Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 577. I wish I was a cosponsor of the bill. I commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for working to pass this legislation. Presidential libraries date back to the Rutherford B. Hayes Memorial Library's completion in Fremont, Ohio, in 1914, and since that time have become an important part of our national heritage and history. Their value to students, historians and visitors from all over America and the world is tremendous. Since the completion of the Hayes library, the size, popularity and cost of Presidential libraries has increased exponentially. Libraries have evolved into elaborate centers that, in addition to housing the official papers and records of former Presidents, often include museums, conference facilities and classrooms. As a result, the need for donations for their creation and maintenance has increased, but disclosure of these donations has not. In my judgment, the more information the public has, particularly of sitting Presidents, the better. Under this bill, a sitting President would be required to disclose library contributions of $200 or more annually to Congress and to the National Archives. In addition, under the bill, once a President has left office, library contributions of $5,000 or more must be reported. Just as we need to know who is giving campaign contributions to politicians, so, too, the public needs to know who is contributing to sitting Presidents. Our hearings on Marc Rich last year, which were bipartisan, obviously pointed out the need to carry forward with this bill. It gave us the added impetus to move forward, and I thank Members on both sides of the aisle for supporting it.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit for the Record a speech delivered by Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and a distinguished resident of Greenwich, Connecticut. Ambassador Reed's remarks were made at the Centennial Celebration of the Yale-China Association on October 6, 2001. Remarks by Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations Centennial Celebration of the Yale-China Association, Yale University Dean Brodhead of Yale College, Counsellor Xu of the Consulate of the People's Republic of China in New York City, Mr. Jones, Chair, Board of Trustees, Yale-China Association, Ms. Chapman, Executive Director, Yale-China Association, Members of the Yale-China Family, Ladies and Gentlemen, What an honor, privilege, and pleasure to be at Yale to celebrate the centenary of the Yale-China Association! This is a major milestone for me as I have been a life-long son of Sino-American relations. I grew up surrounded by ``things Chinese'', sculpture, porcelain, furniture and paintings. Some in my family say I am ``in love'' with all things Chinese. As a banker I had the pleasure of a close working relationship with Ambassador Huang Hua at the Mission of the People's Republic of China in the 70's. We have maintained a lasting friendship. I accompanied David Rockefeller on the first visit of American business following President Nixon's historic trip to Beijing. Many moons ago I became associated with Yale University Press in the historic publishing endeavor known as Chinese Civilization and Culture. We at the Yale Press work side by side with the Chinese authorities, publishers and scholars in an historic undertaking to publish 75 volumes--painting, architecture, calligraphy, furniture--our first volume on the history of painting won the highest prize in publishing--the Hawkins Prize. It is a grand endeavor with Yale's most senior graduate as Honorary Chair of the Project, President George H.W. Bush. Henry Kissinger is Chairman of the Advisory Council. Professor Jonathan Spencer is on the Editorial Advisory Board. The Rockefeller Family is supportive with Mrs. Nelson A. Rockefeller serving as Chair of the Friends of

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, trade promotion authority enhances the United States' ability to negotiate agreements that help American workers and businesses. Just as we can't repeal the laws of gravity, we can't ignore the fact that we live in a world with a global economy. It is estimated if global trade barriers could be cut by just one- third, the world economy would grow more than $600 billion each year. Talk about economic stimulus--this is it! Trade promotion authority will open new markets. Without this authority, trading partners will not put forth meaningful offers. Tariffs on American products won't be reduced, and our economy will grow at a much slower rate. Passing this bill signals to the world we are committed to global trade and free markets. It allows the United States to take a leadership role in building international trading systems based on American principles of market-based economics and fair play. Giving the President the authority to negotiate trade agreements is good for Connecticut, the United States and every country involved. Exports accounted for almost one quarter of all U.S. economic growth in the last 10 years. Trade promotion authority should pass without delay.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Terrorism Risk Protection Act. This bill creates a temporary industry risk-spreading program to provide a financial backstop for insurers in the event of losses from future terrorist attacks. It is not a bailout, and taxpayers will recoup every penny of assistance insurance companies receive. It is critical for the Nation that terrorism insurance legislation be enacted before January 1. This legislation is particularly critical for insurance companies and financial services. The impact of not enacting this legislation will significantly damage these vital industries and will have dire consequences as well for the real estate, energy, construction and transportation industries. It is also clear our Nation's cities and metropolitan areas will be impacted the most for failing to act on this legislation. Time is quickly running out. The market for new commercial insurance contracts and renewals is already undergoing serious and potentially severe disruptions. Almost 70 percent of reinsurance policies expire on December 31, and virtually all reinsurers have said they will no longer provide terrorism insurance after that date. This will create a chain reaction that will affect our entire economy. Without insurance, lenders will not lend and investors will not invest. The economic effects of inaction simply cannot be overstated. To me, this is the true stimulus bill. We need to enact this bill. None of us can be sure when and where another terrorist act will occur, but it will occur. And we have the opportunity today to offer businesses, employers, and other economic activities across the country much needed protection. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation and help avoid an otherwise inevitable market dislocation and subsequent economic crisis. We need to enact this bill. I thank my chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for acting so quickly to see that we will do that.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the debate on the airport security bill was a fascinating debate and one in which I thought the Senate had done a good job, and I thought the House had improved on it. I thought the House improved on it when they added a provision that said we must check baggage that goes into the belly of an aircraft. The House version required this to be done by the end of 2003. That is really what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and I had requested. We were saying at least by the end of 2003. To the credit of, frankly, the House, they put that amendment in; and then the conference committee said by the end of the year 2002. It is physically impossible to inspect for explosives in 60 days, and there was no intent that we would be able to inspect for explosives in 60 days. If Members of Congress thought they were voting for that, I think that would be a hypocritical thing for me or anyone else to do, because we know it cannot be done. It is going to be tough to do it by the end of 2002. But clearly we need more money, and I think that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is right in requesting it. I thank the chairman for accepting it. But it should have been taken out of the trust fund. We should not be talking about expanding airports and doing all the other improvements until we make planes safer. I take some real exception to the deletion of this. I realize technically they were right in doing it, but I think they were, frankly, inaccurate and I would say it was a moral mistake. I think that what is in the trust fund should go for safety. Our constituents want that and I regret that it will now come out of the general fund. But I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment. I appreciate the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) offering the amendment here and support it. I also want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for being the one who made sure it was in the bill because it was not in the Senate version. The Senate did a good job; the House, I thought, improved on it; and I think the conference committee did an even better job.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, it was a mistake to delete from the bill the use of the money from the trust funds; we should be using the trust funds for what they were intended, and that is for the flying safety of the American people.

Mr. SHAYS. I am aware of it. I am very distressed by it. I hope it is worked out by the leaders and you as to how we deal with this. I think it was a clear mistake to take it out of the trust funds. I think in the end we endanger the public by doing it.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the Senate passed a good bill. The House improved on it significantly, and I think this conference report makes the legislation even better. I am particularly pleased that a time limit for inspection of all luggage, referred to by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), for weapons and explosives that go into the belly of the aircraft, a provision added in the House bill, has been further strengthened so all luggage will be screened by the end of the year 2002 or sooner. Congratulations to the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica); the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski); and many others on both sides of the aisle. Because of them and others in this House, the process worked well and landmark legislation will be passed. Airline passengers want their government to do everything in its power to ensure their safety when flying. This legislation brings us a giant step closer to achieving that goal. I am proud of this House and proud to be part of this process.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Real Interstate Driver Equity Act. I was disappointed when I learned from ground transportation operators in my southwestern Connecticut district that a Stamford couple attending a play in Manhattan could hire a Connecticut car service to bring them to the city, but the same service couldn't bring the client back to Stamford without purchasing a costly additional permit from New York! This is absurd. Car services based in Connecticut that take clients to and from New York City--duly licensed and insured under the guidelines of the Federal Highway Administration--should not have to purchase additional permits from a local government in order to provide round trip service. This common sense legislation simply says that a licensed livery company cannot be subject to additional permitting requirements to complete a round trip into another state. The Livery Permit issued by the Federal Highway Administration is the only permit that should be necessary to conduct interstate commerce. Just as I do not need to obtain separate drivers' licenses from D.C., Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey and New York in order to drive home to Connecticut at the end of the week, local governments should not have the authority to hold interstate commerce hostage to discriminatory pricing schemes.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on November 6, I was in Connecticut participating in our local elections and, therefore, missed three recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 426, ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 427, and ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 428.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we are at war. We are at war with terrorists that annihilated 6,000 Americans. We have a responsibility to work together to solve this problem. For me it is not an issue of whether they are Federal employees or non-Federal employees. Under the bill being presented on this side of the aisle, they can be either. We can have Federal employees in some instances, and non-Federal employees in others. The argument that suggests we are going to hire the same people that failed in the past is simply not true. The new employees will have to meet requirements that some of the people who now do this work cannot meet. Mr. Speaker, I weep for what we have gone through in the last few weeks, but this is not about Federal employees. It is about airport security. What I particularly like about the Young-Mica bill is that for the first time, we are going to require that the baggage that goes in the belly of an aircraft be inspected by a date certain. By the year 2003, all baggage in the belly of a plane will be inspected for explosives and weapons. That is an issue of safety that is not covered in the bill that is being presented by the Senate. When I hear that all Senators voted for it, in the end they all voted for the bill they had. I have some sense that if our bill passes, there will be some on the other side who will support it. It may not have been their first choice, but they are not going to vote against it because in the end it is about airport security. I hope we are able to have a sensible debate that treats both sides fairly and does not make these wild claims. In terms of Federal employees, terrorists would not have gotten into this country unless somebody allowed them to get here. They happened to have been Federal employees. They just were not Federal employees who were doing their job well enough. We want professionals, whether they are Federal employees or not.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the Cold War is over, and the world is a more dangerous place. September 11 and the carnage that followed proved to us that there is no red line. There is no line that terrorists will not cross. There is no limit to what they might and in fact will do. We are in a race with terrorists to prevent them from getting a better delivery system for chemical and biological agents, to get nuclear waste material to explode in a bomb, a conventional bomb, or even to get a nuclear weapon. They will use all of those weapons because there is no red line to them. It is not a question of if we will face a chemical or biological attack. As we are finding out, it is a question of when, where and of what magnitude. Not every attack will be the thousand-year storm or the hundred-year storm, and we are not going to wait on our roofs with an umbrella over our heads in anticipation of that. We are going to get on with our lives, but we need to know that we are truly in a race. We are at war. This war requires us to do what three commissions have told us: The Gilmore Commission, the Bremer Commission, and the Hart- Rudman Commission. They said we need to have a proper assessment of the terrorist threat, we need to have a strategy to face this terrorist threat, and we need to organize our government to be more effective. Tom Ridge and his Office of Homeland Security is going to have to work overtime in understanding what we face, making the assessment of the terrorist threat with others who will be helping him, and develop that strategy and then organize the government to respond. One of the issues that we will be debating tomorrow is airport security. I am amazed with the amount of time and effort that is being spent discussing whether they be Federal employees or not Federal employees. That is not the issue. The issue is safety. They could be Federal employees and provide very good service to the country, and they could not be and provide very good service to the country. The key is that they be professionals, that they view this as a job that they want to develop an expertise in, and that they gain knowledge and provide tremendous energy in carrying out their duties. My biggest concern with airport security is obviously safety. It is safety in making sure that we do not have bombs in the belly of aircraft. As things stand now, we do not check the luggage when it is put in the plane, and I am grateful that the majority party has looked to address this issue, that they are putting in the manager's amendment an amendment that will require that by the end of the year 2003, that all baggage will be checked that goes in the belly of an airplane to make sure that we do not have Pan Am 103 and others like it in the years to come. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the Special Order by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) about the Lutjens and its respect for our American sailors touched my heart as well, and I am happy the gentleman talked about it today.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat reluctant to speak because I think this is such an important bill and I did not prepare my remarks; but I am compelled to speak, for a number of reasons. Obviously, September 11 was a day we will never forget. Thousands of men and women and children from the United States and 79 other countries lost their lives, and we all saw it happen up close and personal. They were killed by an act of war, and because of this hideous act, this carnage, we, the United States, are at war, a war to wipe out terrorism. Thousands of families lost their loved ones, but 73 families in the Fourth Congressional District lost loved ones; and my staff and I have attended if not all, most of these services. You would see a father say good-bye to a son, and the father would say to the son, Son, I learned more from you than I ever taught you. Or a son, who said to his father who had died, in the eulogy saying to his father, You wanted me to become an adult. I became an adult very quickly on September 11, but not just because of September 11. And then this son talked about the qualities his dad wanted him to have. And he said, Dad, I have those qualities. I am an adult because of you, and, Dad, don't worry about Mom, I will take care of her. Or the service with the father and the mother and the 3-year-old child, all killed. And we learned about the father, we learned about the mother, and then we were all saying, but what about this precious 3-year-old child? This precious 3-year-old child did not have a mother or father to speak for her, but her teachers came forward, and they talked about this child and gave a real life, and then had us all stand up and sing the Barney song, holding hands. That was her favorite song. It was clear to me as you attend these services that we truly are, it is not just words, we are one Nation under God, and it is clear to me in God we trust. When you go to ground zero you would see the carnage that is there, and you could be overwhelmed by it, but what overwhelms the carnage was the activity and the energy of the people there to help. But what spoke mostly to me were the white-collar workers who were there handing out gloves, handing out water, handing out anything they could do to help to the service industry that was there, the fire and the policemen and the emergency people that were helping, the contractors, all these blue-collar workers that have gone unappreciated in our country for too long, and my white-collar constituents, on bended knee in gratitude for what they were doing. Now we need to add one more to the list of those uniformed workers: postal employees. We are a Nation at war; but this is not about malice, because what we do is too vast for malice. This is a patriots' day, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this resolution forward.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on September 11 we were brutally awakened to the harsh realities we dreamed might never reach our shores. With the thousands of dead, we buried forever any illusion the scourge of transnational terrorism could not strike here. Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it our ``wake-up call from hell.'' We have awakened to a recurring nightmare of escalating brutality and carnage unfettered by moral or political constraints. Each attack is practice and prelude for the next. Global terrorism turns our strengths against us, exploiting the freedom, pluralism and openness we cherish to spread hate, fear and death. On that day, our world changed in ways we are still struggling to understand, our vision still blurred by disbelief and tears of grief. Since then, there have been times I find myself longing for a return to the Cold War. The numbing calm of mutually assured destruction seems in retrospect more tolerable than the unnerving wait for the next random act of barbaric terrorist mayhem. But if the global upheavals of the last century yield one lesson, it is this: the dynamic triumphs over the static, and we dare not indulge the urge to pause and reminisce. To be sure, the post-Soviet Pax Americana is not quite what we expected. The Cold War is over, yet the world is a more dangerous place. Hard on the heels of hope, we are entering a new world order of growth and cooperation, intractable regional conflicts and the rise of radical Islamic militancy bringing, instead, the prospect of chronic, even cataclysmic disorder. On the 50th anniversary of Winston Churchill's ``Iron Curtain'' speech at Westminster College, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher described these ``other, less appealing consequences'' of the global situation. She said, ``Like a giant refrigerator that had finally broken down after years of poor maintenance, the Soviet empire in its collapse released all the ills of ethnic, social and political backwardness which it had frozen in suspended animation for so long.'' In 1996, she was prescient enough to warn of the threat posed by radical Islamic movements and the middle-income countries, Iraq, Iran, Syria and others, shopping for chemical and biological weapons in the post-Soviet toxic bazaar. The Iron Curtain has been replaced by a poison veil that shrouds the world in dread and terror. We also find our economic, military and cultural dominance fostering vocal, sometimes violent resentment to which we seem unaccustomed and unprepared to rebut. Former Senator Warren Rudman, who served as the co-chairman of the U.S. Commission on National Security 21st Century, recently said acknowledging and managing that resentment would have to become a central element of U.S. public diplomacy in the years and decades ahead. That is not all that will have to change. The Nation's fight against terrorism will remain fragmented and unfocused until there is a thorough assessment of the threats we face and overarching national strategy articulated to guide planning, direct spending and discipline bureaucratic balkanization. President Bush instructed the Director of the White House Office of Homeland Security, former Governor Tom Ridge, to formulate that strategy based on the most current threat intelligence. When pressed for a national strategy, the previous administration pointed to a pastiche of event-driven Presidential decision directives and the Department of Justice's 5-year spending plan. Reactive in vision and scope, that strategy changed only as we lurched from crisis to crisis, from Khobar Towers to the Cole, from Oklahoma City to Dar es Salaam. President Clinton's National Security Council Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Richard Clarke, scoffed at our committee's request for a comprehensive threat assessment. He told us the threat came from the groups on the State Department's list of designated terrorists and the strategy was to hunt them down like criminals. As recently as a month ago, threat assessment and security strategy were still viewed in some quarters as academic or bureaucratic exercises. Today, as we worry about access to crop dusters and anthrax exposures by mail, a clear-eyed, fully informed view of the threat, particularly the threat posed by chemical agents and weaponized pathogens, is a national security imperative. Assessing the threat of bioterrorism requires a sober judgment about the motives, intentions and capabilities of people so intoxicated with hate and evil they would kill themselves in the act of killing others. These are the questions that confound the assessment process: When and where will terrorists use biological weapons against us? How will the agent be dispersed? For what type and magnitude of attack should we be prepared? Available answers offer little comfort and less certainty in assessing the threat. Some conclude the technical difficulties of large scale production and efficient dissemination reduce the likelihood terrorists will use lethal agents to inflict mass casualties any time soon. Others think those barriers have been or will soon be overcome. Stills others believe neither large quantities nor wide dispersion are required to inflict biological terror. From this cacophony of plausible opinions, those charged with formulating a national counterterrorism strategy must glean a rational estimate about the irrational possibility of biological attack. Perhaps the most difficult dimension of the threat to assess is the deep-seated, almost primal fear engendered by the prospect of maliciously induced disease. For the terrorist, that fear is a potent force multiplier, capable of magnifying a minor, manageable outbreak into a major public health crisis. Failure to account for this unique aspect of biological terrorism understates the threat, increasing our vulnerability. Overstating the threat based on fear alone invites overreaction, in which we waste scarce resources and terrorize ourselves with Draconian security restrictions. The changes wrought by the events of September 11 have also brought into sharper focus just how much of our national security apparatus is now irrelevant or ineffective. Last week, Ambassador Paul Bremer, our Nation's first diplomat in 1986 to combat the spread of global terrorism, and chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, noted that two of the four pillars of U.S. counterterrorism policy were already obsolete. The first, to make no concessions to terrorists and strike no deals, has been made irrelevant by the rise of radical Islamic groups. Their only demand being the demise of the West, there can be no deal to strike. The second pillar of our policy, bring terrorists to justice for their crimes, has been rendered ineffective by perpetrators willing to die with their victims. We can no longer indulge the tidy, familiar mechanics of solving the crime and punishing individuals when the crime offends humanity and the individuals are eager to be martyred. That approach has been compared to battling malaria by swatting mosquitoes. To stop the disease of modern terrorism, the swamp of explicit and tacit state sponsorship must be drained and disinfected. That leaves the final two precepts of current policy, isolate state sponsors of terrorism and enlist other Nations in that effort. Like its totalitarian forebears, terrorism is not incorporal. Its practitioners must make anchor and draw sustenance through contact with the people, places and institutions susceptible to the pressures of military and political statecraft. So building a coalition to punish state sponsors is now being pursued in earnest. But that was not always the case, and it is by no means clear what longer-term strategy should be pursued in this regard beyond Afghanistan. That long-term strategy should be developed with a high-level statement of national objectives. It should be coupled logically to a statement of the means that will be used to achieve those objectives. Only then can we hope to resist the drift of the events thrust upon us by others and be prepared to confront terrorism in our time and on our terms. It will not be easy. David Abshire, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, recently noted this critical strategic discussion occurs in the context of a greatly weakened State Department, a traumatized intelligence community, a disorganized NSC, and a reactive national security posture left over from the Cold War. With regard to our intelligence capabilities, I would add the observation their trauma is in part self-induced. Self-satisfied and for the most part self-policed, intelligence agencies tend to see information as an end, not a means. We are partially blinded by the lack of human intelligence in key parts of the world. Classification standards and jurisdictional stovepipes all but guarantee critical observations, and analysis will not reach those who need them. Ironically, a community so heavily dependent on technical means of intelligence-gathering has not been able to embrace the data mining and threat profiling tools others are using to glean important knowledge from open-source material. Increasingly sophisticated terrorists are becoming adept at hiding their secrets in plain view. Our intelligence agencies are too busy protecting Cold War sources and methods to find them. Similar institutional dynamics were present the last time the United States was coming to grips with a profound strategic paradigm shift: the emergence of the Cold War and the nuclear threat. President Eisenhower wisely tasked the bureaucracies to do what they often do best, compete with each other. Strategic options were identified, studied and urged on the President. Conceived in the White House sunroom, the Solarium Exercise, as it came to be known, produced the long-range strategy that guided U.S. national security policy for the next 5 decades. To meet the current threat, our strategy must be more dynamic and more open. Security is not a sedative, not a state of rest, but the level of vigilance required to protect, and advance, what we hold essential to life and liberty. Advocating for human rights and human freedoms is not cultural hegemony; it is our God-given right and duty. Nor can we afford to be squeamish or patronizing in public discourse about the zealots who target us, or the weapons they wield. A naive or blurred perception of the threat fragments our defenses and leaves us avoidably vulnerable. The inconveniences and sacrifices required to protect national security and maintain public safety will be more readily accepted if we are brutally honest about the true nature of our peril. The threat must be confronted with the same clear-eyed focus, steely intensity and unflagging vigilance with which the terrorists pursue their malignant cause. Since September 11, we have shown we are up to the task. In another age, another generation faced the prospect of another evil. Winston Churchill, addressing his besieged nation over the BBC in 1940, spoke to the timeless challenge of defending freedom. This is what Churchill said: ``And now it has come to us to stand alone in the breach, and face the worst that the tyrant's might and enmity can do. Bearing ourselves humbly before God, but conscious that we serve an unfolding purpose, we are ready to defend our native land against the invasion by which it is threatened. ``We are fighting by ourselves alone; but we are not fighting for ourselves alone. Here in this strong city of refuge which enshrines the title-deeds of human progress and is of deep consequence to Christian civilization; here, girt about by the seas and oceans where the Navy reigns; shielded from above by the prowess and devotion of our airmen, we await undismayed the impending assault. ``Perhaps it will come tonight. Perhaps it will come next week. Perhaps it will never come. ``We must show ourselves equally capable of meeting a sudden violent shock, or what is perhaps a harder test, a prolonged vigil. But be the ordeal sharp or long, or both, we shall seek no terms, we shall tolerate no parley; we may show mercy, we shall ask for none.'' Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your willingness to take the dais and give me this opportunity.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment that this conference report does not contain the important mining protections of the Inslee-Horn Amendment which the House strongly endorsed when we first considered this bill in June. There was bipartisan support for this amendment, which would have kept in place badly needed protections for the environment, taxpayers and the health of western communities against the most irresponsible mining practices. Such protections are needed because independent reports estimate the old mining laws have left taxpayers with a potential cleanup liability in excess of $1 billion. The old regulations and the 1872 mining law simply did not account for destructive new practices like open pit mining with chemicals such as cyanide and sulfuric acid. These new 3809 regulations are the first attempt to address environmental and taxpayer problems arising from modern mines. These protections were the work of four years of public input and continue to enjoy strong public support. During a 45-day public comment period on the proposed weakening of the mining rules, 47,000 citizens (out of 49,000 comments received) opposed weakening the rule. Even though the Inslee-Horn Amendment was not included in this report, we must continue to urge the Interior Department to leave the current rules in place. In particular we must retain: strong water resource protections and cleanup standards; strong bonding requirements; and the ability for federal land managers to deny the most irresponsible mines. Taxpayer protections without adequate environmental standards on destructive

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, because I believe our country could face a chemical, biological, radioactive, or, heaven forbid, nuclear attack by well-organized groups of fanatic terrorists, I rise in strong support of the PATRIOT Act. I believe this bill is necessary, and we have no time to waste. Mr. Speaker, in particular, I want to offer my praise for a section of this legislation designed to ensure the State Department has access to U.S. criminal databases before permitting aliens to enter the United States. Last year, the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, which I chair, began a series of meetings and briefings to discuss inter-agency data-sharing. On July 24th of this year, our Subcommittee held a hearing on Federal Interagency Data Sharing and National Security. That hearing taught us effective border security begins with our embassies, where U.S. visas are issued. Unfortunately, the State Department currently lacks the ability to access the FBI's National Criminal Information Center's Interstate Identification Index database. That means an alien can come into our country, commit a crime, leave, and get a reentry visa from our State Department or cross the border without being stopped. In 1996, the FBI and State Department issued a joint report recommending the State Department receive limited access to the NCIC- III database so the State Department could better identify aliens with a criminal background in our country and prevent their entry. Nevertheless, for four years this report lay dormant while the Departments could not find a mutually agreeable way to institute their recommendations. This gap in data-sharing between Departments is no longer simply a matter of bureaucratic inertia, but a threat to national security. Mr. Speaker, protecting our borders against dispersed but deadly criminals and terrorists requires interagency cooperation on an unprecedented scale. This legislation is a step in the right direction. I'm pleased Attorney General John Ashcroft included this provision in the anti- terrorism proposals he submitted to Congress, and I commend the Judiciary Committee for including it in the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Ackerman-Houghton Amendment to prohibit the marketing of animals so sick they oftentimes cannot even walk. Animals too weak from sickness or injury are routinely pushed, kicked, dragged, and prodded with electric shocks in an effort to move them at auctions and intermediate markets, en route to slaughter. There is no excuse of this unnecessary torment. This amendment will protect these animals by preventing bad actors from transporting downed animals to livestock markets and requiring these downed animals to be humanely euthanized. Unfortunately, because livestock sold for human consumption will being a higher dollar than livestock sold for other purposes, greed has proven to be more important to some than the suffering of the animals or the knowledge that meat from these animals is likely to be unfit for consumption. These animals do not deserve this treatment and we do not deserve the threat of contaminated meat at our grocery stores. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Friends of Animals Caucus, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Ackerman-Houghton Downed Animal Amendment.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, during my service in Congress, I have consistently opposed agricultural welfare programs. This Farm Bill, for the most part, represents business-as-usual for our nation's heavily- subsidized farmers. It's unfortunate to know that at a time of such advances in every other area of our lives, our agriculture sector has all the sophistication of a Soviet commune. But there is something to smile about, because this Farm Bill contains one vital reform: the abolition of the federal peanut quota program. This program is truly a relic of the Great Depression, and today it's put on notice that its days are numbered. The General Accounting Office has found the peanut program provides substantial benefits to a small number of producers who hold most of the quota, restricts peanut production by other farmers, and increases consumer costs by between $300 million and $500 million annually. For years, I've had a hard time understanding why our government favors one group of American peanut farmers--those who own quotas--over other American farmers who don't own this privilege. This program harms so many for the benefit of such a select few. My partner in reform, Congressman Paul Kanjorski, and I have always maintained that it was not our intention to pull the rug out from under our nation's peanut farmers. Rather, our goal has always been to bring peanuts in line with other commodities, and the legislation we introduced replaced quota restrictions with the same non-recourse loan system enjoyed by other commodities. Some of my colleagues may be concerned with the Farm Bill's approach, which shifts the burden from consumers to taxpayers. I agree this compromise isn't perfect, but it does meet two essential criteria we've set for reform. First, and most important, it repeals the quota system. This is the key to making the peanut industry more market-oriented, providing a level playing field for farmers, and promoting international trade. Second, as GAO confirmed in correspondence I will submit for the record, this bill ``Would essentially bring the peanut program in line with other commodity programs.'' Why is this important? Because taking peanuts off a separate track will ultimately make it easier to enact future reforms. It also exposes the hidden costs of the existing program by putting it ``on the books.'' There are still some concerns I have with what we're accomplishing today. First, this legislation compensates quota holders for the loss of their asset, which I must confess I think is fair. While those of us who want reform are willing to accept this provision, it is only under the understanding that the Chairman shares our commitment to let it expire after five years specified in this bill. Second, at a cost of $3.5 billion over 10 years, these reforms will come at some expense. With a rapidly shrinking budget surplus and tremendous needs in other areas, we are going to have to reexamine whether this is the best use of taxpayers' dollars. Finally, I'm concerned about findings by the GAO that several of the new subsidies for peanuts may be identified as ``trade distorting'' under the 1994 Uruguay Round of trade talks. If we expect other nations to lower their trade barriers, we need to ensure we're not erecting barriers of our own. Mr. Chairman, during the course of debate on this bill, I'm going to continue to express reservations about our overall agriculture policy. But at this moment, I want to commend the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Combest, for bringing us closer that we've ever been to ending the Byzantine system of price supports for peanuts. I would also request unanimous consent to submit for the Congressional Record a September 26 letter from the General Accounting Office reviewing the peanut title of this Farm Bill. United States General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, September 26, 2001. Hon. Christopher Shays, House of Representatives. Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski, House of Representatives. Subject Peanut Program: Potential Effects of Proposed Farm Bill on Producers, Consumers, Government, and Peanut Imports and Exports. The current federal peanut program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is designed to support producers' incomes while ensuring an ample supply of domestically produced peanuts. To accomplish these goals, the program controls the domestic supply of peanuts and guarantees producers a minimum price for their crops. This price substantially exceeds the price of peanuts in world markets. The program uses two mechanisms to control the domestic supply of peanuts: (1) a national quota on the number of pounds that can be sold for edible consumption domestically and (2) import restrictions. While anyone can grow peanuts, only producers holding quota, either through ownership or rental of farmland, may sell their peanuts domestically, as ``quota'' peanuts. Generally, all other production, referred to as ``additional'' peanuts, must be exported or crushed for oil and meal. The program protects producers' incomes though a two-tiered system that sets minimum support prices for quota and for additional peanuts. Producers of quota peanuts are guaranteed a support price of $610 per-ton, called the ``quota loan rate.'' Producers of additional peanuts are guaranteed a lower support price of $132 per-ton, called the ``additional loan rate.'' Producers may sell their peanuts at or above these loan rates, or they may place their peanuts under loan with USDA and have the government sell them. This program, while long-standing, has been criticized by GAO and others because, among other things, it provides substantial benefits to a relatively small number of producers who hold most of the quota, generally restricts nonquota holders from producing peanuts for the U.S. domestic market, and increases consumers' cost. The program is, however, designed to operate generally at ``no-net cost'' to the government. Additionally, since the $610 per-ton quota loan rate is substantially higher than the estimated world price--$321 to $462 per-ton from 1996 through 2000--the quota loan rate provides incentives for exporting countries to maximize the quantity of peanuts the U.S. allows to be imported under recent trade agreements. These imports could displace domestically produced peanuts that otherwise would enter U.S. food marketing channels. To address these and other concerns about the peanut program, you asked that we review its structure and operations under the 1996 Farm Bill, and its impacts on producers, consumers, the federal government, and imports and exports of peanuts. However, on July 27, 2001, before we completed our review, the House Committee on Agriculture approved the 2002 Farm Bill, for 2002 through 2011 (the Farm Security Act of 2001, H.R. 2646). If enacted, this bill would fundamentally alter the peanut program's structure by, among other things, eliminating the national poundage quota and allowing peanut buyers to purchase domestically produced peanuts at the prevailing market price. Because of your interest in making the program more market-oriented, you subsequently asked us to report on the potential impact of this bill on producers, consumers, the federal government, and imports and exports of peanuts. major changes to the peanut program under the house committee on agriculture's bill Beginning in 2002, and for the next 10 years, the bill passed by the House Committee on Agriculture would eliminate the national poundage quota and replace the current two- tiered price system with several new support mechanisms for peanut quota owners and producers. These changes would essentially bring the peanut program in line with other commodity programs. The bill would establish the following new types of support for peanut producers: A ``counter-cyclical'' payment. This payment would provide financial assistance to producers when prices are below a legislatively established target price. Peanut producers would receive a payment based on the difference between a USDA-calculated price and a $480 target price--known as a counter-cyclical payment. The payment amount would be calculated on 85 percent of a producer's peanut acres and the average yield for crop years 1998 through 2001. A producer's production during these years would be the producer's base production. Since the payment would be calculated using historic yield and acreage, producers would receive it even if they choose not to plant peanuts. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the counter-cyclical payments would cost an estimated $1.24 billion in government expenditures over the life of the farm bill. A ``fixed, decoupled'' payment. This payment would provide peanut producers with compensation similar to the production flexibility contract payments provided for other crops, such as cotton and wheat, in the 1996 Farm Bill (Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996). Producers with base production would receive support--known as a fixed, decoupled payment--in the amount of $36 per-ton on the base production. This support is called ``decoupled'' because it would be paid whether or not a producer chooses to grow peanuts and regardless of market prices. Since the payment would be calculated using historic yield and acreage, producers would receive it even if they choose not to plant peanuts. According to CBO, the fixed, decoupled payments would cost an estimated $0.63 billion over the life of the farm bill. A marketing assistance loan. This loan would provide producers with interim financial assistance at harvest, when prices are usually lower than at other times of the marketing year. Producers could pledge their stored peanuts as collateral for up to 9 months at a loan rate of $350 per-ton. Producers would then repay the loan at a rate that is the lesser of (1) $350 per-ton plus interest or (2) a USDA- calculated loan repayment rate, which was not specified in the bill. If producers were to redeem the loan at less than the loan amount, they would realize a marketing loan gain. Alternatively, producers could receive an amount equivalent to the marketing assistance loan gain, referred to as a loan deficiency payment, by agreeing to forgo a loan. Producers would also be able to forfeit their peanuts to the government as payment for their loan, regardless of the market value of peanuts at the time. According to CBO, the marketing loan payments will cost an estimated $0.44 billion over the life of the farm bill. A ``buy-out'' payment. Quota owners would receive compensation for the lost asset value of their quota. This ``buy-out'' payment would be made in five annual installments of $200 per-ton during fiscal years 2002 through 2006. The payment would be based on the quota owners' 2001 quota. According to CBO, payments would total $1.18 billion to quota owners for the 5-year period from 2002 through 2006. All peanut producers would be eligible to receive a marketing assistance loan or a loan deficiency payment. However, only those who produced peanuts during crop years 1998 through 2001 (the base production period) would be eligible to receive counter-cyclical and fixed, decoupled payments. all peanut producers would benefit under the house committee on agriculture's bill New and existing peanut producers would benefit from the support mechanisms contained in the House Committee bill. Table 1 shows the estimated amounts producers would receive from peanut sales and government support under the current peanut program compared with the House Committee bill. Because the peanut provisions of the House Committee bill would essentially establish minimum guaranteed prices--a target price of $480 per-ton for base production and a $350 per-ton marketing assistance loan for all other production-- the amounts shown in the table generally represent the minimum amount producers could expect to receive for their production. The table assumes that a peanut producer has 100 acres under production, a yield of 2,500 pounds per acre, and receives a market price of $325 per-ton. These production and yield assumptions are based on national averages contained in USDA's 1997 Census of Agriculture. The $325 market price is an estimate based on conversations with shellers and area marketing associations in August 2001.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am one of a few Republicans in Congress who represent an urban area, yet when it came time to end the broken system of social welfare, I voted for it and I'm proud to say that welfare reform has been a tremendous success in my district and across the nation. We did the heavy lifting in 1996. Now it's time we got the rich farmers off welfare. There aren't a whole lot of farmers who are much better off than the sugar producers who've made a living--no, a killing!--off of government subsidies and production controls. I think Karl Marx, even on a sugar high, couldn't have come up with anything as market-distorting and anti-competitive as the sugar program in this Farm bill. This legislation rolls back the modest reforms of 1996 by reimposing federal limits on how much sugar can be grown and sold in the United States. I can't think of a single other crops where we do this. To truly appreciate this government hand-out, consider that last year the federal government spent nearly half a billion dollars to buy one million tons of surplus sugar. The government continues to spend $1.4 million a month to store it and the Department of Agriculture estimates the program will cost taxpayers at least $1.6 billion over the 10-year life of the Farm Bill. This sugar program is one of the sweetest deals in America--but only if you're one of the lucky few. You don't hear much about the family farm during debate on this amendment, because the largest 1 percent of sugar growers claim 40 percent of the program's benefits. But if my colleagues don't care about taxpayers' dollars or family farms, perhaps they'll care about our environment. The government's subsidies of the sugar industry are extremely harmful to the Florida Everglades. I hope everyone recognizes the irony here. Even as we spend billions of dollars on repairing the Everglades, we're spending billions more to subsidize a sugar industry that is responsible for so much of the damage to this area. Mr. Chairman, if we can't repeal it, let's at least restore some sanity to one of the government's worst programs. This is a very modest amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the President of the United States said there are a lot of medium-sized farmers who need help, and one of the things we are going to make sure of is that we restructure the farm program, so that the money goes to the people who need it the most. Mr. Chairman, on every occasion that Congress has taken up a farm bill or an agricultural appropriations act there is one argument that is as predictable as a football game on Thanksgiving: pass this bill, we are told, or it will mean the end of the family farm. Well, today, we have an opportunity to literally put our money where our mouths are. The Smith amendment is very simple. It establishes--actually, it enforces--a reasonable limit on the amount farmers can receive in deficiency payments. And if I may say so, a limit of $150,000 is not only reasonable, it is plain generous. Our current farm programs already include this cap, but the larger farms have exploited a loophole that allows them to bypass it through the use of commodity certificates. This amendment will not reduce government subsidies on a single small farm, unless of course a small farm is defined as 20,000 acres of cotton. What it will do is restore some sanity to the way we appropriate government price supports. Consider the following: the largest 18 percent of farms receive 74 percent of Federal payments. In 1999, 47 percent of farm payments went to large commercial farms; and in that same year, a single farmer received more than $1.2 million in government handouts. If my colleagues think that is the way our government programs should operate, by all means vote against this amendment. Those who think a single farmer should receive more than $1 million in government subsidies, while small farmers are barely making ends meet, vote against this amendment. But if my colleagues think it is time large farms stop fleecing American taxpayers, support this modest amendment. Mr. Chairman, I helped end welfare in my urban areas. It is about time we started to reduce welfare for rich farmers.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize William J. Ivey for the extraordinary work he has done over the past three years on behalf of the arts. During his tenure at the NEA Chairman Ivey developed a nonprofit cultural organization and worked to protect America's living cultural resources. An advocate for various art forms, he has, without a doubt, fulfilled the Endowment's mission to ``foster the excellence, diversity, and vitality of the arts in the United States, and to broaden public access to the arts.'' Chairman Ivey, I thank you for all your hard work over the past three years and wish you well in your future endeavors.