Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Congress Daily reported last week that liberal soft money groups, 527s they are called, have out-raised conservative groups five to one in 2004, and their goal is to raise $500 million to defeat the President. These 527 groups raise unreported, unregulated soft money, unlimited donations by millionaire fat cats, with no reporting requirements, no public scrutiny, and unlimited access to candidates.

This is the kind of thing McCain-Feingold finance reform was supposed to deal with. It did not. The money just went underground. But it is not only the money that is the problem; it is that people do not know who is influencing our political process. These donations are not from small donors. The top 24 donors to these groups have given a total of $40 million.

If we had done campaign reform right, we would not have this problem. Instead, we are stuck with this unending special interest shadow campaign, while true citizens' groups operate on limited budgets and cannot even run ads on issues that they care about.

Mr. Speaker, last month a dozen of my colleagues and I sent a letter to a Supreme Court Justice. In the letter we questioned her ties to the NOW Legal Defense Fund. She speaks regularly to the group. There is a lecture series named after her, and she has served on its board in the past; but she continues to hear cases argued before her in which the NOW Legal Defense Fund, which is now called Legal Momentum, files briefs.

In January, she gave opening remarks for the fourth installment of her lecture series. Two weeks earlier, she took the legal defense's side in a medical screening case.

Federal law requires recusal when a judge's outside legal activities, ``cast reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before them.'' This Justice has official ties to a group that participates in cases before the Court. That sounds like reasonable doubt to me. But this Justice has yet to respond to an official inquiry from Members of a co-equal branch of government. Professional courtesy warrants at least an acknowledgement that she received the letter, but not even that.

Justice Ginsburg should acknowledge our concerns and recuse herself from cases involving any group with which she has official ties.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat candidate for President has promised to create 10 million jobs if elected, but a recent economic analysis of his plan by the Heritage Foundation says he is wrong and showed four negative effects of his scheme. First, employment growth slows under his plan with 225,000 fewer jobs created per year under his policy, in contrast to the fact that in the first quarter of this year, 513,000 new jobs have been created.

Secondly, GDP growth slows for the next decade, underperforming by $20 billion in just the first 5 years.

Third, after-tax income shrinks. And this makes sense. Taxes go up, take-home pay goes down. And under the Democrat plan, take-home pay plummets $240 billion below current projections.

And, lastly, savings plummet. The personal savings rate would average 17 percent less during just the first year of his administration.

Each of these items would reverse trends started by President Bush's economic recovery program, a plan that is working.

In the end his tax-and-spend, rob-the-rich-to-pay-the-government economic scheme will do more harm than good.

Mr. Speaker, in the fall of the year 2000, a Predator drone captured Osama bin Laden on tape. At that time, the Predator could not be armed.

But the tape is revealing. It was relayed in real time to CIA headquarters, and the CIA was watching bin Laden as he moved, when he moved. The tape proves that the Clinton administration had bin Laden in its sights, as it did several times during its 8 years in office, but did nothing.

A former CIA station chief in Afghanistan said that the Clinton White House issued an ultimatum to the CIA, ``Capture bin Laden, don't kill him.'' They wanted to arrest bin Laden and send him to court. Unfortunately, since then we have learned that you cannot fight terrorism by filing legal papers.

We cannot hesitate to act in defense of our national interests, even if that means acting alone or acting preemptively. We cannot wait for appropriate international committees to give us permission.

Our national security is far too important to be left to the whims of world opinion, and it is far too important to wait for legal papers to be filed.

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has a terrible track record on appeasing dictators. The growing scandal surrounding the Iraqi Oil for Food program is a good example.

While the Iraqi people suffered from shortages of food and medicines, Saddam Hussein looted billions of dollars in U.N. aid to fund his military and buy friends around the world.

Manufacturers and trade brokers in Europe, Russia, China, and the Arab world benefited from billions Saddam Hussein funneled to them, all courtesy of the U.N. Oil for Food program. Those who profited from Saddam's generosity have become propaganda mouthpieces for his corrupt regime.

As Saddam's friends criticized how sanctions made the Iraqi people suffer, they pocketed billions of aid intended for the people they claimed to care about. No wonder they were against liberating the Iraqi people. They were profiting off of their suffering.

These coconspirators with Saddam Hussein should be exposed. Their selfishness and deceit have cost Iraqi lives.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from Alaska for his assistance over the past several years regarding an issue that is negatively impacting two transit systems in my congressional district: Red Rose Transit in Lancaster and BARTA, Berks Area Reading Transit Authority.

They join over 50 other transit agencies across the country facing the same problem. And I have a list of these systems that I will submit for the Record.

As the chairman knows, under current law transit systems that serve communities in urbanized areas exceeding 200,000 in population according to the most recent census lose their local flexibility in the use of section 5307 Federal transit funds.

The chairman has been very helpful in protecting these systems from losing

their flexibility over the past couple of years to provide a bridge to the reauthorization of the transportation spending that we are considering today.

While I appreciate the language that is currently in the bill extending the flexibility protection through fiscal year 2005, it does not go far enough to mitigate the financial crisis facing small transit systems in the fastest growing communities throughout the country. Instead of encouraging the growth of transits in these emerging communities, current law penalizes them.

Red Rose Transit and BARTA stand to lose access of upwards of $1 million in Federal transit funds. They are being treated more like transit systems in big cities than the more suburban and rural communities that they actually serve.

Mr. Chairman, we need a long-term or permanent solution to this problem. The current language in this bill does not go far enough. It is not a matter that these systems need more time to get their books in order; it is that they cannot financially make ends meet under current law.

They are already looking beyond 2005 to see what routes to cut, which workers to lay off, and which buses to park in the garage because they cannot afford to run them. Passengers will lose their transportation to their jobs, the elderly will lose their transportation to the doctor, and low-income families will lose their ride to the grocery store.

I close by asking that, as you go to conference on this transportation bill, you keep in mind the difficult future these transit systems face and that you would work with us to find a solution that would help these transit systems sustain their operations and meet the growing needs of their communities.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know which Richard Clarke we are supposed to believe. On his watch for 8 years our country suffered four terrorist attacks: in 1993 the New York World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers in 1996, in 1998 two African U.S. embassies, and in 2000 they attacked the USS Cole. Then in 2001, the 9/11 attacks occurred. The Clinton administration did nothing. It merely attacked some empty tents and a Sudan aspirin factory with a few cruise missiles. Richard Clarke himself admitted to PBS in 2002 that they should have taken out terrorist camps in Afghanistan in the 90s; but, according to him, there were ``other considerations'' that prevented this action.

Now Clarke attacks the Bush administration. Now he is suggesting that going into Iraq has diverted us from the more important goal of defeating al Qaeda, that we cannot do both. He is wrong. When we were attacked on 9/11, President Bush did not waste any time. He used the full power of our Nation to take out the Taliban and hunt down terrorists. Clarke even praised the President for his leadership.

Richard Clarke is guilty of the worst kind of spin, changing his story to avoid blame and make a profit on his new book.

Mr. Speaker, in the year 2001, 2002, and 2003, we gave the American people tax breaks. How much more would American families pay without this tax relief? If none of this tax relief had become law, in 2004, 111 million Americans would be paying an average of $1,586 more in taxes; 81 million women would be paying an average of $1,878 more in taxes; 49 million married couples would pay, on average, $2,602 more in taxes.

Mr. Speaker, 43 million families with children would be paying an average of $2,000 more in taxes; 11 million single women with children would be paying an average of $921 more in taxes; 14 million elderly individuals would be paying an average of $1,883 more in taxes; 25 million small businesses would be paying an average of $3,000 more in taxes; and nearly 5 million individuals and families who currently have no income tax liability would become subject to the income tax. The numbers speak for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, today the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether children should be allowed to say the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance.

In 2002, the 9th Circuit ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The question raised was whether the Pledge forces an establishment of religion on the American people. Ninety percent of the American public answers this question ``no.'' Yet it never ceases to amaze me that the radical activist minority in this country can use the courts and the first amendment on the one hand to permit targeting of children with pornography; and on the other hand they manipulate it to ban any reference to faith, God, or religion in public life.

There is no way around it. That is an extremist agenda contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and it is contrary to the will of the people. The fact that this case even made it so far in the courts is a travesty. Our Founders believed, as the American people do, that there is an acceptable beneficial role for public faith and private convictions in the public life of this country. Those who say otherwise are mistaken.

Mr. Speaker, recently, a Democrat candidate for President was asked about his vote against the $87 billion that went to support our troops in Iraq and to build schools and hospitals for the Iraqi people. He said this: ``I voted for it before I voted against it.''

This rhetoric is so typical of many who want to have it both ways. They vote to give President Bush the authority to send American troops into Iraq, to oust one of the most brutal dictators in history and a supporter of terrorism around the world; but now they say we never should have gone to Iraq, that it was unjustified that the President acted unilaterally.

The fact is, on October 10, 2002, a bipartisan majority in this body voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. And then, in October of last year, we voted to supply our troops on the front lines. Unfortunately, many of the same people who voted to send our men and women off to war then voted against them when the time came to give them the resources they needed to do their job and get home safe. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a year ago our troops went into Iraq, removed Saddam Hussein from power, and the world is a safer place with him gone. Hussein was a homicidal tyrant who disregarded international law, basic human rights, and invaded his neighbors at will. He supported Palestinian terrorists and suicide bombers. He used chemical weapons of mass destruction against Iran and his own people. He killed thousands and thousands.

Hussein reigned over the people of Iraq in terror and he terrorized the region. Human rights organizations report that women told them that rape was routinely used by Iraqi officials as a means of torture and intimidation. Electric shock, pulling out fingernails, dripping acid on victims' skin, gouging out eyes, were torture methods used by Saddam's regime.

Iraq has come a long way since then. And if we stay the course, we can build a future for Iraq free of this kind of terror and deal a deathblow to the terrorists who rely on murder and coercion and death to advance the terrible agenda by building a free democratic Iraq.

Madam Speaker, what happened in Spain last week was a

tragedy of the highest proportion. Our deepest condolences go out to the families who lost loved ones in that devastating attack. And we continue to stand with Spain in finding those responsible for this heinous attack. But I am troubled by the results of the weekend's election. The results of the election were influenced not by debate and campaigns but by bombs and terror. The message is that terrorists can control elections and policy with fear. Until now, Spain's leadership has understood that a peaceful, democratic Iraq would be a deathblow to terrorists around the world. Success in Iraq is success in the war on terror. The American people understand that as well. That is why they boycotted countries that sided with Saddam Hussein. I hope that Americans will not start dumping Spanish wine or changing travel plans or boycotting Spanish goods in protest, but if Spain withdraws its troops from Iraq, the message will be, terrorism works.

Fear and intimidation is the native language of terrorists. They only understand strength. Anything less does not pacify them. It only encourages them.

Mr. Speaker, Federal transportation law currently penalizes communities like Redding and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in my district or like South Bend, Indiana; Lubbock, Texas; Shreveport, Louisiana; Wichita, Kansas; Jackson, Mississippi; Fort Collins, Colorado; communities like them all over the country.

When these communities reach 200,000 people, transit systems in these areas are required to spend Federal money like the big-city transit system. They lose their flexibility. What they need is a small system with unique needs. They are lumped in with the New Yorks and the Philadelphias. But areas like Lancaster and Redding are nothing like Philadelphia.

As a result, people in these areas and dozens of others lose out, and that is why I introduced a bill to prevent the Federal Government from penalizing these thriving communities, the Transit Flexibility Protection Act. This bill does not authorize new money. It merely protects small transit systems and their ability to use Federal funds wisely.

If we are going to invest in public transit, we should at least do it in a way that truly promotes it in communities like these.

Mr. Chairman, it is about time that we act on broadcast indecency. First I want to commend and thank the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for his steadfast leadership on this issue. He has been one of the primary reasons for its success.

This is not a new issue. Parents have been pleading with us to take action on this issue for years. Unfortunately, it took the use of the four letter word on network TV and Janet Jackson's indecent exposure at the Super Bowl and Howard Stern's foul and racist language to push us into action.

I, for one, am tired of parents telling me how they need to cover their children's eyes and ears often too late because of the unacceptable language that has infiltrated television and radio. For too long, we have told the entertainment industry that the Federal Government is unwilling to hold them accountable for their actions.

Today we are saying enough is enough. H.R. 3717 sends a clear signal to the entertainment industry, we are no longer going to stand idly by and force our parents to put up with this filth.

H.R. 3717 is a good bill. Serious fines ensure that the FCC has the freedom to truly hit these huge companies where it hurts. And one of the most important provisions in the bill was added by my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the three-strikes-and-you- are-out provision. It allows broadcast licensees up to two broadcast indecency violations. On the third, proceedings for license revocation will begin. And this provision will make it clear that Congress is not going to put up with multiple violators.

Mr. Chairman, families are sick and tired of worrying about what their children may see or hear every time they turn on television. They are frustrated that the media and industry has seemingly been able to broadcast any type of behavior or speech 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 mom and dads.

To American parents, Congress has finally heard you. We will no longer stand idly by on this topic. As one of our Members said, if the entertainment industry cannot police themselves, we will do it for them. So I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the leadership of the committee for moving this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of human rights, today there are between 200- and 300,000 North Korean refugees in China. Half are women, and while the men can find jobs as cheap laborers, most of the women are sold into forced labor or the sex trade.

Despite promises, China so far has refused to grant the North Koreans official refugee status, claiming it would invite a flood of new refugees. That is a faulty argument, and China did not make it when Vietnamese refugees sought refuge in their borders.

Refugee protection does not cause refugee crises. Horrifying human rights abuses, mass starvation, prison camps, brutal torture, forced abortion, and a ruler who believes that he is God causes refugee crises.

It is time for China and the UNHCR to live up to their obligations, and it is time for Kim Jong Il to stop brutalizing his people and to step aside.