Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is altogether fitting that we adopt the resolution commemorating the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks against

the United States and specifically against the World Trade Center in my district on September 11, 2001.

The attacks were unprovoked, dastardly and a notice to us all that we are not, at our choosing, at war. Since that day, this Congress has taken many actions in response, some of which I agreed with, some of which I did not. I resent the Republican leadership's inclusion in this resolution of references to controversial legislation, as if to imply that any patriotic American who was appalled at the attacks on our country and who believes we must take resolute actions to defend ourselves must approve of all this legislation, and anyone who doesn't is either unpatriotic or foolish.

It may be, though I do not believe it so, that all this legislation was wise and appropriate. But that was a highly debatable proposition and should not be in this resolution.

The resolution quite correctly ``honors the heroic actions of first responders, law enforcement personnel, State and local officials, volunteers and others, who aided the innocent victims and bravely risked their own lives and health following the September 11, 2001, attacks.'' Unfortunately, unless Congress acts quickly, future generations will regard this resolution as the culmination of 5 years of hypocrisy and betrayal.

While we praised the first responders, the Federal Government has betrayed their trust by first lying to them and causing them to work in conditions that destroyed the health of many and risked the lives of thousands. It has conducted a coverup that continues to this day. It has denied the reality of the resulting illnesses and has provided almost no help to assist with the medical and other costs imposed on thousands of first responders. It is not just the first responders.

Many resident school children and people who worked or lived near Ground Zero are still suffering from the devastating environmental effects of the attacks. In the days following the attacks, former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman repeatedly declared the air safe to breathe.

A Federal judge found that ``Whitman's deliberate and misleading statements to the press, where she reassured the public that the air was safe to breathe around Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, and there would be no health risk for those returning to those areas, shocked the conscience.'' The EPA Inspector General confirmed the EPA's wrongdoing and reported 3 years ago that the White House had instructed EPA to downplay air quality concerns.

For this, Whitman and anyone at the White House who was involved ought to be criminally prosecuted, and I have demanded an independent counsel to look into this. Now thousands of people are sick and some have died from World Trade Center contamination because of the actions of the Federal Government in telling them to work and live in contaminated environments.

Studies come out every year showing that most of the people exposed to 9/11 dust and debris continue to suffer adverse health effects. On September 5, 2006, Mount Sinai Medical Center released a study that found that 70 percent of the first responders suffer lung problems because of their work at Ground Zero. Information collected about the health effects on residents, people who work in the area, and school children, show similar patterns.

This resolution before us today claims to honor the heroes of 9/11, but that is just sheer hypocrisy if we do not at the least provide health care for these people as they struggle with the effects of the attacks and of the betrayal by their own government. As Americans, let us resolve that just as we showed exemplary valor and compassion in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, we should do the same for those who continue to suffer the health effects of living and working in a toxic environment.

Abraham Lincoln said that it was our job, our duty, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and this we must do. We ought to provide comprehensive health care benefits for all those who are suffering. I suggest the easiest way to do this would be to extend Medicare benefits to those with 9/11-related illness who were exposed to World Trade Center dust.

I have introduced such a bill and urge my colleagues to support it and pass it without delay. As we mark this fifth anniversary, we still are not safe. We are not safer than we were on September 11, 2001, as this resolution claims.

The President and this Congress refused to do what we must to make us safe. We are not securing all the nuclear material in the former Soviet Union before it is smuggled to al Qaeda to make nuclear bombs. We are not screening all of the 12 million shipping containers coming into our ports to make sure that they do not contain nuclear or biological or chemical weapons. We are not hardening our nuclear and chemical plants from sabotage that could kill tens of thousands of Americans. We can and must do better. Now, the specific resolution before us ought to pass because we cannot let this occasion go unmarked.

But because of the cynical manipulation of the rules of the House two months before an election, the Republican leadership is using the memories of my murdered constituents to try to score political points. I find this offensive, and I for one will not fall for it.

I will not vote against the victims and heroes of 9/11 simply because the leadership distilled the resolution with highly charged political rhetoric. This type of resolution is not the way I would have chosen to honor 9/11, a day marked by unquestionable national unity.

Nonetheless, out of the respect for the families of the victims, and on behalf of all Americans, I urge my colleagues to see past the obviously political paragraphs inserted into the resolution and come together to support passage of the resolution that should really only be known for honoring a tragic day in American history.

In order that this resolution not go down in history as hypocritical, I urge my colleagues to join, finally, in helping the victims of 9/11, the victims of our government's inaction and betrayal after 9/11. My thoughts and prayers, as ever, are with the families and friends of those we lost.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This bill recognizes the importance of establishing a national memorial at the World Trade Center site as the highest honor the Nation can confer to commemorate and mourn the attacks on this Nation on September 11, 2001, and also the first attack, on February 26, 1993; and supports the efforts of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation to build a permanent memorial at the World Trade Center site.

By supporting a national memorial commemorating the attacks on the World Trade Center, we can help establish a place where all Americans can remember and learn from the tragedy of 9/11. Thousands of people from across the country and around the world visit the Trade Center site every day, and millions more will come when the memorial opens, hopefully in 2009. This bill gives us, Members of the people's House, the chance to voice our support for this substantial effort.

Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, I was here in Washington when I saw on television the attack on the World Trade Center, and I immediately went home to be with my constituents, my friends, and family in New York. Normally, when I go to New York from Washington by train, I look out the window and usually the first thing I would see about 20 miles away from New York would be the World Trade Center, the Twin Towers, and when I saw them, I knew I was almost home. That awful day, I didn't see the twin towers. I didn't see the World Trade Center. I saw only a huge plume of smoke stretching all the way down to the New Jersey shore, and it felt like my guts were being torn out.

This was a bill I wish were not needed, but we need to remember. We need to remember the charred debris, the families torn apart, the ash that made New York look like a nuclear winter, and the smell of the smoke, like death itself. We need to remember the attack on our country and the motives behind it. We also need to remember the heroism of those who rushed into burning buildings to help and the selflessness of those who from all around the country came to volunteer their services, those who donated supplies and who lined up to donate their blood all around this country, and even in foreign countries.

It is our collective responsibility never to forget what happened and to honor the lives lost by building this memorial. That is what this resolution, this bill is about. There is a broad and deep consensus that has emerged in the United States that this is a sacred site that must not be forgotten and must be honored and that this site requires the highest form of national recognition.

The memorial's design competition became the largest in history, with designs submitted by over 5,200 participants, more than 5,000 submissions from 63 nations and 49 of these United States. On January 6, 2004, a distinguished 13-member jury announced the winning memorial design, ``Reflecting Absence,'' by architect Michael Arad and landscape architect Peter Walker. Work on the memorial began less than a month ago on August 17.

The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation has been established to manage the fund-raising and construction processes. The Memorial Foundation has a private fund-raising goal of $300 million, of which more than $133 million has already been raised from more than 20,000 donors from every State and from 11 foreign countries. I would like to encourage those who want to help or learn more to visit the Web site of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation.

I would like to thank the entire New York delegation to this House, who joined me as original cosponsors and who have united behind the effort to establish a national memorial on the World Trade Center site in my district, as well as the additional cosponsors of this legislation.

I would also like to acknowledge the positive role played by the Governor of New York, George Pataki, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who have both lent their support.

I also have to thank Ranking Member Rahall for his efforts in getting

this bill out of committee, and also our distinguished minority whip, Steny Hoyer, for his help in getting the bill to the floor of the House.

The establishment of a national memorial permanently commemorating the events at the World Trade Center on 9/11 will serve as a testament to the heroism of the people of New York and the people of the United States of America. It will help us all as a Nation to remember the indomitable strength of our citizens and the sacrifices made by so many, and it will serve as a continuing reminder of our ongoing obligation to provide proper care and assistance to the victims of the 9/11 attack, not only the families of those who died on 9/11 but also the first responders, the rescue and recovery workers who came from all over the country and the residents of the surrounding area who continue to suffer the health effects of that tragic day and its aftermath.

I congratulate the members of the Memorial Foundation on their efforts raising funds thus far and pledge our continued support as they begin their work on this enormous task, and I urge all my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a worthy organization, one committed to special children and their families. The Moses and Aaron Foundation's significant and enduring efforts under the direction of the president, Rabbi Yaacov Kaploun, and executive vice president, Yehuda Kaploun, deserve the highest praise, as do the philanthropists who have given of themselves to fulfill its mission.

The Moses and Aaron Foundation Special Fund for Children is an all volunteer organization and is dedicated to assisting children with disabilities and their families with a wide range of programs including social, physical, and financial, as well as counseling and guidance.

It also provides scholarship funding to educational institutions, collects, purchases, and distributes clothing for children in need and remembers them with presents at holiday time or when hospitalized.

In cooperation with Bally Total Fitness Centers, the Moses and Aaron Foundation has been able to establish physical fitness and therapy centers. The foundation has arranged for sound and musical equipment in other institutions as well to help improve the conditions of disabled children.

On Saturday night, August 5, 2006, at the Sullivan County Community College in Loch Sheldrake, NY, the Moses and Aaron Foundation will sponsor its 10th Summer ``Chazak--Strength'' concert honoring and paying tribute to special and outstanding children. This concert is presented under the honorary chairmanship of Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel and is produced by STB Jewish Music Productions. The guests of honor will be the special and outstanding children, many of whom will perform with the entertainers on stage. More than 40 organizations and schools serving the needs of physically and mentally disabled children will be represented at this event.

The Chazak Concert and the Moses and Aaron Foundation's other programs demonstrate the caring and compassionate concern for the quality and dignity of life of others and merit the appreciation of all those who have benefited from its services.

The Moses and Aaron Foundation was founded in memory of Rabbi Dr. Maurice I. Hecht and Aaron Kaploun, both of whom led lives of exemplary community service. It is in this sentiment of communal dedication that the Moses and Aaron Foundation has devoted itself to serving the needs of a unique group in the community.

I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the Moses and Aaron Foundation, an organization which exemplifies the generosity of spirit in American society.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5013, the so-called Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. There is really only one word to describe this bill: Insane. The proper title of this bill should be The Right to Sue Cops and National Guardsmen Act of 2006.

The premise of the bill is that following Hurricane Katrina, and possibility other disasters, law enforcement personnel illegally seized guns from people who had legal permits to own a gun.

In some cases, they may have been seized because law enforcement did not want guns inside a public shelter. In other cases, people evacuated and left guns behind, and the police collected these guns so they would not fall into the hands of looters.

The NRA claimed this was illegal and sued the New Orleans Police Department. The New Orleans Police Department stated it had to determine who were the rightful owners of the guns before they could return them. I believe the lawsuit has since been settled, and the guns are being returned to their rightful owners.

Yet, today, we are considering a bill that would ostensibly solve this so-called problem of guns being illegally seized following a disaster. Since the lawsuit arises from this issue that has been resolved, I do not see why the legislation is necessary.

But how does this bill solve the supposed problem? It actually creates a private right of action for gun owners to sue personally cops, National Guardsmen, FBI officers, and other law enforcement personnel who are simply carrying out their jobs following a disaster or emergency situation.

The bill says that no Federal employer officer, including the military, National Guardsmen, or any person connected to the Federal Government, such as members of police departments, local police departments, that receive Federal funding, or anyone acting in support of relief to a major disaster or emergency, may seize any firearm which is allowed under Federal or local law. If they do seize such a gun, it would allow a gun owner to sue a cop or National Guardsman personally, not the government, sue the cop personally, even if the officer was carrying out his official duties. And the gun owner can even recover attorneys fees.

Aside from the fact that the entire premise of the bill is ridiculous, there are a number of serious problems with the legislation.

First, the presumption is all in favor of the gun owner and not the cop. There is no requirement that the gun owner prove the gun is legal at the time it is seized. So, if a cop sees someone with a gun, he has no evidence of his right to have a gun, maybe the cop suspects he was a looter, if the cop takes the gun, he is personally liable if it turns out he had a legal right to it later. Also, if a cop finds a gun on the floor or in a store or in a home and takes it to prevent it from getting into the hands of looters, that cop can now be sued. So let us leave the guns lying around for the looters to pick up and shoot people with.

Second, if this bill passes, Federal response officials and aid workers, such as the Red Cross, would have no say where guns are carried. They could not prohibit guns in public shelters where kids are present, nor could they prevent armed gangs and vigilantes from showing up and wandering the streets with guns. Private volunteers with guns can show up in any disaster situation, and law enforcement would have no say.

Third, the bill applies to a ``major disaster or emergency,'' which includes a terrorist attack. So if the New York Police Department responds at the World Trade Center, or the military responds to an attack at the Pentagon, and there is a group of guys with guns, law enforcement cannot disarm them without risking being sued. Why would we want to tie the hands of the military responding to a terrorist attack?

This bill has a chilling effect on law enforcement responding to a major disaster or to a terrorist attack. If law enforcement illegally seizes firearms, or seizes firearms that turn out to be legally owned, even though they have no reason to believe they are at the time, aggrieved parties already have the right to sue, as was the case when the NRA sued the NOPD. I should restate that. If law enforcement illegally seizes firearms, aggrieved parties today can sue, as was the case when the NRA sued the New Orleans Police Department. The only reason for this bill, to give an additional right, seems to be vindictive, to force some poor police officer or National Guardsman doing his job into bankruptcy.

If there really is a problem, this legislation is not the way to fix it. It is too broad, it is poorly drafted, and it will create more dangers in times of major disasters.

That is why the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Violence Policy Center have expressed opposition to this bill. I also have a letter in opposition from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represent 57 major law enforcement organizations. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Major Cities Chiefs,

Office of the President,

June 19, 2006.

Re H.R. 5013 and S. 2599, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal

Protection Act of 2006.''

United States Congress,

Washington, DC.

Dear Legislator: The Major Cities Chiefs (MCC) Association

represents fifty-seven (57) major law enforcement

organizations in the United States and Canada who are located

in a metropolitan area of more than 1.5 million population

and employ more than 1,000 law enforcement officers. All our

officers are actively engaged in providing law enforcement,

public safety and homeland security to the citizens of our

communities every day. We are writing in opposition to H.R.

5013 and S. 2599, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection

Act of 2006.''

As law enforcement professionals, we understand and

acknowledge the Constitutional limitations on police power to

confiscate personal property. These limitations, however,

must be balanced with the need to maintain public safety and

security during emergency situations. We are concerned that

the bill would void local laws that guide police actions

regarding firearms in emergency situations. We also feel that

police should be allowed to take into safekeeping any

dangerous weapons and/or explosives they find abandoned in a

building or home.

Additionally, as law enforcement executives, we feel if the

President, a governor and/or mayor declares a state of

emergency for a devastated area after a disaster, these

officials should also be allowed to temporarily include

provisions for a weapon-free zone during the area's recovery.

For example, law enforcement may need to ensure that

evacuation sites are free of weapons. Sister law enforcement

agencies responding to a disaster must also be free to carry

their firearms into another jurisdiction and help maintain

law and order until the devastated area recovers.

Finally, we are concerned that the bill creates a new right

to file lawsuits against police who take abandoned guns for

safekeeping in an emergency or create emergency secure areas

free from weapons. The bill should not create a new right to

file lawsuits against law enforcement seeking to safeguard

the public in emergency situations.

Should you need additional information, please feel free to

contact MCC's General Counsel Craig Ferrell for further

clarification of our position.

Sincerely,

Harold L. Hurtt,

MCC President.

If the gentleman will yield for a question, under this bill, if a law enforcement officer had completed evacuating people from someplace and saw a few guns lying around in a house, and didn't know who they belonged to but wanted to take them up so that looters who might come by later couldn't take them and present a menace to the public, would this prevent him from doing that?

Would this subject him to a lawsuit later personally if it turned out that the owner of the house came back and said, why did he take my legally owned guns?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Answer the question, please.

Reclaiming my time, I am not talking about after arresting looters. Law enforcement people see guns lying around in a house. They don't know who they belong to.

Let me say this. There are lots of reasons why law enforcement may be going by: to check on the safety of people, to look into a house to see if anybody is there lying wounded or whatever. They see guns lying around. No one is there, thank God. They are all out, but they see guns lying around. Under this bill, if they pick up those guns, lest looters come and find them later and it later turns out that those guns legally belonged to the homeowner, when that homeowner returned, he could sue the individual privately. And, therefore, no cop in his right mind would pick up those guns. He would have to leave it for the looters.

This bill, as I said before, is insane.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring a truly distinguished public servant. A man without whom our jobs would be infinitely more difficult. Tim Friedman, for decades a fixture of the House Democratic Cloakroom, will take his well earned retirement.

Most people outside this building know nothing of the Cloakrooms. The staff there provide information to Members on the program for the day, the timing of votes, and myriad other details that go into the operation of this institution. As we all try to juggle the demands of committee meetings, visits from constituents, meetings with people concerning legislation, and floor debates and votes, the Cloakroom is a vital resource in making sure that everything runs smoothly.

In addition to being helpful, the staff of the Cloakroom have always provided a friendly and congenial environment even when the workload seems unmanageable, the pressure mounts, and tempers get short.

Tim has mastered the arcane science of the House. His voluminous knowledge, his institutional memory, his up-to-the-minute understanding of what is going on have more than once saved this Member, and many of my colleagues, from losing track of the proceedings.

Tim has always managed the job with good cheer and good humor, even when, perhaps, the circumstances might have called for a much different response.

My colleagues and I will greatly miss Tim Friedman, although we wish him well as he leaves this House. Tim, you will always have a home here, and, should you ever get tired of relaxing and enjoying life, you are always welcome back.

Congratulations and best of luck to you.

Mr. Speaker, my train was delayed, and as a result, I missed three votes on July 17, 2006. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 375, regarding the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 376, regarding Federal contributions to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 377, the Federal Judiciary Emergency Tolling Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, I really hate to be an ``I told you so,'' but when, in 2003, we considered legislation to strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction, in that case to hear cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, I warned that there would be no end to it.

In fact, when we first marked up this bill, I asked my friend, the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, whether there would be other court-stripping bills. He assured me that this and the marriage court- stripping bill were the only ones ``so far.'' As we know, he was being, as always, truthful.

Our former colleague Bob Barr, the author of the Defense of Marriage Act, whose legislation Congress was purporting to protect in that case, said, no thanks.

He wrote: ``This bill will needlessly set a dangerous precedent for future Congresses that might want to protect unconstitutional legislation from judicial review. During my time in Congress, I saw many bills introduced that would violate the takings clause, the second amendment, the 10th amendment, and many other constitutional protections. The fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution would be rendered meaningless if others followed the path set by this bill.''

Bob Barr was right. Today it is the turn of the religious minorities.

Once upon a time in this country a student could be expelled from school for refusing to cite the Pledge because it was against his or her religion. In 1943, the Supreme Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette held that children, in that case Jehovah's Witnesses, had a first amendment right not to be compelled to swear an oath or recite a pledge in violation of their religious beliefs.

This legislation would, of course, strip those families of the right to go to court and to defend their religious liberty. Schools would be able to expel children for acting according to the dictates of their religious faith, and Congress will have slammed the courthouse door in their faces.

As dangerous as this legislation is, even for an election season, it is part of a more general attack on our system of government which includes an independent judiciary whose job it is to interpret the Constitution even if those decisions are unpopular. It is their job to protect individual rights, even if the exercise of those rights in given instances are unpopular.

Sometimes we do not like what the court says. I don't like that the Supreme Court struck down part of the Violence Against Women Act, or that they struck down part of the Gun Free Safe Schools Zones Act, or that they are misapplying, in my opinion, the commerce clause and the 11th amendment in order to gut some of our civil rights laws. I really didn't like it that Republican-appointed justices traversed, perverted justice in order to put someone in the White House who got more than half a million votes less than the other candidate who really won the election.

I don't hear my colleagues on the other side screaming about judicial activism by unelected judges in these cases.

As wrong as I believe the current Supreme Court to be on many issues, I understand that we cannot maintain our system of government and especially our Bill of Rights if the independent judiciary cannot enforce those rights, even if the majority doesn't like it.

Again, I will refer to the Soviet Stalinist Constitution of 1936, which had many rights in it, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of religious and antireligious propaganda, as they quaintly put it. But, of course, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on because they had no judicial enforcement of it, and if you tried to bring a lawsuit to enforce your right, they shot you before they brought you to court. Any constitutional right without the ability to enforce it in court is no right.

This House appears infected with hostility toward the rule of law. This bill is a perfect example. Even more egregious is the way it has reached the floor. The Judiciary Committee twice voted against reporting this bill to the House. The ``no'' vote was bipartisan. Now the Republican majority is abusing its power to bring it to the floor anyway.

Neither the Parliamentarian nor the Congressional Research Service has been able to find any other case like this. They report, ``We found one instance of a bill, a joint resolution, between the 100th Congress and the current Congress, in which a committee specifically voted not to report a measure that was later considered by the House.'' That measure was a 1996 agriculture bill that was rejected in committee and later folded into a reconciliation bill.

Now the Republican majority exceeds even that arrogance. We are asked to vote on a bill that guts our system of government and guts the protection of our individual rights when the committee tasked with the consideration of this bill rejected it. It must be an election year.

To return to Justice Jackson and the flag salute case, he observed that, and I quote because it is very apposite here, ``The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote. They depend on the outcome of no elections.''

But now some would strip the courts of any ability to protect these individual rights against a temporarily intolerant majority.

As to the complaints about unelected judges, I would refer my colleagues back to their high school civics textbooks. We have an independent judiciary precisely to rule against the wishes of the majority, especially when it comes to the rights of unpopular minorities. That is our system of government and it is a good one and we should protect it.

As Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist Number 78, ``The complete independence of the court of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.''

Where would this bill leave religious liberty? The Republicans tell us State courts can protect those rights. What would this mean? It would mean that your rights might be protected in one State, but not in another. I thought the 14th amendment to our Constitution settled that issue.

One of the reasons we have a Supreme Court is so that the Federal

Constitution means the same thing in New York as in California or Mississippi or Minnesota. This country must be one country, not 50 separate countries.

We are really playing with fire here. Do you really hate unpopular religious minorities so much that you are willing to destroy the first amendment? I urge my conservative colleagues especially to shape up and act like conservatives for once. We live in a free society that protects unpopular minorities, even if the majority hates them or hates the expression of their opinion.

If someone doesn't want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or doesn't feel conscientiously able to recite the words ``under God,'' that is their privilege. Our Constitution protects it, our civil liberties protect it, this country should protect it, and I urge the defeat of this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is commenting and his entire speech was about the desirability or the worth of the words ``under God,'' which I think almost everybody agrees with. The issue in this bill is court-stripping. Do we take away from the courts the right to decide, to protect people's rights?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Stearns may be right in everything that he is saying, but he does not seem to have the confidence that the courts will agree with him, because if he did, he would not be supporting this legislation.

I yield myself 10 seconds so I can yield to the gentleman from Florida.

To overrule the Supreme Court? Certainly we do not have that.

We have the right, but I do not believe we have the right, given the fact that the Bill of Rights postdates the grant of the jurisdiction-setting authority in the Constitution, I do not think we have the right to take away from the Supreme Court the ability to protect constitutional rights.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. Chairman, I will yield the gentleman 30 seconds, and yield for an answer to how he would have prevented, under this bill, all the States from negating the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

The other side?

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

Mr. Chairman, every word that we have heard uttered on this floor by the majority side has, as Mr. Scott said, increased the likelihood of the courts ordering that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance cannot be recited in a public, in a school situation where there is an imputation of coercion or pressure because the students are, in fact, under the direction of the State agent, namely, the teacher.

As someone who very deeply believes in God, I think it is insulting to say that the words ``under God'' are not important, and yet that is the defense that is offered in court because the Constitution says there should be no establishment of religion. Well, saying that schoolchildren must recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words ``under God'' is not an establishment of religion. The defense is, no, it is not because this is de minimis; it is not important; it is minor. I do not believe the words ``under God'' are minor or de minimis, unimportant. I think that it is an insult to religion.

But that whole question is for the courts, not for us, and here we are seeing another bill to strip the courts of jurisdiction. We are getting to a point where it is becoming boilerplate in any controversial issue to say the courts shall not have jurisdiction.

Consider this, the Defense of Marriage Act, the Pledge, we passed the bill a few weeks ago on the floor here saying that no funds should be expended to enforce a court order in some court in Indiana because we do not like what the courts do, or we think we might not like what the court will do; we will strip them of jurisdiction.

This is a danger to all our constitutional rights. The only thing that protects our rights as Americans, that

protects our freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, et cetera, is the ability to go to court and tell the President or the Governor or whoever, you cannot do that, you cannot force them to do that, you cannot put them in jail for not doing it. Without the protection of the court, rights are meaningless.

There is a maxim in law: There is no right without a remedy. What we are doing here is saying to people who are unpopular, to people who may not want to recite the words ``under God,'' they may be wrong and unpopular, but we are saying you cannot go to court to defend yourself and assert your constitutional rights. It is very dangerous. As was pointed out before, if we had done that before, we would still have segregation in this country because in every State we would have stripped the Supreme Court of the ability to declare separate but equal schools unconstitutional. The State courts would have soon said it is fine, and we would still have Jim Crow.

Almost lastly, we should not have a separate law in every State. We should not have the Constitution mean different things in New York and New Jersey. We should be one country. That is why the Supreme Court is vested with jurisdiction to rule on appeals from the State supreme courts.

Finally, this bill is itself unconstitutional. Someone said that the courts have upheld Congress' ability to limit jurisdiction. Sure, they have. Every single case has upheld limitations to jurisdiction, regardless of subject matter, never with regard to constitutional claims, not one case in the history of the Republic.

At a hearing that was held 2 years ago on a similar bill, the majority witness, the Republican witness, professor of constitutional law, said the following: ``The due process clause of the fifth amendment requires that a neutral, independent and competent judicial forum remain available in cases in which the liberty or property interests of an individual or entity are at stake. The constitutional directive of equal protection restricts congressional power to employ its power to restrict jurisdiction in an unconstitutionally discriminatory manner,'' which is what this bill does.

There is no ability, for example, to constitutionally provide that Republicans, but no one else, may have access to the Supreme Court. No one will think Congress could do that. This bill is clearly unconstitutional for the same reason.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are now down to the heart of the matter. This entire spectacle is aimed at a possible decision by one Court that the directed recitation by school children under the instruction of their teacher of the phrase ``under God'' may violate the first amendment rights of those children.

Let's be clear. Nowhere in the United States is the use of the phrase ``under God'' prohibited in the public schools. In the only two cases in which the Court ruled that the directed recitation of the phrase ``under God'' violated the establishment clause, the Supreme Court vacated one ruling, and has issued a stay preventing the second ruling from interfering with the recitation of the Pledge.

For this we need to take a chain saw to the Constitution? For this we need to endanger the religious liberty of religious minorities like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who were thrown out of school because their religion barred them from saying the Pledge?

Only the Supreme Court protected their rights in violence against Jehovah's Witnesses that ensued.

This bill would not only prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of directing school children to recite the phrase ``under God,'' it would also overturn the 1943 Supreme Court Jehovah's Witnesses case and allow the punishment or expulsion of school children for refusing to recite a pledge that violates their religion or their conscience.

We may be endowed, Mr. Chairman, by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, but people can, and routinely do, violate and take away those rights. That is why we need a Supreme Court, to protect these rights even when political majorities will not.

Supporters of this bill have candidly said they disagree with the Supreme Court, and that, in their opinion, the Supreme Court has gone beyond its powers, and that we, in effect, should overrule it and prevent them from ruling in these cases. We have heard this before. Look at the notorious ``Southern Manifesto'' against the Supreme Court decision in the Brown v. Board of Education 50 years ago: ``We regard the decisions of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal judiciary undertaking to legislate, in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the people.''

That is what we hear whenever people disagree with the Supreme Court, in the school desegregation cases and now. And this amendment makes the point of the bill explicit.

The sponsors are afraid of what the Supreme Court may do in a pending case on this subject that may come before them and therefore explicitly strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction even over a pending case. This is Congress saying to a specific plaintiff, we do not approve of your claim of a violation of your constitutional right; so we are going to shut the courthouse door in your face.

This is a dangerous enterprise. I respect my friend's concerns and his right to disagree with the courts, but we must not destroy our Constitution and the one independent bulwark of our liberty. I urge defeat of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 1\1/2\ minutes. I will simply say that this amendment is dangerous for the same reason that the bill is dangerous. We should not say, in the case of this amendment, to someone who is a plaintiff in a court in a pending case, we are going to shut the courthouse door in your face because we are afraid the Supreme Court might issue a decision. It has not done it yet, but we are afraid the Supreme Court might issue a decision that we disagree with. We do not trust the courts. We do not agree with them. Never mind that George Bush has appointed two new members of the Court. We still do not agree with it, and, therefore, we are going to try to strip them of their jurisdiction.

That way strips the protection of our liberties from us. We need the courts to protect our liberties. Our constitutional rights can only be vindicated by the courts stepping in when the political branches of government violate the rights of unpopular minorities. That is what the courts have done throughout our history, and we need that protection to continue. And that is why this bill is not only subversive of our constitutional rights, but unconstitutional.

The bill ought to be defeated. The amendment ought to be defeated.

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

Madam Speaker, the recent unprovoked attacks on Israel are particularly notable because of the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005. Israel, as it has so often been urged to do, gave up land for the hope of peace. Yet what happened? From the day Israel withdrew, Hamas fired rockets at Israeli cities and villages every single day, followed more recently by Hezbollah rockets.

Can you imagine what the United States would do if terrorists rained down thousands of rockets on American cities from Canada? We would tell the Canadian government to stop it immediately. And if the reply was we don't want to stop it, as with Hamas, or we can't stop it, as the government of Lebanon says it cannot stop Hezbollah, we would not hesitate to bomb whatever targets were necessary and to invade whatever territory was necessary to stop the bombardment, and we would not cease until we had destroyed or disarmed the terrorists.

Similarly, we must not demand a cease-fire that leaves the Hezbollah or Hamas weapons and infrastructure intact.

This recent violence, this war, is the penalty we pay for looking away and urging restraint on Israel as Hamas and Hezbollah flouted peace agreements and built up terrorist infrastructures and arsenals of thousands of rockets as they openly proclaimed their intentions to destroy Israel and murder her people.

The Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, a Hamas leader, wrote in the Washington Post just last week that what matters are not the issues of 1967, but the issues of 1948, that is, the very existence of Israel. But the existence of Israel is not negotiable. But many seem not to have learned the lessons.

The European Union criticized Israel's response as disproportionate. What would the EU do if European cities were attacked as Safed, Haifa and Nazareth have been? How is Israel's response against strategic Hezbollah targets disproportionate to Hezbollah's intentional attacks against Israeli civilians? And since when do we demand that responses to naked aggression and intended genocide be proportionate? It was Colin Powell who said that military responses must be of ``overwhelming force.''

The violence can end only if Hamas and Hezbollah are disarmed. Otherwise,

Israel will have to defend itself against future terrorist attacks, and innocent Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese civilians will continue to die.

There is a role for diplomacy in the Middle East, but only when Hezbollah and Hamas are forced to stand down and Hezbollah forces are moved away from the Israeli border.

I extend my sympathy to the families of the victims of the attacks in Israel and in Lebanon, and I pray for the safe return of those captured. But I know that because the United Nations and the international community have failed to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure by diplomacy, Israel must be permitted to dismantle that infrastructure by force of arms if the killing is not to go on indefinitely. We must not stop her from doing so.

I strongly support the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of marriage, in support of families, and in support of national unity. I rise against this proposed constitutional amendment, against the drumbeat of election- year political demagoguery.

This amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It is unworthy of our great Nation. The Senate could not even muster a simple majority to consider it, much less the requisite two-thirds to adopt it.

We have amended the Constitution only 27 times in our history, the first 10 of them, the Bill of Rights, in 1791. Constitutional amendments have always been used to enhance and expand the rights of citizens, not to restrict them.

The Bill of Rights, which was added in 1791, protected freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right to be secure in our homes. Ten amendments protecting individual rights and liberties. We amended the Constitution to permanently wipe away the stain of slavery, to expand the right to vote, to expand the rights of citizenship and to allow for the direct election of senators.

Now we are being asked to amend the Constitution again, to single out a single group and to say to them for all time, you cannot even attempt to win the right to marry.

This amendment was introduced last month. We have never held hearings on it. The Judiciary Committee has never considered it. Never. Don't let anyone tell you that the Judiciary Committee considered it in 2003. We did not. That was a different amendment we considered.

But what is the Constitution between friends when there is an election coming up? From what precisely would this amendment protect marriage? From divorce? From adultery? No. Evidently, the threat to marriage is the fact that there are millions of people in this country who very much believe in marriage, who very much want to marry but who are not permitted to marry.

This amendment, contrary to what we have heard, doesn't block activist courts from allowing people of the same sex to marry. It would also prevent their fellow citizens from deciding democratically to permit them to do so, whether through the legislative process or even through a referendum of the people.

And why is it requisite on Congress to tell any State that the people of that State may not make up their minds for themselves on this question? Why is it necessary for the Federal Government to amend our Constitution to say to Massachusetts, which is going to hold a referendum on this subject in 2008, you may not do so because we have decided this for you?

Mr. Speaker, I have been searching in vain for some indication of what might happen to my marriage, or to the marriage of anyone in this room, if loving couples, including couples with custody of children, are permitted to enjoy the blessings of matrimony.

If there is a Member of this House who believes that his or her own marriage would be destroyed by someone else's same-sex marriage somewhere in America, I would welcome an explanation of what he or she thinks would happen to his or her marriage and why.

Are there any takers? Anyone here who wants to get up and say why they believe their marriage would be threatened if two other people are permitted to marry?

I didn't think so.

The overheated rhetoric we have been hearing is reminiscent of the bellicose fear-mongering that followed the Supreme Court's decision almost 40 years ago in Loving v. Virginia which struck down State prohibitions against interracial marriage. The Supreme Court had overstepped its authority, we were told. The Supreme Court had overridden the democratic will of the majority, the Supreme Court had signed a death warrant for all that is good and pure in this Nation. Fortunately, we survived as a Nation and we are better for that Supreme Court decision.

I believe firmly that in the not-too-distant future people will look back on these debates with the incredulity with which we now view the segregationist debates of years past. I think the public opinion polls are indicative: Opposition to gay marriage is a direct function of age. The older people are, the more set in the ways of the old discriminatory practices of this country they are, the more they oppose gay marriage. If you take a poll of people under 35 years old, 70 to 75 percent are in favor of allowing gay marriage. That is the trend for the future because demographics is destiny.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment actually does more than it purports to do. It would not only preempt any State law allowing people of the same gender to marry, even if that law was approved by the legislature or by referendum, it would preclude any State from extending medical visitation privileges or inheritance rights, for example, to same-sex couples. That is what ``the incidents thereof'' in the amendment means.

Proponents of this amendment have already tried to use a similar prohibition against same-sex marriage to attack in court domestic- partner benefits. So when they tell you this is only about marriage, don't believe it. No court has required that a marriage in one State be recognized in another, so don't believe anyone who tells you that this amendment is meant to protect your own State laws.

The Defense of Marriage Act which passed this Congress and which the President signed in 1996 says no State can impose its marriage laws on another.

There are many loving families, Mr. Speaker, who deserve the benefits and protections of the law. They don't live just in New York or San Francisco or Boston, they live in every one of the 435 congressional districts of this great country. They are not from outer space, they are not a public menace, and they do not threaten anyone. They are our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends, our siblings, our parents, and our children. They deserve to be treated fairly. They deserve the same rights as any other family.

I regret that this House is being so demeaned by this debate. It saddens me that this great institution would sink to these depths to have what we have already heard on this floor and to what we will hear that amounts to pure bigotry against a minority population, even on the eve of an election.

We know this amendment is not going anywhere. We know this is merely a political exercise. Shame on this House for playing politics with bigotry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Speaker I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

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

Federalism is the division of power between the Federal Government and the States. Family law, marriage, divorce have always been a matter for the States. This amendment attempts to seize it for the Federal Government. That is a major change in federalism, whatever the gentleman from California may say.

It is most certainly an issue of federalism because the Federal Government has never before gotten into the definition of marriage or divorce or any of those things. It has always been left to the States until this amendment.

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

I will yield to Ms. Jackson-Lee for a unanimous consent request, and then you have your speaker, and I will close for my side and you close for yours. Let me ask how much time we have left at this point.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of points made in this debate today with doubtful validity. We are told we should pass this amendment to protect marriage. But against what threat? If Henry and Steve want to get married, maybe that is a good idea, maybe it is a bad idea, but it does not threaten the marriage of anyone else, of any man or woman who wants to get married. It does not affect them in any way. Divorce is a threat. Some of our other threats are threats, but gay marriage is not a threat to a straight marriage.

We are told we have to protect children, but children are already in the custody of straight people, of gay people, of gay couples, of individuals. If we want to protect children, we should give a legal basis to the partnership of the two people who have custody of them. Now, we are not saying that it might not be preferable to have a traditional custody arrangement, maybe it is, but this does not affect that in any way.

Nor do we say because we want to protect children that we prohibit elderly couples from getting married or sterile couples from getting married because procreation is the purpose of marriage. So this is a red herring.

We had a whole religious discussion. The fact is churches can define marriage in their point of view, any way they want. We are not telling a church you must consider this couple married from a religious point of view. We are not telling the church how to define the sacrament. We are talking about civil marriage, and churches can do what they want and regard as married whom they want, but we are talking about what the government recognizes.

We are also told that this is to protect marriage, but the amendment talks about not only marriage by, but the incidents thereof, to clearly prohibit specific rights that a State may choose to give to a gay couple, the right of inheritance, a right of visitation when one is sick in the hospital. Why should we tell the States they cannot do that at their wisdom?

We are told always by the other side of the aisle that we should protect the rights of States, but as I said a few moments ago, family law, the marriage law, divorce law, visitation law, child custody law have always been a matter for the States. Why are we preempting those State laws?

We are told we are preempting unelected judges, that that amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that it would preempt not just judges elected or appointed. It would preempt the State legislative action; it would preempt action by the people in a referendum. That is not democratic, with a small D.

This, Mr. Speaker, is a political stunt. It is a political stunt at the expense of a minority, of an unpopular minority. That is all it is. We know it is not going to pass. We know the Senate already rejected it. So this is just a political stunt.

I appeal to my colleagues, vote ``no'' on this amendment. Leave family law where it always has been, with the State, and do not desecrate our Constitution, do not desecrate our most sacred document, our civil religion, by inserting it into an amendment to deny a basic right to an unpopular group just because we want to make a political point at the expense of that unpopular group in an election year.

Make no mistake, that is what this amendment is. That is all it is. It does not protect marriage. It does not protect children. It just makes a political point at the expense of an unpopular group, and we should not desecrate our Constitution by so doing.

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

Mr. Chairman, today we will vote on the most fundamental of American values, the right to cast a meaningful vote in a free and fair election. We have declared to the world that this is what we stand for. It is what we have insisted other nations do. We have made great progress, but that work is not finished.

It is impossible to review the record without concluding that the Voting Rights Act is responsible for much of that progress, and that it is still necessary and will be for the foreseeable future.

Section 5 is not, as some would argue, a punishment but a remedy. It protects voters from being disenfranchised. It is in place because local governments have a long history of disenfranchising Americans that continues right up to the present time, as the shameful attempts by the States of Georgia and Texas to restrict voting participation, which had to be knocked down by the Federal courts as recently as yesterday, clearly shows.

This makes particularly unfortunate attempts led by some Members from those States to restrict the reach of section 5, and I say that as a representative of New York City, which is also covered by section 5, and should be.

Some would eliminate the English language voting assistance provisions of section 203. The same arguments used to justify literacy tests in prior years are now being recycled to exclude American citizens with limited English proficiency.

I urge my colleagues not to allow a small group to drag this Nation back to the days of Jim Crow voting. If we are to be a beacon of democracy to the world, then we must stand by our own values.

I urge my colleagues to reject these divisive amendments. Do not water down the Voting Rights Act; do not turn our backs on one of the glory pages of this House. Reenact the Voting Rights Act without watering it down.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration constantly crows about protecting us from terrorists, but when you get down to nuts and bolts it is clear that the administration and the Republican leadership of this Congress have no idea what they are doing. Just yesterday, terrorists killed more than 180 people by attacking the mass transit system in Mumbai, India. You had better believe that every one of the 4 million subway riders in New York took a deep breath before getting on the train this morning. New Yorkers know that, when terrorists strike, they go after high density, high profile targets. Every time you read in the newspapers that a terrorist abroad has been apprehended, you find the plans to strike at the United States are of Washington or New York, the maps in their possession or on their computers are of New York. Evidently this is yet to dawn on the Department of Homeland Security. Their ignorance is nothing short of disgusting.

We need to step up not only the distribution of funds to the right places, to the targets in this country, we need to step up rail security protections in this country. The Democratic Rail and Transportation Security Act proposes to appropriate $400 million a year for the next 6 years for a grant program to beef up the rail and public transportation security on our mass transit systems in the country as a whole, New York and elsewhere, but the administration and the Republicans in Congress say no.

The Democrats propose to spend $150 million over the next 3 years for advanced research and development to find more advanced solutions to the security threats faced by rail and public transportation systems. Again, the Bush administration and the Republicans in this Congress say no. We ought to be spending roughly $26 million a year over the next 6 years to hire 200 new rail security inspectors per year. Is this really necessary? You bet. Right now there are only 100 rail security inspectors for the whole country.

We need to increase our intelligence efforts to prevent attacks, develop plans to respond to attacks, and ensure the timely restoration of our rail infrastructure should an attack occur. The Democrats have advanced plans to do this, while the Republican leadership of this Congress and this administration waste their time designating insect zoos and bean festivals as terror targets as was revealed in the front page of the New York Times today from the list of targets on the Homeland Security target list.

Is there no end to their incompetence? First they cut funding for the prime target in this country, New York, by 40 percent. Then they declare an excuse that New York contains no national landmarks or icons, and now we learn they are designating a kangaroo conservation center as a key terrorist target. There is no excuse for short-changing this country's top targets. As the Inspector General has wisely determined, folksy appeal cannot be the chief criterion for the allocation of anti-terrorist funding.

It has been over 1 year since terrorists struck London's mass transit system, over 2 years since the rail bombings in Madrid, yet little has been done in the United States to protect our rail and mass transit systems. This administration, the leadership of this Congress must open its eyes to reality and put our resources where they are really needed before we have another catastrophe, a preventable catastrophe, on our hands. And then it will be little comfort to know that the blame lies with the administration and the Republican leadership of this Congress.

We don't want to be laying blame. We don't want to be saying it is their fault. We want to prevent it. So let us learn a little, and let us pray that the administration and the Republican leadership of this Congress has their heads examined and opened their eyes.

Mr. Speaker, today we see how a great Nation loses its freedom.

This resolution seeks to chill free speech by punishing the New York Times and other publications for doing their job. That is unacceptable and, frankly, beneath the dignity of the United States Congress. All of us here took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Yet those pushing this resolution seek to do just the opposite: to batter the Constitution's most hallowed pillar, the right of free speech and a free press.

Rampant lawbreaking by the Government, secrecy and selective leaks of classified information to cover up that illegality, and threats of retaliation and prosecution against anyone who dares to tell the truth.

How has the Republican Congress responded? Have they lived up to their responsibility to get to the truth? To subpoena administration officials or records? To hold anyone accountable?

No. The lapdog Republican Congress has worked hand and glove with the Karl Rove White House to cover up the administration's lies and crimes. The Republican Congress, with the chorus of cooperating media, has helped the administration retaliate against anyone who challenges them or tries to tell the American people the truth.

Does Osama bin Laden know that we had tapped into his phone lines? Of course. The administration leaked it to the Washington Times which published it. Any outrage here? No.

Did the White House leak the name of a CIA agent to friendly reporters to retaliate against a critic? Yes. Did the President promise to fire anyone who leaked? Yes. Now that we know it was the Vice President and Karl Rove, did the President make good on his promise? Of course not.

Does anyone here really think that Osama bin Laden didn't assume we were tracking bank transactions? Administration officials have testified before Congress that they did, and, for those members who read bills before they vote, we required the administration to do just this in the PATRIOT Act. Not a big secret.

Do you really think the terrorists didn't know we would be tapping their phones? The only people who were kept in the dark were the American people who were never told that their privacy was illegally being invaded by the government. Bin Laden doesn't care if the government gets a warrant, but law abiding citizens should and they have a right to know that, even if the President tries to cover it up.

If the President breaks the law and covers it up, if the Congress refuses to get the truth and joins the cover-up, then the free press is the only guardian of truth and democracy. That is why Thomas Jefferson said he would prefer a free press without a government to a government without a free press.

Free speech and a free press are what keep a Nation free.

Is it espionage to tell the American people that the President is breaking the law? Is it treason to report the truth? Of course not. It is the duty of a free press to tell the truth especially when people in power would prefer that the American people be kept in the dark.

Think of the thousands of young people who might still be alive if the press had more carefully scrutinized the lies and distortions used to lead this Nation to war in Iraq. Would we know about the illegal use of torture if the press hadn't uncovered it? Would we know that the government was spying on innocent citizens without a warrant?

No President should be able to cover up his wrongdoing just by declaring it ``secret.'' That is what some here are suggesting. We are a great and free Nation because the Government can't put you in jail simply for telling the truth, and the Government can't use its prisons to cover up its crimes.

A lawless President cannot hide behind the law. A cover-up Congress cannot complain if the truth gets out.

What sort of countries prosecute journalists? What sort of country hates free speech? Countries whose governments fear the truth. Stalin locked up journalists. So does China. Free nations do not. As Justice Brandeis wrote, ``Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.''

Once again, the administration and its apologists tell us that this activity was legal

and the leak helps the terrorists. How do we know this? Because they say so and tell us to trust them.

After six years of lies and cover-ups, of law breaking and leaking, this administration and the Republican Congress cannot be trusted.

Let's get the facts. I haven't seen them, and I don't think the members who will be voting today have either. We only know what we read in the papers.

The American people deserve better from their representatives. They deserve and demand the truth. Thank G-d we have a free press. Thank G-d we are still a free people. If the Republican Congress is afraid to get to the truth, someone else will have to do it for them. For now, we have a free press. Perhaps next year we will have a Congress willing to assume its constitutional duties now abandoned by the lap-dog Republican Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

First of all, I want to make it clear, I am just reading this revised amendment. This should increase the Jessica Gonzales program. It should put money into that by $5 million and reduce by $5 million the general administration salaries and expenses. I want to make clear that that is the intent of the amendment.

The Nadler-Capps amendment will increase the funding for the Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistance Program by $5 million. The offset is from the Department of Justice general administration account.

The Jessica Gonzales program places special victim assistants to act as liaisons between local law enforcement and victims of domestic violence in order to improve the enforcement of protection orders.

The current system has undermined the effectiveness of protective orders. Last year, the Supreme Court decided the case of Jessica Gonzales, who had obtained an order of protection against her violent husband. Despite Ms. Gonzales' numerous pleas to the police to arrest her husband for violating the order, even providing the police with information on his whereabouts, the police failed to do so. Mr. Gonzales then murdered their three children. When Ms. Gonzales sued the police for their failure to protect her and the children by enforcing the protective order, the Supreme Court ruled the police did not have the mandatory duty to enforce the order by making an arrest. The Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistance Program restores some of the effectiveness of restraining orders that the Supreme Court destroyed with this ruling.

This is the first opportunity to fund this program which was authorized last year in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

The Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistance Program will help enforce restraining orders and protect women who are victims of domestic violence. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the Nadler-Capps amendment to provide it with more adequate funding.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), the cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits any funds from being used to issue National Security Letters to health insurance companies to obtain people's private and personal medical records.

Currently, under section 505, any FBI field office director can demand your personal medical records without a warrant or any judicial approval and the insurance company is legally required to give it to them and is legally prohibited or gagged from telling you or anyone else about the order.

Last year, almost 10,000 unreviewed National Security Letters were issued by the FBI without showing any connection between the records sought and any suspected foreign terrorist. Post PATRIOT Act reauthorization, I remain very concerned, because National Security Letters are still issued without court approval simply on the letter's assertion that the request is relevant to a national security investigation, without any showing of a connection to a suspected terrorist.

The right to challenge the gag order is not real, since the government's mere assertion that lifting the gag order would pose a threat to national security must be treated by the court as conclusive, with no evidence necessary as to the truth of that assertion.

Government officials already have access to so much of our personal information, such as credit reports, library user, and telephone communications. Do we want the government to have such unchecked access to personal and private information as revealed by our medical history: psychiatric profiles, lab studies, and diagnostic tests like CAT scans and MRIs?

If somehow your medical records are necessary in fact to a terrorist investigation, the government should be required to explain to a judge why they are needed, as is provided in section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, rather than simply allowing an FBI field agent to demand those records in secret.

The FBI already has far-reaching compulsory powers to obtain documents when it is investigating terrorism under both its criminal and intelligence authority. The FBI can obtain a search warrant if there is judicial finding of probable cause that a crime has or will be committed. The FBI can use Grand Jury subpoenas; and, in terrorism cases, the FBI has sweeping authority to obtain all the records, including medical records, under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. But it has to go to a judge.

Given these existing search powers, there is no reason to authorize the FBI to issue unchecked National Security Letters demanding medical records without any showing of anything to a judge.

Mr. Chairman, if you have visited a doctor's office or a hospital in the last few months, you may have seen a notice telling you that your medical records may be turned over to the government for law enforcement or intelligence purposes. We can all agree that giving the FBI access to our most intimate private information is too great an intrusion on our privacy to leave unlimited and unsupervised.

There may very well be reasonable legitimate reasons for the FBI to need this information in terrorist investigations. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act provides for them to get that information if they simply go to a judge and tell them why they need it. The NSLs, which this amendment would stop, or would say you can't spend money on, skips the necessity of even going to a judge in private, in secret, and saying why they need that.

Let them use section 215. We had almost a majority on this floor to eliminate section 215, but at least that requires a showing to a judge. The National Security Letters allows any FBI field office director to get these most private records without any showing to a judge. That is wrong, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear what Mr. Lungren has to say before I use the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

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

Mr. Chairman, I respect everything that the gentleman from Virginia said. 9/11 happened in my district. Terrorism is terrible. We are waging a war against it, and we have to wage that war against it, and we have to protect ourselves. The question is intelligent protection.

The FBI should not have the right to get our medical records without going to a court. That is what this question is about. Should they have the right to get these records simply on an assertion or a letter that nobody even has to look at, that it is simply relevant to an investigation, without going to court?

Yes, certain protections were put into the bill. Those protections are insubstantial. For example, you can challenge the gag order. Yeah, but if the government says that lifting the gag order would harm national security, that assertion must be taken as dispositive. The court can't say, really? The court can't say, what evidence?

For all practical purposes, they have an absolute right to these records without showing them to a court. I am not saying they should not get the records. My amendment doesn't say they shouldn't get the records. What it says is a general principle, one that we should always adhere to, if they think they need the records for a terrorist investigation, go to a court, go to a FISA court, go to a secret court. Use section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

But we shouldn't allow the FBI to have access to private records without some showing in court of necessity of probable cause or something. That is why this amendment should pass.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment can be very simply summed up simply by reading the one sentence of it. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for the purpose of enforcing the final judgment of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued in Hinrichs v. Bosma.

I listened to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana as he told us why he disagrees with this, the judgment of the court, of the Federal court of Indiana and why he thinks the court is wrong. He is entitled to his opinion. But let the litigant appeal the decision. That is why we have courts.

The Soviet Union under Stalin in 1936 adopted a constitution. That constitution had a bill of rights, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of religious and anti- religious propaganda, as they quaintly put it. The problem, of course, was that if you tried to assert the rights they shot you instead of letting you go to court.

No rights are worth anything. There is a maxim in the law, there is no right without a remedy. No right is worth anything if you can't enforce that right. The way we enforce rights in this country is in courts. We tried it a different way once. We had a civil war.

Either Mao is right, that power comes out of the barrel of a gun, or we do it the way we do in this country. We obey court orders.

When a court says something unpopular, you shall not have Jim Crow segregated schools in the South, we obey the law. The President sends in the National Guard in Little Rock in 1957 if he has to. No matter how unpopular the court's decision is.

And here we have an amendment that says, because we disagree with a given decision of a local court, a Federal court in Indiana, no funds will be expended to enforce that decision. That way lies tyranny, Mr. Chairman.

If the gentleman from Indiana doesn't like the opinion, it should be appealed. And if he still doesn't like it, if he doesn't like the final judgments, let him bring an amendment to the Federal Constitution to this body. We can amend the Constitution.

But to say that when a court has decided on a matter of rights, the court has decided that something or other, I am not sure what this case was about, but something or other, some action that someone was taking violated some plaintiff's civil rights, that we should say that no funds will be expended to obey the court order to protect the civil rights of whoever the plaintiff was that the court found that somebody was violating; that some agency of government was violating someone's rights. The Court said that that is the case and, therefore, they should stop it; and we should say, no, no, no? No funds should be used to enforce the order of the court because the victim of the discrimination or the violation of civil rights is unpopular, unpopular with our constituents or unpopular on this floor?

The whole point of religious liberty is that it is not subject to a popularity contest. Minority religions have the right to be protected. Your liberty is protected because you are an American, because we value liberty, not because you can win a vote on the floor of the House or the Virginia Legislature or the Indiana Legislature.

It is absolutely destructive of the structure of our society, the structure of our government and of our guarantees of liberty to say, with regard to any court order, I am not going to defend this court order because I don't know much about it. But to say we will not allow the expenditure of the funds to enforce a court order, that is not our judgment.

If you want to destroy the Constitution, destroy the Constitution, destroy the Bill of Rights, vote for this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will take the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will simply say again, it is extremely subversive of liberty, of civil rights, of civil liberties to vote for this bill. I cannot recall a worse bill. To say that we won't enforce a court order because we don't agree with the court, change the judges. You have got the President. Amend the Constitution if you think it is that bad. But don't say that we are going to usurp the function of the courts and let somebody who went to court, exercised his American right to go to court, won in court, and we are going to shaft him and say your rights are violated. The court found your rights are violated, but we, because you are unpopular, we won't let the court enforce your rights. We will take the money away. For shame.

Vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I would simply like to point out that this amendment differs fundamentally from the Sodrel amendment that we heard a few minutes ago. The Sodrel amendment is subject to the disparaging comments that the gentleman from Virginia just made, because the Sodrel amendment does say no funds herein appropriated shall be used to enforce the court decision in a certain case and says we are not going to enforce a court decision.

The Hinchey amendment doesn't do that. Nor does the Hinchey amendment, contrary to what we heard from the distinguished chairman, overturn a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court decision in this case said you may do something. You may execute a search warrant without knocking. What this amendment says is, because we may doesn't mean we should.

So what the gentleman's amendment is saying is, despite the fact that the Supreme Court gave us permission to do this, we will deny funding to do this because we don't think it is right. So the gentleman's amendment is not overturning an Supreme Court decision. It is saying, thank you for the permission; we choose not to exercise the permission you gave us.

It is very different from the Sodrel amendment, which says do not enforce the court order. Do not spend any money enforcing the court order. That is subversive of the Constitution. That is subversive of a liberty.

Mr. Hinchey's amendment, whether you agree with it or not, does not subvert the court order, does not subvert what the court said, and simply says, what you gave us permission to do, we choose not to do.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases funding for the FBI by $40 million to conduct security background checks. Since the attacks of September 11, the FBI's National Name Check Program has remained dangerously underfunded and has accumulated a significant backlog of uncompleted required security checks. Backlogs in security checks requested by the Immigration Service have led to major delays in the processing of immigration applications and, therefore, to a very real national security risk.

If some of these applicants pose a genuine national security risk, they need to be found, arrested and deported immediately. Instead, there is a backlog of over 116,000 applications for permanent residency in the New York district office alone awaiting FBI background checks.

In fiscal year 2006, the National Name Check Program received 3.3 million requests for background checks, but it has only 125 people to process them and an anemic operating budget of $12.4 million. The program does charge fees, but the fee structure was set prior to 9/11 and falls far short of covering the program's cost.

Program employees have to search FBI files, often manually, in over 265 different locations across country. Having to spend so much of its resource on background checks dilutes the FBI's responsiveness, limits information sharing, and hampers counterintelligence and counterterrorism work.

People who are here legally seeking residency or citizenship are prevented from renewing work or travel documents while awaiting the okay from the FBI. Those receiving Social Security face termination of their benefits if they don't become citizens within 7 years, even though their citizenship applications cannot be processed while awaiting the FBI report.

Last year, the committee included report language directing the FBI to conduct a review of the fee structure for background checks done for the Immigration Service. As far as I know, the FBI has yet to send this review to Congress.

This year the committee report says it ``expects the FBI to work with these agencies to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to eliminate the backlog as soon as possible.''

``The committee expects the FBI to set the Name Check fee at a level that adequately covers the cost to conduct requested background checks.''

This is not an adequate fix to this problem. Congress should do more than tell the FBI it expects it to do more. That is why I am offering this amendment. CRS estimates that $40 million is needed to eliminate the backlog. This amendment will enable the FBI to create a centralized records repository where all of its paper files can be located and to develop, design, implement the system to store its active files electronically.

It will reduce the burdens on people who are here legally seeking permanent residency and citizenship, and it would get would-be terrorists out of America swiftly.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

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

Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman makes a good point. If we were not splurging all of our money trying to get rid of the estate tax, we could put $40 million more into the Department of Justice. That would be preferable. But the fact is, we are limited to the amount we are, and I have to take an offset from somewhere.

This $40 million will enable people not to lose their Social Security because their time limit runs out while they are waiting for the FBI background check. It will enable this country to be safer because we will find out about some would-be terrorists while they are still within the clutches of the law.

That makes sense. Yes, it will take money away from the rest of the Justice Department. And the account that it will take the money away from will go from $669 million to $629 million, a 5.9 percent cut. Yes, we are cutting the rest of the Justice Department by 5.9 percent to fund this crucial area of the FBI.

Now, the gentleman says that it is fee-based, that he asks for a report to the fee. But where is that report? If they increase the fees, if the FBI increases the fees, they are still taking the money from the other agencies within the Departments of Justice or Homeland Security. The immigration service would pay a bigger fee.

Other agencies within DOJ that are asking the FBI for the background check would pay a bigger fee. It is all the same pot of money. So the question is, Do we want to be able to catch would-be terrorists and get their names by getting the background check on time?

Do we want people who are legal immigrants to be able to get their citizenship processed and not wait 7, 8, 9, 10 years? Yes, it would be most preferable if we did not have to rob Peter to pay Paul. But because of what that side of the aisle is doing, we have to rob Peter to pay Paul. I submit we ought to pay Paul here and Peter can afford it better than Paul can, because we are reducing a $669 million account, which is an important account, by 5.9 percent; but we will get justice done on time.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, since the committee had the same language in last year's report, do we have any reason to expect the FBI will, in fact, change the fee structure this year?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I must confess I am a little ambivalent about this amendment because the amendment seems to say that we should obey the law, and some people might get the implication if we don't pass the amendment that we are free not to obey the law.

The amendment says that ``funds are prohibited from being used to engage in electronic surveillance in the United States except as authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or title III.'' Well, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act says that. It says that this title and title III shall be the exclusive, exclusive, that is the word used in the law, the exclusive authority for domestic surveillance, for domestic wiretapping. Anything outside of that is illegal. Anything the administration is doing outside of FISA and title III, by the terms of FISA, is illegal.

Certainly we should obey the law. I will vote for this amendment because I can't imagine the House saying we shouldn't obey the law, although I hear some of that from the other side. The fact is that this entire program, insofar as it is done outside of FISA or title III, is by definition illegal because the law says so, period.

Now, I just came from the airport, and I heard a little of the debate, with people saying, well, maybe it is too hard to get a warrant. Maybe the work that has to go on beforehand is too

hard and takes too long to get a warrant, even 72 hours after the surveillance begins, which is what FISA says. Well, if that is the case, let the administration make that case and let us amend FISA.

Remember why FISA was passed. FISA was passed because of tyrannical, illegal conduct by the FBI and by prior administrations that was considered by the Congress. After hearings and after revelations, they said, my God, we curtailed liberty in this country. We invaded the liberty of law-abiding, peaceful citizens under the cover of law, and we should never do that again; we are going to enact some safeguards. And Congress enacted FISA to be that safeguard.

And to say if you want to do domestic surveillance, if you think someone is a Communist agent, in those days, or an al Qaeda agent today, here is the procedure by which you get the authority to wiretap that person. Should a known al Qaeda agent be wiretapped all the time? I would say, yes, but a court would say, yes, too. In fact, we provided in that law for a secret court. You can go get an exparte order on secret evidence in a secret proceeding, and you can even do it after the fact, 72 hours.

Now, maybe it should be 96 hours or 5 days. Maybe someone could make a case for that. Let Congress change the law for that. But simply to say, the FBI tells us, the administration tells us that obeying the law is too difficult?

I remember a few years ago hearing ringing phrases from Henry Hyde and a lot of other people about the rule of law. We should impeach a President because he allegedly violated the rule of law. And now we come to this floor and say ignore the law? The administration, if it is too hard, can ignore the law?

The law says that FISA and title III are the exclusive authority for wiretapping in the United States, period. No ifs, ands, or buts. All this amendment does is repeat it.

As I said, I am ambivalent about it because I don't know that we should have to repeat it, but apparently we do. So I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I would remind everybody that to vote against this amendment is to say we are endorsing the violation of the law. We don't care about the rule of law. We endorse the administration's illegal and extraconstitutional action and we are making ourselves complicit in that and there is no protection, because the President now claims the power to disobey any law under his inherent authority under article II as Commander in Chief.

That is a power even George, III, didn't claim, to just disobey the law when he judges it necessary because of his being Commander in Chief of the armed services. He is Commander in Chief of the Armed Services, not of the United States. He is not Commander in Chief of the United States. He is not a monarch.

No President should have the power to disobey the law or to set aside the law when he thinks it necessary. If he thinks changing the law is necessary, come to Congress, change the law, enact a change in FISA. I might support it; I might not. But Congress will work its will. Enact a change in FISA.

Simply to say, as this amendment does, that no funds shall be used except in accordance with law, because the law says no electronic surveillance shall occur, that is the words, no electronic surveillance except as provided in this act or in title III. That is the law. That is what this says. If we have any shame at all, we should adopt this amendment.