Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to speak with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) about this issue; and as I understand it, he is pretty much committed to helping get these funds this year through another source to help the people in this area.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the limitations that are placed on American citizens in that part of the world as far as Medicaid is concerned are quite low. Is it my understanding that he is going to try to change that in the next Congress so that there is a more equitable distribution?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton). He is a man of his word. And if he says that he will help us get the funds for the people who are suffering over in that part of the world who are American citizens, I am sure he will do that; and he has also said he will address the distribution formula or the limitations that are placed on the Marianas, Guam, and Saipan and others. In any event, he has made a commitment to do that. I think it would probably be wise to consider withdrawing the amendment because I know he is a man of his word and he will help us get this problem solved. But I will leave it up to them.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes. There was an amendment brought to the floor just a few minutes ago by the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), and the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Faleomavaega) regarding Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and it was regarding section 1108 of the Social Security Act, which places a funding ceiling on all Medicaid funding to U.S. territories. In Guam, Medicaid and CHIP combined cover only about 25 percent of all estimated costs eligible for Medicaid matching grants. The reason I came to the floor is because we had a hearing on this not long ago and the hearing was as a result of my going to Guam and Saipan and the Marianas to talk to them about health care problems. My Subcommittee on Wellness and Human Rights was looking into the problems they are facing over there regarding health care. They have an absolute epidemic of type 2 diabetes. They do not have enough equipment over there to take care of the population. People are literally dying because they cannot be taken care of as far as their dialysis is concerned. They are running those machines 24 hours a day, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, they are running those dialysis machines in the Northern Marianas and Guam and Saipan 24 hours a day. The people cannot get health care. The Speaker of the House of Representatives in Guam had heart trouble. They had to fly him all the way from Guam to Honolulu to get health care. Otherwise, he would have died. That is the Speaker of the House over there. I know that there was a point of order raised against this, and I understand that we cannot legislate on an appropriations bill. But I would just like to say to the chairman, this is not a political thing. This is not a Democrat or Republican thing. The people of that area of the world, American citizens are dying because they cannot get adequate health care, and the economy has been hit very hard over there in that region of the world, and they cannot reach the matching grant requirement which is much lower than in the 48 States that we have right here. So I would just like to say to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the Committee on Appropriations and all of the members of the Committee on Appropriations, something has to be done about the problem in Guam, Saipan, and the Northern Marianas and American Samoa, because those people over there simply are not getting health care. It is not a question of quality of health care; they are not getting health care. They do not have enough dialysis machines, they do not have enough equipment to take care of people with heart trouble and, as I said before, they are having to go all the way to Hawaii, 4, 5, 6, 7 hours on a plane to have their lives saved. So I just wanted to bring this to the attention of my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, and I will bring it to the attention of the authorizing committee as well; I know it is important to do that. But I am sorry I was not on the floor to discuss this when it came up. I know it would not have done any good, because it is subject to a point of order. But this is something that they are suffering from over there. Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, a tragedy occurred in Russia this past week. Thirty Chechen rebels took control of a schoolhouse on the first day of school, and they killed at least 338 people, half of them children who were going to school for their first day. According to the reports, 10 of those people who were terrorists were Arabs; and we believe that they were probably from Saudi Arabia. One of the problems that we have had in the past is a lot of the terrorist activity has been emanating and originating from Saudi Arabia, ostensibly friends of the United States of America. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi. Fifteen of the 19 terrorists that flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the plane that went down in Pennsylvania were Saudi Arabians. The Saudis have been funding for many, many years madrassas where Wahhabism is taught. Wahhabism is a radical fundamentalist Muslim religion that is being taught in the schools that teaches the children to hate Christians and Jews and teaches them to perpetrate violent acts. Well, the Saudis today said that they are going to try to change the educational system over there so no radical fundamentalism can be taught that would lead to this kind of terrorist activity. I would just like to say tonight, Mr. Speaker, that it is high time, high time, that the Saudis, whom we have been supporting with our dollars, buying our oil from them, for many, many years, it is high time that they stopped this terrorist activity which has been originating in their country. The Saudi royal family has been giving money to radical organizations. They have been giving money to families of people whose children blew themselves up while killing people in Israel and the West Bank and in what is called Palestine. The Saudi Government has been giving money to al-Qaeda in the past. Mr. Speaker, all I can say tonight is that the Saudis continue to tell us that they are our friends. They tell us they want to stop terrorism. Yet, time after time after time, we see terrorist activity taking place, and who has been involved? It is the Saudi people, and it is people who have been taught in the madrassas, who have been taught that radical fundamentalism that is called Wahhabism. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleagues tonight that this government, the Government of the United States through the State Department, must continue to tell the Saudis that they must take these people on, they have to stop this terrorist activity emanating and originating in their country, and they have to stop this type of teaching of the children. They have been allowing this teaching to go on for 25 to 30 years now. It is high time that this stopped, because the children who are growing up today are going to be the terrorists of tomorrow; and if they continue to let that happen in their schools, we are going to have to face this not only now, but our children and our grandchildren are going to be facing this kind of terrorist activity down the road. Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, all of them have to be defeated. We are in a world war against terrorism, and we need every government of the world that believes in freedom and democracy and the things we believe in to be on our side. That includes the Saudis. They are going to have to take a hard line.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the hour is late and I am not going to take much time, but I think we would all be remiss if we did not acknowledge that this fitness center is going to be named after one of our dear colleagues who was a real war hero, in my opinion. Sam Johnson was shot down in Vietnam and spent 7\1/2\ years in a Vietnamese prison camp, the Hanoi Hilton; and he suffered tremendously during that 7\1/2\-year period. I think it is very, very fitting that he be honored by naming this fitness center after him. In fact, if I had my way and I think my colleagues, we would probably name a couple of air bases in total after him because he is a wonderful guy and a great Congressman. Sam, if you are listening, we sure love you, buddy.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, today on the tiny Mediterranean island of Cyprus, Turkish and Greek Cypriots mark the anniversary of momentous events that have shaped the last 30 years of the island's history. The events of July 1974 have been the subject of much debate, controversy, and unfortunately, distortion. The United States has worked long and hard to help bring peace to Cyprus, and as both sides of this divided island struggle to achieve a stable and prosperous future for all Cypriots, it is important for this House to put history in its proper perspective, to separate fact from propaganda, and to create a fair and balanced understanding of the issues that divide the island's two constituent peoples (the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots. It is easy to assume that the history of the Cyprus conflict starts in 1974, but this is far from the truth. The origins of the Cyprus conflict can be traced back to the Greek Cypriot drive for Union with Greece (enosis), a movement with roots that can be traced as far back as the later days of the Ottoman Empire. The modern history of the conflict, however, stems from the 1950s and 1960s. From 1878 to 1960, Cyprus was ruled by the British. When the island achieved independence from the United Kingdom in 1960, it was with constitutional guarantees for power sharing on the basis of political equality. The constitution foresaw (and still foresees) a bi-communal structure, and the peaceful co-existence of Greek and Turkish communities side by side. The president was to be Greek, and the vice- president to be from the Turkish community, each with the power of veto. Unfortunately, differences in language, culture, religion, and national traditions, ended this vision by late 1963 when a political crisis and inter-communal violence broke out. In November 1963, Makarios, the first president of Cyprus--a Greek Cypriot--submitted a plan aimed at amending the constitution. However, the changes proposed removed most of the checks and balances which had been built into the constitution to ensure the safety and equal status of the Turkish community. Matters came to a head on in December of that year, when armed Greeks attacked a suburb in Nicosia, killing or capturing those Turkish Cypriots who were unable to escape. Armed conflict spread, with the Turkish Cypriots withdrawing into enclaves to defend themselves. A buffer zone was set up and manned by British troops in a largely unsuccessful attempt to stop the fighting. These were later replaced by United Nations troops in March 1964, troops which are still there to this day. For the next ten years, the enosis campaign of the Greek Cypriots cost the Turkish Cypriots many lives and untold suffering, as well as their partnership position in the Cyprus government. Former United States Undersecretary of State, George Ball, who, among others, as actively dealing with the crisis at the time, remarked in his memoirs entitled The Past Has Another Pattern, that Makarios has turned: ``This beautiful little island into his private abattoir'' (P. 341). Ball went on further to say that: ``Makarios'' central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring the Turkish Cypriots'' (p. 345). For example, in March 1964, well armed Greek forces attempted to crush the Turks at Erenkoy on the north coast, in order to interrupt the alleged flow of munitions from the Turkish mainland: they would undoubtedly have succeeded had not the Turkish air force intervened. This act added a new dimension to the conflict. Fear of Turkish intervention sobered the Greek Cypriots somewhat, and they settled down to a systematic economic blockade of the Turkish enclaves. Further armed conflict in 1967 provoked Turkey to threaten military intervention, but with the takeover of Greece by a Military Junta, and an economic boom occurring on Cyprus, enosis seemed less attractive and the violence subsided However, intervention finally came in 1974. During the presidential elections of 1974, Makarios clearly announced the cause of enosis, and was re-elected. He subsequently ordered the withdrawal of mainland Greek officers from the Island, whereupon the National Guard, which was under the command of those same mainland Greek officers loyal to the Junta, stormed the presidential palace in Nicosia, although President Makarios escaped. In the face of this bloody coup, which brought the island to the brink of political extinction and a humanitarian tragedy, Turkey, which was treaty-bound to act as a Guarantor State, was forced to undertake action. As a result of this legitimate and timely action, Turkish Cypriots were saved from imminent destruction, bloodshed among the Greek Cypriots was ended and the independence of Cyprus was protected. U.N.-led direct talks between the two sides to reach a comprehensive settlement to the division of the island began in early 2002, and reached a culmination when simultaneous referenda were held on each side on April 24, 2004. Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that, after all they have gone through, the Turkish Cypriots have continued to demonstrate a genuine desire to settle their differences with their Greek neighbors in a peaceful and amicable way through negotiations. In the referendum of April 24th, the Turkish Cypriots voted 65 percent to approve the U.N. plan for reunification of the island. In contrast, the Greek Cypriots gave the plan a resounding no by a 3 to 1 margin, effectively leaving all settlement efforts in limbo. Yet, in an ironic twist of events, it was the Greek Cypriots who were allowed to enter the European Union in May while the Turkish Cypriots, like their counterparts in Turkey, continue to be left out in the cold. Under the circumstances, I agree with U.N. Secretary-General Annan when he cited in his latest report on the situation in Cyprus, that there is no justification for keeping the Turkish Cypriots in isolation from the rest of the international community. The restrictions that have been imposed on their economic, political and cultural activity internationally should be lifted. Turkish Cypriots must be allowed to enjoy the benefits--benefits they were guaranteed under the 1960 independence agreement, which any peaceful, democratic society deserves. Fair and equal treatment of the Turkish Cypriots can only benefit the island as a whole and further facilitate the achievement of a negotiated settlement.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the State of Israel has been an unwavering friend and ally of the United States for decades. And Israel has stood in complete solidarity with the United States in the Global War on Terror. Over the past half-century, bipartisan support for Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East, has been a staple of every U.S. Congress regardless of which party is in the majority. While the United Nations, other international organizations, and the governments of many countries of the world are quick to adopt the positions of Israel's adversaries, especially when Israelis exercise their absolute right to defend themselves, Congress has remained unwavering in its moral stand behind Israel. Again today, by passing House Concurrent Resolution 713--H. Con. Res. 713--a resolution I proudly cosponsored and championed, the Members of this House once again stood fast as the counterweight to most of the world's imbalanced, ``blame Israel'' approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. H. Con. Res. 371, expressed this body's strong support for Israel's construction of a security fence to prevent Palestinian terrorist attacks, and condemned the United Nations General Assembly's decision to request the International Court of Justice to render an opinion on the legality of the fence. Despite the fact that more than 40 nations, including the United States, 15 members of the European Union, Russia, Canada, Australia and even South Africa believed the International Court of Justice, ICJ, did not have the competence or the jurisdiction to rule on the matter, last week, the ICJ issued an advisory finding that Israel's security barrier in the West Bank is illegal. This ruling shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone as Israel's detractors have successfully manipulated every arm of the United Nations to delegitimize Israel. The U.N. General Assembly itself has been a hotbed of anti-Israel activity, passing more than 400 resolutions against Israel since 1964, more resolutions than on any other single subject. But that body has never once investigated the Palestinian terror campaign against Israel, nor has it investigated abuse, torture, and other human rights violations by nondemocratic states in the Arab world. In 2004, no Israeli has been killed or wounded by suicide bombings in areas protected by the fence, while 19 Israeli citizens have been killed and 102 wounded by homicide attacks in areas without the fence. The fence has produced a 90-percent drop in terrorism emanating from the northern West Bank, formerly the originating point for scores of devastating homicide bombings and other deadly terror attacks. I commend to all of my colleagues an excellent Op-Ed written by former Israeli Prime Minister and current Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laying out a clear and intellectually sound argument for why Israel needs the security fence and why Israel should never surrender its right to defend itself. I would like to have the text of this Op-Ed placed into the Congressional Record following my statement. I urge my colleagues to read it and speak out against the blatantly political ruling of the so-called International Court of Justice. [From the New York Times, July 13, 2004] Why Israel Needs a Fence (By Benjamin Netanyahu) Jerusalem.--While the advisory finding by the International Court of Justice last week that Israel's barrier in the West Bank is illegal may be cheered by the terrorists who would kill Israeli civilians, it does not change the fact that none of the arguments against the security fence have any merit. First, Israel is not building the fence on territory that under international law can be properly called ``Palestinian land.'' The fence is being built in disputed territories that Israel won in a defensive war in 1967 from a Jordanian occupation that was never recognized by the international community. Israel and the Palestinians both claim ownership of this land. According to Security Council Resolution 242, this dispute is to be resolved by a negotiated peace that provides Israel with secure and recognized boundaries. Second, the fence is not a permanent political border but a temporary security barrier. A fence can always be moved. Recently, Israel removed 12 miles of the fence to ease Palestinian daily life. And last month, Israel's Supreme Court ordered the government to reroute 20 more miles of the fence for that same purpose. In fact, the indefensible line on which many have argued the fence should run--that which existed between Israel and the Arab lands before the 1967 war--is the only line that would have nothing to do with security and everything to do with politics. A line that is genuinely based on security would include as many Jews as possible and as few Palestinians as possible within the fence. That is precisely what Israel's security fence does. By running into less than 12 percent of the West Bank, the fence will include about 80 percent of Jews and only 1 percent of Palestinians who live within the disputed territories. The fence thus will block attempts by terrorists based in Palestinian cities to reach major Israeli population centers. Third, despite what some have argued, fences have proven highly effective against terrorism. Of the hundreds of suicide bombings that have taken place in Israel, only one has originated from the Gaza area, where Hamas and Islamic Jihad are headquartered. Why? Because Gaza is surrounded by a security fence. Even though it is not complete, the West Bank security fence has already drastically reduced the number of suicide attacks. The obstacle to peace is not the fence but Palestinian leaders who, unlike past leaders like Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan, have yet to abandon terrorism and the illegitimate goal of destroying Israel. Should Israel reach a compromise with a future Palestinian leadership committed to peace that requires adjustments to the fence, those changes will be made. And if that peace proves genuine and lasting, there will be no reason for a fence at all. Instead of placing Palestinian terrorists and those who send them on trial, the United Nations-sponsored international court placed the Jewish state in the dock, on the charge that Israel is harming the Palestinians' quality of life. But saving lives is more important than preserving the quality of life. Quality of life is always amenable to improvement. Death is permanent. The Palestinians complain that their children are late to school because of the fence. But too many of our children never get to school--they are blown to pieces by terrorists who pass into Israel where there is still no fence. In the last four years, Palestinian terrorists have attacked Israel's buses, cafes, discos and pizza shops, murdering 1,000 of our citizens. Despite this unprecedented savagery, the court's 60-page opinion mentions terrorism only twice, and only in citations of Israel's own position on the fence. Because the court's decision makes a mockery of Israel's right to defend itself, the government of Israel will ignore it. Israel will never sacrifice Jewish life on the debased altar of ``international justice.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, due to inclement weather in Indiana, I was regrettably delayed in my return to Washington, DC and therefore unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 359, 360, 361 and 362. Had I been here I would have voted ``no'' for rollcall vote 359, ``aye'' for rollcall vote 360, ``no'' for rollcall vote 361, and ``aye'' for rollcall vote 362.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have high regard for the gentleman from Vermont, my good friend, and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), and I regret that I have to oppose their amendment. But I want to tell the Members why. Obviously the PATRIOT Act does suspend some constitutional liberties. I am one of those people who loves the Constitution and believes we should not tamper with it. The problem that we have is that on 9/11 we had over 3,000 of our fellow Americans killed by terrorists because we did not know in advance what was going to happen. This is not the kind of situation where we can wait and say, okay, we suspect something is going on, we go get a court order from a judge and say, we think this guy is going to do something, and we go get him because in the interim he may have killed 4-, 5-, or 10,000 people. We have to nail that son of a gun before the act takes place. So although some of our liberties have been temporarily suspended, the FBI told us yesterday, and many of us were at that meeting, that the PATRIOT Act has been very beneficial in stopping further terrorist attacks here in the United States of America. The PATRIOT Act expires in the year 2005, next year; so we will have a chance to review it again. It has to be renewed because it has a sunset provision because we are all concerned about the Constitution. But we are in a war against terrorism right now. We cannot wait for a terrorist attack to take place and then say, oh, my gosh, why did we not do something about it? We have to use every tool that is available to us to prevent that attack from taking place in the first place, because once it happens, then God help us all. So the FBI and the CIA and all of our intelligence people tell us right now the PATRIOT Act is a very valuable tool in preventing further terrorist attacks on America. We should not be tinkering with it right now. Next year we can review it, but right now in a war against terrorism, we were told yesterday that we may be in attacks this summer, and we have to do everything we can to prevent it. And that means do not mess with this thing right now, even though I love my good friend from Vermont.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on October 31, 1984, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her two Sikh bodyguards after she ordered an attack upon the Golden Temple, which is the center and seat of the Sikh religion. In the aftermath of the assassination, thousands of Sikhs were killed in anti-Sikh riots. The massacre was by any definition a brutal atrocity, and one of the most prominent figures accused of helping to orchestrate the violence was Jagdish Tytler. Now, Mr. Tytler, who led mobs of Hindus in killing Sikhs, some by burning them to death, and who saw to it that Sikh police were locked in their barracks and therefore unable to respond to the massacre, has been invited to speak at the convention of the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin in San Diego, which begins on June 25th. As someone who has long championed the cause of freedom, democracy, and equal rights for the Sikh community and other oppressed minorities in that part of the world, I am deeply concerned about this man coming to the United States, and I would urge the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin to reconsider their invitation to Mr. Tytler. I am also deeply concerned to learn that Mr. Tytler has been given a position in the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Prime Minister Singh is a Sikh, and the Sikh community naturally had high hopes that Manmohan Singh's appointment to India's top job would bridge the gap between the Sikh and Hindu peoples. It is difficult to understand how this can be accomplished when Prime Minister Singh is willing to bring a person like Mr. Tytler into his government, as many Sikhs, including my good friend Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, consider Mr. Tytler's presence in the government an affront to the Sikh people. So long as people like Jagdish Tytler are in the India government, it draws into question whether India is truly willing to uphold the democratic values that it preaches. In addition Mr. Speaker, it should also draw into question the wisdom of the hard-working taxpayers of this country supporting a government that rewards the Jagdish Tytler's of the world with power and authority.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2004 Ellis Island Medals of Honor recipients. The Ellis Island Medal of Honor commemorates and recognizes Americans of different ethnic backgrounds who have made a significant contribution to our society. These medals have been aptly named for Ellis Island, an endearing symbol of the immigrant roots and diversity that characterizes our great Nation. When the immigrant station at Ellis Island, New York, opened on January 1, 1892, it admitted 700 immigrants into the United States in just its first day of operation. By the time the center closed in 1954, 17 Million immigrants had passed through its doors. The Ellis Island administration and staff, on average, processed up to 5,000 people per day. Many of these newcomers had little to no knowledge of English, hardly any money, and many arrived with only the clothes on their backs. They arrived risking their lives in exchange for freedom and a better way of life. America has always been a haven for immigrants from all over the world who have come to our shores with a common desire to forge a new life in a land of opportunity, liberty, and freedom--freedom from religious, economic, political or ethnic persecution. The Ellis Island Medal of Honor was created in 1986 to honor those individuals who through their own perseverance, sacrifice and success, helped build our great Country. By honoring these outstanding individuals, we honor all who share their origins and we acknowledge the contributions they and other groups have made to America. Six American Presidents, several Senators, Congressmen, Nobel Prize winners, distinguished athletes, artists, clergy, military leaders, and others from all walks of life have been past recipients of this distinguished award. Presented annually by the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations (NECO), an umbrella group of more than 250 organizations that spans the spectrum of ethnic heritages, cultures and religions, the 2004 Ellis Island Medal of Honor recipients are once again a remarkable collection of individuals who have distinguished themselves as outstanding human beings and citizens of the United States. I once again commend NECO and its Chairman of the Board, my good friend William Denis Fugazy, for honoring these outstanding individuals, and for their tireless efforts to foster dialogue and build bridges between different ethnic groups, as well as promote unity and a sense of common purpose in our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in recognizing the good works of NECO, and congratulate all of the 2004 Ellis Island Medals of Honor recipients. I would like to have the text of NECO's press release on the May 15th award ceremony, and the names of this year's recipients, placed into the Congressional Record following my statement. Ellis Island Medals of Honor Awards Ceremony

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for that very comprehensive talk. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends, and I have great admiration for the silver fox from Massachusetts.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I will get together and talk with my colleagues.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and appreciate that very much.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just pick up where we left off in this last hour. And I appreciate the discussion with my colleagues. And if we have the time, I will be happy to yield to them. It seems like we probably will have the time. There is no question, none at all, that al-Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime and people connected with that have met on numerous occasions. There is no question that in May of 2002, Zarqawi, one of the top lieutenants the senior al-Qaeda with bin Laden was in Baghdad for medical treatment. And Uday Hussein provided that. There have been numerous occasions that they have been together. Now, the question was Osama bin Laden went to Saudi Arabia and he said we have got to get rid of this guy up there, Saddam Hussein, because he does not follow the hard-core Muslim line. The fact is Winston Churchill, and I hate to go back in history, but he decided to work with Joe Stalin, a communist tyrant who killed 50 million of his own countrymen. They asked Churchill, ``Why in the world are you working with Stalin?'' He said, ``I would go to bed with the devil in order to beat Adolph Hitler.'' Osama bin Laden calls us the big devil and I believe Osama bin Laden was willing to work with Saddam Hussein, who is one of the powerhouses in the Middle East, to do everything he could to destroy Western civilization and the United States. Now, we do not know what went on in all these meetings. But we do know that Osama bin Laden and his minions did talk to and work with Saddam Hussein's people. Now, do you err on the side of safety or do you not? We knew that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He killed thousands, tens of thousands of Kurds with mustard gas. We found weapons just recently that had sarin gas in them. Just recently our troops found those. He had a nuclear facility that was bombed by the Israelis in 1981. So he was trying to develop a nuclear facility. Now, for anybody to believe that he just threw that stuff out of the window when he hates the West so much and he was negotiating and talking with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, I think they are just blowing smoke. Now, the President said we have got to go after the terrorists. He did not go after Saddam Hussein first, he went after the Taliban that we knew was working with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. And he did a pretty good job of it. And then he said there is the threat of weapons of mass destruction, they have been used in the past. He had intelligence information that indicated there were weapons of mass destruction and he decided to go after Saddam Hussein. And all of us in this chamber when he did it said that is the right thing to do. Now, of course, everybody is second guessing. I think it is important to go back in history a little bit because history is very important, very important. In the 1990s Osama bin Laden in the Sudan had 13 terrorists training camps around Khartoum. Our intelligence agencies talked about that. The President and the NSC knew about that. And at that time, we had an attack on the World Trade Center because Osama bin Laden's minions tried to bring it down. That was in 1993. In 1996, we had the attack that killed a lot of Americans in Khobar Towers. In 1998, we had the attack on the embassies in Athens, Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam and Tanzania, all of those in 1998 by al-Qaeda connections. And then in 2000, we had the attack that killed a lot of our sailors on the USS Cole. We knew that Saddam Hussein was behind that. We knew he was in the Sudan. We knew there were 13 terrorist training camps and the previous administration did nothing. Now we go to September 11, 2001. And the President had an attack on the World Trade Center, against a second one. We did not do anything about the first one. We did not go after Osama bin Laden then but we waited. Then they brought down the World Trade Center, both towers. And the President said we are going after the terrorists worldwide, no matter where they are hiding. We are going after them if they are in the Sudan. We are going after them if they are in Afghanistan. We are going after them under every rock they are hiding. And we are going to do it also in Iraq because we believe Saddam Hussein is working with al-Qaeda. He had connections with al-Qaeda. His son worked with al- Qaeda. And they had weapons of mass destruction because we knew they had used them before and the President was told by intelligence agencies that they were there. Quite frankly, I still believe there were weapons of mass destruction. It is the size of California. And I believe that we will find more. And many of them may have been sent to Syria. Everybody is concerned about that because Syria is a very close ally and was of Saddam Hussein. But the fact of the matter is do you err on the side of safety? Do you go after the terrorists before they attack or do you wait until they attack and say oh, we need probable cause. When we passed the PATRIOT Act, this is a side issue, we had a lot of colleagues from the other side of the aisle say oh, my gosh, what about civil rights? What about Constitutional rights? The problem is when one is in a world war against terrorists, one cannot wait until they blow something up and kill 10 or 15,000 people or more. One tries to preempt them. The PATRIOT Act allowed us to hold people while we investigated whether or not they were going to perpetrate a terrorist attack. If we did that, we might head it off. That is why we created Homeland Security, which my committee wrote a great deal of it, and I think the gentleman, I do not know if he worked on that or not, but we worked on that with the Senate. But the fact of the matter is this President did not go off half- cocked. He declared war on terrorism. He is continuing that. President Bush is doing a good job. And I love my colleague from Massachusetts, we have a great deal of fun together. I love my friend from Hawaii. The fact of the matter is we are trying to politicize something at this time that should not be politicized. We are fighting a war against terrorism. The President is doing the right thing; and this Nation needs to stand behind him, instead of nitpicking and going back and saying this should have been done or that should have been. If we had this kind of nitpicking prior to the invasion of Normandy, I believe that the media and everybody would have said, oh, my gosh, that is a terrible thing to do; the waves may be too high. They would have alerted Hitler, and we may all be speaking German today. The fact of the matter is, President Bush, in my opinion, and my colleagues may differ, I think he has been very prudent. He has done things that he thinks that are necessary to protect the American people. I love my colleagues, I really do; and I do want some Macadamia nuts.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We are good buddies.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I would like the gentleman to hear my response.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Would my colleague yield for just about a 5- second question?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I have heard the gentleman's arguments. I hope my good and dear friend from Massachusetts will stick around for my response to what he has said.