Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) mentioned that Tony Hall was a friend to every Democrat and every Republican in this body. He and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) reached across the aisle united in a goal to alleviate hunger throughout the world, to be a friend to those who were sick and in need of hope. He is not only our friend but every sick child in every poor country of the world has a friend in Tony Hall. Anyone who goes to bed hungry in those countries tonight has an advocate in Tony Hall. And those that do not have a job in these poor countries that only wish to work and help bring up their children and educate them, they all have a tireless supporter in Tony Hall.

If anyone has done what we might say is the work of the Lord or of our God throughout this world it is Tony Hall.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) last year on the floor of this House described our colleague, former colleague, as the ``real deal,'' and he is the real deal. He was the same back in his district and here in Washington as when he goes to emerging third world countries. Back in his district, where he served for 24 years, the longest-serving Member from Dayton, Ohio, in the history of this Congress, he organized programs to take surplus and leftover food down to the shelters in his district, homeless shelters. And through those programs today on the streets of Dayton and other cities in Ohio, people will go to bed tonight with food in their stomachs because of his efforts in their own hometown.

When he was in Washington, he was a tireless advocate. You may recall in 1993 as chairman of the House Select Committee on Hunger that that committee was abolished. Tony Hall went on a hunger strike not for one day, not for 5 days, not for 10 days, but for 22 days. He fasted and went without food. Now that is commitment. That is a ministry.

Now today he is doing the same thing as our ambassador to the U.N. agency in Rome. He is not riding a desk. He is not sitting back and have others report to him. He is going out. And his average day is not spent in Rome, but it is spent traveling throughout the world, seeing firsthand, witnessing these different programs, finding out those that work and improving them, finding out those that do not work and are failing. And even today, he is doing what he did here. Poor children, those that are sick, those that are without hope, Tony Hall today in his travels throughout the world is making a better life for them and for us.

Let me close by simply discussing two things. One is a 3-page resume, but it is really a witness to a life well served, a life of commitment and devotion, a ministry and a passion that Tony Hall has to the poor and the hungry and the hopeless of this world. UNICEF awards, Oxfam awards, Bread for the World Award, numbers of awards. But Tony Hall would say, Do not recognize me for that. Recognize me for the hope that I have brought to the world, to the poor and the sick and the hopeless.

I also would like to introduce this 3-page document, a life well lived, a life really which ought to be honored, and a courthouse is the least thing we should do for him, but also a tribute that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) gave to this great American, this great individual, Tony Hall. And to him and his wife, Janet, I give my sincere and utmost thanks for everything they have done to make this a better world for all of us.

Ambassador Tony P. Hall

Three times nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, Ambassador

Tony P. Hall is a leading advocate for hunger relief programs

and improving human rights conditions in the world. In

February 2002, President George W. Bush asked him to serve as

the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies

for Food and Agriculture. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate

and was sworn in by Secretary of State Colin Powell in

September 2002.

Prior to entering the diplomatic corps the Dayton, Ohio

native represented the Third District of Ohio in the U.S.

House of Representatives for almost twenty-four years, their

longest serving representative in history. During his tenure,

he was chairman of the House Select Committee on Hunger and

the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Hunger. He founded and

was one of two House members on the steering committee of the

Congressional Friends of Human Rights Monitors. He authored

legislation that supported food aid, child survival, basic

education, primary health care, micro-enterprise, and

development assistance in the world's poorest countries.

Ambassador Hall also founded and chaired the Congressional

Hunger Center, a non-governmental organization committed to

ending hunger through training and educational programs for

emerging leaders.

A founding member of the Select Committee on Hunger, Mr.

Hall served as its chairman from 1989 to 1993. During this

time, he initiated legislation enacted into law to fight

hunger-related diseases in developing nations. He sponsored a

successful 1990 emergency measure to assist state-run Women,

Infants and Children (WIC) programs. Mr. Hall helped to

establish a clearinghouse that provided food through

gleaning, a process of gathering grains and produce left on

the ground after harvesting. Mr. Hall has worked to promote

micro-enterprise to reduce joblessness. In response to the

abolishment of the Hunger Committee in April 1993, he fasted

for 22 days to draw attention to the needs of hungry people

in the United States and around the world.

In his efforts to witness the plight of the poor and hungry

first-hand, he has visited poverty-stricken and war-torn

regions in more than 100 countries. He was the first Member

of Congress to visit Ethiopia during the great famine of

1984-5. He has visited North Korea six times since 1995, and

was one of the first Western officials to see the famine

outside of the capital, Pyongyang. In 2000, he became the

first Member of Congress to visit Iraq to investigate the

humanitarian situation. During his second week as Ambassador,

he traveled to Zimbabwe and Malawi to see the food deficit

crisis in southern Africa.

Mr. Hall has worked actively to improve human rights

conditions around the world, especially in the Philippines,

East Timor, Paraguay, South Korea, Romania, and the former

Soviet Union. In 2000, he introduced legislation to end the

importation of conflict diamonds mined in regions of Sierra

Leone, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 1983

he founded the Congressional Friends of Human Rights

Monitors. In 1999, he was a leader in Congress calling for

the United States to pay its back dues to the United Nations.

In 1997 and 2000, Mr. Hall introduced legislation calling on

Congress to apologize for slavery. He also has worked at

promoting reconciliation among diverse peoples through a

number of private initiatives.

In 1964 Mr. Hall graduated from Denison University in

Granville, Ohio where he was a Little All-American football

player. During 1966 and 1967, Mr. Hall taught English in

Thailand as a Peace Corps Volunteer. He returned to Dayton to

work as a realtor and he was a small businessman for several

years. Mr. Hall and his wife Janet raised two children.

Mr. Hall served in the Ohio House of Representatives from

1969 to 1972, and in the Ohio Senate from 1973 to 1978. On

November 7, 1978, Mr. Hall was selected to the 96th Congress.

He served on the Foreign Affairs and Small Business

Committees before being appointed to the Rules Committee at

the beginning of the 97th Congress.

Ambassador Hall was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for

1998, 1999 and 2001 for his humanitarian and hunger-related

work. For his hunger legislation and for his proposal for a

Humanitarian Summit in the Horn of Africa, Mr. Hall and the

Hunger Committee received the 1992 Silver World Food Day

Medal from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Mr. Hall

is a recipient of the United States Committee for UNICEF 1995

Children's Legislative Advocate Award, U.S. AID Presidential

End Hunger Award, 1992 Oxfam America Partners Award, Bread

for the World Distinguished Service Against Hunger Award, and

NCAA Silver Anniversary Award. He received honorary Doctor of

Laws degrees from Asbury College, Antioch College and Eastern

College and a Doctor of Humane Letters degree from Loyola

College in Baltimore. In 1994, President Clinton nominated

Mr. Hall for the position of UNICEF Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, our prayer today was offered by Pastor Aubry Wallace. Pastor Wallace is joined by his wife, Shirley. They just celebrated their 51st anniversary. Pastor Wallace and Shirley are the parents of four children. Three of them are serving our country and have served our country.

Their son was in the Navy and was deceased while serving. They have another son, who is a Marine, and another that has served in the Air Force.

He has pastored three churches in Chilton County, where he is beloved. He also serves as a chaplain for the Chilton County Sheriff's Department, and one of the things I am most proud of him is for his ministry to prisoners there in the Chilton County Jail. He has and is making a difference. He is over a 20-year veteran of the Air Force, where he served in Vietnam for 7 years.

So we are very proud of him this morning and thank him very much.

Mr. Speaker, year after year thousands upon thousands of Americans die

of illicit drugs. Year after year billions upon billions of dollars end up in the hands of the cartel bosses who traffic these deadly goods. The flow of drugs will only stop if the flow of money can be contained. It can only be contained if our allies all over the world work together with us to rid the world of that terrible scourge. I rise today to pay tribute to one of those important allies, the Caribbean nation of Aruba. This small island state is leading the way in efforts to counter drug trafficking and drug-related money laundering.

In the past, money laundering organizations have attempted to use Aruba's offshore banking and incorporation systems, free-zone areas, and resort/casino complexes to transfer and to launder drug proceeds. However, the timely implementation and rigorous enforcement of anti money-laundering and asset-seizure laws have set an example for others to follow.

Prime Minister Nelson Oduber and the Government of Aruba should be commended for recently issuing several decrees on money laundering that include increased oversight of casinos and insurance companies. The Government of Aruba also is in the process of instituting reporting requirements for cross-border currency movements in excess of 20,000 Aruban florins, approximately US$11,200. Aruba has a Financial Intelligence Unit and is a member of the Egmont Group, an international group of financial intelligence units.

The Aruba Organized Crime Unit and the Criminal Intelligence Unit of the Coast Guard of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba fight drug trafficking right alongside the United States Drug Enforcement Agency. Furthermore, Aruba serves as one of two forward operating locations in the Caribbean for U.S. counterdrug aircraft. The forward operating location, located at Queen Beatrix Airport near Oranjestad, provides a landing and servicing area for counterdrug detection and monitoring missions in the region.

For this cooperation, I would like to express the heartfelt thanks of the American people. With allies like Aruba on our side, we can win this war, too.

Mr. Chairman, let me first start out by saying that the 9/11 Commission said that the work of the Committee on Financial Services and the legislation that we passed in the aftermath of 9/11 had worked very well, very well, to make it much harder today, and this is some very good news for all Americans as a result of the Patriot Act and also President Bush's Executive Order 13224, they said the combination of our efforts and the efforts of the Treasury Department, of FinCEN and OFAC, the Justice Department and the State Department and others, that today it is much harder, much harder for al Qaeda to raise money. It is much more difficult for them to conceal that money and it is much more difficult for them to move that money. They said that we had identified almost 400 terrorist financiers or people that facilitated the funding of terrorists. We have made it much harder, and we have chilled donations. We have decreased donations to a great degree.

And let me deal with just two of those. One is the Executive Order that President Bush offered only 2 weeks after 9/11, 13224. As a result of that, we have actually identified millions of dollars, not only here but overseas, of al Qaeda money. We have seized that money. We have designated terrorist facilitators, and, finally, we have actually under that and under PATRIOT

Act title III, section 311, we have identified banks that were actually involved in taking money for the terrorists and transferring that.

We only have seven countries today in the world that have not cooperated with us in one respect or another. We have come from 58 countries at the time of 9/11 that were actively involved in tracking and seizing terrorist financing to about 100 countries that are doing an exceptional job. And, in fact, 209 countries are actually making financing efforts to combat terrorist financing, 174 countries. We have built quite a coalition when it comes to disrupting terrorist financing, 174 countries. Contrast that to 58 countries at the start of our efforts. Today, 174 countries are seizing terrorist finances and have offered freezing orders. We have had great successes.

The 9/11 Commission did say that it was essential that we allow the Treasury Department, FinCEN to have some new ways of working with foreign governments, and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) has included in this provision, and this is very important that we get this through, actually some implementation legislation that will allow us to better cooperate and coordinate with those foreign governments that want to ally with us and our efforts. As a result of the train bombings in Madrid, the bombings in Moscow, the bombings in Casablanca and Istanbul, these countries are ready to help us, but we do need to change these laws.

I would urge us to pass this legislation. It passed out of committee overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way. It is very important.

And I would close by saying that we have got a counterfeiting measure in this. The law says we have got to catch the counterfeiters. Just the fact that we have counterfeiting equipment is not enough. It is in this provision. We need to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said what he wanted to do, he wanted to establish a homosexual marriage as a fundamental constitutional right that the Federal Government would have to not only secure but to protect. That is what he wants to do. When he does that, here is why we are opposed to that. When he does that, he undermines, he not just expands marriage, he alters it to the core. He totally severs it from its whole purpose, and that is the relationship between a man, a woman, and a child.

Marriage is one of the most fundamental institutions of a civil society. That would simply cripple it. We are not talking about expanding a right, extending rights or benefits. We are talking about destroying an institution which has preserved and protected us.

Our decision today will define us as a Nation. It will define us as a people. It will be a predictor of our future and where our future would be. The only responsible thing for us to do today is to defend the institution of marriage and send this amendment to the States for ratification.

A concerted legal and political effort, lead by activist judges, is attempting to affirm homosexual marriage as a fundamental civil right that the Federal Government has a constitutional obligation to secure and protect.

In doing so, they are undermining one of the most basic and sacred institutions that exist in an orderly, stable civil society--marriage.

What is happening is not a slight change in degree that merely extends benefit or rights to a larger class, but a substantive change in the essence of the institution. It does not expand marriage; it alters its core meaning, for to redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and children would sever the institution from its nature and its purposes.

In response, the most important and responsible step Congress can take to reserve marriage is to send a constitutional amendment that protects the institution of marriage to the States for ratification.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time, and let me start by saying that we all are opposed to hate crimes. They are a terrible thing, and any legislation that had a positive effect on stopping hate crimes I would be here supporting.

I sincerely believe by looking at this legislation that this legislation could not only interfere with our ability to, as a practical matter and in an effective manner, prosecute hate crimes; it

also would have some serious consequences for our enforcement of other laws which now exist.

I say also say that, first of all, there is already Federal hate crime legislation on the book, and I think it is well and narrowly drafted and takes care of the situation. So saying that, let me give my colleagues reasons why I feel that this legislation is a step back, not a step forward.

Look at this legislation. Hate crime, the language is so overbroad that hate is not even required. Nowhere in the legislation does it talk about hate. What that would do is that hate or any other type of animus is not even an element of this so-called hate crime legislation. It is not even in here. So if someone commits some certain broadly defined acts, and it says because if someone commits an act because of someone's race, sex, disability or sexual orientation, it violates this vague law.

If someone commits a crime because of someone's race because of someone's sex, is not all rape committed because of someone's sex? Could not that argument be made? So are we suddenly saying that all rape cases, almost all rape cases will be federalized? I mean, only a few rapists at the very most are indifferent to the sex of their victims. So we would be federalizing all rape cases.

Even assume that there is a need for a Federal hate crimes law. This is a poorly drafted bill. It should be debated. It should be amended significantly in committee before it is considered by the full House and the Senate because of this one thing, because we are fixing to federalize all rape cases.

Second, I believe that this actually could have a negative effect on our national security. Let me tell my colleagues why I believe that. This proposed legislation would swamp Federal law enforcement responsibilities; and in doing so, it would certainly distract them from some of our national goals. Now, more than ever, Federal law enforcement officers and prosecutors must concentrate their scarce resources on combating national threats or uniquely Federal crimes, and hate crime, there is not anything uniquely Federal about that. Those that commit them are doing it because of hate, not because of some Federal jurisdiction.

Terrorism, we have got our hands full of terrorism. On the Federal level with kidnapping cases, with auto theft, with espionage cases, to divert all our resources over to hate crimes and take them away from our State and local prosecutors and our State prosecutors is a tremendous redeployment of our resources.

I also fear that Federal officials might selectively enforce the law. The only other option for Federal officials other than seriously abandoning their other vital responsibilities is to enforce hate crime laws in a highly selective way. That increases the risk of politicizing prosecutions. If we federalize all these vague types of crimes, like all rape cases, they are going to have to pick and choose which ones they prosecute. Using the criminal enforcement agencies for political or ideological purposes, picking and choosing which cases to prosecute, by its very definition that is tyrannical.

A very important point, I think this legislation is going to undermine State and local criminal enforcement. Because of the broad expanse of Federal hate crime laws in this definition, I think it undermines State and local efforts to fight crime in several ways. It would undermine the morale of our frontline State and local law enforcement officials because it tells them they cannot handle this traditional role that they have been handling, prosecuting rape cases, prosecuting murder cases, prosecuting assault cases.

All of the sudden we are telling them this is such a serious problem, they are doing such a lousy job, we are going to take jurisdiction away from the State, and only the Federal Government has the ability to prosecute these cases. As I said, there is already a narrowly and well- constructed Federal hate law, and I have looked at this. Every one of these acts, and maybe the gentleman could respond to this, defined in this already constitutes hate crimes and are prosecuted by State courts today. Not a one of these things is a new crime.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Madam Speaker, I think that is actually predictable and let me tell my colleague why.

Some States, but not all of them, but some of them already have hate crimes statutes, and they can already prosecute these cases; but all States, all of them, prosecute murder cases. They all prosecute assault cases. They all prosecute assault with intent to murder cases. They all today prosecute a battery case as a battery, assault as assault, rape as rape, murder as murder.

What this would do is it would expand the jurisdiction. In every one of those cases, a person could go to Federal court or State court, every one of them, and, yes, the States are strapped for money. The counties are strapped for money. Sure, they would like for us to come in and pass a law that suddenly says that every crime out there, even armed robbery with a pistol or robbery, all of those, but particularly rape, murder, assault, battery cases, assault with intent to murder, suddenly these are all Federal cases, yes.

I mean, from a money standpoint, how many Federal courts are we going to build? We would have to double the size of the Federal court, and sure, there are States that would just as soon take all these responsibilities away from them. There are other States, other law enforcement agencies, that think that their States are doing a good job.

As I said, all of these acts defined by this thing are today prosecuted by the States and prosecuted in State court. The only difference is we are going to let all of them go to Federal court now, and I do not think that is a good idea. Maybe this is an indictment saying the State courts are doing a horrible job. I do not know which States are doing a horrible job.

Final point. Murderers who face the death penalty under State law, now listen to this, murderers who face the death penalty under State law are not going to be deterred by an additional Federal hate crime law, especially a proposed Federal law that does not have the death penalty.

We are going to pass this, and we are going to end up with somebody being prosecuted in Federal Court that could have gotten the death penalty in State court and we will not be able to give the death penalty in Federal Court. Now, a lot of Members think that is just fine because it does away with the death penalty in a number of cases. It does in this.

And last, it is no less horrible for someone to be molested or murdered because the murderer liked him or her or than because the murderer hated him or her. If somebody kills me and they liked me, or at one time they were a friend of mine, I am just as dead. And I do not think that part of every case ought to be a day or two where we determine how much hate there was involved in the case.

Let us prosecute and convict them and get them off the streets and quit this tremendous shift to Federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I too want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). As the gentleman knows, I have been a member of this Congress since 1992; and it seems like ever since I have been a member of this Congress, we have been hearing about Sudan. We first heard about Sudan when the Secretary of State declared Sudan a state sponsor of terrorism and determined that they had been since 1993.

We may recall that Osama bin Laden, who many of us were unaware of who he was and what he was until 9/11, but he in fact had his base of operations in Sudan. He was sponsored by the government of Khartoum. It is the same Sudan that we are here today talking about. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), Senator Brownback, many have traveled to Sudan. We have talked to refugees. We have talked to survivors from Southern Sudan, people who have witnessed their families being killed.

At that time we suspected that religion may be the root cause because many of those in Southern Sudan were Christians. The Khartoum government was a Muslim government. All was a factor. But whatever the factors, we spoke out and as this House sponsored a sanction, a similar sanction to what the U.N. is considering now against the oil. The Sudanese government duly pulled back at that time, and we passed with only two dissenting votes. It was a strong sanction. It went over to the Senate, and it died there.

Since that time, the one difference in the sanctions that are being considered now and the sanctions that were being considered then is that 2 million Sudanese have died. Action is too late for them. Their bones have long since been buried in Sudan where there are too many graves.

This latest action by Sudan, and all this time they were members of a select group, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, a country where we have witnessed the worst human rights violations and the worst humanitarian violations known to the world, has sat this entire time on the U.N. body that is designed to take action against. What a travesty. What an embarrassment. What a blight on our international community and on the U.N.

This resolution is a start; but, I would say, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I had thought maybe he might do it today, he introduced back on September 9 ``Documenting Atrocities in Darfur.'' And what we are now witnessing in Western Sudan, for a while in Southern Sudan it was hidden, and there were explanations given by the Sudanese government. There is no explanation. There is no justification. There is no, there are simply no grounds for what is happening in Western Sudan today.

It follows a pattern. And the Sudanese government says we cannot control these Arab militia, Janjaweed. We cannot control them. They say this is a historic thing between nomadic Arab tribesmen and black farmers, and it is just something that has gone on for hundreds of years.

What has gone on for hundreds of years is they have lived peacefully together for hundreds of years. What is going on today is not an Arab militia out of control. It is, in fact, the government of Khartoum.

Thirteen hundred survivors were interviewed, and 25 percent of them said it was not Arab militia. It was government bombers and aircraft and helicopters who flew over our villages, strafed our villages, killed our people. It was not Arab militia because the Arab militia did not have aircraft. They did not have helicopters. This was the government of Khartoum.

Of those interviewed, half of the survivors say that government troops participated in these raids and in these attacks. Read, if you will, what some of these refugees said. Here is what one said. He said, ``Slaves run. Leave the country. You don't belong here. Why are you not leaving this area? This area is for Arab cattle to go graze, not yours.''

A Sudanese tribesman was told by a man in a brown uniform and a hundred of his followers, ``This place belongs to Arab tribes. Blacks must leave.''

Look, if you will. I would ask every Member to read ``Documenting Atrocities in Darfur.'' It is only five pages long.

First, the government aircraft comes in and strafes the village, and then the Janjaweed or government soldiers come in. They burn the village. They kill the livestock, they drop them down the wells to poison the wells, but then they began shouting racial epithets at the survivors. They rape women in front of their husbands and children. They kill any young man that is of military age between the ages of 18 and 25 and then they drive the rest off.

Today, as a result of all this, what do we find? We find that 1.25 million Sudanese are living in refugee camps. Those are the fortunate ones that have survived, but they are not fortunate by any other terms because they are at this time permanently displaced.

Let me say this. This is what we should always be mindful of. We need a permanent solution. What the Sudanese Government has done is, they have allowed humanitarian aid to come in on occasion to feed these people in these refugee camps. They have talked to some of the leaders of the opposition. They have engaged in talks, and they have allowed government troops from other areas to come in and protect the refugee camps. But all of this time, they have not gone after the Arab militia.

They have not controlled them. They are continuing to arm them, and they go out in the villages and destroy villages, this month, last month. And their design is to never let these people return home, never to let them go home, to allow them to stay in these refugee camps, a permanently displaced population of millions of people, and let international forces feed those people. That simply will not do.

Those people need to return to their villages. They need to be protected. These Arab militia and their leaders need to be brought to justice, and we can at least start this process.

The last time we voted sanctions on Sudan, 3 years ago and a million deaths ago, two Members of this body voted against it. Today, I hope, as God is our witness, that this is a unanimous vote and that it is not the end of things, it is only the beginning of things.

I second everything that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said about the United Nations. This is genocide in every sense of the word. It is ethnic cleansing in every sense of the word. And for it to be permitted, sanctioned by the United Nations is a travesty and an atrocity in and of itself.

Analysis of the refugee interviews points to a pattern of

abuse against members of Darfur's non-Arab communities,

including murder, rape, beatings, ethnic humiliation, and

destruction of property and basic necessities. Many of the

reports detailing attacks on villages refer to government and

militia forces, preceded by aerial bombardment, acting

together to commit atrocities. Respondents said government

and militia forces wore khaki or brown military uniforms.

Roughly one-half of the respondents noted GOS forces had

joined Jingaweit irregulars in attacking their villages.

Approximately one-quarter of the respondents said GOS forces

had acted alone; another 14 percent said the Jingaweit has

acted alone. Two-thirds of the respondents reported aerial

bombings against their villages; four-fifths said they had

witnessed the complete destruction of their villages. Sixty-

one percent reported witnessing the killing of a family

member. About one-third of the respondents reported hearing

racial epithets while under attack; one-quarter witnessed

beatings. Large numbers reported the looting of personal

property (47 percent) and the theft of livestock (80

percent).

Most reports followed a similar pattern:

1. GOS aircraft or helicopters bomb villages.

2. GOS soldiers arrive in trucks, followed closely by

Jingaweit militia riding horses or camels.

3. GOS soldiers and militia surround and then enter

villages, under cover of gunfire.

4. Fleeing villagers are targets in aerial bombing.

5. The Jingaweit and GOS soldiers loot the village after

most citizens have fled, often using trucks to remove

belongings.

6. Villages often experience multiple attacks over a

prolonged period before they are destroyed by burning or

bombing.

Mr. Chairman, I think if the Members back in their offices were listening to this debate, they would be sufficiently confused. I think the reason they would be confused is because something said by both the opponents and the proponents of this amendment is true. I think there is a great deal of frustration over the use of these cards, and I think that is the reason that the gentleman from Texas and others are supporting this amendment.

Unfortunately, the amendment does not accomplish what they want to accomplish, and that is to make our Nation more secure. I do not question the sincerity of the gentleman and the frustration of he and the supporters of this amendment, but I simply ask us all to take a deep breath and to actually look at what this amendment does.

Now, the underlying section is section 326, and it has been called the cornerstone of our money laundering efforts. We have letters from the Department of Justice and from the Treasury Department saying it is absolutely essential for an effective anti-money laundering program. Section 326, it is there.

Now, because of frustration with these cards, the gentleman from Texas has offered an amendment which stops the Treasury Department and FinCEN from issuing regulations or carrying out regulations or enforcing the provisions of 326.

Now, just 2 weeks ago, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission came to this Congress and testified before our committee and commended our committee for the passage of 326. Unfortunately, what we are all caught in here tonight is that section 326 is not self-executing. It requires regulations to be issued.

So the gentleman from Texas has offered, and successfully in the subcommittee, an amendment which really prevents Treasury from administering or enforcing regulations pursuant to section 326. Now that is what the gentleman's amendment does. I hope we can all agree to that. It basically shuts down 326. For that reason, I have to oppose it.

Several of the things the gentleman said tonight, I think, are true. I think there are problems with this card. I think some of the things that the proponents have said are also true about the policy of excluding a certain nationality. That is also very troublesome.

In conclusion, I cite a letter from the Department of Justice which also says, ``including the FBI''; this letter is signed by the deputy attorney general. And I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) was probably caught off guard because when he first rose in this body, he said Treasury was on one side, and law enforcement and Justice was on the other side. That is really not true.

I think, had the gentleman gotten an effective remedy, that is true, but the Department of Justice, including the FBI, asked that we defeat this and says, if we do not, there will be many dangers associated.

If the gentleman from Ohio will continue to yield, that is right, they are in favor of the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment, and I include for the Record this letter to that effect.

Department of Justice, Office of

the Deputy Attorney General,

Washington, DC, September 14, 2004.

Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Justice fully supports

the Administration's current policy under the USA PATRIOT Act

that requires banks and other financial institutions to

establish reasonable procedures for the identification and

verification of new account holders, which is set forth in

regulations of the Department of the Treasury. Therefore the

Department supports the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment to H.R.

5025 that preserves these regulations.

One concern addressed by the regulations is the danger

associated with driving sectors of the population into

unregulated, underground financial service providers, such as

unregulated hawalas, where persons may be more exposed to

elements involved in money laundering and terrorist

financing. In order to counter this concern, the Justice

Department supports the Administration's determination to

permit--but not encourage--the acceptance of Matricula

Consular cards by financial institutions, under circumstances

where financial institutions reasonably believe they can

properly identify the new customer. Of course, the

Administration will continue to evaluate the security and

reliability of identification documents, including Matricula

Consular cards, that potentially are subject to misuse.

The Department of Justice, including the FBI, continue to

work closely with the Treasury Department on this and other

issues related to halting all financing of terrorists. If we

can be of further assistance regarding this or any other

matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Sincerely,

James B. Comey,

Deputy Attorney General.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa and the gentleman from New Jersey, who certainly disagree, but they both have one thing in common: They are both wrong.

This is about 326, which is a terrorist financing bill. That is what it is about. And to try to unscramble this egg, I do not think I have ever seen this body so confused, but let us say we took the gentleman's amendment off and we took 326 off because that is what will happen either way tonight, and then what we will have is we will go back to the present system where 350 banks today are accepting these cards. So if the gentleman's amendment passes, we will have no regulations, no monitoring, and they will continue to accept the cards. If the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Oxley) amendment passes, then the banks can accept the cards. The 350 will probably go ahead and accept them. The others will not, and as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) said, nothing in the regulations say that a bank has to accept these cards. Some of them are doing it now, and they can continue to do it. And the Members need to know that. They are accepting them today, and these regulations are not in force.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to agree with what the gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from Virginia said on the other side. They said we are talking about fundamental rights here. They said what we are talking about, this decision today, defines us as Americans, that this is about who we are as Americans. I want to agree with that. This is an important decision, one that defines us as a country.

Who should make that decision? The gentleman from Maryland said an individual, every individual, ought to make that decision about marriage. Is that so? A man and a woman? Or two men? Or two women? What about a man and two women? What about a man and three women? What about a man and his first cousin? What if a man chooses to marry his daughter? Is that not an individual decision? Of course not. What if a man decides to marry a 12-year-old young lady? We said, no, that is not an individual decision. It is a decision of law. That is who makes it. The people make it the law.

The gentleman from Maryland said we are a Nation of laws, not people; and that is why it is up to the people to make the decision through their elected Members, their elected representatives, not the courts.

What about letting the courts be the final arbiter of the Constitution? Thomas Jefferson said on August 18, 1821 that it was a very dangerous doctrine for the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of what the law is. He said in 1820, it would be an act of suicide for the Supreme Court or a judge to make the law. An act of suicide. He said letting the Supreme Court fix the law would be for the people to give up their own ability to rule themselves.

Mr. Speaker, as I close, I submit for printing in the Record quotes from Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson all saying that it is the legislature who makes the law as representatives of the people.

America's greatest leaders have long been concerned about

limiting federal judges' abuse of their authority.

Deep concern that federal judges might abuse their power

has long been noted by America's most gifted observers,

including Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

Thomas Jefferson lamented that ``the germ of dissolution of

our federal government is in the constitution of the federal

judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day,

gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing

its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of

jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped . . .'' In

Jefferson's view, leaving the protection of individuals'

rights to federal judges employed for life was a serious

error. Responding to the argument that federal judges are the

final interpreters of the Constitution, Jefferson wrote:

``You seem . . . to consider the [federal] judges as the

ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very

dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under

the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as

other men and not more so. They have with others the same

passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their

corps . . . [T]heir power [is] the more dangerous as they are

in office for life and not responsible, as the other

functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution

has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to

whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and

party its members would become despots.''

Jefferson strongly denounced the notion that the judiciary

should always have the final say on constitutional issues:

``If [such] opinion be sound, then indeed is our

Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For

intending to establish three departments, coordinate and

independent, that they might check and balance one another,

it has given according to this opinion, to one of them alone,

the right to prescribe rules for the government of the

others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and

independent of the nation . . . The constitution, on this

hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the

judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they

please.''

Abraham Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in

1861, ``The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of

the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole

people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the

Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their

own rulers having, to that extent, practically resigned their

government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today as a sponsor of H.R. 2768, the John Marshall Commemorative Coin Bill. The Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee has recommended that a coin commemorating the 250th anniversary of Chief Justice John Marshall be minted in 2005.

John Marshall's service to United States--not only as Chief Justice, but also as a soldier in the Revolutionary War, as a Member of Congress, and as Secretary of State--truly makes him one of the most unique and important figures in our Nation's history. A commemorative coin in his honor would be a fitting way to mark the 250th anniversary of his birth.

One occasionally hears the expression that an institution is the lengthened shadow of a individual. One would be remiss in suggesting that an institution such as the Supreme Court, an institution that has endured for over 200 years, could be the lengthened shadow of any one individual; but surely if there is one individual who could possibly qualify for such a distinction, it would be John Marshall.

John Marshall served as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, much of that time spent in this very building, holding the longest tenure of any Chief Justice in the Nation's history. He authored more than 500 opinions, including virtually all of the most important cases that the Court decided during his tenure. Under his leadership, the Supreme Court gave shape to the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

Neither Marshall nor the Court has previously been honored with a commemorative coin. One in his honor would be a fitting way to mark the 250th anniversary of his birth. Furthermore, to those concerned with the expense incurred from the creation of this coin, surcharges received by the Secretary from the sale of the coins will be paid by the Secretary of Treasury to the Supreme Court Historical Society to support historical research and educational programs about the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the United States; to support fellowship programs, internships, and docents at the Supreme Court; and to collect and preserve antiques, artifacts, and other historical items related to the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the United States. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on what the gentleman from California said about this very simple amendment, and it is a very simple amendment. It simply says that if Mohamad Atta, you remember him, the leader of the 19 hijackers, if Mohamad Atta had been caught in this country prior to 9/11, this act would prohibit him from being classified as an enemy combatant. It would prohibit the funds to hold him for more than 30 days; it would prohibit the Justice Department from using any money to designate him as an enemy combatant.

If a terrorist in Iraq blows up a car bomb and it kills 50 people, he can be held an unlimited amount of time. If he is in the United States, this says if he is in the United States, whether he is a citizen or not, he cannot be held for over 30 days, and this says no funds may be used to classify any person as an enemy combatant.

Mr. Chairman, we are in a war; and there are people in this country who are against us, and they need to be designated as such.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

First I want to start by agreeing with something that the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) has said today, something that was published in the newspaper The American Banker this morning. He was talking about the amendment which he now brings to the floor. What he says about it is, ``This is a crazy way to do it.'' I would agree with that. It is, as he said, ``This is a crazy way to do it.''

The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) has said this is an important issue. I agree with him; it is an important issue. It is one that ought to be debated. It is one that ought to be addressed. And, in fact, the Committee on Financial Services has had two hearings on this matter. Numerous Members, including the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), to name two, have introduced legislation to address this OCC issue. The committee is working on it.

This particular amendment actually goes to the heart of the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction. This is something that ought to be before the Committee on the Judiciary, because what it is, and I go back to what the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) says, and I agree with him, he says, what we are trying to do here is effectively pull the teeth out of the regulations. In other words, the OCC passed some regulations, he does not agree with those regulations, so he wants to effectively pull the teeth out of those regulations. Well, there are certain ways to do that. What he is doing is saying, so, I am going to prohibit the Justice Department from representing the OCC in court. But that is not the way to do it.

If you disagree with the regulations, you have, one thing you have is the Congressional Review Act, and our colleague on this amendment actually filed legislation under that act to review this regulation, and that is the proper way to do this. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) said, this is a crazy way to do it. This is a crazy amendment. It is a crazy way to do it.

We have rules in this House. I have rules at my house. There are rules. We all have rules, and we need to go by those rules. We either need to change those rules, or we need to go by those rules.

The place to address these issues, if we want to talk about whether the Justice Department ought to have the right to be a legal advocate for the OCC, and I sure hope that our governmental agencies, when they go into court as a representative of the people of the United States, I hope that they are going to have the right to legal counsel. If this amendment is passed, the OCC will be denied legal counsel. They will be denied Justice Department legal counsel. As the gentleman says, this is a crazy way to do it.

The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) talked about something earlier that concerns all of us. We have State regulations, we have Federal regulations. They are both important. We ought to watch what we do in this regard. What ought to watch what we do when we preempt State regulations.

He is concerned about the number of national charters as opposed to State charters, that the national charter appears to be getting more valuable. That is something that ought to be addressed, but you do not address that in an appropriations bill. You let the committees that have jurisdiction over these matters, which are the Committee on Financial Services, and they are having hearings on these matters; there is numerous pieces of legislation introduced, that is where we address it.

I do not think any appropriators will vote for this particular legislation. If they do, I would say to them, this is authorizing legislation. Why would we support something like that in appropriations? Appropriators, and I say to all Members who are appropriators, you would not want the authorizing committee, you would not want the Committee on the Judiciary passing legislation appropriating funds for the Justice Department or the Commerce Department. Neither would you want the Committee on Financial Services to start making appropriations, and neither should the appropriating committee start doing authorizations. Members of the Committee on Ways and Means out there, they are charged with certain jurisdictions. The Committee on Commerce, the Committee on International Relations, all of these committees, that is where we authorize legislation. That is the rule. This amendment, although it is crafted in a way which simply says the OCC will be denied legal representation in court, which is a crazy thing, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the maker of this amendment, says, that is the only way that he could sort of bring this up to the body.

And I will say this to my colleague: The fact he brought this out, he mentions it, he has said that it ought to be addressed, I commend the gentleman for that. But this is not the mechanism.

I would say to any Member that votes for this, if you vote for this, you are voting really to disregard the rules and the structure of this whole body. If you serve on authorizing committees, you are basically saying it is okay for appropriators to authorize. If you vote for this legislation, you will say it is okay for the Committee on Appropriations to start doing the work of the Committee on the Judiciary. If you vote for this amendment, you will be saying I do not care if this is the Committee on Financial Service's matter, it is within their clear jurisdiction, but

I do not care, I am going to vote for it on an appropriations bill.

What that will result in, if amendments like this continue to be brought up as they are, and that is why we are here for several days instead of addressing things that ought to be addressed in this bill, then this body will gravitate into mayhem.

I urge my colleagues for the right reasons to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a valued employee of this House of Representatives, during this time of his recovery. Lou Costantino, Sr. was born in a house on New Jersey Avenue just a couple of blocks from the Capitol. His parents ran a grocery store at that time, the same grocery that Lou would begin running shortly after graduation from high school, along with a carry out, barbershop, and cleaners that his parents opened. He operated these businesses until coming to work for the House of Representatives in 1980.

During these early years, Mr. Costantino met his wife Doris while going to Eastern High School on Capitol Hill. They were married in 1965 at St. Peter's Church and have two children, Eydie and Lou. ``There's been a Costantino at St. Peter's for 100 years,'' he will often remark.

His devotion to family is indicative of the similar commitment he has for this House of Representatives. He first began his career with the House of Representatives in 1980 with the Office of the Doorkeeper and he currently works for the Sergeant at Arms. He truly loves his job, the people around him, and has the utmost respect for the institution that is the U.S. Capitol. In accordance with his post, and owing to the high regard in which he is held, Mr. Costantino has the honor of escorting the first lady to her seat for the State of the Union Address, a task he has accomplished annually for every first lady since Nancy Reagan.

Born just a few blocks away, and having worked in the building for over twenty years, Lou Costantino, Sr. has spent the majority of his life in close proximity to the Capitol building. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we keep him just as close in our hearts and prayers for his speedy recovery. We wish him well, and look forward to his prompt return to the House Floor.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the 70th anniversary of the passage of the Federal Credit Union Act on June 26, 1934. Since the passage of this momentous legislation, federal credit unions have consistently proven themselves to offer high quality financial services at low costs to over 85 million Americans.

As members of this body, many of us are well aware through first-hand knowledge of the importance of federal credit unions. Owned by their members, federal credit unions are financial institutions that embrace the true spirit of volunteerism. Federal credit unions are run by volunteer boards of directors that are elected by their members, and encourage the value of saving regularly to build economic security for the future.

The entire premise of the credit union movement is the commitment to values that we can all embrace. Folks with modest means who oftentimes are overlooked by other types of financial institutions are assured of access to financial services thanks to America's credit unions. Driven by a deeply held commitment to member service rather than financial profits, credit unions offer not only low-cost financial services but also much-needed financial education to some of the most neglected sectors of our society.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud the passage of the Federal Credit Union Act seventy years ago. In conjunction with all the fine work of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU), the trade association that exclusively represents the interests of federal credit unions, there is no doubt in my mind of the benefits Americans across the nation will continue to gain because of the good work of our nation's federal credit unions for many more years to come.

Mr. Speaker, the recently celebrated Memorial Day Holiday was a reminder for all Americans to unite behind our Commander-in-Chief and support our soldiers. The men and women who valiantly and selflessly fought to rid the world of the evil Iraqi regime and today continue in the fight against terrorism deserve our support and even more, our gratitude and admiration. Alabama has a strong representation in the war on terror through the activation of the Alabama Army and Air National Guard as well as our citizens who serve in the Armed Forces full time. Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom are noble pursuits that will protect the United States from the threat of terrorism and will bring democracy to a region of the world that so desperately needs assistance.

As the father of a Marine, I can sympathize with the concerns and fears faced by families of those who have loved ones fighting the global war on terrorism. In the unfortunate case where a member of our military sacrifices his or her life to preserve our values of liberty and freedom, it is our duty to offer sympathy and support for the family and friends of our fallen heroes. Nineteen Alabamians have made the ultimate sacrifice and will never be forgotten:

Aubrey Bell, Tuskegee.

John E. Brown, Troy.

Paul J. Bueche, Daphne.

Armed Cason, McCalla.

William Channell, Tuscaloosa.

Timothy M. Conneway, Enterprise.

Jeremy D. Foshee, Pisgah.

Charles G. Haight, Jacksonville.

Brian Hazelgrove, Fort Rucker.

Stephen D. Hiller, Opelika.

Howard Johnson, II, Mobile.

Phillip Johnson, Alabama.

Jason D. Jordan, Elba.

Cedric Lennon, West Blocton,

Mark O'Steen, Alabama.

Kelley Prewitt, Birmingham.

John T. Sims, Alexander City.

Christopher M. Taylor, Daphne.

Christopher R. Willoughby, Phoenix City.

As we remember the veterans of World War II who were known as the ``Greatest Generation'', those who have fallen in the war on terror remind us that our military and those who serve in it have not lost their greatness. I have the utmost respect for these servicemen and women and their families. God bless our troops.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, due to the primary election in Alabama held on June 1, 2004, I missed rollcall votes 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, and 217. Please note that if present, I would have voted ``aye'' on each of the votes.