Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the right to vote has been stolen from qualified voters. Stolen through corruption, through political cynicism, through incompetence, through technical malfunction.

Despite the fact that the widespread and documented irregularities in the Ohio election have not been proved to change the outcome of the presidential election, the loss of the right to vote by so many is unacceptable.

Elections must not only be fair and honest, they must be seen to be fair and honest in order to maintain the legitimacy of our democratic institutions.

This year we have dodged a bullet. If the apparent margin of victory in Ohio were closer, the Florida 2000 fiasco would look like a picnic.

Mr. Speaker, normally the process of counting electoral votes is a purely ceremonial event. Normally it is a celebration of our democratic institutions. Normally it is a celebration of the rule of law and equal protection of all Americans under the law.

But we do not live in normal times. the right to vote has been stolen from qualified voters--stolen through corruption, through political cynicism, and through incompetence, through technical malfunction.

Regardless of the reason, the denial of the fundamental right to vote is a crime against our democracy, against our way of life, and against the most fundamental rights of every American.

Despite the fact that the widespread and documented irregularities in the Ohio election have not been proved to have changed the outcome of the presidential election, the loss of the right to vote by so many is unacceptable.

Elections must not only be fair and honest, they must be seen to be fair and honest in order to maintain the legitimacy of our democratic institutions.

This year, we have dodged a bullet. The disgraceful events in Ohio may not have changed the outcome of the election, but a closer vote could well have made this belief impossible. If the apparent margin of victory in Ohio were 30,000 or 40,000 instead of 118,000, we would now be embroiled in a dispute that would make Florida in 2000 look like a picnic.

What is at stake is our democracy. This is not about conspiracies, or phantoms. It is about the failure to count valid votes for invalid reasons. It is about disenfranchising thousands of voters by forcing them to wait on line 10 hours to cast their votes. It is about the co- chair of the President's reelect committee serving as the chief election officer for the state, and doing everything possible to prevent voters from voting. It is about voting machines that invalidate valid votes.

We are told to get over it. How do you get over having your vote stolen? How do you get over widespread disenfranchisement?

This Congress must fully investigate these allegations, and we must act to prevent these outrages from happening again. If these outrages were criminal violations of our laws, those responsible must be brought to justice. If they were not violations of the law, they ought to be. Our next election must not again steal people's votes.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should not let partisan politics stand in the way of an honest assessment of this election. They should not ignore what happened. However they vote today, they should commit themselves to a full and fair investigation. Anything less would suggest that they think there is something to hide. It would suggest that there is a partisan coverup.

We can do better. We must do better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the point of order. The Constitution defines a quorum to conduct business as the majority of each House.

The question of course before us in this debate is, a majority of what? What is the denominator in that equation?

The precedent holds that the total number of the membership of the House is those Members who are chosen, sworn and living and whose membership has not been terminated by action of the House. Removal by action of the House is also a defined term, expulsion by a vote of two- thirds in article 1, section 5.

The Constitution also gives the House the authority to compel attendance when Members do not answer the call of the Chair in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide. And, in fact, the Sergeant at Arms has been sent to gather Members by force on prior occasions.

This amendment before us to the rules gives the Speaker nearly unfettered authority to change the number of the Members of the whole House to exclude Members who are chosen, sworn, and living but who do not answer the call of the Chair. This would seem to amount to a constructive expulsion without a two-thirds vote of the whole House.

For example, suppose the House is at its full complement of 435 Members. A quorum would then be 218. Now, suppose only 400 Members answer the Speaker's call for whatever reason. They are still living. They are still chosen. They are still sworn. They have not been expelled. Now a quorum by order of the Speaker would be 200. The House may conduct its business with only 200 Members present. If this is triggered in a time of national emergency, the consequences could be dire.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the distinguished chair, or maybe he is only the presumptive chair, of the Committee on Rules, at this point; but in any event, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) said a moment ago that this proposed rules change is constitutional because the Constitution could not have contemplated that the House could not function. But the Constitution did not contemplate that the majority of the Members of the House might in fact be the victims of an act of mass terrorism. Those things were not contemplated at the time.

The fact is we do need to amend the Constitution to take care of this very serious question; but this provision for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), for the reasons that I stated a moment ago, is clearly unconstitutional. Certainly, before we take such a measure, it deserves much more extensive debate and hearings and discussion than it can have by three or four speakers in this context now.

So I urge that Members take careful consideration to the question of constitutionality here. This may provoke court action, and we should not adopt this now in the context of an overall rules change with this very serious amendment to the Constitution, which is what it amounts to; it cannot receive adequate consideration in terms of its constitutionality either in terms of its merit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Martin Luther King High School Soccer Team, which has achieved a New York City Public School Athletic League record 5th consecutive title this year. Part of the oldest High School sports league in the nation, the MLK soccer team has battled many of the top teams in the City and has continually prevailed.

Having been nationally ranked the last 6 years and boasting an overall record over the last 9 years of 221 wins, 14 losses, and three ties, a 93 percent winning percentage, the MLK soccer team has once again reclaimed a championship they have held for 8 of the last 9 years. This is the all-time record for number of championships held by any New York City public school. The team is coached by Martin Jacobson, who has been with the team during the entirety of this its impressive run. In addition to being recognized and written about in a number of local newspapers, the team's accomplishments have also been acknowledged by the Students Sports Soccer website, which ranked them 25th out of soccer teams in the country this year. Many players have not only been driven to succeed on the soccer field, but have gone on to renowned colleges around the country.

I am pleased to congratulate the Martin Luther King High School's Soccer Team. The team's Awards dinner, being held at the School on December 16th, will rightfully honor a group of talented people who I am proud to represent in the 8th Congressional District of New York. I wish them all a joyous celebratory dinner and many more successful seasons.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his great service to this body, to the people of the United States. And let me express my regret that he will not be yielding time in the future.

Mr. Speaker, this bill comes before us is an omnibus bill because we did not take all the bills, vote on them on the floor, and the Senate did not do it either. This bill has some real inadequacies in its appropriation. In what promises to be a very cold winter, an inadequate LIHEAP appropriation; a $10 million cut in housing for people with AIDS, as if that scourge is going away from us; and a lot of other inadequacies in funding.

What I want to focus on is a major policy change that has been referred to by several other speakers, the so-called Weldon gag rule. This Federal refusal clause would allow not just hospitals but insurance companies, HMOs, to order their doctors not to perform abortions, not to refer people to abortions, not to tell people about abortion as an option. So whose conscience are we protecting? The board of directors

of the insurance company? The doctors? The patients?

This is an outrage, because it will mean that women who want to have abortions, that women who might want to have abortions, that doctors who think they ought to tell women about their options are told to shut up. By Federal law they cannot do this, because we care about limiting access to a constitutional right, because that is the real purpose of this.

The proposal would preclude State and local governments with oversight authority from enforcing basic health care certifications and licensing requirements in the area of abortion; and in deciding whether to approve a hospital merger, for instance, they could not say no if this would decrease the availability of abortion services or even referral services in an area. Under the bill, States would be precluded from requiring that health care companies provide even referrals for abortion services as a condition for participating in the Medicaid program.

Now, this invasion of States rights, this invasion of the conscience of the women, this invasion of the conscience of the doctors is very deliberate. It is because the people who wrote this clause do not want people to have the freedom to decide for themselves, do not want them to be able to avail themselves of their constitutional rights.

This is not a conscience protection clause. This is a gag rule, and it ought to be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Gilda's Club of New York City, on the occasion of its 10th anniversary. In 1995, Gilda's Club opened its doors in honor of the late Gilda Radner. While most well-known for her work as a comedienne, Radner's legacy carries on in the Club because of her wish that people living with cancer, as she did so bravely, would find a community with which to talk and seek comfort while fighting the disease. A festive gala, ``Celebrating Gilda,'' will be held on November 4th to mark the success and progress of Gilda's Club over the past ten years.

Gilda's Club, a non-profit organization with both of its branches located in my Congressional district, was founded upon the premise that ``when cancer happens, it happens to the entire family,'' a message so eloquently conveyed by Radner herself. Gilda's Club is premised on the belief that while doctors can treat the physical effects of cancer, the emotional effects of the disease must also be treated. The Club provides a comprehensive emotional and social support community for anyone whose life has been touched by cancer in any way, free of charge. Its Basic III Plus membership provides programs ranging from Support and Networking Groups, to education in Lectures and Workshops, to a playful yet supportive atmosphere for children in Noogieland, all designed to channel strength, hope and solidarity to all participants.

The current membership of the Club is 3,615, and the Club has now passed the milestone of 100,000 member visits. An organization with a resolute mission, a compassionate heart, and an intrinsic sense of humor, Gilda's Club is a valued asset to the New York community. Testimonials, such as that of one member who said that ``this club has shined light and hope into some of the darkest corners of my life,'' coupled with the growing membership numbers are a clear indication of the Club's magnificent achievements. I am delighted to wish Gilda's Club a joyous and memorable 10th anniversary celebration, and to convey my sincere wishes for a thriving and prosperous second decade.

Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 2004 a service was held for the 350th anniversary of the Congregation Shearith Israel in New York City. The Congregation, founded by 23 impoverished Brazilian Jews seeking refuge in New Amsterdam, marked the beginning of Jewish life in America. What began as a small settlement, nearly 122 years before American independence, grew into a community that not only benefited from the equality and religious freedom found here, but had a profound influence on such ideals over the course of American history. The American Jewish community has played a role in the extension of freedom, justice and social equality to all our people. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record the sermon given by Rabbi Marc D. Angel on the occasion of the 350th anniversary of the Congregation Shearith Israel.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life,

Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'' These words from the

American Declaration of Independence reflect the deepest

ideals and aspirations of the American people. America is not

merely a country, vast and powerful; America is an idea, a

vision of life as it could be.

When these words were first proclaimed on July 4, 1776,

Congregation Shearith Israel was almost 122 years old. It was

a venerable community, with an impressive history--a bastion

of Jewish faith and tradition, and an integral part of the

American experience. When the British invaded New York in

1776, a large group of congregants including our Hazan Rev.

Gershom Mendes Seixas, left the city rather than live under

British rule. Many joined the Revolutionary army and fought

for American independence.

Some remained in New York, and conducted services in our

synagogue building on Mill Street. Early in the war, two

British soldiers broke into the synagogue and desecrated two

Torah scrolls. This was not just an attack on scrolls, but

was a symbolic assault on the spiritual foundations of

Judaism, the self-same foundations upon which the American

republic has been built. In our service today, we read from

one of these Torah scrolls as a symbolic response to those

soldiers, and to all those who would seek to undermine the

eternal teachings of Torah and the principles of American

democracy: we are not intimidated, we are not afraid.

Generation by generation, we will continue to live by our

ideals and by our faith. Generation by generation, we will

lend our strength to the great American enterprise that

promises hope and freedom, one nation under God, with liberty

and justice for all.

Our story in America is not built on historical

abstractions, but on generations of Jews who have played

their roles in the unfolding of this nation. It is a very

personal history, ingrained in our collective memory.

Attending this service today are descendants of Jews of the

Colonial period, whose ancestors served in the American

Revolution; descendants of families including de Lucena,

Gomez, Nathan, Hendricks, Phillips, Franks, Cardozo,

Seixas. We welcome descendants of Rev. Johannes Polhemus,

minister of the Dutch Reformed Church, who was on the same

ship as the first group of 23 Jews who arrived in New

Amsterdam in September 1654.

We welcome representatives of our sister congregations that

date back to the Colonial period: from the Touro Synagogue in

Newport; from Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia; we have

representatives or words of congratulations from the historic

congregations in Savannah, Charleston and Richmond. We

welcome members of our sister congregation, the Spanish and

Portuguese community of London.

We welcome elected officials and representatives. We

welcome officers of the 20th precinct, who serve our

community with courage and dedication. We welcome leaders of

the American Jewish community, and those who have worked so

hard for Celebrate 350, the national umbrella group

commemoration the 350th anniversary of American Jewry. Indeed

we welcome all congregants and friends who have gathered here

today on this historic occasion.

A number of those present today participated in the

Tercentenary celebrations of 1954. We have a member here

today whose mother--now 107 years old--was part of our

community during the 250th anniversary celebrations in 1904/

5.

Among us are descendants of Jews from all parts of the

world, Jews who came to America at different times and under

different circumstances; including those who are themselves

first generation Americans and first generation Jews. For 350

years, our generations have been part of the American

experience, and have striven to make this a better nation.

We have just read from the Revolutionary Period Torah

scroll, from the section know as ``Kedoshim'', only a few

columns from where the British soldier damaged the scroll.

Kedoshim opens with a challenge to the people of Israel to be

a holy nation, to live according to the commandments of God,

to have the courage and inner strength to maintain Torah

ideals in a world that is not always receptive to such lofty

teachings. The portion goes on to specify how we are to

manifest holiness: through charity; honesty; commitment to

truth and justice; through the avoidance of gossip and

hatred. It culminates with the words: ve-ahavta le-re-aha

kamokha, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. The

very principles of enjoined by this passage are the spiritual

foundations of the United States of America. These teachings

are constant reminders of how to live a good life and build a

righteous society; they also are prods to make us realize how

far short we fall from these ideals, how much more work

remains to be done.

On this 350th anniversary of the American Jewish community,

we reflect on the courage and heroic efforts of our

forbearers who have maintained Judaism as a vibrant and

living force in our lives. We express gratitude to America

for having given us--and all citizens--the freedom to

practice our faith. This very freedom has energized and

strengthened America.

Within Congregation Shearith Israel, we have been blessed

with men and women who have helped articulate Jewish ideals

and American ideals. Their voices have blended with the

voices of fellow Americans of various religions and races, to

help shape the dream and reality of America.

The American Declaration of Independence pronounced that

all men are created equal. In his famous letter to the Jewish

community of Newport, in August 1790, President George

Washington hailed the United States for allowing its

citizens freedom--not as a favor bestowed by one group on

another--but in recognition of the inherent natural rights

of all human beings. This country, wrote President

Washington, ``gives bigotry no sanction, to persecution no

assistance''.

And yet, if equality and human dignity are at the core of

American ideals, the fulfillment of these ideals have

required--and still require--sacrifice and devotion. Reality

has not always kept up with the ideal. In 1855, Shearith

Israel member Uriah Phillips Levy--who rose to the rank of

Commodore in the U.S. Navy--was dropped from the Navy's

active duty list. He was convinced that anti-Semitism was at

the root of this demotion. He appealed the ruling and

demanded justice. He asked: are people ``now to learn to

their sorrow and dismay that we too have sunk into the mire

of religious intolerance and bigotry? . . . What is my case

today, if you yield to this injustice, may tomorrow be that

of the Roman Catholic or the Unitarian, the Presbyterian or

the Methodist, the Episcopalian or the Baptist. There is but

one safeguard: that is to be found in honest, whole-hearted,

inflexible support of the wise, the just the impartial

guarantee of the Constitution.'' Levy won his case. He helped

the United States remain true to its principles.

Shearith Israel member Moses Judah (1735-1822) believed

that all men were created

equal--including black men. In 1799, he was elected to the

New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves.

During his tenure on the standing committee between 1806 and

1809, about 50 slaves were freed. Through his efforts, many

other slaves achieved freedom. He exerted himself to fight

injustice, to expand the American ideals of freed and

equality regardless of race or religion.

Another of our members, Maud Nathan, believed that all men

were created equal but so were all women created equal. She

was a fiery, internationally renowned suffragette, who worked

tirelessly to advance a vision of America that indeed

recognized the equality of all its citizens--men and women.

As president of the consumer league of New York from 1897-

1917, Maud Nathan was a pioneer in social activism, working

for the improvement of working conditions of employees in New

York's department stores. Equality and human dignity were the

rights of all Americans, rich and poor, men and women.

The Declaration of Independence proclaimed that human

beings have unalienable rights; among them are life, liberty

and the pursuit of happiness. These words express the hope

and optimism of America. They are a repudiation of the

tyranny and oppression that prevailed--and still prevail--in

so many lands. America is a land of opportunity, where people

can live in freedom. The pursuit of happiness really

signifies the pursuit of self-fulfillment, of a meaningful

way of life. America's challenge was--and still is--to create

a harmonious society that allows us to fulfill our

potentials.

President George Washington declared a day of national

Thanksgiving for November 26, 1789. Shearith Israel held a

service, at which Hazan Gershom Mendes Seizas called on this

congregation ``to unite, with cheerfulness and uprightness .

. . to promote that which has a tendency to the public

good.'' Hazzan Seixas believed that Jews, in being faithful

to Jewish tradition, would be constructive and active

participants in American society.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were not

reserved only for those born in America; they are the rights

of all human beings everywhere. This notion underlies

the idealism of the American dream, calling for a sense of

responsibility for all suffering people, whether at home

or abroad. American Jews have been particularly sensitive

and responsive to this ideal.

On March 8th, 1847, Hazan Jacques Judah Lyons addressed a

gathering at Shearith Israel for the purpose of raising funds

for Irish famine relief. The potato crop in Ireland had

failed in 1846, resulting in widespread famine. Hazan Lyons

well realized that the Jewish community needed charitable

dollars for its own internal needs; and yet he insisted that

Jews reach out and help the people of Ireland. He said that

there was one indestructible and all-powerful link between us

and the Irish sufferers: ``That link, my brethren, is

HUMANITY! Its appeal to hear surmounts every obstacle. Clime,

color, sect are barriers which impede not its progress

thither.'' In assisting with Irish famine relief, the Jewish

community reflected its commitment to the well-being of all

suffering human beings. American Jewry grew into--and has

continued to be--a great philanthropic community perhaps

unmatched in history. Never have so few given so much to so

many. In this, we have been true to our Jewish tradition, and

true to the spirit of America.

Who articulated the hope and promise of America more

eloquently than Emma Lazarus? ``Give me your tired, your

poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free, the

wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the

homeless, tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the

golden door.'' How appropriate is it that her poem is affixed

to the great symbol of American freedom, the Statue of

Liberty.

Alice Menken, (for many years president of our Sisterhood)

did remarkable work to help immigrants, to assist young women

who ran into trouble with the law, to promote reform of the

American prison system. She wrote: ``We must seek a balanced

philosophy of life. We must live to make the world worth

living in, with new ideals, less suffering, and more joy.''

Americans see ourselves as one nation, indivisible, under

God, with liberty and justice for all. Yet, liberty and

justice are not automatically attained. They have required--

and still require--wisdom, vigilance, and active

participation. American legal tradition has been enriched by

the insights and the work of many American Jews.

In one of his essays, Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo--a

devoted member of Shearith Israel--referred to a Talmudic

passage which has been incorporated into our prayer book. It

asks that the Almighty let His mercy prevail over strict

justice. Justice Cardozo reminded us that the American system

relies not only on justice--but on mercy. Mercy entails not

merely an understanding of laws, but an understanding of the

human predicament, of human nature, of the circumstances

prevailing in human society. Another of our members, Federal

Judge William Herlands, echoed this sentiment when he stated

the Justice without Mercy--is just ice!

Our late rabbis Henry Pereira Mendes, David de Sola Pool

and Louis C. Gerstein, were singularly devoted to social

welfare, to religious education, to the land of Israel. They

distinguished themselves for their devotion to Zionism, and

played their parts in the remarkable unfolding of the State

of Israel. They, along with so many American Jews, have

keenly understood how much unites Israel and the United

States--two beacons of democracy and idealism in a very

troubled world.

These individuals--along with so many other American Jews--

were exponents of the American ideals and the American dream.

During the past 350 years, the American Jewish community has

accomplished much and contributed valiantly to all aspects

of American life. We have been free to practice our faith

and teach our Torah. We have worked with Americans of

others faiths and traditions to mold a better, stronger,

more idealistic nation.

America today is not just a powerful and vast country. It

is also an idea, a compelling idea that has a message for all

people in all lands. As American Jews, we are committed to

the ideals of freedom and equality, human dignity and

security, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the

pursuit of harmony among ourselves and throughout the world.

We have come far as a nation, but very much remains to be

done. May God give us the strength and the resolve to carry

on, to work proudly as Jews to bring the American dream to

many more generations of humanity.

I close with a prayer spoken by Mordecai Manuel Noah at the

consecration of our second Mill Street Synagogue on April 17,

1818: ``May we prove ever worthy of His blessing; may He look

down from His heavenly abode, and send us peace and comfort;

may He instill in our minds a love of country, of friends,

and of all mankind. Be just, therefore, and fear not. That

God who brought us out of the land of Egypt, who walked

before us like `a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by

night,' will never desert his people Israel.''

Mr. Chairman, this bill is not the 9/11 Commission recommendations. This bill is John Ashcroft's wish list.

Ground Zero is in my district, and I understand the grave danger and harsh reality of terrorism. It is absolutely imperative that we implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and strengthen our security and win the war on terrorism. Unfortunately, House Republicans would rather play partisan political games on the eve of the election.

The 9/11 Commission recommended that homeland security grants be distributed based on risk, but this bill contains a political pork barrel funding formula that directs funds away from key targets like New York and Washington, D.C.

The 9/11 Commission recommended that we strengthen counterproliferation efforts to prevent al Qaeda from getting nuclear weapons. This bill ignores that recommendation and does little to prevent the terrorists from exploding atomic bombs in our cities.

This bill even fails to establish a strong, independent National Intelligence, by not providing that office with sufficient authority over the budget and personnel of other intelligence agencies.

House Republicans are once again wrapping themselves in the flag and in 9/11 to hide the fact that they are loading up this bill with questionable provisions that will not make us safer but will undermine our civil liberties. For example, this bill would permit people to be deported to countries that engage in torture. This will not stop terrorists from entering the United States. It would not have stopped the 9/11 terrorists. If we do have suspected terrorists among us, we should not deport them. We should charge them, interrogate them and convict them.

This bill includes egregious provisions that would expand the secret surveillance powers of the Federal Government and relax grand jury secrecy requirements while depriving people of their constitutionally protected right to due process and to the writ of habeas corpus. It would give the Federal Government new authority to revoke visas and deny asylum without judicial review.

This legislation is a betrayal of the families and the hard and thorough work of the 9/11 Commission. Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton have asked the House Republicans to remove extraneous provisions and pass a clean bill. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Miami Herald, to name a few, call this bill a ``political sideshow'' and ``election-year posturing.'' They see this bill for what it is, a step in the wrong direction that in many cases does the opposite of what the 9/11 Commission recommended.

The House Republicans should stop playing politics with the war on terrorism and start protecting the American people. As those of us from New York know all too well, we must do everything we can to prevent another September 11. I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation and pass a bill that will actually make us safer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry on the occasion of the first annual Adopt-A-Student reunion in Israel. On October 13th there will be a first-time reunion of Ethiopian Israeli graduates that were able to obtain education because of NACOEJ. Hundreds of American sponsors who provide support, correspondence and financial assistance have arranged to travel to Israel to take part in the celebration.

NACOEJ was founded in 1982 to help Jews cope with living conditions in Ethiopia; provide educational opportunities; aid with their emigration to Israel; and help aid the absorption of the emigres into Israel's society while preserving their unique and ancient culture. In Ethiopia, NACOEJ is the sole supporter of compounds in Addis Ababa and Gondar Province providing 10,000 meals to babies, children, and pregnant or nursing women daily. In addition, it supports Jewish Day Schools for 3,500 students, as well as adult education, employment training, family food distributions and religious facilities.

In Ethiopia generations of Jews were always among the poorest inhabitants. Families faced poverty, famines and malaria epidemics while malnutrition, disease and civil war were a part of daily life. Yet since 1984, 2,200 Ethiopian Israeli university students have received NACOEJ living stipends that many times can mean the difference between dropping out and graduating. Many people that relocated to Israel are now leading free, fulfilling and fruitful lives because of the work this group does.

For their generosity, for their commitment to freedom and democracy in Ethiopia and Israel, and for their unyielding commitment to improving the lives of people in the worst of conditions, it is my privilege to honor the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry.

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

I rise in support of the Advancing Justice Through DNA Act. Although the science of DNA analysis has vastly improved our ability to identify the guilty and to exonerate the innocent, neither our laws nor the resources we have made available have allowed our criminal justice system to make full use of that technology. This legislation would go a long way toward correcting that terrible gap.

I want to congratulate, in particular, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) who introduced the Innocence Protection Act several years ago and has worked tirelessly on this matter ever since. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude. No one whose innocence can be proved by DNA evidence should languish in prison because of procedural or financial obstacles to the use of that DNA evidence, and no one whose guilt can be proved by DNA evidence should remain unconvicted and free to menace others because of procedural or financial obstacles to the use of that DNA evidence.

It is imperative, in connection with one of the titles of this bill, that we eliminate the shameful backlog of untested rape kits, and this bill will go a long way towards that goal. I have worked with NOW, RAINN and Lifetime Television to raise awareness of this issue and to build consensus for decisive action. Together, we have pushed, prodded and demanded that Federal funding be provided to test these kits quickly. Today, we are one step closer to that goal.

I am pleased that this bill includes a provision very similar to the Rape Kit DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination

Act, which I introduced in March of 2002. That legislation would have provided $250 million to eliminate the rape kit backlog. I am also pleased that, like my bill and like the bill introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), this legislation adds funding specifically for rape kits.

But we are not there yet. These programs still need to be funded, and I am hopeful that we will not simply authorize funding for these programs, as this bill does and as I hope the Senate will go along with, but I am hopeful that we will also actually appropriate the money we are today acknowledging is needed to do the job right.

This issue is too important to ignore. Police departments must have the resources they need to solve crimes and put criminals behind bars.

This legislation represents a serious effort to combat crime, to locate and apprehend rapists, to use powerful evidence to put them in prison, and in the larger sense, it also represents a serious effort to take out of prison people who do not belong there in light of the capability of DNA evidence to prove their innocence.

We have adopted similar legislation before. I urge its adoption now, and I hope the Senate will go along.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to commemorate the opening of New York's newest museum, located in my Congressional District in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood. The Rubin Museum of Art (RMA), a cultural and educational institution dedicated to the art of the Himalayan region, opens this week with a series of fascinating exhibitions and programs.

With a collection spanning the 2nd to 19th Centuries, combining a variety of artistic mediums from paintings to stone sculptures and textiles, this museum will showcase a diverse and vast compilation of historical and sacred art. The inaugural exhibitions are certainly a testimony to the comprehensiveness of this artistic display. Each of the Museum's six floors and theater level gallery features a different exhibit, with educational wall texts and interpretive panels providing another dimension of thought and understanding for both the casual and more experienced museumgoer. The Museum is also home to a state-of-the- art theater, a classroom, and a space for contemporary and historical photography.

RMA's commitment to serving a broad and diverse audience is further evidenced by the wide range of programs offered. RMA has established an innovative Museum Campus program through which it has forged working relationships with the colleges and universities in downtown Manhattan. The Museum's educational programs bring arts education to many public schools and students from underserved communities. Among the future scheduled events are ArtTalks with the Museum's chief curator, Caron Smith, as well as lectures by noted art historians and professors, and poetry and music by contemporary artists.

I am pleased to congratulate the Rubin Museum of Art and all those whose contributions and efforts made the opening of this creative and new enriching cultural center possible, especially the founders Donald and Shelley Rubin. Lifelong New Yorkers, they have been assembling what is now America's largest collection of Himalayan art for over 25 years. Their desire to give back to the City that they love benefits not only New York and its visitors but the world at large. I am proud to join the artistic community of New York in the celebration of the Rubin Museum of Art and its mission of establishing, preserving and presenting to the public a permanent collection of Himalayan art, which accurately reflects its vitality, complexity and historical significance.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time, and I thank him for those kind words.

Mr. Speaker, today the drumbeat of political demagoguery has reached its crescendo as the House prepared to consider an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning marriage between persons of the same gender. This amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It is unworthy of this great Nation, and 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. Constitutional amendments have been used to enhance and expand the rights of citizens, not to take them away.

The Constitution was amended to add the Bill of Rights, protecting freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to be secure in our homes; 10 amendments for protection of individual rights and liberties. We amended the Constitution to wipe away permanently the stain of slavery, to expand the right to vote, to expand the right of citizenship, to allow for the direct election of Senators, and to allow for the income tax.

Now we are being asked to amend the Constitution again to single out a single unpopular group and say permanently, you cannot even attempt to convince the legislature of your State to give you the right to marry. We have certainly never amended the Constitution on the mere speculation that a court might rule a law unconstitutional. No court has struck down as unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act that we passed 8 years ago. There is not even a case pending before any appellate court in this country today. There has not been a single trial-level court decision holding the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional; and yet we are told this necessity is imposed upon us. We must protect marriage now. What an imaginary threat.

In fact, the amendment before us is a new version of the amendment. It was not introduced until the end of last week. Although this issue has been the subject of four hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary, this proposed amendment and its potential impact on State marriage laws, historically a right of the States, has not.

When the sponsor of the amendment appeared before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, she was not prepared to comment on a similar version or any version other than the one she had introduced, which is not the one today before us.

The Committee on the Judiciary has not marked up this amendment, either in subcommittee or full committee, although the designation of the oak tree as the national tree has merited such careful deliberation. That is a first. My Republican friends, as amendment- happy as they are, have never previously skipped over committee consideration to bring a just-introduced constitutional amendment to the floor. But I understand them. What is the Constitution between friends? Why should we consider it carefully?

As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I am normally called upon to explain proposed constitutional amendments. Explaining this one requires some extra effort. From what, precisely, would the so-called marriage protection amendment protect marriage? From no-fault divorce? From legalized fornication? From the failure of States to incarcerate adulterers, perhaps? No. Evidently, the threat to marriage, so-called, is the fact that there are thousands of people in this country who very much believe in marriage, who very much want to marry, who may not marry under the laws of the various States of this country, but whose fellow citizens may conceivably one day permit them to do so; and that we must prevent.

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 who have had children for years, 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 destabilized or destroyed by a same-sex marriage somewhere in America, I would welcome an explanation as to what you think would happen to your marriage and why. Any takers?

The overheated rhetoric we have been hearing is reminiscent of the bellicose fearmongering that followed the Supreme Court's 1967 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 have survived as a Nation; and we are the better for it.

In the not-too-distant future, people will look back on these debates with the same incredulity we now view the segregationist debates of years past.

This amendment does more than it purports to do. It would preempt any State law or legislature from passing a law allowing people of the same gender to marry, even if that law was approved by the legislature or, for that matter, by referendum of the people. This is not to protect the States; this is to protect a notion against the democratic will of the majority of the people in the States. Read the first sentence: any such marriage would be unconstitutional.

Proponents of this amendment have already tried to use a similar prohibition against same-sex marriage to attack domestic partner benefits in courts. So do not tell me this is only about marriage. I do not believe it. It says nothing in this amendment about recognition of marriages from one State to another. If you want to allow democratic majorities to have their way within their own borders, this amendment will do the exact opposite.

There are many loving families who deserve the benefits and protections of the law. They do not live just in New York or San Francisco or Boston. They live in every one of the 435 congressional districts in the United States. 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 to have the rights of 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 even on the eve of an election. We know this is not going anywhere. We know it is merely a political exercise. Shame on this House for playing politics with bigotry.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader said that this amendment is about protecting children. With all due respect, it has nothing to do with protecting children. Gay people, lesbian people raise children today. They have children. They raise them. The laws of many States permit them to adopt children and they do. What this amendment is aimed at doing is aimed at preventing any State from bringing some stability to the lives of those children by allowing their lesbian or gay couples who have legal custody of those children, who are raising those children, to be able to get married. And this amendment says never mind what the electorate says, never mind what the legislature says, we do no want those parents to be able to be married.

So do not tell us this is about protecting children. Whatever it is about, it is not about that.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is not simply about the Pledge of Allegiance. I really

hate to be an I-told-you-so, but the last time we considered legislation to strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction, in that case, to hear cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, I warned there would be no end to it.

Our former colleague, Bob Barr, whose legislation Congress was purporting to protect on that occasion 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 tenth amendment and many other constitutional protections. The fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution would be rendered meaningless if others followed the path set by H.R. 3313.''

Bob Barr was right. And it would make the Constitution like the Soviet Constitution which had plenty of guarantee of rights, but they were not worth the paper they were written on because there was no independent court system to enforce them.

Today it is the turn of the religious minorities. Once upon a time a student could be expelled from school for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1943 in the middle of World War II, the Supreme Court in the Barnette case held that the children had a first amendment right not to be compelled to swear an oath against their beliefs.

Justice Jackson wrote, ``If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act, their faith therein.''

This obviously includes a pledge of faith in God.

The Jehovah Witnesses in the Barnette case felt that it was idolatry to be forced to pledge that even they believe in God.

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

This bill is part of a more general attack on our system of government. You learned about this in school. We have an independent judiciary whose job it is to interpret the Constitution, even if their decisions are really unpopular. And what this bill does, what these bills do is to slam the courthouse door in the face of people who believe that their Constitutional rights are violated so they cannot go to court because we tell them they cannot.

As unfortunate as I find the current Supreme Court on so many issues, I understand that we cannot maintain our system of government, we cannot enforce our Bill of Rights if the independent judiciary cannot enforce those rights even if the majority does not like it.

As to the complaints about unelected judges, remember your high school civics. We have an independent judiciary precisely to rule against the wishes of a trenchant majority, especially when it comes to the rights of unpopular minorities. That is our system of government and it is a good one.

As Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist 78, ``The complete independence of the courts 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. 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.''

And here we are saying that when someone believes that an Act of Congress violates their rights, they may not go to court to try to see if those rights are supreme if the legislation is unconstitutional.

We are playing with fire here. We are playing with the national unity of this country. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) says the 50 State courts would reserve to themselves the right to declare Federal law unconstitutional. So what would be constitutional in one State would be unconstitutional in another. We would be back to the Articles of Confederation. We would be undoing 200 years of American history because we would have 50 different interpretations of the Constitution and of our State laws.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) says that the Judiciary Act of 1789 restricted the jurisdiction of the courts. That is true. But he fails to note that the Judiciary Act of 1789 predates the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The fifth amendment says that no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

All claims, all claims essentially come down to a claim that someone is being deprived of life or liberty or property without due process of law; and if you cannot go to a court to adjudicate that claim by definition, you are being denied due process of law. So this is clearly unconstitutional.

I ask my colleagues, is demagoging a case that they have won in court so far really worth destroying the enforceability of the Bill of Rights? I urge my conservative colleagues to shape up and act like conservatives for once. We live in a free society that protects unpopular minorities even if the majority hates that minority. Feel free to hate if my colleagues must, but please leave our Constitution, leave our liberties, leave our civil liberties that define this Nation and makes it what it is, leave it alone.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. FRANK OF Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, even by the standards that have sadly governed this House recently, the bill before us is bizarre. It makes a big hole in the Constitution for the first time in American history, if it were to pass and become law, to counteract a decision which has already been overruled. We should be very clear. There is no pending case even at the Federal level that deals with this.

But what I have heard people say is, well, do not worry, because there is an individual liberty here. The Supreme Court of the United States, after all, did say in 1943 in the Barnette case that no child could be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance if it violated his own family's religious views. The Jehovah's Witnesses said saying the Pledge of Allegiance violated their views. The Supreme Court said they did not have to say it.

I have heard people say, well, do not worry because children will be protected if they find this objectionable by the Supreme Court decision. Now the bizarre aspect is that this is a bill that would prevent a Supreme Court decision, the very thing on which they are relying to justify it, but it is also the case that under this bill, if a State court should decide to disregard that Supreme Court opinion and say that saying the pledge was mandatory, even for Jehovah's Witnesses or others who

might have a principled religious objection to it, that that could be overruled.

The other thing that ought to be noted is this. Once my colleagues start down this road, this is the second time the majority has done this, telling us that the Supreme Court cannot decide, they are going to create a precedent, if this ever succeeds, that will be followed in other issues.

The business community ought to follow this very closely because it will now become demanded of Members of Congress that when they pass a law they show that they really mean it by taking away Supreme Court jurisdiction. So the important desire of the business community for Federal uniformity, all of the efforts they have been making recently to try and get national laws that govern commercial transactions, will be at risk; and we will see laws in area after area, if this precedent is followed, which will mean that there is no uniform national interpretation of them.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip of the House.

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

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

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

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

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

The reference to Senator Daschle was not true. We rebutted it in the debate last time. I will reference something for the Record so we do not waste time on this untruth anymore now.

Brush Clearing Rider: Most notably, the Majority claims

that a rider to the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act

authored by the senior senator from South Dakota approving

logging and clearance measures by the Forest Service in the

Black Hills of South Dakota serves as a precedent for the

enactment of these types of court-stripping measures.

The problem with this argument is that, while the rider

restricted ``judicial review'' of ``any [logging or

clearance] action'' by the Forest Service, it did not

restrict federal judicial review of the rider itself or its

constitutionality. Indeed, the federal courts did review the

validity of the rider, and explicitly found that the

``challenged legislation's jurisdictional bar did not apply

to preclude Court of Appeals' review as to the legislation's

validity''

Mr Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, 1,800 years ago, Christians were persecuted because they would not worship the Roman emperor as a god; 450 years ago St. Thomas Moore lost his head because he would not swear an oath that king and parliament commanded that violated his Catholic belief.

But the United States is different. Our Constitution prohibits test oaths. Our Constitution protects the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses' children to refuse to recite a pledge that we hold dear but that violates the tenets of their faith.

Or at least the United States was different. This bill would leave to the States, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) says, the decision whether that religious liberty would be protected or not.

The issue, Mr. Chairman, in this bill is not the Pledge of Allegiance. The issue in this bill is whether we strip the courts of the power to protect our liberties against perhaps transient majorities and legislative bodies. The issue is whether we eliminate the only final protection of our liberties, of our religious and other liberties, that we have evolved. If we pass this bill and go in this direction, the United States will be a very different and a much, much less free country.

I urge the defeat of this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition, though I do not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, on this side of the aisle we do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this concurrent resolution. New York is eminently suited to host the Olympic Games, and I certainly urge the International Olympic Committee to select New York as the site for the 2012 Games.

I want to say, however, that support for this resolution should not be construed as support for the construction of the Olympic stadium planned for the West Side of Manhattan. There is much opposition to that stadium. Many of us think it is in the wrong place. We support the Olympics, because we trust that common sense will reign and that eventually people will realize that the Olympic stadium should be in Queens or in Shea Stadium.

In any event, we support the Olympics, we support this concurrent resolution, but that support should not be construed as support for construction of a new stadium for the Olympics or for the Jets on the West Side of Manhattan.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) a few moments ago said that the Social Security system would go insolvent in 2018. This is simply wrong. In 2018, the Social Security system will have to begin to pay benefits from the interest accumulated on the trust fund. Sometime in the later 2020s, the Social Security system will have to begin to dip into the principal of the trust fund. That will not be exhausted until at least 2042, according to the trustees, and according to the Congressional Research Service, 2050. There is no Social Security problem until at least 2042 or 2050.

Now, we are told that we have to start paying back the bonds. Social Security lent the money to the General Treasury; that is true, it did. That is how you invest money. You invest in U.S. bonds. That is not a problem with the Social Security system. It may be a problem for the budget, but the fact is the system is solvent. Those are legal due-and- owing obligations, exactly as legally binding as a U.S. savings bonds is to pay to my colleagues or me if we own a savings bond.

In 1983, Chairman Greenspan chaired a commission which recommended increasing Social Security taxes, which we did in 1986, to precisely generate the surplus which we will start dipping into when the baby boomers start retiring, and that is a surplus which we will start dipping into in 2018. To say that produces a crisis is to say that we lied to an entire generation of people when we increased the taxes in order to produce that surplus to dip into later. We will dip into that.

Mr. Greenspan, of course, says it was fine to reduce taxes on the rich; and because we did that, we have a budget deficit. We cannot repay the bonds; and therefore we should reduce benefits starting in 2018. That is simply thievery.

Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, 3 years ago, I watched in horror as America, and part of my district specifically, was attacked and destroyed. The extreme sense of pain and loss I felt as a New Yorker and as an American, as someone who knew many of the victims, does not even begin to match the pains that the families of that attack must have felt.

This attack on the United States was an attack, a deliberate attack on civilians. It was a deliberate attempt to kill as many American civilians as possible for the simple and great crime of being

Americans. This we will never forget, and we must never forgive.

We must not allow ourselves to forget how vulnerable we have become and how we must change that vulnerability. We know that we are not as safe as we should have been on September 11, 3 years ago, and we still mourn the thousands who died that day.

The 9/11 Commission charged with investigating the tragic events of September 11 released its unanimous report that should help us ensure that this type of attack does not happen again. Democrats are fighting to implement the Commission's recommendations, but the Republicans, by and large, who fought the creation of the Commission and tried prematurely to end its work are still dragging their feet.

President Bush strongly opposed any independent inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. He argued that it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress. In July 2002, his administration issued a statement of policy that read, The administration would oppose an amendment that would create a new commission to conduct a similar review. Such an amendment is duplicative and would cause a further diversion of essential personnel from their duty fighting the war.

House majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission. I quote from a CNN interview on May 22nd, 2002, by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay): We are at war, and when you are at war, you have to worry about making public a lot of things that should be kept private for you to fight the war. An independent commission by its very nature is very public. Frankly, it has only been asked for by people that are running for President.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Well, I do not know because President Bush flip-flops. So maybe he is referring to President Bush after he decided to support it. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) flip-flops, and maybe he is referring to himself. Maybe he is referring to the families of the 9/11 victims who were the leading proponents of an independent commission. He may have been referring to Democrats who were, in fact, running for President, or who a year later ran for President, such as Senator Kerry and Howard Dean and others who did support this. Most Democrats supported it, but the majority of the Americans supported it, and I do not think the majority of Americans ran for President.

No, no, you are quite correct, and as I am going to show in recounting the history here in a few minutes, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), bowing to Democratic pressure and to common sense, flip-flopped and did change his mind and is, or at least he says he is, supporting legislation. We still wait to see the legislation to implement the Commission's report, after the administration first did not want to do that.

That is correct. It was President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the Republican leadership in both Houses of Congress who steadfastly opposed the creation of that Commission and eventually bowed to pressure coming from Democratic leaders in Congress and Democrats in Congress, from the families of the victims, from the press and from the American people at large, and eventually they bowed to that pressure and they flipped-flopped, and they reluctantly allowed the Commission to be created.

Well, that is correct. Again, they sought to delay it. They sought to oppose it. They sought to appoint Henry Kissinger to chair it. That did not fly when the public screamed at that because Mr. Kissinger was hardly an objective leader, as Governor Kean and former Congressman Hamilton have proven to be. And even after the Commission issued its recommendations, the President said he was going to file the recommendations and appoint an intelligence czar, but he also said that that intelligence czar would have no real power. But yesterday he flip- flopped on that and finally bowed to the pressure of the Commission, and the American people, and the families of the victims, and the Democrats who have been pushing to implement the recommendations of the Commission and give the intelligence director that would be created by this recommendation real power. The President flip-flopped on that yesterday and came to the right decision finally yesterday.

He was the Chairman.

Yes. This was a bipartisan Commission that was appointed by the President after the President and the Vice President and the Republican leadership in Congress continued to oppose its creation but eventually flip-flopped.

Now, in fact, the House Republicans bowed to White House pressure in resisting creation of this Commission, and I quote the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), who is now the President's nominee for Director of the CIA ironically. He stated, and he was quite honest, in the Baltimore Sun on June 14, 2002, I am very much aware that we have a good working relationship with the White House. Access to information is working well, he said, and I do not want anything to interfere with that. The White House is not interested in this Commission; hence, I am not for bringing the subject up.

Then they bowed to pressure; they supported it. Finally in late 2002, after opposing it for a year, President Bush flip-flopped and finally agreed to support an independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks after the congressional committees that were looking into this unearthed more and more examples of intelligence lapses.

But then, having been forced to accept the creation of the Commission, a bipartisan Commission, five members of either party headed by former Governor Kean, a Republican, and former ranking member Hamilton, a Democrat, they tried to stop the Commission's work.

The Bush administration and Speaker Hastert fought to close down the Commission prematurely, after delaying, after refusing to give them information so they could get their work started. Remember that, when the 9/11 Commission because of these delays needed to seek an extension of this

deadline to complete the investigations from May, all the way to July, a 2-month extension, and I am quoting the New York Times of January 28 of this year, White House and Republican congressional leaders have said they see no need to extend the congressionally-mandated deadline now set for May 27, and a spokesman for Speaker Hastert said Tuesday that Mr. Hastert would oppose any legislation to grant the extension.

Then, in early February of this year, the White House again flip- flopped and reversed course in support of an extension of the investigation into government failings surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Bush administration had opposed expanding the charter of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission beyond the May 27 expiration date, but bowed to demands from victims' families and Democrats and to the panel's request for more time. Speaker Hastert was reluctant to support this extension, but he also flip-flopped. He bowed to pressure and agreed to support an extension in late February.

Then, when the Commission finally came in with its report in July, a few weeks ago, the Republicans in Congress sought to delay the review of the 9/11 Commission recommendations until after recess, until after, so that they would not have anything ready to go before Congress until after the November 2 elections.

Yes, indeed. The Chairman, Governor Kean, and the vice chairman, former ranking member Hamilton, stressed that we are in a war; we are in a very serious war with terrorists, and speed is of the essence, and we should do this now. We should consider these recommendations now and enact them expeditiously and not wait till next year or until after the November elections.

Well, I do not remember the exact date, but people were talking about this commission not long after 9/11. And, in fact, in early 2002 they were doing it. In July 2002, I quoted this before, the administration issued a statement of policy opposed to the creation of such a commission. In July of 2002, which meant in the spring of 2002, people were pushing it. So 2 years ago, or 2\1/2\ years ago.

Well, there was a reluctance to have a 9/11 Commission, then there was a reluctance to cooperate with the 9/11 Commission, because, remember, they had to beg and threaten, threaten subpoenas to get information out of the administration. Then they had to threaten subpoenas to get witnesses before the commission. Then there had to be heavy political pressure because, with all these delays, they could not finish their work by the legislatively mandated time at the end of May; and so they sought a 2-month extension, and the administration and the Republican leadership of the House said no. So there had to be heavy pressure from the Democrats, from the public, from the families of the victims to get them the extension so they could finish their job.

Then, when they got the extension and they made their recommendations at the end of July, and they said, okay, now it is time to move on this, then the Republican leadership in the House said, we cannot move on this. We will not have time to do it before the election, maybe until next year. Then there was heavy pressure from the Democrat leadership, from Democrats and the families of the victims, and others, and, finally, finally, the Republicans have now said, only in the last couple of weeks, that they are now going to try to have legislation enacted before the election.

And I am glad the Republican leadership has flip-flopped once again on this, because at least I will say this, when they are pressured by the Democrats, when they are pressured by the families of the victims, when they are pressured by the American people, when they are pressured by the media, at least on this subject, they flipflop in the right direction, toward what they should have been doing earlier.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would agree with the gentleman. It is very clear that had we acted with dispatch, the commission could have been appointed at least a year or 16 months earlier than it was, and it could have had its report ready a year or 16 months earlier than it did, and we could have acted on that report a year or 16 months earlier than we will, and we could have started implementing these things.

This is part of a pattern. And the pattern is that despite these flipflops, despite this bowing to Democratic pressure to act, this administration, this House, the Senate still is not doing nearly enough to make this Nation safer. Osama bin Laden is still at large. We did not finish the job in Afghanistan. The Taliban has reemerged. The illegal drug trade is booming in Afghanistan. The warlord disarmament is behind schedule. Why? Because we took the resources away. In the fall of 2002, we started taking the resources, the troops who could have founded Osama bin Laden, the Rangers who knew how to look, and we took them away to put them in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read two paragraphs from an article in the current issue of the American Prospect about the war on terrorism. It says, ``The President, as he revealed last week, doesn't think,'' and this is an article by Matthew Yglesias. The title is ``Surrender Monkey in Chief.''

``The President, as he revealed last week, doesn't think he can win the war on terrorism. That is a bit of an off-message remark for a man whose re-election campaign is predicated on the notion that only he can win the war on terrorism. Worse, the statement suggests the President has only a passing familiarity with the generally accepted meaning of the term `war on terrorism.'

``Even stranger than this, however, is what the President said he thinks is possible. `I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.' Total victory may indeed be setting the bar too high, but is it so unreasonable to expect the President to promise that his policies will reduce the incidence of terrorism, mitigating the problem if not completely solving it? Apparently so.

``George Bush not only won't bring us total safety, he won't even make us safer. Instead he will make those who threaten us `less acceptable.' He won't

thwart their efforts to achieve their goals, the imposition of a neofundamentalist Caliphate on the Islamic world, followed by God knows what. He will simply discourage them from `using terror as a tool' to advance that goal. It's a starkly pessimistic vision.''

Now, that is the paragraph from this article by Matthew Yglesias in the American Prospect, but it is quite correct. The President, Mr. Speaker, will not even recognize the nature of this war. He keeps calling it a war against terrorism. But the fact is we are not fighting against terrorism as a technique, nor, are we, in fact, fighting against all people who use terrorism as a technique. We are not at war with the Irish Republican Army, who do not threaten the United States. We are not at war with the Baath terrorists who threaten Spain, but not the United States. We are not at war with the Tamil Nadu terrorists who want a separate Nadu state in Sri Lanka, and who use terrorism against the Sri Lankans but not against the United States.

We are at war against Islamic terrorists, against those in the Muslim world who think it their duty, who think it their religious mission to carry on a Jihad, to carry on a religious war using terrorist messages against the West in general and the United States in particular. That is who we are at war against. And if we do not admit who we are at war against, who have declared war on us, it is very difficult to define the war properly and the measures necessary to wage that war properly.

That is one of the reasons why the President badly mistakes and the Vice President badly mistakes, and most of the speakers at the Republican convention last week badly mistake when they conflate the war in Iraq with the war on terrorism. The war in Iraq is a different war. Iraq is not part of the terrorist threat.

Saddam Hussein was a standard fascist thug dictator, of whom there are, unfortunately, 40 or 50 in the world.

I will yield.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I understand that that is the case. I also understand that that is part of the problem. We are engaged in a very serious war with the Islamic terrorists. We may have to ally ourselves, and I am not going to criticize the President on this point, we may have to ally ourselves, as we did in the Cold War, sometimes justifiably, sometimes not, with not-too-presentable allies against the people who really threaten us.

Winston Churchill, the great anti-Communist Winston Churchill, was a great anti-Communist for many years; and he also, of course, warned the world, and the British in particular, against the Nazis. And he went to war against the Nazis. Britain finally went to war against Germany. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940, and he rallied the British and rallied the Free World against the Nazis. And when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, who had been their allies and who Churchill hated, Churchill was asked, and he offered all aid to Stalin, who was another thug, Churchill was asked how can you say something nice about Stalin? Churchill said, I expect that if Hitler invaded hell I should find something nice to say about the Devil. So I am not going to criticize.

The fact is, that is true. We are doing that. We did that in the 1980s and 1970s and 1960s, and there was lively debate in this country, and it is a pragmatic debate. Sometimes you have to ally with bad people because of the danger presented by other bad people. The question whether you should is sometimes a question of pragmatism, is it really necessary? Is it really necessary in order to advance the greater cause of survival, the survival of liberty or the physical survival of the United States?

Now here I want to get back to the main point I wanted to make. Iraq's Saddam Hussein is a fascist thug. Terrible. But there are 30 or 40 others just as terrible. We do not seek to go to war against all of them to change those regimes. The only justification for going to war against another country, with the possible exception if it is committing genocide, is self-protection: to protect the United States, to protect our own people, to protect our friends and allies against invasion, against attack.

But because we attacked Iraq which was not a threat to the United States, we diverted resources from the real war against the Islamic terrorists. We did not find Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Dick Clarke, the former National Security Director, testified we had specialized troops in Afghanistan that could have found him, but they were taken away and the job was given to Afghanistani warlords. Who knows who gave them the higher pay, us or Osama bin Laden. They did not do the jobs because our troops were taken to Iraq. Now we have now shifted the resources back, so Dick Clarke says, well, we will find Osama bin Laden, but in those 2 years, al Qaeda has morphed. It has become many different organizations. It has become Hydra-headed. So capturing Osama bin Laden will not give us the yield in increased safety that doing so 2.5 years ago might have done.

And why did we do that, to deal with a threat that we now know, and we should have known then, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? There were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. We had no operational connections with al Qaeda, to quote the 9/11 Commission findings, no real reason to go to war with them at all except the President now retroactively says they were nasty people. Sure, they were nasty people; but that does not justify going to war and having 1,000 American troops killed so far, and thousands of Iraqi citizens killed so far because we decided it would be nice to have a democratic regime there. Sure it would. I do not know if it is going to happen. The more likely result is prolonged quagmire and civil war in Iraq.

The fact is that should not have been on the front burner. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan and finished the job in going after al Qaeda.

Equally to the point, we spent $200 billion in Iraq, a total waste of money, and between the $200 billion that we have spent in Iraq so far and the trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthy this administration and this country have passed, this administration is not willing to spend the money on what they should spend the money on to protect us. This administration does not take seriously enough the terrorist war being waged against us by the Islamic jihaadists.

From before 9/11, when the Bush administration ignored many warnings, to this day, this administration refuses to spend the money necessary to protect the American people. Two months after 9/11, there were proposals in this House to spend $10 billion to protect our nuclear and chemical facilities and our transportation terminals against attacks which could kill or wound thousands of people. The administration opposed those proposals. Those proposals died. On ABC News tonight we saw pictures of trains going across tracks a few blocks from here, trains carrying chlorine gas and other lethal chemicals, unprotected; trains that, if attacked with a rocket-propelled grenade that pierced those cars, would loosen clouds of chlorine which could kill hundreds of thousands of people in Washington.

This administration refuses to spend the money to buy the weapons- grade plutonium and uranium in the former Soviet Union which could easily be smuggled out to make atomic weapons because they care more about tax cuts for the wealthy and this misbegotten quagmire in Iraq than about protecting the American people from the real threats.

When I saw in real-time, and I was watching on television, I saw the second plane go into the World Trade Center, I had two thoughts immediately. My first thought, my God, this is a terrorist attack. And my second thought was thank God they do not have access to nuclear weapons. Three thousand people were killed. If that had been a 10- kiloton nuclear bomb, which is a baby as they go these days, it would have been half a million people, and yet we are not doing what we should to make sure that that will not happen.

I just finished reading a rather terrifying book by Graham Allison, ``Nuclear Terrorism,'' which predicts flatly if we do not change our policies and start showing some real urgency, that within 10 years there will be nuclear explosions in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, and God knows where else. Millions of Americans will die, but this administration is dragging its feet.

The 9/11 Commission and leading nonproliferation experts say the administration has been too lax in securing nuclear weapons and materials in Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union.

Mr. Speaker, the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons is widespread. When President Bush said that if given weapons-grade material, weapons-grade plutonium and uranium, Iraq could build a nuclear bomb within a year, he was correct; but so could 20 other countries, if given the weapons-grade material, build a nuclear bomb within a year. So could al Qaeda, and so could a lot of sophisticated terrorist groups. The problem is getting that weapons-grade nuclear material. That is what countries spend millions of dollars to do. That is why we built Hanford and Oak Ridge in World War II. That is why Iran and Pakistan are trying to get lots of centrifuges, but you have to get hold of that material. Hundreds and hundreds of tons of it are lying around, enough to build thousands of bombs, in the former Soviet Union, guarded by a colonel who may not have been paid lately just waiting to be sold on the black market or smuggled to al Qaeda.

We have an agreement with the Russians under the Threat Reduction Initiative of Nunn-Lugar. Again, that is a bipartisan initiative. Senator Nunn is a conservative Democrat; Senator Lugar, Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. That bipartisan initiative was passed in 1991 to acquire that material. We have an agreement with the Russians to do it over a 30-year period.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the gentleman. The 9/ 11 Commission in their final report said, ``Outside experts are deeply worried about the U.S. Government's commitment and approach to securing the weapons and highly dangerous materials still scattered in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union.''

The problem is that there seems to be an obsession in the Bush administration with nation states, Iraq being one of them. The real enemy here is not nation states right now. The real enemy are the Islamic terrorist groups, al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and various others. They keep morphing and having new names and groups. They work together. They have tremendous technical sophistication. They have a lot of people, and they have the ability to threaten us with nuclear weapons.

Let me say, to quote Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, ``All of the experts I know recommend that the most urgent task to prevent terrorist networks from getting their hands on such materials is to secure the stockpiles of these materials where they exist, and the prime location is Russia and the former Soviet Union.''

Before September 11, 2001, the Bush administration intended to eliminate funding for this program, eliminate it, but they did reverse course after the terrorist attacks. Most critics agree that the pace is too slow and the scope is too narrow.

We are now spending about $400 million a year.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. To quote Joseph Cirincione, the Director for Nonproliferation of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the author of the book ``Deadly Arsenals & Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction,'' we should be aiming to do all of this in the next 4 years, and Senator Kerry must have read that book because his proposal is to do it in 4 years.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years after 9/11, the number of terrorist incidents is going up. The number of recruits for these terrorist groups are increasing far faster than we can kill or decapitate them. They have morphed and decentralized so even if we capture the people around bin Laden, or even bin Laden, it will not matter as much as if we had done it 2.5 years ago because new leaders have arisen.

To finish, and this is the Director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace talking about securing all of the nuclear materials in the next 4 years, ``What we should be doing is implementing a very aggressive program to go out and secure and eliminate all potential source of nuclear weapons and materials that terrorists might obtain, whether in the former Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Iran, or more than 40 countries that run research reactors.'' Would this be expensive? Yes. But we could do it annually for the price of 1 month of operations in Iraq, 3- to $4 billion a year for 4 years would do the trick, and yet President Bush has tried to cut this funding repeatedly.

What I find baffling is why the White House has insisted on attacking the most peripheral elements of the WMD threat, like Iraq, while ignoring, largely ignoring, the central threat, nuclear proliferation. The upshot, and this is a quote from a column in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristof a month ago, in fact a month ago and 2 days, ``The upshot is that the risk that a nuclear explosion will devastate an American city is greater now than it was during the Cold War, and it is growing.''

So the first thing we should be doing is spending our money, the money that we are now wasting on a tax cut for the rich, the money that we are wasting on the quagmire in Iraq. A far more important use of it is to control the production cycle for nuclear materials. That is how you shut off the risk of nuclear explosions.

The second thing, this administration inspects only 2 percent of the 6 million shipping containers that come into this country every year, any one of which could hide a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon inside it.

I had an amendment on the floor of this House a year ago to insist that we inspect every container. When I say inspect every container, I do not mean that someone has to go through it by hand. That has to be done in some cases, but in most cases you set up a machine that operates through neutrons or neumasons, which is probably a better technology. It costs a couple of million dollars for the machine, and you set it up in Singapore or Hong Kong, and it is like a car wash. You take the container on a truck or train chassis through it, and it tells you what is in it.

It tells you the elements. It is spectroscopic. If you see uranium in it or plutonium, then maybe you look through it. And if you see a lot of nitrogen where it should not be, then you say maybe there are explosives in there and you look through it. You could do this again for a couple of billion dollars a year, inspect every container before it gets put on a ship in a foreign port bound for the United States.

When I brought this up on the floor of the House, the distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee said, No, we don't need to do that. We will inspect the high-risk containers. I said, Mr. Chairman, the terrorists know that. They'll put the bombs in the low- risk containers. If you read the book ``America the Vulnerable'' by Steve Flynn who served under Presidents Bush and Clinton and Reagan, you see exactly how a very innocent container with innocent stuff in it from perfectly legitimate, reputable firms can have a bomb or a biological weapon or a radiological bomb, a dirty bomb placed in it in various ways while it is in transit.

We must inspect these. You can then, after inspecting them, put certain electronic things on it that communicates with a GPS satellite and tells you if it has been tampered with or opened or moved on board this ship before it comes into port here. Then you can hold that ship outside American territorial waters. Why we are not doing that is again beyond me.

The Bush administration, if there is a nuclear attack in this country, if there is a radiological bomb, a dirty bomb in this country and if it comes in by container, will have a lot to explain.

And another question. Why are we spending $100 billion on an antiballistic missile system? We are told, assuming it worked, which it does not yet, but eventually it will, we are told that the ABM is necessary in case some rogue state, North Korea, Iran, whoever, should get three or four atomic bombs and wished to attack the United States. But a rogue state that got three or four atomic bombs and wished to attack the United States would not put the atomic bomb on a missile.

Aside from the fact that it is harder to design an atomic bomb to put on a missile than in a shipping container, a missile has a return address. If, God forbid, a nuclear explosion occurred in an American city or cities, our radar would tell us where that missile came from and that regime would know, that dictator would know that if they did that, they would cease to exist, their country would cease to exist and they would cease to exist half an hour later. It is called deterrence. It works against nation states who are rational.

What they would do would be to take that bomb, put it in a shipping container, ship comes into the United States, New York or Los Angeles or wherever, explodes and we do not know who to retaliate against. That is the real danger. That is how the danger will occur to this country and that we are doing virtually nothing against, certainly not spending $100 billion.

Clearly, to answer your question, there will be no legitimacy. There is no legitimacy for that government there now. There will be no legitimacy for any government that is a result of elections in which large parts of the country do not participate, and I think it is probably illusory at this point to hope that there is going to be a democratic regime in Iraq any time soon.

But what this really points out, what these facts really point out is that this administration through very ill-advised policies, through not doing what Senator Kerry and others urged a year and a half ago, to internationalize it, to say to other countries, we will surrender to you the monopoly, we will share it with you, we will share with you the decision-making power, we will share with your companies the business contracts for reconstruction if you send in your troops to help reconstruct and if you help do this. They are not going to do it now. But if this had been done, then it might have been possible to have the Iraqi people see what is going on there as an international reconstruction of their country, rather than an American occupation, because an occupation will bring forth as it now has a nationalist insurgency resulting in a real quagmire. I do not know how to get out of it. The worst problem is we are now deeply engaged in a quagmire that no one has a good idea how to get out at this point.

And tragically that is going to continue. But Iraq is essentially, despite the fact that we are spending $200 billion so far, despite the fact that 1,000 Americans so far have been killed and 6 or 7,000 wounded, Iraq is a side show in the war of terrorism that is being waged against us by the Islamic jihadists and we are not directing our attention and our resources toward where they are really needed because we are diverted by Iraq.

As I said before, Saddam Hussein was not a real threat to this country. He

had terrible will, he had terrible intentions; but we had him contained. He did not have the weapons. He did not have the capability. We had him contained with the no-fly zones, and we had him deterred.

The real threat to the United States in the Middle East is Iran, because Iran is not a fascist dictatorship. Iran is a religious fanatic dictatorship. Religious fanatics cannot be deterred. You cannot deter a suicide bomber. If Saddam Hussein had gotten nuclear weapons, which he was nowhere near getting, the CIA said 7 to 10 years, and we knew that before we attacked them. But had he gotten nuclear weapons, deterrence would have stopped him from using them, because he was a fascist dictator, not a religious fanatic, and he did not want to just kill himself and his whole country.

But the mullahs in charge, the ayatollahs in charge in Iran are religious fanatics and unless that regime is changed, and there is a lot of domestic opposition to it and maybe we will be saved by regime change, by domestic insurrection, but if that does not happen, they are trying to get nuclear weapons; and if Iran gets nuclear weapons, if a religious dictatorship, religious fanatic dictatorship gets nuclear weapons, they may very well use them. They say they would. You read the speeches of Mr. Rafsanjani, the former president, the current chairman of the council of expediency. He says they would use it. They say they want to destroy American civilization, and you have to take them at their word. We cannot permit this regime if it survives to have nuclear weapons, even if that should mean a few years down the road the necessity for military action because they might use those nuclear weapons simply for the greater glory of Allah. They say they would. You have to believe them. If it became necessary, if President Bush or President Kerry or their successor 5 years from now or 8 years from now came before this House and said, based on our intelligence, we know that the Iranians are about to get nuclear weapons, and we know that they would use them and we must stop them now, and therefore I ask authorization for action, who would believe that President?

We cried wolf in Iraq. Like the fabled shepherd boy who cried wolf, we have no credibility, not this administration certainly and even another administration will have a long way to go to regain the credibility of the United States and of our intelligence agencies. To deal with a nonexistent phantom threat in Iraq, we have made the problem of dealing with a very possibly real mortal threat in Iran in years to come 40 or 50 times more difficult because that is where the threat might really be.

I thank the gentleman and I thank Representative Bereuter for being honest and being right. Unfortunately, he is right. We are in a quagmire in Iraq. We must extricate ourselves. I do not know how, frankly. We must extricate ourselves, and we must get our priorities straight. We have a war being waged against us by the Muslim terrorists, not by all Muslims, but by the Muslim terrorists. There is a civil war going on in the Muslim world. We must have Radio Free Islam. We must try to help the moderates against the jihadists.

But we must also protect ourselves. We must fight the terrorists, but we must lead a worldwide civilized effort against the Islamic terrorists. To do that we have to have credibility around the world. We have to have alliances around the world. It is not wrong to have alliances. When Vice President Cheney said, shamefully, that if Senator Kerry is elected President, our country would not be safe, I think it more accurately could be said the other way around, because this administration does not have its priorities straight. It is not protecting us against the threat of Islamic jihadists having nuclear weapons, as they will if we do not get control of those nuclear materials as fast as possible, if we do not spend $3 billion or $4 billion a year for the next 4 years and get them the heck out of Russia and Uzbekistan and Pakistan and the 40 countries around the world.

We are at risk if we do not protect our ports by having every container inspected electronically or by hand before it is put on a ship bound to the United States. We are at risk if we do not protect our nuclear facilities and our chemical facilities and our transportation facilities in this country, if we do not harden this country.

We have been talking about this, but we will not spend the money. This administration talks a great game about national security, but it will not spend the money. It will spend it in Iraq, it will spend it on an ABM system against a nonexistent threat, but against the real threats of nuclear terrorism, of nuclear explosions in this country, against the real threats of bombs coming in in a container, of the real threat of missiles, of shoulder-fired missiles being launched on American airliners, against the real threat of our nuclear facilities, our chemical facilities, our transportation facilities being targeted, we are not spending the money because they care about Iraq, they care about the ABM, they care about the tax cuts for the rich, but they do not seem to really care about the safety and security of the American people; or if they do care, they do not seem to understand where the real dangers are coming from.

We must secure the nuclear materials. We must protect the containers and other shipping facilities abroad. We must protect the ships coming here. We must harden our nuclear and chemical and transportation facilities, and this will cost a lot of money. And we must ally with other countries in a worldwide alliance against the Muslim terrorists so that when a cell is broken up in Hamburg by German intelligence, by German police work, that helps us. We must have a worldwide effort here, and we must spend the money on the real threats and not on these phantom threats that this administration is preoccupied with.