Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the hour is late and I am not going to take much time, but I think we would all be remiss if we did not acknowledge that this fitness center is going to be named after one of our dear colleagues who was a real war hero, in my opinion. Sam Johnson was shot down in Vietnam and spent 7\1/2\ years in a Vietnamese prison camp, the Hanoi Hilton; and he suffered tremendously during that 7\1/2\-year period. I think it is very, very fitting that he be honored by naming this fitness center after him. In fact, if I had my way and I think my colleagues, we would probably name a couple of air bases in total after him because he is a wonderful guy and a great Congressman.

Sam, if you are listening, we sure love you, buddy.

Mr. Speaker, today on the tiny Mediterranean island of Cyprus,

Turkish and Greek Cypriots mark the anniversary of momentous events that have shaped the last 30 years of the island's history. The events of July 1974 have been the subject of much debate, controversy, and unfortunately, distortion. The United States has worked long and hard to help bring peace to Cyprus, and as both sides of this divided island struggle to achieve a stable and prosperous future for all Cypriots, it is important for this House to put history in its proper perspective, to separate fact from propaganda, and to create a fair and balanced understanding of the issues that divide the island's two constituent peoples (the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots.

It is easy to assume that the history of the Cyprus conflict starts in 1974, but this is far from the truth. The origins of the Cyprus conflict can be traced back to the Greek Cypriot drive for Union with Greece (enosis), a movement with roots that can be traced as far back as the later days of the Ottoman Empire. The modern history of the conflict, however, stems from the 1950s and 1960s.

From 1878 to 1960, Cyprus was ruled by the British. When the island achieved independence from the United Kingdom in 1960, it was with constitutional guarantees for power sharing on the basis of political equality. The constitution foresaw (and still foresees) a bi-communal structure, and the peaceful co-existence of Greek and Turkish communities side by side. The president was to be Greek, and the vice- president to be from the Turkish community, each with the power of veto.

Unfortunately, differences in language, culture, religion, and national traditions, ended this vision by late 1963 when a political crisis and inter-communal violence broke out. In November 1963, Makarios, the first president of Cyprus--a Greek Cypriot--submitted a plan aimed at amending the constitution. However, the changes proposed removed most of the checks and balances which had been built into the constitution to ensure the safety and equal status of the Turkish community.

Matters came to a head on in December of that year, when armed Greeks attacked a suburb in Nicosia, killing or capturing those Turkish Cypriots who were unable to escape. Armed conflict spread, with the Turkish Cypriots withdrawing into enclaves to defend themselves. A buffer zone was set up and manned by British troops in a largely unsuccessful attempt to stop the fighting. These were later replaced by United Nations troops in March 1964, troops which are still there to this day. For the next ten years, the enosis campaign of the Greek Cypriots cost the Turkish Cypriots many lives and untold suffering, as well as their partnership position in the Cyprus government.

Former United States Undersecretary of State, George Ball, who, among others, as actively dealing with the crisis at the time, remarked in his memoirs entitled The Past Has Another Pattern, that Makarios has turned: ``This beautiful little island into his private abattoir'' (P. 341). Ball went on further to say that: ``Makarios'' central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring the Turkish Cypriots'' (p. 345).

For example, in March 1964, well armed Greek forces attempted to crush the Turks at Erenkoy on the north coast, in order to interrupt the alleged flow of munitions from the Turkish mainland: they would undoubtedly have succeeded had not the Turkish air force intervened. This act added a new dimension to the conflict. Fear of Turkish intervention sobered the Greek Cypriots somewhat, and they settled down to a systematic economic blockade of the Turkish enclaves. Further armed conflict in 1967 provoked Turkey to threaten military intervention, but with the takeover of Greece by a Military Junta, and an economic boom occurring on Cyprus, enosis seemed less attractive and the violence subsided

However, intervention finally came in 1974. During the presidential elections of 1974,

Makarios clearly announced the cause of enosis, and was re-elected. He subsequently ordered the withdrawal of mainland Greek officers from the Island, whereupon the National Guard, which was under the command of those same mainland Greek officers loyal to the Junta, stormed the presidential palace in Nicosia, although President Makarios escaped. In the face of this bloody coup, which brought the island to the brink of political extinction and a humanitarian tragedy, Turkey, which was treaty-bound to act as a Guarantor State, was forced to undertake action. As a result of this legitimate and timely action, Turkish Cypriots were saved from imminent destruction, bloodshed among the Greek Cypriots was ended and the independence of Cyprus was protected.

U.N.-led direct talks between the two sides to reach a comprehensive settlement to the division of the island began in early 2002, and reached a culmination when simultaneous referenda were held on each side on April 24, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that, after all they have gone through, the Turkish Cypriots have continued to demonstrate a genuine desire to settle their differences with their Greek neighbors in a peaceful and amicable way through negotiations. In the referendum of April 24th, the Turkish Cypriots voted 65 percent to approve the U.N. plan for reunification of the island. In contrast, the Greek Cypriots gave the plan a resounding no by a 3 to 1 margin, effectively leaving all settlement efforts in limbo. Yet, in an ironic twist of events, it was the Greek Cypriots who were allowed to enter the European Union in May while the Turkish Cypriots, like their counterparts in Turkey, continue to be left out in the cold.

Under the circumstances, I agree with U.N. Secretary-General Annan when he cited in his latest report on the situation in Cyprus, that there is no justification for keeping the Turkish Cypriots in isolation from the rest of the international community. The restrictions that have been imposed on their economic, political and cultural activity internationally should be lifted. Turkish Cypriots must be allowed to enjoy the benefits--benefits they were guaranteed under the 1960 independence agreement, which any peaceful, democratic society deserves.

Fair and equal treatment of the Turkish Cypriots can only benefit the island as a whole and further facilitate the achievement of a negotiated settlement.

Mr. Speaker, the State of Israel has been an unwavering friend and ally of the United States for decades. And Israel has stood in complete solidarity with the United States in the Global War on Terror. Over the past half-century, bipartisan support for Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East, has been a staple of every U.S. Congress regardless of which party is in the majority. While the United Nations, other international organizations, and the governments of many countries of the world are quick to adopt the positions of Israel's adversaries, especially when Israelis exercise their absolute right to defend themselves, Congress has remained unwavering in its moral stand behind Israel. Again today, by passing House Concurrent Resolution 713--H. Con. Res. 713--a resolution I proudly cosponsored and championed, the Members of this House once again stood fast as the counterweight to most of the world's imbalanced, ``blame Israel'' approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. H. Con. Res. 371, expressed this body's strong support for Israel's construction of a security fence to prevent Palestinian terrorist attacks, and condemned the United Nations General Assembly's decision to request the International Court of Justice to render an opinion on the legality of the fence.

Despite the fact that more than 40 nations, including the United States, 15 members of the European Union, Russia, Canada, Australia and even South Africa believed the International Court of Justice, ICJ, did not have the competence or the jurisdiction to rule on the matter, last week, the ICJ issued an advisory finding that Israel's security barrier in the West Bank is illegal. This ruling shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone as Israel's detractors have successfully manipulated every arm of the United Nations to delegitimize Israel. The U.N. General Assembly itself has been a hotbed of anti-Israel activity, passing more than 400 resolutions against Israel since 1964, more resolutions than on any other single subject. But that body has never once investigated the Palestinian terror campaign against Israel, nor has it investigated abuse, torture, and other human rights violations by nondemocratic states in the Arab world.

In 2004, no Israeli has been killed or wounded by suicide bombings in areas protected by the fence, while 19 Israeli citizens have been killed and 102 wounded by homicide attacks in areas without the fence. The fence has produced a 90-percent drop in terrorism emanating from the northern West Bank, formerly the originating point for scores of devastating homicide bombings and other deadly terror attacks.

I commend to all of my colleagues an excellent Op-Ed written by former Israeli Prime Minister and current Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laying out a clear and intellectually sound argument for why Israel needs the security fence and why Israel should never surrender its right to defend itself. I would like to have the text of this Op-Ed placed into the Congressional Record following my statement. I urge my colleagues to read it and speak out against the blatantly political ruling of the so-called International Court of Justice.

[From the New York Times, July 13, 2004]

Why Israel Needs a Fence

(By Benjamin Netanyahu)

Jerusalem.--While the advisory finding by the International

Court of Justice last week that Israel's barrier in the West

Bank is illegal may be cheered by the terrorists who would

kill Israeli civilians, it does not change the fact that none

of the arguments against the security fence have any merit.

First, Israel is not building the fence on territory that

under international law can be properly called ``Palestinian

land.'' The fence is being built in disputed territories that

Israel won in a defensive war in 1967 from a Jordanian

occupation that was never recognized by the international

community. Israel and the Palestinians both claim ownership

of this land. According to Security Council Resolution 242,

this dispute is to be resolved by a negotiated peace that

provides Israel with secure and recognized boundaries.

Second, the fence is not a permanent political border but a

temporary security barrier. A fence can always be moved.

Recently, Israel removed 12 miles of the fence to ease

Palestinian daily life. And last month, Israel's Supreme

Court ordered the government to reroute 20 more miles of the

fence for that same purpose. In fact, the indefensible line

on which many have argued the fence should run--that which

existed between Israel and the Arab lands before the

1967 war--is the only line that would have nothing to do with

security and everything to do with politics. A line that is

genuinely based on security would include as many Jews as

possible and as few Palestinians as possible within the

fence.

That is precisely what Israel's security fence does. By

running into less than 12 percent of the West Bank, the fence

will include about 80 percent of Jews and only 1 percent of

Palestinians who live within the disputed territories. The

fence thus will block attempts by terrorists based in

Palestinian cities to reach major Israeli population centers.

Third, despite what some have argued, fences have proven

highly effective against terrorism. Of the hundreds of

suicide bombings that have taken place in Israel, only one

has originated from the Gaza area, where Hamas and Islamic

Jihad are headquartered. Why? Because Gaza is surrounded by a

security fence. Even though it is not complete, the West Bank

security fence has already drastically reduced the number of

suicide attacks.

The obstacle to peace is not the fence but Palestinian

leaders who, unlike past leaders like Anwar Sadat of Egypt

and King Hussein of Jordan, have yet to abandon terrorism and

the illegitimate goal of destroying Israel. Should Israel

reach a compromise with a future Palestinian leadership

committed to peace that requires adjustments to the fence,

those changes will be made. And if that peace proves genuine

and lasting, there will be no reason for a fence at all.

Instead of placing Palestinian terrorists and those who

send them on trial, the United Nations-sponsored

international court placed the Jewish state in the dock, on

the charge that Israel is harming the Palestinians' quality

of life. But saving lives is more important than preserving

the quality of life. Quality of life is always amenable to

improvement. Death is permanent. The Palestinians complain

that their children are late to school because of the fence.

But too many of our children never get to school--they are

blown to pieces by terrorists who pass into Israel where

there is still no fence.

In the last four years, Palestinian terrorists have

attacked Israel's buses, cafes, discos and pizza shops,

murdering 1,000 of our citizens. Despite this unprecedented

savagery, the court's 60-page opinion mentions terrorism only

twice, and only in citations of Israel's own position on the

fence. Because the court's decision makes a mockery of

Israel's right to defend itself, the government of Israel

will ignore it. Israel will never sacrifice Jewish life on

the debased altar of ``international justice.''

Mr. Speaker, due to inclement weather in Indiana, I was regrettably delayed in my return to Washington, DC and therefore unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 359, 360, 361 and 362. Had I been here I would have voted ``no'' for rollcall vote 359, ``aye'' for rollcall vote 360, ``no'' for rollcall vote 361, and ``aye'' for rollcall vote 362.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have high regard for the gentleman from Vermont, my good friend, and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), and I regret that I have to oppose their amendment. But I want to tell the Members why.

Obviously the PATRIOT Act does suspend some constitutional liberties. I am one of those people who loves the Constitution and believes we should not tamper with it. The problem that we have is that on 9/11 we had over 3,000 of our fellow Americans killed by terrorists because we did not know in advance what was going to happen. This is not the kind of situation where we can wait and say, okay, we suspect something is going on, we go get a court order from a judge and say, we think this guy is going to do something, and we go get him because in the interim he may have killed 4-, 5-, or 10,000 people. We have to nail that son of a gun before the act takes place.

So although some of our liberties have been temporarily suspended, the FBI told us yesterday, and many of us were at that meeting, that the PATRIOT Act has been very beneficial in stopping further terrorist attacks here in the United States of America.

The PATRIOT Act expires in the year 2005, next year; so we will have a chance to review it again. It has to be renewed because it has a sunset provision because we are all concerned about the Constitution. But we are in a war against terrorism right now. We cannot wait for a terrorist attack to take place and then say, oh, my gosh, why did we not do something about it? We have to use every tool that is available to us to prevent that attack from taking place in the first place, because once it happens, then God help us all.

So the FBI and the CIA and all of our intelligence people tell us right now the PATRIOT Act is a very valuable tool in preventing further terrorist attacks on America. We should not be tinkering with it right now. Next year we can review it, but right now in a war against terrorism, we were told yesterday that we may be in attacks this summer, and we have to do everything we can to prevent it. And that means do not mess with this thing right now, even though I love my good friend from Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, on October 31, 1984, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her two Sikh bodyguards after she ordered an attack upon the Golden Temple, which is the center and seat of the Sikh religion. In the aftermath of the assassination, thousands of Sikhs were killed in anti-Sikh riots. The massacre was by any definition a brutal atrocity, and one of the most prominent figures accused of helping to orchestrate the violence was Jagdish Tytler.

Now, Mr. Tytler, who led mobs of Hindus in killing Sikhs, some by burning them to death, and who saw to it that Sikh police were locked in their barracks and therefore unable to respond to the massacre, has been invited to speak at the convention of the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin in San Diego, which begins on June 25th. As someone who has long championed the cause of freedom, democracy, and equal rights for the Sikh community and other oppressed minorities in that part of the world, I am deeply concerned about this man coming to the United States, and I would urge the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin to reconsider their invitation to Mr. Tytler.

I am also deeply concerned to learn that Mr. Tytler has been given a position in the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Prime Minister Singh is a Sikh, and the Sikh community naturally had high hopes that Manmohan Singh's appointment to India's top job would bridge the gap between the Sikh and Hindu peoples. It is difficult to understand how this can be accomplished when Prime Minister Singh is willing to bring a person like Mr. Tytler into his government, as many Sikhs, including my good friend Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, consider Mr. Tytler's presence in the government an affront to the Sikh people.

So long as people like Jagdish Tytler are in the India government, it draws into question whether India is truly willing to uphold the democratic values that it preaches. In addition Mr. Speaker, it should also draw into question the wisdom of the hard-working taxpayers of this country supporting a government that rewards the Jagdish Tytler's of the world with power and authority.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2004 Ellis Island Medals of Honor recipients. The Ellis Island Medal of Honor commemorates and recognizes Americans of different ethnic backgrounds who have made a significant contribution to our society. These medals have been aptly named for Ellis Island, an endearing symbol of the immigrant roots and diversity that characterizes our great Nation.

When the immigrant station at Ellis Island, New York, opened on January 1, 1892, it admitted 700 immigrants into the United States in just its first day of operation. By the time the center closed in 1954, 17 Million immigrants had passed through its doors. The Ellis Island administration and staff, on average, processed up to 5,000 people per day. Many of these newcomers had little to no knowledge of English, hardly any money, and many arrived with only the clothes on their backs. They arrived risking their lives in exchange for freedom and a better way of life.

America has always been a haven for immigrants from all over the world who have come to our shores with a common desire to forge a new life in a land of opportunity, liberty, and freedom--freedom from religious, economic, political or ethnic persecution. The Ellis Island Medal of Honor was created in 1986 to honor those individuals who through their own perseverance, sacrifice and success, helped build our great Country. By honoring these outstanding individuals, we honor all who share their origins and we acknowledge the contributions they and other groups have made to America. Six American Presidents, several Senators, Congressmen, Nobel Prize winners, distinguished athletes, artists, clergy, military leaders, and others from all walks of life have been past recipients of this distinguished award.

Presented annually by the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations (NECO), an umbrella group of more than 250 organizations that spans the spectrum of ethnic heritages, cultures and religions, the 2004 Ellis Island Medal of Honor recipients are once again a remarkable collection of individuals who have distinguished themselves as outstanding human beings and citizens of the United States. I once again commend NECO and its Chairman of the Board, my good friend William Denis Fugazy, for honoring these outstanding individuals, and for their tireless efforts to foster dialogue and build bridges between different ethnic groups, as well as promote unity and a sense of common purpose in our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in recognizing the good works of NECO, and congratulate all of the 2004 Ellis Island Medals of Honor recipients. I would like to have the text of NECO's press release on the May 15th award ceremony, and the names of this year's recipients, placed into the Congressional Record following my statement.

Ellis Island Medals of Honor Awards Ceremony

Would my colleague yield for just about a 5- second question?

I have heard the gentleman's arguments. I hope my good and dear friend from Massachusetts will stick around for my response to what he has said.

We are good buddies.

I would like the gentleman to hear my response.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague has read anything that Lee Hamilton, the Democrat co-chairman of the 9-11 Commission, had to say on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer on June 16, just last week, 2004. Let me read what Lee Hamilton said: ``We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since ``Operation Enduring Freedom,'' we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. And then Chairman Kean of the committee, along with Chairman Hamilton, said that there definitely were a number of contacts. Chairman Kean called these contacts shadowy, and the administration agrees with them. These were contacts between a deadly terrorist organization that was seeking support in a country that the administration knew had supported other terrorist operations.

So to say that nothing was going on, I mean they did not meet to have tea and crumpets. They did not meet just to have an ice cream sundae.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, since we are going back in history, let me just say that we had the attack on the World Trade Center the first time in 1993; in 1996 we had the Khobar Towers; in 1998, we had embassy attacks in Nairobi; in 2000, we had the USS Cole, all during the previous administration. And during that time when Osama bin laden was in the Sudan, there were 13 known-terrorist training camps under his control, and the CIA reported those to the previous administration, and nothing was done about it.

So when we start talking about this administration's being asleep at the switch, the fact is that President Bush, when he took over, decided to do something about it because there were contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Uday Hussein had one of the leaders of al Qaeda just last year in Baghdad for medical treatment. They had a very close relationship.

So my question to my colleagues is this: Why did the previous administration not, when they knew there were 13 terrorist training camps in the Sudan, they knew that Osama bin Laden was there, they knew that the CIA had talked about it and said let us go in and get him, and they did not do a doggone thing after all these attacks on U.S. installations?

If the gentleman will yield briefly, Condoleezza Rice, the Vice President and a whole host of National Security Council members were at that meeting. The gentleman to whom you are referring is sour grapes because he lost his job as Secretary of the Treasury. Their interpretation and their recall of that meeting does not jibe with that at all. That is his singular opinion.

So let me just say that one person's comment at a meeting does not make it so.

What is that?

That is the gentleman's prerogative.

If the gentleman will yield further, I will be happy to do that, if you ever give me some macadamia nuts.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, let me just say according to most news reports that was not a factory for weapons of mass destruction, as was anticipated, it was an aspirin factory; and there was no reason for it. There were a lot of people, including the media, that thought it was a ``wag the tail'' type of attack.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the President went to war with Iraq because of two reasons: One, weapons of mass destruction; and two, the threat to security in the Middle East and the United States of America, and because there were indications of a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. And there is documentation even stated in the 9/11 Commission report or in the 9/11 Commission statement.

29.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we have more of these.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks related to this special order.

Mr. Speaker, let me just pick up where we left off in this last hour. And I appreciate the discussion with my colleagues. And if we have the time, I will be happy to yield to them. It seems like we probably will have the time.

There is no question, none at all, that al-Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime and people connected with that have met on numerous occasions. There is no question that in May of 2002, Zarqawi, one of the top lieutenants the senior al-Qaeda with bin Laden was in Baghdad for medical treatment. And Uday Hussein provided that. There have been numerous occasions that they have been together.

Now, the question was Osama bin Laden went to Saudi Arabia and he said we have got to get rid of this guy up there, Saddam Hussein, because he does not follow the hard-core Muslim line. The fact is Winston Churchill, and I hate to go back in history, but he decided to work with Joe Stalin, a communist tyrant who killed 50 million of his own countrymen. They asked Churchill, ``Why in the world are you working with Stalin?'' He said, ``I would go to bed with the devil in order to beat Adolph Hitler.''

Osama bin Laden calls us the big devil and I believe Osama bin Laden was willing to work with Saddam Hussein, who is one of the powerhouses in the Middle East, to do everything he could to destroy Western civilization and the United States.

Now, we do not know what went on in all these meetings. But we do know that Osama bin Laden and his minions did talk to and work with Saddam Hussein's people.

Now, do you err on the side of safety or do you not? We knew that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He killed thousands, tens of thousands of Kurds with mustard gas. We found weapons just recently that had sarin gas in them. Just recently our troops found those. He had a nuclear facility that was bombed by the Israelis in 1981. So he was trying to develop a nuclear facility.

Now, for anybody to believe that he just threw that stuff out of the window when he hates the West so much and he was negotiating and talking with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, I think they are just blowing smoke. Now, the President said we have got to go after the terrorists. He did not go after Saddam Hussein first, he went after the Taliban that we knew was working with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. And he did a pretty good job of it.

And then he said there is the threat of weapons of mass destruction, they have been used in the past. He had intelligence information that indicated there were weapons of mass destruction and he decided to go after Saddam Hussein. And all of us in this chamber when he did it said that is the right thing to do.

Now, of course, everybody is second guessing.

I think it is important to go back in history a little bit because history is very important, very important. In the 1990s Osama bin Laden in the Sudan had 13 terrorists training camps around Khartoum. Our intelligence agencies talked about that. The President and the NSC knew about that. And at that time, we had an attack on the World Trade Center because Osama bin Laden's minions tried to bring it down. That was in 1993. In 1996, we had the attack that killed a lot of Americans in Khobar Towers. In 1998, we had the attack on the embassies in Athens, Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam and Tanzania, all of those in 1998 by al-Qaeda connections. And then in 2000, we had the attack that killed a lot of our sailors on the USS Cole. We knew that Saddam Hussein was behind that. We knew he was in the Sudan. We knew there were 13 terrorist training camps and the previous administration did nothing.

Now we go to September 11, 2001. And the President had an attack on the World Trade Center, against a second one. We did not do anything about the first one. We did not go after Osama bin Laden then but we waited. Then they brought down the World Trade Center, both towers.

And the President said we are going after the terrorists worldwide, no matter where they are hiding. We are going after them if they are in the Sudan. We are going after them if they are in Afghanistan. We are going after them under every rock they are hiding. And we are going to do it also in Iraq because we believe Saddam Hussein is working with al-Qaeda. He had connections with al-Qaeda. His son worked with al- Qaeda.

And they had weapons of mass destruction because we knew they had used them before and the President was told by intelligence agencies that they were there. Quite frankly, I still believe there were weapons of mass destruction. It is the size of California. And I believe that we will find more. And many of them may have been sent to Syria. Everybody is concerned about that because Syria is a very close ally and was of Saddam Hussein.

But the fact of the matter is do you err on the side of safety? Do you go after the terrorists before they attack or do you wait until they attack and say oh, we need probable cause.

When we passed the PATRIOT Act, this is a side issue, we had a lot of colleagues from the other side of the aisle say oh, my gosh, what about civil rights? What about Constitutional rights? The problem is when one is in a world war against terrorists, one cannot wait until they blow something up and kill 10 or 15,000 people or more. One tries to preempt them.

The PATRIOT Act allowed us to hold people while we investigated whether or not they were going to perpetrate a terrorist attack. If we did that, we might head it off. That is why we created Homeland Security, which my committee wrote a great deal of it, and I think the gentleman, I do not know if

he worked on that or not, but we worked on that with the Senate.

But the fact of the matter is this President did not go off half- cocked. He declared war on terrorism. He is continuing that. President Bush is doing a good job.

And I love my colleague from Massachusetts, we have a great deal of fun together. I love my friend from Hawaii.

The fact of the matter is we are trying to politicize something at this time that should not be politicized. We are fighting a war against terrorism. The President is doing the right thing; and this Nation needs to stand behind him, instead of nitpicking and going back and saying this should have been done or that should have been.

If we had this kind of nitpicking prior to the invasion of Normandy, I believe that the media and everybody would have said, oh, my gosh, that is a terrible thing to do; the waves may be too high. They would have alerted Hitler, and we may all be speaking German today.

The fact of the matter is, President Bush, in my opinion, and my colleagues may differ, I think he has been very prudent. He has done things that he thinks that are necessary to protect the American people.

I love my colleagues, I really do; and I do want some Macadamia nuts.

I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, I will get together and talk with my colleagues.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends, and I have great admiration for the silver fox from Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and appreciate that very much.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for his very eloquent statement.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my good friend, one of the senior members of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

I will now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for that very comprehensive talk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that eloquent statement.

Let me say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) will be going into detail in just a few minutes about the reasons why 9-11 occurred.

And let me say one more thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is if we had had foresight that Winston Churchill had prior to World War II, we would have saved 50 million lives. President Bush has that foresight, and he is doing the right thing right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, this month marks the 20th anniversary of one of the most brutal attacks in history, the Indian government's military attack on the Golden Temple, which is the center and seat of the Sikh religion. Attacking the Golden Temple is the equivalent of attacking the Vatican or Mecca.

The Golden Temple was under siege from June 3 to June 6, 1984, under a Congress Party government led by Indira Gandhi, whose daughter-in-law Sonia Gandhi is now the President of the Congress Party and its floor leader in Parliament.

As you know, the supposedly secular Congress Party was recently swept back into power in India's elections. But for minorities, it doesn't really matter whether the Congress Party or the just-ousted Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is in power. Either way, the repression continues. Although there is a Sikh Prime Minister in India, he has no real power. He is at the mercy of Mrs. Gandhi. India continues to hold 52,268 Sikh political prisoners without charge, trial, or access to legal counsel, according to the Movement Against State Repression (MASR.) India has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since June 1984. Another 50,000 have ``disappeared.'' These are not the tactics of a democracy, Mr. Speaker. They are the tactics of a police state. What is India afraid of? Are they scared of a little free speech?

125 other Sikh Gurdwaras were also attacked at the same time. In all, over 20,000 Sikhs were murdered in this brutal attack, known as Operation Bluestar. These included major spokesmen for Sikh freedom such as Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, General Shabeg Singh, and others. The Sikh holy scriptures, the Guru Granth Sahib, written in the time that the ten Sikh Gurus lived, was shot full of bullet holes by the Indian forces. Young Sikh boys, ages 8 to 13, were taken out in the courtyard and asked whether they supported Khalistan, the independent Sikh state. When they answered with the Sikh religious incantation ``Bole So Nihal,'' they were shot to death.

The Golden Temple attack made it clear that there is no place for Sikhs in supposedly secular and democratic India. As Bhindranwale himself said, ``If India attacks the Golden Temple, it will lay the foundation stone for Khalistan.'' On October 7, 1987, Khalistan formally declared itself independent from India. India claims that there is no support for Khalistan. Then let them test the issue democratically at the ballot box by holding a free and fair plebiscite in Punjab, Khalistan on the subject of independence.

The Sikh Nation had sovereignty before, from 1710 to 1716 and from 1765 to 1849. No Sikh representative has ever signed India's constitution. The Sikhs have a heritage of freedom from their Gurus and they will be free again. Iraq is becoming a free country and will soon have a representative government. In the 21st century, you cannot suppress people for long. The people must determine their own fate. Only a free Khalistan will enable the Sikhs to live in peace, freedom, dignity, and prosperity. This cannot happen as long as their homeland is under Indian control.

If the Sikhs were the only victims of Indian repression, that would be bad enough. They are not. India has killed over 300,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947. It has killed priests, raped nuns, attacked Christian schools, prayer halls, and festivals, expelled and killed missionaries, and carried out other atrocities against the Christian community. In short, it is not safe to be a Christian in India today. India has killed over 87,000 Muslims in Kashmir since 1988. Between 2,000 and 5,000 Muslims were massacred in Gujarat while the police were ordered to stand aside. Even India's own Human Rights Commission found evidence that the government pre-planned the Gujarat massacre. Amnesty International says that tens of thousands of minorities are being held as political prisoners.

This is unacceptable in any country, Mr. Speaker, especially a country that proclaims itself democratic. The Sikhs cannot forget or forgive the brutal Golden Temple attack. Neither can the other minorities forget the brutality that has been done to them. That is why America must act. Not one dollar of U.S. aid should be provided to India until basic human rights are respected. India can start by releasing all its political prisoners. We should also

demand that India hold a free and fair plebiscite on the issue of independence for Khalistan, for Kashmir, for Nagaland, and for all the nations seeking their freedom. Multinational states like India are inherently unstable, as the examples of Austria-Hungary and the Soviet Union show. And the essence of democracy is the right to self- determination. It is time for the United States to take a stand for democracy, freedom, and stability.

Mr. Speaker, on June 5, the Council of Khalistan sponsored a demonstration to commemorate the Golden Temple attack. I would like to have the text of the Council of Khalistan's Press Release regarding this event placed into the Congressional Record following my statement.

[Press Release from the Council of Khalistan June 5, 2004]

Sikhs Commemorate 20th Anniversary of Golden Temple Attack

Washington, D.C.--Sikhs from Philadelphia, Florida, New

Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and elsewhere on the East Coast

came to Washington, D.C. to commemorate the twentieth

anniversary of the Indian government's brutal military attack

on the Golden Temple, the center and seat of the Sikh

religion, and 125 other Sikh Gurdwaras throughout Punjab, in

which over 20,000 Sikhs were murdered. They chanted slogans

such as ``India out of Khalistan'', ``Khalistan Zindabad'',

and others.

During the attack, young boys ages 8 to 13 were taken

outside and asked if they supported Khalistan, the

independent Sikh country. When they answered with the Sikh

religious incantation ``Bole So Nihal,'' they were shot. The

Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh holy scriptures, written in the

time of the Sikh Gurus, were shot full of bullet holes and

burned by the Indian forces.

The Golden Temple attack was a brutal chapter in India's

repression of the Sikhs, according to Dr. Gurmit Singh

Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, the government

pro tempore of Khalistan, which leads the struggle for

Khalistan's independence. ``This brutal attack clarified that

there is no place in India for Sikhs,'' Dr. Aulakh said. On

October 7, 1987, Khalistan declared its independence from

India.

``Sant Bhindranwale said that attacking the Golden Temple

would lay the foundation stone of Khalistan, and he was

right,'' said Dr. Aulakh. ``Instead of crushing the Sikh

movement for Khalistan, as India intended, the attack

strengthened it,'' he said. ``Just last year, Sardar Atinder

Pal Singh, a former Member of Parliament, held a seminar on

Khalistan in Punjab. It was well attended and featured

outstanding presentations, including one by Professor Gurtej

Singh, IAS, Professor of Sikhism,'' said Dr. Aulakh. ``The

flame of freedom still burns bright in the hearts of Sikhs

despite the deployment of over half a million Indian troops

to crush it,'' he said. ``Dal Khalsa, a Sikh political party,

held marches through Punjab demanding the establishment of an

independent Khalistan.''

History shows that multinational states such as India are

doomed to failure. Countries like Austria-Hungary, India's

longtime friend the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia,

and others prove this point. India is not a single country;

it is a polyglot like those countries, thrown together for

the convenience of the British colonialists. It is doomed to

break up as they did.

The Indian government has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since

1984, more than 300,000 Christians since 1948, over 87,000

Muslims in Kashmir since 1988, and tens of thousands of

Tamils, Assamese, Manipuris, Dalits, and others. The Indian

Supreme Court called the Indian government's murders of Sikhs

``worse than a genocide.''

Indian police arrested human-rights activist Jaswant Singh

Khalra after he exposed their policy of mass cremation of

Sikhs, in which over 50,000 Sikhs have been arrested,

tortured, and murdered, then their bodies were declared

unidentified and secretly cremated. He was murdered in police

custody. His body was not given to his family. The police

never released the body of former Jathedar of the Akal Takht

Gurdev Singh Kaunke after SSP Swaran Singh Ghotna murdered

him. Ghotna has never been brought to trial for the Jathedar

Kaunke murder. No one has been brought to justice for the

kidnapping and murder of Jaswant Singh Khalra.

According to a report by the Movement Against State

Repression (MASR), 52,268 Sikhs are being held as political

prisoners in India without charge or trial. Some have been in

illegal custody since 1984! ``These prisoners never committed

any crime but peacefully speaking out for Sikh freedom,''

said Dr. Aulakh. ``What is a democracy doing holding

political prisoners?,'' he asked. ``This alone shows that for

Sikhs and other minorities, there is no democracy, no freedom

of speech.''

``As Professor Darshan Singh, a former Jathedar of the Akal

Takht, said, `If a Sikh is not a Khalistani, he is not a

Sikh','' Dr. Aulakh noted. ``We must continue to pray for and

work for our God-given birthright of freedom,'' he said.

``Without political power, religions cannot flourish and

nations perish.''

Mr. Speaker, all over America, people are honoring the memory of President Ronald Reagan, who passed away on June 5th. Among those who have paid homage to President Reagan's legacy is the Council of Khalistan, led by my friend Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh. Dr. Aulakh wrote an excellent letter to President Bush offering condolences to the American people on President Reagan's passing. He took special note of President Reagan's vision and his efforts to extend freedom all over the world.

President Reagan referred to America as ``the shining city on a hill,'' the bright hope for

the entire world. It is our job to pick up that torch and continue to promote freedom wherever it is denied. A good start would be to work to extend freedom to all peoples and nations of South Asia. In India, there are 18 official languages. Over 300,000 Christians have been murdered in Nagaland, as well as more than a quarter of a million Sikhs, almost 88,000 Kashmiri Muslims, thousands of Muslims in other parts of the country, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and other minorities. Over 52,000 Sikhs are being held as political prisoners, some as long as 20 years, without charge of trial. According to Amnesty International, tens of thousands of other minorities are also being held as political prisoners. A Sikh named Gurnihal Singh Pirzada was recently arrested for attending a meeting of ``dissidents,'' a meeting he says he didn't attend, while noting that it would not have been illegal for him to have done so. This does not sound like freedom or democracy to me.

Mr. Speaker, we should give serious thought to reconsidering our aid to India until basic human rights are freely exercised by all, and we should support the very basic principle of democracy through a free and fair plebiscite on independence for the Sikhs of Punjab, Khalistan, for predominantly Christian Nagaland, for Kashmir, and for every nation seeking to free itself from the yoke of Indian oppression. That is the way to bring freedom, security, stability, dignity, and prosperity to one of the world's most troubled regions. Perhaps the best memorial we can give to President Reagan is to help the people of South Asia achieve their freedom, just as we did in so many other countries during his Administration.

I would like to have the text of Council of Khalistan's letter to President Bush placed into the Congressional Record following my statement.

Council of Khalistan

Washington, DC, June 15, 2004.

The Honorable George W. Bush,

President of the United States,

The White House, Washington, DC.

Dear President Bush: On behalf of over 500,000 Sikh

Americans and the 25 million strong Sikh Nation, I would like

to send our condolences to the people of the United States on

the passing of President Ronald Reagan. Although his illness

had already taken him from us in many ways, the finality of

his death is still a cause for grief.

We appreciated your very classy remarks at President

Reagan's state funeral, as well as those of your father, Lady

Thatcher, and former Prime Minister Mulroney. All of you gave

moving tributes to President Reagan that helped to inspire

and uplift a grieving nation.

President Reagan was a great American leader. His rise from

humble beginnings in Dixon, Illinois to becoming a

sportscaster, a movie star, governor, and President inspires

us all to continue trying to achieve the very highest and

best that we can.

His Words, ``Whatever else history may say about me when

I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best

hopes, not your worst fears; to your confidence rather than

your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead

with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm

steadying your way'' serve as an inspiration to Americans of

all backgrounds today. That is exactly how he will be

remembered.

President Reagan believed in the greatness of America and

its people and in extending freedom throughout the world. His

work in defeating the Soviet Union and in restoring the

American economy marked the greatness of President Reagan and

of the people of the country he so loved. We must continue to

extend freedom in his memory.

One place where freedom needs to be extended is the Indian

subcontinent. Today in India, the Indian government has

murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, almost 88,000

Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, over 300,000 Christians in

Nagaland, and tens of thousands of other minorities. More

than 52,000 Sikhs as well as tens of thousands of other

minorities are held as political prisoners without charge or

trial, some since 1984. I hope that you will press India to

support human rights and self-determination for these

oppressed minorities. I am convinced that this would be a

great follow-through to President Reagan's vision.

Once again, our condolences to the American people on the

loss of President Reagan.

Sincerely,

Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh,

President, Council of Khalistan

Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably delayed in my return to Washington, DC and therefore unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 236, 237, 238 and 239. Had I been here I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall vote 236, ``aye'' for rollcall vote 237, ``aye'' for rollcall vote 238, and ``aye'' for rollcall vote 239.

Mr. Speaker, since its establishment 55 years ago, Israel has built a nation, forged a new and dynamic society, and created a unique and vital economic, political, cultural, and intellectual life despite the heavy costs of six wars, unrelenting terrorism, frequent international ostracism, and economic boycotts. The people of Israel have established a vibrant and functioning pluralistic and democratic political system that guarantees the freedoms of speech and of the press, free, fair, and open elections, and respect for the rule of law. For over half a century, the United States and Israel have maintained a special relationship based on mutually shared democratic values, common strategic interests, and moral bonds of friendship and mutual respect; most importantly, the people of the United States have an affinity for the people of Israel, and regard Israel as a strong and trusted ally and an important strategic partner.

Because of the confluence of energy, money, weapons and ideology, stability in the Middle East is crucial to America's security and success in the global war on terror. Israel, with its technological capabilities and shared system of values, has a key role to play as the most vital U.S. ally in the region. Strengthening the U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation has been at the heart of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) mission since its inception in 1976. Founded as a result of the lessons learned from the 1973 Yom Kippur War, JINSA communicates with the national security establishment and the general public to explain the role Israel can and does play in bolstering American interests, as well as the link between American defense policy and the security of Israel. Over the years, JINSA has achieved a well-deserved reputation as a credible and independent resource.

I recently met with my good friend Tom Neumann, JINSA's Executive Director, regarding the current situation in the Middle East, particularly Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's controversial plan to withdraw Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip. During that meeting, Tom presented me with a copy of a JINSA Board of Directors' Resolution stressing the importance of American support for the right of the duly- elected Government of Israel to make those decisions independently and not be pressured by friendly or unfriendly governments. As the Resolution says, ``the first obligation and chief priority of every sovereign government is to defend and protect its own citizens and territory; and the government of Israel, no less than that of the United States, acts upon that right.''

I would like to have the text of this Resolution placed into the Congressional Record following my statement, and I urge my colleagues to read it in its entirety.

Support for America's Democratic Allies In Their Internal Decision-

making Processes

Resolution of the Board of Directors of JINSA

June 6, 2004.

Whereas JINSA is an American non-profit association

concerned with American defense policy and the relationship

between the United States and our democratic allies, and

Israel is one of those allies;

Whereas the first obligation and chief priority of every

sovereign government is to defend and protect its own

citizens and territory; and the government of Israel, no less

than that of the United States, acts upon that right;

Whereas this right cannot be subjugated to demands of

foreign governments or entities, irrespective of a country's

``best friend'' or most important trading partners; [In the

case of Israel, these would be the United States and the

European Union, respectively.]

Whereas the chief priority of ``The Quartet'' [the US, the

UN, the EU and Russia] is movement on the Road Map toward the

establishment of Israeli-Palestinian peace through a

negotiated two-state settlement, and any unilateral action by

Israel might thus be considered interference with the Road

Map process, or more broadly with the ``peace process'';

Whereas in the view of the Prime Minister of Israel there

is no Palestinian partner for steps in the Road Map and

instead of waiting for the Palestinians to produce one, he

has chosen to make unilateral decisions about how Israel can

best protect its citizens during the current war. There is in

this an implicit threat that if Israel takes enough

unilateral actions, the Palestinians might find themselves

with nothing left to decide;

Whereas President Bush officially welcomed Prime Minister

Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan and reiterated the United

States' ``steadfast commitment to Israel's security,

including secure, defensible borders;'' and President Bush

specifically recognized the reality of Jews residing east of

the 1948 armistice line and rejected the claims of

Palestinians of a right to settle in Israel;

And whereas Israel, being a democracy, has engaged both in

an intense national and governmental debate about the

parameters of the Prime Minister's plan; Therefore,

The Board of Directors of JINSA resolves to commend

President Bush for his clear and forthright commitment (1) to

the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, (2) to the right

of Israel to defensible borders, and (3) to a peaceful

settlement between Israel and the Palestinians subject to the

Palestinians making good their previous security and other

commitments;

The Board specifically commends the President's recognition

of Israel's right to determine for itself what actions are

required to ensure the future safety and security of its

people.

The Board strongly hopes that the nature of this

recognition is all-encompassing and not just limited to

decisions Israel might make with which the United States is

in agreement.

Even if JINSA does not agree with some elements of any

proposed plan, the Board further resolves to support the

right of the duly elected Government of Israel to make those

decisions and not be pressured by friendly or unfriendly

governments,

The Board strongly believes the President and the American

people should be encouraged to tell Israel, our ally in the

war against terrorists and the swamps that breed them, that

we will stand with it as its government determines what steps

are necessary to defend and protect it--as we ourselves have

done.

The Board further urges the other members of the Road Map

``Quartet,'' to recognize the right of a democratic country

to determine without outside pressure what actions serve the

goals of its security and meaningful progress towards peace.

The Board urges Congress to make a similar declaration

without reservation.

Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably delayed in my return to Washington, DC and therefore unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 232, 233, 234 and 235. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall vote 232, ``yea'' for rollcall vote 233, ``yea'' for rollcall vote 234, and ``yea'' for rollcall vote 235.

Mr. Speaker, I, like all of my colleagues, would like to extol the wonderful accomplishments of President Reagan, the economy coming back from the doldrums, the destruction of the Berlin Wall, and the Communist menace that we faced so much back in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. But what I want to talk about today are personal experiences I had with Ronald Reagan.

When I was running for office over a period of 10 or 12 years, I promised my mother, who was a waitress for many, many years at L.S. Harris & Company, that if I ever got elected to the Congress of the United States, the first thing I would do is take her in the front door of the White House and introduce her to the President of the United States.

I got elected in 1983. I called the White House and they said, yes, we can give you a couple of minutes with the President. I called my mom, and I took her in the front door of the White House expecting a very perfunctory kind of meeting where he would shake hands and take a picture, and that would be it. Unbeknownst to me, he contacted my office and tried to find out everything he could about me. When we walked in, he put his arm around me and said to my mother, ``This is one of the finest young Congressmen in the Congress. I want you to know that I really appreciate all of the things he has done,'' and he reeled off three or four things I had accomplished that I did not think he had any idea about.

I could see my mother's chest expanding, expanding, and expanding. Here is a little lady from the Midwest who had a very tough life, was abused as a wife, and protected me and my sister from abuse from my father. She had nothing but a tough life, and here was the President of the United States telling her what a great guy her son was. I will never forget that as long as I live. She walked out of that office with my stepfather and me, and she was so proud. She carried a picture of the President and us together for the rest of her life. She was so proud to the day she died. He was that kind of a guy.

I remember another time I debated Al Gore when he was in the House and Tom Downey of New York on the Strategic Defense Initiative when the President first started talking about defending this country from an incoming missile attack. I debated Al Gore and Tom Downey on a Special Order for probably 30 or 40 minutes, and I thought that was the end of it. And 2 days later, I got a personal handwritten letter from the President thanking me for sticking up for him. Who would believe the President of the United States would take the time to write a handwritten note to a new Congressman just because he took a position that paralleled the President's? He was a wonderful, down-to-Earth man.

One more little anecdote, and then I will let the rest of my colleagues talk. When I first got elected, they had a dinner for all of the freshmen Congressmen. After the dinner, we were walking around the Green Room, and everybody was patting the President on the back and saying what a great job he had done with the tax cuts. As he walked by me, I thought I better talk about something besides tax cuts because he is just walking past everybody, and I really wanted to talk to the guy.

As he walked by, I said, ``President Reagan, one of my favorite movies was King's Row.'' He said, thank you very much, took two steps past me, stopped, turned around and came back, and talked for 10 minutes about that movie. It was one of the greatest thrills of my life to get a real insight into what he did as a movie actor. He really enjoyed it as well. All my colleagues gathered around. It was one of the highlights of the evening.

That is the kind of guy Ronald Reagan was. He cared about people in addition to being a great President.

I would like to say to his family, God bless you, all of you. Mrs. Reagan, you were great to us when you were First Lady. God bless you and your family. The good Lord, I am sure, has a very high place in heaven for Ronald Reagan.