Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for leading this Special Order tonight. I thank him for his courageous leadership as a freshman.

Madam Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks about our previous speaker. While we address the Speaker, we are nonetheless cognizant at times many millions of Americans look into our deliberations on this floor, and I think it is altogether fitting to recognize that a freshman, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), arrived in this institution and brought her support for traditional marriage to the floor of this Congress, and has turned her face like flint against the

wind and has brought us to this point where we are on the eve of an enormously important vote in the life of our Nation, and I commend the gentlewoman for her tenacity and courage. To a lesser extent, I commend the people from Colorado for sending leaders like the gentlewoman to this institution.

That said, we are here tonight for the purpose of gathering thoughtful colleagues like the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and those that will follow to consider out loud what will no doubt be lost in sound and fury on this floor tomorrow when the Marriage Protection Act, a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the traditional terms as a union between a man and a woman, is brought to the floor of the House of Representatives.

There are those, and it is almost understandable in a season where a national election is just around the corner, there are those who will say this is politics. The more initiated among us would use phrases like ``wedge issues'' to explain the value of tomorrow's vote. But I must say and I believe I speak for the heart of this President whose moral courage has brought us to this vote today, of the leadership of this majority, of Republicans and even many Democrats who will tomorrow stand for this constitutional amendment when I say this is not about politics. This is, as the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) said, this is about who we are as a people. This is about the foundations of our society. It is about what it is we will hand on to our children and grandchildren.

In my judgment it all comes down to the simple belief, that is millenia old, that marriage matters. In one debate after another with some constituents in Indiana and in some national broadcast forums, I have allowed people who disagree with me on the need for a constitutional amendment. I have said if you do not think marriage matters to children, to communities, and thereby to the life of the Nation and to the vitality of our civil society, then I can understand why you would not be prepared to go to the necessary means of a constitutional amendment to defend it and define it in traditional terms.

But if you believe, as I do, and as survey after survey shows us, that the overwhelming majority of the American people do, that marriage matters, that far beyond the conviction that I share and that millions of Americans share that it first matters because it was ordained by God, we see it even beyond those terms as an institution upon which our society was founded. Rightly understood, marriage and the family is the first and original unit of government. It is the glue of the American family and it is the safest harbor for raising children.

None other than a predecessor who represented northeastern Indiana on this floor from 1976 to 1980, Dan Quayle, made this point when he was Vice President of the United States in 1992. Dan Quayle, against a withering assault, suggested in a national debate that the statistics proved that children who were raised, however imperfectly, in a two- parent home with a mother and father did significantly better in avoiding all types of social maladies than children, who for whatever reason, no fault of their own or their parents, found themselves in a different circumstance.

Dan Quayle's Murphy Brown speech became a national political joke, Madam Speaker, until after the election was over and the esteemed Atlantic Monthly Magazine pulled together a group of psychologists and sociologists and published in February 1993 that famous headline ``Dan Quayle Was Right''; because what Vice President Quayle said is even more true today, that children that are raised in traditional two- parent homes find themselves, for whatever reason, but looking at the facts, find themselves able to avoid a host of social maladies that beset our children: teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, falling into gang violence or drugs, dropping out of school. Children raised in two-parent homes are significantly less likely to fall into those maladies.

That is not to say that single parents are less significant to our Nation. My wife was raised by a single mom, and we laid her to rest early this year, and I honor single moms maybe more than any other moms in our Nation because they bear such an extraordinary burden with such dignity and grace.

But in the development of social policy, you recognize good, better, and best, and the reality is the sociologists have spoken; the unflagging truth of western civilization and of modern American history is that marriage matters to kids and therefore is worth being preserved.

My second and only other point before I yield to my colleagues is much addressed to all of us who will consider this debate on this floor tomorrow. I am a conservative Republican Member of this Congress, and yet I have noted there are conservative colleagues of mine who are troubled that we are bringing an amendment to the Constitution every bit as much as there are liberal Democrat colleagues of mine.

And so I wanted to take just a few more minutes to speak about why this Marriage Protection Act is necessary to amend the Constitution of the United States, because I truly believe that it is.

Let me say from my standpoint, the constitution of a nation rightly understood as the supreme law of the land of which it is a part is a document, yes; but as John Locke first described, it is part of a charter between the people. What I would offer today, the question is not whether our charter will be changed, or whether marriage will be defined one way or another in our social contract. Rather, it is whether that definition will be brought by the people in an orderly amendment process to the Constitution or whether this issue in a constitutional perspective will be decided by unelected Federal judges. That is it.

The point that I will make here in the few remaining minutes that I will take I hope, Madam Speaker, will make this point. This issue is coming to the fore. It is coming to our Federal courts. As I will prove in a few moments, the United States Supreme Court, which I venerate and respect, has in recent decisions signaled a willingness to extend the right of privacy to certain types of behavior which could very well, according to legal leading scholars, have laid the foundation to recognize gay marriage by a narrow majority of the Supreme Court.

Here is the record. Activist lawyers and their allies in the legal academy over the last decade have devised a strategy to override the public opinion that I described earlier which is, by one reckoning or another, by referendum in Missouri recently, 71 percent of the public affirmed the traditional definition of marriage, survey after survey shows the overwhelming majority of the American people support it, but there has been an effort to use the courts much in the same vein as in Roe v. Wade in 1973 to redefine the laws of all 50 States through judicial fiat.

They achieved their first success in 1999 when they convinced the Vermont Supreme Court that they should order the State legislature to legalize same sex marriage or create same sex civil unions. The legislature chose the latter despite strong public opposition. The activists won their second victory when they convinced the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to force that State to give full marriage licenses to same sex couples. Even though citizens of that State opposed same sex marriage and no law had ever been passed to authorize it, same sex marriage in Massachusetts became a reality on 17 May 2004.

The activists have, Madam Speaker, literally plotted a State-by-State strategy to increase the number of judicial decisions mandating same sex marriage. The goal is to force the same sex marriage issue on the Nation piecemeal and then to demand the United States Supreme Court order the holdout States to accept and do the same. It is a fairly transparent and ingenious legal strategy. And the United States Supreme Court has provided potent ammunition for these activists when they decided the Lawrence v. Texas case of June 2003. In that case, dealing with same sex sodomy, the Supreme Court strongly signaled that a right to same sex marriage could be found in the number of the Bill of Rights, in the so-called right of privacy of the U.S. Constitution. This, Madam Speaker, is precisely the same right that the late Justice Blackmun derived the right for

an abortion in 1973 in the infamous Roe v. Wade case.

Again I say, this Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas in June of 2003 signaled that a right to same sex marriage could be found in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, experts as varied as Laurence Tribe of Harvard and Justice Antonin Scalia agree that the court's decision points to the end of traditional marriage laws. Let me say it again. This is something of a consensus opinion when Justice Scalia on the right and the famed author and professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard on the left agree that the Texas case lays the foundation for essentially the redefinition of traditional marriage.

Activists are attempting to build on their successes as we speak. In Vermont, Massachusetts, and in the Supreme Court in the Lawrence case, same sex couples are now challenging marriage laws in my State of Indiana, California, Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia. In addition, lawsuits have been filed in Alaska and Montana to force those States to grant particular marital benefits to same sex couples. And while I support the Defense of Marriage Act strongly, according to many experts it provides a weak defense to these lawsuits. State and Federal courts are poised to strike down that law under the Constitution's equal protection and due process clauses and force recognition of same sex marriage.

The only way, therefore, Madam Speaker, to prevent this core societal decision which, as the gentleman from New Mexico said, is central to who we are as a people, it is central to that which we would bequeath to our children and grandchildren, the only way to prevent this core societal decision from being made by unelected judges is to allow the people to speak on this issue through the constitutionally mandated amendment process. This process which requires, and we will attempt to achieve it tomorrow, two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the States by votes of their legislature is the most dramatic grassroots political mechanism available to let the people speak.

Let me close and yield back to my colleague with that point. We are in the people's House. Our founding documents speak of we, the people. Abraham Lincoln, standing on what would become the graveyard at Gettysburg, spoke of a Nation of the people, by the people and for the people. Yet there are those, and we will hear it on this floor tomorrow, I suspect, Madam Speaker, who will make the case that rogue, unelected judges know better than the people of the United States and that somehow what we are doing on this floor tomorrow in an amendment to protect marriage as it is traditionally defined is somehow contrary to our best traditions.

I would offer to you as I close, our best tradition is that we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And when it comes to that institution which is marriage, which is so central to who we are, so necessary to the vitality of our society, we must hear from the people and that is what this majority will bring with our great leadership to the floor tomorrow for consideration.

I yield back my time with gratitude to the gentleman from New Mexico and my colleagues for being a part of this very important starting conversation about the Marriage Protection Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise in the midst of, I think, a very important debate on the floor of this Congress, although I am sure many of my constituents in Indiana wonder why we are debating such a contentious social issue in the midst of a critical National Defense Authorization Act. Nevertheless, we are here, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.

I deplore violence for any reason against any person; and I believe, without hesitation, that that is the view of the good and decent men and women who serve on the floor of this Congress. But I oppose the motion to instruct and hope our conferees will remove the so-referenced hate crimes language because in addition to questioning whether this issue has a place in the defense bill, I consider it, as many have argued more eloquently than me, unnecessary, repetitive of State jurisdiction, and it is constitutionally suspect, claiming as its constitutional basis the 13th amendment, which would likely be rejected in the courts, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) has argued.

But I rise today, Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and a civil libertarian deeply concerned over the issue of creating a crime for thought. It is difficult for me to understand how the governing of thought in any way, Madam Speaker, is consistent with the principles underlying a free society. That the Kennedy bill serves to punish thought per se is nowhere more obvious than in how, if passed, it will discredit the public mores of tens of millions of Americans on matters of sex and sexuality.

Specifically, the Kennedy language in the bill that we are considering includes a prohibition against gender-based and sexual- orientation-based crimes. As the 2001 committee report of the Senate committee on the bill made clear, the use of the term ``gender,'' instead of the proper term ``sex,'' is a deliberate effort to extend the law's protections to individuals in the categories of transvestites and those who have undergone sex change operations.

Obviously, Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that a great many Americans have deeply felt, sincerely held moral beliefs about homosexuality and about the various derivatives thereof. And make no mistake about it, the language in this legislation condemns implicitly those thoughts.

We all condemn actions that take the form of crimes, whatever their motivation. Crimes of violence are to be deplored, and they have been eloquently deplored by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle today. But legislation that focuses on the thoughts of Americans who have moral reservations about certain behavioral choices ought not to be a crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the American people made a choice. It was a choice between decades of a tax-and-spend Congress that believed America prospered when Washington had more of what people earn and a new Republican majority that believed that America prospers when the American people are able to keep more of what they earn.

That change has made all the difference in America today, welfare reform, the advances on traditional moral values. And every single year of the Republican majority, including again later today, this Republican majority has cut taxes on working families, small businesses and family farms.

The choice 10 years ago was clear. Another choice is just around the corner, between a party that believes that America prospers when government prospers and another party who believes that when the American people have more of what they earn to keep, that our Nation prospers as well.

Join us today as we cut taxes again and keep the promises of the Contract With America.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pledge Protection Act with a particular sense of gratitude to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), as well as the capable gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), who authored the legislation today.

The Pledge of Allegiance which we perform every day on the floor of this Congress reads: ``I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God.'' Two words in the pledge ``under God'' help in a very real way, Mr. Chairman, to define our national heritage as the beneficiaries of a Constitution that, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) said, was sent to the States for ratification ``in the Year of our Lord'' 1787.

Our Nation was established by a generation that saw itself in so many ways and by overwhelming numbers guided by a providential God who was not indifferent to the establishment of a free Nation on this continent, a Nation that would be, in John Winthrop's terms, a shining city on a hill, a Nation that both went to war and continues to fire the imagination of the world, as we heard today in the eloquent words of Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi.

Even in our own Declaration of Independence there is clear reference to the belief of our Founders that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.

In November of 1863, President Abraham Lincoln traveled not far from here, delivering the Gettysburg Address, the dedication of a cemetery at the site of that extraordinary battle, saying that ``we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.''

What Lincoln resolved that day under God, unfortunately, today, the Federal courts have put in jeopardy in one case after another, most notably the Newdow case. There have been Federal courts that have either struck the term ``under God'' from our Pledge or, in the case of the Supreme Court of the United States, simply deferred the decision altogether.

This, despite the fact that the American people overwhelmingly, in survey after survey, and more importantly, through votes here on the floor of the House of Representatives, have expressed their will on this matter in deafening terms.

The Congress itself, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) referred, has voted not once

but twice in recent days in overwhelming numbers, more than 400 of the 435 Members of Congress, reaffirming the inclusion of the words ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance.

Today, I expect in the course of this debate we will continue to hear a great deal about constitutional theory, which as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, as a man trained in the law, I have great and passionate interest in; but those who will come to this floor today and suggest that the Congress does not in effect possess the ability to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts do so in a way that virtually ignores the express language of the Constitution itself, which gives to the Congress the establishment of the jurisdiction of the courts.

Even the dean of the Stanford Law School wrote recently, ``the Constitution leaves room for countless political responses to an overly assertive court. Congress can strip it of its jurisdiction. The means are available, and they have been used to great effect when necessary, used, we should note, not by disreputable or failed leaders, but by some of the most admired Presidents and Congresses in American history.''

Far from violating separation of powers, legislation that leaves State courts the jurisdiction on issues of great and deep meaning to the American people is in keeping with our best tradition.

Let us say the American people will be heard, not lifetime-appointed judges, on the recognition that this is one Nation under God.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to welcome Dave and Kelly Keim of Berne, Indiana, to our Nation's capital. They are in town today to stand with many others in this building to oppose embryonic stem cell research.

Why would people come from Berne, Indiana? The answer can be found in their 18-month-old twins, Caroline and Spencer, who are a daily and profound reminder that embryonic adoption should be preferred in the law always over destroying human embryos for stem cell research.

Mr. Speaker, Caroline and Spencer Keim are fully human today, just as they were 18 short months ago when they were in the frozen embryonic stage of their development. They stand as a living testament to the truth that it would have been morally wrong to destroy their embryonic lives, even for well-intentioned medical research.

Ronald Reagan said it wisely in the year 1984, ``We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life, the unborn, without diminishing the value of all human life.''

Mr. Speaker, I welcome Dave and Kelly Keim and their two beautiful twins, Caroline and Spencer, to Washington today, and I thank them for their courageous stand for life in this critical issue of embryonic stem cell research.

Mr. Speaker, it is with particular pleasure that I rise to welcome the Reverend L. John Gable and his wife Kris to the Chamber of the United States House of Representatives today.

Reverend Gable is a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary as well as Hanover College in Hanover, Indiana, and his ministry has carried him through Ohio, Iowa, and now he serves as senior pastor for a decade at Crossroads Presbyterian Church in Mequon, Wisconsin. The Good Book says, ``If you owe debts, pay debts.'' I rise today to discharge a large one in my life, for it was 25 years ago as a young man at Hanover College that the then student John Gable, more than anyone else, challenged me to take seriously the claims of Christ. I will never forget the day, Mr. Speaker, that young John Gable said to me, ``Remember, Mike, you have got to wear it in your heart before you wear it around your neck.''

As those at Crossroads Presbyterian Church know and people in Ohio and Iowa and all over the country, John Gable has made a difference in America, in the lives of thousands, and he most certainly made a difference in mine. It is my pleasure to welcome the Reverend L. John Gable and his wife Kris to the United States House of Representatives today as our chaplain.

Mr. Speaker, the American Congress in 1776 adopted a Declaration of Independence which asserted the belief that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. In fact, the Congress that adopted the first amendment and its freedom of religion clause also established the chaplaincy and the practice, as we saw today, of opening this House in prayer.

Nevertheless, over the past 42 years, since the famous prayer in school cases, our Federal courts have showed increased hostility toward the acknowledgement of God in the public square. But as we heard yesterday before the Judiciary subcommittee, Congress can finally do something about it.

The Constitution Restoration Act simply put, Mr. Speaker, would use article III powers to deny the Federal courts jurisdiction over any case where the action is brought because a public official simply acknowledges God.

Let us restore that basic freedom of religion in the public square, the acknowledgment of God that our founders so cherished and enshrined in this institution. The freedom of religion must never become the freedom from religion. Let us pass the Constitution Restoration Act in this Congress.

Madam Speaker, 3 years ago this Saturday, at precisely this hour, I found myself standing in the sunlight of a September morning in this city near the elm tree on the Capitol grounds. Like so many of my colleagues, I experienced September 11 in Washington, D.C., and not just the smoke-filled skies and pandemonium that followed those moments, but I experienced the lack of deliberation that followed those times.

It is in that spirit that I rise, as I did the day the 9/11 Commission report was produced, to say that this Congress should proceed with deliberation, but as one of my Democrat colleagues said, with dispatch, in considering and enacting many, if not all, of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

The people of this country believe that they have sent us here, men and women in Congress, to consider the changes that are necessary to advance the security and liberty of the American people; not to write a blank check to independent commissions, but to deliberate, because, God forbid, should a day strike America like that day in September again, or like the days that have struck the people of Russia or of Spain in recent days, there will be a lack of deliberation, and the opportunity to thoughtfully consider these proposals will have gone by.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Neugebauer amendment as a commonsense statement about what I think the American people would have us do in this majority, and that is, after allowing our distinguished appropriators to do their level best in producing legislation that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has produced is to come to this floor and in the absence of a Presidential line item veto to try and do that ourselves.

The amendment in particular of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) in focusing, as it does, on funding that would in one case explore the value and merit of dormitory decorations is precisely that which, I believe if the President had a line item veto, would be struck from legislation again and again.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) is new to this institution, but he is demonstrating a courage and a conviction and, more to the point, a common sense that I think is a great value to this institution. I rise with great respect to the members of the committee who have produced this important and meritorious legislation to strongly support the Neugebauer amendment.

Bring common sense back to the spending process. Pass the Neugebauer amendment today.

Mr. Speaker, when Chuck Mosey of Richmond died unexpectedly last month, Richmond lost a leader and, like countless others who had the privilege to know him, I lost a friend. So much attention has rightly been paid to his role as a business leader, a son of Richmond who helped build Mosey Manufacturing into one of the largest employers in our city and rightly so. At a time when so many American business leaders seem willing to take the easy route to profits available to those willing to move jobs out of our community and country, Chuck Mosey traveled the world and proved that Hoosier companies and workers can compete on the world stage and win. Chuck was a fighter and Chuck fought for the jobs of the hundreds of Wayne County families that depended on his courage and vision every day. Chuck Mosey was from Richmond and he was determined to make his enterprise prosper in his hometown, and he succeeded.

And at a time when so many let work crowd out the most important people in their lives, Chuck Mosey applied the same commitment at home. His utter devotion to his Maxine, wife and mother to Scott and Christopher, was evident to anyone who knew him for more than five minutes. Every time I spoke to Chuck in the last year it was all about Maxine and his profound gratitude to those whose prayers and thoughtfulness had helped carry her through some recent difficult days. And Chuck loved his brothers and sisters but Steve and George were more than brothers, they were Chuck's best friends. As one of four boys myself, I know how challenging sibling relationships can be, but Chuck made it look easy. He did so by taking every opportunity to boast of his brothers, their accomplishments and integrity. I learned a lot about being a brother from Chuck Mosey.

Lastly, Chuck Mosey was a patriotic American who believed in the highest ideals of our Nation. His wit and insight once caused me to refer to him as the ``Will Rogers of Eastern Indiana,'' and so he was. During a recent heated debate in Congress, I called Chuck for some advice. I was determined to take a stand for fiscal responsibility and I figured he was the right guy to call to get a good perspective from home, and I'll never forget what he said. When I explained the latest bloated government proposal being brought before the Congress, Chuck Mosey said, ``Don't those people know how much money we don't have?'' We both burst out laughing but I was so moved by the simple wisdom of the statement that I returned to the floor of the Congress and used his line in the debate.

A business leader, devoted husband, father, brother and, in my life, a friend was lost to us but gained to heaven last week. Goodbye, Chuck. We will miss you for a while. I can't wait to hear what you have to say about heaven. I'm sure it will be priceless.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Marriage Protection Act. I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for his principled leadership on this issue.

The Marriage Protection Act is a constitutional remedy to a looming constitutional crisis. Let me say, despite what we have just heard on this blue and gold carpet, nothing in this bill shuts access by petitioners to any State court in the land. What brings us here today is that activist judges in some States are poised to force a new definition of marriage on States like Indiana, and the Marriage Protection Act will stop that strategy in its tracks.

Let me say clearly not on my watch will I stand idly by while the courts in Massachusetts redefine marriage in Indiana, and despite what my colleagues have said on the other side of the aisle about high principle and constitutional ideals and a history lesson, this is about marriage. The Bible says ``If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?'' And marriage is such a foundation in our society. Marriage was ordained by God, established in the law. It is the glue of the American family and the safest harbor to raise children. We must preserve and defend this foundation in our society, and we begin by defending the right of States like Indiana to define marriage as it has ever been defined and will always be defined in the hearts of the overwhelming majority of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in support of the fiscal year 2005 District of Columbia Appropriations Act and most especially the responsible educational choice scholarship provisions that were added in just last year's bill, provisions that reflect the support and leadership of Mayor Anthony Williams of the District of Columbia.

It was decades ago that a southern governor stood in the doorway of a public school and said to young African American children, because of their race, they may not come in. For years the education establishment stood in the schoolhouse door and said to the grandchildren of many of those Americans that, in the interest of preserving the establishment, they may not come out.

That wall, that barrier, started to crack in recent years in Wisconsin and in Ohio and last year here on the floor of the Congress when millions of dollars were made available for thousands of children in inner city schools that have been failing for decades here in the District of Columbia.

We have the opportunity today to renew the second year of the District of Columbia opportunity scholarships. I am confident we will. I rise to praise the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations and District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams for taking such a strong stand for educational opportunity for all the children of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lantos amendment, and I appreciate so much the gentleman's leadership on this, as much as I appreciate the strong leadership of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) on this legislation as a whole; excellently prepared, thoughtfully conceived.

I find it difficult to add to the arguments that have been made, so I will add a new argument. The State Department asserted earlier today that the United States had developed a strategic partnership with Egypt that has contributed to the global war on terrorism, stabilization, and reconstruction of Iraq.

If the truth be told, Mr. Chairman, Egypt has been largely absent from the war on terror, despite the contribution of $1.3 billion in military assistance by the people of the United States of America; despite its sizable and, we learned today, increasingly well-funded military force that has contributed no combat forces to our effort in Afghanistan; and, unlike Jordan, Egypt has not offered to send a single soldier to even help the Iraqi interim government establish peace and stability.

It is for these reasons that I think it is time to send a message to Egypt to transfer resources into humanitarian purposes and bring them on board on the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, last week was a dark day in the history of international law. By a vote of 14 to 1, the International Court of Justice at The Hague condemned Israel's right of self-defense in the construction of a security fence to protect innocent civilians from terrorist attacks.

During my visit to Israel in January, I saw firsthand, as I toured the fence, how the fence each and every day protects innocent civilians' lives. I came back and, along with the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), authored a resolution, cosponsored by 163 of my colleagues. Today, in form and fashion, this will come to the floor of Congress as H. Res. 713.

Today, Congress will respond by standing strongly and boldly with our precious ally, Israel, in her right to defend her own innocent civilians from terrorist assault. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors again and, of course, to support H. Res. 713, deploring the misuse of the International Court of Justice by a majority of the United Nations General Assembly for narrow political purposes.