Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness and tremendous gratitude to honor the life of my good friend, Joseph Yankoski, a generous and dedicated community leader who will be greatly missed in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. As his family, friends and neighbors mourn the passing of Joe Yankoski, I want to take a few moments to remember his work and the difference he made in the community he served so faithfully. For many years, Joe served as executive director of employment and training for Delaware County. As Joe led the agency through a time of transition and expansion, he was known for his straightforwardness and positive outlook in seeking solutions to assure that residents receive the training they need to find employment or to advance their careers. His inspirational leadership had a profound effect on helping people to better their lives. Even after his retirement, Joe continued to assist others as a consultant to the Delaware County Workforce. His life was centered around service to others. Adding to his already extraordinary list of accomplishments in the community, Joe plunged himself into other areas of community service and involvement. He was a member of the American Legion Post 227, the advisory council for the County Office of Services for the Aging, an officer with the American Association of Retired Persons, a member of the Delaware County Retirees, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Navy League. The example of Joe Yankoski's citizenship and dedication to duty will be his enduring legacy. Representative of the sacrifices of this great country is the proud and gallant record of his service in the United States Navy during World War II and the Korean War. He served on the USS North Carolina, USS Catoctin and the USS Des Moines. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering, a dedicated community leader and friend to many in the 7th Congressional District. I wish Joe's wife of 52 years, Nancy and family, my heartfelt condolences and may they find comfort in knowing that the many people he affected deeply value his dedication and generosity and the example of his life and work.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday afternoon for 2\1/2\ hours, I met with one of our soldiers from the unit that was assigned to the prison in Baghdad. I can tell Members that as this story unfolds, we will continue to be vigilant in prosecuting not just those soldiers who were involved, but those superiors who in some cases ordered our soldiers to do the acts that they were asked to do and to also be involved in the oversight. We will hold these individuals responsible, and we will seek and obtain justice. But, Mr. Speaker, I also rise to pay tribute to a neighbor of mine, who lived less than 15 minutes from my home by the name of Nick Berg who we just learned in the past several days was brutalized in the most unbelievable way imaginable by those same people over in Iraq who expect us to treat those perpetrators of crimes in the prison with justice. I also rise to pay tribute to Tali Hatuel, an Israeli who was gunned down, along with her four children and her unborn child, in the most despicable way. Truth and justice will prevail. I just wish that were the case on both sides both with al Qaeda as well as with our own troops.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 2004 we marked the 18 year anniversary of the terrible tragedy at Chernobyl, Ukraine. On that day and those that followed, thousands of people lost their lives and millions more around the world felt the effects of the escaped radiation. Today, many of the survivors have returned to live in the contaminated area. They no longer fear the lingering radiation or the land's barren landscape, choosing rather to live on the only land they can call home. They do not have much to live for, the contaminated zone offers little in the shadow of the reactor's remains, but they are tough-minded individuals with little else to give. The incident at Chernobyl reminded us that mankind remains at the mercy of its creations. Innovation sets mankind apart from other living creatures, yet to a certain extent we will always be powerless to the whims of technology. The incident at Chernobyl was a tragedy of epic proportions, one that is too easily overlooked by the world even though it took place less than 20 years ago. As we continue to progress and develop new technologies, we must remember the lessons of Chernobyl and the lives it forever altered.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2004 Franklin Institute Laureates being honored in a gold-medal ceremony tomorrow in the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, for exemplary accomplishments in science, technology, and business. The Franklin Institute first began recognizing achievement in science and technology in 1824--making the Franklin Institute Awards one of the most historic and long-standing science honors in the world, predating the Nobel Prize by almost 75 years. In its very early years, honors were given to scientists and engineers whose products and inventions best improved life in our young nation. Today, the Institute bestows the Franklin Medals, named for America's first great scientist and founding father, Benjamin Franklin, to an international group of scientists, engineers, and business leaders, whose achievements, innovations, and discoveries have improved the human condition and solved mysteries of our world. Some are honored for careers which have inspired thousands; others, for one incredible breakthrough upon which whole industries or entirely new fields of thought have been founded. Additionally, since 1990 the Institute has awarded the Bower Awards for Business Leadership and Science Achievement, which carries with it one of the largest cash prizes in the world. This year, the Bower Awards are awarded to one scientist and one business leader who have distinguished themselves in the field of brain research. A list of previous Franklin Institute award winners is a roll call of brilliance for the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. Over 2,000 individuals have been honored by the Institute over the past 180 years, including luminaries like Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Alva Edison, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Madame and Pierre Curie, Albert Einstein, Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Kahn, Stephen Hawking, David Packard and Jane Goodall. Tomorrow, at the Franklin Institute Awards Ceremony, seven special people will join these esteemed ranks, in fields ranging from computational complexity to magnetic resonance imaging. Their cumulative work has had an enormous impact on humankind--from the display technology in our cell phones and PDA's to revolutionary materials used in space flight; from non-invasive treatment and diagnosis of disease and injury to a better understanding of lifegiving processes like photosynthesis; from enabling parents to see their child months before birth, to enabling businesses to solve extremely complex problems quickly and efficiently, to the fundamental, groundbreaking experiments that displayed the genetic basis of behavior. I am honored to invite this Congress and the nation to join me in congratulating: 2004 Bower Award and Prize for Achievement in Science in the Field of Brain Research, Seymour Benzer, Ph.D.--For pioneering discoveries that both founded and greatly advanced the field of neurogenetics, thereby transforming the understanding of the brain. 2004 Bower Award for Business Leadership in the Field of Brain Research, Raymond V. Damadian, M.D.--For his development of magnetic resonance imaging used in clinical applications, which has transformed the diagnosis and treatment of disease. 2004 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Chemistry, Harry B. Gray, Ph.D.--For his pioneering contributions in the field of electron transfer in metalloproteins. 2004 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, Richard M. Karp, Ph.D.--For his contributions to the understanding of computational complexity. 2004 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Electrical Engineering, Robert E. Newnham, Ph.D.--For his invention of multiphase piezoelectric transducers and their spatial architecture, which revolutionized the field of acoustic imaging. 2004 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Mechanical Engineering, Roger Bacon, Ph.D.--For his fundamental research on the production of graphite whiskers and the determination of their microstructure and properties, for his pioneering development efforts in the production of the world's first continuously processed carbon fibers and the world's first high modulus, high strength carbon fibers using rayon precursors, and for his contributions to the development of carbon fibers from alternative starting materials. 2004 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Physics, Robert B. Meyer, Ph.D.--For his creative synthesis of theory and experiment demonstrate that tilted, layered liquid crystal phases of chiral molecules are ferroelectric, thus launching both fundamental scientific advancement in the field of soft condensed matter physics and the development of liquid crystal displays that meet the demands of current technology. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is delighted to honor and welcome these amazing scientists and to host this fantastic celebration of their work. Moreover, Pennsylvania is proud of its most visited and most beloved museum, The Franklin Institute, for its distinguished record of recognizing genius and innovation.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness and tremendous gratitude to honor the life of my good friend, Edward J. Volante, a longtime Clifton Heights Fire Chief and career firefighter. As his family, friends and neighbors mourn the passing of Ed Volante, I want to take a few moments today to remember his work and the difference he made in the community he served so bravely and selflessly. Chief Volante was a lifelong resident of Clifton Heights, Pennsylvania, where he served as fire chief for 26 years and a firefighter for 50 years. He embodied the most noble virtues of public service. The Chief served in almost every position in the fire company since joining the Clifton Heights Hose & Hook in 1954. Chief Volante will be remembered for his loyal dedication to improving his community's ability to respond to emergencies and ensure the safety of all residents. Firefighting is a matter of life and death, and individuals like Chief Volante assume an enormous responsibility when they accept the job of running a fire department. They are responsible for the lives, homes, and livelihoods of thousands of citizens throughout their community. And on a day-to-day basis they become directly responsible for the health and welfare of all the men and women they supervise. Chief Volante discharged these enormous responsibilities with real distinction. During his 26 year tenure as chief, a good department became even better. Chief Volante took great pride in the fact that his fire company was the proving grounds for other companies. Chief Volante was respected for his commitment to public safety and his ability to get things done. Recognizing how difficult it is these days to recruit volunteers, he had a sign posted outside the fire company, ``Volunteers needed, apply here.'' He often said, ``you can never have too many volunteers.'' The citizens of Clifton Heights should take comfort that their fire company will continue to evoke Chief Volante's spirit and legacy through their continued efforts to better their community. When the alarm sounds at all hours of the day and night it will serve as a call for more volunteers to the noble calling of the fire service. Mr. Speaker, the 7th Congressional District has lost an exceptional public servant, and I have lost a good friend. I wish Chief Volante's wife of 44 years, Carol Ann and family, my heartfelt condolences and may they find comfort in knowing that the many people he impacted deeply value his dedication and generosity and the example of his life and work. Chief Edward J. Volante exemplified the spirit of service that has made this country great. This man was a genuine community leader. He not only did his job well, he loved it, and the community he served. We are safer because of his life and sacrifice. I am personally grateful to have known Chief Volante as a friend, and mourn his passing.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in this country, in this city, sometimes the American media just does not get it. Tonight I rise to lay in the Congressional Record and for the American people two stories that have not gotten the attention they deserve regarding foreign policy and regarding the actions of two nations in two regions that are extremely important to the security of America and the world. The first, Mr. Speaker, involves Serbia. Mr. Speaker, this nation went to war and for the first and only time convinced our NATO allies to use NATO as an offensive military entity to invade a non-NATO country in 1999 to remove a sitting head of state, Milosevic, from office for war crimes for which he is now being tried. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight not to question whether or not Milosevic committed war crimes. I am convinced that he did, that he committed ethnic cleansing and that he did unthinkable harm to individual people in the former Yugoslavia. He is now being held accountable for his actions in a trial that has been going on for several years; but, Mr. Speaker, we cannot have a double standard, and this is what we have today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, when we invaded Serbia and we went in with our military and the NATO military, I did not support the President's actions, as did many of our colleagues in this body. Not because I felt support for Milosevic, but because I was convinced we had not allowed Russia to play the role that they could have and should have played in getting Milosevic to agree to the terms that the NATO and other nations wanted after the meetings at Rambouillet, and I said so publicly. It was not that those of us who opposed President Clinton supported Milosevic, but rather that we thought there was a better way that would have avoided the kind of atrocities that were committed by our own bombing in Belgrade and other cities in the former Yugoslavia. But the fact is that we did bomb that country, and we continued it for a matter of weeks. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I was the one who assembled a delegation of 10 of our colleagues and myself, five Democrats, all supporters of President Clinton, and five Republicans to travel to Vienna after having discussed with Strobe Talbot, the number two person at the State Department, the offer of the Russians to me to help Russia play a role in resolving the crisis in Yugoslavia on the terms that the U.S. and NATO wanted. I also, Mr. Speaker, had access to a memo that had been prepared secretly by Strobe Talbot, which was briefed to both Sandy Berger and Vice President Gore. So I knew what the policy of the U.S. was with regard to Russia's involvement. And I also knew full well that we were not giving Russia the opportunity to play the kind of constructive role that it could have and should have. Our meetings in Vienna with five Russian leaders and 11 American leaders resulted, over 2 days, in a framework that allowed the Russians and the Americans to come to an agreement and to agree concurrently that Milosevic had committed ethnic cleansing; that the armed Serbs should be withdrawn from Kosovo; that there should be a multinational force brought in. All of those conditions were what basically the Russians, when they were finally brought in several weeks later, were able to bring to the table to help us end that war. Now, we were told, Mr. Speaker, that the ending of the war would end the ethnic cleansing. And, boy, were we wrong. The media blasted headlines all over the world with Milosevic's actions, and they still blast the actions of this war criminal and his ethnic cleansing. Where is the media today, Mr. Speaker? Where are the front-page stories in our major newspapers about the ethnic cleansing that took place aimed specifically at Serbs in the last week? On the March 17, Mr. Speaker, a massive campaign of ethnic violence was carried out against Kosovo Serbs and other non-Albanians that continued for several days. These efforts were carefully planned, orchestrated, and coordinated by the leadership structures of the Kosovo Albanians, and they are unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, the estimates are that tens of thousands of Kosovo Albanians participated in the pogrom which resulted in the destruction of 90 percent of Kosovo's remaining predominantly Serb areas. Mr. Speaker, 800-year-old churches and monasteries were destroyed. In total, 35 Christian holy sites were decimated. And even though they attempted to avoid personal atrocities against individuals, 31 Serbs were killed. Where is the outrage, Mr. Speaker? Where is the outrage that we saw from President Clinton in 1999 and Madeleine Albright? I have not seen former President Clinton or Madeleine Albright giving speeches today about the ethnic cleansing that was conducted against innocent Serbs, that were supposedly going to have their freedom and their own safety protected by the U.N. forces, including Americans working in Kosovo. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this entire incident needs the full attention of this Congress, this government and the United Nations, as well as NATO. There have been suggestions, Mr. Speaker, that there are ties between what occurred beginning on March 17 with al Qaeda, Hamas, the Albanian National Army, and Abu Bakr Sadik, among others. These ties need to be investigated fully. The campaign of ethnic cleansing that just took place against Serbs was conducted in such a way as to result in a little loss of life, although 31 people is significant, but with maximum material and psychological damage. Why would that take place, Mr. Speaker? Because at a time when America and the world's attention is focused on Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts of the world, there are those with the ties to the groups I just mentioned who saw an opportunity to ethnically cleanse Kosovo, so that at some point in time down the road the position could be made that this nation no longer really has a significant Serbian population. Mr. Speaker, where is the outrage from America? Where is the story from the American media about what happened in Serbia or in Kosovo last week? Are not the deaths of 31 innocent civilians, is not the burning of major religious institutions a story that deserves national focus in this country? We went to war, Mr. Speaker, in 1999. We went to war, and in fact we used NATO for the first and only time ever in an offensive military mode to remove Milosevic because of ethnic cleansing. Where is our outrage today with the ethnic cleansing that occurred last week against innocent Serbs? The attacks continued unabated for several days. In fact, in some cases they got worse as the attackers went in to all the Serbian enclaves. Where was the protection that these people were guaranteed when the war ended and President Clinton told us that we had been able to rid the world of a dictator who had committed ethnic cleansing? Where was the protection for the destruction not just of the churches but of the electrical grid system and the damage to the mobile phone relay stations? Where was the protection for the Serbs, the Kosovo Serbs who attempted to seek shelter in churches and monasteries, but were prevented from being able to do so because those very churches and monasteries were the explicit objects of attack? The estimates are, Mr. Speaker, that as many as 50,000 Kosovo Albanians were involved in this action. Is the world going to sit by and allow this kind of atrocity to occur? Is America going to pass some modest resolution that calls ethnic cleansing wrong? We did not do that in 1999, Mr. Speaker, when we had evidence there was ethnic cleansing. All of us spoke out against it. When we went to Vienna and met with our Russian counterparts, 11 of us, we had in-depth discussions that resulted in the Russian delegates from the major political factions agreeing with us that ethnic cleansing had occurred. Where is that same message today, Mr. Speaker? Why are our colleagues and why is the American media not demanding that the world do something about the ethnic cleansing that was perpetrated against innocent Serbs last week? And where are the investigations into the linkages of terrorist organizations that were allegedly involved in this activity? Mr. Speaker, the reputation of America, the U.N. and NATO are all on the line right now. We talked a good game in 1999. We stood together. Even though we disagreed on the method of removing Milosevic and the ethnic cleansing, we stood together as a Nation, Democrats and Republicans, and we said ethnic cleansing was wrong. Does the silence in this body today mean that ethnic cleansing is okay because it is not being led by one person like Milosevic? The Kosovo Albanians must be held accountable, Mr. Speaker. We must not let them off the hook. Ethnic cleansing is wrong, whether it is done by Serbs or whether it is done by Kosovo Albanians; and this Nation must stand up and shout out that message loud and clear. And if there was involvement by terrorist groups like Hamas and al Qaeda, then we need to know that. Mr. Speaker, many people around the world have spoken out on this violence. I want to quote a few, just so that my colleagues will understand that those closest to the situation fully understand what happened. This is not Congressman Curt Weldon alone making this claim. In fact, let me quote Admiral Gregory Johnson, CINSOUTH commander, United States Naval Forces, Europe. This was his quote: ``This kind of activity actually almost amounts to ethnic cleansing, and it cannot go on. That's why we came here in the first place.'' That is from our own Admiral Johnson, referring again to the term ``ethnic cleansing.'' NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoo Scheffer: ``What happened last week, orchestrated and organized by extremist factions in the Albanian community, is unacceptable.'' Javier Solana, General Secretary of the EU Council and High Representative for the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy: ``It's sad to see schools destroyed and children evacuated, people killed, and homes burnt. This is something which can't be tolerated. I'm shocked at the brutality, the destruction of schools, preventing children from being educated, the destruction of churches in which people only want to pray. Serbs are brave and must stay here. They must try to rebuild their homes, and we will help them with that. I'm leaving with a lot less optimism than when I came. I regret that tomorrow I will tell the EU Council of Ministers what I saw and heard here and that a huge amount of time was wasted here.'' Mr. Speaker, this was last week, not 1999, when we went to war. Where's the outrage in America today over the ethnic cleansing and the killing that just occurred in Kosovo? Soloman Passy, OSCE Chairman-in-Office: ``This isn't about a chance happening, about Albanian extremist elements stirred up the violence.'' Derek Chappell, UNMIK spokesman: ``There has been violence in Kosovo before, but this time it's coordinated action. The violence erupted in a number of places at the same time, which shows that it was planned in advance.'' Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation: ``This is ethnic cleansing. Even our Western colleagues accept that this is nothing other than ethnic cleansing. It is essential that there be a responsibly strong reaction in order to protect the Kosovo Serbs.'' Mr. Speaker, I led the delegation to Vienna to convince the leaders of the Russian factions that they should admit that Milosevic had been involved in ethnic cleansing. I will not stand by and allow now the Russians to see the hypocrisy in America when we will not call the same actions by the Kosovo Albanians ethnic cleansing. That is what it was. That is what it is, and it must be called; it must be called into play. There must be a full and complete investigation, and those individuals responsible and involved must be held accountable. I understand there are those making the rounds on the Hill this week and last week to try to cover up what occurred, to try to explain it away. You cannot explain away, Mr. Speaker, 31 deaths. You cannot explain away all the churches that were burned. You cannot explain away what the ultimate agenda was: to remove any presence of ethnic Serbs in Kosovo. Mr. Speaker, the world needs to be consistent. The U.N., NATO, the U.S. and all of our allies must stand with the people of both Kosovo and Serbia for a consistent stand against ethnic cleansing, whoever may be the perpetrator. In this case, we have not done that, and it is wrong. An orchestrated campaign of ethnic cleansing must not be rewarded politically, and I will use my voice and will speak to our colleagues this week in encouraging a full and complete investigation of what occurred last week. I will also, Mr. Speaker, ask and demand that the commitments that we made in the former Yugoslavia be followed up. In my visits to Serbia, to Belgrade, we have not carried out the promises that we made as a Nation to the people once Milosevic was removed from office, and that is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the media and Members of this body would focus on the plight of the innocent Serbian people who last week were dealt a very severe blow. Those Kosovo Serbs who were simply attempting to live in their enclaves were attacked, their institutions were destroyed and ethnic cleansing was done by those very people who cried ethnic cleansing back in 1999. This cannot be allowed to stand. Mr. Speaker, the second story that has not been fully covered by the American media except for perhaps one newspaper, the Washington Times, is what occurred in Libya less than 1 month ago. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States deserves significant credit for a story that has largely gone unreported in the mainstream American media. I did not see headlines on our national newspapers about what happened in Libya. I did not see headlines about the 90-minute speech that Muammar Qaddafi gave to his people on March 2. And so tonight, Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk about the untold story of Libya. Mr. Speaker, approximately 8 months ago, after having helped form the International Energy Advisory Council made up of private energy corporations around the world, I was told by the representative of Libya, Abdul Majid Al -Mansouri, who is today here in Washington, that Libya was about ready to complete a major turnaround. I was intrigued. I asked to learn more. He told me that Qaddafi's son, Saif Islam Al- Qaddafi, wanted to meet with me and that if I came to London in October for a meeting of the International Energy Advisory Council, I could listen to Saif Islam Al-Qaddafi tell me the story of the change that was about to occur in Libya. I could not make that trip in October, Mr. Speaker, but I did meet with Saif Islam Al-Qaddafi in January. We met for 3 hours and this young, 31-year-old, London-educated Ph.D. candidate in economics told me that his father was in the midst of a massive turnaround of this nation. Libya, which we have not had contact with for 29 years and which has been a major source of terrorism around the world, was about ready to change in a very dramatic way. I was intrigued when Saif Islam Al-Qaddafi told me the story in the meeting that we had, and I said I was interested in potentially taking a delegation of our colleagues to visit with Qaddafi himself. While meeting with Saif, he made a cellular phone call and came back and said, you're going to be invited into Tripoli within the next several days. Two days later, Mr. Speaker, a letter arrived from the Libyan parliament, the People's Congress, of what they call the Jamahiriya, their form of government, they call it a democracy, and that letter invited me to bring a delegation into Tripoli to visit. Working with the military and assembling a bipartisan delegation of our colleagues, as I always do, seven of us left Washington to visit Libya and then on to visit our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and spending a night at our military medical hospital at the military Air Force base in Ramstein, Germany. In fact, we brought 12 of our injured military personnel back home to America. We spent 2 days in Tripoli, Mr. Speaker, 14 meetings in two days. We visited all the top officials of the country: Prime Minister Ghanem, the foreign minister, the minister in charge of removing weapons of mass destruction from Libya. We met with the leadership of Al Fateh University, a university with 75,000 students. We met with the leadership of the Qaddafi Foundation, which is now settling the claims of the families of the victims of the Lockerbie downing, that terrible tragedy that occurred, killing over 100 American citizens; and we met with Qaddafi himself. We also traveled through the marketplace unannounced to gauge what the response of the Libyans would be to our visit. We had been told by officials at the National Security Council here in America that we would not be welcomed, the American flag would not be welcomed. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The reception was warm, and the attitude of every Libyan citizen that we met was positive. When they found out we were Americans, they put their hands out to shake our hands, they hugged us, and they thanked us for coming. Our meeting with Qaddafi was held in his tent, across the field filled with camels from his home that we had bombed in 1986. The home is still in the same shape that it was back then, with the furniture and the holes in the walls exactly as it was after the bombing, which, as we all know, killed his year-and-a-half-old daughter. The meeting with Qaddafi in the tent was a difficult one for those of us on the delegation because no one had met with Qaddafi from America. No one had been in Libya from America for 29 years. We were the first. When we met with Qaddafi, we told him that we were glad to be invited there. We were happy that his statements were such that he was renouncing terrorism and had pledged to give up his weapons of mass destruction and that we would judge him not by his words but by his actions. We also told him, Mr. Speaker, that we would never forgive and never forget what Qaddafi and the Libyans had done in helping to support terrorism around the world, especially the bombing of Pan Am 103 and the bombing in a Berlin nightclub that killed two young American GIs. But we told him that if he did what he said he was going to do in removing weapons of mass destruction, then our government would move quickly to establish a new direction in our relationship. Our trip was a successful trip, Mr. Speaker, so much so that as we left Libya that first trip back in early February I was invited to come back on March 2 and deliver a speech to the people of Libya at the 27th session of what they call the great Jamahiriya, the assemblage of the leadership of the governing bodies throughout the country. Again we assembled a bipartisan delegation, and this time I called Senator Joe Biden and asked him if he would join us to have both bodies and both parties involved. He agreed, Mr. Speaker, but could not be with us on our plane so was provided a separate plane by the White House and landed the day that we were leaving, although we waited to greet him at the airport terminal to give him a briefing on Qaddafi's speech. On our trip to Libya the second time, Mr. Speaker, we spent a day in Tripoli. We went back to Al Fateh University. We met with the students. We were in classrooms. We met with the faculty, the deans. We met with the Libyan Foundation. They told us about their plans for a massive human rights campaign. They explained to us their efforts to move Libya back into the family of nations. They talked about their efforts to deal with health care issues like AIDS. They talked about the Red Crescent and their attempt to bring Libya into the fold of the International Red Cross. They talked about Libya's efforts to deal with the human rights concerns of all Libyan people. We thanked them for their time and then moved on the next day to Sirte, the city where Qaddafi is from. In Sirte 2 days earlier, the leaders of the 53 African nations had assembled for meetings about the unity of Africa with Libya in a leadership role. When visiting Sirte, we were taken out to the site of one of the largest manmade construction projects in the world, the project that Libya has been undertaking for over 20 years, to build the largest manmade river on the face of the earth, some 7,000 kilometers. This manmade river, in concrete pipes that are 12 feet in diameter, is supplying water to areas of the desert to convert them into arable usage for agriculture and farming and for the people to live on. While we were there meeting with officials from all over the world, from the African nations, Europe, the Far East, China, South America, Central America, the Middle East, we prepared for the evening event, the opening session of the great Jamahiriya. We were ushered into the auditorium that probably seated 1,000 people, Mr. Speaker, and in that auditorium were 600 members of the elected bodies of the government of Libya, representing small towns, large cities, trade groups, educators, and a diverse section of the Libyan population. Some were dressed in traditional attire. Others were dressed in western dress, all of them sitting waiting for the speakers to begin the opening session. Over 100 countries were there, Mr. Speaker, leaders of the foreign ministries, ambassadors, foreign ministers themselves and parliamentary heads. They brought our delegation in, Mr. Speaker, and placed the American Members of Congress in the front row for all to see. The session began with speeches by the Speaker of the Libyan parliament. That was followed by a speech from a female leader of the Libyan parliament who talked about women's issues in Libya. And then we had a speaker from the European parliament, the Egyptian government, the French parliament and several other countries from around the world. Within about 30 minutes, Mr. Speaker, I was introduced to speak on behalf of our delegation. I spoke for approximately 15 minutes, beginning and ending my comments with Arabic to show some sensitivity to these people who we had considered our enemy for 29 years. When I finished my speech and sat down, another speaker spoke for 2 or 3 minutes, and then Colonel Qaddafi himself was introduced. Mr. Speaker, the fireside chat, because that is what it was, it was not really a speech, there were no notes, the fireside chat that Muammar Qaddafi gave on live TV throughout Libya that night carried by Al- Jazeera but by no western media source, not one TV station, not CNN, not Fox, not ABC, NBC, CBS, none of them, but carried live throughout the Arab world, especially in Libya, was a speech that I equated with, at the end, the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and the event that eventful day in Moscow back in 1992 when President Boris Yeltsin stood atop the tank outside the Moscow White House surrounded by 100,000 Russian people and he proclaimed that communism was dead, that the Soviet Union was no longer a nation. This speech was of equal importance because, for 90 minutes, Muammar Qaddafi, the symbol of terrorism throughout the world, the individual who funded the IRA in Ireland, who funded the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, who funded the radical Palestinians and who openly admitted that to his people that night, this speaker told his people that he had been wrong for 25 years. He sat there and he said, we supported all of these terrorist groups. We supported them with our money and with our efforts. And what did it get us? It got us isolation. It got us constant rebuke by nations of the West, Europe, America, and other nations around the world. It brought us sanctions by the U.N. and by America. It isolated us and our economy. He went on to say, we were a major supporter of Nelson Mandela in South Africa when he was imprisoned. But when Nelson Mandela came out of prison, he became a best friend of America. He said, How can Nelson Mandela, the man we supported, be a best friend of America and we be America's enemy? He said, There is something wrong. As we sat there listening along with our European and other friends from around the world, our mouths were open. We could not believe the words he was saying to his own people. He referred to our delegation in the room at least five times; and he said, We are happy to have the Americans here for the first time in 3 decades. But he said, My speech and my decision is not because of the Americans alone. It is because we have decided that what is best for Libya and its people is to destroy and get rid of all of our weapons of mass destruction. And so to his people, after admitting that he had been wrong for 25 years in supporting terrorism, Moammar Kadafi said, We no longer want any weapons of mass destruction; and we are giving it all up to the British, to the Americans, to the U.N. And, in fact, they have done that, Mr. Speaker. We brought back boatloads of materials, nuclear material down at Oakridge which Secretary Abraham showed off to the people of America just a week ago. Nuclear fuel rods back to Russia, chemical agents and precursors, mustard gas that we are now destroying. The material to build weapons of mass destruction were in the hands of Moammar Kadafi; and here he was telling his people, No longer do we need or do we want these kinds of materials. And then he went on to say, Mr. Speaker, in this amazing speech that America was never an enemy of Libya. He said, If America was our enemy, they would have taken us over. When we kicked them out of their military base in Tripoli, they would have stopped us and would have kept their position there, their troops there, and they would have attempted or would have successfully dominated our people and our country; but America did not do that. And so for 90 minutes, Mr. Speaker, in a speech that largely went unheard outside of Libya and the Middle East, which is a terrible tragedy, Moammar Kadafi did a 180 degree turnaround. Amazing, Mr. Speaker. But what was so disappointing is there were no headlines in the paper the next day. In fact, the only Washington reporter in the room that night was a reporter that I was able to get into the country, Ken Timmerman who writes for UPI and the Washington Times. Ken Timmerman on his own, because he could not fly with us on our plane, flew 36 hours and arrived in Libya at 4:00 a.m. in the morning. He went to all of our meetings. Nothing was closed. And I was able to get him a meeting personally with Colonel Kadafi. He asked all the tough questions, and he laid it all out in the Washington Times. But it was not in The Washington Post. It was not in New York Times. It was not in the Philadelphia Enquirer. It was not in the major newspapers of America, Mr. Speaker, this major change put forth by Moammar Kadafi. I would hope it was not because of bias, and I have really criticized the White House for not coming out and taking credit for this dramatic turnaround of our former enemy. The liberals left over from previous administrations are already starting to write their op-eds; it was not because of President Bush's policy. Let me tell the Members, Mr. Speaker, none of those who wrote those op-eds sat where I did for 2\1/2\ hours across the seat from Moammar Kadafi. So all of their rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. I sat across from Moammar Kadafi in his den, and I met with him for 45 minutes alone with his interpreter; and I, Mr. Speaker, as much as anyone else on this planet know what was in Moammar Kadafi's mind when he made the decision. And for those pundits who are today suggesting that it had nothing to do with our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say, Mr. Speaker, they are full of you know what. They are simply attempting to politicize a result that was, to a large extent, caused by the foreign policy of our President. Mr. Speaker, I would grant to those colleagues assembled in our body here that that was not the only reason; but Moammar Kadafi himself told me that he realized that it was not worth the risk of having America come in and do to him what we did to Saddam Hussein. There were other issues. The influence of his 31-year-old son, Saif Islam Al Kadafi, had a major impact on his father. The need for a modernization of the Libyan economy had a major impact. But for someone to say, as various people have done in op-eds running around the country, that the foreign policy of this President had nothing to do with Moammar Kadafi's decision, they are just lying. They are naive. In fact, they are stupid. And I can say that, Mr. Speaker, because I am the only American that has sat across from Moammar Kadafi in the last 2 months, for 2 hours and 45 minutes in one sitting and another hour in a second sitting. I understand what caused the decision. Mr. Speaker, after the speech there was a huge round of applause from the assembled Libyan citizens in the auditorium and again the speech was carried live on Libyan TV; then they ushered our delegation back to the auditorium where they wanted us to greet Colonel Kadafi. Representatives from over 100 nations were following us all over the world. The Chinese had a delegation headed by the leader of their Parliament, the European Parliament, the French Parliament, all the African countries, the Middle Eastern countries, South America, Europe, Russia. They were all there. Even North Korea was there, Mr. Speaker. They put us up at the front of the line, the Americans. I walked up and put my hand out to shake Colonel Kadafi's hand; and I said, Your speech was extremely impressive. I think it will go down in history as a major event that will impact the world. He said, Congressman, I sat in the back in my office in the back of the auditorium and listened to your speech, and I enjoyed it very much. And I said, Would you do me the honor of signing my speech? So, Mr. Speaker, on that night of March 2, after 29 years, Colonel Kadafi, in front of our delegation and those with us from other nations, signed the speech. After he signed the speech, Mr. Speaker, he admired a pin that I had on my lapel. When we travel on CODELs, as all of our colleagues know, we wear the pin of our country and the pin of the flag of the country we are visiting. Our military escorts had given us pins with the American-Libyan flag interconnected. Kadafi admired the one on my lapel. I took it off, and I handed it to him. I said, Here, this is for you. He put it in his hand and thanked me. And his top assistant standing next to him, who is a personal friend of mine, looked at me and said, Congressman, put the pin on his lapel. So, Mr. Speaker, after 29 years of hatred between America and Libya, after bombings and killings that have killed innocent people, Moammar Kadafi wore the pin with the American flag and told us that he would follow through on each and every commitment that he had made to our State Department and to our President. In fact, it was amazing as all the delegations behind us, including the French, had to shake Kadafi's hand while the flag of America emblazoned his lapel. Our delegation, Mr. Speaker, was bipartisan; and our delegation consisted of Democrats and Republicans from throughout the country who were there for this historical evening and this historical speech. It is just a national tragedy, Mr. Speaker, an international tragedy, that the media throughout the world did not cover this event, did not have the photographs, did not have the text of what Moammar Kadafi told his people. But we will tell the story, Mr. Speaker, and we will go around and continue to support this administration in removing the weapons of mass destruction material that Kadafi has been giving us through his government. This week, Mr. Speaker, Majid Al-Mansouri is in America. He is visiting with our leaders. He is interacting with Members of Congress, and he is here as a private citizen but a close adviser to both Prime Minister Ghanem and Saif Islam Al Kadafi to establish contacts with Americans. So I will be calling upon our colleagues in this body to spend some time with Majid Al-Mansouri as he describes in detail the efforts now under way. Secretary Burns visited Libya last week and has begun the formal process of moving toward establishing an embassy in Tripoli and an embassy here in Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is an unbelievable story. I wish the White House would take more credit. Typically, politicians are always taking credit for things they had nothing to do with, and here is our President not even talking about the historical nature of Kadafi's turnaround. That is why I am here tonight, Mr. Speaker. I am here because the American media has not told the story except for the Washington Times and Ken Timmerman. And I am here to tell all those cynics that the turnaround is real. We must encourage this turnaround, continue to support the Lybians as the Kadafi Foundation fights for human rights, fights for the kind of health care needs, fights for the continuation of movement toward free and fair elections that we take for granted sometimes in this country. Two stories, Serbia and Libya, that need to be told in every newspaper in America.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I was dismayed to learn that on March 3, 2004, Ukrainian police shutdown Kontynent, a private radio station, in Kyiv, Ukraine. Four days before the Ukrainian authorities confiscated Kontynent's radio transmitter, the station began broadcasting Ukrainian-language programs by Radio Liberty. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has played a significant role in Ukraine by providing several hours of Ukrainian-language programming to an average of six million regular listeners. RFE/RL offers comprehensive coverage of the internal political, economic and social situation in Ukraine. Such important information is not readily available to Ukrainians from their own domestic media. Mr. Borys Kholod, the head of Ukraine's National Council for Radio and Television, claimed that the closure of Radio Kontynent was not politically motivated. Instead, Mr. Kholod maintains that Radio Kontynent had its license revoked due to Radio Kontynent's financial problems. However, Radio Kontynent has been in court for the past 3 years over the license dispute. It is my understanding that under Ukrainian law, action cannot be taken against the station until the court procedures have been completed. Later this year, Ukraine will elect a new president. Many Ukrainians are concerned that without access to an independent media outlet, the current campaign will not be portrayed in a balanced and objective manner. I believe that Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is essential in this cause and I expressed that in my recent meeting with Ukraine's First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Volodymyr Yel'chenko. He assured me that a resolution is forthcoming and they are currently looking for a radio station to transmit Radio Liberty in the interim. I expect to receive an update on this matter from the Ministry in the near future.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the Radnor Girl Scouts during their visit to our Nation's capital today. The girls and teens, ages 8 to 16, representing 10 girl scout troops and 11 schools, will participate in a program called Tomorrow's Leaders. In addition, the Radnor Girl Scouts have worked with the White House Project, Ms. President Patch for Girl Scouts, an organization that is changing the way people think about women in leadership roles. Girl Scouts of the USA started this new program, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing women's leadership in government at all levels. Girl Scouting was introduced in 1912 as a way to introduce new experiences and adventure to young girls, while helping them develop a positive self-image and important leadership skills. More than ever before, our country needs the support of organizations like the Girl Scouts of America to help build stronger families, neighborhoods, and communities. Those of us in the Seventh Congressional District of Pennsylvania are proud of the example and dedication of the Radnor Girl Scouts and congratulate them on the outstanding work they are doing. During their visit to our Nation's capital, they will learn vital lessons of leadership and service to prepare them to make significant contributions in all aspects of the life of our Nation. Our great Nation will continue to grow and prosper as we uphold and encourage young people, such as the Radnor Girl Scouts, as symbols of hope, possibility, and personal excellence. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Radnor Girl Scouts for their excellent work.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, a group of seven Members of Congress just finished leaving the airplane at Andrews Air Force Base from a 3-day trip to Libya, the second trip that I have led there in 30 days. This trip is one that will go down in history as one of the most historic events that was documented in that country that has been a problem for us over the past 30 years. Mr. Speaker, I was asked by the chairman of the People's Congress of Libya to give a speech at the opening session 2 days ago, which I did. Senator Biden is giving a speech there today. Along with my speech and speeches from the French, the Egyptians, the head of the European Parliament, Colonel Gaddafi rose to the podium and spoke for 90 minutes. He gave what will go down in history, I am convinced, as a speech that will equal the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and the event that had Boris Yeltsin standing alongside the tank outside of the Moscow White House proclaiming that communism was dead because in this 90-minute speech Gaddafi, who has been someone that we have not had any type of relationship with, whose country has admitted to completing the bombing of Pan Am 103, Gaddafi, in front of the 600 people assembled in the auditorium and 100 nations that were in attendance, renounced the actions of Libya over the past 25 years. He admitted to his people that they had been involved in funding terrorist organizations from the IRA in Ireland to the PLA, to the Sandinistas, to other terrorist groups around the world. He admitted that they were involved in crimes, and they had done things for other groups. He rose to the occasion to tell his people that he had come to the conclusion it was time for Libya to abandon these people who no longer were needing of the support of the Libyan people, and whom the Libyan people only suffered from, becoming isolated from the rest of the world. He spoke of the United States and the Pan Am 103 bombing. He said it is a part of history that they want to put behind them after I had said in my speech that we were happy that the Libyans had admitted to that bombing and being responsible for it. We told them that we would never forgive nor forget the actions of their country, but here was Moammar Gaddafi changing not for the international community, but in front of his own people saying it was time for Libya to renounce weapons of mass destruction, and calling for complete and total transparency, calling for other terrorist nations to abandon their weapons of mass destruction, telling them that it is no longer a valid position for countries to take, to encourage and support terrorism throughout the world. Then he said about the United States, the United States does not want to bomb Libya. We are not Libya's enemies. If we wanted to take over their country, we would have done that 27 years ago when they asked us to get out of the military bases we had in their country. He said to his people, America did not fight, they simply left our country as our friends. He said it was only in recent times that we have become an enemy, and he said no longer will Libya be an enemy of the United States; Libya wants to return, to become a friend, they want to attempt as much as possible to join the family of nations and join those multi- national groups in Europe and around the world. They want to become a part of arms control regimes. He even agreed, as I met with the Gaddafi Foundation, that they should look to rejoin efforts like the Vienna Conference that oversees the Helsinki final act guaranteeing basic human rights for all citizens. We talked about human rights, and the fact that Libya was now on a course to set out for their people an effort to clean up the human rights records of the Nation. Mr. Speaker, this speech was not to the world community. The external media was not invited. It was broadcast live throughout Libya. Every television in Libya had this proceeding on for 90 minutes in front of 600 delegates, 100 nations and 7 Members of Congress. Moammar Gaddafi issued the message to the people of the world that Libya had changed dramatically and completely, that Libya was ready now to begin a new chapter. He was very thankful that our delegation was there because he said it showed the Libyan people that America was ready to respond. Senator Biden's speech today will reinforce that. I congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who traveled to Libya. We will be putting a complete report into every Member's office before the end of this week.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to baseball legend, Tug McGraw. Tug McGraw died on Monday, January 5, at the Nashville area home of his son and daughter-in-law, Tim McGraw and Faith Hill. Tug McGraw's life goes far beyond his on-field extensive achievements. He was also a patriot and an ambassador of humanity. When Tug McGraw came to the Phillies in 1974, he brought along his experience as part of the New York Mets. With that team, he coined his rallying cry, ``You gotta believe.'' His shining moment as a Phillie came in the 1980 World Series. In the fifth game, Tug struck out the Royals' Amos Otis with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth to preserve a 4-3 victory. In the sixth and final game, in Philadelphia, Tug squeezed out of bases-loaded jams in the final two innings and got the save to give the Phillies their first World Championship. It was his third World Series save, lifetime and his five League Championship Series saves is a record. He retired with 180 saves. Those who follow baseball know of Tug McGraw's amazing saves and victories, but his life goes far beyond his on-field achievements. I know firsthand how he served his community and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in a major league way for many years. Tug enjoyed the presence of others, being thoroughly human and generous. He was a leader in so many worthwhile projects across our region, including the Scholar Athlete Program, various mentoring programs for at-risk youth and numerous charitable and civic causes. We will all remember and admire his talent on the mound. But of lasting significance is what he did to motivate people, particularly our youth, not only with his time and talent, but also with his laughter and his ability to bring out the best in others. It is what we teach and what we contribute to enriching the lives of those around us that defines our success in life. This is Tug McGraw's lasting legacy. Mr. Speaker, our region has lost not only a baseball legend, but a dear friend. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the McGraw family. Tug McGraw was generous with his gifts throughout his life and exemplified the spirit of service that has made this country great. It is proper to remember and honor a man of such worth and character with great respect for what he accomplished and stood for. We are grateful to have known Tug McGraw, and mourn his passing.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the topic of my Special Order this evening, and I think I will be joined by other Members from both sides, is our recent trip to Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and our military hospital for our troops in Germany. But before I get into my comments about the trip, let me put some specific quotes from Dr. Kay, who has just been referred to by a previous speaker, who made the allegation that Dr. Kay said there was no basis for our activity in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, let me put the actual quote in the Record, not something that is paraphrasing, but the actual quote. In an interview that Dr. Kay conducted on NBC TV, he was asked to comment on whether it was prudent to go to war. Dr. Kay said, ``I think it was absolutely prudent. In fact, I think at the end of the inspection process, we will paint a picture of Iraq that was far more dangerous than we even thought it was before the war.'' Mr. Speaker, that is not me paraphrasing; that is not me summarizing or putting my own spin on what Dr. Kay said. That is a direct quote from Dr. Kay, and the American people and our colleagues need to understand that as we analyze what has been said in the findings of the Kay report, that we actually look at those statements, as opposed to trying to spin them. Some of our colleagues on the other side, especially those running for the Presidency, have tried to put a spin on what Dr. Kay said. It is more important for the American people and for our colleagues to look at in actuality what he said. But, Mr. Speaker, there is one more point I want to make on this whole effort of the spin of Dr. Kay, which ties into our trip, because of the 45 meetings that we held over the 7 days, visiting eight different countries and traveling 25,500 miles in military aircraft, including a military aircraft to get over, a Navy plane, C-130s and Blackhawk helicopters in Iraq, I think the most significant meeting we had was in Iraq, and that meeting was with the individual who is actually responsible for the Iraqi Survey Group, which is actually doing the search for weapons of mass destruction. Now, Mr. Speaker, many of our colleagues in this room and many of the people around America have been convinced by the media that Dr. Kay was in charge of the investigation for weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. Dr. Kay was a consultant to the general who was in charge of the Iraq Survey Group, and that general is a two star general by the name of Keith Dayton. On our trip to Iraq, in Baghdad we were taken to the Fusion Center, where all of the intelligence is brought for the Iraqi Survey Group to do their work, and for 90 minutes members of the Republican Party and the Democrat Party who were a part of my bipartisan delegation had a chance to listen to the actual leader of the inspection process in Iraq give us an update. I want to share with our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, what General Dayton said. First of all, he was perplexed. He was frustrated. He could not understand why David Kay came back to America and made this public report when he had not yet, first of all, talked to the individual who was responsible for the Iraqi inspection process, General Dayton. In fact, all of the individuals that we met who were overseeing the 1,500 people who are involved in the Iraq survey team were equally frustrated. We learned, for instance, that when David Kay left Iraq, he was not entirely happy, because he was dissatisfied that General Dayton had other missions besides the search for weapons of mass destruction and actually had troops assigned to efforts like looking for our POW-MIA Scott Spiker, and also were involved in the anti-terrorism efforts on the ground. David Kay became upset and told this to General Dayton, that there were assets being diverted away from his efforts to look for weapons of mass destruction. That was one of the reasons why David Kay left the Iraqi theater to come back to America. Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that in the American media. I have not heard that story yet brought forward. But the individual in charge of the Iraq Survey Group, General Keith Dayton, told us that when we had our meeting with him in Baghdad. Mr. Speaker, we also learned that Dr. Kay had not been in Iraq for the last several months, during which time he could have had an exchange, an update of the work that was being done by the Iraq Survey Group. So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is essentially important that we take an additional step here. Now, Dr. Kay has issued a report that I think stands on its own and speaks for itself. It does not help when Members of this body or the media or candidates for the Presidency misinterpret what David Kay said. But we need to go beyond that, Mr. Speaker. We need to bring over the individual who was actually responsible for the weapons of mass destruction search in Iraq. That is not Dr. Kay; that is General Keith Dayton. General Dayton has that responsibility, and it is he who oversees those 1,500 people. General Dayton told us that they are in fact enthusiastic about the work they are doing. He explained to us the process now under way to send teams into the rivers of Iraq, the lakes of Iraq, the bodies of water where they have leads that perhaps weapons of mass destruction were dumped, and they are now conducting that search. They also told us, General Dayton and his colleagues, that there are literally millions of pages and volumes of documents that have yet to be searched that can provide leads as to where weapons of mass destruction might be. I can tell you after visiting the ``spider hole'' up in Takrit where Saddam Hussein was holed up for a number of days, that our military personnel went over top of that site a dozen times and never found Saddam Hussein. Now, that hole was rather large. So if we could not find a hole with Saddam in it for 8 or 9 months, then I think we certainly owe it to General Dayton to give him the time to continue the search for the evidence that he thinks in fact his team can come up with. So the point is, Mr. Speaker, that on this meeting in Iraq with the general in charge of the survey team for weapons of mass destruction, we got a clearly different picture from that that is being portrayed by the American media, both in terms of Dr. Kay's report and the spin that has been made on that report. Today, Mr. Speaker, Secretary Rumsfeld appeared before our Committee on Armed Services in the House, and I was the first Member of Congress that was invited to ask questions of Secretary Rumsfeld. I laid all of this out to him, and I asked him if he did not think it was time to do what the famous media person, Paul Harvey, used to say at the end of his stories: and now we will hear the other half of the story. Mr. Speaker, today I requested of Secretary Rumsfeld that Major General Keith Dayton be brought back to America to testify before the Congress about the work that he is directing right now on looking for weapons of mass destruction. Then Members of Congress can ask him about the conditions under which David Kay operated, that he was in fact a consultant to General Dayton. Then we can ask the questions about the circumstances under which Dr. Kay left Iraq. Was there friction? What was that friction? Then we can ask the most important question for the American people of a two star general who is apolitical and is not going to put any kind of a spin on his statement, What is your current effort in Iraq and do you expect and do you anticipate the ability to find weapons of mass destruction over the next several months? I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, what he told us unconditionally is that they are very much into this search. It has not ended; it is not winding down. In fact, they have placed more in the way of assets and resources into the search for weapons of mass destruction. Now, oftentimes in this city we do not pay attention to the facts. We try to spin things. So I think it is extremely important that we bring over General Keith Dayton to give us a firsthand accounting of the search for weapons of mass destruction and to give us the other half of the story to the findings of Dr. Kay, who was a consultant to General Dayton. Mr. Speaker, let me get back to the trip that we took, the bipartisan trip, which in fact was the first trip to Libya by Americans since 1969. My job as a member of the Committee on Armed Services for the past 17 years has been to make sure that we give our military the best equipment, the best technology, and the best training to allow them to continue to be the best military on the face of the Earth, and we have done that. I am a self-described hawk in terms of supporting our military. But, Mr. Speaker, as the vice chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I consider my number one priority to be the avoidance of war, because war has always got to be the last choice, because when we commit our troops to war, then we put America's sons and daughters into harm's way, knowing full well that some or perhaps many of them will not return to their families. So over the past 17 years, while serving on the Committee on Armed Services, making sure our military has the equipment they need, is properly trained, and has the financial support that they deserve, I have spent an equal amount of time on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology and trying to find ways to take those enemies of ours and those would-be enemies of ours and turn them into, if not allies, at least countries that we can work with. My primary focus has been with the former Soviet states, where I have traveled almost 35 times and established a relationship with the parliaments of all of those former nations that were once a part of the Soviet Union. For the past 13 years, with my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), we have co-chaired a formal effort with the Duma in the Russian Government, the legislative body of that country, to establish a close relationship of friends and partners. We have had some ups and downs, but the fact is that we are still working aggressively together. We have done the same thing with Ukraine, with the Rada; with Moldova, with the Parliament; with Georgia, with their Parliament; with Azerbaijan and with Armenia. We have done it with Uzbekistan, and we are now reaching out to other countries that were once a part of the Soviet Union to bring all of those countries into a level of cooperation and understanding with us. Mr. Speaker, the Soviet Union and its republics were the source of much of the technology that ended up in the hands of the Libyans, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the North Koreans and the Syrians. In fact, Mr. Speaker, during the 1990s, I must have given 100 speeches on what we saw occurring on a regular basis, the transfer of technology from Russia and China and those former Soviet states into the hands of those five countries that I just mentioned. Time and again there were violations of arms control agreements. But the response of the administration in the nineties was to pretend we did not see it, because the administration was more concerned with keeping Boris Yeltsin in power, even when the people of Russia had come to believe that he was no longer a credible leader for their nation. Mr. Speaker, we did the same thing in reaching out to other countries, like China, that in fact were heading towards a course of perhaps being an enemy of the U.S.; leading six delegations to that Nation; being the only elected official asked to speak two times at the National Defense University of the People's Liberation Army in Beijing. Finally, Mr. Speaker, last May, after 2 years of planning, I was proud to take the first delegation of Members of Congress, again a bipartisan delegation, into Pyongyang, North Korea, the goal there being to support the President and continuing the dialogue of the six nations to eventually resolve the conflict between North Korea, South Korea and the rest of the world. In fact, Mr. Speaker, following the next round of six-way talks at the end of this month, I will again lead a delegation back into North Korea to continue a positive effort to support our President in finding a peaceful solution to the Korean nuclear crisis, again to avoid war, because of the consequence of putting America's sons and daughters into harm's way. Now, I also fully realize, Mr. Speaker, that that is not always possible, and one case in point was Iraq. We gave Saddam Hussein 18 chances to abide by U.N. resolutions, 18 opportunities to come clean, to basically come forward and tell the world what he had been doing. And the response of Saddam Hussein was to thumb his nose at us and at the rest of the world and to defy the world community. As a result, the President was left with no choice when he asked us to support him in a resolution of war. For the life of me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the logic of those in this body and the leader of France, Jacques Chirac, and the leader of Germany Gerhard Schroeder who criticized President Bush for going into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. Because what is interesting is, just 4 short years ago, many of these same people criticizing President Bush from this body, as well as Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, were the very individuals pushing Bill Clinton into a war in Yugoslavia to remove Milosevic from power. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? When Schroeder and Chirac and some of the Members of this body who are criticizing President Bush pushed Bill Clinton into an armed conflict, they did not go to the U.N. for a resolution, because they knew full well that Russia would veto any such resolution of the Security Council. So what did they do? Bill Clinton, Gerhard Schroeder, and Jacques Chirac, supported by many of those in this body who have been criticizing President Bush, did not go to the U.N. as George Bush did, they went to NATO. Now, Mr. Speaker, NATO is a defensive body. It was organized as a defensive entity to defend Europe and the NATO countries from an attack by a nation like the Soviet Union. NATO was never meant to be an offensive organization. But in 1999, many of those same people, including many of those Democrat candidates for President today, were out there supporting Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder and Bill Clinton in using NATO for the first and only time ever in its history as an offensive invasion force into a non NATO country. So we invaded Yugoslavia. We bombed Serbia. We removed Milosevic, who was a war criminal. But what is so confusing to me, Mr. Speaker, is that those same people who were on Bill Clinton's band wagon to invade Serbia and Yugoslavia because Milosevic was a war criminal, all of a sudden, having supported George Bush, even though he went to the U.N. for the 17th and 18th time, even though Saddam Hussein has been characterized by everyone, from Max Vanderstadt, the U.N. Human Rights Advisor, to Amnesty International as the worst human rights abuser since Adolf Hitler, did not want to support the effort in Iraq. Sounds like politics to me, Mr. Speaker. It does not sound like much consistency or substance. How can you be for removing a war criminal like Milosevic from power and not going through the U.N., but using NATO as an offensive force, and then 4 years later, criticize President Bush after having gone to NATO for the 17th and 18th time, after having given Saddam Hussein every opportunity, and then, in the end, who decided we had to remove this war criminal, this user of weapons of mass destruction, as he did against the Kurds, as he did against the Iranians, from power. It does not make sense to me, Mr. Speaker, unless, of course, you add in the political equation. But again, in that case, I thought the military action was justified, but I would say in the case of North Korea and Libya and perhaps Iran, if we can avoid conflict, we should take every opportunity to explore that to its end. That is why, Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago, at a conference on world energy issues in Houston, Texas, I challenged major international energy corporations to come together and establish an International Energy Advisory Council, to specifically focus on the use of energy as a mechanism to avoid war and as a mechanism to help us solve regional conflicts that could lead to major escalations of war. That group, headed up by Jeffrey Waterers, had an initial meeting in Washington, D.C. in July in the Rayburn Office Building, where Chalabi came over from Iraq and spoke to the energy leaders about Iraq postwar. We had major leaders from the State Department and DOD came into speak, and allowed the energy corporations, including those from Iraq and Iran, to come together and see if energy could not provide a partial solution to the crisis both in Iraq as well as other crises around the world. In October, a second forum was held in London, again attended by all of the major leaders around the world in the energy industry, which I could not attend. But following that meeting, I set up a private meeting with Colonel Gadhafi's son, Saif al Saleem al Gadhafi, a 34- year-old, London-educated, Ph.D. candidate at the London School of Economics, who today is apparently, according to some pundits, in line to succeed his father as the leader of Libya. I wanted to meet this individual, because we had mutual interests, to see whether or not there was a possibility of breaking new ground with Libya politically, of seeing whether or not there would be a movement away from the policies of the past, which I had heard to be rumored back in the middle part of last year, unaware of what was happening with our own private discussions within our government. In January of this year, the meeting with Saif al Gadhafi took place. He and I had a long discussion. We talked about Libya's past relationship with the U.S. and the West. We talked about the horrible bombings, the terrible tragedy of Lockerbie, the bombings in Berlin, the linkage of Libyan state-sponsored terrorism, and I told Saif, we can never forgive and never forget. Likewise, he told me it was difficult for he and his father to forget that we had bombed their home and in fact killed his 1\1/2\ year old sister. But we both said it was time to look to the future as opposed to the past. But Saif was one who was looking to settle the past problems with the Lockerbie victims' families, to look at putting to rest those issues where Libya had done horrible things, and that perhaps it was time to move into a new direction. So he invited me to bring a delegation of our colleagues to Tripoli. I said I would gladly take that invitation. Two days later, a formal written invitation came to my office in Washington from the chairman of the People'S Congress in Libya, inviting me to bring a delegation in. We secured a military plane and we decided our trip would involve not just Libya, but a trip that the White House had been encouraging me to take with Members to Iraq and Afghanistan. So the plane was secured, and from the Speaker's list of Members who were asked to go to Libya and Afghanistan, we assembled a delegation, a bipartisan delegation, including my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) who would have been here tonight, but he had a death of a close friend and is down back in his district; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), a Democrat; the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander), a Democrat; the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), a Republican; the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), a Republican; the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a Republican; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), a Republican. The gentlemen from California (Mr. Gallegly) and (Mr. Issa) joined us the day before we left. They were not a part of the delegation going on to Iraq and Afghanistan; they only joined us for the Libyan portion of the trip. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, any Member of Congress could have come with us on that trip into Libya. We had over 100 empty seats on our aircraft. So any Member of Congress could have joined us if they had just called and expressed an interest, as the gentlemen from California did the day before we left. Mr. Speaker, our trip to Libya and the other countries was exhausting. As I mentioned earlier, we traveled 25,500 miles, we visited 8 countries, and we had 45 meetings. Members of our delegation on some nights got less than 2 hours sleep. When we arrived in Kuwait, before going into Iraq, we arrived at 4 o'clock in the morning from our plane, got to our hotel and had to be up at 6 o'clock in the morning for the military to take us into Baghdad. So I want to congratulate the members of the delegation that were on this trip because of their outstanding service to the country in performing an extremely difficult task, completing the mission that we set out for ourselves. But I want to talk specifically about what we actually did and, in the end, I will ask to put our trip report in the Congressional Record. We did not know what to expect in Libya, Mr. Speaker, because no one had been there from our country for the past 35 years. We were not sure what the response would be. In fact, we were told by the White House and the National Security Council that the Libyans did not want any presence of the U.S., they certainly did not want to see the flag flown, and they did not want America in any way displayed because it would upset the people of the country. In fact, up until the 11th hour, they did not want us to land our military plane at the Tripoli Airport. How wrong they were. When we arrived in Tripoli, Mr. Speaker, and our plane pulled up to the tarmac, the number one spot in front of the air terminal at the main Tripoli Airport, there was a whole core of individuals from the leadership of Libya waiting to meet us. Officials from the government of the country, the foreign ministry, the people's Congress, all out there welcoming the Americans back to their nation. In fact, there was a huge media entourage, TV cameras, reporters who were there to ask us questions about why we were there and to follow us through our initial meeting which was held in the lobby of the Tripoli Airport. The welcome was unbelievable; unbelievably positive. As we sat down and talked about our agenda for the 2 days we were going to be there, I had asked for less than a dozen meetings. Mr. Speaker, not only was every meeting that I asked for granted to us, but they even went beyond and gave us meetings we had not asked for. We met with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Vice Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the minister in charge of removing weapons of mass destruction from Libya. We met with the foundation established by Saif al Gadhafi, the same foundation overseeing the refunding of the money that is owed to those victims' families of the Lockerbie disaster. We met at the largest university in Libya, Al Fateh University, which has 75,000 students. We met with the leaders of the Libyan-American Friendship Society, which was started in 2000, where 400 people waited for 3 hours for us to arrive in this large tent to welcome us openly with American flags flying outside of the tent and inside of the tent, with children dressed up in colorful costumes to sing for us, with young people reciting poetry for us and speeches welcoming America back to Libya. Everyplace we went, Mr. Speaker, every person we met, every group we talked to was hungry and starving for a new positive relationship with America. In fact, during our first day in downtown Tripoli, I asked the delegation to break away with me to go on an unplanned event, to walk 3 or 4 blocks away from the hotel, and to go into the marketplace, the old city, the shopping district, where hundreds of shops and local stores are there for the Libyan citizens to buy their materials, their clothing, their housewares, their pots and pans, and the things that they need for their own lives. The delegation walked together, without any preannouncement, without guards around us, without any advanced alert, and we went through the marketplace. Every person we met in the Libyan marketplace in downtown Tripoli was positive. They came up to us, they shook our hands. A young 10-year-old, when the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) said, Hi, how are you, said back to her, I am fine, how are you? And she said, You speak excellent English. He said, I have been practicing in school. We met shopkeepers, an elderly gentleman who was pounding the copper, making pots, who looked up and said, We are glad to have you in our country. We hope it is a new beginning. Everyone we met on the streets of Tripoli, Mr. Speaker, were positive toward America. It overwhelmed us. It was not what we expected, it was not what we were told to expect by our own government back here in our country. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Members sitting around the table at the university with the President of the Al Fateh University and about 25 of his department heads; and remember, this is a 75,000 student university, they have major programs in medicine, in law, in health care, in science, in technology, in education, in environment and agriculture. As he went around the room, each of these department heads, all of whom spoke excellent English, give us their background and what department they headed. It was unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. All but two of them were educated here in America. They told us what schools they attended: UCLA, Princeton, Colorado, Michigan, University of Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Georgia, all the major schools of our country. And they told us of their longing to once again reestablish ties with the American educational system and with the American people. In fact, one of the professors at the University, professor of English, Dr. T. T. Tarhuui, wrote a poem entitled ``Members of Congress,'' which I will enter into the Record when I place our trip report in at the end so the American people and our colleagues can read the poem he wrote for our visit. So the response by the people and the leaders of Libya was unbelievably and overwhelmingly positive. In fact, we asked to see a weapons of mass destruction site. Not only did they take us to their nuclear complex but we had full access to their 10 megawatt research reactor which they opened to look into and to understand what they were doing with radio isotopes and discuss with them their nuclear program; but before we went to that site, they had us sit down with the minister who was in charge of the entire program to allow the IAEA and the U.S. and Great Britain to remove the weapons of mass destruction from that nuclear site and from Libya. In fact, much of that removal took place the same week that we were in Libya on a separate military aircraft. But perhaps the most interesting meeting in Libya was with Colonel Qadafi. We did not know what to expect. We were taken to his residence that we had bombed in 1986. We saw the devastation still evident. We saw the lessons and the stories about his daughter who was killed. And we were then brought to another part of the complex where there was a large outdoor tent. We were led in and sat down on the sofas arranged in a semi-circle manner and awaited the arrival of Colonel Qadafi. About 5 minutes later, he came into the tent in his glowing purple robed outfit with his hat on, shook our hands, smiled and sat down. And for 2 hours we had a discussion among the group. And then I had a private session with him for 30 minutes. In the trip report, Mr. Speaker, are the very quotes that Colonel Qadafi made to our group as transcribed by both our staff director, Doug Roach, and our military escort. We had two separate note takers in that meeting. It was a very solemn meeting with Qadafi. For the first 25 or 30 minutes he talked to us in a very low tone, a very deliberate tone. And he said, You know, I am so happy that you are here, he said, but my question is why has it taken over 30 years for someone from your country to sit down with me and talk to me? I could understand if you met with me and you had problems because I had done something wrong, some terrible act, but if you would have met with me and talked with me and then felt that I was lying, you would have been justified in bombing me. But you did not talk to me for over 30 years. He said, You do not understand the Libyan people. We understand America. We studied all about it. And I would ask you to help me in my effort to reestablish that relationship with your country. Now, Mr. Speaker, we made no apologies to Colonel Qadafi. We let him and his leaders know that the past actions of his government and some of his people were outrageous and will never be forgiven nor forgotten. But we also said it is time to move into a new direction. We praised him personally for the public statements that he has made about his willingness to remove his weapons of mass destruction and about his willingness to turn over a new page in a relationship with the West. He talked about his country's coming into the arms control regimes that for decades they have not been a part of. And for that we thanked him. And we said to Colonel Qadafi, Your words are important and we praise them, but words will not carry the day. You must show us with your actions that you truly are serious with removing the weapons of mass destruction, about changing the ways of the past, about working with us on the problem of terrorism, about rooting out those cells that exist in your country, and about laying down a new foundation for the future. We told him that we would judge Libya and their colonel's comments based on substance as opposed to words and dialogue. But we also told him that if that process continued that we were sure that one day a normalization of relations would occur. And when that day came, we in the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, were prepared to help our President establish a new relationship with the people and the institutions of Libya. Our meetings with Qadafi were productive, were candid, and were designed to convey a positive message of support for the leadership of our President in stating that Libya has become a model of moving in the right direction away from terrorism. One of the things that Colonel Qadafi said to us was that he was taking tremendous heat from the other Arab leaders in the region who were making fun of him, who were criticizing him and calling him because of his decision to renounce weapons of mass destruction. And his concern was that America not abandon him if, in fact, he continues to do the kinds of things that have happened over the past several weeks with both the IAEA, Great Britain, and the United States. So, Mr. Speaker, I think our trip to Libya was extremely positive. We were not there to become a patsy for anyone. We were not there to try to brush over what has happened in the past. We were there to do what I said earlier is my top job as the vice chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, to avoid another war, to find a way not to appease anyone, but to continue on the path that our President has laid down, to turn a former terrorist nation, a nation that has been involved in state-sponsored activity in a new direction to becoming friends with the U.S. The second part of our trip moved us to Iraq. We had amazing meetings with the troops. We had time with Ambassador Bremer, with General Sanchez. We asked them to give us updates on the troops' activities, on the stability inside of that country. We had a meeting with Dr. Pachachi, who is the leader of the governing council. We had several of his colleagues there with us as we talked about the plan to hand Iraq over to his people. And he thanked us for that support. We assured him that America was there for the long haul; and that even though the political rhetoric of this election year will cause Democrats and Republicans to criticize each other, that we were not going to as Americans abandon what we had started in Iraq. We then went out with the troops, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned we talked at length with the Iraq survey team. I will not review that because I did it at the beginning of my Special Order. But we went out and had other meetings as well in Iraq. In fact, we traveled up to Tikrit. We went in a C-130, and we saw the terrible trauma that our C-130 pilots are under as they have to evasively fly into airports to do unbelievable maneuvers so they can avoid the surface-to-air missiles that still exist in Iraq. On the ground up in the Tikrit area, we were able to take Blackhawk helicopters out into the troop areas to meet with troops, to go to the spider hole where Saddam had been holed up, to visit with our Special Forces. In fact, we were able to be a part of a ceremony as one of our young Special Forces, Mr. Reyes, Sergeant Reyes, reenlisted. We became a part of that ceremony to honor him for his commitment to our country. We had a tremendous interaction with the general in charge of the 4th Infantry Division, General Odierno, who gave us a personal update as to the encounters that were taking place on a daily basis. In fact, I had a very moving experience there with General Odierno because one of my constituents, a 24-year-old young man who I had nominated to West Point, was killed in an attack back in the latter part of 2003. As General Odierno was describing to us some of the attacks on his troops, he talked about a young 24-year-old that he had come to know, an outstanding leader whose convoy was attacked, whose troops came under heavy fire, who himself was hit, and in spite of his own injuries, continued to protect and save the lives of at least one and possibly two other soldiers before his life was snuffed out. As the general talked, and as I described to him the 24-year-old that I had nominated to West Point, the general asked me his name. And I said Bernstein. He said Congressman, that is who I was talking about. He went to school with my son at West Point. I happen to have a 3-page letter with me from Lieutenant Bernstein's parents thanking me for the praise we had acknowledged for him to his family, including comments from those who knew the lieutenant, who had been touched by him during his brief life. I gave a copy of that letter to the general. He was very moved and presented me with the unit coin which I will present to the Bernstein family in remembrance of their son, a brave American hero. Our visit with the troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Uzbekistan was to assess what they needed. We came back with the idea that they need more linguistic support, they need more UAVs, and we need better benefits and support for our Guard and Reservists who are serving so well. And that message was conveyed throughout the trip. In leaving Iraq, we went to Islamabad and then flew into Afghanistan into the capital city of Kabul where we met with King Zahir Shah to assess his continuing role as the leader of that country, someone who helped us get the Afghanis to convene Aloya Jirga to bring together the leaders to establish a constitutional government. In following the meeting with King Zahir Shah, we met with the leader of the government of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai. He talked to the success only made possible by the leadership of the United States. In between we met with more of our troops. Then we flew from Kabul up to our K2 base in Uzbekistan, a former Soviet military site where we spent a day and a half with the troops. Each member of our delegation walked through the wards. We went to the bedsides of those soldiers, some who had shrapnel wounds, some who had been shot in the leg, some who had piercings of the eyes, some who had skin diseases. And we told them that they were our heroes. We met with those that were on the way out in transition, that were coming back to the States. In fact, we offered seats to 12 of those young soldiers who came back with us to America and then were taken to the Army medical facility here in Washington, D.C. for further treatment and eventual transport back to their districts. We had two town meetings in the military base in K2. As we stayed overnight, we had dinner one night and breakfast the next morning with the troops. And during the evening and the morning, we had town meetings to allow the troops to tell us what was on their minds. They told us the good things and bad things; but without any question, Mr. Speaker, the morale of our troops in every visit we made was overwhelmingly positive. They knew why they were there. They were positive for being there. And they were happy that we came. We delivered 10,000 Valentine's cards, made by schoolchildren all over America. We delivered 25 cases of Tasty Cakes so the troops could get a fresh taste of America and the treats that come from my hometown city of Philadelphia. We even brought over shirts from the Philadelphia Eagles. Unfortunately, not many wanted them because the Eagles had lost a terribly embarrassing game before in the playoffs, but we gave them out anyway. Mr. Speaker, our trip was an overwhelming success. I am proud of those Members of Congress that went on this journey to try to improve relations with these nations, with these emerging democracies, and the conversion of this former arch enemy of ours. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for whatever time he would like to consume, one of the stars on this trip. He was the only member of the delegation not on the Committee on Armed Services, the other five were; but he is a strong supporter of our military and, more importantly, he is the chairman of the oversight committee that oversees all of our anti-narcotics and abuse efforts worldwide. He has been a leader in helping the President and the administration deal with the problems of narcoterrorism, and he and his staff were there to specifically focus on that issue, and he did it extremely well at every stop. But it was a pleasure to have him with us. He has traveled in the past with me to Russia. And I was proud to have him as a colleague on this trip.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to add a comment about the role of this body and members of foreign policy. There are some who say that Members of Congress should not travel overseas or travel to countries that we are having problems with. I will say that is absolutely, totally wrong. There are some within the State Department who take offense to the fact that Members of Congress will travel to countries like this. Let me say to my colleagues in this body, many of you will be here for 10 years or 20 years. If you focus on one country or a group of countries, you will have far more opportunities to specialize in that country than a State Department official who spends 3 years in one post and moves on someplace else. There is a very real and substantive role for Members of Congress to play, and we must play it. This is not a case where the executive branch controls everything and we are just subservient to them. We are an equal part of the Federal Government, and we have the responsibility because we appropriate the dollars, we levy the taxes, and we oversee the way the money is spent, to travel to these countries, to open doors, to look for new ways to establish relationships, and to support the administration, which we did on this trip as we have on every major trip. But there is a role for the Congress to play. I am convinced that Members of Congress can play an extremely constructive role because we do not have to act as diplomats. We do not have to watch how we sit, how we sip our tea, what words did we use, because we are not representing the President. We are not representing the Secretary of State. We are representing ourselves. The members of Congress on this CODEL, as it has been on every CODEL that I have been a part of, did a fantastic job on behalf of America. Mr. Speaker, I would like to at this point in time place the trip report in the Record, filed as a part of our process as we do for every trip that gives the American people and our colleagues a complete, factual understanding of what we did, where we went and how we represented our country. I am proud of this delegation, Democrats and Republicans alike, opening new doors to help in the security of not just America but of all those countries that want peace around the world. Congressional Delegation (CODEL) Weldon to Libya, Tunisia, Kuwait, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Germany--January 25-31, 2004 Summary A bipartisan congressional delegation (CODEL) led by Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA), traveled to Tripoli, Libya; Tunis, Tunisia; Kuwait City, Kuwait; Baghdad, Balad Air Base, and Ad Dawr, Iraq; Islamabad, Pakistan; Kabul, Afghanistan; Karshi Kharnabad (``K2''), Uzbekistan; and Ramstein Air Base and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany January 25-31, 2004. The delegation met with the leadership of Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraqi Governing Council representatives, the former Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States, reviewed U.S. military operations and visited personnel supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in Kuwait and Iraq and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. The delegation included: Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA) Representative Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) Representative Steve Israel (D-NY) Representative Rodney Alexander (D-LA) Representative Candice Miller (R-MI) Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA) Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) A listing of the complete delegation and key personnel contacted at each location is provided at attachments 1 and 2, respectively. Libya, January 25-26 The delegation was the first bipartisan congressional delegation to meet with Colonel Moammar Gaddafi in 35 years. Fourteen other meetings were held with senior ministry, legislative, educational, and charitable foundation officials. The discussions with Colonel Gaddafi and all other senior leaders were extraordinarily positive regarding the potential for normalized relations between Libya and the U.S. The delegation encouraged the Libyan leader to follow through on his encouraging public statements regarding elimination of Libyan weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, with swift, verifiable elimination of those programs. Further, the delegation spoke with Libyan leaders regarding numerous public and private cooperative science, technology, environmental, health care, economic development, and energy- related programs that could be developed and instituted immediately upon normalization of relations. The delegation also delivered introductory letters from American University students to students of Al Fateh University in Tripoli. Colonel Gaddafi thanked Chairman Weldon for making the visit possible: ``coming at a very critical time''--observing that he wished that ``such a meeting could have taken place thirty years ago'' and stating his hope ``to be able to compensate for what we missed.'' He commented at length on the need for countries to communicate and engage in dialogue before taking up arms against one another. He denied any responsibility for the night club bombing in 1986 that led to the U.S. bombing of Libya and the death of his step daughter: ``For 30 years we haven't discussed anything with each other . . . taking the wrong approach right from the beginning, with wars, losses, damage, loss of valuable time, without a good, specific reason for doing so . . . The picture of Gaddafi (in the U.S.) is not a real one. When I took the decision on elimination of weapons of mass destruction, I did it for my people, out of conviction . . . If I had the atomic bomb I would put it on the table. There is no reason for Libya and the United States not to have good relations. The right course is the one you have taken: to come here and meet . . . the policies were wrong in the past. We can't rectify such wrongs . . . We have to compensate for what we have missed. . . I highly value your visit because it is necessary that you know us very well. Because once you know us well, then you will take the appropriate policy decisions.'' He further commented regarding what he believed to be a lack of knowledge in the U.S. about Libya's government: ``Americans don't even know the governing system in Libya. We know the governing system in the U.S.: the White House, the NSC (National Security Council), Congress . . . We know about the Pentagon. We know about the newspapers, one by one. We even know the writers. We know names of companies and specializations. Nevertheless, Americans don't know anything about our congresses, peoples' committees, revolutionary committees, social structure, leadership, or anything about the Green Book.'' Colonel Gaddafi also mentioned criticism from Arab countries he said was aimed at Libya for deciding to eliminate its WMD programs: ``In the past year there have been bad mediators. Tunisia, Egypt and other Arab countries see it as not in their best interest for Libya and the United States to have good relations. These countries are benefiting from the embargo and seek a continuation of the embargo for their own interests. How would you expect them to work for good relations between Libya and America? The Arabs are waging a fierce campaign against us for deciding to get rid of WMD. I hope they are not successful in taking revenge against us. I hope that even Libyans are not sorry for taking such a step. It all depends on your supporting us. It does deserve support and encouragement so that Libyans won't be disappointed.'' Chairman Weldon stated that before coming to Libya the delegation had been told by U.S. officials of the positive attitude taken by Libyans in cooperating with the survey of Libyan WMD programs and initial steps to eliminate WMD programs: ``There is no doubt in my mind that your policies and leadership will lead to normalized relations between our countries. Even President Bush, in his recent State of the Union message, mentioned Libya as a model for other countries. You have to understand that President Bush has been criticized by elements of our society for calling Libya a model, just as you have been criticized by Arab leaders who want to see Libya and America stay apart.'' Chairman Weldon indicated that normalization of relations between the two countries would permit initiatives to be undertaken between the Libyan General Peoples' Congress and the U.S. Congress, much like has been done with the Russian Duma and other parliaments, to further governmental and non- governmental cooperation between peoples of the two countries, leading to better understanding, peaceful cooperation, and providing for a better quality of life for all peoples: ``The path forward will not be easy, good things have to be worked for . . . I am convinced that if we work as hard on our side as you have on your side, we can start a new chapter in our relationship, without make judgments about your country or your culture, but to work together, as partners.'' Kuwait-Iraq, January 26-28 The delegation traveled to Baghdad to meet with and receive updates from L. Paul Bremer, Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority; General Sanchez, Commander, Joint Task Force Seven; the Iraq Survey Group, responsible for the search for weapons of mass destruction; representatives of the primary factions of the Iraqi Governing Council; and the Deputy Commanding General, 1st Armored Division, responsible for the security of Baghdad. Four members of the delegation met with Sheik Saud al Sabah, former Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States, to renew acquaintances and discuss the general political, economic, and military situation in the region. Sheik Sabah has personally established a fund for families of U.S. military personnel killed in the 1991 Gulf War. Coalition Provisional Authority Ambassador Bremer indicated that work continues on formulating the strategic framework for Iraqi security, its economy, and political transition. He noted that while the security situation had improved, there still exists a major terrorist threat. He further stated that the ``consumption economy'' is working well, but structural problems exist, largely due to the distorting economic effects of five cents a gallon gasoline. The focus is in getting capital into the economy. Work continues, as well, on the transition to a National Assembly by July 1, 2004. Differences within the Governing Council and among the general populace on the selection of delegates by caucus or direct election continue to cause significant debate and public demonstrations. Ambassador Bremer noted that an announcement is due in the near future from the United Nations on its recommendations on elections in Iraq based on the results of a study completed by a visiting United Nations team.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, converting Cold War military technology to serve peaceful purposes was the subject of a conference which took place last month in my State of Pennsylvania. Taking place in Philadelphia, the conference was entitled ``Partnership for Prosperity & Security'' and was hosted by U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and his Russian counterpart, Minister Alexander Rumyantsev. As the op-ed below by Kempton Jenkins describes, it was a showcase of new technology products in fields ranging from energy, nanotechnology and healthcare to detection technologies for counter- terrorism. It was an important demonstration of the power of cooperation between our two countries and I recommend the article to my colleagues. [From American/Russian Business Today, Dec. 2003] ``Guns to Plowshares'' and Nuclear Non-proliferation: The U.S.-Russian Partnership (By Kempton Jenkins) While developments in Iraq dominate headlines and newscasts, the threat to civilization itself of nuclear proliferation is both real and urgent. Diplomatic collaboration between Moscow and Washington in dealing with North Korea and Iran is central to containing this threat. In the long-run, cooperation between the United States and Russia in harnessing our huge Cold War stockpiles (and the brain power which produced them) is the only way to remove this threat to both of us and the rest of the world. Last month in Philadelphia U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and his Russian counterpart, Minister Alexander Rumyantsev, chaired a conference entitled ``Partnership for Prosperity & Security.'' It was dedicated to accelerating cooperation between Russia and the U.S. on proliferation policy and promoting the continued conversion of military- industrial capacity to serve peaceful purposes. Dramatic progress, largely unnoticed publicly, has already been accomplished. At the conference, Secretary Abraham and Minister Rumyantsev announced important new initiatives. The Philadelphia conference drew attention to a number of health-related products that are byproducts of the bilateral effort to convert military technologies to civilian uses. The event was a showcase of new technologies from Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan to potential U.S. industry partners and financiers. The conference's exhibition hall displayed 100 high-technology products ready for commercialization in fields ranging from energy (coal, oil, gas, nuclear and fuel cell) and radio pharmaceuticals to aerospace, nanotechnology and detection technologies for counter-terrorism. The U.S. Department of Energy, in collaboration with U.S. Industry Coalition, has already helped form more than 100 commercial partnerships between U.S. companies and Russian, Ukrainian, and Kazakhstan institutes and private companies to bring new (and heretofore inaccessible technologies) to the global market. In 1991, a small New Mexico engineering company recognized the commercial potential in a Russian radar technology and embarked on a successful partnership to develop applications in energy and land mine detection. With a team of more than 100 weapons scientists and engineers in the Russian city of Nizhny Novgorod, Stolar Horizon has developed ``Horizon Sensor'' radar mapping, a technique allowing cleaner, more efficient access to coal, methane gas and oil. The same technology is being developed for humanitarian purposes by Stolar Horizon and SPEKTR Conversia in the closed nuclear city of Snezhinsk. The ``EDIT'' detector is able to locate both metal and plastic land mines--an urgently needed tool in the global effort to find and disable tens of thousands of land mines. Persons confined to wheelchairs due to disease or accidents are susceptible to pressure ulcers--painful, sometimes-deadly infections caused by lack of circulation and motion. Health care costs associated with treatment are estimated at $8 billion in the U.S. alone. Numotech, a small California medical devices firm with an FDA-approved automated wheelchair seat cushion proven to prevent these sores, was facing significant engineering production problems when the company was introduced to the Russian SPEKTR Conversia in 1999. Today the resulting U.S.-Russian partnership is planning the launch next year of the ``Generic Total Contact Seat,'' with components engineered and manufactured in Russia. Needle-free injections are performed for mass inoculations and immunizations, but they also pose the risk of spreading disease. With decades of experience in needle-less technology, scientists at the medical research group of the Voronezh missile plant in Russia developed a disposable cap with an impermeable membrane. Their paper about this development caught the attention of Felton International, an animal injection company in Lenexa, Kansas, which is now in partnership with CADB MedEquipment to manufacture the ``Pulse 2000'' injector for animal use and human clinical trials in the U.S. Just as the expanding U.S.-Russian partnership is replacing military-industrial confrontation with peaceful product development, there is reason for optimism that Russo-American collaboration can also prevail over the threat of nuclear conflagration in the future.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness and tremendous gratitude to honor the life of a brave young man, First Lieutenant David R. Bernstein, who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. He died on Saturday, October 18, 2003, when his patrol was ambushed in Taza, Iraq. First Lieutenant Bernstein was just 24 years old. For me, the news of David's death was particularly shocking and hard to bear. I had the honor and privilege to nominate this fine young man to the United States Military Academy at West Point, a nomination that he accepted and fulfilled with exceptional honor, ability and accomplishment. First in his class at Phoenixville High School, where he excelled in swimming as well as academics, David was the Valedictorian of his High School Class of 1997. Upon entering West Point, he continued on his path of personal excellence by maintaining an arduous schedule of academics, training and sports, activities that distinguished him, and earned him the respect and admiration of his superior officers, instructors, and fellow cadets at the Academy. He graduated 5th in his class at West Point, and was one of the brightest stars among an incredible constellation of talent that graduated from the Academy in 2001. Soon after graduation from West Point, David volunteered for Army Ranger School. He excelled there, acquiring additional skills and advanced training, and became Ranger qualified. Having a pick of assignments based on his standing at West Point, David chose duty close to the hot spots in the world, and joined the Army's 173rd Airborne Infantry Brigade, the storied ``911 squad'' of Europe, headquartered at Camp Ederle in Italy. As a member of the 1st of the 508th Regiment of the 173rd, Lieutenant Bernstein, parachuted into Northern Iraq in the early morning darkness on March 27 of this year, one of only approximately 1,000 soldiers from the 173rd sent to secure the Bashur airfield in the north of Iraq. As those who followed the war well know, this small band of soldiers performed magnificently and heroically behind enemy lines to establish the important ``second front'' in the struggle to liberate Iraq and the world from the grip of Saddam Hussein. This brave and gifted officer shouldered the burdens of command with uncommon ability, intelligence and grace. He was a natural leader who inspired those in his command, always leading by example and with an unwavering commitment and dedication to his men and to the service of his country. He last spoke with his parents, Richard and Gail Bernstein, only a week before his death. The call was brief, lasting less than 10 minutes, because of the long line of soldiers waiting their own turn. In that short call David told his parents of the pride he felt for his men and their mission. He also conveyed his own sense of pride in being able to answer the call of duty by serving as an Army officer. As his father has said, David was ``a soldier who appreciated serving his country.'' In his final moments, even though mortally wounded and under continuous enemy fire, Lieutenant Bernstein maneuvered his way to the driver's seat of his Humvee and moved the vehicle off of a soldier in his command who was trapped under its wheels and badly wounded. His unselfish act of bravery likely saved the life of his comrade. All of Pennsylvania mourns the loss of this brave and good young man who will be laid to rest this Friday, October 31, 2003 at West Point. Our hearts go out to his parents, Richard and Gail, to his sister Michelle, to his brother Doug, and to all of his friends and loved ones. Mr. Speaker, First Lieutenant David R. Bernstein, exemplified the spirit of service that has made this nation great. It is proper to remember and honor a man of such worth and character with great respect for what he stood for. Our pride in David shall live on--his life, his courage, his sacrifice and strength of character. The example of his citizenship and dedication to duty will be his enduring legacy. Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in honoring the memory, life and service of First Lieutenant David R. Bernstein, and in sending our heartfelt condolences to his family, his friends, and community.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, 37 times in the 1990s President Clinton put our troops in harm's way. Thirty-seven times. In none of those cases were we asked to pay the money up-front. Eleven times the Congress, led by the Republican side, gave the money that President Clinton wanted to pay for those 37 deployments after the fact. Eleven emergency supplementals. Eleven times. We also cut the Defense budget by $43 billion to pay for those deployments. Where is the consistency? None of those deployment costs, none of them, were made in the form of loans. All of them were allocations directly from the appropriations by this body. I say to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we did it 37 times for President Clinton. Thirty-seven times we voted for those supplementals to support those deployments. This time we need to fund the support for President Bush and to solve the problem in Iraq.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his leadership, and I look forward to this debate. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make one simple point. From the period of time in the 1990s, starting with President Bush, Sr., and continuing through President Clinton, our troops were deployed 149 times around the world. Many of these deployments were considered minor deployments. But of the 149 deployments that President Clinton and President Bush got us into, President Bush, Sr., 38 were considered major deployments. One of those deployments, which President Bush, Sr. got us into, was Desert Storm. And he went out, with no requirement legislatively by this body, and was able to bring in over $50 billion of reimbursements from our allies after Desert Storm was over. There was no mandate. There was no loan. He did it. The other 37 deployments, Mr. Chairman, which President Clinton got us into, which includes Macedonia, East Timor, Somalia, Haiti, Colombia, Kosovo, Bosnia, all of those were paid for after the fact. The President inserted the troops in harm's way, and we were left to foot the bill. Now, what was the cost of that? Mr. Chairman, those deployments cost well in excess of what we are talking about today. In fact, we passed, under the Republican leadership, 11 emergency supplementals funding President Clinton's deployments after the fact. Eleven. Eleven emergency supplementals. And we cut the defense budget by $43 billion to put that money into those deployments. All of those supplementals and those cuts in defense spending, which in a bipartisan way we replaced, were to fund what kinds of activities, Mr. Chairman? Well, let us see. We subsidized the troops for other countries, we paid for OSCE observers, we built hundreds of new schools, we trained police departments in these countries, we bought fire engines and sent the fire engines overseas, and we started small businesses. All of those expenditures were funded by the Republican Congress in support of a Democrat President who had gotten us into 37 major deployments. There was no loan. There was no situation where my colleagues on the other side or this side stood up and said, well, Macedonia should pay us back, Colombia should pay us back, or East Timor should pay us back, or Bosnia, where we have spent $25 billion and where we were told we would be out of by Christmas of 1996. None of that money was offered in the form of a loan. All of that came out of the taxpayers' pockets. So, Mr. Chairman, I do not understand how all of a sudden, because the President does a legitimate thing, the honorable thing, and tells us up front how much it is going to cost to do the same things we funded in the entire period of the 1990s, how we can say that somehow this is different. Do I hope that President Bush will negotiate our allies reimbursing us? Absolutely. I hope he will do what his father did in 1991 and what President Clinton did not do in those other 37 deployments. It should not be a mandate. We should fund the President's request and it should be bipartisan, and the Democrats and Republicans in this body and the other body should come together and do what we did time and again in paying for President Clinton's deployments. We should fund this provision, we should support the base bill, and we should oppose the Obey amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding time to me, and I rise just to make one point to my colleagues and friends, and that is, to compare what we are being asked to do today with what we have done since I have been in this Congress for 17 years. Mr. Chairman, President Bush, with the strong support of both parties and both bodies, agreed to commit us to end the reign of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and to aid in removing the Taliban in Afghanistan, and we committed to that effort with a great vote in both bodies. This is much like what happened during the previous 8 years under President Clinton when he requested us to deploy our troops 38 times in 8 years. I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the fact that in the previous 40 years, from 1950 to 1990, all the Presidents combined deployed our troops 10 times. In the 8 years from 1991 until 1999, 2000, largely under President Clinton, our troops were deployed 38 times. One of those deployments, actually under President Bush, Senior, in Desert Storm, was actually reimbursed $51 billion from our allies. In the other 37 deployments, Mr. Speaker, this Congress, largely controlled by the Republican party, gave President Clinton the money that he needed for every deployment. Let us look at some of those deployments. They were in Somalia, East Timor, Macedonia, Cambodia, Colombia, Bosnia. In fact, Mr. Speaker, here is the irony of what we are debating today. Eleven times we have approved supplementals in the 1990s for President Clinton, after the fact, to reimburse our military for the costs that we spent for the deployments that he got us into, 11 supplementals. In addition, Mr. Chairman, we cut our Defense budget so bad that Democrats and Republicans on this floor restored $43 billion over 6 years that had to be put in because those moneys went from our military budget to subsidize the deployments. What did we deploy in the 1990s? Let us see, Mr. Chairman. We subsidized troops from other countries and Kosovo and Bosnia and Macedonia. We paid for OSCE inspectors. We built hundreds of schools. Mr. Chairman, during the 1990s, under President Clinton, this Congress built hundreds of schools. In fact, we did more than build hundreds of schools. We trained police forces. We trained and equipped local police forces. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we used taxpayer money to send fire trucks to Sarajevo. We paid for fire equipment. We rebuilt countries. In fact, in addition, we started small business loans. All of these things were done with 11 supplementals for the 37 deployments that President Clinton got us into, but Mr. Chairman, there is one difference. President Clinton never came up to us in advance and said this is what it is going to cost. He simply put the troops in harm's way. He started the process of building the schools, training the police departments and doing all the other nation-building work, and then came to us and said to the Congress, you find the money. So $43 billion of that money came out of our Defense budget and we had to replace it. In addition to that, we spent 10s of billions of dollars of supplemental money through 11 supplemental bills which were supported with the Republican party in control. Mr. Chairman, there is an inconsistency here. I did not hear my colleagues saying back in Bosnia we were told we would be out in December 1996, that it should be a loan. We have now spent $25 billion in Bosnia. We are still there. Where is the loan request? Where was the loan request from the Bosnian government? Where was the loan request from Kosovo? Where was the loan request from Macedonia, from East Timor, from Colombia? This Congress supported Democratic President Bill Clinton, and I think this Congress has an obligation. I think this Congress has an obligation to be consistent. We as Republicans supported the funding through 11 supplementals to pay for those same items that President Bush has asked for here, and if we total up the amount of money of these 37 supplementals, it is far in excess of what we are talking about with this bill. The difference is we have been asked to approve it in advance. In every other case, in the 1990s, it was done after the fact.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I will remind my colleague I was the one who took 11 Members of Congress, including five from his side, to Vienna, and the reason was, we did not disagree with the actions against Milosevic. We felt we had not put enough pressure on Russia, and in going to Vienna, and my colleague can ask the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the gentleman can ask the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), we wrote the plan that became the basis of the G-8 agreement to end the war. If we had brought Russia in earlier, we could have avoided much of that.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, I supported removing Milosevic.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I have been here 17 years. I was not going to speak on this issue, but as I sat in my office I heard speaker after speaker mention the word ``firefighter.'' Now, I came to the Congress as a firefighter, and I spent the first part of my career when the other side had control of this body fighting on behalf of firefighters. It was not the other side who delivered a program for grants for fire departments in America, although we had bipartisan support, it was when we controlled the Congress that we passed the Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program, which this year is providing $750 million for fire departments across the country. And it was not during the control of the other side, despite the rhetoric that we have heard out of the leadership on that side, and will hear later on, that we do not care about firefighters. It was not the other side when they controlled the Congress that started a grant program to hire more firefighters, but when the defense bill passes next week on the floor of the House, the conference report, there will be a $7.6 billion program for firefighters. That was done under Republican control of the Congress. So when my colleagues stand up and say we are hurting firefighters, cut me a break. In my 17 years here, we have worked in a bipartisan way for firefighters, and for them to come to the floor today and say that somehow this is meant to gut them is an absolute lie. I just got off the phone with the firefighters' union, the firefighters' union. I set up the meeting with Secretary Chao and the firefighters over a month ago, and they are satisfied and they told me I could say this on the floor, they are satisfied with the assurances they have that they will not be impacted by this, and neither will the paramedics and neither will the FOP and the first responder community. So for the other side to stand up here and use that over and over again galls me because where were they when I was fighting for the firefighters for the years that they controlled this body? What did you do to give us a grant program? What did you do to put more firefighters into the cities? You did nothing. You did nothing. For you to stand up here and say somehow you are protecting the firefighters, you can be as smug as you want as you sit there, but you did nothing to support the firefighters and the emergency responders of this country. This motion to instruct does not protect them. They are already satisfied. The leadership of the union told me that 10 minutes ago, so I stand up here and tell my colleagues on the Republican side, you can vote against this motion to instruct, and you are not going to hurt any firefighters. You are not going to hurt any paramedics or nurses or police, and their national associations will tell you that. Sure, they are not going to endorse this because the AFL-CIO has come out against it, but the facts are the facts. So I ask my colleagues on the both sides of the aisle to consider it based on the facts and do not listen to the rhetoric that I heard out of every Member on the other side, or I would not have been here for the last few minutes' rail about how they are concerned about the Nation's firefighters. I urge Members to oppose the motion to instruct.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?