Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, December 7, 2004, marks the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, a day, which like September 11, 2001, Americans will remember forever.

As the sun came up over the Pacific paradise of Oahu, Hawaii, on that Sunday morning in 1941, U.S. Navy Mess Attendant 1st Class Doris ``Dorie'' Miller should have been preparing the morning meal but never made it to the mess. Instead, he manned a machine gun on the deck of the U.S.S. West Virginia, and successfully shot down several enemy planes. Miller was awarded the Navy Cross for gallantry and continued to serve on active duty. On the morning of Nov. 24, 1943, Miller died when an explosion sank the U.S.S. Liscome Bay (CVE-56). Today, many Boys Clubs are named for U.S. Navy Mess Attendant 1st Class Doris Miller.

Since the Revolutionary War, the United States had rarely been attacked. Both Norfolk and Washington were threatened during the War of 1812. During the Spanish American War, port cities along the East Coast stood at high alert against possible attacks by Spanish forces sailing from Cuba. And 60 years after Pearl Harbor, our Nation was deliberately attacked by terrorist evil doers who wanted to do nothing more than kill innocent people--arguably in the hopes that it would scare freedom loving people into isolation.

During Pearl Harbor, many Americans, including some military commanders, had come to consider U.S. lands immune from enemy invasion. That feeling of immunity ended on the morning of December 7, 1941, when the Japanese Navy attacked the island of Oahu, Hawaii in two massive waves of carrier-based warplanes.

Sixty years later, many Americans felt immune once again, especially after the end of the Cold War. But, as terrorist-driven jet liners pounded into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, with a fourth plane falling out of the sky in rural Pennsylvania, we were reminded that history does indeed repeat itself--we are never immune from those who want to perpetuate evil.

The 2-hour Japanese attack sank 21 Navy ships, destroyed 185 military planes and killed 2,290 military personnel at bases throughout Hawaii, along with 48 civilians. Japan lost 29 planes and five midget submarines. The hull of the sunken U.S.S. Arizona became a tomb for 1,103 U.S. sailors.

From the death and destruction in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor rose a resolve to duty on the part of the American people that would culminate on September 2, 1945, with the surrender of Japan. And today, the American people share the same resolve--an undying commitment to defeat the evil of terrorism. History will repeat itself. We will prevail.

Mr. Speaker, Pete Manetto served in 1st Signal Company, 1st Infantry Division, the Big Red One during the D-Day invasion (Red One). He shares his D-Day memories for the Congressional Record:

I remember the stormy sea at 0600, as I climbed down the

rope ladder of the U.S.S. Chase. I struggled with my balance

nearly falling into the water, but managed to land in the

landing craft. The sight of the armada on that morning was

one of the most impressive, that I could recall. I turned and

caught the sight of a nervous expression on the face of the

coxswain as he pushed away from the beach. Shortly after this

the craft was hit with enemy fire.

There we were on the beach with no one in control of us. We

were met with the sight of rows of dead GIs; among them was a

member of the MP, who I remember being very jovial the night

before. There were many who were wounded, and the scene of

the beach caused fear to appear on the faces of many of my

acquaintances. I cannot remember being fired

upon at this point, but remember one of my company fellows,

named Bush, going into the water to retrieve some valuable

equipment.

It was around noon when BG Andrews of the 5th Artillery was

passing the silent 88mm emplacement. The General was forced

to take shelter with a couple of GIs and myself, who were

attached to the 36th infantry unit. As the enemy fire rained

down on our position, SGT Tate, our wire chief sergeant,

spotted us and approached our position. We were lying in

front of our fox trench hole, while SGT Tate was providing us

with news, encouragement, and instructions. Sergeant Tate was

not able to finish, because a tremendous, noisy, whirlwind

came upon us. When I was able to recover, I noticed SGT Tate

on the ground in agony, after receiving a wound just below

the shoulder. We called for medics and in minutes SGT Tate

was taken away. This was the last time I saw SGT Tate during

the war.

Shortly after this I was ordered to run my assault wire to

the Juno or English beach to link up with the infantry. Along

my way I encountered more realities of the battle, I saw a

wounded pathfinder officer who was comatose, and being

cared for by two GIs. I continued to move down the beach.

About a mile from the pathfinder officer, I came across

two medics who were drained mentally. They requested any

information that I could offer them to help. The next time

I saw these men was on my return trip after completing my

assignment. They were victims of an apparent mortar

attack, which I surely would have been part of if I had

stayed much longer than I had. When I returned, I learned

that headquarters was up a hill. As I climbed the hill,

the first line of walking wounded was descending the hill.

I saw wounds of all sorts, from wounded arms and legs, to

those who suffered serious eye injuries. As I approached

the command post two more sights served as educating

reminders: two GIs were laid on the ground facing skyward.

One of them was missing the middle of his torso, the other

was beheaded.

Once I completed the setup of the communication line, I was

given the first accumulation of information that was obtained

from captured prisoners. After giving this information to the

general officer, I was chastised for my lack of protocol for

saluting a superior, which was a great hazard, because of

possible snipers, and observing enemy intelligence. All that

day and night I felt as though I was in a dwarfed position,

as we continued to troubleshoot problems with the

telecommunication lines. COL Picket's command post was to my

left. Colonel Picket was sitting on the ground gathering and

relaying information on the failed landing of amphibious

vehicles to the high seas. As we sat on the ground working on

the gathered information, we heard the sound of oncoming

planes. The famous duo of German planes came over the

horizon, and began to strafe our position. I hugged the

ground as bullets hit the ground near me, but thankfully far

enough away. Besides the ammunition from the German aircraft,

we were in danger of being hit from our own anti-aircraft

ammunition, because we were aiming at the low flying planes.

This was my true baptism of fire. I was a real GI by June

7th 1944. In retrospect, these 24 hours were to make me a

mature GI! June 6th 1944, what a memory.

Mr. Speaker, recently, Colonel Bob Largent, United States Air Force (retired) was elected President of the Air Force Association (AFA). Mr. Largent will be responsible for expressing the concerns of the Association, to Congress and other entities on a national level. He has dedicated his life to serving our country, and now he will lead the Air Forces premiere service organization with distinction. I would like to express enthusiasm about Mr. Largent's newly elected position and wish him Godspeed.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to enter in to the Congressional Record the election of another able bodied Georgian, Command Chief Master Sergeant Jack Steed, United States Air Force retired as a regional president of the Air Force Association (AFA). Command Master Chief Steed will serve over a region covering three states--Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. He is eminently well qualified to serve in this position. He has a passion for service to our airmen and their families. The Air Force Association and the United States Air Force will benefit immeasurably from his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

We are here for three reasons. Number one, because the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has proposed reinstating the draft. It is a legitimate piece of legislation. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has given an articulate reason that we should consider it, and it is legitimate to consider it.

But the other reason why we are pulling it out at this time is because of pieces like this that were sent out by the South Carolina Democratic Party, as well as a number of things that went out on the Internet, saying to college kids like my 19-year-old son John and my 21-year-old daughter Betsy that there is going to be a draft and there is a secret plan.

The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has already stated there is a secret plan. We are voting ``no'' to show there is no secret plan and also ask our colleagues on the floor to talk to their Democrat friends and tell them not to send out propaganda pieces like this, because it is just a lie.

Mr. Speaker, the Marriage Protection Amendment would not prevent any State from enacting civil union laws, but would protect marriage in all 50 States.

Recently, I went to a friend, Mr. Sage Brown, who is a distinguished attorney and civil rights leader in Savannah, Georgia. Indeed, he is featured at the Gilbert Civil Rights Museum as a man who was on the frontlines of integration and did so much for the African American community. I asked him, Is this a civil rights-type issue, to which he said no, the relationship of marriage is the most sacred building block of our society. Marriage is sacred and protected and has nothing to do with violating our civil rights.

If we change the definition of marriage to be more inclusive, then is it logical to argue that we should broaden the definition so we do not exclude anybody? If marriage violated the civil rights of two men or two women who wanted to be married to each other, then it would also violate the civil rights of a polygamist, somebody else who wants to have a different marriage than that between a man and a woman.

Mr. Brown raised a number of good points which I am going to submit for the Record. I wish there was more time to have debate on it, but I wanted to bring up something from his point of view.

Mr. Speaker, the Marriage Protection Amendment would not prevent States from enacting civil union laws but would protect marriage in all 50 States. It would state that ``marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.'' When I hear my distinguished colleagues from the other side say that marriage should be redefined because it is discriminatory, I respectfully disagree. Moreover, I believe that a great majority of Americans disagree.

I've spoken with many minority men and women in my district who have experienced civil rights abuses first hand. Recently, I spoke with Mr. Sage Brown, a distinguished African American civil rights leader from my district who said and I quote:

The relationship of marriage is a most sacred building

block of our society. Marriage is sacred and protected and

has nothing to do with violating our civil rights. It is not

a question of whether or not a person can enter into a

relationship such as a civil union. Our country was formed by

a group of people who were persecuted for believing certain

fundamental things. They looked at their creator in terms of

the defining foundation for our families . . . and this

foundation included the marriage of a man and a woman. The

installation of marriage was wholly designed for the

production, reproduction and propagation of the family.

Our marriage laws--defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman--were designed to be a blessing to children and society. There is a certain element of complementarity between men and women that is biological by nature.

If marriage violated the civil rights of two men and two women who want to be married, then it also violates the civil rights of polygamists, and of single adults who want to marry themselves. If our distinguished colleagues believe it is a civil rights issue, then do they also believe it discriminates against people who believe in polygamy. Does it also discriminate against three men who want to marry? What about four women? What about

single people who don't want to marry another person? Should they be excluded?

If we change the definition of marriage to be more inclusive, then it is logical to argue that we should broaden the definition so that won't exclude anyone.

Marriage is an institution fits in perfect harmony with the laws of nature; whereas systems of slavery and segregation were designed to brutally oppress people and thereby violated the laws of nature. By contrast, marriage is designed to help children by keeping their mothers and fathers together. Slavery and segregation were meant to exploit and degrade. There is a fundamental difference.

Skin color has nothing to do with marriage. That's why it's wrong to forbid interracial marriage and that's why overturning these laws was a legitimate civil rights issue. But whether a couple is a man and a woman has everything to do with the meaning of marriage. Marriage encourages the men and women who together create life to unite in a bond for the protection of children. That is not discrimination. It is the building block on which society is based.

Marriege was not created to place people in bondage. It was created for having children, and to propagate the human race from one generation to the next.

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution-- which has been around since the origin of mankind. It is honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith.

Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

Moreover, it would prevent the judicial chaos we are beginning to see with recent rulings whereas gay couples are suing in States that do not recognize same sex marriage. Recently, Oregon conducted over 3,000 same sex marriages consisting of couples who live in over 30 States.

Lawless local officials have ignored the law and issued same-sex licenses in California, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington. This issue is Federal, not State or local. The States' rights issue is meaningless if judges are the ultimate rulers.

We are headed for a proliferation of court cases in all 50 States if we do not act now.

So far, 44 States, or 88 percent of the States, have enacted laws providing that marriage shall consist of a union between a man and a woman. Only 75 percent of the States are required to approve a constitutional amendment.

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the Republican Party put forth the Contract with America, and it was the first time that collectively Members of Congress had put forth an agenda. And certainly the Democrats did not like it, but 10 years later they are trying to do the same thing, and I applaud them. I think it is good to honestly show the folks what their platform is.

Part of our platform, of course, was tax cuts. Does anyone think that we would have had tax cuts had the Democrats stayed in power?

Part of our platform was welfare reform. There were 14 million people on welfare. Today there are about 4 million. Does anyone think that 9 million people would be back in the workplace if it had not been for the Republican Contract with America?

The military spending went from $260 billion to today $419 billion and restrengthened our military. Does anybody think that would have happened without the Republican Contract with America?

And No Child Left Behind, our landmark education reform bill that put parents back in charge and teachers, not bureaucrats, in Washington. Does anyone think that would have happened without the Contract with America?

These platforms are good. This debate is worth having. We have been in power for 10 years. There is a lot more we need to be doing. We are going to work for tax simplification and more tax reduction, and we need to get better control on spending. Both parties need to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we have been in power 10 years and proud of the accomplishments we have had in that period.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Karen A. Cooper consistently displayed outstanding service to this Nation as she served the United States Army for over forty years. Her distinguished public service began in 1964. Mrs. Cooper will end her dedicated service to the United States in 2004 as the Administrative Assistant for the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Housing). Her insight and grasp of administrative procedures and knowledge of her job enabled her to insure the successful completion of all tasks with the United States Army Secretariat. Through Mrs. Cooper's diligence and exceptionally high degree of professionalism and technical abilities, she made a marked improvement in Army installations for soldiers, Army families, and civilian employees.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution that will restore the Librarian's authority to hire Library of Congress police employees. And I would like to thank my distinguished colleague for bringing this important resolution to the floor.

Madam Speaker, for the past ten months, the Librarian has been without the authority to hire police officers. The result of which has been a significant deficit in the Library's ability to meet its security mission to protect the Library's vast collection and ensure the safety of Members, staff, and visitors in the Library. His authority was repealed in a provision inserted in the last year's conference report by the other body, which also mandated our own United States Capitol Police to detail their officers to the Library, even though the Capitol Police currently lack the jurisdictional authority to police the Library's buildings. This was done in an effort to circumvent the jurisdiction of the appropriate oversight committees who have been engaged in evaluating the merits of merging the two agencies and force the beginnings of a merger of the Library's police force and the U.S. Capitol Police.

The Chairman's committee has been performing his appropriate oversight by reviewing several draft memorandums between the Capitol Police and the Library outlining the detail of officers to the Library. During this process, a multitude of questions have risen to the surface regarding not only how to merge the agencies, but really whether the security of the Capitol complex would be improved if they did merge. I do not believe that there will be any measurable improvement in the overall security. I believe that it is merely a way for the Capitol Police to expand their jurisdiction. I do not support Capitol Police officers being detailed to the Library in what can only be interpreted as a pilot program for a merger. And I certainly do not support the current effort of the other body to merge the Library of Congress police with the Capitol Police.

Additionally, the time and attention being paid to fix the current situation that the Library and the Capitol Police have been put in is putting unnecessary strain on the agencies and distracting them from their primary missions during a crucial time.

Madam Speaker I agree with the Chairman Ney's comments that this growing need for officers at the Library is the Congress' own creation and we need to fix it. Madam Speaker it is vitally important to the security of the Capitol complex that we restore the Librarian's authority to hire police officers. And I will work to ensure that they have the necessary funds to train and pay the officers that will be hired to fill the current manpower gap. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today the bipartisan 9/11 Commission gave their report to Members of Congress, and I think it was a solid report.

It pointed out we just did not have the imagination to perceive our enemies hating us so much that they would use airplanes as missiles and attack us in the somewhat cowardly, surprised manner that they did. We did not have the capabilities in our intelligence community because we looked at it through Cold War visions. We should have been looking ahead. Finally, we did have not the right management tools. The CIA, the FBI, and other agencies were not talking to each other.

Therefore, one of their recommendations was to put together a national security czar, one person who would be above the CIA and the FBI to kind of control the 15 different intelligence agencies. I think it is an interesting proposal, one that I think most Members of Congress are going to be receptive to.

They also said that we need to put together a committee, maybe a select joint committee between House and Senate, for more oversight, perhaps giving it the authority to authorize and appropriate. Oversight, Members of Congress are going to be very interested in this, and I am looking forward to a good bipartisan effort to address the issues raised by the 9/11 Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commemorate Pembroke, Georgia on its 200th Anniversary in 2004. I'm honored to represent this vibrant city and to call many of its residents my friends.

Historic downtown Pembroke is named for Pembroke Williams who was a judge and a prominent local resident in the late 19th century. The historic district is located in the central business district of this city of 2,500 persons and is characterized by its relationship to the Georgia Central Railroad, which bisects the town. It was founded as a farming town, like so many similar towns which sprouted during that time to serve the agricultural needs of the nation. The layout of the town around the railroad hearkens to a time of great growth, industrial zeal and expansionism. Pembroke found a thriving life serving the trains that led to the great markets of the coast.

The majority of the structures in the district are of 1930s and 1940s vintage. The city also consists of several blocks of early 20th-Century commercial and government buildings. With the exception of a few buildings, all of the buildings are of one or two stories in height, and most of the buildings are brick or brick-faced buildings with pine timber construction.

The buildings in the district are a variety of styles and materials, all dating from the early to mid 1900s. Most are brick one and two- storied commercial buildings and originally had wood or metal awnings over the windows. Today, the buildings show architectural niceties such as terra cotta embellishments, carved cornerstone, and marble commemorative plaques that reflect the pride of simple rural businessmen in their buildings and in their town. The most interesting structures architecturally are the Pembroke Millworks building and the Food bank building. Most of the buildings in the district are in good condition and are currently in use as publicly owned property.

The historic district of Pembroke was created to serve the agricultural needs of the nation in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The layout of the town around the railroad, the plethora of commercial structures crowding the verges of the railroad property, and the prim, stolid storefronts of the respectable buildings all hearken to a time of great growth, industrial zeal and expansionism in American history.

The history of Pembroke is the history of early American commerce. Founded as a railroad depot, Pembroke found a thriving life serving the trains that led to the great markets of the coast. When the trains stopped coming and the commerce declined, the town faltered, but managed to remain alive through the tough years. Now on the verge of explosive re-growth as a bedroom community to Savannah, Pembroke is seeking to retain its heritage, while finding new vitality in the influx of new residents.

Much of the historic district, once the province of private industry, is today publicly owned property. The buildings themselves, and their changing uses over the years, offer a glimpse into the working of local government of the last century. At the same time, several of the buildings--the ``Welcome Center,'' the old Jail, and the Tos Theater to name the most prominent--retain elements of some of the more grim elements of its past . . . the stark conditions of prisoners in the jail, the segregated seating in the old theater, the peculiar design of the ``Welcome Center'' (with slit windows giving the police officers a vantage on the entire downtown.)

The Tos Theater, founded by G.S. Tos, was a quintessential example of the small-town movie palace. Without even a concession stand (candy, popcorn, and sodas were obtained from the drugstore soda fountain next door), the Tos Theater nevertheless was an important social gathering place for the town. With segregated seating (the toilet facilities), the building also recalls some of the social conventions of the 20th Century South, conventions which are fast fading into the past, but should be recalled and recognized.

Pembroke's Historic District is a landscape defined by transportation. First by the railway, which gave the town its reason for existence and its livelihood for much of its history. Second by horses and mules, the dependence on which beasts of burden helped to define the layout of the city. Third by the car, highways for which have provided the lifeline for the city, keeping Pembroke connected to its larger neighbors for much of the latter half of the 20th Century. The highways--Hwy. 67, Hwy. 119 and Hwy. 280--which converge in Pembroke will help to define its future, as they have its past.

I am proud to recognize Pembroke, Georgia on this its 200th Anniversary. This town has provided much to the state of Georgia and I am proud to have represented it in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I just want to say that my friend from North Carolina who so capably represents Fort Bragg, I, as he knows, have five military installations in my district that I am proud to represent. Tomorrow night, in fact, I am going to be at Fort Stewart talking to some of the soldiers. This is a program that does enjoy wide bipartisan support. We are going to keep working on this and find a way to make it happen.

We had lots of discussion in the appropriations committee. We could not quite come to a consensus of where to offset some money. I think there are a lot of programs out there that we should cut, reduce, eliminate, in order to provide adequate housing for our troops and the quality of life for our soldiers in general.

But the one thing to remember is we are in this position because of a technical change in the way the Congressional Budget Office has decided to score military housing. What they are doing is they charge all the money up-front, even though the private sector is paying for it. It is a paper entry. It is not a real dollar entry. I certainly respect what the Committee on the Budget is doing in trying to keep the integrity of the budget process going. I think it is very, very important that we all try to work through this thing. But if we are faced with this change in the scoring from the Congressional

Budget Office, I would like to see us find some waste, some duplication, and just some fat in the budget and come up with the money for our soldiers because I think it is so important.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have enjoyed working with him on various installation issues.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, today we received the long awaited report from the 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 report I think had some constructive ideas that we in Washington are going to listen to. It was a bipartisan group and they had a lot of good thoughts and some good discussion, and it was a unanimous report.

Three of the things that they said were our problems going into 9/11 was one, we did ignore a lot of red flags. Number two, the capacity that we had to fight terrorism, we were somewhat in the Cold War model and not using all of the technology or on-the-ground intelligence that we really need for this century. Number three, the management of information, the FBI not talking to the CIA, other agencies not sharing information led to lots of things going on and the right arm not knowing what the left arm was doing.

Finally, just our imagination, unable to really conceive of people who hated us so much that we did not know what they were plotting against us, that they were willing to kill themselves, they were instructed to kill Americans in order to get revenge on a country that had done them no harm.

Yet, indeed, if we look at some of the terrorist attacks leading into 9/11, as outlined by our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), and I will submit this for the Record, it is unbelievable. November 1979, terror in Iran, American embassy attacked, hostages taken. April 1983, Beirut, 63 people killed from a truck filled with explosives driven into the United States embassy. October 1983, Beirut, 241 U.S. servicemen killed from a truck filled with explosives, driven through the main gate of a U.S. Marine Corps headquarters. September 1984, Beirut, a truck filled with explosives crashed through the gate of the U.S. embassy compound. October 1995, the Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacked, one American killed. November 1985, hijackers on an Egyptian plane kill U.S. passengers. December 1985, Rome and Vienna, 20 killed from suicide bombers at U.S. and Israeli international airports. April 1988, 259 killed in bombing of the Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. December 1992, Yemen, 2 killed from a bomb at Gold Mohur Hotel immediately after 100 U.S. servicemen departed. February 1993, World Trade Center, New York City, 6 deaths and more than 1,000 injuries. October 1993, 18 U.S. servicemen killed, Osama bin Laden claims he supplied weapons and fighters to the Somalians. 1994, New York City, investigators thwart the attempt to blow up Holland and Lincoln Tunnels and other New York City landmarks. 1995 Manila, Philippines investigators discover plots to assassinate the Pope and President Clinton during his visit to the Philippines.

This list, Mr. Speaker, goes on and on, and I am going to submit this for the Record. But again, one of the things the 9/11 Commission said is we could not imagine the whole concept of the war on terror. I think that what really happened on 9/11, we changed our views that terrorism is not a crime, but an act of war, and that these events, some isolated, are yet still linked together.

I think with some of the recommendations that they have come up with we will be able to avoid this in the future. In the meantime, we need to complete our job and our duty in Iraq. Iraq has harbored terrorists, and that was also in the 9/11 Commission Report. And we have a report that has come in; one year after being in Iraq,

U.S. Agency for International Development talking about restoring the services there. This book, Mr. Speaker, which is available to the public, I do have a web page: www.usaid.gov, that is the U.S. Agency for International Development, it talks about reopening the schools there, building the democracy, vaccinating children, helping small businesses and newspapers to reopen. Lots of work is being done.

Iraq is an independent country at this point. It is on its own. We need to support them. We do not need to pull the rug out from under them. We need to help them complete their journey to democracy, and it is not time for Congress to pull the rug out from under them in the name of November politics.

memorandum

To: Members.

From: Tim Murphy (PA-18).

Date: July 21, 2004.

Subject: Timeline of major terrorist activities.

As we head home for the August recess and face questions

from our constituents regarding the War on Terror, I thought

you might find helpful this timeline of actual and attempted

terrorist attacks.

November 1979--Tehran, Iran: American Embassy attacked and

seized, hostages taken--released 1981.

April 1983--Beirut: 63 people killed from truck filled with

explosives driven into U.S. Embassy.

October 1983--Beirut: 241 U.S. servicemen killed from truck

filled with explosives driven through main gate at U.S.

Marine Corps headquarters.

September 1984--Beirut: Truck filled with explosives

crashes through gate into U.S. Embassy compound in Beirut, no

deaths.

August 1985--Rhein-Main, Germany: 22 killed from car filled

with explosives driven into main gate at U.S. Air Force Base.

October 1985: Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacked, one

American killed.

November 1985: Hijackers on Egyptian plane kill U.S.

passengers.

December 1985--Rome and Vienna: 20 killed from suicide

bombers at U.S. and Israeli international airports.

April 1988: 259 killed in bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over

Lockerbie, Scotland.

December 1992--Aden, Yemen: Two killed from bomb at Gold

Mohur Hotel immediately after one hundred U.S. servicemen

departed on their way to duty in Somalia.

February 1993--World Trade Center, New York City: Six

deaths and more than 1,000 injuries from bombing.

October 1993--Mogadishu, Somalia: 18 U.S. servicemen

killed, Bin Laden claims he supplied weapons and fighters to

Somalis involved in the battle.

1994--New York City: Investigators thwarted attempt to blow

up Holland and Lincoln tunnels and other New York City

landmarks.

Late 1994 early 1995--Manila, Philippines: Investigators

discovered plots to assassinate the Pope and President

Clinton during visits to the Philippines.

1995: Investigators discovered plans to explode a dozen

commercial jets over the Pacific.

June 1995--Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Unsuccessful attempt to

assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

November 1995--Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Five Americans killed

by car bomb at a U.S.-run training facility for the Saudi

National Guard.

June 1996--Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: 19 U.S. airmen killed by

truck bomb at the Khobar Towers apartment compound where

hundreds of U.S. Air Force personnel were stationed.

August 1998--Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania & Nairobi, Kenya: 224

killed, including 12 Americans, and more than 5,000 wounded

by truck bombs at U.S. embassies in both cities.

December 1999--Port Angeles, Washington: U.S. Customs

agents stopped Ahmed Ressam from crossing out of Canada into

the U.S. with a truck full of explosives headed to Los

Angeles airport.

December 1999--Amman, Jordan: Intelligence officials reveal

plot to kill U.S. and Israeli citizens by bombing a fully

booked hotel and prominent Christian sites over millennium

celebrations.

October 2000--Aden, Yemen: 17 sailors killed and 30 wounded

when terrorists on boat rigged with explosives attack the

U.S.S. Cole.

September 2001--New York City; Washington, DC; Shanksville,

Pennsylvania: Thousands killed from four hijacked passenger

airliners crashed into New York City's two tallest buildings,

the Pentagon and a field in rural Pennsylvania.

September 2001--Paris and Brussels: Intelligence officials

uncover evidence of plots to bomb the U.S. embassy in Paris,

and possibly also NATO headquarters in Brussels.

October 2001--Sarajevo, Bosnia: NATO officials break up an

al-Qaeda cell planning to attack the U.S. embassy and Eagle

Base airfield, home base to 3,000 U.S. peacekeepers.

December 2001: Richard Reid attempts to blow up a

commercial flight from United Kingdom en route to United

States using bombs hidden in his shoes.

March 2004--Madrid, Spain: 198 killed and more than 1,400

wounded from 10 coordinated bomb detonations on Madrid subway

during commuter rush hour.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I appreciate the time and wanted to stand in support of the chairman's mark on this important bill.

We have been working in the Subcommittee on Military Construction for many years to get this housing privatization project going. To date, we have got about 60,000 houses that are under this program. It has been a huge success. Yet we have something like 160-odd thousand to go. That would be our goal. That would give us about 70 percent of the existing housing units. Big step.

It has been a very, very positive program from Fort Meade to Fort Stewart. Here is a quote that one of the soldiers in our area at Fort Stewart actually wrote us: ``There is a maintenance manager here at Fort Stewart, who is undoubtedly the best I have seen in my 20 years in the military. He is responsible for Marne Homes. He is personable, kind, and most of all a man of his word. If he says he'll fix something, he will fix it and he will fix it fast. He'll fix the root of a problem and not just put a Band-Aid on it. I feel better'' and perhaps this is the key sentence, ``I feel better going to Iraq in a few months knowing he will be here to take care of my family.''

That is a strong statement for our soldiers back home, and yet what is the problem here? We have two scoring agencies. One is the Congressional Budget Office. One is the Office of Management and Budget. And this year, for some reason, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, changed the way they want to score this.

In essence, what they did is they charged all the money up front. It is the equivalent of going to a soldier and saying, instead of your annual pay being scored on a 1-year basis, we are going to multiply it by the 20 years you are going to serve in the military and we are going to score your pay against you for the whole 20 years. That is what the Congressional Budget Office did. That does not make any sense, but the Office of Management and Budget did not change its scoring. The program has not changed, nor has the committee position changed.

So we should not change as Members of the House. We need to stand with our military. The manager's amendment has fixed this problem for right now. We have got good bipartisan support on it, and we need to move forward on this bill.

So, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things that already have been said, which I would like to repeat in my own words, but I am sure my fellow Members of Congress would not mind if I spoke for a little less period of time; but I just want to say that this is what we need to do for our soldiers.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I appreciate that. Thanks.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and wanted to stand in support of the Buyer amendment and say also I support this for two reasons.

Number one, I am very uncomfortable with the U.N., regardless of what their intentions could be. It is a political body. They are very, very anti-American and I think very ineffective. Just look at their record on human rights, their record on peace around the world, the records on democracy. The U.N. would not be who you want to come in and straighten out a problem.

Secondly, let us go under the assumption there was a problem and what did we do about it. One thing to remember, and I went down to Florida. Twenty-five of the counties in Florida that had the highest percentage of vote spoilage, or they were accused of it, how many were controlled by a Republican? Zero. All of the 25 had Democrat chief election officials.

Now, as a Republican who was asked to go down there and monitor the recount, I was expecting the worst. I went in there, as I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) did, and we sat in kind of bleachers and watched Theresa LePore and Judge Burton, two of the Democrats. Ironically, I forget the Republican's name. And they would hold the ballots up and look at the chads.

I expected the worst, but I want to say to my Democrat friends, they did the right thing. They were looking it in the eye. They were resisting all the political pressure from the outside. They were running Palm Beach and Broward and Dade County the way it should be run, on a local level. The Democrats were doing it, and the Democrats I think were doing a doggone good job. I went back and told my friends, you know what, that process is fair.

Key point being is we handled the problem, we handled it locally. We do not need a lot of outsiders from the U.N. to come in.