Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as a result of a judge's decision, next week, March 18, Terry Schiavo is scheduled to have her feeding tube removed, thus sentencing her to a very slow, painful death from starvation and dehydration.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record the entire statement of Terry's attorney. It is a moving account of her visit with Terry. Here is a brief excerpt, ``From the moment we entered the room, my impression was that Terry was very purposeful and interactive. She seemed very curious about the presence of strangers in her room. When she heard their voices, particularly her mother's voice, Terry instantly turned her head towards them and smiled. Terry established eye contact with her family, particularly her mother, who spent the most time with her during our visit.''

Obviously, she is not comatose. I hope that Congress will expeditiously consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) to address her type of case so that she does not have to die a very painful death, in accordance with this judge's decision.

A Visit With Terri Schiavo

(By Attorney Barbara Weller)

This past Christmas Eve day, 2004, I went to visit Terri

Schiavo with her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, her sister,

her niece, and Attorney David Gibbs III. The visit took place

at the Woodside Hospice for about 45 minutes just before

noon.

When I knew I was going to visit Terri with her parents, I

had no idea what to expect. I was prepared for the

possibility that the Schindlers love their daughter and

sister so much that they might imagine behaviors by Terri

that aren't actually evident to others. The media and Mr.

Schiavo clearly give the impression that Terri is in a coma

or comatose state and engages only in non-purposeful and

reflexive movements and responses. I am a mother and a

grandmother, as well as one of the Schindlers' attorneys, and

I could understand how parents might imagine behavior and

purposeful activity that is not really there. I was prepared

to be as objective as I could be during this visit and not to

be disappointed at anything I saw or experienced.

I was truly surprised at what I saw from the moment we

entered the little room where Terri is confined. The room is

a little wider than the width of two single beds and about as

long as the average bedroom, with plenty of room for us to

stand at the foot of her bed. Terri is on the first floor and

there is a lovely view to the outside grounds of the

facility. The room is entered by a short hallway, however,

and there is no way for Terri to see out into the hallway or

for anyone in the hallway to observe Terri.

From the moment we entered the room, my impression was that

Terri was very purposeful and interactive and she seemed very

curious about the presence of obvious strangers in her room.

Terri was not in bed, but was in her chair, which has a

lounge chair appearance and elevates her head at about a 30-

degree angle. She was dressed and washed, her hair combed,

and she was covered with a holiday blanket. There were no

tubes of any kind attached to her body. She was completely

free of any restraints that would have indicated any type of

artificial life support. Not even her feeding tube was

attached and functioning when we entered, as she is not fed

24 hours a day.

The thing that surprised me the most about Terri as I took

my turn to greet her by the side of her chair was how

beautiful she is. I would have expected to see someone with a

sallow and gray complexion and a sick looking countenance.

Instead, I saw a very pretty woman with a peaches and cream

complexion and a lovely smile, which she even politely

extended to me as I introduced myself to her. I was amazed

that someone who had not been outside for so many years and

who received such minimal health care could look so

beautiful. She appeared to have an inner light radiating from

her face. I was truly taken aback by her beauty, particularly

under the adverse circumstances in which she has found

herself for so many years.

Terri's parents, sister, and niece went immediately to

greet Terri when we entered the room and stood in turn

directly beside her head, stroking her face, kissing her and

talking quietly with her. When she heard their voices, and

particularly her mother's voice, Terri instantly turned her

head towards them and smiled. Terri established eye contact

with her family, particularly with her mother, who spent the

most time with her during our visit. It was obvious that she

recognized the voices in the room with the exception of one.

Although her mother was talking to her at the time, she

obviously had heard a new voice and exhibited a curious

demeanor. Attorney Gibbs was having a conversation near the

door with Terri's sister. His voice is very deep and resonant

and Terri obviously picked it up. Her eyes widened as if to

say, ``What's that new sound I hear?'' She scanned the

room with her eyes, even turning her head in his

direction, until she found Attorney Gibbs and the location

of the new voice and her eyes rested momentarily in his

direction. She then returned to interacting with her

mother.

When her mother was close to her, Terri's whole face lit

up. She smiled. She looked directly at her mother and she

made all sorts of happy sounds. When her mother talked to

her, Terri was quiet and obviously listening. When she

stopped, Terri started vocalizing. The vocalizations seemed

to be a pattern, not merely random or reflexive at all. There

is definitely a pattern of Terri having a conversation with

her mother as best she can manage. Initially, she used the

vocalization of ``uh'uh'' but without seeming to mean it as a

way of saying ``no'', just as a repeated speech pattern. She

then began to make purposeful grunts in response to her

mother's conversation. She made the same sorts of sound with

her father and sister, but not to the same extent or as

delightedly as with her mother. She made no verbal response

to her niece or to Attorney Gibbs and myself, but she did

appear to pay attention to our words to her.

The whole experience was rather moving. Terri definitely

has a personality. Her whole demeanor definitely changes when

her mother speaks with her. She lights up and appears to be

delighted at the interaction. She has an entirely different

reaction to her father who jokes with her and has several

standing jokes that he uses when he enters and exits her

presence. She appears to merely ``tolerate'' her father, as a

child does when she says ``stop'' but really means, ``this is

fun.'' When her father greets her, he always does the same

thing. He says, ``here comes the hug'' and hugs her. He then

says, ``you know what's coming next--the kiss.'' Her father

has a scratchy mustache and both times when he went through

this little joke routine with her, she laughed in a way she

did not do with anyone else. When her father is ready to

plant the kiss on her cheek, she immediately makes a face her

family calls the ``lemon face.'' She puckers her lips, screws

up her whole face, and turns away from him, as if making

ready for the scratchy assault on her cheek that she knows is

coming. She did the exact same thing both times that her

father initiated this little routine joke between the two of

them.

The interactions with her family and our appearance in her

room appeared to require some effort and exertion from Terri.

From time to time, she would close her eyes as if to rest.

This happened primarily when no one was paying particular

attention to her, but we were talking among ourselves. After

a few minutes or when one of the visitors approached her and

started to talk directly to her again, Terri would open her

eyes and begin her grunting sounds again in response to their

conversations. Although I approached her, leaned close and

stroked her arms and spoke to her, she did not verbally

respond to me.

Terri's hands are curled up around little soft cylinders

that help her not to injure herself. I understand that these

contractures are likely very painful, although there was a

time when Terri was receiving simple motion therapy when her

hands and arms relaxed and were no longer as constricted.

When the therapy was discontinued by order of her guardian

and the court, the contractures returned. These contractures

would apparently be avoidable if Terri were given the simple

range of motion therapy she previously received. It is very

sad to observe

firsthand these conditions that make her life more difficult,

but that would be correctable with little effort.

When we were preparing to leave, the interactions with

Terri changed. First, she went through the joke routine with

her father and the ``lemon face.'' When her niece said

goodbye to her, Terri did not react. Nor did she react to me

or to Attorney Gibbs when we said our goodbyes to her. When

her sister went to her to say goodbye, Terri's verbalizations

changed dramatically. Instead of the happy grunting and ``uh

uh'' sounds she had been making throughout the visit, her

verbalizations at these goodbyes changed to a very low and

different sound that appeared to come from deep in her throat

and was almost like a growl. She first made the sound when

her sister said goodbye and then, amazingly to me, she made

exactly the same sound when her mother said goodbye to her.

It seemed Terri was visibly upset that they were leaving. She

almost appeared to be trying to cling to them, although this

impression came only from her changed facial expression and

sounds, since her hands cannot move. It appeared like she did

not want to be alone and knew they were leaving. It was

definitely apparent in the short time I was there that her

emotions changed--it was apparent when she was happy and

enjoying herself, when she was amused, when she was resting

from her exertion to communicate, and when she was sad at her

guests leaving. It was readily apparent and surprising that

her mood changed so often in a short 45-minute visit.

I was pleasantly surprised to observe Terri's purposeful

and varied behaviors with the various members of her family

and with Attorney Gibbs and myself. I never imagined Terri

would be so active, curious, and purposeful. She watched

people intently, obviously was attempting to communicate with

each one in various ways and with various facial expressions

and sounds. She was definitely not in a coma, not even close.

This visit certainly shed more light for me on why the

Schindlers are fighting so hard to protect her, to get her

medical care and rehabilitative assistance, and to spend all

they have to protect her life.

I realize that Terri has good days and bad days. There are

obviously days when she does not interact with her family, as

they had previously told us. There are also apparently days

when Terri is even more interactive and responsive to them

than she was on the day I visited. Since this visit I am more

convinced than ever that the Schindlers are not just parents

who refuse to let go of their daughter. There really is a lot

going on with their daughter and potentially, it seemed

obvious to me, Terri could improve even more with appropriate

care and 24 hour a day love that can only come from a

dedicated family. As I watched her, my foremost thought was

that on the next day, Christmas, Terri should not have been

confined to her small room in a hospice center, nice as that

room was, but that she should have been gathered around the

Christmas dinner table enjoying the holiday with her family.

Mr. Speaker, Howard Dean, the new duly elected chairman of the Democratic Party, had quite a kick-off tour recently. He started off by making racially insensitive remarks about African Americans and Republicans. Then he said he ``hates Republicans and everything they stand for.'' Next he told a group of activists in Kansas that Republicans are evil. The battle between Democrats and Republicans, he said, is a ``struggle between good and evil, and we are the good.''

It would be easy to write this off as just another Dean rant. But a woman in the audience, and remember, this is Kansas, hardly a left-wing bastion, said Dean did not go far enough. He was too conservative, she said.

Mr. Dean is the leader of a major political party. Even if his demagoguery is too timid for some activists, he represents the Democratic Party and its views, and his comments are yet further confirmation that the rhetoric of the left is eroding our political discourse.

Mr. Speaker, George Washington once said that ``history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.'' But the United States Supreme Court has taken to relying on foreign law and foreign documents when issuing opinions.

This week, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution forbids the execution of convicted killers who are under the age of 18 when they commit their heinous crimes. Many of us might agree with this decision, but the court used the laws of other countries and foreign documents to determine whether American laws on this should stand.

American laws are made by the people chosen by Americans to make them. That is a republic. The court has no right or authority to consider any other basis for legal opinion. In doing so, it only undermines the very structure under which it operates, the consent of the governed as defined by the United States Constitution.

Foreign law is still a baneful foe of our republican government.

Mr. Speaker, Reality TV is very popular these days. ``Survivor'' was the first of these shows to really break through. This season ``Survivor'' is being filmed on the island of Palau.

A reader, Major Jerry Wiffler, pointed out to nationalreview.com that this island was also the site of an important battle in 1944. On September 15, 1944, the 1st Marine Division landed on the beaches of Palau in order to protect MacArthur's right flank as he tried to recapture the Philippines. The battle was ferocious, as were most of these island engagements in the South Pacific. Ten thousand and five hundred Japanese troops fought for nearly a month before the Marines were able to secure the island, and during this battle, Major Wiffler recalls, eight Marines earned the Medal of honor for their actions.

Today the island is best known as the setting for a ``reality'' TV show that

pits people against each other for prize money. Sixty years ago, the island was the site of great bravery and courage, not for the sake of prize money, but for the sake of our Nation and for freedom.

Major Wiffler hoped we would remember this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly protects the rights of religious organizations to take religion into account in their hiring practices. In fact, the Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith-based organizations hire employees on a religious basis, it is an exercise of the organization's civil liberties and does not constitute discrimination under Federal law.

The writers of that legislation understood that a church, a synagogue, a mosque all operate as distinctly religious organizations. They are, therefore, protected under the first amendment's right to the free exercise of religion.

Why are we being asked today, then, to approve an amendment that revokes the constitutional right of faith-based communities to practice their religions freely? This amendment would revoke the constitutionally protected right of faith-based groups to maintain their religious nature and character through those they hire. By denying the rights of religious organizations to hire according to their principles, this amendment declares war between the government and faith-based organizations, it cuts services for people in need, it eliminates the role of faith-based organizations in our government efforts to help.

I doubt that the gentleman from Virginia would support an amendment forcing him to hire staff who oppose his values and priorities as a legislator. Why then are we being asked to call it discriminatory when a Christian or Muslim charity wants to consider the beliefs of potential employees before hiring them? Such practices have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. If this amendment passes, we might as well revisit the Civil Rights Act itself, since we would be rewriting it today.

Faith-based providers cannot be expected to sustain their religious missions without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith. The success of any organization is having everyone on board with its essential principles and vision. The Civil Rights Act secures that right, the Supreme Court protected it, and we should follow suit.

This amendment should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the country of Mongolia for its contributions in fighting the war on terror. After 9/11 the government of Mongolia expressed its strong support for the United States and offered training opportunities for coalition forces and valuable overflight clearances.

Mongolia has supported coalition operations by contributing troops to both Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In fact, Mongolia has deployed four rotations in each country. And even though prior to 2000 Mongolia had not had a national policy of deploying forces beyond its borders, it became the first coalition country to contribute an infantry battalion in Iraq.

The Mongolian military is participating in peacekeeping, providing security to a logistic base in southern central Iraq, escorting convoys, constructing military barracks, medical facilities and local schools. The Mongolian soldiers have proven their bravery and skill over and over, even preventing a suicide attack that could have killed hundreds. For a small country of two and a half million people, these contributions are indeed significant and greatly appreciated, and we thank this important ally.

Madam Speaker, there is no ban or gag on stem cell research. In fact, more than 15,000 patients will benefit from stem cell research this year. However, we need to distinguish between the types of stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research has resulted in no cures for diseases. Aside from the destruction of embryos, embryonic stem cells present two significant problems, tumors and rejection.

The other type of stem cells, adult stem cells, we are hearing, can be found in many places: umbilical cord blood, fat tissue, bone marrow, muscle, the spleen and baby teeth, just to name a few.

Already doctors have treated diseases with adult stem cells in over 45 clinical trials, and extracting them does not harm anyone; and they are successfully being used. These cells do not present the serious ethical concerns and medical dangers of embryo-destructive research.

We need to focus our efforts on adult stem cells, not speculative and unethical research of embryonic stem cells.

Mr. Speaker, on February 17, 2005, Burma's ruling military junta, a regime that Secretary of State Rice has rightly called an ``outpost of tyranny,'' will reconvene a national convention to draft a new constitution. Sadly, this convention, which excludes anyone interested in democracy and freedom of expression, appears to be yet another attempt to place a veneer of legitimacy on the dictatorship's rule. General Than Shwe, the recognized leader of Burma's military and the dictatorship, must understand that the international community and the people of Burma are not fooled by this latest attempt to establish legitimacy.

On February 14th, Burma's Committee for the Restoration of the People's Parliament (CRPP), an umbrella organization including over 200 Members of Parliament elected in 1990, called for all of Burma's ethnic groups to boycott the military's convention. The CRPP includes Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD). The statement by CRPP demonstrates once again the incredible bravery of the Burmese people in their battle against the ruling generals.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the international community to face the facts: Than Shwe and other leading participants of this rogue regime have shown that they have no desire to seek political accommodation or peaceful dialogue with the Burmese people. Their actions show that they have chosen the path of tyranny and terror--the impact of this decision will increasingly be felt throughout the region.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) must realize that Burma's military junta is an iron anchor wrapped around the neck of this important organization. The actions of the military junta are draining economic growth from regional states, promoting the spread of HIV/AIDS throughout Asia, protecting indicted drug smugglers and flooding Thailand with methamphetamines and heroin, that eventually makes its way to the shores of the U.S. The regime fundamentally promotes regional instability and obstructs regional growth.

Recently, the U.S. Federal Court in New York City indicted eight drug traffickers from Burma in absentia. According to court documents, they are leaders of the United Wa State Army, one of the largest drug producers and traffickers in the world. This group is responsible for importing $1 billion worth of heroin into the U.S. between 1985 and 2004. These criminals could not operate without the active collusion of the ruling generals. Moreover, the legendary drug kingpin known as Khun Sa, also under indictment in the U.S. on heroin trafficking charges, is living under the protection of the dictatorship of Rangoon. On November 18, 2003, the Department of the Treasury announced the designation of Burma and two Burmese banks to be of ``primary money laundering concern'' under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act. In addition, The Department of Treasury, acting through the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), has instituted sanctions against two Burmese financial institutions, Myanmar Mayflower Bank and Asia Wealth Bank, due to money laundering concerns.

ASEAN is serving in a critical role in the recovery and rebuilding efforts after the horrible tsunami that devastated parts of Asia. As a leader in the international community, ASEAN must come to understand that the organization must actively challenge Burma's military regime to work with Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD. It must not be forgotten that the NLD won over 80 percent of the seats in the 1990 parliamentary election. A stable and democratic Burma is good for the entire region and the world. I would like to strongly commend and welcome the work of the Burma Caucus members in the Indonesian and Malaysian parliaments who are pressing for greater involvement by their countries in pressing the Burmese junta to bring positive change.

ASEAN cannot afford to have its leadership role sidetracked as it is forced to account for the acts of terror and oppression a member nations, Burma's junta, inflicts on the Burmese people. Last year's Asia-Europe meeting (ASEM) was delayed for months due to negotiations surrounding the participation of Burma. ASEAN is heading for another diplomatic fiasco as Burma is set to assume the chairmanship of ASEAN in 2006. ASEAN must understand that when the group spends more time addressing the latest crisis created by the junta, instead of focusing on plans to promote economic growth, fight the war on terror, and

develop collective solutions to the region's social problems, that is not good for ASEAN or any of its individual members. ASEAN immediately needs to put significant, meaningful pressure on the regime. Ejecting Burma's junta or at the very least suspending their membership from ASEAN would be a powerful statement of ASEAN's determination to deal with the problems Burma's dictatorship creates.

The United States government and citizens have long stood side-by- side with Burma's democracy movement. I look forward to legislation that will continue the U.S. economic sanctions imposed on the country in 2003. In addition to action that we take as a nation, we must also press the United Nations to do more. Secretary General Kofi Annan should use his office to bring the issue of Burma before the Security Council for immediate action. Further, the Secretary General should request a formal investigation to examine evidence of crimes against humanity by Burmese military officials and senior regime leaders in order to hold responsible parties accountable for the widespread use of rape and ethnic dislocation as weapons of war.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House, the Senate and the Administration to see that Burma's military regime soon joins the Soviet Union, Ceausescu's Romania, Milosevic's Yugoslavia and other regimes and dictatorships that now reside in the ashbin of world history.

And, Mr. Speaker, I say to the people of Burma: You are not forgotten. We stand with you and will continue to work with you for as long as it takes to ensure that the people of your nation are able to live in peace and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric of the left these days is becoming outrageous. Democrats in Virginia's legislature took this to new levels last week. Several compared a measure defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the Holocaust. Last week, the mayor of Baltimore compared President Bush's budget impact on cities to the murder of 3,000 civilians on 9/11 killed by terrorists. A Colorado professor similarly disparaged 9/11 victims, calling them Nazis, little Eichmanns, working to sustain the Fascist capitalist system.

This demagoguery is an affront to our sense of decency and justice. It blames the victims, not those who murder them, for the most terrible injustices of our time. The Holocaust is incomparable to anything we have ever seen. Fourteen million people were murdered because of their race, ideology, nationality, or disability. Mr. Speaker, 9/11 was perpetrated not by capitalism, but by terrorists. That is the truth of history.

The left would do well to consider what their words really mean when leveling accusations at opponents, not sacrifice decency and truth at the altar of political expediency.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for moving this important legislation so early in the session.

This is not a new issue. But parents have been pleading with us to take action on this for years.

Mr. Speaker, studies show that children are impacted by what they watch on television. A study last year released by Rand shows that children pick up sexual attitudes and behaviors from television programs, and we know that children are very impressionable; and to allow broadcasters to circumvent the role of parents in teaching their children right from wrong when it comes to sexuality, violence, and profanity is wrong; and not to act is to do just that.

Our decency laws are based on our view that society is partly responsible for making sure public airwaves are filled with safe material, and programs depicting profanity, sexuality, and violence influence how kids act and see the world; and that is why we have adopted decency standards that have withstood legal challenge and the test of time.

This bill updates the penalties for violating those standards. For too long government has allowed broadcasters to profit from the use of public airwaves with little or no public accountability. We have in effect abandoned American families in doing that. H.R. 310 sends a clear message to the entertainment industry that we are no longer going to idly stand by and force our parents to put up with this unacceptable programming. H.R. 310 reaffirms our commitment to ensure safe programming for children.

Mr. Speaker, families are tired of worrying about what their children may hear and see every time they turn on television. They are frustrated that the media industry has seemingly been able to broadcast any type of behavior or speech that they feel will bring in advertising dollars. Meanwhile, they feel that the Federal Government has sided with the media elites and turned a blind eye to the concerns of ordinary moms and dads. So finally Congress has heard. We are acting for American families. We are not going to stand idly by on this topic.

I urge support for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Cuban Government thinks that our top diplomat to their nation, James Cason, is a fourth-rate bureaucrat whose mission is to deceive and subvert.

Well, I think he will be the first to admit that if promoting the human rights of all Cubans is subversive, then that is exactly what his mission is. And let me be among the first to say, Mr. Cason is no fourth-rate bureaucrat. No fourth-rate bureaucrat would so openly share the story of Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet.

Dr. Biscet is a physician who has courageously stood for human rights and today sits in a tiny prison cell imprisoned for peaceful protest in April of 2003.

Despite Cuban propaganda, Dr. Biscet is sick and has been denied food and medical attention by his captors. The Cuban Government should allow Dr. Biscet medical care, and it should unconditionally and immediately release him.

Dr. Biscet, we stand with you. And if we had more fourth-rate bureaucrats like James Cason, our world would be a much better place.

Madam Speaker, it seems that Music Television plays a lot more than music these days. From reality TV to tasteless dramas, MTV has become one of cable's largest purveyors of smut.

A report released by the Parents Television Council found that the level of sex and foul language on MTV is far higher than anything found on adult-targeted television. The report says that children watching MTV view an average of nine sexual scenes, 18 sexual depictions and 17 instances of sexual dialogue and innuendo per hour.

A study done by RAND last year shows that kids this age often adopt the sexual behaviors and attitudes of their favorite TV characters. By glamorizing drug and alcohol abuse, sexual promiscuity and violent behavior, MTV lies to our kids. Instead of making them cool, MTV is often harming our kids.

Many say this is no big deal, but they are wrong. MTV reaches 73 percent of boys, 78 percent of girls ages 12 to 19. That is why this study and this report are so disturbing and so important.

Mr. Speaker, the House passed intelligence reform legislation last year, and the bill was another step to strengthen efforts against an enemy bent not on our defeat, but on our destruction. But the conference committee was dominated by those that ignored key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

The final product was watered down. It did not have a plan to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses. It did not put in place stricter asylum standards, problems identified by the 9/11 Commission as glaring weaknesses in our Nation's defenses.

Mr. Speaker, 19 of the 9/11 hijackers had 63 driver's licenses between them. How can this Nation in a time of war leave such a glaring hole in our Nation's defenses? Mr. Speaker, this was wrong, and that is why I am hopeful that the legislation introduced this week by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), which I cosponsored which strengthens security standards on driver's licenses and asylum standards, will pass. I hope the Senate and the 9/11 Commission will support our efforts to do so.

Mr. Speaker, today, Congress will certify the votes of the Electoral College. In doing so, we will reaffirm the historic victory won by President Bush. On November 2, 2005, he won more votes than any candidate in history, becoming the first President since Franklin Roosevelt to win reelection while leading his party to two consecutive gains in the Senate.

Based on conspiracy theories and speculation, some in the minority party will seek to derail the constitutional duty we will seek to carry out today. They are wrong for doing so.

President Bush won Ohio by 118,457 votes. Again, some will not accept the results of a democratic election. They intend to prolong legal challenges to achieve in court what they could not achieve on Election Day.

Look at the basis for the legal challenge, Mr. Speaker. Mysterious hackers manipulating voting machines, phantom agents committing unspecified acts, Senator Kerry receiving fewer votes than another statewide candidate, and the final results not reflecting exit poll numbers.

Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. None of these charges are legitimate. But votes are. The quicker we accept the fact, get on with addressing the issues that caused the American people to support George Bush in record numbers, the better we will be.

Mr. Speaker, an adviser to former President Clinton commented last month after reviewing documents captured by U.S. troops in Iraq. One 11-page memo dated 1993 lists experts ``in executing the required missions,'' including terror groups and three of the most wanted terrorists in the world: Al-Zarqawi, a-Zawahiri, and Hekmatyar.

Another memo that lists names of those trained for suicide missions was personally reviewed and approved by Saddam Hussein himself. The documents also describe Iraq's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax at a time when Hussein had kicked the U.N. inspectors out of the country. They show a strong operational link to al-Jihan al Tajdeed, a group allied with Zarqawi that posts its videos and statements on the Web.

Taken as a whole, the documents demonstrate not only Saddam Hussein's role in terrorism but his personal involvement, collaboration, and support for Islamic terrorist groups, with some on Saddam's payroll and some operating under his direct authority.

While some people have refused to acknowledge the documents, we cannot ignore them. The American people should know of them.