Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, some of us have been saying it for years, there is a liberal bias in the media. Last weekend, we witnessed a brief moment of candor. Evan Thomas, the assistant managing editor of Newsweek Magazine, admitted on a radio station that, ``The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they are going to portray Kerry and Edwards, I am talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but there is going to be this glow about this that is going to be worth maybe 15 points.''

Let me repeat the words of this top Newsweek editor. ``The media, I think, wants Kerry to win, and they are going to portray Kerry and Edwards in a certain way to help elect them.'' He says, ``The media bias is worth 15 points in the polls.'' In other words, without media bias, President Bush would be cruising to a landslide election.

Mr. Speaker, the biased media is getting dangerously close to becoming a real threat to our democracy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Sanders amendment which would make libraries and bookstores a sanctuary for terrorists. There are many misconceptions about the PATRIOT Act, but section 215 has received an unfair amount of criticism. Section 215 covers access to business records. Library records, among other types of business records, have always been accessible under this provision.

These records have been subject to subpoenas by grand juries for more than 30 years. For example, in 1997 a murder case in Florida allowed a grand jury to subpoena the records from the public libraries in Miami.

Section 215 actually provides more protections than the subpoena powers of grand juries. First, this provision does not apply to ordinary citizens engaging in ordinary criminal activity. In order to conduct a search of records, the FBI must have a court order.

Second, there are narrow restrictions on when such a record search may take place. It can only be used to obtain foreign intelligence information concerning a noncitizen of the United States or to obtain information relating to international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

Again, this type of record search is not available in ordinary crimes or even for domestic terrorism. Library records can provide a legitimate source of information on individuals planning terrorist attacks against us. If we exempt library and book store records from foreign intelligence investigations, then terrorists will know exactly how to hide what they are doing. If this amendment passes, terrorists will know that if they use computers at taxpayer-funded public libraries, the FBI would be powerless to get records of their terrorist activities. When drug dealers or crime syndicates use these computers, these very same computers, these records have always been available to grand juries. Why not the terrorist records as well?

Mr. Chairman, finally, I would like to add that this is an issue that should be considered by the Committee on the Judiciary, not as an amendment to an appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I support the King Amendment, which would designate funds to enforce a section of the United States Code that has been law since 1996.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, prohibits states and localities from refusing to share information with the Federal government on the immigration status of individuals.

Some localities don't allow their officers to report the illegal status of criminal aliens to the Federal government. This is a direct violation of Federal law and hinders our efforts to remove criminal immigrants from the United States. It turns these localities into resorts for illegal immigrants.

The Federal government cannot do its job of deporting criminal aliens if law enforcement is not telling the Federal government who these individuals are. This results in a situation where criminal aliens are arrested, jailed, and then released into our communities where they commit more crimes.

When State and local law enforcement officers arrest someone for a crime, and it becomes apparent that the person is an illegal alien, this should be reported to the Federal government so the individual can be deported. To hide the illegal status of a criminal alien only means more crime.

This amendment does nothing to change existing immigration law. This amendment simply requires the Federal government to enforce current law.

Mr. Speaker, so Senator Kerry has picked Senator Edwards as his running mate. That means the Senator with the most liberal voting record has picked the person with the fourth most- liberal voting record. That does not sound like mainstream to me, and certainly their views do not represent the majority of the American people.

Both Senators Kerry and Edwards voted against the ban on partial birth abortion. Both have opposed all of the recent tax relief legislation.

Both Senators voted against sending our troops in Iraq and providing them with body armor, and both favor amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, Senators Kerry and Edwards are out of tune, out of line, out of touch, and out of step with most Americans.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month we learned of more good economic news about the expanding economy. 947,000 new jobs created in March, April, and May alone. One might think that almost a million new jobs in 3 months constitutes big news, but it was not big news on ``CBS Evening News.''

``The CBS Evening News'' spent 20 seconds glossing over the creation of nearly a million new jobs. CBS then aired a 2-minute report about 1,300 people being laid off in Ohio. The laying off of 1,300 workers and their families at any time is sad. I have hope and faith that those families will soon be back on their feet. But for CBS to bury the good news about a million new jobs and magnify the bad news of 1,300 layoffs smacks of partisan media bias. Twenty seconds for good economic news, 2 minutes for bad economic news. If it is not liberal media bias, I do not know what is.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for offering this amendment.

In 1996, following a series of terrorist attacks throughout the world, Congress acted to make clear that this country is not to be used as a staging ground for those who seek to commit acts of terrorism against persons in other countries.

One of the components in the Committee on the Judiciary's 1996 anti- terrorism legislation was to authorize the Secretary of State to designate foreign terrorist organizations, or FTOs, that threaten U.S. residents or the national security of the United States.

Seven years of experience with the designation process has shown that it is needlessly burdensome, draining resources that are needed in the war on terrorism. There are now some 37 designated FTOs, and the redesignation of each requires intensive interagency review and the preparation of a voluminous administrative record. Which can take months, of course.

Few of the designated FTOs ever challenge their designation. For example, it is unlikely that al Qaeda will seek judicial review of the Secretary's designation of them as FTOs in the D.C. Circuit Court. Nevertheless, every 2 years the Federal Government must compile the record against them.

State and Justice Department officials have informed the Committee on the Judiciary that the cost of repeatedly proving that FTOs have retained their terrorist characteristics diverts resources from other pressing counterterrorism work, including pursuit of additional designations.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) addresses each of these concerns in a way that still assures appropriate review. The text of this amendment tracks language in a bill that has been reviewed by the Committee on the Judiciary. This amendment would free up critical anti-terrorism resources that are now expended on the onerous and, for most groups, largely pointless task of redesignation, while assuring that affected groups have the opportunity to seek appropriate review.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I was honored to have served in Congress for the last 2 years of President Reagan's second term.

President Reagan devoted his life to the preservation of freedom. He believed that ``no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.''

His global fight against communism is one of the most significant events in world history. Many said this enemy of freedom could not be conquered. But the Berlin Wall fell because President Reagan made it fall.

Since the president's death last Saturday we have heard all or parts of the speeches that inspired so many for so long. They earned him the nickname ``The Great Communicator.''

Mr. Speaker, President Reagan will always be The Great Communicator because of what he said and did. But his public remarks were also notable for what he did not say and what he did not do.

He did not pound the podium. He did not flail his arms, or yell. He did not substitute manufactured emotion for reason. He did not exploit human suffering.

The style and manner of his speech combined with the power of his ideas made verbal and physical gimmicks completely unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, there are many ways to judge a president's place in history. I believe a question we must ask is: What kind of impact on world and national events does a President have after he leaves office? By that standard President Reagan is a historical giant. Consider two examples:

First, President Reagan initiated the largest peacetime expansion of our military ever. It gave him the strength to win the Cold War without firing a shot.

But would our soldiers, sailors and airmen have achieved such rapid success in the first Gulf War if we sent our 1980 forces and weapons to fight? Would we have won the ground war in 100 hours without President Reagan's military build-up? Of course not. I believe we would have prevailed, but not with such stunning success.

And our modern, 21st Century military that is fighting the war on terror in Iraq today would be years, if not decades away, without President Reagan's ``Peace Through Strength'' doctrine.

Second, President Reagan launched the boldest economic growth plan since the New Deal. When he came to office 14 income tax brackets, with the top rate a suffocating 70 percent. After he left office there were only two income tax brackets existed, with a top rate of 28 percent. Yes, we know this created the longest economic boom in history throughout the 1980's. But what about the 1990's?

Mr. Speaker, without President Reagan's three-year across-the-board tax reduction plan in 1981, and without the fundamental restructuring of the nation's income tax code in 1986, we would not have experienced the job creation machine of the 1990's. We would not have created a new class in America--the Investor Class. And our economy certainly would not have survived and rebounded as it did after the 9-11 terrorist attacks and corporate scandals.

President Reagan left office with a united America, a strong America, and a prosperous America. His America is the country every president-- every American--aspires to live in.

Mr. Speaker, I support NASA's new space exploration vision. Americans might ask: What is that vision? It means we are committed to these goals--

Return the space shuttle to flight;

Complete the International Space Station;

Develop the Crew Exploration Vehicle;

Go back to the Moon;

Go to Mars;

Increase NASA funding by almost 6 percent.

This new space exploration vision is a turning point for NASA.

We know there are inherent risks that come with space exploration, which is the pursuit of new knowledge and new worlds. Skepticism and doubt are often linked to NASA and its goals. But history provides the answers to those concerns.

The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs culminated in a great achievement: landing an astronaut on the moon.

In the past 45 years, NASA's explorations and scientific experiments have led to technological breakthroughs that have changed our lives. They include a heart pump implant system that prolongs lives, smoke detectors that have saved thousands from death and shape memory metal used in eyeglasses and golf clubs that make them bendable. Advancements have also included the unexpected, such as a new line of shock- absorbing athletic shoes.

I believe the new space exploration vision is affordable and achievable. To succeed it requires congressional support, leadership from the White House, and an unwavering belief that the impossible can one day become the possible.

Mr. Speaker, NASA has inspired the public since the Mercury 7 astronauts had ``the right stuff'' to launch our space exploration program. Their legacy is secure.

Our challenge today is to honor the legacy and build upon it with a new vision. I believe we can. America still has the right stuff to make other giant leaps for mankind.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, Article I, section 2 of the Constitution states as follows: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen by the People of the several States. When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such vacancies.''

The Constitution emphasizes the right of the people to govern themselves through their elected representatives. We should not ignore that Constitution.

However, the constitutional amendment we are considering today would create unelected representatives. It would have vacancies during a disaster filled by appointees.

The House already has passed H.R. 2844, introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), which passed by a three to one margin. It requires special elections to occur within 45 days of a disaster that kills more than 100 Members of Congress.

While some wonder how the government would operate while we are waiting for those elections, there is a House rule that provides that a quorum shall consist of all Members who are living. During a time of disaster when many Members have died, the Speaker can adjust the required quorum to reflect the number of Members still living.

On the other hand, by law, Senate vacancies are filled by the governor of the affected State. So if a significant number of House and Senate Members were killed during an attack and if House Members were appointed as well, as this constitutional amendment we are considering describes, we would then have a Congress of mostly unelected officials. That is another reason we must preserve the right of the American people to have elected representatives in the House.

Some claim that a constitutional amendment providing for the immediate appointment of representatives is necessary for a government to function, but Congress has granted the President significant powers to act during a national emergency. Congress could utilize that reduced quorum until elections are held.

Mr. Speaker, any constitutional amendment that would deprive the American people of the right to elect their representatives should be defeated. Democracy is always better than bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker, last year illegal aliens cost taxpayers more than $1 billion in hospital costs.

I support H.R. 3722, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), which requires hospitals to report the immigration status of the individuals they treat. This bill also makes employers responsible for these medical costs if they employ the illegal alien.

Hospitals already collect information from patients. Reporting immigration status as a condition for receiving Federal funds is not overly burdensome.

We cannot afford to ignore the growing costs associated with illegal immigration. In my home State of Texas, health care for illegal immigrants costs taxpayers at least $170 million every year.

If we are serious about reducing illegal immigration, we need to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I released a letter signed by 75 Members of Congress to Commissioner Jamie Gorelick. We have serious concerns about her impartiality as a member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Commissioner Gorelick never should have accepted the position in the first place. As Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Justice Department, she cannot be objective, especially when their policies may have contributed to America's vulnerability.

If Commissioner Gorelick does not testify before the commission and respond to our letter, then a cloud will hang over the commission that brings into question its independence and supposed non-partisanship.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's yielding me this time.

I support the Continuity In Representation Act of 2004. This legislation preserves the right of the people of the United States to elect their own representatives, even after a deadly attack. One of the cornerstones of our Constitution is the right of the people to govern themselves through elected representation. This right should be upheld and, in fact, continued.

H.R. 2844 provides for the expedited special election of new Members of Congress if more than 100 seats are vacant. This is designed to address a situation in which our country is attacked and significant numbers of Members of Congress are killed.

Mr. Chairman, in the wake of such an attack on our country, Americans need to be assured that their government is legitimate, and citizens need to feel that actions undertaken by Congress at a time of disaster or war are also legitimate. By allowing for the election of Representatives rather than for their appointment, Americans can be reassured that our government is continuing to function in a truly representative fashion.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for moving legislation that guarantees our government would survive. It has been over 2 years since September 11. This issue must be addressed today in a democratic fashion.

Mr. Speaker, last month America celebrated President's Day. In recognizing a generic holiday, though, perhaps we didn't take the time to focus on our first President, George Washington. A friend, advisor, constituent and cousin, Frates Seeligson of San Antonio, wrote an article for the San Antonio Express-News that conveys the greatness of the individual called, ``First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen.'' I hope my colleagues and others will enjoy Mr. Seeligson's trenchant observations.

[From the San Antonio Express-News, Feb. 22, 2004]

Olympian in War, Sagacious in Peace

(By Frates Seeligson)

During the past three decades, knowledge and appreciation

of George Washington have declined to an all-time low.

One survey has revealed that Washington's coverage in

history textbooks has declined by 90 percent since the 1960s.

One high school textbook has only a paragraph on George

Washington but more than two pages on Marilyn Monroe.

For that reason, his birthday today is an appropriate time

to remind ourselves about his wonderful contributions to

America, which resulted in his being known as the ``Father of

his Country.'' It is even more appropriate at a time when we

constantly are looking for role models.

Consider Washington's greatest services in the creation of

our country:

For 8\1/2\ years, he commanded the Continental forces,

which won our independence.

He presided over the constitutional convention that

produced the document under which we live, and without his

support it would not have been ratified.

He became the first president of the United States.

Washington was a magnificent horseman and looked every inch

a general. He was one of the wealthiest men in America, yet

he pledged his life, his future, his beloved Mount Vernon and

his sacred honor to win our freedom. At one battle he stopped

his retreating army, turned them around and fought the

British to a draw.

The Marquis de Lafayette described the effect of

Washington's arrival on the tired, discouraged, beaten men:

``His presence stopped

the retreat. His fine appearance on horse, his calm courage,

roused to animation by the vexations of the morning, gave him

the air best calculated to excite enthusiasm.''

Lafayette also recalled how later he ``rode all along the

lines amid the shouts of the soldiers cheering them by his

voice and example and restoring to our standard the fortunes

of the fight. I thought then, as now, that never had I beheld

so superb a man.''

After the war, no one knew whether the 13 states would

separate into different countries or become one nation. The

government under which they lived was basically a league of

states absorbed in their own concerns.

The country found it impossible to operate under this type

of government, and a constitutional convention was called.

Washington was already a legend.

As John Adams said: ``He made every crowned head in Europe

look like a valet. Noble, incorruptible, Olympian in war,

sagacious in peace, he was the ideal man to preside over the

convention.''

The Constitution that the founding fathers created was

absolutely new and revolutionary for its time. To create it

was one thing; to get it ratified by the states was another.

Washington's support was essential to its passage.

As he said: ``It is too probable that no plan we propose

will be adopted, perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be

sustained.

``If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves

disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work. Let us raise

a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair.''

Once the Constitution was ratified, most of the European

powers felt there was no question it would be a failure.

They underestimated the first president. He guided the

nation through its first eight years and set it on a course

that has lasted to this day.

Washington's last service to his nation was to retire after

two presidential terms.

To paraphrase what has been written before, there are two

roads: one to absolutism and another road to democracy. On

the first we see Napoleon and emperors, perpetual presidents,

Mussolinis, Hitlers, Maos and directors of the proletariat

advancing to band music to the death of political freedom.

On the other road, to democracy, there is a solitary figure

in a rusty blue and buff uniform hasting to the happy halls

of Mount Vernon.

All hail to Washington. First in war, first in peace and

first in the hearts of his countrymen.

Mr. Speaker, all citizens should be aware that President Bush really has two opponents in his reelection effort: the Democratic nominee and the national media.

Most of the national media minimize or ignore the good news for President Bush, like last week's CBS poll showing him ahead, and magnify every criticism.

That is no surprise. TV coverage of the President is mostly negative. News articles are often slanted, and three of the largest newspapers in America have not endorsed a Republican for President in 50 years.

A recent survey shows that over half of the American people believe that ``media stories and reports are often inaccurate.''

Voters should insist on getting objective news reports so they can make good decisions. Democracy demands not only freedom of speech but also fair media coverage.

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's recent use of foreign law as a precedent in several cases is disturbing. This judicial activism threatens our Nation's sovereignty. For example, in a capital punishment case, a justice cited the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe as precedent.

Zimbabwe is led by a brutal dictator, Robert Mugabe. According to a State Department official, ``He has succeeded in reducing a once- promising nation with a bright future to a state of ruin, desolation, and isolation.''

I hope the Supreme Court in the future will not seek guidance from the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe anytime again. Our judges should enforce American laws and the United States Constitution, not the laws and legal precedents of other countries.

Mr. Speaker, also, the Subcommittee on Constitutional Law is holding a hearing on this very subject right now.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it easier for federal judges to retain jurisdiction of a lawsuit when questions regarding the facts are not in dispute, such as the facts in lawsuits stemming from a plane crash.

For example, a plane crash with 100 fatalities from 25 states can result in 25 different plaintiffs. This legislation allows those 25 cases to be transferred to one court, which reduces the burden on our federal courts.

Thirty years ago federal judges were authorized by circuit and district court case law to transfer cases to their own district or another district for trial. This provided them the ability to consolidate cases in their jurisdiction or refer cases to the appropriated jurisdiction as they saw fit.

Unfortunately, in 1998, the Supreme Court reversed that practice in the Lexecon case because of the language in the statute. The opinion said that Congress could resolve the issue. Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here today.

The Lexecon decision has prevented the federal court system from adjudicating complex cases even when all parties to a case have agreed on the wisdom of a transfer. That is not the most efficient and effective way for the management of our federal courts.

Our transferee judges are federal judicial experts. We must provide them with the freedom they need so they can supervise day-to-day pretrial proceedings, which include the underlying facts, laws and the possibility of a settlement.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.