status as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).