Supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against terrorism and needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of further terror attacks by revealing a crucial method by which terrorists are traced through their finances.

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to come back before the House as representative of the majority party. And as I was sitting and listening to the tail end of my good friends on the other side of the aisle with their recitation of doom and gloom, Madam Speaker, I was reminded of a radio personality who has a wonderful program on daily. He comes on and he introduces his program by saying, ``And now for the rest of the story.''

So, Madam Speaker, I come before you tonight and before the House with another version of the Official Truth Squad. The Official Truth Squad began a little over a year ago with a group of freshmen Republicans in the United States House of Representatives who had, frankly, grown tired of the lack of response to the disinformation and the misinformation and the distortion and the demagoguery and the hyperbole that we hear over and over and over on the House floor. And, Madam Speaker, you have been treated to a particularly virulent form of that kind of disinformation and misinformation in the past hour.

Before I get into the comments that I had prepared for this evening to talk a little bit about national security and talk about our economy, I do want to point out a couple of items for those folks in the House who are listening and have just heard the comments on the floor.

I think it is important to make certain that we talk about the truth, and when we talk about the truth, I am reminded of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous quote. It is one of my favorites. Senator Moynihan was a Democratic Senator from the State of New York, and he said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Is that not true, Madam Speaker? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

So I am here to point out just a few of the opinions that we have heard this evening that, in fact, bear no resemblance to the truth and bear no resemblance to fact, but that are so divisive to us as a Nation. That is what concerns me, Madam Speaker.

My background is as a physician. I came to Congress after over 20 years practicing medicine, and I knew that when I dealt with my patients and when I dealt with my colleagues, that we had to talk about the truth. We had to talk about real things. We had to talk about facts, because when you did not talk about facts, then you made the wrong diagnosis, and when you make the wrong diagnosis, somebody gets hurt. Somebody gets hurt.

So, Madam Speaker, when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want to talk about the facts, and they do not want to talk about the

truth, then somebody gets hurt, and in this instance it is the American people. It may even be the American fiber and the American spirit, the unity of America.

What we just heard is a remarkable demonstration of disunity, of division, of folks who, I do not know how long people have been listening, but I did not hear a single solution, not one solution offered.

Churchill said that criticism is easy; it is achievement that is difficult. Another one of my favorite quotes. Criticism is easy, but achievement is difficult.

You just heard a remarkable statement, and we have had a remarkable day with our President going to the United Nations and addressing the United Nations in his annual address. Because we are the host Nation, there is a defined time for that annual address, and it occurs in second speaking order. So it happened to occur during the middle of the day today. My friends on the other side of the aisle want to attribute the fact that the President was not on prime-time television tonight to some remarkable foible of this administration. Madam Speaker, what kind of nonsense is that? What kind of distortion of the truth is that?

So when we hear these kinds of things, it really disturbs me, it saddens me, because it cheapens the debate that we have here when you have that kind of distortion.

The question was asked, how did the President of Iran get to be so strong? But one of the reasons he is so strong is because our friends on the other side of the aisle have not participated in assisting us on an energy agenda that will make it so we have American energy for Americans. There is some truth for you. The folks who continue to throw stones on the other side of the aisle constantly, and we will talk about this this evening, make it so that they put roadblocks in the way of trying to increase American independence in the area of energy.

So, Madam Speaker, in fact, I would appreciate some help from the other side of the aisle for some United Nations reform. We have had a bill on the floor of the House here to reform the United Nations, to reform the United States' participation in the United Nations.

And goodness knows we can't get any support from our good friends on the other side of the aisle, but they are ready, willing, and able to come down to the House floor and criticize the United States for their participation in the United Nations. Are they willing to help us solve the problem? Madam Speaker, I haven't seen that.

I also heard my friend from Maryland this evening talk about the contractors in Iraq. And he used as the font of all wisdom and knowledge about the contractors in Iraq who were hired. Madam Speaker, did you hear who he used as the resource for all of that? You know, when we were growing up we would have to cite our resources in our papers for school and for university, and it had to be something reliable. Did you hear who we used, Madam Speaker? The Washington Post. Now there is a reliable source for you.

But when he brought that information, he didn't bring it by way of enlightenment; he brought it by way of criticism, by way of division, by way of tearing down those individuals who are working just as hard as they can to make certain that Iraq is restored and has an opportunity to become a democratic and sovereign nation on its own. Division, division, distortion, demagoguery, misinformation, disinformation. Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Maryland to apologize to the Members, to the United States citizens who are working as hard as they can in Iraq as independent contractors, risking their lives just like the military. Some of them have actually been murdered by our enemies in Iraq. So I would hope that the gentleman would reconsider what he said.

Don't you get tired of it, Madam Speaker, that kind of distortion of the fact, that kind of division? I certainly do, and I know my constituents do at home. They get tired of the fighting, of the backbiting. They get tired of three or four individuals who can stand up here for an hour on the floor of the House and not offer one single, one single positive solution to the challenges that confront us as a Nation. And the challenges are big; these are big challenges. They are not Republican challenges, they are not Democrat challenges, they are American challenges.

And so, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to come and have the opportunity at the pleasure of the leadership to be able to come and talk a little bit about some positive things about America, some positive things that we have done, but also to provide some truth. Remember Senator Moynihan's comment, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts. So we would like to bring some facts tonight about a couple different areas, primarily national security because it has been talked about just recently, and the issue of the economy, the economic perspective in our Nation. And I think it is extremely important that when we discuss this, that again we remember that truth and facts are important. And so I am going to present some information here that I hope that Members of the House are listening to. I hope that they are listening to, and, frankly, I hope that the American people are listening, because there is some information that I think that they will be extremely, extremely interested in, especially when we talk about votes as it relates to issues on the floor of the House.

So the Official Truth Squad is pleased to be able to come and talk a little bit about national security and about the economy.

Now, there is certainly no more important function of the Federal Government than the security of the American people. And Republicans, as everyone knows, have always been committed to national security. Our Nation's defense, our Homeland Security and border control and the global war on terror are not just priorities for this administration, but they are indeed priorities for all House Republicans. And if there were ever any question in anyone's mind about whether or not we are a Nation that remains at risk because of enemies around the world, then all one has to do is look to a very recent activity in England where the United States, along with our good friends in Great Britain and friends in Pakistan, were able to thwart a plan by our enemies, by our enemies who have sworn to make certain they end our way of life. We were able to thwart a plan to bring down many, many airliners that would kill thousands, thousands of innocent civilians.

So it is clear that the global war on terror is indeed a huge priority. It is a priority for us. I would hope that it would be a priority for all Members of the House. However, the Democrats continue to try to obstruct our security plans, and they have been essentially a party of ``no,'' with no alternative plans to meet our security needs. And I would ask, Madam Speaker, folks to remember just the hour that we have just heard by our good friends on the other side of the aisle, and try to recollect one single solution that was offered. Madam Speaker, I suspect that you, like I, can't remember it, because in fact there were no solutions that were offered.

For instance, Democrats have called time and time again for the redeployment of our troops. And there was a commentator or an interviewer on television recently who asked a member of the Democrat Caucus, where do you want them redeployed to? And he couldn't come up with an answer. But occasionally they will come up with an answer, and oftentimes they will say, well, they ought to be able to redeploy to Okinawa. Well, now there is a thought, Madam Speaker, redeploy the troops from Iraq to Okinawa. If you take a look at the globe, the port of Newport News and Norfolk is closer to Iraq than Okinawa. So redeployment of troops to Okinawa makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Now, the other side of the aisle, the Democrats are certainly good at saying no, but they are not good at laying forth alternative plans. What they don't seem to understand is the magnitude of the threat of terrorism or indeed what is at stake. Their leader has been quoted as saying, ``We don't even have a party position on the war.'' This is certainly evidenced by their inability to present a plan for combating terrorism in this remarkably difficult and changed post-9/11 world.

There is one Democrat leader who has in fact said that the global war on

terror isn't really all that relevant. Can you imagine, Madam Speaker, we have the remarkable activities in England just last month, the knowledge and understanding that our enemy is making plans day in and day out to try to kill innocent civilians across all free nations, to try to do their best to make certain that we end our way of life, that they end our way of life, and we have a Democrat leader in this House who says that the global war on terror isn't really all that relevant. Well, with a stance like that, our leader says, with a stance like that, it is easy to see why Capitol Hill Democrats have no record of accomplishment on national security issues and lack a coherent agenda on the biggest challenge of the day.

Just this month, House Republicans will continue to focus our floor action on important security issues. We will be authorizing the President's Terror Surveillance Program, which is designed to identify and disrupt terror cells planning to attack against the United States. This is the kind of program that was utilized to assist in the activities that foiled the plot in England.

Now, when I go home, Madam Speaker, I don't know about you, but when I go home and I talk to my constituents and they say, what on Earth are you all arguing about? How can it be that anybody in this Nation believes that we as a Nation don't have the responsibility, in fact don't have the absolute imperative to make certain that we are listening and hearing and determining what our enemies are saying if they are outside the United States? I have significant concern on privacy issues when you are talking about communication between a United States citizen in the United States and another United States citizen in the United States. That is a different issue, Madam Speaker. And when individuals confuse and confound those two, they do a disservice to every single American.

The issue is not whether or not that kind of communication is protected. The issue is, in fact, whether or not we, as elected representatives of constituents all across this Nation, will respond to what they believe, our constituents believe, Americans all across this Nation, is an imperative for our government to do, and that is to have a terrorism surveillance program that lets us know what the bad guys are going to do before they do it. Clearly that is the most effective means of combating the war on terror, is to make certain we know what our enemy is going to do before they do it and then stop them before they do it.

In the House this month, we will be authorizing military tribunals for suspected terrorists. These are noncitizens fighting under any flag. These are terrorists. They have proclaimed to kill you and me and end our way of life as a Nation. They are not fighting for a nation. They have never signed the Geneva Accords themselves. These are evil people who must be dealt with by different rules. This is unlike any war the world has ever seen. That is not to say that they ought to be treated inhumanely, but they need to be treated with different rules in order for us to gain the kind of information that we need, in addition to being able to hold these people who are interested in doing us great, great harm, great harm.

This month the House Republicans have passed a resolution to recognize the 5-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As I go through these, I think it is important for Members of the House as well as Americans all across the Nation to appreciate as these votes come up, watch where the votes go, watch who is supporting these commonsense protections for the American people.

A resolution recognizing the 5-year anniversary of the 9/11 attack, we even had some Members on the other side of the aisle vote against that. They objected strenuously that it came to the floor of the House for a vote.

Strengthening border security. We had a debate on building a fence along the southern border to make sure that our Nation is secure. This week we will deal with some issues that will provide for allowing local law enforcement individuals, both State and local, the right and privilege to detain and retain illegals who come under their jurisdiction until the Federal Government comes and is able to deport them. Right now that is not the case. We will have a bill on the floor that will once and for all end the catch-and-release program that has been operating at the border.

I ask the American people to watch who is voting on these issues. There is no reason on Earth that we ought to apprehend an individual coming across our border illegally and then give him a piece of paper and say, you have to come back in 90 days and we will try you. They just blend into society.

A catch-and-release program does not work. There are over 400,000 individuals who have already in this Nation gone through the process. They were here illegally, they are found to be guilty of another crime and been ordered deported, and yet they are told to come back and report for their deportation date. And the catch-and-release program does not make any sense.

We will have on the floor this week a bill to provide for a catch- and-return policy, which means if they are apprehended coming into our Nation illegally, they are returned to their country of origin.

There was the discovery once again of another tunnel between San Diego or the San Diego area and Mexico. Apparently it was some 400 feet long, and it was used to smuggle drugs and contraband and illegals into the United States. That was just discovered. We will have a bill on the floor to strengthen the laws as it relates to the building of tunnels for the purpose of bringing drugs and smuggling aliens in.

We will have on the floor funding and protecting American troops, the defense authorization conference report, and defense and military quality of life appropriations conference reports, and then homeland security conference reports which will provide that funding for border security and for the barriers that I talked about.

And it is extremely important to watch who is voting for these things and who is opposing them. Oftentimes what we find is that individuals will say one thing at home, and then they come to Washington, and there is something in the air here that makes them do something different. We respectfully request that folks watch and see who is voting for what.

On the issue of border security, maintaining the integrity of our borders is an economic and a security concern. Americans are worried about the vulnerabilities at our borders, and House Republicans have passed several pieces of legislation to strengthen our borders, put more technology and personnel at the borders, and develop systems to ascertain who crosses the border and for what purposes. We need to know who is coming in to our Nation.

The Republican plan for border security focuses on providing more Border Patrol agents, strengthening security through additional fencing and infrastructure, stricter enforcement, and enhancing State and local law enforcement authority. These are the foundations that must be set before we can begin the next step of immigration reforms. It is imperative, the American people are demanding, that we put our priorities first on controlling the border, making certain we know who is coming into our Nation.

It ought not surprise anybody to get a little truth now, and that is that the Democrats have not supported the efforts to secure our borders. We passed the REAL ID Act, the act that provide for an appropriate form of identification for people traveling on an airplane. This would go a long way in identifying individuals here illegally, and 152 Democrats voted ``no,'' including the top two members of their leadership. They voted against the REAL ID Act.

We passed the Border Protection Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act, which was the bill that has been proclaimed by those individuals who truly know and appreciate what it is going to take to control and secure our border. They believe it is the most appropriate bill that has come through Congress, certainly more appropriate than the version that came out of the Senate. But on that bill, 164 Democrats oppose that bill, including the top two in their leadership.

So folks may say one thing at home, and when they come to Washington, they oftentimes do something completely different.

On our Nation's defense, people who fight for our freedom must be fully supported. The House Armed Services Committee and our Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and Military Quality of Life have concentrated their efforts on making certain that we meet those needs, as well as helping transform the Department of Defense to meet the threats for the next century.

In the area of intelligence reform, this is where I talked about making certain that we know what the bad guys are going to do it before they do it. Republicans have worked with the administration and intelligence agencies to help transform our intelligence-gathering capabilities and analyzing system. Rather than accept that we need to focus our efforts on this kind of reform, Democrats instead want to focus on just attacking the administration. You hear it over and over again.

Madam Speaker, it is like a broken record. They have tried to discredit the terrorist surveillance program that we talked about and other policies which have helped protect our Nation from further attack. It is not a mistake or just a happenstance that we as a Nation have not been attacked since 9/11. There are incredible individuals working day and night to make certain that we are safe as a Nation.

The 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act that was proposed in 2004, these are the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that you hear people talking about on the other side of the aisle all the time and that we should implement them. We had the bill that implemented a significant portion of those, and what happened? A majority, 125 Democrats, including their leader, voting to oppose it, voted ``no'' to implement significant recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

So, Madam Speaker, remember, you are entitled to your own opinions, but are not entitled to your own facts.

The global war on terrorism is truly the most important activity, most important war of our generation, and it is a war like no other, as we have talked about. It is fought on many different levels: military, intelligence, economic, technology, cyberworld, Internet, all corners of the Earth.

Again, this is not a war that we sought. We didn't go out looking for this. It has been brought to our shores and brought to us, and there are terrorists out there who truly want to kill us, and they say that explicitly.

If you don't believe me, you just ought to listen to them. They are interested in murdering and killing innocent civilians and ending our way of life. If we do not take their words seriously and take them at their word, we do so at our peril. It is the simple and horrible truth, Madam Speaker. We must face this fact and employ all efforts, all efforts, to thwart their many attempts.

Oftentimes the Democrats will talk a good game on protecting the homeland; but when push come to shove, they certainly demonstrate that they don't understand the real issues that affect our homeland and our national security. Again, they have been the loud party of ``no,'' with no alternative plans to meet our security needs. And although we still cannot fully understand why the terrorists hate our way of life so much, we do understand this much: that we are in a real war.

Almost 5 years after the attacks on 9/11, Islamic extremist groups, jihadists, continue to represent the most immediate threat to the United States and to our allies and to our interests abroad. And at the urging of Osama bin Laden, every American man, woman, and child has become a legitimate target in their jihad. And, again, this is their words. It is not our conjecture. It is not our opinion. It is truth. It is fact.

Now, we are blessed with an absolutely outstanding military that has taken the battle to the enemy, and it is extremely important that we fight these battles at their point of origin. We have many good and faithful allies all around the globe, and we have taken that fight forward, supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan in rooting out the enemy before he can strike again. And we are cooperating with friendly forces from the Philippines to Africa and from the Middle East to South America. And we are united. We are united against this threat.

But the United States, we remain a Nation at war. We are not safe simply because we have not seen an attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. We are safer today because of the professionals of the worldwide network of intelligence and military and law enforcement officials who continue to pressure and strike al Qaeda and its followers. And we must continue the pressure on these radical organizations until victory for all freedom-loving people of the world is assured. September 11, 2001, showed us the danger of Islamic jihadism, and it also taught us that deficiencies in our own system made it possible for terrorists to operate right under our noses.

Our most important duty, as Members of Congress, is to protect our Nation from ever experiencing that lesson again. And for that reason, we must, we must continue to focus on improving our national security, our homeland security, and our intelligence systems.

But, again, the fact of the matter is the Democrats do not seem to understand that the threat of terrorism exists or even what is at stake. Remember what their leader said, they do not even have a party position on the war and an individual in their leadership said they didn't think the global war on terror was really all that relevant.

Recently, just a couple weeks ago, their leader, in a press conference, made a stunning and contradictory assessment that capturing Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for numerous attacks against the United States, including those of 9/11, would ``not make America any safer.'' ``Even if he's caught tomorrow, she said, ``I don't think that makes us any safer.''

Now, with a stance like that, it is easy to see why Capitol Hill Democrats have no record of accomplishment on national security or their issues and that they lack a coherent agenda on the biggest challenge of the day for this Congress and, yes, this Nation.

As I mentioned, they have called for implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Over and over they have called, but repeatedly Capitol Hill Democrats have opposed legislation implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission meant to strengthen America's national security and to prevent further attacks.

The 9/11 Commission said: ``The government has made significant strides in using terrorism financing as an intelligence tool.'' So what happened on House Resolution 895, the legislation supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs that track terrorists and condemn with proper congressional oversight the publication of any classified information that could potentially impair the fight against terrorism, that is, implementing one of the 9/11 Commission recommendations? What happened? 174 Democrats voted ``no.'' 174 voted ``no.''

They call for the immediate implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. One of the 9/11 Commission recommendations was: ``The READ ID Act has established statute standards for State-issued IDs acceptable for Federal purposes, though States' compliance needs to be closely monitored.'' What happened with that bill that the 9/11 Commission said was a wise idea and ought to be adopted? 152 of our friends on the other side of the aisle voted ``no.'' 152.

They talk about immediately implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. A quote from the 9/11 Commission: ``The House and Senate have taken positive steps, but Secretary Chertoff and his team still report to too many bosses. The House and Senate Homeland Security Committees should have exclusive jurisdiction over all counterterrorism functions of the Department of Homeland Security.'' That is a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, a recommendation that our good friends say ought to be immediately implemented. So when the proposal comes up to do just that, a majority, 120 of them, vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

So in the area of national security, I think it is clear. There is a party, there are leaders in this Congress on the Republican side of the aisle who understand the threat, understand the gravity of the situation, understand and appreciate that we have a real enemy, understand and appreciate that that real

enemy is interested in causing significant harm to our Nation and in murdering innocent civilians, and we are taking actions day in and day out, including this week, to make certain that we are more safe and more secure as a Nation.

So I challenge and call on my friends on the other side of the aisle to join us. Don't just talk about it. Don't just come down here and paint doom and gloom. There are people here who are working hard. Remember what Churchill said? ``Criticism is easy. Achievement is difficult.'' ``Achievement is difficult.'' So join us. You might find that being part of the solution instead of just railing against the individuals who are in positions of leadership now is actually beneficial, that your constituents actually appreciate the work that you are doing in a bipartisan manner. Boy, wouldn't that be wonderful? We certainly would welcome you to participate.

Madam Speaker, I talked about the concern that the Official Truth Squad has about all of the disinformation and the misinformation that goes on, and I was looking a little over a year ago for a quote. I am a fan of quotes. I enjoy quotes, and I think that oftentimes individuals in history have given us great perspective on our Nation and great perspective on our principles and the roots of our Nation. And the ``politics of division'' really irritates me, and I think it does a disservice to our Nation because we are so strong and we are united as a Nation.

But the other side of the aisle seems intent on tearing down, on dividing. You have heard some of it this evening. The extending tax cuts for millionaires you heard tonight and all sorts of remarkable divisive statements. The comment about the contractors in Iraq was a divisive statement, where we have hardworking American citizens who are putting their lives at risk and they get criticized in order for some divisive purpose, to try to gain some political points. Madam Speaker, it is just disheartening to hear that kind of conversation, and it does a disservice to our Nation.

When I attempted to find a quote that would crystallize that emotion, I came across this one, the Reverend William Boetcker, who was a leader and a public speaker in the late 19th and early 20th century. He was trying to crystallize the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln in his social philosophy, and it is one of my favorite quotes. He said: ``You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot encourage the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred.''

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could do for themselves.

And so, Madam Speaker, I turn now to addressing the issue of vision and addressing the issue of the economy. House Republicans have realized, certainly do realize the importance of developing and having a vision to focus our efforts and to ensure that we address what is important for the American people. And we came together and highlighted a vision earlier this year that would address this new American century. And we came up with the following vision. We will promote dignity and future of every individual. It is important to talk about the individual. Madam Speaker, often times you hear the folks on the other side of the aisle talk about groups of folks. And again they like to separate people into groups so that they can divide and conquer.

But it is the individual, it is the individual who makes things great. So we will promote the dignity and the future of every individual by building a free society, under a limited, accountable government that protects our liberty, our security, and our prosperity for a brighter American dream.

Now, the Democrats had no such vision. Again, they are the ``party of no,'' they have got no plan to lead the Nation. That is a dangerous way to try to take over the majority of the House of Representatives. And it is clear. We heard it again tonight. Their actions are guided by politics and discrediting the administration over and over again rather than focusing on a positive agenda for the American people.

Again that is the kind of information and the kind of requests that I get at home when I talk to my constituents about a passion for a positive agenda for America. Because, we are a great, great Nation. And we work so well together when we work unified. And that is what folks at home tell me that they would desire, that we move together forward in unity.

Now, I want to talk a little bit about our economy. And I think it is important to appreciate that our economy today is truly remarkably strong. And the numbers prove that. Our Nation has bounced back from the blow that the economy took following the attacks of 9/11. Our unemployment is low. Home ownership across all sectors of our society is the highest it has ever been.

And recently, as I know in your home state, Madam Speaker, the gas prices are falling. Now, we got a lot of criticism for the gas prices going up, so we ought to take a fair amount of credit for them coming down. The most recent economic numbers are truly remarkable.

Although this chart is a little old, the trends are absolutely accurate and correct. Unemployment. The Employment gains continue. 128,000 new payroll jobs were created in August, A total of 5.7 million new jobs since August of 2003.

The unemployment rate is at a point, at a level of 4.7 percent, 4.7 percent. I know that there are some economist amongst our midst who understand and appreciate that full employment is basically 5 percent, used to be 6 percent a number of decades ago, but they revised it downward to 5 percent being full employment. That means that basically folks who are interested having a job have a job.

GDP growth for the second quarter was revised up to 2.9 from an earlier estimate of 2.5 percent. Gasoline prices have fallen recently with the average regular unleaded gasoline falling to below $2.70 a gallon. I know in my area it is $2.22 cents when I drove to the airport this moving to come here.

Oil apparently today was down to less than $62 a barrel, which is a significant move downward. And, Madam Speaker, this is due, these numbers are due to the policies put in place by this Republican Congress and our effort to spur the economy and lay the foundation for the economy of the next century.

Now, elections are coming up. I know that is a surprise to some. But if you heard the kind of comments made earlier on the floor this evening you can tell that elections are coming up. But the American people understand that elections are about choices, and they are about the future. And there is a clear choice between Republicans who are working to enact serious reforms that will grow our economy, and reduce the deficit, and Capitol Hill Democrats who are interested in spending more of America's taxpayer dollars on wasteful Government programs as they see fit.

Now, I want to point out two things on this and the next poster. This poster here has the years down on the lower portion here, 2000-2006. And it has, this blue line here is the number of new jobs created, the number of new jobs created. And since August of 2003, this has 5.3, it is actually 5.7 million new jobs created in that period of time.

There is a vertical dotted green line here. And that vertical dotted green line marks the point where the tax decreases, the appropriate and fair tax decreases for the American people were enacted by this administration and by this Congress. And since that point, what you have seen, again, here is jobs growth going down. Tax decreases put into place, and jobs go up.

These red bars are business investment in these quarters. See business investment down, which means a slower economy, not as many jobs, not as much economic activity or growth. What happens when appropriate, fair tax decreases are put in place? The economy flourishes. No mistake about it. It occurs every time that significant tax reduction is put in place, has been put in place over the last 50 years in our Nation.

President Kennedy knew it. It occurred when he instituted appropriate tax decreases. President Reagan knew it. It occurred when he instituted tax decreases, and occurred with president George W. Bush with the appropriate tax decreases of 2003.

Now, I think it is important to appreciate that the other side truly has no plan for the economy. In fact they have not proposed any plans to address the mandatory programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, those things that are on automatic pilot that now comprise about 54 percent of the budget, and unless they are addressed in relatively short order they will cause a significantly greater drain on the economy, decrease the economic growth and activity that we have seen.

The other side is literally blind and has not proposed any proposals to improve or to reform those spending programs. In fact, what they have done is to propose in the last fiscal year 2006 budget, these were their proposals, these were the things that they actually did write down and bring to committees and bring to the floor of the House, new spending to the tune of $21.5 billion, and new taxes, new taxes to the tune of $54 billion with again no savings, no savings in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, those items that if nothing is doing to those three items by 2030, they will consume the entire budget, the entire budget.

So it is not something that you can just say, well, do not worry about it, we do not have to do anything to those items because they will take care of themselves.

Over the past 4 years, if the Democrats had been in control, they talk about their desire to take control of the House and to lead, well, what would have happened if they would have been in control for the last 4 years and had their proposals put in place?

If they had been in control, discretionary spending would have increased by over $106 billion. Amazingly, although they talk a good game, they have voted consistently against any significant budget reform efforts.

The Deficit Reduction Act, that bill that was passed earlier this bill that saved approximately $40 billion, $40 billion saved, the Democrats unanimously, unanimously voted against that bill, the Deficit Reduction Act.

In fact, one of their leaders was heard to say something like, we are not going to give them a single vote on this, and said it with great pride. Again, that is that politics of division, that desire to not be productive, to not be positive about solutions as they come forward here in the Congress.

What about the line item veto? When I go home, I hear folks talk about budgetary improvements we could make here in Washington. Many of them ask about the line item veto, why can't we allow the administration, any administration, to pick those items in the budget and say no, we ought not be spending money on that specific item. Good idea. I have supported it. The vast majority of my colleagues on the Republican side have supported it.

What happened when the bill came here to the floor for a vote? Well, Madam Speaker, the vote occurred earlier this year, rollcall vote 317, and the number of individuals on their side of the aisle supporting it, 35. The vast majority, 156, voting no.

That is the line item veto. That is one of those proposals that you hear them talk about all the time, wanting to make certain that the line item veto is passed. But when given the opportunity, when given the opportunity to stand up and say yes, that is exactly what we want to do, what do they say? No. ``No, we don't believe that we ought to have that kind of reform,'' even though that is what they say when they go home.

Earmark reform. What about earmark reform? We had the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act. These are the special projects put into bills. We have had a couple of votes on this.

The first one that we had earlier, H.R. 4975, 192 Democrats vote no, including their top two members of their leadership.

Recently all it was was a sunshine bill. It said that if you are going to put a special project into the budget, that you ought to put your name beside it. I had a bill that I called ``sunshine for earmarks.'' It said that if you are going to have a special project in an appropriations bill, that you ought to have to put your name beside it so that your constituents know you put it in there and they can look at it and say yes, this is what we want our Member of Congress to do, or no, we don't think that is something that he or she ought to be doing, so the colleagues here, Members' colleagues in the House, can know where these kinds of requests are coming from. It is important. It is important to have that kind of sunshine.

It is a simple, simple proposal. It is important for the press to know so that when they are providing their oversight of the fourth estate, that in fact they know who has put these items in.

So what kind of vote did we get? Again, this is a proposal that they talk about all the time. ``If we could just have some earmark reform.'' So we bring it to the floor, call for a vote, it passes because the vast majority of colleagues on my side of the aisle, our side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle supported it. But what did those folks on the other side do? 147 of them, the vast majority voted no, including 15 ranking members. These are Members who are the most senior members on the committees in the United States House of Representatives. These are the individuals, if the other side were to by some chance take over and gain the majority, these are the individuals who would be chairmen. They would be chairs of the committees.

And what do they say with their vote, the vast majority? They say no, we don't want earmark reform. We don't want special project reform. We may say we do, but we really don't. We don't believe it in so much that when given the opportunity to vote for it, they vote no. And the leadership, what did the leadership do? Voted no. That is what they did on the other side of the aisle.

So, Madam Speaker, every single Member, every single individual is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts, and these are the facts about who is truly interested in budgetary reform and earmark reform.

To make matters worse, they are more than eager to raise your taxes. You hear the code words, and the code words recently have become ``shared sacrifice.'' Have you heard that, Madam Speaker, ``shared sacrifice?''

What that means is raising your taxes, because they believe that they know how to spend your money better than you. That is one of the principles that they have about how they plan to grow the government, how they plan to cover all these special projects and programs that they wish to have adopted. That would have not only a horrible impact on the economy, but it would also give them even more revenue, increased revenue in the government to spend.

Madam Speaker, when I hear the other side talk, if you just listen to them, you get so doggone depressed. But I am optimistic about the future of this Nation. I am optimistic about this economy.

The United States has the number one economy in the world, and in order to assure that vibrant economy in the 21st century, we in the House have focused on a comprehensive set of policies and incentives that will build on a solid economic foundation.

This won't be accomplished by Federal funds though, because Federal funds don't solve that kind of challenge. That is done by private capital. The private sector, not government bureaucrats, know how money should be spent, what resources are needed and what type of training workers will require. Unfortunately, unfortunately, there are way too many government roadblocks that stand in the way of business development and that deter investment, both here and abroad.

There are steps that we can take and we will take to restore our Nation's competitiveness and ensure that America remains the land of opportunity. We are not the status quo party. The Republicans are not the status quo party. We are the party of change, we are the party of vision, we are the party of entrepreneurship, we are the party of individual responsibility, we are the party of success.

So we will work to address health care security, termination of bureaucratic red tape, lifelong learning, trade fairness and opportunity, tax relief and

simplification, energy self-sufficiency and security, innovation and investment, and ending lawsuit abuse and litigation management.

I tell you, Madam Speaker, that is an agenda that the American people can be proud of. It is an agenda that the American people can embrace with enthusiasm, with optimism, with passion, not with a dour look on your face and say ``woe is me, isn't the world awful.''

These are the exciting kind of proposals. These are exciting proposals that we will put forward before the House as we continue our leadership, our strong leadership, to bring about increasing American competitiveness.

For 3 years, House Republicans have promoted the House economic competitiveness agenda. This year alone we have passed over 39 pieces of legislation that will help make America more competitive. We have real solutions. Republicans offer real solutions. We invite our colleagues to join us in moving America forward and providing an opportunity for the United States businesses and working families.

But instead, they have no plan, and instead of working with us at the committee level or on the House floor, the Democrats have tried to undermine the economic competitiveness agenda over and over and over again.

Again, their so-called innovative agenda is not innovative. It is a call for increased government spending, presumably fueled by increased taxes. In response to our economic agenda, at so many different points they have been nothing but obstructionists over and over again.

For example, college access for all. They say they are for expanding access to college, yet they voted against the College Access and Opportunity Act, 181 of them, including the top two leaders in their party, 181 of them voted against the College Access and Opportunity Act.

Energy independence, Democrats say they want to end our dependence on foreign oil, and yet they try to obstruct every single plan to access America's own oil and natural gas reserves, such as tapping into ANWR and the OCS.

The Energy Policy Act, 183 Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted no. Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act, 176 Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted no. And the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, 156 Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted no.

Affordable health care, a difficult challenge for so many large and small businesses around our Nation, Democrats say they want to help employers provide health insurance to their employees. But they vote against every single measure to do so. The HEALTH Act, 185 Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted no. Small Business Health Fairness Act, 165 Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted no. And recently, the Health Information Technology Promotion Act, something that would truly streamline health care for our Nation, 139 Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted no. So, Madam Speaker, it truly is a remarkable contrast between the two parties.

I want to put up one more chart, because when you think about what would happen if the other side were in fact to be in the majority, I get questions at home, what would they do? What would they do?

Again, elections are about choices and they are about the future, and to determine what they would do, all you have to do is look at the legislation that they have proposed, the legislation they proposed. I presume that is what they would do, don't you, Madam Speaker?

The top two bills that they have proposed, H. Res. 635 and H. Res. 636, the first step in impeaching President Bush resolution and the second step in impeaching President Bush resolution.

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that the American people are interested in leadership in this House of Representatives that has as its number one priority the impeachment of the President of the United States. That is not what the American people are interested in.

What else are they interested in? H.R. 4683, the Federal Health Care System Government-Run Health Care Act. House Democrats want to create a Federal health care system without choices, which would combine the efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the compassion of the IRS, and they would tax Americans to get to it. They would amend the Social Security Act, the bill would, to impose on the income of every individual a tax equal to 1.7 percent of wages received, and on every employer an excise tax of 7 percent of the wages paid to each employee, and on the self-employment income of every individual a tax equal to the applicable percentage of the self-employment income for such taxable year. Who cosponsors that? Ranking Democrats, remember, the individuals who would be chairmen of the committees, ranking Democrats and senior members of the Democrat Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I do not think that is what Americans are bargaining for. That is not what I hear my constituents say they want when I go home and talk to them which is every single week. They are not interested in the Federal Government running health care.

H.R. 1018, it is called the Permanent Welfare Housing Act. I call it the welfare reform repeal Act. Public housing, this bill would remove provisions that residents of public housing are required to participate in 8 hours per month of either community service or economic self- sufficiency activities in order to retain their public housing. Who are the sponsors? The ranking Democrats, remember folks who would be chairmen of these committees, and multiple, multiple senior Democrat Members.

Madam Speaker, one of the most incredible and productive and positive pieces of legislation that has passed through this Congress in the past 12 years has been welfare reform. It has put literally millions of Americans back to work, to be productive citizens, to have pride in what they are doing, to believe that they have some worth and they have some input into the productivity of this Nation. What is it that the other side wants to do? Well, they want to repeal portions of it that would provide that kind of sense of accomplishment and sense of participation.

So, Madam Speaker, Republicans understand that it is the American people who built this Nation, American people who built this economy and made this the land of opportunity. Washington's job as the people's representative is to provide national and economic security and to give each individual the freedom and the protection to pursue their American dream.

The imagination and hard work of the American people have built this wonderful and beautiful Nation, and they have made it prosperous. Our task as Members of the United States Congress is to ensure that this remains true for the next century.

Once again, the other side relies on the vague promises and big government programs to solve every perceived problem in the United States. Government is not the answer, and this philosophy, which is truly left over from previous bureaucratic administrations of the 1960s and 1970s, has only slowed down progress in our Nation every single time it has been instituted.

Madam Speaker, we live in a glorious Nation. It is a wondrous Nation, a Nation that is still seen by men and women around the world as a beacon of liberty and repository of hope. I am incredibly proud to serve in the United States House of Representatives and to have the opportunity to share this positive perspective and this positive vision with my colleagues and with the Nation as we have done tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, people who want things to be done in a bipartisan manner should not engage in extreme partisanship at the outset. The resolution that is before us was drafted entirely by Republicans with no input from any Democrat, from the Intelligence Committee, from the Financial Services Committee, or anywhere else, and presented to us a little over 24 hours ago. We then asked for the right to offer amendments, or at least a substitute resolution. It was denied.

I find it extraordinary that repeatedly in the interest and in the name of democracy the majority degrades democracy. How can it be justified that no alternative can be offered? How can it be justified that no amendment can be offered?

Let me say again: We are telling the Shiia majority in Iraq that in their parliament they ought to make an effort to include the Sunni; that it is not simply the majority doing everything, but you work with the minority. You then give, Mr. Speaker, through your party, the opposite example by not allowing even a resolution to be offered for us to be voted on.

We have an alternative that is supported by a very large majority of our caucus. And now let me talk about that resolution, because let us be clear about what is not at issue today.

We have agreement that the method of tracking terrorists through their financial dealings is a good thing. The Democratic resolution, which the majority refuses to allow to be considered in their abusive use of their majority, says explicitly that we support efforts to identify and track terrorists and their financial supporters. So if it isn't unanimous, it is the fault of the majority by doing it so divisively.

We also in our resolution deplore the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. But we talk not simply about people who might print it, but the people in the administration who might release it. Earlier today someone said, well, what would happen if you gave out the name of spies? Well, ask the people in this administration who gave out the name of Valerie Plame. We hope that something will be done.

Here is the difference between the two resolutions: the Republican resolution, drafted entirely by them and withheld from us until its publication, agrees that we should track terrorist financing. So does the Democratic resolution. Theirs, however, includes a number of factual statements that I do not believe we yet have a basis for making.

Now, in some cases, some of those factual statements are about things that turn out, we think, not to have been true. For example, on page 3 of their resolution they have reference to a prior incident in which the Washington Times was accused of having disclosed classified information regarding efforts to monitor the communication of Osama bin Laden.

They don't mention the Washington Times because they like the Washington Times. They mention the New York Times. Times, they are a changing. If it is the New York Times, they don't like it, and they criticize it. If it is the Washington Times, they talk about a far more serious allegation about the Washington Times, that it gave away to Osama bin Laden how we knew where he was, but they don't mention them.

But now it turns out they may very well have been inaccurate about that, and I plan to submit an article from The Washington Post that defends the Washington Times.

But here is the problem we have: we want to say in our resolution, and we hoped it could have been unanimous, that we support this kind of tracking; that we don't want things to be disclosed. But what we are not prepared to say, and, frankly, nobody here is intellectually prepared to say it, people may say it on faith, but here is what they want to say: we find that the program has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders; that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect individual civil liberties, and that Congress has been appropriately informed.

I think that the part about our being informed is very inaccurate, and I don't know the answer to the other. What you have done is to hijack the virtually unanimous support for tracking terrorist financing into an endorsement of the way the Bush administration has conducted itself. That is how it became partisan.

Why should this House vote now to say that the program has been conducted with all the safeguards, et cetera, et cetera? We don't know that. Members don't know that. Members on the other side are entitled to take it on faith. I know faith-based resolutions are very important to them, but I don't think as Members of the House of Representatives we ought to be asked to vote, the most solemn thing you do in a democracy as a representative, on factual statements when people cannot know whether they are true.

Again, I want to go back and say, how can you justify, in the name of democracy, denying us a chance to even present an alternative resolution supporting this program?

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 22, 2005]

File the Bin Laden Phone Leak Under `Urban Myths'

(By Glenn Kessler)

President Bush asserted this week that the news media

published a U.S. government leak in 1998 about Osama bin

Laden's use of a satellite phone, alerting the al Qaeda

leader to government monitoring and prompting him to abandon

the device.

The story of the vicious leak that destroyed a valuable

intelligence operation was first reported by a best-selling

book, validated by the Sept. 11 commission and then repeated

by the president.

But it appears fa be an urban myth.

The al Qaeda leader's communication to aides via satellite

phone had already been reported in 1996--and the source of

the information was another government, the Taliban, which

ruled Afghanistan at the time.

The second time a news organization reported on the

satellite phone, the source was bin Laden himself.

Causal effects are hard to prove, but other factors could

have persuaded bin Laden to turn off his satellite phone in

August 1998. A day earlier, the United States had fired

dozens of cruise missiles at his training camps, missing him

by hours.

Bush made his assertion at a news conference Monday, in

which he defended his authorization of warrantless monitoring

of communications between some U.S. citizens and suspected

terrorists overseas. He fumed that ``the fact that we were

following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type

of telephone made it into the press as the result of a

leak.'' He berated the media for ``revealing sources, methods

and what we use the information for'' and thus helping ``the

enemy'' change its operations.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Monday that the

president was referring to an article that appeared in the

Washington Times on Aug. 21, 1998, the day after the cruise

missile attack, which was launched in retaliation for the

bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa two weeks earlier.

The Sept. 11 commission also cited the article as ``a leak''

that prompted bin Laden to stop using his satellite phone,

though it noted that he had added more bodyguards and began

moving his sleeping place ``frequently and unpredictably''

after the missile attack.

Two former Clinton administration officials first fingered

the Times article in a 2002 book, ``The Age of Sacred

Terror.'' Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon wrote that after

the ``unabashed right-wing newspaper'' published the story,

bin Laden ``stopped using the satellite phone instantly'' and

``the United States lost its best chance to find him.''

The article, a profile of bin Laden, buried the information

about his satellite phone in the 21st paragraph. It never

said that the United States was listening in on bin Laden, as

the president alleged. The writer, Martin Sieff, said

yesterday that the information about the phone was ``already

in the public domain'' when he wrote the story.

A search of media databases shows that Time magazine had

first reported on Dec. 16, 1996, that bin Laden ``uses

satellite phones to contact fellow Islamic militants in

Europe, the Middle East and Africa.'' Taliban officials

provided the information, with one official--security chief

Mulla Abdul Mannan Niazi--telling Time, ``He's in high

spirits.''

The day before the Washington Times article was published--

and the day of the attacks--CNN producer Peter Bergen

appeared

on the network to talk about an interview he had with bin

Laden in 1997.

``He communicates by satellite phone, even though

Afghanistan in some levels is back in the Middle Ages and a

country that barely functions,'' Bergen said.

Bergen noted that as early as 1997, bin Laden's men were

very concerned about electronic surveillance. ``They scanned

us electronically,'' he said, because they were worried that

anyone meeting with bin Laden ``might have some tracking

device from some intelligence agency.'' In 1996, the Chechen

insurgent leader Dzhokhar Dudayev was killed by a Russian

missile that locked in to his satellite phone signal.

That same day, CBS reported that bin Laden used a satellite

phone to give a television interview. USA Today ran a profile

of bin Laden on the same day as the Washington Times's

article, quoting a former U.S. official about his ``fondness

for his cell phone.''

It was not until Sept. 7, 1998--after bin Laden apparently

stopped using his phone--that a newspaper reported that the

United States had intercepted his phone calls and obtained

his voiceprint. U.S. authorities ``used their communications

intercept capacity to pick up calls placed by bin Laden on

his Inmarsat satellite phone, despite his apparent use of

electronic `scramblers,' '' the Los Angeles Times reported.

Officials could not explain yesterday why they focused on

the Washington Times story when other news organizations at

the same time reported on the satellite phone--and that the

information was not particularly newsworthy.

``You got me,'' said Benjamin, who was director for

counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff at

the time. ``That was the understanding in the White House and

the intelligence community. The story ran and the lights went

out.''

Lee H. Hamilton, vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission,

gave a speech in October in which he said the leak ``was

terribly damaging.'' Yesterday, he said the commission relied

on the testimony of three ``very responsible, very senior

intelligence officers,'' who he said ``linked the Times story

to the cessation of the use of the phone.'' He said they

described it as a very serious leak.

But Hamilton said he did not recall any discussion about

other news outlets' reports. ``I cannot conceive we would

have singled out the Washington Times if we knew about all of

the reporting,'' he said.

A White House official said last night the administration

was confident that press reports changed bin Laden's

behavior. CIA spokesman Tom Crispell declined to comment,

saying the question involves intelligence sources and

methods.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Reserving the right to object.

I reserve the right to object. We are being asked to move this very quickly, I guess, because of the baseball game.

If we could get the right to get a vote on our substitute, I wouldn't object. But as long as we aren't even being allowed to have a vote on our substitute, I don't know why we should be asked to hurry up the proceedings.

I would ask the gentleman if we could get unanimous consent now, in addition to this, to allow us to present our substitute. If we could get unanimous consent for that, then I would have no objection to this.

I will object now.

I ask unanimous consent that the House allow us to present our substitute for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to note that the substitute resolution we are being prevented from even allowing to be debated and voted on also condemns the unauthorized leak of information, and it just does it without the praise which we do not think has yet been substantiated for the Bush administration.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I note that several on the other side have said, yes, it is true al Qaeda and the terrorists knew we were going to be tracking them financially. They just didn't know that would involve bank records. That seems to me wholly implausible.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

If that was all the resolution had said, we wouldn't be here. It also says that the Bush administration has carried this out in a perfect fashion. And yet you can have hearings during a war. Harry Truman showed how to do that and made for himself a great reputation and helped the war effort.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the dean of the House, who is a man of great experience in how to handle these conflicting issues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), a member of the Committee on Financial Services, one of those kept in the dark on this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

There is a very clear notice in the Republican resolution, and I call it that simply because that is how they decided it should be. They drafted it and didn't even show it to us until it was printed. They asked for no input. But it very clearly references the current criminal statute that is there, and I do not think that was for no reason.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and one of the leaders on the whole question of how we should be dealing with our current problem, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman made it a point to mention me and will not let me respond.

I yield myself 10 seconds to point out that, yes, it's true, Ms. Pelosi was briefed. In 2002, at the beginning of the program. She is not a fortune teller.

Regular order. I ask the gentleman to be seated. I asked the gentleman when he mentioned me to yield. He declined to do so. For him now to interrupt me without even asking for a yield is wholly outside the rules of the House, and I ask he be instructed in them.

I will yield to the gentleman exactly as he yielded to me. No.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) was briefed at the outset. The other gentlewoman from California, the ranking member of the committee, was briefed, as I was offered a briefing, after it was about to be made public.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York, a member of our committee.

May I ask, the gentleman has only one more speaker?

Me, too.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

I reiterate, the resolution that we have, very unfortunately, not been allowed to offer even as a recommit, because democracy abroad has a much greater appeal to my colleagues than democracy at home. Indeed, apparently, to the Republican Party in the House, democracy is a great spectator sport. They would like to see it in Afghanistan, they would like to see it in Iraq, but they don't want to practice it at home. It's too hard. Members might be able to make a fair choice.

Here is what our resolution says: we are for tracking the terrorists financially. We do not think there should be leaks. The biggest single difference is that we do not subscribe to their automatic praise that says that the White House, the administration, has done everything right. That is the biggest difference.

Now, no one really can say that. The chairman of the Intelligence Committee said the staff was briefed, some of the staff. Well, let's have a mock Congress, bring the staff in here, and let them vote on it. But those of you who weren't in the briefing and haven't talked to the staff, almost everybody, are not entitled to vote to say things that aren't true.

Let me talk about one of the things that I am unsure about. I don't want the terrorists tipped off and if they are being tipped off, we need to know about it. But we don't know that yet. The gentleman from Alabama earlier, Mr. Bachus; the chairman of the intelligence committee and others have said, well, yes, it's true that the terrorists learned from Bush administration statements that we were tracking their financial activities. But apparently they didn't know that that involved banks. Did they think we were going through their pockets? How can you acknowledge that people knew that they were being tracked financially but, oh, no, it didn't involve bank records.

Now, I don't know what the answer is. But neither do those who are ready to vote to say this caused that problem. I remind the Members, there is a factual statement here that says, it doesn't mention the Washington Times because you want to be nice to them, but it says that the Washington Times in 1998 made a disclosure that made it hard to find Osama bin Laden. That may well not be true. You are going to vote them this. There is this automaticity to your behavior. You are being asked to vote for things that I know most Members over there and over here can't say.

We are not asking you to vote the opposite. We are not saying the program had legal problems. We are not saying it was conducted badly. We are saying, look, and we could have this, we could have 430 votes to say, yes, it's a good thing to track the terrorists and it's a bad thing to leak. Those statements of policy could be made, but they wouldn't give any political advantage. To go beyond that and to turn this into a Bush commercial, to say without any basis that we know that they haven't violated their civil liberty, they haven't done privacy, let me say this. If that is in fact the case, if they have run this program as competently, as efficiently, and with as much respect for individual liberties as you say, then this resolution deserves more attention. Because that is a first. If they really have managed to break the record they have had before, wonderful. But you are taking it as they said on faith.

So let me close by saying once again what I have said in previous situations. We have told the Shiia in Iraq, please show some willingness to work with the minority.

We have asked in Afghanistan that people work together. We have said, do not be abusive of your majority power. Try to work together. And then the majority here engages in the most outrageous abuse of power you can think of.

I hope that all those watching will remember one important thing, do not try this at home.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is a motion to recommit in order at this time?

Further parliamentary inquiry. Since we are in the whole House, would it be in order, by unanimous consent, to modify the rule so that the motion to recommit could become a motion with instructions, including the resolution we have alluded to today? Would that be in order to ask for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. Speaker, I then ask unanimous consent that our motion to recommit be made a recommit with instructions so our resolution, supported by the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Caucus, could receive a vote on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I mourn democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we remember that terrible day of September 11, 2001. We continue to mourn for those who are lost. Our hearts continue to ache for the loved ones left behind. We honor those first responders who saved so many lives. We continue to stand firm as we pursue justice against those who perpetrated those attacks. And we remain committed to finding and eliminating terrorists around the world.

Mr. Speaker, almost every year since 2001, Congress has passed resolutions commemorating the September 11 attacks. In past years those resolutions have been thoughtful, appropriate, and solidly bipartisan, as they should be. Sadly and unfortunately, that is not the case this year.

Instead, the Republican leadership of this House has chosen to include controversial language in the resolution, including language celebrating the passage of legislation that many of us, both Democrats and Republicans, find to be deeply problematic.

For example, the resolution before us celebrates the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, which I and many others, Republicans and Democrats, believe went too far in sacrificing American's constitutional civil liberties.

Rand Corporation terrorism expert Brian Michael Jenkins recently made

this point very well. He argues that strengthening America must involve preserving American values. And I quote: ``We cannot claim to be a Nation of laws, a champion of democracy, when we too easily accept a disturbing pattern of ignoring inconvenient rules, justifying our actions by extraordinary circumstances, readily resorting to extrajudicial actions based on broad assertions of unlimited executive authority, and espousing public arguments against any constraints on how we treat those in our custody. The defense of democracy demands the defense of democracy's ideals. To ignore this is to risk alienation and isolation. And defeat.''

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us celebrates the 2005 passage of what many of us consider to be a punitive, controversial immigration bill, a bill that couldn't even pass the Republican Senate and a bill that President Bush does not even support.

Mr. Speaker, it did not have to be this way, and it should not be this way. On Monday night the United States Senate passed its own version of the September 11 resolution, S. Res. 565, and I will insert a copy of the Senate bill at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill approaches this issue the right way. It sticks to remembering the victims, condemning the attacks and their perpetrators, recommitting the United States to fighting terrorism, and commending the members of our Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, first responders, members of the intelligence community, and others who are on the front lines of this effort. The Senate bill was cosponsored by every single Senator, Republican and Democrat. Every single Senator put their names on this bill, and it was passed unanimously. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the same thing is not good enough for the leadership in this House. Why on this subject, where unity is vitally important, does the leadership of this House seek disunity? Let us commemorate, not politicize, September 11.

This resolution should not be a Republican resolution. It should be a resolution that defies party label. I am worried that some in this House are so consumed with politics that they would use this terrible tragedy for partisan gain, and I find that offensive.

The resolution before us also states as fact that ``the Nation is safer than it was on September 11, 2001.'' Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the actions of this administration, particularly the war in Iraq, have made us less safe. Five years ago the world stood in sympathy and solidarity with America. Today, America's standing in the world is at the lowest point in history. Mr. Speaker, we invaded and now occupy a country that posed no imminent threat to the United States. Despite definitive and repeated findings that there were no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, a finding most recently echoed by the Republican- controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, the President and Vice President continue their misleading efforts to link al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Iraq, and 9/11 all together.

The war in Iraq and the war against terrorism are distinct. The present Iraq policy, many of us believe, has made us less safe and must be changed. Even our top generals in Iraq have conceded that our policy in Iraq has actually produced more terrorists. This does not make us safer, Mr. Speaker. It makes us more isolated and more vulnerable in an increasingly dangerous world.

We know that resources were diverted from Afghanistan, where the 9/11 deadly plot was born, in order to invade and occupy Iraq. And we know now that the trail of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, has grown stone cold. We know that the President's policies in Iraq have put an enormous strain on our military, with U.S. military readiness levels now at historic lows.

We know that the independent 9/11 Commission has just issued a 5-year report card on President Bush and the Congress filled with D's and F's on homeland security. And I think we all know, if we are being honest with ourselves, that we in this Congress have underfunded so much of our homeland security.

We know that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased the budget deficit to record proportions because this administration and Congress have done what no other President and Congress have ever done in the history of the United States: they have continued to fund this war completely outside the normal budget and to grant a series of tax cuts to the wealthiest of the wealthy during a time of war.

And we know, Mr. Speaker, that Iraq is rapidly descending into an ethnic and religious civil war with a daily civilian toll that tells every single Iraqi that nowhere is safe from violence, not their homes, not their jobs, not their schools, not even their hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution could have been, should have been a thoughtful, bipartisan commemoration of September 11, its victims, and the men and women who fight to protect us each and every day. That is what we should have on the floor today. Unfortunately, the resolution before us does not meet that standard.

Members of this House have differences about policy. There are differences about the war in Iraq, and I respect and appreciate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have a very different opinion on this war than I do. We have differences about protecting civil liberties. We have differences about how best to deal with immigration. But there are no differences, there are no differences, when it comes to honoring the memories of those lost on September 11. There are no differences when it comes to commending the men and women on the front lines of the war on terror. And there are no differences when it comes to the desire to protect this country from future terrorist attacks.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the leadership of this House, during this most solemn week, has chosen not to focus solely on the things that bring us together as Members of Congress and as Americans

S. Res. 565

Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four

civilian aircraft; crashed two of them into the towers of the

World Trade Center in New York City; and crashed the third

into the Pentagon outside Washington, DC;

Whereas the fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight

93, crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, near the town

of Shanksville, after the passengers and crew of that flight

struggled with the terrorist-hijackers to take back control

of the plane, ultimately preventing the flight from reaching

its likely destination in Washington, DC;

Whereas the heroic actions of the rescue workers,

volunteers, Federal, State and local officials who responded

to the attacks with courage, determination, and skill are to

be commended;

Whereas thousands of innocent Americans, and civilians from

many other countries, were killed and injured as a result of

these attacks;

Whereas Congress declared, in the aftermath of the attacks,

September 12, 2001 to be a National Day of Unity and

Mourning;

Whereas there has not been a terrorist attack on the United

States homeland since the terrorist attacks five years ago;

but al Qaeda has perpetrated terrorist attacks throughout the

world against U.S. persons, facilities, and interests, as

well as U.S. allies during that time; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate:

(1) commemorates the life of each individual who died as a

result of the attacks of September 11, 2001;

(2) extends its deepest condolences to the victims of these

attacks, as well as to their families, friends, and loved

ones;

(3) once again condemns in the strongest possible terms the

attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated them, and their

sponsors;

(4) commits to support the necessary steps to interdict and

defeat terrorists who plot to do harm to the American people;

(5) recommits itself and the nation to bringing to justice

the perpetrators of the attacks, along with their sponsors;

(6) honors and expresses its gratitude to members of its

Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, first responders,

members of intelligence community and others who have bravely

and faithfully participated in the War on Terrorism since

September 11, 2001;

(7) declares September 11, 2006, to be a National Day of

Remembrance, in commemoration of the terrorist attacks

against the United States on September 11, 2001; and

(8) declares that when the Senate adjourns today, it stand

adjourned as a further mark of respect to each individual who

died as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from both my friend from Texas and my chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, the gentleman from California, and I would just say that that was a really good campaign speech as he went through a litany of issues. But this is not a day for campaign speeches.

Once I finish my sentence.

And I would say to the gentleman that on Monday, those Members who were in town, Republicans and Democrats, gathered on the East Front of the Capitol in solidarity. There were no campaign speeches, there was no politics. People gathered in solidarity together to commemorate those who lost their lives and to honor those who gave such tremendous sacrifice on September 11th.

The United States Senate on Monday night had a resolution that every single Member of the United States Senate, Republican and Democrat, both, all co-sponsored and passed unanimously. There was unity. There was a desire not to debate the PATRIOT Act, not to debate the House version of the Border Security bill which the Republican-controlled Senate doesn't like and even the President doesn't like. It was about putting all those issues aside where there are differences, not just between Democrats and Republicans, I would say to the gentleman from Texas, but on issues like the PATRIOT Act there were a number of Republicans who had concerns about it.

So this is not about one party versus the other. But on an issue like this involving commemorating the terrible tragedy of September 11 and honoring those who sacrificed their lives, I

would like to think in the spirit here of what happened Monday night and using the example of what went on in the United States Senate, that we could rise to the occasion

Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

I thank the gentleman for his comments and reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me state for the record that in 2002, when we had a resolution on this issue, it passed unanimously. In 2004 and 2005, the resolutions that were brought to this floor were jointly sponsored by Representatives Hyde and Lantos both times. There was an effort at bipartisanship then, and I think that is the model. That is the model we should be following here. The bottom line is this is not a resolution that has been produced as a result of bipartisan consultation.

But let me go back to the point I was trying to make in the beginning, and that is, this is a very solemn week, and we should not be doing anything but trying to bring this House together like they did in the United States Senate so that we speak with one voice and that we make it clear that we are together when it comes to commemorating those who lost their lives and those who have sacrificed so much and those who continue to put their lives on the line for the protection of all people.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind some of the previous speakers here that the title of this bill, H. Res. 994, is expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. And I do that because we have heard a lot of speeches here and we have talked about a lot of different issues that are separate from commemorating those who lost their lives, those who sacrificed on September 11, those who continue to protect our country.

We have talked about the PATRIOT Act and border security. We have talked about a whole litany of things, and those are all certainly important issues and legitimate issues for us to discuss, how best to protect this country. Those are things we should be debating here on a regular basis on the House floor, but they are controversial, some of these initiatives. They are controversial with a lot of Members of your own party.

I wish we would get back to the point that this resolution here today, and what some of us are troubled by, is that this should be about unity and this should be about honoring those who sacrificed, those who lost their lives, those who have served our country so well. That is what this should be about and not a litany of controversial items that you want to promote during a campaign year.

If you want to do that, do it in a separate resolution, take up a separate bill, but we should all be together when it comes to a resolution on September 11.

The United States Senate got it right. They got it right over in the United States Senate. We should do the same here in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just respond to the gentleman by again pointing to what the other body, the United States Senate, did where 100 Senators, Democrats, Republicans, came together as one, cosponsored a resolution and voted unanimously for a resolution.

That is what we should be doing during this solemn week, not introducing legislation that inspires, quite frankly, the kind of debate that we have here today about issues that really are not about commemorating that day but issues that are highly controversial, ranging from everything to immigration to civil liberties to you name it. That is not the way we should be doing this

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, let me just take issue with the gentleman from Texas. He says this whole question of the Nation being safer than it was on September 11, 2001, has nothing to do with this resolution. Well, that is what it says in this resolution, if he reads the resolution. There are some things contained in this resolution that people over here, and that people on both sides legitimately have some questions with.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I will close for our side.

Mr. Speaker, the issue about whether or not the Nation is safer than it was on September 11, 2001, is a legitimate topic for debate, but not on this resolution. The issue of the PATRIOT Act, there are differences on that. I have a lot of reservations about the PATRIOT Act, as do many Republicans. That is a legitimate debate we should continue to have. The issue about how best to protect our borders is a serious and important and legitimate issue. President Bush and Senator McCain have one opinion on how we should do it, which I think makes a heck of a lot more sense than the view of the Republican majority in this House, but that is certainly a legitimate debate. But it doesn't belong in a resolution commemorating the lives and the sacrifices of those individuals on September 11, 2001.

And I guess I wish that just once, just once the leadership on the other side of the aisle could bring to this floor a piece of legislation, especially on an issue like this, that is not stained with politics. Why does everything have to have a political slant to it? I think people are sick of it, I really do. I think on issues like this people want us to come together, as we have done in the past, as the other body has done, and speak with one voice. Let us not make this into something it shouldn't be.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am asking Members of this House to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can consider a much better resolution, one that respectfully commemorates this most somber occasion. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that instead of voting on the divisive partisan resolution made in order under this rule, we will consider the text of the truly bipartisan resolution that was adopted in the Senate on the fifth anniversary of September 11.

Not only was this measure passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on September 11, the actual day of the anniversary, it was cosponsored by every single Member of the United States Senate: every single Democrat, every single Republican.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, this is the resolution we should be considering today, and let me tell you why. It was not written for political gain or for 30-second sound bites. It was written with the sole intent and purpose of remembering the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and to honor and mourn the victims of that horrific day.

I think we owe it to the people of this great Nation to put politics aside for this one day and show that we are Americans first and that some things are sacred and should never be used for political purposes.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider the Senate version of the September 11 commemorative.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 996 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for 4 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their designees. It waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution and also provides one motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions.

Finally, it provides that notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today, 5 years after the tragedy of September 11, to speak with one voice to let the world know that we have not forgotten the lessons of that terrible day. We are here to remember the thousands ruthlessly murdered by our enemies who hijacked four civilian aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, and to recognize the unimaginable losses suffered by their families. We are also here to honor the sacrifices and the courage shown by our first responders who selflessly rushed to the flaming buildings in order to rescue the victims of these attacks.

We are also here to let our allies in the war on terror know that we stand united with them in the war on terror, and to recognize the progress that continues to be made by our Federal intelligence, law enforcement and security agencies in conjunction with intelligence, law enforcement and security agencies of our allies, in keeping Americans safe. And we are here to remind these allies and to place our enemies on notice that we will never shirk from the war on terror and that we will never forget what happened on September 11, 2001.

The six-page resolution should be recognized by every Member of this body as an opportunity to remember our Nation's tragic loss and to encourage every American to do the same. It is an opportunity to extend our sympathies to the families of the lost and to honor those who risked their own lives and health trying to protect the lives and health of others.

It is an opportunity to extend our gratitude to our intelligence and military personnel serving at home and abroad and their families for their service. It is to thank the citizens of other nations who are contributing to the effort to defeat global terrorism.

More importantly, it is an opportunity by this body to reaffirm that we remain vigilant and steadfast in the war on terror, that we remember the sacrifices made by so many innocent Americans on September 11 and that we will never succumb to the cause of terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution that will be brought here before the House for a vote is an earnest, heart-felt and comprehensive resolution putting the House on record and standing once again against terrorism.

This House already has a strong record on this topic and has already passed a number of bills designed to accomplish the main goal laid out in this resolution, to remember the lessons of 9/11 and to honor the victims by preventing another attack on American soil. We have voted to give our law enforcement the tools they need to prosecute the war on terror in the United States and throughout the world, and through the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and its reauthorization we have once again reaffirmed that.

We have voted to implement a key component of the 9/11 Commission by creating Federal standards for the application process in the issuing of State identification cards through the REAL ID Act.

And this House has voted to secure our borders through the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act and to defend our ports through the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act. We have made important reforms in the intelligence community through the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and provided our first responders with the resources that they would need with our annual Homeland Security authorization and appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, this House has accomplished a great deal on behalf of the American people to ensure the citizens of the United States that they can be safe here and abroad, but we understand that this job is not yet done. Next week the House is scheduled to consider legislation that will build upon all of this hard work, legislation to further boost our national security and to give our law enforcement the tools it needs to prevent our shadowy, ever-shifting, and determined enemy to once again demonstrate that we do not rest in the war on terror and that we will not forget.

I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule to let our allies and our enemies alike know that we will continue the war on terror both in memory of those murdered on September 11 and for the generations still to come who will look back and evaluate our ability to put partisanship aside and to stand together on behalf of our Nation, our citizens, and, in fact, our civilization.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, my colleague, from Massachusetts does clearly talk about the differences of opinion that we have, and I respect that difference. I would also say that this body has an obligation to move forward and work on issues that we think are correct and right. And quite honestly, Republicans do see what has happened to

this country, I believe, in a significantly different way than what my colleagues, the Democrats, see.

Several months ago we had a vote, and we have done this several times, but a vote on the intelligence bill where the Democrat Party wanted and had a vote on the floor that would require law enforcement and intelligence to release every single name of every single person under investigation by the FBI and intelligence agencies to the Congress, to nonlaw enforcement officials. These are the kinds of ideas that Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats have about how we go about protecting this country. We politely disagree.

The resolution here today is not about policy as it relates to what we are trying to pass today. It is about how this act that happened on 9/11 we will not forget. We will thank the men and women who protected us that day. We will stand behind the men and women of our military and intelligence organizations. We give thanks to the families who are here in this country whose loved ones serve on the front lines. And, lastly, we will let our allies know and the terrorists know that we will stay to the end. That is what this resolution is about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we think we got it right. We think we did the PATRIOT Act right. We think we did intelligence authorization right. We think we do a lot of things right around here. We are going to stand up for this country, Mr. Speaker. We are going to stand up for the men and women who protect our country. We are going to stand up and give the men and women of the intelligence community the things that they need.

Today, it is right and fitting to say thank you; we will not forget and we will be vigilant to protect this country. That is what this resolution is about

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from New York described his disagreement with the administration. I understand that. We had seen the administration before this President ignore, completely ignore, the advice from the CIA. As a matter of fact, I remember at least one CIA director resigned under President Clinton because he could not get President Clinton to pay attention to more than 3 hours in a month to the intelligence needs of this country.

We have already talked about how vote after vote after vote by the Democrats that they choose to gut our ability, in my opinion, to effectively not only have law enforcement but to chase down those that may do harm against this country.

Some choose to characterize that we are not safer today than what we were before the attack. I completely disagree with that. I would completely disagree with that because I think every single American that day learned of the tremendous forces that were aimed at the United States that we had really been completely unaware of before.

So I think that we are better off today. Are we absolutely safe? No. Are we safer? Yes, we are, and we have a responsibility to maintain that line of defense.

This resolution has nothing to do with that. It is a resolution, the force of this body, to say we respect the men and women who on 9/11 gave their lives; we are sorry for the men and women who have been injured as a result of that; we are going to support our military; we are going to support the families and we will never forget; and we are going to back up our allies; and we are going to make sure that we get it right. That is what this resolution is about.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' because it is the honorable and the right thing to do, to say thank you to the men and women who gave their lives, to say thank you to the men and women who were heroic in their efforts to try and save people, and it is the right thing to do to say to the men and women of our military and our intelligence communities that we believe you have not only done a great job but we thank your families also for those sacrifices.

We believe it is the right thing to do to remember this event 5 years later. We believe it is the right thing to do to let the world know that the United States Congress, this body, in this House resolution, believes that we will stay strong not only in the war on terrorism but that we believe that fighting for civilization and peace and opportunity in this world is the right thing.

We have heard from three of this Congress' greatest leaders, Phil Gingrey, Pete King, who is the chairman of the committee, and the young chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, as they have spoken eloquently about not only what this country stands for but about how our respectfully saying thank you and remembering this day is a part of our job and is the right thing to do.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote on behalf of this resolution

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows

Previous Question for H. Res. 996, the Rule for H. Res. 994 Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives on the 5th Anniversary of the Terrorist Attacks launched against the United States on September 11,

2001

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:

``Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order

to consider in the House the resolution printed in section 2

expressing the sense of the House of Representatives upon the

five-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks against the

United States on September 11, 2001. The resolution shall be

considered as read. The previous question shall be considered

as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided and

controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or

their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.''

Sec. 2. The following is the text referred to in Section 1:

Resolution

``A resolution expressing the sense of the House of

Representatives upon the five-year anniversary of the

terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11,

2001.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four

civilian aircraft, crashed two of them into the towers of the

World Trade Center in New York City, and crashed the third

into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C.;

Whereas the fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight

93, crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, near the town

of Shanksville, after the passengers and crew of that flight

struggled with the terrorist-hijackers to take back control

of the plane, ultimately preventing the flight from reaching

its likely destination in Washington, D.C.;

Whereas the heroic actions of the rescue workers,

volunteers, and State and local officials who responded to

the attacks with courage, determination, and skill are to be

commended;

Whereas thousands of innocent Americans, and civilians from

many other countries, were killed and injured as a result of

these attacks;

Whereas Congress declared, in the aftermath of the attacks,

September 12, 2001, to be a National Day of Unity and

Mourning; and

Whereas there has not been a terrorist attack on the United

States homeland since the terrorist attacks five years ago,

but al Qaeda has perpetrated terrorist attacks throughout the

world against United States persons, facilities, and

interests, as well as United States allies during that time:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) commemorates the life of each individual who died as a

result of the attacks of September 11, 2001;

(2) extends its deepest condolences to the victims of these

attacks, as well as to their families, friends, and loved

ones;

(3) once again condemns in the strongest possible terms the

attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated them, and their

sponsors;

(4) commits to support the necessary steps to interdict and

defeat terrorists who plot to do harm to the American people;

(5) recommits itself and the Nation to bringing to justice

the perpetrators of the attacks, along with their sponsors;

(6) honors and expresses its gratitude to members of the

United States Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, first

responders, and others who have bravely and faithfully

participated in the War on Terrorism since September 11,

2001; and

(7) declares September 11, 2006, to be a National Day of

Remembrance, in commemoration of the terrorist attacks

against the United States on September 11, 2001.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. We are here today because there has not been enough red meat thrown at the Republican base before the Fourth of July recess. That is why we are here. So just in the nick of time, we have H. Res. 895.

The rule for this resolution is of course completely closed. Not even a substitute is made in order. The Republican leadership of this House does not even make a pretense of being fair and open and democratic any more. Under their leadership, this House makes the old politburo look like a New England town meeting. It is disgraceful.

This resolution purports to be about protecting our national security, about protecting the most sensitive secrets in the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, no one in this House supports the disclosure of classified information that could genuinely endanger the lives of Americans.

But we all know that is not what is going on here. In reality, it is an attempt to punish and intimidate the New York Times and other newspapers for publishing a story about the administration's surveillance of international financial transactions.

The Times reported on surveillance of transactions to the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT.

But as the Boston Globe recently reported, the Bush administration itself has publicly and repeatedly talked about this issue since September 11.

Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003, told the Globe: ``There have been public references to SWIFT before. The White House is overreaching when they say the New York Times committed a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before.''

Further, the Globe notes that a report to the U.N. Security Council in late 2001 said that SWIFT and other worldwide financial clearing houses ``are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.''

How many times have we heard the Bush administration talking about the need to monitor and disrupt terrorist financial transactions? How many times have we heard them bragging about their success in doing so? Too many to count. So it does not even pass the laugh test when Members of Congress start using words like ``treason,'' when they start calling for criminal prosecution against newspapers, when they circulate ludicrous Dear Colleague letters threatening to revoke the Times credentials to cover Congress.

Even worse, Mr. Speaker, is the rank hypocrisy exposed by this resolution. The Bush administration and their Republican allies in Congress say they are outraged by leaks of sensitive information. Well, as the ranking member on the Rules Committee pointed out, where was their outrage when White House officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer in an attempt to smear her husband?

Where was their outrage when White House officials leaked false and misleading intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to bolster their case for war? Those leaks, I should note, were made to the same New York Times that has their knickers in a twist today.

Where was their outrage when General Casey's plan for potential troop reductions in Iraq suddenly appeared in the Times and in other newspapers? Now, I assume that given their outrage today, we will never again see sensitive information attributed to a ``senior administration official'' or ``a senior House Republican.''

What is really going on here, Mr. Speaker, is that the administration and their allies have no problems with leaks to the press when those leaks advance their political agenda. But if a leak contradicts their agenda, suddenly they call it treason. They suffer from a case of selective outrage.

This administration is obsessed with secrecy, with controlling the flow of information in this country, with shutting out the other branches of government, with signing statements that make clear they have no intention of following the law, with bullying their critics into silence by questioning their patriotism.

Time after time this Congress has acquiesced. For the Republican leadership, oversight is a four-letter word. Not since Richard Nixon has it been more important to have an unfettered and free press, because that is the only check left on the imperial Presidency in America today.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the American people will see through this. And I urge my colleagues to do the same. Reject this closed rule and reject this resolution.

[From the Boston Globe, June 28, 2006]

Terrorist Funds-Tracking No Secret, Some S (Binde

(By Bryan Bender)

Washington.--News reports disclosing the Bush

administration's use of a special bank surveillance program

to track terrorist financing spurred outrage in the White

House and on Capitol Hill, but some specialists pointed out

yesterday that the government itself has publicly discussed

its stepped-up efforts to monitor terrorist finances since

the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

On Monday, President Bush said it was ``disgraceful'' that

The New York Times and other media outlets reported last week

that the US government was quietly monitoring international

financial transactions handled by an industry-owned

cooperative in Belgium called the Society for Worldwide

Interbank Financial Communication, or SWIFT, which is

controlled by nearly 8,000 institutions in 20 countries. The

Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street

Journal also reported about the program.

The controversy continued to simmer yesterday when Senator

Jim Bunning, a Republican of Kentucky, accused the Times of

``treason,'' telling reporters in a conference call that it

``scares the devil out of me'' that the media would reveal

such sensitive information. Senator Pat Roberts, a Kansas

Republican, requested US intelligence agencies to assess

whether the reports have damaged anti-terrorism operations.

And Representative Peter King, the chairman of the House

Homeland Security Committee, has urged Attorney General

Albetrto Gonzalez to pursue ``possible criminal prosecution''

of the Times, which has reported on other secret government

surveillance programs. The New York Times Co. owns The Boston

Globe.

But a search of public records--government documents posted

on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank

examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed

in September 2001--describe how US authorities have openly

sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001.

That includes getting access to information about terrorist-

linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those

that travel through SWIFT.

``There have peen public references to SWIFT before,'' said

Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official

until 2003. ``The White House is overreaching when they say

[The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on

terror. It has been in the public domain before.''

Victor D. Comrass, a former US diplomat who oversaw efforts

at the United Nations to improve international measures to

combat terror financing, said it was common knowledge that

worldwide financial transactions were being closely monitored

for links to terrorists. ``A lot of people were aware that

this was going on,'' said Comras, one of a half-dozen

financial experts UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recruited

for the task.

``Unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume'' their

transactions were being monitored, Comras said of terrorist

group. ``We have spent the last four years bragging how

effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing.''

Indeed, a report that Comras co-authored in 2002 for the UN

Security Council specifically mentioned SWIFT as a source of

financial information that the United States had tapped into.

The system, which handles trillions of dollars in worldwide

transactions each day, serves as a main hub for banks and

other financial institutions that move money around the

world. According to The New York Times, SWIFT executives

agreed to give the Treasury Department and the CIA broad

access to its database.

SWIFT and other worldwide financial clearinghouses ``are

critical to processing international banking transactions and

are rich with payment information,'' according to the 33-page

report by the terrorist monitoring group established by the

UN Security Council in late 2001. ``The United States has

begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify

suspicious transactions. The group recommends the adoption

of similar mechanisms by other countries.''

Some worry that the new disclosures will nonetheless hamper

US counter-terrorism efforts.

``I worked this stuff and I can guarantee that [revealing

the SWIFT] information made a difference,'' said Dennis

Lormel, a retired FBI special agent who helped establish the

bureau's Terrorist Financing Operations Section before

leaving government in 2003. ``The disclosure will have an

adverse impact on investigations. It was used in two specific

instances where it helped to track terrorists. We also used

it for lead value.''

But the White House has also been very public about its

efforts to track the overseas banking transactions of

Americans and other foreign nationals.

Less than two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Bush signed an

executive order calling for greater cooperation with foreign

entities to monitor money that might be headed to terrorist

groups. The executive order was posted on the White House

website.

The document called for ``cooperation with, and sharing

information by, United States and foreign financial

institutions as an additional tool to enable the United

States to combat the financing of terrorism.''

Richard Newcomb, the head of the Treasury Department's

Office of Foreign Asset Control at the time, later publicly

credited the president for enabling US law enforcement and

intelligence agencies to nab suspected terrorists, including

followers of ``Hambali,'' Al Qaeda's leader in Southeast

Asia. The New York Times report said Hambali's capture in

2003 came with the aid of information gleaned from SWIFT.

Administration officials have said this week that the

disclosure of such details were particularly damaging to US

security.

Nevertheless, in July 2003--a month before Hambali was

captured--Newcomb told the Senate Government Affairs

Committee in detail about a program initiated after 9/11

between his office and the Pentagon to track Hambali's

financial network in Southeast Asia. The scope of the project

included Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore,

focusing on the finances of Jemaa Islamiyah, the Al Qaeda

group run by Hambali that was responsible for deadly bombings

in Bali in 2002.

He said the operation ``identified the key leaders, fund-

raisers, businessmen, recruiters, companies, charities,

mosques, and schools that were part of [Jamaa Islamiyah]

support network. Thus far, we have imposed sanctions against

two of these key nodes, and are coordinating action against

several others,'' Newcomb told the committee.

Other public documents have also detailed post-9/11 efforts

to follow terrorist money.

The Patriot Act approved by Congress after the attacks

emphasized providing new authorities for the Bush

administration to track and choke off terrorist funds around

the world. One part of the act, dealing specifically with

terrorist money, was described by the Treasury Department as

the most ``significant [anti-money-laundering] law'' since a

1970 law requiring banks to report cash transactions over

$10,000.

That section of the Patriot Act required the Bush

administration to ``adopt regulations to encourage further

cooperation among financial institutions, their regulatory

authorities, and law enforcement authorities'' to track

terrorist-related money laundering.

In testimony before Congress in early 2002, Juan C. Zarate,

deputy assistant Treasury secretary in charge of terrorism

and violent crime, discussed how the global exchange of

information was a key element in choking off their source of

funds.

He cited a special international meeting hosted a month

after the attacks by the International Financial Crimes

Enforcement Network, ``to eliminate existing impediments to

exchanging information'' between financial institutions and

to find solutions to the challenges of tracking terrorist

funds.

Will the gentleman yield?

That is not what I said.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, I just want to state that I deeply resent the gentleman from Texas deliberately mischaracterizing what I said here on the House floor; and let me repeat for him what I said: That no one in this House supports the disclosure of classified information that could endanger the lives of Americans.

I would simply say to the gentleman from Texas that the American people are sick and tired of the smears that have gone on here. We can have a debate. You don't need to smear or mischaracterize what I said.