Cynthia McKinney

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. It was a procedure, all right, but the procedure was that if you were black, then you had your name on this list and you were denied the right to vote.

Ms. McKINNEY. That is exactly what happened. The name of the firm was Database Technologies, which was later absorbed by ChoicePoint, which has its headquarters right outside of Atlanta. The gentlewoman is absolutely right, that they told Katherine Harris, for whom a Congressional District I understand is being specially carved, that the information we are going to give you, according to your specifications, is wrong. We want you to know that the information that we are going to give you, the information that you have requested, is wrong. Do you want us to give you wrong information? And Katherine Harris and company, said yes, we want the wrong information.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. If the gentlewoman will yield, there was serious disenfranchisement that took place. It was systematic, it was purposeful. It was stolen, because we are talking about 2,800 people who Florida took the right to vote away from just because they came from other states. But let me just add that they lied to the Department of Justice, because they told the Department of Justice that our little election thing here that we are trying to do, this little thing here is race-neutral, is not going to have an effect. And what did it do? It had an effect. It took away the right to vote for African Americans and other minorities. I know the gentlewoman lived it and breathed it every day, but I am here to tell you that Florida was not the only place that it happened. We now know that it happened in too many places all over America, including Georgia. But I am going to give the gentlewoman the last word, because in Florida, Florida certified the national election, and we have some serious questions about the validity of the Florida election and the Florida outcome.

Ms. McKINNEY. But, Mr. Speaker, the question I have is, in the State of Florida, the Governor, Jeb Bush down there has declared a state of emergency. I wonder how long that state of emergency is going to last and if it is going to allow this kind of thing to happen again and the kinds of things that happened with the State patrol parked outside polling precincts and that kind of thing, if that is going to happen again as a result of this state of emergency.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, we had similar problems in Georgia in my district as well. This is a sad day when we can provide for the people, for the Record, a piece of information like this that shows that people were designed to take away their right to vote just so that they could have a predetermined outcome.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, now I think I've just about seen and heard everything: Kofi Annan and the United Nations being announced as joint recipients of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. I'm not saying there wasn't a time in the UN's history when it wasn't deserved. What I'm saying is I don't believe it's deserved right now. Instead, I believe that to award the UN and Kofi Annan now amounts to an insult to the millions that have died at the hands of the United Nations in recent years. Mr. Speaker, Kofi Annan and the United Nations are stained with the blood of millions of dead people. Let me tell you about some of their recent failures. Let me start with their greatest failure--Rwanda. The 1994 Rwandan genocide must amount to one of the greatest humanitarian failures of any generation. Kofi Annan was the Director of UN Peacekeeping based in New York and was personally responsible for the UN Peace Keeping force in Rwanda. The now famous informant Jean Pierre had warned Dallaire and the UN leadership of the coming mass slaughter but his information was cavalierly dismissed. Tragically, as had been predicted, Rwanda exploded into an orgy of violence the likes of which the last century had never seen. At the end of 100 days an estimated 1,000,000 Rwandan men, women, and children had been bludgeoned, macheted, and axed to death. The daily death rate was five times that of the Nazi industrial death camps. Instead of reinforcing the UN contingent in Kigali, the UN actually ordered the withdrawal of their troops. It was then that the killing in Kigali exploded. Of course, the US bears much of the blame for the UN's inaction. And now the much-celebrated International Tribunal for Rwanda has become yet another UN bureaucratic disaster. Repeated UN investigations have found widespread mismanagement, wastage, incompetence, and corruption. The Tribunal has prosecuted a fraction of the Rwandan genocide suspects it holds in custody. It has even been criticized by its own Appeal Court of prosecutorial incompetence and failing to observe elementary due process considerations. Sadly, the Tribunal, which should have brought justice to the region, has instead become another multi-million dollar UN boondoggle. Srebrenica, a name now associated with one of the worst crimes in Europe since WWII or as Judge Riad of the ICTY described it, ``. . . a place where thousands of men were executed, hundreds buried alive, men and women mutilated and slaughtered, children killed before their mother's eyes, and a grandfather was forced to eat the liver of his own grandson.'' These are truly scenes from hell written on the darkest pages of human history. The UN created a safe haven in Srebrenica and encouraged civilians to enter en masse so as to be under UN military protection. Only one condition applied--entry into the UN safe haven required Muslim fighters to surrender their weapons. This they did, hoping that if ever the need arose they would get them back. They were to be sorely disappointed on that score. When it became apparent that General Mladic was separating the men from the women and then killing them in the nearby fields, the Dutch UN troops began pleading for UN military support. But, just like Rwanda, the UN leadership once again became paralyzed and failed. They dithered over air strikes, they refused to send in troops to help the beleaguered Dutch and in the end, just as with Rwanda, the UN withdrew their troops. This permitted General Mladic to remove an estimated 5,000-8,000 Muslims from in and around the UN compound in Potocari and slaughter them. To this day the United Nations and no UN official has ever been held criminally or civilly liable, let alone even publicly admonished, for their massive failures in Srebrenica. All the families of the thousands of victims can do now is pick up the pieces of their broken families and attempt to restart their lives. Mr. Speaker, sadly there is more. East Timor. In late August 1999, the UN and now Secretary General Annan, called for elections on the small island country of East Timor despite disturbing evidence that hard line elements in the Indonesian military were preparing to cause wide spread public disorder so as to disrupt the elections. The UN failed to provide adequate protection for the civilian population. Dili was burnt to the ground and East Timor was engulfed in violence. After weeks of killing and millions of dollars of damage, the Australian government sent in ground troops to restore order to East Timor; but by then, it was too late to save East Timor from UN bungling. Sierra Leone. So bad was the UN's conduct in Sierra Leone in June 2000 that their long time supporter and friend, Medicins Sans Frontieres, felt compelled to speak out and complain. MSF complained bitterly that the UN troops fled a RUF attack on the Sierra Leonean town of Kabala. In so doing MSF said that the UN had failed its mandate to protect civilian populations, many of whom were sick women and malnourished children in the MSF hospital. Cambodia. There is now mounting evidence that UN Peacekeeping troops actually caused an explosion of AIDS in Cambodia in 1992. In January of this year Richard Holbrooke, the then US Ambassador to the UN, launched an unprecedented attack upon the UN during his last UTN address saying ``. . . it would be the cruelest of ironies if people who had come to end war . . . were spreading the most deadly of diseases . . . it will kill more people and undermine more societies than even the most critical conflicts we discuss here.'' And despite Ambassador Holbrooke's warnings there are concerns that right now in East Timor UN staff could be causing yet another AIDS epidemic. Some things just never seem to change. Mr. Speaker, let me put it squarely on the record. I believe in the UN. I believe that our country should support the UN. But I do not think that we should blindly lend our support in the face of massive negligence. I think answers to these questions beg to be asked: After such repeated UN failures to act upon knowledge of impending humanitarian disasters, what forgiveness? After such repeated UN failures to discharge their sacred duties, what accountability? After such ongoing complicity by the UN in repeated slaughters, what punishment?

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, today we have been bombing Afghanistan for one month. During that time, we have also dropped about 1.1 million humanitarian daily rations. I find it unfortunate that, from the entire spectrum of colors, both the cluster bomblets and the food rations we are dropping are bright yellow. Though recent reports from the Pentagon stated that the food rations would be changed to blue packages, apparently this color will not work either. Radio broadcasts from our psychological operations planes that are trying to explain the color discrepancy because many Afghans neither hear the broadcast nor trust them, will not solve this problem. I can only hope that the Pentagon will soon find a solution, before innocent Afghan children try to pry open a cluster bomb, hoping to cure their hunger but killing them instead. There are many problems associated with this war, and they go far beyond the similar color of food rations and cluster bombs. Six years ago, the use of cluster bombs was prohibited during the 1995 bombing campaign in Bosnia by Air Force Major General Michael Ryan, then-commander of Allied Air Forces Southern Europe and of NATO's air campaign in Bosnia. The logic behind this decision was simple. General Ryan recognized the inherent danger from cluster bombs to Bosnian civilians, the very people whom we were supposedly fighting to protect. He knew that cluster bombs landed in villages and near hospitals, that dud cluster bombs were picked up and played with by children and that innocent Bosnians were being killed. An Air Force study on cluster bombs stated ``the problem was that the fragmentation pattern was too large to sufficiently limit collateral damage and there was also the further problem of potential unexploded ordnance.''' Despite General Ryan''s wise action, cluster bombs were again used in Kosovo and now again in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, little has changed, and the array of problems and dangers with cluster bombs continues to exist. In Kosovo, the first casualties to peacekeeping forces occurred when two British soldiers attempted to disarm an unexploded cluster bomblet. The International Committee of the Red Cross found that, in one year's time, there were over 150 civilian casualties in Kosovo from cluster bomblets. In 1999, the Pentagon admitted that more than 11,000 unexploded cluster bomblets remain in Kosovo. In Afghanistan, the United Nations has reported that villagers near the City of Herat fear leaving their home because little yellow cluster bomblets litter the ground. Or perhaps they're yellow food rations, who knows . . . Cluster bombs are neither safe, nor are they humane. They can be dropped from nearly any Marine, Navy or Air Force plane. Once released, cluster bombs open up and release 200 to 2000 bomblets, which fall to the ground and cover football field size areas. As many as 10% of these bomblets don't explode, and end up scattered across the ground, waiting for a farmer to plow it, a child to play with it, or an unknowing hungry mother to pick it up. As a United Nations mine clearance expert noted ``it is highly likely that many in Afghanistan will not know the difference between aerially delivered food aid and aerially delivered munitions.'' But, Mr. Speaker, the situation in Afghanistan only gets worse. It is estimated that 724 million square meters of land in Afghanistan are tainted with landmines. Unexploded cluster bomblets will only expand this area, undoubtedly to include farms, villages and holy sites. Further, winter is coming soon in Afghanistan, and as snow falls in the mountains, cluster bomblets will become buried and frozen, silently waiting for an unexpecting civilian or allied soldier to walk by. It is no surprise that Human Rights Watch has called for a global moratorium on the use of cluster bombs. They realize that unexploded cluster bombs become in effect landmines. A recent report by the group finds that cluster bombs ``have proven to be a serious and long-lasting threat to civilians, soldiers, peacekeepers, and even clearance experts, because of the high initial failure rate of the bomblets, because of the large number typically dispersed over large areas, and because of the difficulty in precisely targeting the bomblets.'' For these same reasons, many believe that the use of cluster bombs is a violation of the Geneva Convention's prohibition against weapons that cause superfluous injury and suffering. If we can't guarantee that only military targets will be hit, and if we can't guarantee that all cluster bomblets will explode, then we simply should not use them. I have written President Bush to urge him to end the use of cluster bombs, and I anticipate his response. Our use of cluster bombs leaves much to be considered for when the bombing in Afghanistan ends. Will the United States work to cleanse the landscape of cluster bomblets as it tries to build a new government in Afghanistan? I have no doubt that landmines and cluster bombs will be cleared from the areas that Unocal wants to build its pipeline. The oil giant's consultant, Dr. Henry Kissinger, may well use his vast influence to protect Unocal's interest, to have cluster bomblets removed from a swath through southern Afghanistan leading from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. But I wonder about their opinions of cluster bomblets elsewhere. Will Unocal and Kissinger see cluster bomblets as a buffer, insulating their interests from the threat of angry, antiAmerican Afghans? Will it serve the oil company's interest to have a maimed population and to restrict the Afghan government? Time will only tell. . . What ever the case may be, the need for the U.S. to take the lead in ending its use of cluster bombs has never been more apparent. We need to protect the Afghan citizenry and instill trust with the people; we need to protect the Afghan land and insure a viable economic future; and we need to assist in developing a government for Afghanistan that will serve peace in the region, not profits abroad. Cluster bombs only serve a short-term goal of death, and have no role in the long-term strategy of peace.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I know the American people want to help the suffering Afghan people. I'm sorry to say that we already stand condemned by Medecins Sans Frontieres for conducting nothing more than a propaganda campaign regarding our food drops. Our brave young men and women are risking their lives to deliver this urgently needed food. But how will we be judged by this new blunder? I'd like to ask you to take a look at this. . . . And this. . . . To more than just a casual observer, they might even get mistaken for being the same thing! And that's what's got the US military quaking in their boots. Can you imagine the horror if this one gets mistaken for this one? Well, one is life . . . And the other one is death . . . The squarish one is the food . . . The roundish one is a cluster bomb. That's what the poor, starving people of Afghanistan must now contend with. The US military is dropping little notes to inform people not to pick up this one, the cluster bomb thinking it's food because if they pick up this one, which is the wrong one, they'll get blown to smithereens. Isn't it bad enough that our military is dropping cluster bombs on Afghanistan, anyway? Well, it's really bad because in the war in Bosnia then-Air Force Chief of Staff, Major General Michael Ryan, refused to allow cluster bombs to be dropped because of the civilian deaths associated with cluster bombs, especially that of children. But now our Air Force refuses to issue such a directive, it appears, as the US comes under fire from humanitarian organizations around the world for dropping cluster bombs on the people of Afghanistan. I have written a letter to our President asking that we please refrain from using cluster bombs. But a funny thing about those cluster bombs. They have little bomblets that look like this! And so when little kids see them, they think they're a toy or something. Now, Afghanistan already has 10 million landmines and the unexploded bomblets from the cluster bombs add to that number. So now if the food looks like this, what will hungry children do? But if the food looks like this, and the bombs look like this what will hungry people do? The military bets that they will try to find something to eat. And so the Pentagon is concerned that people who are hungry for food that looks like this will confuse it with bomblets that look like this. The Pentagon is now worried that hungry Afghan people will try to eat the bombs thinking it's the American food. So the Pentagon has sent messages to the Afghani people. One message says, ``As you may have heard, the Partnership of Nations is dropping yellow humanitarian daily rations. Although it is unlikely, it is possible that not every bomb will explode on impact. These bombs are a yellow color and are can-shaped.'' Another Pentagon message is more to the point: ``Please, please exercise caution when approaching unidentified yellow objects in areas that have been recently bombed.'' Mr. Speaker, not only do innocent Afghans have to worry about the Taliban . . . not only do they have to worry about landmines left from the last war . . . not only do they have to worry about starving to death . . . and an approaching winter . . . they now have to worry about bombs that look like food. I think I've heard it all now, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to honor and remember Mr. Larry D. Callaghan for his tremendous contributions and a lifetime of servitude. Mr. Callaghan was a man who possessed a greatness of character and lived a dedicated and selfless life, which has served our nation and our nation's veterans in a most honorable way. Larry's patriotism and valor became evident in Vietnam as a scout squad leader with the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, part of the 119th Infantry Brigade. In July 1968, while on a combat mission, he sustained a spinal cord injury caused by a land mine explosion. He was recognized for his service with the Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, Combat Infantry Badge, and the Purple Heart. Larry continued to distinguish himself as a leader aspiring to help others by joining the Paralyzed Veterans of America in 1968. During the past 30 years, he was actively involved in the New England Chapter of the Paralyzed Veterans of America and served on the Executive Committee as a national vice president from 1989 to 1994. Most recently, Larry served as PVA national senior vice president last year. I offer my condolences to his wife Beth and his children John and Megan. I hope that they can take comfort in the fact that a nation is in their family's debt for the dedicated compassion and service that Larry has shown in his life--one that is marked with greatness. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you and all of my colleagues will join me today to remember and honor the life of a very remarkable man.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I know the American people want to help the suffering people of Afghanistan. And I am sorry to say that we already stand condemned by Medecins Sans Frontieres for conducting nothing more than a propaganda campaign regarding our food drops. Our brave young men and women are risking their lives to deliver this food, and how will we be judged, however, by this latest blunder? I ask my colleagues to take a look at this object and this object. To more than just a casual observer, they might even get mistaken for the same thing. And that is what has got the U.S. military quaking in their boots. Can one imagine the horror if this object, a cluster bomb, gets mistaken for this object, a food packet? One is life and the other one is death. The squarish one is the food. The roundish one is a cluster bomb. That is what the poor starving people of Afghanistan must now contend with. The U.S. military is dropping little notes to inform people not to pick up this one, the cluster bomb, thinking it is food because if they pick up this one, which is the wrong one, they will get blown to smithereens. Is it not bad enough that our military is dropping cluster bombs on Afghanistan anyway? Well, it is really bad because in the war in Kosovo, then-Major General Ryan refused to allow cluster bombs to be dropped because of the civilian deaths associated with cluster bombs, especially the children. But now our Air Force Chief of Staff Ryan refuses to issue such a directive, it appears, as the U.S. comes under fire from humanitarian organizations around the world for dropping cluster bombs on the people of Afghanistan. I have written a letter to our President asking that we please refrain from using cluster bombs. But a funny thing about cluster bombs. They have little bomblets that look like things; and so when kids see them, they think they are a toy or something. Now, Afghanistan already has 10 million landmines, and the unexploded bomblets from the cluster bombs add to that number. So now if the food looks like this object, what will hungry children do? But if the food looks like this object and the bombs look like this object, what would any hungry person do? The military bets that they are going to try to find something to eat. And so the Pentagon is concerned that people who are hungry for food that looks like this object will confuse it with bomblets that look like this object. The Pentagon is now worried that hungry Afghan people will try to eat the bombs thinking that it is American food. So the Pentagon has sent messages to the Afghan people. One message says, ``As you may have heard, the Partnership of Nations is dropping yellow humanitarian daily rations. Although it is unlikely, it is possible that not every bomb will explode on impact. These bombs are a yellow color and are can-shaped.'' Another Pentagon message is more to the point. It says, ``Please, please exercise caution when approaching yellow unidentified objects in areas that have been recently bombed.'' Mr. Speaker, not only do innocent Afghans have to worry about the Taliban, not only do they have to worry about landmines left over from the last war, not only do they have to worry about starving to death and the approaching winter, now they have to worry about bombs that look like food. I think I have heard it all now, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, it was expected that later this week we would be taking up an economic stimulus bill. I've heard about all sorts of benefits being included, from loan guarantees and tax cuts, to increasing health insurance and unemployment assistance. However, one un-stimulating provision was imposed by President Bush last week. As Congress deemed fit last year, each branch of the military was to count the days each service member was deployed, and to pay them a high deployment per diem of $100 per day for each day over 400 days in two years that they are deployed. On October 8, the Pentagon suspended this pay. As we send our sons and daughters overseas to participate in our war in Afghanistan, why should we cut away their high deployment pay? More than any other period in their service, we are asking more of them--to be in harms way, to be away from their families, to be in the greatest service to our nation. This is when they are truly earning overtime. Mr. Chairman, our service men and women need to know that we support them and that their service is important to our nation, and we need to support their morale. While we pass tax cuts for corporations and increase benefits for the unemployed, we must assist and applaud our service personnel as well. We must pay our service men and women the overtime they are owed. I don't think anyone disputes that they have earned it.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my admiration to a Good Corporate Citizen. I would like to call attention to the thoughtful actions being performed by Delta Airlines in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The airline industry in this country has suffered a catastrophe with the events of September 11, along with the rest of the country. However the tragedy was not a license to treat people poorly. Other airlines ejected passengers from their seats because fellow passengers were scared to fly with people of Middle Eastern descent. While others committed vicious acts like these, Delta took another road and sent out a memo from the president Fred Reid saying: ``Delta has an uncompromising policy never to discriminate against customers on the basis of race, gender, age, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or similar classifications. The law mandates this policy-- discrimination is not only illegal, it is wrong and will not be tolerated''. If only the rest of this nation's airline carriers could follow Delta's lead. Instead other airline carriers ignored the law and punished innocent people just trying to fly during a difficult time. But what do you expect from airlines that blindly cut jobs and not executive salaries? I stand today to commend Delta for the careful cost cutting measures it has taken to preserve jobs and morale as the airlines weather these uncertain times. Delta has put the needs of their workers first. No employee at Delta will be left out in the cold this winter. You can tell a lot about a corporation by the way they act when the going gets tough. Finally I want to commend Delta for providing complimentary tickets to New York City on behalf of volunteer relief workers who are giving so much to the recovery effort. Delta has been a true Corporate Good Citizen and on behalf of a grateful nation we thank you!

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I also thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), for their kind words on behalf of Mr. Shinhoster. I was very happy to introduce this bill several months ago, and to announce its introduction at a special memorial service held at Martin Luther King, Jr.'s former church, Ebenezer Baptist Church. First, let me thank the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton), for his help and cooperation in bringing this important legislation to the floor. When this bill leaves the House, Senator Max Cleland of Georgia will usher it through the Senate. Earl Shinhoster, for those who did not have a chance to know him or know of him, was a wonderful activist, father, husband, and friend. I knew him first as an activist. Most of America got a chance to know him because he was an activist. But as we got to know him, we learned that he operated in many dimensions; that while he served the family of man, he was also very much a family man. His wife, Ruby, was so generous. She shared her Earl with all of us. And although Earl was also a father to Michael Omar, Earl also fathered to the vitality of the movement for the rights of America's poor and dispossessed. I thank Ruby and I thank Michael Omar. The family of activists that helped to make America a better place were all friends of Earl Shinhoster: Reverend James Orange, former Ambassador Andrew Young, Mrs. Coretta Scott King, and our own colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). But now Earl has joined the legion of human rights activists who came before him, from Sojourner Truth to Harriet Tubman, from Frederick Douglass to Henry McNeal Turner. It was Turner who said, ``I am here to demand my rights and to hurl thunderbolts at the man who would dare to cross the threshold of my manhood. . . .'' This line alone epitomizes the life Earl Shinhoster led. Earl was strong, proud, well-spoken, and internationalist. It has been little more than a year since Earl left us, but I can rest in the certainty that Martin is on his left side and Malcolm is on his right side. Earl died an untimely death, but we know that his life was not spent in vain. I just want to take a moment to reflect on his legacy of helping and serving, and to suggest to all who will use this post office that the man we honor is well worth their emulation. When Earl believed in a thing, he gave himself wholeheartedly. Earl served as Executive Director and CEO of the national NAACP in Baltimore, but Earl was also the Chairman of the Georgia delegation to the National Summit on Africa, and lived every day of his adult life working on behalf of his people. In the words of Walter Butler, Jr., President of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, ``Earl gave his life that others could enjoy the fruits of the Constitution of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' For younger people, if they were to study his life, they would find a man who came through the ranks of the civil rights movement. Earl started out in Savannah, Georgia, an area I used to represent in my first term in Congress, the old 11th District of Georgia. In Savannah, he was active in the Connie Wimberly Youth Council. From there, it was on to the NAACP, which became for Earl a labor of love. He started out as a volunteer youth leader and rose all the way to the CEO position. Like Malcolm and Martin, Earl was international. His passion for Africa, her suffering, and his efforts among the people there was another part of Earl's ministry. He once served as Field Director for the National Democratic Institute in Ghana, where he trained local citizens to serve as election monitors. From Ghana his interest spread to Liberia. At the time of his death, he was assisting the country of Liberia. He was touring the United States with Liberia's First Lady, Mrs. Jewel Howard-Taylor, offering an opportunity for black Americans to learn firsthand what was happening in Liberia and how we could help. As a result, the country of Liberia, by order of its President, made Earl T. Shinhoster a citizen of Liberia posthumously, offered land to his family, and is helping to establish the Earl T. Shinhoster People to People for Africa Foundation. We now are in a position to honor Earl and ensure his legacy. We are in a position to ensure that his work and mission continue. This bill would not have come this far without the support of the Georgia delegation to the House of Representatives, and I would like to personally thank the gentlemen from Georgia, Mr. Collins, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Linder, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Deal, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. Barr, in their endorsement of this bill. In closing, the circumstances that led to the tragic accident that claimed the life of this civil rights icon serve as marching orders for us to continue the valiant pursuit for justice, peace, and equity. The tire that blew out and reportedly led his Ford Explorer to flip out of control was discovered to be a Firestone tire, the same model tire whose defective design has led to the death of dozens of people and scores of injuries across the world. Firestone, in its beginning through colonial conquests in Africa, seized millions of acres of land to exploit the rubber that produces their tires, and today still holds the property. This hold contributes to the fight for space within this war-torn area. So in addition to building on his legacy, we have to fight on behalf of families and victims of the Ford Explorer/Firestone Tires debacle, and we must fight for the people of Africa who are, all too often, unable to fight for themselves. We must help them find a way to stop the plunder and rape of Africa's human, mineral, and strategic resources. To date, Firestone and Ford are reluctant to admit responsibility for the failure of their products. I know Earl will not rest until we help Africa receive real security and peace through justice. In life, Earl believed his work for the NAACP, for civil rights, for equal rights did not suffer while he worked on Africa-related issues. Indeed, we know that the work for human rights has no boundaries and knows no end as long as there is evil on this Earth. I have received Earl's marching orders, and I know that all is well with him as long as each and every one of us who was touched by him remembers his values and America's values as we traverse these dangerous times right now. Let us continue to show the world, as Earl T. Shinhoster did through his work, that if you work on behalf of the people, you will truly live forever.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, what has the al-Qaeda organization, a heavy 50-caliber sniper rifle designed for elite troops, and a firearms manufacturer in Tennessee got in common? Guns, money, and a great big boomerang. Last Sunday, October 7, 2001, the Violence Policy Center issued a report entitled ``Voting from the Rooftops,'' which detailed, among other things, the sale and supply of 25 50-caliber sniper rifles manufactured by a local gun manufacturer, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, to the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. The report cites evidence given earlier this year in New York during the African Embassy bombings trial that Essam al Ridi testified that in about 1988 or 1989 he had purchased 25 Barrett 50-caliber sniper rifles for $150,000 and shipped them to al-Qaeda. The report went on to detail other sales of the special 50-caliber Barrett weapon to members of the IRA and other groups. Tragically, the report cited numerous incidents of British soldiers being shot and killed with sniper rifles. The report said that there is no evidence yet available about whether Ronnie G. Barrett, the 1993 trading name of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, actually knew that the 25 guns being sold to bin Laden's al-Qaeda, nor do we know whether the guns were sold directly from the factory or through a dealer or dealers. Jane's International Defense Review reported in 1989 that, ``Barrett will not identify its weapons purchasers.'' But the unavailability of evidence is not reassuring. The fact is we should know all of the people who were in this country buying and selling these kinds of specialist weapons to terrorists and the hands that these specialist weapons pass through before they left this country. The events of September 11 have now made that kind of information vital to showing the links between the al-Qaeda members. The Barrett and M82A1 50-caliber sniper rifle is a tremendously powerful weapon providing heavy hitting power with high accuracy out to an estimated 1,800 yards. U.S. Marines used the Barrett 50-caliber in the Gulf War to knock out Iraqi armored vehicles from 1,750 yards away. Mr. Speaker, for those of us in Washington, D.C., that is roughly the distance from the Smithsonian Institute metro stop to the west front of the Capitol. These weapons are state-of-the-art firearms and can be used against vehicle armor, fuel tanks, penetrating concrete walls, aircraft and helicopters. These weapons should not be in the hands of terrorists. These weapons should not be in the hands of civilians. These are specialist weapons which should be sold and supplied only to the military. Barrett Firearms Manufacturing company's Web site ironically states that ``long-range shooting competitors and large caliber rifle enthusiasts throughout the world rely on Barrett products.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, I can think of a lot of adjectives to describe members of al- Qaeda and the IRA, but large caliber rifle enthusiasts is not among them. Now, not only might our young servicemen and women be confronted by the stinger missiles sold by the CIA, but it appears that they might be confronted with sniper rifles from Tennessee. I understand that Senator Feinstein and other Members of the Senate have introduced a bill to curb the sale and supply of these specialist 50-caliber weapons and that the NRA has already come out against it. Mr. Speaker, the NRA and its followers are fond of saying that ``guns don't kill, people do.'' Well, in this case, the boomerang of unbridled arms sales and bad public policy might just come back to hurt us in Afghanistan. Arms sales are a boomerang.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I was utterly speechless to read a news report from the San Diego Times dated September 29 that an unnamed Pentagon source had revealed that Secretary Rumsfeld was considering enacting an emergency provision to suspend the payment of $100 a day to U.S. servicemen and women who have been deployed for more than 400 days in 2 years, a pay provision mandated by this Congress and one which this Congress has already refused to revoke. Once again we are sending our young men and women into combat. They fly, fuel, arm and operate ships worth billions of dollars, and they risk their lives and the lives of others daily. Yet despite all of that, our Secretary of Defense does not apparently deem it appropriate to pay them what they are worth. We can give billions of dollars to the airlines, but not to young men and women in our military. Sadly, our Nation does not have a good record with respect to the treatment of its men and women in the military. Many have returned from Vietnam poisoned by Agent Orange, and many Vietnam veterans now live on our city streets as beggars. The thanks of a grateful Nation to our young men should also acknowledge the fact that they and their families will be taken care of by our government.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I hope the international community is not once again going to sit back and allow another giant humanitarian disaster to unfold. U.N. agencies have warned that the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan is fast approaching historic proportions. The situation in Afghanistan grows worse by the day. Incredibly, the scale of the Afghanistan humanitarian crisis is now exceeding even the scale of the monumental refugee disaster which followed the 1994 Rwanda genocide. I cannot believe that just 7 years after Rwanda, we are now preparing to allow millions of innocent men, women, and children to perish in Afghanistan. The World Food Program now estimates that 6 million Afghan men, women, and children will require food aid inside Afghanistan from October 2001 until the end of March 2002. The U.N. estimates that as a result of the military operations, a further 1.5 million Afghans will flee into Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan and place the aid agencies in those countries under yet more pressure. The greatest tragedy is that the children of Afghanistan are being forced to bear the greatest burden of this war. Almost 1.5 million of the at-risk population are children under the age of 5 years; and for them, hunger, illness, and cold conditions can easily lead to death. Even before the September 11 attacks, UNICEF had estimated that one in four children born today in Afghanistan could expect to die before their fifth birthday. Save The Children Fund confirms that the lives of Afghans and especially the hundreds of thousands of Afghan children aged under 5 years are at risk of dying during the coming winter months. The World Food Program believes that they need to deliver a total of 493,000 metric tons during the next 6 months in order to feed an estimated 6 million people. They have asked for roughly $250 million. Our Armed Forces have deployed and are using military assets including three aircraft carrier battle groups, including destroyers, escorts, submarines, and other support ships, B-1 and B-2 Stealth bombers, dozens of F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, and F/A 18s, together with helicopters, AWACS, and heavy lift transport, all worth billions of dollars. The World Food Program asked for $250 million or the cost of 15 cruise missiles. That is the amount that we fired on the first night, or maybe the cost of just two wings of one B-2 Stealth bomber. The tragedy is that while our military celebrates its precision bombing, millions in Afghanistan suffer. In Rwanda, up to 1 million people died in the genocide as the U.N. Security Council and member states stood by and cut U.N. troops back from 2,000 to 400. After the worst of the killings were over, international troops were deployed in neighboring Zaire to deliver aid and smile for the cameras. But once the cameras left, hundreds and thousands of Congolese and Rwandan refugees were left helpless. It is now estimated that some 3 million Congolese have died from malnutrition, disease, and other preventable diseases. That amounts to a staggering 7,000 civilian deaths each and every week for the last 3 years, and the number is still counting. We love our children and we know that the Afghan people love theirs as well. What will they do and all the nations surrounding Afghanistan if the United States and Britain allow so much needless suffering to unfold in the name of the war against terrorism. Millions of Afghans are going to starve and perish and yet, what we will have is another generation rising up in bitterness and hatred against us. Mr. Speaker, the United States and Britain do not need that, and we should not allow untold millions to suffer needlessly in Afghanistan.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, Medecin Sans Frontieres, the 1999 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, has today accused the United States of conducting nothing more than cynical military propaganda when we describe our operations in Afghanistan as ``humanitarian.'' The tragic truth is, they are right. The Bush administration's celebrations concerning the U.S. Air Force drops of food packages, totalling 75,000 food ration packages over the 2 days of Sunday and Monday, are not deserved. Medicine Sans Frontieres accuses us of little more than window dressing, seeking to divert public attention from a scandalous humanitarian disaster that could soon rival the Rwandan/ Congolese catastrophe of 1994 and 1995. Before the September 11 crisis, the U.N. World Food Program estimated that there were 2 million civilians in Afghanistan totally dependent on foreign food aid. The World Food Program was trucking in 500 tons a day, or enough to feed only 1 million people. So just 4 weeks ago, each day that went by, some 1 million Afghan men, women, and children were without food. But now the situation is much worse. Our military operations have started, and the number dependent on food aid has grown rapidly while international food distribution has actually fallen to almost nothing. The BBC reports today that UNICEF believes that the number of Afghans in need has now grown to 5.5 million people, of which an estimated 70 percent are women and children. Mr. Speaker, that staggering number of people, 5.5 million, easily exceeds if not even doubles the population of some of the largest cities in our own country. Can we imagine how horrified we would be, and how we would, as a nation, react if the entire population of cities such as Dallas or San Diego or San Francisco or Detroit were starving to death? Mr. Speaker, that is the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe now confronting Afghanistan. These 5.5 million people desperately require about 2,750 tons of food aid each day, based on World Food Program estimates of 500 tons per million people per day. And this says nothing about the medical needs of these people. Clearly, our two airdrops of 37,000 ration packages, though well- intentioned and bravely carried out by U.S. Air Force air crews, are not nearly enough to prevent a humanitarian disaster. Maybe, as alleged by Medecin Sans Frontieres, it does help soothe our collective conscience, but it does little more. The Heritage Foundation has called Afghanistan the worst U.S. foreign policy failure of all time, and I have visited the Afghan refugees in their camp. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government should be promoting democracy in Afghanistan. Bobby Kennedy had the following to say: ``Can we ordain ourselves the awful majesty of God, to decide what cities and villages are to be destroyed; who will live and who will die; who will join refugees wandering in the desert of our own creation?'' Although Bobby Kennedy was referring to our involvement in Vietnam, his words apply to our involvement in Afghanistan. The United States and the world community must do more for the people of Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking for 5.5 million innocent people.

Ms. MCKINNEY

Ms. MCKINNEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez amendment. Though the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the right of women to seek abortions if they choose, this right does not carry with women when they travel overseas with our military. This amendment would simply permit service women and female dependents who serve or reside overseas to obtain privately funded abortions in military facilities. Should we instead force them to seek such medical procedures in back alleys or third world hospitals, or are we ceding ourselves the authority of the Supreme Court in prohibiting a woman's right to choose? We all respect women's health, we all support the sanctity of the Supreme Court, and we should all support this important amendment.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, our Armed Forces are poised to conduct military strikes in foreign lands. My own State of Georgia is contributing significantly to our overseas forces with troops being committed from the 116th Bomber Wing, the 117th Air Control Squadron, the 293rd MP Company from Fort Stewart in Augusta, and the 224th Joint Communications Support Squad, Brunswick, Georgia. And I have no doubt that men of the elite 75th Ranger Battalion from Fort Benning are currently or soon will be deploying overseas. Our Nation suffered a terrible injury last week with the attacks in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania. Many thousands of our innocent civilians were unjustly taken from their families and loved ones, and we as a Nation must now respond. But just how we should do that, both internationally and domestically, is now giving rise to considerable debate. We have heard the Bush Administration's call to arms to fight the first war of the 21st century. I understand that our Nation's full military resources are soon to be turned against not just the terrorists responsible for last week's attack, but international terrorism generally. Our intelligence agencies have allegedly identified terror cells in some 60 countries, and that whether or not Afghanistan actually surrenders Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of last week's attacks, our military intends on fighting a long and bitter worldwide campaign against international terrorism in more than 60 countries, or, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld announced this week, we intend to drain the swamp. I understand a draft bill, which is the first of a far larger package of anti-terrorist legislation, is now circulating Capitol Hill, and I am told it proposes giving law enforcement the power to detain non-U.S. citizens for indefinite periods without charge, giving immigration authorities greater and accelerated powers to deport non-U.S. citizens, and, at the same time, curtailing rights of non-U.S. citizens to judicial review and appeal. Many of these reforms that the Bush Administration is now proposing are the very same types of state powers that we routinely criticize other nations for possessing in our own State Department's annual Human Rights Report. I am greatly concerned that we are about to engage in an extremely hazardous military campaign of unknown duration with unrealistic objectives and perhaps even ultimately harmful long-term consequences for our Nation. Already, there is disquiet in the Muslim world that the U.S. is poised to turn its terrorist campaign into a war against Islam. The Bush Administration has already had to change the name of the military mission once when it used term ``crusade,'' and now it has got to change the name again, because it used the term ``Infinite Justice,'' and that is offensive to our Muslim communities. All of these gaffs feed the growing Muslim fear that this impending U.S. military action could become a broader campaign against them. Mr. Speaker, I know I do not need to address the impending catastrophe should large sections of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims unify and turn against the United States. It would be ironic indeed if we as a Nation destroyed democracy in the name of saving democracy. But before we grant more powers and massive resources to our law enforcement, military and intelligence community, we should be examining why they did not detect the threat of these and other attacks, especially since we had been told that the attacks last week were sophisticated, involved many people over a considerable period of time, and maybe even involved the assistance of a foreign government. We should know or should have known that bin Laden was capable of attacking our major cities. Just 7 months ago, during the trial of suspects charged with the embassy bombings in Africa, Federal prosecutors detailed the bin Laden network in open court. Details of bin Laden's business and financial history, his international terror network, as well as his hatred for America, were all systematically dissected by Federal prosecutors. Given these revelations, it was clear, or it should have been clear, that our Nation and our citizens were in grave danger. I do not understand how intelligence services have the ability to penetrate, analyze and publicly distribute records of bin Laden's alleged cellular phone traffic in the hours immediately after the bombings. From these conversations, we learned of bin Laden's alleged celebrations with supporters. But in stark contrast, over the same period of months, they were not able to intercept bin Laden's planning or preparations for the attacks. I am also deeply concerned that recent reports in the press of specific, credible and quite extraordinary warnings of terrorist attacks on our citizens, which were ignored by our government, and some of these warnings directly referred to the use of hijacked aircraft attacking the World Trade Center. For example, the L.A. Times reported on September 20, 2001, that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, had warned the FBI and the CIA that a major terrorist force of some 200 individuals were entering the U.S. The Advertiser Newspaper from the Murdoch Group reported on Monday, September 17, that a man in the Cayman Islands wrote to U.S. authorities on August 29 and warned them that he had overheard three Afghan men in a bar talking about impending attacks on the United States. The CIA is said to have followed up on the attack, but apparently did not take it any further. Then it is also reported that a week later, an Iranian in Hamburg, Germany, contacted police and warned them of an impending terrorist attack against the United States using hijacked planes. Tragically, I am forced to say, this does not appear to be the first time our intelligence services have been caught flatfooted. Earlier this year, Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl, a former aid to Osama bin Laden, while testifying in New York against the four men accused of the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, said that he told U.S. officials that bin Laden's group was trying to make a war on the United States. Similarly, Prudence Bushnell, the U.S. Ambassador in Nairobi, warned the State Department of the poor security of her embassy in Nairobi. Regrettably, these warnings appear to have been ignored. Not surprisingly, our government now finds itself subject to civil actions by survivors and family representatives of those killed in the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. Count up the combined assets of our Nation's law enforcement, military intelligence agencies charged with fighting terrorism over the last 10 to 15 years, and we have budgets worth billions and billions and billions of dollars, space-age technology that most countries would just dream of having; and despite all of these resources, we sustained thee terrible attacks upon our military, our cities, our warships, our embassies. In my view, the problem is not one of resources, but of a failure of implementation on a scale that should shame us. But what frustrates me most is that no one in a position of leadership in our Nation has yet to seriously ask why our Nation has been attacked in this way. Why have our cities, our embassies and our military forces been systematically targeted by terrorist organizations? Why is it that our Nation and its people are being attacked in these ways? Our politicians and political observers have, for years, been willing to analyze and discuss about the IRA in England, the Shining Path in Peru, the Red Brigade in Italy; but now that it has come home, all of a sudden, we failed to analyze and ask the question, why did it happen. Secretary of State Colin Powell is absolutely right. We must give diplomacy a chance. We must honestly ask ourselves, what is the root cause of this war being waged on our people and our country? I suspect that we will need to look at altering some of our foreign policy positions. Unless we do this, I fear that a military campaign, unsupported by sound foreign policy strategies, will only cause immeasurable civilian suffering throughout the world and may well actually lead to more terrifying attacks upon our cities and our citizens. I would ask our President to sidestep those Rambos in the Pentagon who are talking about using nuclear weapons. Now is not the time for us to be talking about using nuclear weapons. We need to free our Secretary of State to do his job, and I know he can do it. Finally, I pray that common sense and reason will prevail.

Ms. McKINNEY

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

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 344, Military Construction Appropriations Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Chairman, I have grave concerns about this bill. I would first like to say that I hope that reason and common sense prevail in any decisions on our Nation's future response to terrorism. Madam Chairman, I pray for God's intervention in ensuring the safe return of our many young men and women who are now being sent off to fight this war against terrorism. They face tremendous dangers and uncertain futures and their families will endure many long and sleepless nights waiting for their return. We must remember them all and acknowledge the great personal sacrifices they are going to have to make on our behalf in the coming days. budget increase and comparison The passage of H.R. 2586, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2002, by the House Armed Services Committee represented a near $33 billion dollar increase from fiscal year 2001, and provides a total of $343.3 billion in budget authority to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002. For the sake of comparison, the House of Representatives has passed an appropriation totaling $7.7 billion for the Department of State for fiscal year 2002, and the appropriation for Foreign Operations was passed by the House at $15.2 billion. The sum of these two appropriations--$22.9 billion--representing the amount allocated to diplomancy, international aid, and peace by the United States, rises only to 70 percent of the defense allocation increase and 6.7 percent of the entire defense budget. With the financial mismanagement that continues to exist within the Department of Defense, increases should not be made to many programs until a system of financial responsibility is instituted to prevent future overspending and fiscal waste and to address the lack of accountability. missile defense The single largest portion of the budget increase is dedicated to the development and proliferation of missile defense systems. It should be apparent to us all that ballistic missiles are not our worst threat at this time. The committee's missile defense program is a carbon copy of the Bush administration proposal. It would dramatically increase the missile defense budget 57 percent--$3 billion to $8.3 billion. This accelerated missile defense program is virtually certain to lead China to increase the number of nuclear weapons pointed at United States cities and may discourage Russia from making deep cuts in its arsenal. It should be apparent be apparent to us all that ballistic missiles are not our worst threat at this time. This program has also had seriously questionable success in operational tests to date, and functional operation of any missile defense is still in doubt. Expensive, high-tech weapons are no substitute for effective diplomacy, arms control, disarmament, and international cooperation. Cooperative international arms control and disarmament agreements will be far more effective in advancing peace and security in the years ahead and will cost far less than a missile shield. nuclear reductions Although both Russia and the United States have ratified START II, its implementation has become entangled in contradictory conditions by the Russian Duma and the U.S. Senate over the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. I have been encouraged by President Bush's proposal to unilaterally reduce the U.S. strategic arsenal, beginning with the 50 Peacekeeper (MX) missiles, which contain 500 nuclear warheads. Unfortunately, current law prohibits the President from reducing the nuclear arsenal, other than through START II ratification. Current law also places unnecessary restrictions on the ability of the President to de-alert, or take off high-alert status, our nuclear weapons. Currently the United States and Russia have over 4,000 nuclear weapons aimed at each other--poised to be launched within minutes. The committee unfortunately rejected the amendment by Representative Tom Allen to remove the restrictions in section 1302. It did allow a second, narrower amendment to remove the restrictions on the MX missile retirements. However, the committee denied the President the ability to negotiate deeper reductions with Russia by defeating the first Allen amendment. The President, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all called for reductions in our strategic arsenal. Yet the majority party on our committee continues to cling to these weapons as cold war relics. I was also disappointed that the committee rejected the amendment by Representative Ellen Tauscher that would have de-alerted the nuclear weapons in our arsenal that are already slated for retirement. The first President Bush de-alerted thousands of nuclear weapons in 1991 as the Warsaw Pact disintegrated. The current President Bush has also supported the concept of taking nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. Unfortunately the committee again missed an opportunity to demonstrate leadership in reducing the nuclear danger. In light of recent events, I think that it would be prudent to de-alert as many nuclear missiles, and to retire as many as possible lest they become greater targets, or become threats against ourselves.

Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Chairman, I have grave concerns about this bill. I would first like to say that I hope that reason and common sense prevail in any decisions on our Nation's future response to terrorism. Madam Chairman, I pray for God's intervention in ensuring the safe return of our many young men and women who are now being sent off to fight this war against terrorism. They face tremendous dangers and uncertain futures, and their families will endure many long and sleepless nights waiting for their return. We must remember them all, and acknowledge the great personal sacrifices they are going to have to make on our behalf in the coming days. H.R. 2586 represents a near $33 billion increase from last year. In comparison, appropriations for diplomacy and foreign aid total only $22.9 billion, a mere 6 percent of the entire defense budget. With the financial mismanagement that continues to exist within the Department of Defense, increases should not be made until a system of financial responsibility is instituted to prevent waste and address the lack of accountability. The single largest portion of the budget increase is dedicated to the development of missile defense systems. It should be apparent to us all now that ballistic missiles are not our worst threat at this time. Expensive high-tech weapons are no substitute for effective diplomacy. Arms control, disarmament, and international cooperation will be far more effective in advancing peace and security in the years ahead and will cost far less than a missile shield. This bill also prevents our Nation from reducing our nuclear weapons arsenal and from de-alerting our nuclear weapons stockpile. In light of recent events, I think it would be prudent to de-alert our nuclear missiles and to retire as many as possible, lest they become greater targets or be turned against us. I regret that the committee did not support the Sanchez amendment to change current law to permit servicewomen and female dependents who are overseas to access military hospitals for the purpose of privately funded abortions. This provision is tantamount to gender discrimination and should be changed. This bill also reduces the likelihood of the Navy's departure from Vieques. It is my hope that the administration will be permitted to go ahead with its plans for withdrawal from Vieques in 2003. There have been recent revelations about the use of military intelligence for domestic purposes, specifically with respect to the surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Operation Lantern Spike. Evidence of such past activities give rise today to grave constitutional issues and concern about civil liberties. The 1975 report written by the Frank Church Committee revealed practices abhorrent in a free society. The Church committee exposed that in the name of State security a program of manipulation, surveillance, disruption, and murder was carried out with the consent of those at the highest levels of the United States Government and against domestic and international law. Domestic uses of the military have long been prohibited, for good reason, and the same should continue to apply. The escalating war on drugs is another problem area for us. As with the continued bombing of Iraq, I think now is not the time to be fighting proxy wars overseas, making more enemies abroad than we may already now have. Now is a time to focus on diplomacy abroad and justice and security at home. As such, I do not support continued funding for training for civil conflicts in Colombia and elsewhere. Despite my reservations with this legislation, it does include positive aspects that I applaud. I would like to commend the committee for the increase in military pay and salaries. This is an appropriate step that not only provides our servicemen and women with sufficient compensation but also furthers the professionalism and enhances the retention of our servicemen and women. Similarly, increases in moving allowances, housing expenditures, provisions permitting concurrent receipt of retired pay and veterans' disability benefits, and efforts to promote voting rights of personnel are praiseworthy. Much has changed since the committee passed this bill in August. However, I am still confident that many of the nations that we perceive as a threat will respond to the expansion and proliferation of missile defense, the expanding role of the military and drug interdiction, and preventions of reductions in nuclear missiles. It is uncertain how these nations will respond, but I am confident that diplomacy and engagement will have a much more positive effect on our national security than will expanding the defense budget. I urge this body to consider its role in developing not only national policy but also international relations, and to realize that as a global leader we have a role in not only preparing for war, but also in promoting peace.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the Council of Khalistan has written a letter to President Bush condemning Tuesday's brutal terrorist attack on the United States. This terrible attack is an act of war against all Americans and the freedom-loving people of all the world. The Council has also issued an excellent press release on the matter. In the letter, the Council's President, Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, writes, ``On behalf of the 21-million strong Sikh Nation and especially on behalf of more than 500,000 Sikh Americans, I would like to express our sadness and our sympathies to the people of the United States for the terrible attack on the United States yesterday and for the loss of life it entails.'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to place this letter to President Bush and the Council of Khalistan's press release on the bombing into the Record. Council of Khalistan, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, Tenth Master, Washington, DC, September 12, 2001. Hon. George W. Bush, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President, On behalf of the 21-million strong Sikh Nation and especially on behalf of more than 500,000 Sikh Americans, I would like to express our sadness and our sympathies to the people of the United States for the terrible attack on the United States yesterday and for the loss of life it entails. This is a terrible tragedy and we know that you will take appropriate action. Like all Americans and all decent people everywhere, we condemn this brutal senseless attack. The Sikh religion recognizes all humanity as our brothers and we pray for the well- being of all. Our prayers and our sympathies are with the people of the United States at this tragic time. We especially pray for the families of those who have departed. May God bring peace to these departed souls and to their families. We support you and we pray for the people of America. God bless you and God bless America. Sincerely, Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President, Council of Khalistan. Council of Khalistan Condemns Attack on United States Urges Sikhs to Give Blood WASHINGTON, DC.--September 12, 2001--Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, today condemned the brutal attack on the United States that occurred yesterday. ``On behalf of the 21-million strong Sikh Nation and especially on behalf of more than 500,000 Sikh Americans, I would like to express our sadness and our sympathies to the people of the United States for the terrible attack on the United States yesterday and for the loss of life it entails,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``I urge Sikh Americans to give blood and to pray for the victims, for their families, and for all those who are helping our country and our communities in this time of need,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``We must do our part as American citizens,`` he said. ``We stand together as a nation.'' ``Like all Americans and all decent people everywhere, we condemn this brutal and senseless attack. The Sikh religion recognizes all the human race as one and we pray for the well-being of all. Our prayers and our sympathies are with the people of the United States at this tragic time. We especially pray for the families of those who have departed.'' ``This tragic event happened in the most diverse city in the world,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``There is hardly a national or ethnic group that has not been touched directly by this tragedy. Our sympathies are extended to those who have been touched personally,'' he said. ``Violence against innocent people of any religion or ethnicity is unacceptable. It must be ended.'' Unfortunately, some people have engaged in violence against Sikhs in the wake of the bombings yesterday. A couple of young Sikhs were attacked in Brooklyn. Sikh businesses have been stoned and cars have been burned. A Sikh boy was even shot in New York. ``Today we all stand together as Americans, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity,'' he said. ``We must not accept terrorism. We must unite against this evil,'' he said. ``We must work to bring all Americans together to defeat this brutal enemy.''

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the horrendous tragedies of this week warrant a strong and judicious response. However, I am concerned that the language of this resolution could result in dangerous foreign policy. The perpetrators of this crime must be dealt with. However, we must ensure that when we strike back, we deliver a massive blow against those truly responsible for this terrible crime. We as a Nation stand for the rule of law. Perpetrators of crimes, no matter their size or scope, are afforded a trial through a judicial process. That means no targeted assassinations and no death squads. In the aftermath of this horrendous act, let us not forget that real security and real peace come through justice. I, too, feel extreme pain and outrage at the attack on America, but our Nation must respond with a commitment to justice, or else we become all that we abhor. The United States confronted this very same decision at the close of World War II, that is, the struggle for justice in the face of tyranny. There were those who called for widespread executions of Nazis, Japanese leadership and their civilians. On the other side were those who urged reason and a return to the rule of law. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who led the prosecution at Nuremberg, said it best: ``That four great nations flushed with victory and stung with the injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntary submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law, is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason.''