Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 3313, is not about gay marriage, it is about taking away access to the Federal judiciary while manipulating our Constitution by using a wedge issue. It is about degrading the role that Federal courts have played in the enforcement of civil rights law. It is about preventing challenges by individuals and groups of Americans who are needy and deserving of their day in court. Most of all, this bill is about ignoring the Constitution.

We must protect the system of checks and balances that our Founding Fathers created. We must refuse to create this dangerous precedent.

This legislation would be precedence for removal of Federal court jurisdiction for other contentious constitutional civil rights issues such as gun rights, religious protections, civil rights.

Mr. Speaker, this is just plain bad policy. Do not support this bill. Know what the proponents are after and do not let them bully you into eroding our judicial protections.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government Accountability Office issued a report stating that the Pentagon will need an estimated $12.3 billion to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through September.

The extraordinary amount of money needed to pay for our major military operations is not surprising. What greatly troubles me, once again, is the sheer unwillingness of the Bush administration to adequately plan and prepare for those military operations. The additional $12.3 billion is triple, triple the amount that General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff, projected in April would be needed to make it through September. President Bush and the top brass at the Pentagon have, once again, underestimated the resources needed to sustain our military halfway across the world.

The sad part is that many of us have actually come to expect President Bush to shortchange our troops. Military operations are costing more than the Pentagon estimated, in part because top officials expected that Iraq would be a peaceful democracy by now and we could start bringing our troops home. But it does not take a genius to realize that rebuilding a country from the ground up, an entire country that has been decimated by a brutal dictator, takes years, possibly decades.

The costs of these failures are adding up, Mr. Speaker, both in human and in financial terms. Two days ago the United States reached another disheartening milestone when the 900th American soldier was killed in Iraq. Moreover, due to a shortage of qualified soldiers, the Pentagon has shamefully reenlisted the Ready Reserve, a group of retired soldiers who have moved on to civilian life.

Congress has already appropriated nearly $200 billion in supplemental funds to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That number could easily reach $1 trillion before the end of this decade. We cannot possibly fund the war in Iraq at the rate we are going, especially if we want to truly address the threat of terrorism, that threat which, by the way, was never in Iraq, where weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found. Instead of rooting out terrorist networks in Afghanistan, the Bush administration chose to focus on Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to al-Qaeda.

In the process, we have not only failed to adequately address the growing terrorist threat; we have actually added to that threat by incurring the wrath of thousands of Muslims who think we are fighting a war against Islam.

We need to be much smarter about how we address America's national security, Mr. Speaker. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. In crafting this legislation, my staff and I received the help and support of the Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and Women's Action for New Directions. Without the counsel of these organizations, SMART security would not have happened as it did.

SMART security is more vigilant than President Bush claims to be in fighting terror. Instead of emphasizing military force, SMART focuses on multilateral partnerships and stronger intelligence capabilities to track and detain terrorists, and it does so while respecting human and civil rights.

Terrorism is an international problem, and so it makes sense that the fight against terrorism should involve the international community. That is why SMART security calls for working closely with the U.N. and with NATO to achieve our goals. Only by actively involving other nations in this fight can we hope to prevent future acts of terrorism.

It is time America got smart about its national security. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this vitally important resolution, H. Con. Res. 392, because SMART security is tough, pragmatic, and patriotic, and it will keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, during the 2000 Presidential campaign, George W. Bush pledged to renew the assault weapons ban that President Clinton signed into law in 1994. This is a courageous decision by a candidate who claimed he was not your typical conservative.

Four years have passed and Candidate Bush's pledge has gone unfulfilled by President Bush. It is amazing what the politics of a reelection campaign will do to one's former pledges.

The assault weapons ban will expire on September 13 unless President Bush renews the ban before that very point. First, Congress would need to approve this decision, however. With recess approaching, that leaves only 3 legislative days in September before military assault weapons designed to kill large numbers of people are once again available on America's streets.

Of course, President Bush and the White House are well aware of this deadline. So why are they not acting? Actually, the answer is simple. The answer is the National Rifle Association has conditioned its support for George W. Bush on his strong opposition to gun control measures. The NRA has issued a not-so-subtle threat to withhold its vast resources from the President's reelection campaign unless he agrees not to renew the assault weapons ban.

The problem, besides the fact that President Bush has once again failed to live up to one of his campaign promises, is that this is an issue of extreme importance to our national security.

Al Qaeda training manuals recovered in Afghanistan specifically urge terrorists to exploit America's ``lax gun laws'' to acquire and train with assault weapons. For many terrorists around the world, America is known as the great gun bazaar.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know about you, but I find this highly disturbing. If President Bush truly wanted to be smart about keeping America safe from terrorism, as he says he does, he would work to immediately renew the assault weapons ban. Renewing the ban is absolutely necessary to protect Americans from terrorism. Renewing the ban would keep deadly weaponry out of the hands of terrorists.

These guns serve only one purpose, to take lives. In fact, the 2003 National Hunting Survey by Field and Stream Magazine confirmed that most gun owners do not consider assault weapons suitable guns for hunting in the first place. The ban clearly works.

In 1995, the first year the assault weapons ban went into effect, the assault weapons represented nearly 4 percent of all guns recovered from crimes. By 2000, assault weapons represented a little more than 1 percent of weapons used in crimes.

Mr. Speaker, clearly the time has come for a national security strategy that protects Americans from assault weapons, not one that protects the President's favorite campaign donor from losing revenue.

That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for sensible, multilateral, American response to terrorism.

In crafting this legislation, my staff and I received the support of the wonderful organizations, Physicians For Social Responsibility, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and Women's Action for New Directions. Without these groups, the legislation would not have happened in the way it did.

SMART security is stronger on national security than President Bush claims to be. SMART security will stop the sale of weapons to oppressive regimes and regimes involved in human rights abuses.

SMART security will pursue enhanced inspection regimes and regional security arrangements to ensure that state sponsors of terrorism do not get a hold of more light weaponry or even deadlier chemical or biological weapons.

It is time America got smart about its national security. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this vitally important resolution, H. Con. Res. 392 because SMART security is tough, is pragmatic, is patriotic, and it will keep America safe.

Madam Speaker, it appeared earlier this month that if DeForest Soaries, the chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, had gotten his wish, his agency would have the authority to postpone the November Presidential elections in the event of a terrorist threat or attack. I was personally appalled that Soaries made such a request and that it was even considered.

The postponement of a Presidential election would present the greatest threat to date to our democratic process. It would be an admission of defeat to the terrorists, inviting them to disrupt the selection of our highest leader, and it would be unprecedented in our Nation's history. Such a proposal suggests that State officials responsible for elections in their region are incapable of deciding what steps to take in the event of a catastrophe. The legislative branch of the government has always held the authority to regulate elections, not the executive branch.

So last week I wrote a letter to Secretary Ridge, as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) stated, and I requested that he take no further steps to postpone this year's Presidential election. 190 Members of Congress signed this letter with me, and I credit the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for bringing this important resolution H. Res. 728, to the House floor immediately, showing support of our request and showing full appreciation for the election process.

Madam Speaker, in early 1864, President Abraham Lincoln feared that he would lose his Presidency due to the widespread criticism of his handling of the Civil War. No President had won a second term in more than 30 years, and the Union had recently suffered a string of military disappointments, and his advisers told him that they thought he should postpone the election. Many of President Lincoln's closest advisers told him he would lose the election, in fact, if it were held. But President Lincoln never considered that possibility, nor will we.

Wars, droughts, floods, and hurricanes have not stopped elections. And the possibility of a terrorist attack must not stop one either. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. Speaker, when Ronald Reagan was running for President in 1980, he asked voters the question, ``Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?'' Ronald Reagan won the 1980 election, becoming the 40th President of the United States.

Now, in the year 2004, the disarray of world events and the failed economic policies of the Bush administration force us to ask of the American people once more, ``Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?''

Since he became President in 2001, George W. Bush has enacted the infamous policy of preemption. This doctrine asserts that the United States has the right to attack any country that the President thinks may seek to attack the United States without having any proof to back up that assumption.

Claiming this policy makes America safer against the threat of terrorism ignores the truth, that the war in Iraq has struck a hornet's nest of hatred in the Arab world against the United States for what it sees as a war against Islam.

In his annual budget request, President Bush has pushed hard for billions of dollars to fund an unproven missile defense system and research on new, illegal nuclear weapons. He claims these enormous weapons systems will make America safer against the threat of terrorism, but vast defense spending has squandered money that should be spent at home on health care for the millions of uninsured, on retirement benefits for our Nation's veterans, and funding for new energy sources to stop our dependence on foreign oil.

The time has come for a new national security strategy, and I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism.

In crafting this legislation, my staff and I received brilliant support and counsel from Ira Shorr, from Physicians For Social Responsibility; from Bridget Moix, from the Friends Committee on National Legislation; and Marie Rietmann, from Women's Action for New Directions. Without them, this legislation would not have happened.

SMART security will make the world safer by preventing future acts of terrorism. Because terrorism is an international problem, our response to terrorism must involve the international community.

SMART security emphasizes multilateral partnership because we are stronger when we work together than when we alienate our friends and allies, rejecting their participation, rejecting their help.

The possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands is possibly the biggest threat we face as a Nation, and SMART takes the threat of weapons of mass destruction seriously.

SMART takes the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which has been successful in dismantling nuclear weapons and materials in the states of the former Soviet Union, and replicates this program in other nuclear powers like Iran and North Korea.

It invests not only in new, effective weapons systems and equipment, but in peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts to prevent terrorism, exactly the kind of support that is needed in places like Haiti, Liberia, Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, every country in the world knows that America is the strongest nation in the world, particularly when it comes to defense. We have billions of dollars in weapons to prove it, but sometimes situations call for more than just brute strength.

Let us not look back in another 4 years and wish we had done things differently. It is time America got smart about its national security.

I urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this vitally important resolution, H. Con. Res. 392. Let us be smart about our future. SMART security is tough, pragmatic and patriotic, and it will keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. Speaker, for nearly 3 months, the Bush administration has flatly refused to cooperate with the United Nations- sanctioned auditors examining the contracts provided to companies like Halliburton for services in Iraq.

President Bush's government has withheld pertinent information from the U.N.'s International Advisory and Monitoring Board which was specifically tasked to ensure that Iraq's oil revenues would be managed responsibly during the United States occupation and for as long as American and other companies work on reconstruction jobs in Iraq.

Halliburton, my colleagues may remember, is the Texas-based oil company that has received over $1 billion in lucrative contracts from the United States for the reconstruction of Iraq, and they have never had to place a single bid for these contracts.

Years ago, the Pentagon established the practice of allowing private companies to bid on various projects, rewarding the most qualified company willing to complete a given project for the lowest price with a highly sought after government contract.

Mr. Speaker, this practice was good for American companies, while, through competition, also kept prices down, ensuring that American taxpayers did not get fleeced in the process.

The Pentagon, under the shoddy supervision of the Bush White House, has all but disregarded this process in 4 short years. Not only has the Bush administration given rise to the shameful new policy of the no-bid contract, it has also rebuffed any and all attempts by international organizations to provide oversight to those companies that are the recipients of these no-bid contracts.

My colleagues may also recall that Vice President Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton. In the months since the beginning of the Iraq War, Vice President Cheney's former company, from which he still receives nearly $200,000 a year in deferred income, has been nothing if not greedy.

Cheney's company, Halliburton, overcharged the U.S. Government for the price of gasoline imported into Iraq from Kuwait. Cheney's company, Halliburton, charged the United States Government for thousands of meals for soldiers that were never provided. Yet the Bush administration has done everything in its power to ensure that Cheney's company, Halliburton, gets whatever it wants or whatever it does not want.

In this case, Halliburton does not want international auditors to get their hands on documents that stipulate how Iraq's oil revenues have been spent or even how much oil has been processed. Halliburton does not want international auditors to learn that meters have never been installed on Iraq's Persian Gulf loading platforms, allowing for the exportation of an unlimited and unaccounted amount of crude oil.

As a result, in addition to the billions of dollars in no-bid contracts, Halliburton may be making millions of dollars more off of the oil that rightfully belongs to the Iraqi people, but then this is the same company that provided fake meals to American troops and overcharged our government for Kuwaiti oil.

There has to be a better way, because the Bush doctrine of rewarding cronies at the expense of the American taxpayer has proven to be an utter failure. We need to be smart about how we choose companies to rebuild countries like war-torn Iraq.

I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, which is legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism.

The wonderful organizations Physicians for Social Responsibility, Friends Committee on National Legislation and Women's Action for New Directions helped me in crafting this legislation.

In this day and age, terrorism is an international problem, and so it makes sense that the fight against terrorism should involve the international community. That is why SMART security calls for working closely with the U.N. and NATO to achieve its goals. Only by actively involving other nations in this fight can we hope to prevent future acts of terrorism.

The Bush administration likes to talk the talk when it comes to national security, but if they want to walk the walk, they will stop rewarding their buddies with no-bid contracts, while protecting these same buddies from international auditors. If they want to be truly smart about defending our country, they will be smart enough to realize that national security depends on international cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, today the House passed H. Res. 713, a resolution to condemn the recent decision by the International Court of Justice in opposition to Israel's security barrier. I voted for this resolution, not out of support for Israel's security barrier, but because the International Court of Justice overstepped its bounds in issuing this decision.

Make no mistake, I strongly oppose the route of Israel's security barrier, because it deviates significantly from Israel's internationally recognized eastern border. In so doing, the fence encroaches on Palestinian lands and fully encloses some villages, overtly harming many Palestinians by turning these areas into isolated enclaves. I fully support Israel's right to defend itself. But this resolution is not one of support for the fence, it's one of opposition to the politicized ruling by the International Court of Justice. If we're going to achieve peace in the Middle East, we've got to get rid of the politics that have tainted this issue for so long on both sides.

Prior to the International Court of Justice ruling, Israel's High Court issued a ruling calling for Israel to take into account the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people. The High Court stated that the path of the fence must be adjusted--even if this change results in less security for Israel--and the Israeli government stated its willingness to comply with this decision. Given the High Court's ruling, the decision rendered by the International Court of Justice was both irrelevant and moot, and demonstrated political partisanship rather than a desire to truly affect change in the Middle East.

In the end, Congress must do much more than pass resolutions that carry no real weight. Instead, the U.S. should be the lead negotiator to achieve peace in the Middle East. When we take sides on this issue, we diminish our ability to play the role of impartial negotiator. The Bush Administration should be providing leadership in the Middle East by ensuring that both the Israelis and the Palestinians live up to their commitments as stipulated by the Road Map, and by bringing both parties to the negotiating table. Only by re-establishing trust, respect, and cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians will we be able to achieve a lasting resolution to this devastating conflict.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week Deforest Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, asked Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to consider seeking the authority to postpone a Federal election.

In response, I have composed a letter to Secretary Ridge expressing dismay at the very possibility of postponing an election. The letter has been signed by 90 other Members of Congress. Ninety percent of the Democrats have signed this letter and one Republican.

Mr. Speaker, the leader reads, ``Dear Secretary Ridge, we are deeply troubled by reports that the Department of Homeland Security has asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what steps would need to be taken to postpone the Presidential election in November of this year.

``We are also concerned that this important issue was not raised last week when Homeland Security Under Secretary Asa Hutchison, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Terrorist Threat and Interrogation Center Director John Brennan briefed Members of the Congress on the possibility of terrorist attacks affecting the upcoming elections.

``Any action taken by the Department of Homeland Security to postpone a Federal election, including requesting an informal review by the Justice Department, would present the greatest threat to date of our democratic process and would invite terrorists to disrupt the selection of our highest leader.

``The mere consideration of postponing an election, the very basis upon which our American democracy is founded, is a capitulation to terrorism. Wars, droughts, floods and hurricanes have not stopped elections, and the possibility of a terrorist attack must not stop one either.

``This move would be unprecedented for a Presidential election. Not even the Civil War stopped the 1864 Presidential election. In 1864, President Lincoln stated,'' and I quote President Lincoln in my letter, ```We cannot have free government without elections, and if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might already fairly claim to have conquered or ruined us.'''

The letter continues, ``Moreover, such a proposal suggests that State officials responsible for elections in their region are incapable of deciding for themselves what steps to take in the event of a catastrophe. The legislative branch of the government has always held the authority to regulate elections. Now is not the time to transfer this authority to the executive branch. In the event of a terrorist attack, we trust that the respective legislatures across the Nation will make the right decisions to ensure that our democratic process remains intact.

``Fighting terrorism and preventing terrorists from changing our democratic process is the greatest fight we face in America today, but postponing an election due to the possibility of a terrorist attack, or even in the event of an actual terrorist attack, would represent the greatest possible loss for democracy and victory for terrorism.

``Let us make sure that in the fight against terrorism we do not sacrifice the very values we are fighting for in the first place. We urge you to take no further steps to postpone this year's Presidential election.''

Mr. Speaker, this letter is signed by 190 other Members of Congress. Each of these Members realizes there must be a way to both fight terrorism and hold onto the democratic ideals that make our country great. And there is.

I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, the SMART Security Resolution, which provides a better way to address the threat of terrorism. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism.

SMART would prevent future acts of terrorism. It is more vigilant than the President on fighting terror. Instead of emphasizing military force, SMART focuses on multilateral partnerships and stronger intelligence capabilities to track and detain terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, after hearing about our letter in the House, DeForest Soaries revised his previous remarks. He claimed he could not conceive of any circumstances under which a Presidential election could be postponed or cancelled. Apparently, our message has gotten through. We must be smart about how we react to terrorist threats, and that means never sacrificing the democratic principles that make this country great.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Wu-Hooley amendment. These two individuals from Oregon are doing a big service for not only their State but my State and many States around the country, because it is absolutely important that we control the spread of sudden oak death and that we learn to treat plants effectively that are being affected by this disease.

While sudden oak death's funding through APHIS is set at last year's levels in this bill, this fast-spreading disease has not remained at last year's levels.

In the last year alone, sudden oak death was found for the first time in a nursery in southern California, and there is evidence that it has spread to the Northeast and also the Southeast part of the United States, and that ignores the fact that we have already invested $5 million to find out what is the cause and how do we treat it.

Nurseries in California are struggling with quarantines that have been put in place against them and their nursery products in Canada and also in our own country in Kentucky, and quarantines of nurseries in Washington State and Oregon State are also under scrutiny.

I have been advocating on behalf of funding to fight this disease since it first appeared in my district in Marin County in 1995. Sudden oak death continues in spite of my efforts and in spite of the $5 million that the Federal Government has invested in finding out the cause and what we can be doing about it. Sudden oak death continues to slowly but surely spread, and more and more communities around the country have come to understand that this disease is devastating, and it absolutely must be addressed.

And I remind you that sudden oak death's funding to date has not made a dent in the problem. In fact, the problem spreads.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this amendment before sudden oak affects the entire country. Please do not wait until this disease spreads to your own community before your beautiful trees, beautiful oak trees in Marin County or rhododendron plants around the country, before these trees and these plants turn brown, before they die, before they have to be taken away, before you recognize that this is a real problem and we must put the proper funding behind it. Vote yes on the Hooley-Wu amendment.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, DeForest Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and a Bush appointee, and I emphasize ``and a Bush appointee,'' asked Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to consider seeking the authority to postpone a Federal election. Specifically, he wants Ridge to push for legislation that will give his agency the authority to reschedule the November 2 Presidential election in the event of a terrorist threat or attack sometime near the election.

As a result of his request, the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what steps would need to be taken to postpone this year's Presidential election, what steps would need to be taken to postpone this year's Presidential election.

Mr. Speaker, this is nothing short of outrageous. I am appalled that this request is even being considered. The postponement of a Presidential election would present the greatest threat to date to our democratic process. It would be an admission of defeat to the terrorists, inviting them to disrupt this election of our highest leader.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

I am going to actually address that in a little bit.

It would also be unprecedented in our Nation's history.

Actually, in early 1864, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) just referred, President Abraham Lincoln feared that he would lose the Presidency due to widespread criticism of his handling of the Civil War. No President had won a second term since Andrew Jackson more than 30 years prior, and the Union had recently suffered a string of military disappointments.

Many of Lincoln's closest advisers urged him to postpone the election, but Abraham Lincoln never even considered that possibility, nor should we.

In response to calls for postponing the Presidential election, President Lincoln said the following in November of 1864: ``We cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might already fairly claim to have conquered or ruined us.''

The fight against terrorism, like the Civil War, will affect more than a generation of Americans, but we must be smart, smart about how we address the threat of terrorism, and we must make sure that in this long fight we do not lose what we are fighting for in the first place.

There must be a way to both fight terrorism and also hold on to democratic ideals that make our country great, and Mr. Speaker, there is.

I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, the SMART security resolution, which provides a better way to address the threat of terrorism. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism.

Preventing future acts of terrorism, SMART security is more vigilant than the President on fighting terror. Instead of emphasizing military force, it focuses on multilateral partnership and stronger intelligence capabilities to track and detain terrorists.

Unlike the defective and obtrusive USA Patriot Act, SMART security focuses on tracking and arresting those involved in terrorist attacks, while respecting human and civil rights.

Terrorism is an international problem, we all know that. So the fight against terrorism must involve the international community. That is why SMART security calls for working closely with the U.N. and NATO to achieve its goal. Only by actively involving other Nations in this fight can we hope to prevent future acts of terrorism.

In the spirit of being smart about our national security, I have written a letter to Secretary Ridge that has been signed by over 100 Members of Congress requesting that Secretary Ridge take no further steps to postpone this year's Presidential election. Wars, droughts, floods and hurricanes have not stopped elections, and the possibility of a terrorist attack must not stop one either. We cannot forget that elections are the very basis upon which our great American democracy was founded.

To ensure that the upcoming Presidential election is not postponed by the alarmist Bush administration, I urge all of my colleagues to add their signatures to this important letter to Secretary Ridge.