Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Mijares Family, of Pasadena, who are celebrating the 85th Anniversary of Mijares Mexican Restaurant, their family business.

Jesucita Mijares immigrated to California in the early 1900s with her second husband, Juan, and infant son, Joe. The family settled in Pasadena where Jesucita gave birth to two more children and cared for her growing family. The young Jesucita began her legendary tortilla- making business in 1920 to provide for her family after the devastating loss of her second husband.

Mijares Mexican Restaurant began as a family and community operated business that supplied hand-made tortillas to local grocery stores and restaurants. Mrs. Mijares took in boarders to supplement her income, and soon, tables were spread throughout her home to accommodate the growing number of residents and guests. Slowly, her tortilla business expanded and she provided meals for guests, with traditional Mexican dishes such as tamales and menudo served daily.

In 1940, as the business continued to flourish, Jesucita moved the production out of her home to a location on Palmetto Drive in Pasadena to be used as a delicatessen and small tortilla business. What happened, however, was that tables were added, rooms were built and patios were poured to accommodate hundreds of guests daily at the restaurant.

During the late 1970s the Mijares family suffered a devastating loss when the family restaurant was destroyed by fire. Determined to continue what her mother had started, her daughter, Alice Mijares Recendez worked hard to rebuild the restaurant, which was completed in 1984. During the time of rebuilding, to help her employees, many of whom were out of work, Alice opened a second restaurant on Washington Blvd. in Pasadena which exists to this day.

In 1988, Jesucita Mijares died and Alice became the family matriarch. Today, Alice and her daughter R-Iene Mijares de Lang are the owners of Mijares. Alice oversees the gardens and patios at Mijares, cultivating the same love of plants and flowers as her mother Jesucita. R-Iene taught in San Diego for 12 years before returning to run her family business. Also contributing to the family business are R-Iene's brother, Tom Recendez, who manages the restaurant on Washington Blvd., and her sister, Tina Jimenez, who supports the administration of the catering and restaurant business. The Mijares family warmly welcomes its guests and works hard at providing friendly, quality service.

The Mijares family has made Mijares Mexican Restaurant both an enjoyable dining establishment and a business that gives back to the community. The family actively contributes to a number of charities which include Women at Work, Child Care Information Services, P.E.O. Chapters, the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association, Villa Esperanza, NOW, Pasadena Polytechnic School, EI Centro de Accion Social, the Los Angeles Children's Chorus, Hospice of Pasadena, and the Girt Scouts of America.

I am proud to recognize the Mijares Family on the 85th anniversary of Mijares Mexican Restaurant and I ask all Members of Congress to join me in honoring this family for their 85 years of service to our community.

Madam Speaker, as we honor Chief Justice William Rehnquist's life, we pause to reflect on his service to our country, a record of service that was colored with honor, dignity, and distinction.

Many commentators are focused on his success ushering in a quiet, conservative revolution on the Court. Another remarkable facet of Rehnquist's legacy, however, is found in a much more understated role of the Chief Justice, that of the judiciary's chief advocate and ambassador. The hallmark of his style, no matter how volatile the issue or context, from abortion to impeachment, was one of respectful debate, a quality that garnered an enormous degree of loyalty and respect among his fellow Justices, litigants, and Court watchers.

But the Chief Justice not only worked to foster respect and collegiality within the walls of the Court; he did more. For the last 2 years of his tenure, Rehnquist turned his focus to a matter that has also been a source of growing concern for many, the deterioration in relations between the Congress and the courts. As the Chief Justice reported in his year-end analysis of the state of the judiciary, and again in his customarily understated way, ``During the last year, it seems that the traditional interchange between the Congress and the Judiciary broke down.''

This hostility long preceded congressional intervention in the tragic case of Terri Schiavo and has taken many forms beyond the most simple and pernicious, that of defunding the courts. It includes measures stripping the courts of jurisdiction to hear particular cases, condemning the courts for the citation of certain precedent, and splitting circuits out of a dislike for their jurisprudence.

One constitutional amendment would even change the Framers' design- of-life tenure for lower Federal courts and subject judges to costly campaigns and retention elections. If Members think political campaigning by elected officials and the growth of 527 organizations and other independent expenditure efforts are already out of control, just imagine adding negative attack ads in judicial races around the country: ``Call Judge Jones and tell him to stop coddling criminals'' or ``Call Judge Smith and ask him why he denied relief to widows and orphans.'' One can just imagine what the judicial ads might look like.

Even though many of these legislative initiatives have yet to pass, we are already witnessing the direct consequences to our court system. In recent years there has been a marked decline in the level of interest and service on the bench among highly qualified attorneys. Judges are leaving the bench to return to private practice. Reckless talk in the House Committee on the Judiciary about the potential impeachment of judges not for unethical conduct but out of a disagreement with their decisions has only added to the chilling effect on the courts and people's willingness to serve.

Ultimately, this protracted war against the judicial branch will only denigrate both Congress and the courts. This is not the first time relations between the two branches have been at a dangerously low ebb, nor was Rehnquist the first Chief Justice to express alarm. Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes admonished the Congress of his day that ``in the great enterprise of making democracy workable, we are all partners. One member of our body politic cannot say to another `I have no need of thee.'''

Increasingly, however, the Congress has been saying just that, and Rehnquist was among the first to spot the danger. When the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and I formed a bipartisan caucus to improve relations with the courts, Justice Rehnquist was the first to sit down with us. We invited him to meet with our caucus. He came to the Hill, sat down with us, and it was a very important meeting and interchange. After presiding over the high Court for the last 2 decades, he was clearly disturbed at the turn of events in relations between the branches and the resulting attack upon the independence of the judiciary.

Why does it matter if the Congress and the courts are at war? Because if the separation of powers has eroded and an independent judiciary is impaired, decisions become increasingly politicized. Public confidence in the rule of law erodes and people begin taking law into their own hands: 174 years ago, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall warned, ``The greatest scourge an angry heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and sinning people was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent judiciary.''

During the confirmation hearings of John Roberts next week, there will be

a great many important questions asked about Roberts' judicial philosophy, his views on individual rights and freedoms. But I hope that at least one Senator will ask whether Roberts, a prodigy of and potential successor to Rehnquist, will aspire to succeed not only his mentor's conservative revolution but his all too solitary work to repair the damage to the historic and vital comity between the Congress and the courts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the supplemental appropriation to help the people devastated by this hurricane. As Members can probably tell, I have laryngitis. I may lose my voice again during the course of my remarks, but I feel compelled to speak today at the outset to express my sincere condolence to all those families that have lost loved ones or still wonder where their loved ones are in the wake of this terrifying and terrible hurricane.

My heart goes out to all of those that have been impacted. The effects of this hurricane have been devastating. We have seen its physical force, extraordinary winds, the water, the flooding, the wrath of nature in Hurricane Katrina.

It has been awesome and terrible in its destruction, but sadness has given way to anger and disbelief as we have seen people stranded on roof tops, as we have seen mothers worry about whether their babies will have enough to eat, as we have seen children worry about their parents' medical conditions and the lack of medicine, as we have wondered how this could happen in the United States of America.

National disasters afflict every part of the globe, but it seems that this national disaster has been compounded by our response and in cases by our lack of response. The images we have seen have been horrifying. We have all wondered how it was that so many people came to be left behind, how it was that we could have assumed that when 20 percent of the population of New Orleans lives under the level of poverty, that everyone would have a means of getting out of New Orleans before the storm. How it is that there are not buses running around the clock to take people away from this terrible place with no food, no water, giving way to lawlessness?

I heard today that the District of Columbia is sending 10 buses, and I applaud the District of Columbia, but it will take days for those buses to get there. Why are there not buses around the clock? Why is it that these news crews can go and take this devastating footage and find these survivors, and the relief effort cannot?

I, like a great many Americans, do not understand how this is possible in the United States of America. My constituents demand that we move both earth and heaven to bring relief as fast as possible to the people of the Gulf Coast, and we have been bitterly disappointed to see how this tragedy has been prolonged, and we have the most profound questions about how in the richest Nation on earth it can take so long to simply get people out of that disaster zone to higher ground, drier ground, to food, medicine. I do not understand the government's response. I really do not.

And yes, there will be plenty of time to ask these questions and we will ask them. But the rest of the country is asking them now. We demand a better response than we are getting. I hope that as some of the officials from FEMA and the National Guard are saying, the calvary is on the way, the calvary is truly on the way. And I hope that effort only accelerates and mushrooms and does not stop until every last person has been evacuated.

This has been a devastating week for the United States. We have seen bodies floating through the streets. We have heard the voices of Americans question how their government could leave them in such a place in such a time with such developed mass transportation, without airlifts of food and medicine, without rapid evacuation. This country can do better. This country must do better. I hope and pray we are doing a lot better right this moment.

I am proud of this Congress for coming into this session and rapidly approving this aid, and it is incumbent upon this Congress to ensure this aid is delivered ASAP and not another moment goes by with another victim waiting to be rescued.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement and encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing its ratification. Trade agreements of this magnitude must not be entered into lightly, and their impact must be investigated thoroughly.

I have studied this issue in great detail, Mr. Speaker. Over the last several months, I have heard from a great number of my constituents; some support the agreement and believe that it will have significant economic and social benefits for the United States, others oppose this agreement because they are concerned that the environmental and labor costs are too great.

I oppose the ratification of CAFTA because it does not adequately protect American interests, ensure that our trading partners will protect our shared environment, provide protection for the rights of workers, or join us in our fight to ensure intellectual property protections.

Mr. Speaker, a globalized economy in which goods and services move with relative ease across national borders is a fact of life in the 21st Century. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has said, ``Globalization is not a phenomenon. It is not just some passing trend. Today it is an overarching international system shaping the domestic politics and foreign relations of virtually every country, and we need to understand it as such.''

I support trade that is free and fair. And in fact, I have supported each of the individual trade agreements that have come before me. However, to be free and fair a trading regime must ensure that American workers are not competing with nations whose labor and environmental standards guarantee that we cannot compete, and where the intellectual capital of our people is stolen at will. And we must have an Administration that is willing to use all the force of its office to enforce the standards which are set. The dynamism of the American economy, the quality and dedication of American workers, and the constant renewal of American society through immigration have left us in a unique position to thrive in this new economic world. The challenges for the United States are how to draft good trade agreements, enforce their terms, prepare our work force to deal with globalization, and ensure that our workers have the opportunity to fairly compete.

Regrettably, I lack confidence in the Bush administration's willingness to fight for a level playing field on behalf of American workers. For this reason and because I believe that Congress should play a role in shaping trade agreements, I opposed passage of ``Trade Promotion Authority'' in 2002. I do not believe that we should be forced to accept a flawed deal, or reject a good deal that has some shortcomings. Nor can we accept half-hearted efforts to enforce labor, environmental or intellectual property provisions--or, as is too often the case, no effort at all.

Mr. Speaker, one area of particular concern to my constituents is the lack of adequate protection for American intellectual property. One of our greatest exports is in the area of creative content and intellectual property. In fact, this has been the only area in which we have had a positive balance of trade with every nation on earth; China is now the only exception. This incredible creative reservoir is derived from the hard work of song writers, technicians, artists, programmers, software makers, musicians, filmmakers and scores of others who make their living from the lawful sale of these items. It is critical that these resources are protected, and the Administration has not adequately sought to put in place or enforce the protections necessary to shield America's creators from intellectual property theft.

I have reviewed the CAFTA agreement that was signed on May 28, 2004, and I have listened to concerns over labor, environmental, and intellectual property issues that have been expressed by my constituents and others. I have also listened to those, including former President Jimmy Carter, who support the agreement, and argue that it will create jobs here and expand democracy and opportunity for our Central American neighbors. Ultimately, however, I am not convinced that CAFTA is a mutually beneficial agreement that protects our hemisphere's workers, environment, and intellectual property, and particularly so when the Administration has such a lackluster record on enforcement.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in opposing the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Speaker, it is possible to work with our Central American neighbors to develop stronger trade ties, collectively protect workers and our environment, spur economic development throughout the trade cooperative, and enter into an agreement that benefits all interested parties. Unfortunately, CAFTA falls short in all of these areas.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 22 and for the purpose of engaging the chairman and the gentleman in a brief colloquy.

H.R. 22 is long overdue and goes a long way towards ensuring the future competitiveness and viability of the U.S. Post Office. I am proud to cosponsor this important piece of legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.

One issue of concern to me, however, has to do with the consolidation and realignment of postal facilities. I believe it is critical that Congress and the U.S. Postal Service understand that the closing of a postal facility has a great impact on its local community. I remain concerned that the U.S. Postal Service's realignment and consolidation plan may not fully take into account all of the costs associated with each individual facility impacted by such a plan.

Clearly, there are benefits to the consolidation and realignment of postal operations, but I rise today to ask the chairman and the ranking member and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for their support in working with the Postal Service to make sure that all impacts are taken into account, not just those that are fiscal in nature. It is critical that Congress understands the closing of a postal facility has a very great impact on its local community.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 417 had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, although not in opposition, I ask unanimous consent to control the balance of the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Flake-Schiff amendment, which would make an important change to section 215 if it is ever used in the library or bookstore context. This amendment is substantially similar to one I offered in the Committee on the Judiciary with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), but one I agreed to withdraw in order to work with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) in a bipartisan fashion on a proposal for consideration on the House floor.

I am sure that every Member of Congress has heard from their constituents regarding this very provision of the PATRIOT Act. Even if possibly based on misplaced fears, some of the public are now apprehensive about going to their local library or bookstore.

Our amendment would not prevent law enforcement from investigating alleged terrorist activity wherever it may occur. It creates no safe haven for terrorists. Instead, our amendment would aim to restore some measure of public confidence that this provision will not be abused.

The Flake-Schiff amendment says that vis-a-vis the records that pose the greatest concern for all of our constituents, library records or bookstore records, the existing authority which allows lower level FBI agents to seek those records should be significantly amended.

If our amendment is adopted, only the FBI Director himself or herself can approve such an order for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

As of the latest public disclosure, the Justice Department has reported that section 215 has never been used in a library. The fact, however, that this provision may never have been used in a library to date does not alter the fact that it affects the behavior of all of our constituents who are concerned that their records may one day be the subject of a search.

Given the sensitivity of this section, I believe it is worthwhile and necessary to make changes to existing law and that this added protection is warranted.

During the Committee on the Judiciary markup last week, I offered an additional amendment to section 215 that would have lifted the prohibition on disclosure when a United States citizen was impacted and when the investigation had concluded if there was no good cause to continue to prohibit the disclosure. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected on party lines.

The Flake-Schiff amendment will still make another important and needed change. I believe it makes very good sense for the FBI Director and the Director alone to make the decision, and not to delegate it away. The bipartisan PATRIOT Act proposal in the Senate makes a similar change, restricting this authority to the FBI Director or Deputy Director. I think our amendment provides an even stronger safeguard and strikes a balance that will restore a measure of public confidence in this area.

Before closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to discuss the Sanders amendment and other efforts to make important changes to section 215. While I am appreciative that the Committee on Rules made the Flake-Schiff amendment in order, I am disappointed that the Sanders amendment was not also made in order. I believe that this House and the American people are better served if all proposals are duly and fairly considered on the House floor.

As you know, last month the House decisively adopted the Sanders amendment during consideration of the Science, State, Justice and Commerce appropriations bill. I supported that amendment, which prohibited the use of funds for a section 215 search of a library record patron list, book sale record or book customer list.

The Sanders amendment, however, did not amend the underlying PATRIOT law, which I believe we must do as a first step. We must permanently limit the statutory authorization to use section 215 in libraries and bookstores. The Sanders amendment also made no changes to the ability to search library computer and Internet records.

I expect and encourage the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to bring his amendment before the House floor each year to further limit the use of section 215 with respect to specific lists and records in libraries and bookstores. But, for now, since the amendment only applies for 1 year and only applies to specific items in the library, I think it is important and necessary for the House to pass this broader and permanent change to the PATRIOT Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I want to return the courtesy extended by my friend, and I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) to be subsequently yielded as he chooses.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

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

I want to conclude by thanking my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his work on this issue.

The fact that the library provision has not been used as of the last public disclosure does not affect the fact that many Americans are concerned about their expectation of privacy when they go to the library, when they check out books on family matters, on health matters, on other matters. They do not want to fear that the government may be scrutinizing what they are reading. And because this has an impact on the behavior of Americans, on the freedom to use libraries, it is an important issue, merely that fear.

This amendment, I think, takes a small, but important, step to provide at least the confidence to the people of this country that no less than the Director of the FBI himself or herself can authorize the use of this provision for library and bookseller records. I think it is an important step forward. I hope we make further progress.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year I introduced the Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2005 along with my colleague the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Our legislation is aimed at filling a gaping hole in our defense against terrorism and making America's ports, passengers and cargos safer.

Today, I offer the text of this important legislation as an amendment to the PATRIOT reauthorization bill, joined by my colleague the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Coble) of the Committee on the Judiciary, as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), another colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

There are 361 seaports in the United States that serve essential national interests by facilitating the flow of trade and the movement of cruise passengers, as well as supporting the effective and safe deployment of U.S. Armed Forces. These seaport facilities and other marine areas cover some 3.5 million square miles of ocean area and 95,000 miles of coastline.

Millions of shipping containers pass through our ports each month. A single container has room for as much as 60,000 pounds of explosives, 10 to 15 times the amount in the Ryder truck used to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. When you consider that a single ship can carry as many as 8,000 containers at one time, the vulnerability of our seaports is alarming.

Many seaports are still protected by little more than a chain link fence and in far too many instances have no adequate safeguards to ensure that only authorized personnel can access sensitive areas of the port. If we allow this system to continue unchecked, it may be only a matter of time until terrorists attempt to deliver a weapon of mass destruction to our doorstep via truck, ship or cargo container.

Strengthening criminal penalties, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Coble) and I proposed with our bill and in this amendment, is one way we can make our Nation's ports less vulnerable by filling this hole in our defense against terrorism and making America's ports, passengers and cargo safer.

This amendment makes common sense changes to our criminal laws to deter and prevent terrorist attacks on our ports, our sea vessels, and cracks down on the theft and smuggling of cargo.

I want to be clear, our amendment is intended to go after terrorists, terrorist acts and other dangerous felons. There is no intention to reach accidents or other unintentional acts that might occur at seaports.

A substantially similar bipartisan version of our legislation has already been reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee and is awaiting action by the full Senate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the subcommittee and a lead cosponsor of this amendment. I want to thank the chairman for his important work to bring this issue before the House.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

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

I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and thank the chairman of the subcommittee. When I offered this originally as stand-alone legislation in connection with another bill as an amendment, the chairman offered to work with me on this further down the line; and every bit true to his word, he has been a great partner to work with on this. I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Coble), and I want to thank our esteemed chairman of the full committee for their work on this.

The numbers are quite startling: 141 million ferry and cruise ship passengers, more than 2 billion tons of domestic international freight, and 3 billion tons of oil move through the U.S. seaports. Millions of truck-sized cargo containers are offloaded on to U.S. docks.

As a part of the homeland security authorization bill, the House took some important steps to improve the screening of cargo by expanding the container security initiative and refocusing it based on risk. But the truth is that not every container can be inspected, and we need to use other tools at our disposal to deter and punish those who would use our seaports as a point of attack. I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his courtesy today.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), for raising the important issue of detention and interrogation of terror suspects here on the House floor. I firmly agree that the executive must have the authority to capture, detain, and interrogate international terrorists to prevent future attacks and to process and punish those who have been captured.

Over a year ago, I traveled to Guantanamo Bay with the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Coble) and other Judiciary Committee members. We toured the facility and recognized the critical work that our soldiers are performing. It was also clear that important intelligence is being derived from detainee interviews, and our servicemembers have done difficult and courageous work guarding some of the most dangerous people in the world.

Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, there is still a significant issue arising out of our Nation's policy of detentions at Guantanamo, namely, the lack of any congressional authorization or imprimatur upon the policies underlining those detentions.

Last month I introduced Guantanamo Detainees Procedures Act of 2005, legislation that would provide for the swift and deliberate processing and prosecution of detainees in that matter that meets all the country's national security needs and establishes due process standards.

Over 500 detainees are currently held at Guantanamo Bay, most of them captured in Afghanistan after the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. Some detainees have been there for more than 3 years without being charged.

My legislation would do the following: first, it would affirm that the executive has the power to detain foreign nationals as unlawful combatants. Second, it would provide for a timely hearing before an independent military judicial officer to review the designation of enemy combatant. Third, it would require the government to bring formal charges against detainees or to repatriate them to their country of origin unless there was substantial likelihood of torture, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that additional time is needed to continue with the interrogation, that the person still remains a threat to the United States, and that by the bringing of formal charges it would curtail the intelligence gathering process.

Finally, it requires the Department of Defense to put the cases before tribunals that operate under clear standards and procedures. Finally, it would require annual reports to Congress on the status of all detainees.

Recently, I have been heartened by the bipartisan calls from Members of the Senate upon the Congress to forge legislation which specifically addresses the standards and procedures to be followed for military detainees. Frankly, I am surprised there are not more voices in Congress raising this issue that are not demanding that Congress act to set limits, not only in the detention of foreign nationals, but as in the case with Jose Padilla and Hamdi, on Americans or those that are lawfully residing in this country.

But I have found a new and powerful ally in the United States Supreme Court. As many know, the district and appellate courts have reached conflicting results about whether the executive's power to detain enemy combatants and under what conditions those powers can be used. Justice Scalia, in one of his dissenting opinions, commented, ``I frankly do not know whether the tools are sufficient to meet the government's security needs, including the need to obtain intelligence through interrogation. It is far beyond my competence or the Court's competence to determine that, but it is not beyond Congress's.''

We could not have, I think, a stronger admonition that we need to act in Congress. And I would ask my colleagues to consider legislation rather than the piecemeal decision-making by the courts. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution provides that the Congress, and not the President, has the power to make rules concerning captures on land and water, to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested in the Constitution in the Government of the United States, define and punish offenses against the law of nations and to constitute tribunals.

Mr. Chairman, a sense of Congress is good, but not enough. I urge my colleagues to examine my proposed legislation, a proposal that would affirm the executive's authority to detain foreign national terror suspects, but provide for the swift and deliberate processing and prosecution of detainees in a manner that protects our Nation and expresses our commitment to the rule of law. The Guantanamo Detainees Procedures Act of 2005 will ensure that the hallmark of our democracy is not compromised.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to recognize the superb work of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), and say that I think the gentleman is going to have to endure a number of valedictory speeches over the next year and a half. If one Member spoke for each year that the gentleman has served in this House, that would entitle us to 32 accolade speeches during the next year and a half. So be prepared. We are extremely grateful for all of your work. With our ranking member, we could not have two more talented members at the helm of the Committee on International Relations.

I also want to express a personal thanks for the willingness of the chairman and the ranking member to include several of my amendments to this bill in the markup.

Two weeks ago, terrorists struck in the heart of one of the world's great cities, London. The weapons they used, simple knapsacks filled with a few pounds of high explosive, caused a devastating loss of life and again highlighted our vulnerability to terrorism.

But what if terrorists had released a biological agent into London's underground? What if they had used a van with a stolen Russian nuclear weapon or nuclear material to cripple London's central business district?

The amendments I offered in committee addressed three critical areas in the fight to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction:

security of nuclear weapons and material, expanding the Proliferation Security Initiative, and redirecting the efforts of scientists formerly employed as part of the Soviet Union's biological warfare establishment.

While the United States has stringent controls on our nuclear weapons and weapons materials, security in other countries is less exacting.

My first amendment calls upon the President to work with the international community to improve the security of weapons and materials and to urge international support for the IAEA's proposals to strengthen the security of nuclear materials.

My second amendment urges the President to strengthen the 2-year-old Proliferation Security Initiative by seeking a treaty, UN Security Council resolution, or other agreement expressly authorizing interdiction of illicit WMD technology and materials. While I believe that existing international law justifies the Proliferation Security Initiative, there are states that are reluctant to participate in the program without the expressed sanction.

The third amendment requests a report by the Secretary of State on the feasibility, potential contributions, and desirability of employing former Soviet biological weapons scientists in developing biomedical countermeasures. Diverting the expertise of weapons scientists in the former Soviet Union is crucial to preventing the proliferation of WMD.

And, again, I am grateful to the chairman and ranking member for the inclusion of these amendments and all their efforts to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 362, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 358, had I been present, I would have voted `'aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 2000, President Clinton convened a summit at Camp David with then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat to seek a breakthrough in the peace process that had been moving forward in fits and starts since the signing of the Oslo Accords 7 years earlier.

As we all know, those talks ultimately broke down, despite the parties' being tantalizingly close to resolving many of the thorniest issues precluding a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Rather than build on the considerable progress that had been made at Camp David, Arafat unleashed a second intifada against Israel, a wave of terror that has lasted for nearly 5 years and cost thousands of lives.

Now, in just over a month, the Israeli government will begin the dismantlement and withdrawal of all 21 of its settlements in Gaza and four other settlements in the northern West Bank in a bold move designed to increase the prospects for bringing peace to both Israelis and Palestinians.

The decision to evacuate Gaza and part of the West Bank is the result of many months of agonizing debate within Israel. On the one hand, there are those who see any pullback by Israel without security guarantees or other tangible steps by the Palestinian Authority as a sign of weakness. The upcoming withdrawal, these Israelis say, will be cast by Hamas and other hardline Palestinian factions as a victory in much the same way that Israel's decision to withdraw its forces from Lebanon in May of 2000 allowed Hezbollah to proclaim itself the champion of the Arab fight against Israel. Other Israelis, led by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was the architect of Israel's settlement policy after the 1967 Six Day War, have successfully argued that the disengagement will bolster Israel's security, that it represents Israel's seizing the initiative to alter the status quo with the Palestinians, and that it allows Israel to get its own lines of defense and that it will preempt toxic diplomatic initiatives by Arab and European states.

Ehud Olmert, the Likud mayor of Jerusalem, has also repeatedly discussed the importance of Israel's demographic security. The Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza is a fast-growing population that will soon be larger than that of Israel proper. For Israel to maintain a permanent presence in the territories would require the sacrifice of either Israel's status as a Jewish state or as a democracy.

For those of us who care deeply about Israel, Sharon and Olmert have laid out convincing reasons to support the disengagement plan while the opponents' arguments compel us to work with both Israel and the Palestinians to ensure that the evacuation is peaceful and that Hamas and other rejectionist elements are not in a position to take advantage of Israel's courage in seeking to change the dynamics on the ground.

I believe that the United States must be prepared to take a number of steps to make sure that this withdrawal enhances the chances for a lasting peace and puts the parties squarely back on the path towards realizing the President's roadmap for peace.

As a threshold matter, we must be prepared to help Israel absorb the economic costs associated with the dismantlement of the settlements and the resettlement of the approximately 8,000 Jewish settlers within Israel proper. Earlier this week, the Israeli government made an initial request for $2.2 billion in assistance from the administration. I understand that the administration is studying the request, but we must be prepared to consider any eventual request quickly at the appropriate time.

We also have to work with other nations, members of the Quartet as well as others, to assist the Palestinian people and the government of Mahmoud Abbas to improve the lives of ordinary Palestinians in the wake of the withdrawal. Offering an alternative to destitution and death is one of the most effective tools we have to break the cycle of violence.

The U.S. has already pledged $350 million in aid to the Palestinians, including $200 million that was passed earlier this spring. I was pleased to see that our G-8 partners have pledged additional funds, totaling $3 billion, at last week's Gleneagles summit. We must insist upon accountability to ensure these are properly spent alleviating poverty, providing employment, and developing institutions that respect the rule of law.

The U.S. must also redouble its efforts to choke off the flow of assistance to Hamas, the popular front for the Liberation of Palestine- General Command, Palestinian Islamic jihad, and other factions that oppose peace with Israel. Syria is a major focus of support for these groups and for Hezbollah, which is in Lebanon. Damascus must be made to understand that there is a price for its support of terrorism and that that price will only increase if it refuses to end that support.

Finally, we must also work to build peace between Israel and the Arab states of the Middle East. While Israel has peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan, relations are not especially warm, and most of the rest of the Arab world remains in a technical state of war with Israel. We need to press our Arab friends to work towards a comprehensive peace with the Jewish state.

Mr. Speaker, we are at a remarkable moment in the search for peace in the Middle East, but the chance to build on Israel's decision to leave Gaza and the stirrings of democracy in the Arab world must not be allowed to slip away.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago this April, the breakaway British colony of Rhodesia emerged from years of guerilla conflict as the new nation of Zimbabwe. The United States and many other Western nations were hopeful that Zimbabwe's new President, Robert Mugabe, who came to prominence as a guerrilla leader in the 1970s, would moderate his Marxist views and build a better future for all Zimbabwe citizens.

Zimbabwe's people also had high hopes. The country had considerable natural wealth and, despite years of bitter warfare, many in the business community opted to remain, providing crucial economic stability. Zimbabwe's people were determined not to share in the fate of so many of their neighbors, who had also emerged from colonialism amid fanfare and high expectations.

Now, after a quarter century of tyrannical and frequently bizarre misrule by Mr. Mugabe, Zimbabwe is shattered. Its inflation rate is the highest in the world, unemployment estimates range up to 80 percent, with seven in 10 Zimbabweans living below the poverty line. Zimbabwe has one of Africa's highest HIV/AIDS infection rates, with more than a quarter of the adult population infected.

While the Mugabe regime has frequently resorted to Draconian internal security laws and plain old thuggery to suppress and divide the Zimbabwe opposition, Harare's intimidation tactics have taken an especially nasty turn in the last 3 months since the country held parliamentary elections at the end of March.

Those elections, which were won by Mugabe's ruling party, were fraudulent and widened the schism between Zimbabwe's urban masses, who tend to support the opposition, and rural voters, who make up the bulk of the ruling party supporters.

To punish his opponents, Mr. Mugabe's government has waged a 6-week campaign, revealingly called ``Operation Drive Out Trash,'' against opposition strongholds in Zimbabwe's cities. Tens of thousands of bewildered families have been forced into the open of the cold winter after police torched and bulldozed their shanty town homes on the flimsiest of pretexts. Street markets were also targeted and left smoldering in ruins.

Last week, the government, in a nation facing severe food shortages, moved on to vegetable gardens planted by the poor in vacant lots around Harare. Authorities claimed the gardens threatened the environment.

International human rights groups say at least 300,000 people have lost their homes by conservative estimates. The United Nations puts the figure as high as 1.5 million.

Mr. Chairman, I know that many of our colleagues share my anger and my sorrow at a state of affairs that is beginning to look eerily like Cambodia

after the Khmer Rouge came to power in 1975. I have no desire to cut U.S. aid that goes to help the people of Zimbabwe and their struggles against HIV/AIDS and one-party rule, but I feel that we cannot stand by and watch Zimbabwe become a failed State.

I am especially frustrated by the failure of the African Union and SADC, the Southern African Development Community, to confront the horrors going on in Zimbabwe. I hope that the AU will, at the weekend summit in Sirte, Libya, take a firm stand against the Mugabe regime's excesses, and I urge President Bush to make it clear at next week's G-8 meeting that South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki, who has refused to confront Mr. Mugabe and we hope Mr. Mbeki will take a strong and unequivocal stand against the Zimbabwe regime.

Will the chairman work with me and the chairman of the full Committee on International Relations and other interested Members in developing policies that continue to assist the Zimbabwe people while putting additional pressure on the Mugabe regime?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.