Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do not think a 19.4 percent increase is justified at a time when the United Nations has instructed its people to withhold information from the Volcker Commission. I do not think it is justified; and I would say to the chairman, if there was unanimous consent from him and the ranking member, and if there is no objection and it would be appropriate, I would be delighted to amend this amendment to say that this $20 million would be withheld on condition of full cooperation by other countries and by the United Nations.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to ask the previous speaker, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), if he agrees with a 19.4 percent increase in this appropriation line item.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would ask the ranking member if he does not object to the fact that the United Nations took $400 million of what was intended to be money to pay for inspections at a time when they were not having inspections. I would ask the ranking member if he is not concerned with a report from the Wall Street Journal that the U.N. took $100 million from the Oil-For-Food Program and used it for operations. I would be concerned whether the ranking member or any Republican or any Democrat is not concerned with the fact that a United Nations employee who was handling the Oil-For-Food Program, Mr. Sevan, has now written letters, according to Mr. Volcker's staff, suggesting that the information not be released regarding this program. It is obvious there has been some misuse of money. I would like to suggest that the real story here is that many countries make decisions based on what is good for their country as representatives to the United Nations with no regard for the goals and ideals of the U.N. charter. Certainly this calls the Security Council's moral authority into question and degrades its capacity to respond appropriately to events throughout the world. Is it any wonder that under pressure from these countries the U.N. could not agree to support us in Iraq? Is it any wonder that at the first threat of danger the U.N. pulled out of Iraq? It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we need to carry out a full and thorough investigation and make changes if the U.S. is to continue with some degree of confidence. And we need to send this signal of this reduction with this kind of testimony regarding a $20 million reduction for the U.N. I think this action sends the beginning of a message that our country and the taxpayers of this country will not stand for this kind of abuse. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. This amendment would take money from the United Nations and would put that $20 million in NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, at a level that was recommended by the President. I am offering this amendment, taking money from the United Nations appropriations, international organizations and, because I am concerned about the additional money that the United Nations has taken and has in their possession from the Oil-for-Food program. I think this Congress should be very concerned about what has happened in the Oil-for-Food program. This particular line item appropriation was increased 19.4 percent above last year, even though there are reports that the U.N. kept $100 million of the Oil-for-Food money to pay for its own operating expenses. This money was intended to rebuild Iraq, but instead the American taxpayer is currently paying the tab. Also, the U.N. collected .8 percent of the Oil-for-Food transactions to pay for weapons inspections, but between 1999 and 2002, the U.N. collected $400 million for weapons inspection, even though no inspections took place. So that is where the $20 million would come from. It goes to increase the appropriation up to the President's request for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. You know, it is a simple amendment that I think is fair, that I would hope would be in order so that this body could consider how far we wanted to go increasing some of the appropriations to the United Nations, again by 19.4 percent at a time when it is reported that they have, in effect, confiscated $400 million for weapons inspections that they did not make; at a time when they have taken another $100 million off according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, to pay for their own administrative expenses. I think it is reasonable and appropriate that we send a signal to the United Nations that we are not going to have this dramatic 19.4 percent increase in those kind of appropriations, at a time when the United Nations has issued orders apparently to not release the background of the Oil-for-Food program, when countries that were involved in the Oil- for-Food program such as Russia, such as France, such as some of the other countries that now have instructed their people not to release the information so that we can appropriately investigate what happened in the misuse of that Oil-for-Food program funds. Recently, both my Agriculture and International Relations Committees held hearings on the United Nation's Oil-for-Food (OFF) program scandal. That program taught us a lot about the United Nations' (UN) weaknesses and explain the actions of countries like France and Russia when they worked against us last year. The UN placed trade sanctions on Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991. By 1995, the sanctions were widely blamed for a developing humanitarian crisis in Iraq. The United States and Britain realized that Iraq, which has the second largest oil reserves in the world, could trade oil for food and medicine. We pushed for UN Security Council Resolution 986, and the OFF program was created. If effective, it would have reduced the humanitarian impact of the sanctions while preventing Hussein from buying weapons. Unfortunately, Hussein cheated OFF and the UN didn't stop it. He managed to get his hands on at least $10 billion of OFF money. Other countries were complicit in helping him cheat. France and Russia demanded that we let Hussein design OFF. It allowed Hussein to pick the price for his oil, to pick his customers, and to control the people who audited him. Within a few years, the flawed program allowed Hussein to sell at low prices in exchange for kickbacks that were funneled into Swiss bank accounts. This was suspected at the time, but it was impossible to fix it. Fixing it would have required unanimous support of the Permanent Members of the Security Council, including France and Russia. At the time, these countries said that they wanted to end the sanctions completely. France, Russia, and China all had oil contracts with Iraq that would have been activated, resulting in huge benefits for these countries had the sanctions been removed. At the same time, UN bureaucrats in Iraq were slow to file reports and bring irregularities to the attention of the Security Council and its oversight committee. Furthermore, Iraq paid its UN auditors. The more trading they allowed, the more money the UN got. These arrangements have only come to light since Saddam Hussein's fall. There are reports that even the UN's head of the Oil-for-Food program, Benon Sevan, was on the take from Hussein. The United States and Britain have pushed for an audit to find out what happened. Paul Volcker, a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is heading a UN investigation. However, the UN is stonewalling. Sevan sent letters ordering UN offices to refuse to cooperate. Russia has asserted that it will not release any documents. And other UN bureaucrats have refused to share papers. I have sponsored legislation that would cut U.S. support for the UN if it doesn't cooperate. The real story here is that many countries make decisions based solely on what is good for their country, with no regard for the goals and ideals of the UN Charter. Certainly, this calls the Security Council's moral authority into question and degrades its capacity to respond appropriately to events. Is it any wonder that, under pressure from these countries, UN could not agree to support us in Iraq? And is it any wonder that at the first threat of danger, the UN pulled out? We need to carry out a full and thorough investigation and make changes if the United States is to continue with some degree of confidence. And with that, Mr. Speaker, we can proceed to the point of order. I would hope that inasmuch as this amendment was included in the unanimous consent to be allowed to be considered, that we would allow my amendment to be considered. Mr. Chairman, I would like to question the ruling of the chair on whether or not the amendment has been passed.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. May I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I refer to the unanimous consent request that was made last night asking unanimous consent that during further consideration of this bill, H.R. 4754, that the following amendments be allowed to be offered, and my amendment is included in that list.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am not questioning the points of order against the amendment. I am questioning the ruling of the Chair that this amendment cannot be offered at this time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. And I guess, Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I will accept the ruling of the Chair. Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Akin

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is offered partially representing my concern that under the UC that was offered last night, this body would not allow the full amendment. However, under that UC this amendment is appropriate, according to the Parliamentarian. My concern is that this body should express concern, if not outrage, about the actions of the United Nations in the Oil-for-Food program. It should be a heads-up, a reminder, that we cannot ask the United Nations to be responsible for so many things that affect our future. The particular language of this amendment takes appropriations and dollars from United Nations contributions to international organizations line item. This appropriation is reduced by $20 million. I would call to my colleagues' attention that this appropriation is increased 19.4 percent over last year. Even with this amendment, there is still a 17.4 percent increase. Recently, both my Committee on Agriculture and Committee on International Relations held hearings on the United Nations Oil-for- Food, the so-called OFF program, scandal. That program taught us a lot about the United Nations' weaknesses and I think explains the actions of countries like France and Russia when they worked against us over the last several years. The U.N. placed trade sanctions on Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991. By 1995, the sanctions were widely blamed for the developing humanitarian crisis in Iraq. The U.S. and Britain realized that Iraq, which has the second largest oil reserves in the world, could trade oil for food and medicine. We pushed the U.N. Security Council Resolution 986, and the so-called Oil- for-Food program was created. If effective, it would have reduced the humanitarian impact of the sanctions while preventing Hussein from buying weapons. Unfortunately, Hussein cheated the OFF program, and the U.N. did not stop it. He managed to get his hands on at least $10 billion of Oil- for-Food money. Other countries were complicit in helping him cheat. France and Russia demanded that we let Hussein design the OFF, the Oil- for-Food, program. It allowed Hussein to pick the price for his oil, to pick his customers, to control the people who audited him, and within a few years the flawed program allowed Hussein to sell at low prices in exchange for kickbacks that were funneled into Swiss bank accounts. This was suspected at the time, but it was impossible to fix. Fixing it would have required unanimous support from the permanent members of the Security Council, including France and Russia, and at the time these countries said that they wanted to end the sanctions completely. Of course, France and Russia and China all had oil contracts with Iraq and Hussein that would have been activated, resulting in huge benefits for those countries had the sanctions been removed. I repeat, this funding for this appropriation that we are trying to reduce by $20 million is from a line item that is increased 19.4 percent over last year, and even with the $20 million reduction still results in a 17.4 percent increase. The U.N. bureaucrats and what is happening in the U.N. should concern us. There is no question that the U.N. was slow to file reports and bring irregularities to the attention of the Security Council and its oversight committee. Furthermore, Iraq paid its U.N. auditors. Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was paying the auditors that were supposed to audit them, and the more trading they allowed, the more money the U.N. got. These arrangements have only come to light since Saddam Hussein's fall. There are reports that even the U.N.'s head of the Oil-for-Food program, Benon Sevan, was on the take from Hussein. Mr. Chairman, let us not go through this bill of making these kinds of huge appropriations from the United States taxpayers to the U.N. without calling to attention these kinds of discrepancies. The U.S. and Britain have pushed for an audit to find out what happened. Paul Volcker, a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is heading a U.N. investigation. However, the U.N. is stonewalling. Mr. Sevan sent letters ordering U.N. offices to refuse to cooperate. I am going to say that again. This U.N. official sent letters ordering the U.N. offices to refuse to cooperate. Russia has asserted that it will not release any documents, and other U.N. bureaucrats have refused to share papers. I have sponsored legislation that would cut U.S. support for the U.N. if it does not cooperate. I would hope that bill would at least come to this floor for debate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this is cut from one of the largest expenditures in the United Nations appropriations, that is, to the contributions to international organizations. I think the American taxpayer in general is not willing to increase this account by 19.4 percent at a time that the gentleman from Virginia admits that the U.N. is doing something that is unconscionable and that should not be acceptable. When we have other countries that are complicit, apparently, in this graft-type program of oil for food, along with what appears to be a reluctance of the United Nations to cooperate, we need a signal. I would hope this $20 million would be spent for science and research, because I chair the Subcommittee on Research.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. May I ask how much time I have remaining, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a short time for debate this afternoon. I am introducing an amendment today to take $20 million from the U.N. and redirect it to come up to what the President requested for NIST, for research in technology and science. And I would just suggest to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that after the fall of Iraq, information has come to light about the United Nations' Oil for Food program and some of the apparent corruption. Now there is an unwillingness of several countries, including the United Nations itself, to not release the kind of information that is going to help us solve this scandal. The U.N., according to the Wall Street Journal, has kept hundreds of millions of dollars of Oil for Food money that should have gone to the Iraqi people. Now the United States taxpayers are paying that. I hope my colleagues will support my amendment today.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I was going to make some comments about overspending and overpromising and the imposition that puts on our kids and grandkids. But just following up on the U.N., I am very concerned about the U.N. and how much that the U.N., as a tool, can accommodate some of our goals in the United States; and I am particularly concerned when some Members have suggested that the U.N. should come in and monitor our presidential elections. What comes to mind is the fiasco of the Oil for Food program. The U.N. bureaucrats in Iraq did not file reports and bring irregularities to the attention of the Security Council countries that had a particular vested interest, allowing corruption to take place in the Oil for Food program. I am very concerned, the people of the United States should be concerned, how it works, and the fact that a lot of the individual ambassadors in the United Nations are looking out for nothing except what is in the best interest of their particular country, not what is good for the humanitarian, economic or security efforts of the whole world.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it should concern everyone who has followed technological developments, especially in recent years, to see the United States is falling behind. It has been said a couple of times that Japan's Earth Simulator Computer is now faster and more efficient than anything in the United States. I congratulate the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her initiative in sponsoring and moving this legislation through the legislative process. Let it be said that everyone agrees that over the last 30 years invention and innovation have been among the greatest driving forces behind the tremendous technological advances that we have had and the ability of the United States to develop high-quality products and the way to produce those products that can be competitive in a world market. I think at the forefront of our innovation has been the development of these supercomputers. They have allowed us to make new discoveries, design new technologies, and develop new products more quickly and at much lower cost than we would have thought imaginable even 10 years ago. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Research for the last several years, I have been proud to support our Nation's efforts in these and other important scientific endeavors, and I have been especially interested and strongly supportive of continuous investment, financial and otherwise, of all stages of our tech advancement, from the initial investigation of new concepts down to technology demonstrations and products. What has also been made clear in recent years is that government alone cannot and probably should not be the sole contributor to America's scientific endeavors. Continuous investment is needed in all contributing sectors of society, certainly from universities to national laboratories to private sector corporations to vendors. That falls back on a goal that we must also have in this country, and that is capable scientists that are going to make invention and innovation happen. I would just like to bring to my colleagues' attention what a high- tech supercomputer is. According to an April 2003 report, IBM is now looking to develop, in conjunction with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Argonne National Laboratory, a system that will perform at twice the level of the Earth Simulator, hopefully by 2005. In addition, the Department of Energy has contracted with IBM to develop two systems, the ASCI Purple and Blue Gene program that together, listen to this, will be able to perform 460 trillion calculations per second. The Earth Simulator's peak capacity is 40 trillion operations per second. So we are moving ahead, and this legislation is going to help assure that we move ahead, that the United States stay in control. This is important legislation that will not only help our Nation remain competitive with countries such as Japan, but will help the United States to maintain its leadership in tech advancement. So, again, I thank our Committee on Science chairman and ranking member, and I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, although I support the intention of the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, my concern would be where the money comes from. So, in the MEP program, it is already sacrificing, and this also takes funds out of that. So I do not know how to rebalance.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Well, Mr. Chairman, this takes funds out of the Justice Department, and that is part of the sourcing of funds that I understand the money would come from. And I will be happy to yield for a final word from the chairman.