Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, this actually is something that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) put into law in 1979.

Mr. KINGSTON. I am just trying to answer your question.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time and say proudly our agenda is to our support our soldiers. Our agenda is for a homeland security and our agenda is to rebuild New York City, and I am proud of that agenda, and as the distinguished gentleman knows, we have got to address the debt issue, the debt ceiling issue. All this bill does is says that if the conference committee, between the Democrat-controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled House, gives the instructing on it, it would be allowed in conference, but what does happen is we continue to supply our soldiers in the field, because no one believes, and I know the gentleman and I believe strongly, war is not free. We have got to bite the bullet in this case.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation and the language in it to increase the debt. I do have concerns about it, and I believe that my Democrat friends today have shown rare interest in fiscal restraint. I am glad to see it. I know there are a lot of them, like my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who is always on the target, and I am glad to see he has growing numbers there. We on the Republican side of the aisle welcome all the help we can get when it comes to fiscal conservativeness. What I want to say now is that the Treasury is not going to be able to finance the homeland security and the war on terrorism without addressing this issue. We keep hearing we do not like the process. But if we go back in our book, which is the House rules and manual, on page 945, rule number 49, which was at one time known as the Gephardt rule, it says and I quote, ``The vote by which the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget was agreed to in the House, or by which the concurrent resolution itself was adopted in the House if there is no conference report, shall be deemed to have been a vote in favor of such joint resolution,'' and that is concerning the debt ceiling, ``upon final passage of the House of Representatives.'' This was the case for over 20 years as a mechanism designed by the Democrat party to address the issue of raising the debt ceiling. Now, I want to say let us get off the process issue. This is a standard thing that the Committee on Rules has done. But I also heard the words of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) earlier today. I have to say to my Democrat friends, where was their plan? Where was their budget? When we had the budget debate, there was not one. The words of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) said that it is a problem and they are just going to vote no on it. But as the burden of governing goes to the majority party, we have addressed a lot of debt reduction, $453 billion in debt paid off; in 1998, $451 billion; in 1999, $89 billion; in 2000, $223 billion; and in 2001, $90 billion in debt reduction. We are very serious about this. We have passed a budget this year that gets us back on this track. We are going to continue to do so. Here is another chart about what our plans are about it. Here is $3.7 billion, going up to $3.2 billion by 2007. Meanwhile, back to the Democrat ranch: no budget, no submission. There was a plan that one of the leading Democrat senators said that goes into Social Security. That is something they always try to accuse us of, but here is a news article about how the Democrat plan in the Senate was planning to get into Social Security. The House plan was not, because there was no plan, so they can kind of pick and choose issues here. Is war free? Did anyone think on 9/11 that this was not going to cost us money? Can we really put a price on defending our freedom? Can we really say that, well, we did not mean it, and we do not like the procedural situation here today, so we are going to take a pass on it? I do not think that anybody in this House, Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, would ever want to do this. Can we put a price tag on defending our freedom? This bill today helps us continue the war in central Asia until we win it. This bill today helps us to defend our homeland, which we need, and our airports, our ports, our EMS, our police officials back home. This bill helps fund that. This bill also has $5.7 billion for New York City. Now, I am sure if we all looked at it politically and said let New York take care of it on their own, nobody is necessarily going to lose the election because they did not vote for more spending for New York City. But the fact is, the attack was a national attack. Every Member in here, from Hawaii to Maine to Miami, all want to stand up and support, as fellow Americans, side by side, the rebuilding of New York City. This bill today allows us to do this. War is not free. War is not pleasant. Financing war, financing anything, is not easy, but this is an approach. I support the bill and hope that we can move on from some of the partisan rhetoric that we have been hearing today.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I just want to say that I support this rule, and I will support the supplemental bill as well. I am supporting the rule and the bill because of three things, three important things that it does. Number one, it continues the war internationally against terrorism; number two, it protects our homeland; and, number three, it helps complete the job of rebuilding New York City. Just to go through some of these things. This wartime supplemental provides $15.7 billion to aid the troops in the ongoing war. I have visited Afghanistan and Central Asia and the countries of Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. They need our support. It is not time to turn our back on them. This bill secures our homeland as well with $850 million for checking baggage for explosive devices, $630 million for baggage screening and $75 million for security enhancements at commercial ports. Just to give one statistic, Savannah, Georgia, which I represent, last year brought in one million containers. Of those containers, only 1 percent were checked. This bill helps address that problem. This bill also, in the name of homeland security, provides local law enforcement the tools that they need to track down terrorism. How often do my colleagues get these calls, which I know I have been getting since 9-11, from the local police officers and the sheriff departments: they have seen something suspicious, but they do not know who to call or what to do. This helps them hook in with the national tracking system. It also helps our communities in terms of disaster preparation. One of the issues we have to deal with is the EMS folks, training them and getting them up to speed on what is needed. I think that it is very important that we continue to work with our local law enforcement training people. Then, finally, our $5.5 billion to help build New York City, that great city which we in America all love and like to talk about. This bill is about making sure we never forget what happened to our Nation on 9-11, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for allowing me to speak tonight and I stand in support of this bill. This bill does 3 things, and it all goes back to that horrible day, 9/11. This bill continues the war on terrorism. This bill continues the battle for homeland security, and it helps rebuild our beloved national city of New York. Just remember, the American people will never forget September 11 and what this Congress has done immediately after 9/11 to start the battle. We will never forget the brave who died. We committed ourselves almost immediately to make sure that Osama bin Laden and all the terrorists around the globe would not be victorious. This bill tonight is part of that battle. This bill has $15.77 billion to support our troops, and I had the opportunity, with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, to go on a bipartisan basis to Afghanistan. We went to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan. We visited 4 of our bases, and we met with our troops, we met with Afghan soldiers, and I can say that they appreciate what the United States of America is doing. They are happy that we are there. Their biggest concern is will we stay committed, and this bill tonight helps show the world that we are committed, not just behind our troops but behind the people over there so they can have a secure future. But the battle is not just in central Asia; it is all over the streets of America. So the second thing this bill does is help secure our homeland. One of the things that it does is work with local law enforcement personnel to track down any potential suspicious terrorists or activities on a local level. This bill also helps secure everybody who is traveling; $850 million to help check for baggage, explosives and detection systems; $630 million for baggage screeners; $75 million for security enhancements at U.S. ports. And I just want to talk about this. Not all of us are traveling. Prior to 9/11 there were 1.2 million Americans in the air at any given day. Nowadays it is about 800,000, and what this does is it secures our airlines even further, but also our ports. I am from Savannah. Last year in Savannah, we had 1 million containers come in. Of the 1 million, only 1 percent were actually screened and checked as to what their contents were. This bill helps expand that so that our ports can be secure. It also strengthens our communities for any other disasters, working with EMS facilities and giving the local hospitals the support that they need and the expertise. Our war against terrorism is not going to be over until every city in America is safe. As somebody told me, this war is about making sure we can go to Wal-Mart and not have to worry, and I think that that is something we all have to keep in mind. Finally, in this bill is $5.5 billion to help rebuild the great New York City, and that is going to be a long job, and I think it is certainly in the national interest to do so. There are some other things in this bill that are less high profile but very important, and one of the things is there is $1.6 million for additional staff and resources for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and one of the issues that has come up recently is do we need a blue ribbon committee to study what went wrong on 9/11 and how can we do a better job. Well, this bill addresses that because we already have an existing intelligence committee. It is bipartisan. One chairman is Bob Graham of Florida, a Democrat. Another chairman is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), a Republican. A bipartisan committee that has been working since January to look into 9/11. It is bicameral, Senate and House together, and it is comprised of experts. This bill addresses that, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say we have heard so much from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), Senator Daschle, and the partisans about the August 6 memo; but there was not a warning in there and it was not a threat report. What it was it was an analysis of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and it talked in general terms about the threat that they posed to general world problems; and they did not mention anything about using aircraft as missiles. It did say they could hijack a plane, but up until then no one had used an airplane as a missile. So all of this stuff sounds really great for Senator Daschle and the Democratic National Committee to sit around and say this is what they should have done, but the reality is nobody knew this information. But, again, if he wants to criticize President Bush; let him attack him for health care, Social Security, whatever, but a war effort while we have soldiers on the ground and a very unstable situation in the Middle East with our ally, Israel, is very poor judgment, not just bad politics but poor judgment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me say that this House has taken a lot of action on a bipartisan basis to try to analyze 9/11, some of it that is appropriate to have in the open, and some of it is secret. It has been bipartisan. It has also been bicameral. But we, Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, we want to avoid any possible terrorism, not just America but anywhere in the world. So it is in all of our interests at this time to keep the shoulders to the grinder and to fight this war in a unified manner, and keep the partisan politics in a back room somewhere and let us just get this job done.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think the gentleman is certainly right. One of the things that is important to remember is that when a committee is briefed in a classified manner so that that information does not get outside the room, and they have all taken an oath to that effect, some of the reasons for keeping that information quiet are not just to protect our own soldiers on the ground, but the informants in various places of the world, all of the countries in the world. I am not sure if they number 170, or something. We have intelligence coming in from every corner of the globe. We cannot endanger those networks. But another factor that is equally as important, some of this has to do with the judicial sensitivity, prosecuting folks. We do not go out when we are investigating and tell all to the other camp because they can cover their tracks, so sometimes we just have to be quiet. This idea that everything has to be on the front page of The New York Times in order for it to be real is absolutely absurd.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, the other thing is what the gentleman is saying is there is such a thing as a specific threat. A specific threat is when we know the time and place and what method of weapon or destruction that is going to be used against us and we can act very quickly against the specific threat, if given all the information. But a general threat, which there must be hundreds of them that go out each year.

Mr. KINGSTON. Thousands, it does not give a time specific, a place specific, or a method specific. So what happens is we are guessing. Okay, there is going to be something that happens to the water system in New York. Do we close down all the drinking water that day? That is a general threat, and what is the practical way out of it? There are so many things, like the gentleman is saying, are like a bomb scare. The gentleman will know that the intelligence-gathering system is not perfect. I remember that we evacuated on September 11. When we were in the Longworth Building we were not told actually to evacuate. There was confusion. In fact, I personally went downstairs to the police and said, I have some employees here. Are we evacuating? And they said no, because at that time nobody knew what was going on. We went outside the United States office buildings, outside of the Capitol, and we were told that the Capitol had been hit. This was just the rumor, not by the police, but this was the rumor on the street, that the Capitol had been hit, the mall area had been hit, the State Department had been hit, and the Sears Tower. That was the street discussion, because no one could get out on their cell phones because all the communication was jammed. Later in that day, Congress gathered in a safe spot. The gentleman will remember that. And those Members of Congress who still had their beepers on that could get the word to gather in this particular location, we were given our first post-morning of 9-11 briefing. I think it was about 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock on September 11. At that time, there were still a few airplanes in the air unaccounted for. Some of them were off track. Nobody knew for sure what to do with those airplanes. We were also told at that time that there were 5 airplanes that had been involved; that along with the one that had crashed in Pennsylvania, another one had crashed just outside of Kentucky. That is the information level that was available at that time to Members of the United States House and Senate. It is not classified information, but that is what we were told. So this is a very inexact science. And again, that was from the best sources to people who wanted to have the best information. So it is not--for anybody who knows anything about intelligence, they know that we cannot always trust the sources. It is an inexact science. For somebody at a time of national tragedy to grab this, this question, this uncertainty in the name of partisanship is just disgusting and disturbing.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate joining the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Florida. I wanted to speak about this notion of an independent investigation, which I think, unfortunately, if we look at those who are supporting that, Senator Daschle, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), there is a real partisan question, along with Senator Lieberman, for crying out loud. Senator Lieberman, incidentally, is actually on the committee and does not show up. That is a matter of record. But he is calling for an independent investigation. I think there are three reasons we do not need it. Number one, we already have it; number two, it is going to drain the sources of the Committee on Intelligence; and, number three, it would become a political football. And I will explain why. Since February, and earnestly since January, the chairman of the House Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), a Republican, and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Intelligence, who is a Democrat, Bob Graham, have been talking, and are forming what is a bicameral, both House and Senate, and a bipartisan, one Democrat, one Republican chair, investigation of what went wrong on 9-11. They have hired 100, maybe 200, staffers, all have been given top secret security clearance. They have the cream of the cream of the intelligence community together, some of the best minds that are available; and they have been looking into what went wrong, what lessons have been learned, what can we do right, what can we do better, all of the good stuff. So this blue ribbon committee is already going on, and it is balanced. Number two, if my colleague can imagine already, there is something like 184,000 documents that have already been turned over to this committee, and they have the cooperation and the work of over 200 FBI agents who are right now working on that. I think it is good for them to. But what seems to be suggested is that we take even more FBI agents and put them to yet another committee doing the exact same thing. Well, somebody has to make sure that the world is being watched and we have our surveillance going. I would rather leave the soldiers on the frontline fighting the battle than coming back to the headquarters and hobnobbing with the desk jockeys, but that seems to be the assertion. Number three, the other reason we do not need this is that who in the heck do people in this town think will control this? Congress funds all committees. It would become a political football because Congress would ultimately control what decisions are made through the appropriations process, and what appointments are made through our powers. I am sure that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), for example, would have a different view than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a Democrat who seems to be a little bit more balanced, who just left. I am sure the gentleman from Colorado and I would have a different view of who should be on that committee, but Congress would be the ones appointing it. Then, since we already have this bipartisan, bicameral committee working, what are we going to do, take the resources away from them? It is ridiculous. It is purely politically motivated. Yesterday in Afghanistan, we lost yet another American soldier. We are really getting down to the tough part of this war, because the ones who are left in al Qaeda are survivors, they are smaller in numbers, harder to find, harder to identify. The fact that they are still around shows something, and so this is not the time for the Democrat leadership to jump ship with soldiers in the war theater and start their political sniping. Do they really think that George Bush would sit on information and knowingly endanger lives of Americans? There are a lot of Republicans who had some tough opinions of President Clinton, yet I never heard any Republican say that President Clinton would sit on information. Mr. Speaker, if the American people elect somebody in the Oval Office who would do such a thing, there is also the CIA and the FBI. Is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) saying, and he seems to be, that members of the Select Committee on Intelligence, the CIA, the FBI, the national security advisors, knew about something and sat on it? One can play partisan with the President, and that is maybe fair game; but I think it is pretty low when someone starts picking on members of the intelligence community, who are nonpartisan, patriotic, professional men and women.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am actually here tonight in cooperation with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), who I understand to be on his way over here, but wanted to talk about an issue to Georgia that has become a big economic issue; but it is also one of international trade having to do with Russia and its trade embargo against United States poultry. I wanted to make a few points about that, Mr. Speaker, that according to the U.S.A. Poultry and Ag Export Council no U.S. poultry exports shipments have moved since the ban on American poultry was lifted in Russia. And Russia because of the competition used a non-tariff trade barrier to stop American chickens from coming into Russia, and then that ban was lifted. However, nothing has happened since then. And because of Russian paperwork, at least 20,000 metric tons of U.S. poultry shipped prior to the ban that was imposed on March 10 now sit in Russian ports waiting to be unloaded. The import ban is costing the U.S. poultry industry more than $25 million a week. Although Russia has issued few import permits, it is abundantly clear that Russia wants to stop or substantially reduce the United States poultry program. Again, it is such a huge issue to our area, a big employer in Georgia. Here are some of the impediments that Russia is using to stop the poultry: all previously issued import permits have been rescinded by Russia, even though these licenses were valid for additional quantities. Russian importers are being advised that not only must they apply for new import permits to import poultry from the United States, they are also being told they must apply for new import permits for products currently waiting unloading at the port. The Russian minister of agriculture told the U.S. that permits would be issued more or less automatically. That is not the case. Russia issues an import license but it is only a portion, sometimes as little as 25 percent of the requested quantity. So one cannot get in there with this. Russia has issued as few of these import permits as possible. Even though they are not adequate standing alone, they still will not issue all of them. Despite the fact that on March 31, U.S. and Russia protocol does not call for the original USDA export certificate to be on board the ship that is transporting the poultry, the Russian minister of agriculture is demanding that the original certificate be on the transport ship. This is extremely costly and cumbersome. No other nation does these kinds of things. Mr. Speaker, I can go on because there are lots of other issues that Russia is using as basically a paper tiger to stop American imports, but it is something that we urge the President to bring up on his trip to Russia and do something about it. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who has been a lead on this. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) is from the poultry country of Georgia. He is the one that has been leading our experts to try to get Russia to quit playing games and open their borders.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, what seems to be happening here is a political sock hop; but instead of listening to old Elvis records, we are listening to old Democrat rhetoric. We are hearing it over and over again, over and over again. The ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 1996: ``The only losers we have are the kids.'' The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), 1996: ``I am saddened for today it seems clear that this House will abdicate its moral duty.'' The president of NOW, who I do not quote very often, again denounced the plan in 1996. It is the same group over and over again saying not this bill, not this time. But look what happened. Much to their, I guess, chagrin, they are spending on TANF and child care up to $15,888 compared to 1996 where it was $6,900. The number of cases has dropped from 4 million to 2 million, cut in half; and the number of welfare caseloads has fallen from 14 million to 5 million. Welfare reform works. Just ask Tanya who was on public assistance and now is buying her new home. I wish that we could get some good bipartisan support instead of the old Democratic rhetoric.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, there is an old story, and a lot of Members have heard this before. A farmer wanted to borrow an ax from his neighbor one night. He went and knocked on the door and said, I need to borrow your ax. The neighbor said that he could not lend the farmer his ax tonight. The farmer said, Why not? The neighbor said because I am making soup. Making soup, what does that have to do with me borrowing your ax or not? The neighbor said not a thing, but when you do not want to do something, any excuse works. That is what we are hearing tonight from my good friends on the other side of the aisle. They do not like the bill. They do not like welfare reform. They did not like welfare reform in 1996. I did not know this was the Bill Clinton welfare bill until a few minutes ago, for example. I remember him vetoing it twice. In fact, I only remember him signing it when his campaign consultant, Dick Morris, told him he needed to do it in order to get reelected. And, as I recall, he did it in the middle of the night. Does anybody here remember going to the bill signing ceremony? I am proud of the gentleman. Next time see if you can get me one of those invitations. I did not get one.

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me yield to my friend from Massachusetts. Maybe he can help me.

Mr. KINGSTON. That might be good. The gentleman has a good point. We are just going to continue that great Democratic tradition. Here is the situation with welfare reform. I do want to say, some Member has suggested we have sat around here all day long and done nothing. We actually as a Capitol, as Democrats and Republicans, as Representatives, commemorated police officers from all over America. As Members know, there was a huge demonstration of sorts on the Mall today in support of our police officers like my friend, Kevin Jones, from Brunswick, Georgia, who came up here today because a while back there was a car rolling down a hill, he jumped into it, the driver had had a medical seizure, and he stopped the car and saved the driver's life. He was one of hundreds and thousands of police officers here today. So to me it has been a worthwhile day. I know some people probably have been sitting around, though. I want to talk to you about some of my friends, also, since we have gone down the history trail on what was said in 1996. I will not repeat the names of some of the Congressmen, but they are on here and these are documented statements going back in time, pushing your remote. ``I am saddened that today it seems clear that this House will abdicate its moral duty and knowingly vote to allow children to go hungry in America.'' 1996, a Member of the U.S. Congress. Another Member, 1996: ``The only losers we have now are the kids.'' Here is Patricia Ireland, not exactly known in Republican precinct circles as friendly. NOW President Patricia Ireland predicted that the 1996 law would put ``12.8 million people on welfare at the risk of sinking further into poverty and homelessness.'' And then a former Clinton administration official resigned over welfare reform, probably not one of those who was invited to the midnight signing ceremony, either. He said, ``More malnutrition and more crime, increased infant mortality and increased drug and alcohol abuse.'' And then there is the good old conservative Urban Institute that predicted the 1996 law would push 2.6 million people, including 1.1 million children, into poverty. The Children's Defense Fund predicted in 1996 the law would bring a 12 percent increase in child poverty. I only remind people of this not to bring up partisan bitterness from the past but to say, when we passed this historic piece of legislation in 1996 there were naysayers. I do believe there were a lot of Democrats who did come on board finally. But initially it was an uphill battle. Here is what has actually happened. Since 1996, work among welfare recipients has tripled. Employment of single mothers is now more than 70 percent, an all-time high. Since 1994, welfare caseloads have fallen by 60 percent, leaving less than 2 percent of the U.S. population on welfare. Here is another result: the wage gains for single moms. Again I will not go into the chart, but it shows an increase of 73.5 percent. This is one on child care funds. Remember, welfare reform was supposed to hurt children in particular; but in fact, it increased child care funds from $3 billion to $9.4 billion. That is comparing the 1995 to the 2000 level. What are the principles of this bill? Promoting work, improving child well-being, promoting healthy marriages and strengthening families, fostering hope and opportunity. This bill requires welfare recipients to put in a full workweek. There is nothing harsh about that. It requires the States to have 70 percent of welfare families working, again, leaving it up to States to have flexibility. All of this stuff sounds very legalistic, but the real proof is to people like Bruce Mullins who lost his home and entered the welfare-to-work program in September 1998, and now he has built a life of joy and promise for himself and his two kids because of these training programs. He has had a chance to live with great dignity and not be dependent but be independent. And then there is Tonya, a single mother. She went on public assistance when her twin girls were 1 year old, but since completing her program with Cal Work last year, Tonya has been able to earn enough money to purchase her own home. These are real people with real accomplishments. And then there is Judith Brown. She is working her way off welfare reform and is moving into a new home in Cincinnati. Mr. Speaker, this is what welfare reform is all about, real people.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate with my friend from Miami and my friend from Georgia. I just want to go through a few charts today because I believe that what is driving this debate is maybe negligence, maybe incompetence, maybe a combination of things at INS that has certainly caused it to fall very, very, very short of its mission and even to the extent of endangering national security. Some have even suggested that INS actually stands for ignoring national security. Why would they do this? Here is a question that was asked to the former Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger, and this comes from a March 10, 2002, quote. ``Do you think the INS has a handle on who it lets in and who is here and whether they have left?'' His answer, as a very informed person, ``No. No, they do not have a handle on it.'' Another statistic from the House Committee on the Judiciary, the Census Bureau estimates that at least 8 million undocumented illegal immigrants reside in the United States of America. I want to give my colleagues a picture of 8 million. The State of Georgia, Georgia has 8.1 million people. So what we are saying is a State the size of Georgia would have a total population of undocumented illegal immigrants. That is outrageous, atrocious, and unacceptable. Are they ignoring national security? In March 2002, the INS mailed a letter to a Florida flight school informing them that Mohammed Atta and another hijacker had been approved for student visas. Of course, Mr. Atta was not around to receive his visa at that time because, as my colleagues recall, he had driven a plane into the World Trade Center in September. Ignoring national security; if the INS officials were following their own policies, Mohammed Atta would never have been allowed to enter the United States of America in the first place if they just followed their own policies. Are they ignoring national security? There are over 300,000 criminal and deportable illegal immigrants ordered removed by immigration judges that have fled; 6,000 of those are from countries identified as al Qaeda strongholds; 300,000 criminals that have been ordered to leave. I would say, yes, it does appear that national security has been ignored. Is it incompetence? The INS had a backlog of 4.9 million applications and petitions at the end of fiscal year 2001. Now, it has already been said the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), that in his office and in many congressional offices around the country they get more INS complaints than they get IRS complaints. And I see it in Savannah, Georgia. People come in all the time and they cannot get their visas approved, they cannot get other things stamped and taken care of. We, I believe, have a very good, local, competent office, and I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), there are lots of very, very good employees who do an excellent job, but I think structurally the deck is stacked against them. Their hands are tied to do what they really want to do, what they know they should do, and what they can do. Last year, the Justice Department handled over 4,200 allegations of misconduct against INS personnel. It is time for a change. We can do that. This legislation today is a very significant first step to clean up a long overdue process. When the government is no longer responsive and no longer efficient, no longer doing what it is meant to do, it is time for Congress to step in and change, and that is what we are doing here today. Support this rule and support the legislation.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to also submit for the record an editorial written by William Daugherty, who is actually a former CIA employee who was one of the Iranian captives in 1979. He lives in Savannah, Georgia, works for Armstrong Atlantic State University, but he had this letter in the Savannah Morning News, and I thought it was very good to remind Americans, and I am going to read a lot of this. It is going to take a few minutes, but he was just saying that we are focusing on the PLO as anti-Israeli force only and what Dr. Daugherty says is, yet they have killed Americans. The first American to be killed by a PLO-sponsored group was Shirley Anderson June 17, 1969. Since then the PLO groups have murdered more than 60 Americans and wounded at least as many. Among the dead were two ambassadors, an Olympic athlete, tourists, business persons and students. PLO groups under the control of Arafat or his subordinates were the Black September, Force 17 and the Palestine Liberation Front. Black September was especially close to Arafat, existing as a front for Arafat's own mainstream Fatah, led by one of his closest lieutenants. Then in this letter, I will not read all the umbrella groups that the PLO, as an umbrella group for a number of different so-called liberation groups, but the Palestinians on one occasion resorted to contracting out terrorists attacks, notably when three members of the Japanese Red Army under the auspices of the PFLP carried out a deadly assault in the arrival area of Lod Airport outside Tel Aviv; 26 were killed and 78 wounded, the citizens of America being the majority. ``Americans were murdered in numerous other ways by PLO members. Eight were killed when their Swissair jet was blown up en route to Tel Aviv; others died in bus and car bombings or were shot. Especially shocking were the ax-murder of a student (1975) and the brutal murder of Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair-bound elderly tourist on the hijacked Achille Lauro (1985). But despite knowing the identities of at least some of the perpetrators, and almost always the organization that they belonged to, few have ever been arrested and none extradited to the United States.'' The reason that I thought Mr. Daugherty's letter is important is that this group, led by Arafat, has been around terrorizing lots of people for a long time, and it has not been confined to Israelis. Remembering the Many American Victims of Arafat's Terrorist Network It is worthwhile to remember that the Palestinian Liberation Organization, under Yasser Arafat, has been a terrorist organization for nearly 35 years, and that it and its subordinate groups have murdered a significant number of Americans during that time. Yet not only have the tragedies been forgotten and the perpetrators mostly unpunished, Arafat, has been accorded head of state status by many ``civilized'' nations, admitted as an Observer to the United Nations, and permitted an office down the street from the White House. Leaving aside for now any ``blame'' for contemporary middle East history, a review of terrorism against Americans by the PLO will help Americans at least partially to understand why Arafat has not been and cannot be a partner for peace. The first American to be murdered by a PLO-sponsored group was Shirley Anderson on June 17, 1969. Since then, PLO groups have murdered more than 60 American citizens and wounded at least as many. Among the dead were two ambassadors, an Olympic athlete, tourists, business persons and students. PLO terrorist groups, under the control of Arafat or his chief subordinates were Black September, Force 17, and the Palestine Liberation Front. Black September was especially close to Arafat, existing as a front for Arafat's own ``mainstream'' Fatah, and led by Salah Khalaf (Abu lyad), his closest lieutenant. Other groups existing under the PLO umbrella with responsibility for American casualties were the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-Special Command. The Palestinians upon occasion further resorted to ``contracting out'' terrorist attacks, notably when three members of the Japanese Red Army, under the auspices of the PFLP, carried out a deadly assault in the arrival area of Lod Airport outside of Tel Aviv; 26 were killed and 78 wounded, the majority American citizens. Americans were murdered in numerous ways by PLO members. Eight were killed when their Swissair jet was blown up enroute to Tel Aviv, others did in bus and care bombings or were shot. Especially shocking were the ax-murder of a student (1975) and the brutal murder of Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair-bound elderly tourist on the hijacked Achille Lauro (1985). But despite knowing the identities of at least some of the perpetrators, and almost always the organization they belonged to, few have ever been arrested and none extradited to the United States. Perhaps if European counties had fought Palestinian terrorism in its early days as strenuously as they did their own domestic terrorism, the Middle East might be different today, with the PLO a legitimate organization headed by a Palestinian willing to live in peace with Israel. A few countries did fight the terrorists, particularly Great Britain and Germany. But others--France, Austria, Italy, Greece--not only did not pursue Palestinian terrorists, they either made deals to avoid acts of terrorism on their own soil or simply caved in without pressure, afraid of retaliation. Rather than treat deaths caused by Palestinian terrorists as criminal murder, they viewed these abominations merely as ``political acts'' by ``freedom fighters,'' and therefore excusable. Best known is the Achille Lauro event and the murder of passenger Klinghoffer. The terrorists, led by Arafat Protege Abu Abbas, surrendered to the Egyptians who, rather than prosecute them as required by the international law, sent them on their way to Tunis--headquarters of a the PLO at the time--in an Egyptian jet. U.S. Navy aircraft intercepted the jet and forced it to land in Italy. Immediately behind was a transport with America's elite Delta Force, to take custody of these terrorists. Surrounding the jet with the terrorists, Delta then discovered that it was surrounded by Italian military forces. A firefight between allies seemed imminent, as the Italians refused to turn over the murderers. Eventually, four lesser terrorists were indicted by Italy (and treated with leniency), while Abbas and his second in command were spirited away to Yugoslavia and thence to Tunis. Elsewhere, France made deals with the deadly Abu Nidal Organization (not a PLO group, to be sure) to avoid terrorism on its territory; and when the ANO set of car bombs in Paris that killed and maimed several hundred French citizens, the Socialist government of Francois Mitterrand still kept its end of the bargain. There are numerous other examples of Europeans aiding Palestinian terrorists, may almost beyond comprehension (France refused to arrest the mastermind of the Munich massacres and instead provided him protection). But had a Europe, united by revulsion at foreign-inspired terrorism, viewed murder for what it was--a criminal vice political act--and proceeded to work to eradicate it (while concurrently working with legitimate Palestinian groups to achieve a peace with Israel), the past 30 years might have been much different. Instead, the leader the PLO continues to kill and maim while hiding behind the facade of statesmanship. It is time to remember the Americans who become victims of this terrorist and the dancing in the streets.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, in closing, while the background of this conflict is somewhat complicated, the moral dimensions are very, very clear-cut. We have one side that sends soldiers to wipe out suicide bombers; the other side that sends suicide bombers to wipe out guests at bar mitzvahs. We have one side that publishes maps showing how an Israel and Palestinian state can co-exist; the other side publishes a map which says Israel does not even exist now. One side apologizes when its explosives kill wives and children of killers it targeted; the other side targets wives and children. One side was grief-stricken on September 11 and declared a national day of mourning; and the other side danced in the streets and distributed candies in celebration. One side has never deployed a suicide bomber in its 54 years of existence; the other side has deployed more than 40 in the past 12 months alone.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and again want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) on his excellent job, as usual. I would ask the gentleman from Florida to also yield the floor to a very strong pro-Israel advocate who is also a freshman this year, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments because I think as an American of Cuban descent, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) is in a unique position as the gentleman said to have dealt with many of these issues that are difficult in a changing nation and changing people, and terrorism and assaults to a different part of the globe.