[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 120 (Friday, September 14, 2001)]
[House]
[Page H5634]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          THE ROLE OF CONGRESS IN ESTABLISHING WARTIME POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleague in echoing 
what several have said, and that is that we must respect all Americans 
of all ethnicities and all religions. No religion preaches mass murder, 
and those of the Islamic faith are as loyal as any other group of 
Americans and as determined that we make ourselves safe from this kind 
of terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to be dealing with a resolution which, in 
some ways, still seems a bit broad, especially when one reads the 
Supreme Court opinions that indicate that it is Congress, rather than 
the President, that was really given the obligation to form American 
foreign policy under the Constitution. Obviously, since World War II, 
that is not as it has been. But we in Congress need to do more than 
just provide $40 billion and a blank check and leave town. I know that 
when we come back, we will want to do an awful lot more, perhaps 
providing some direction to how the President uses the powers that we 
will confer upon him today or tomorrow.
  One thing, though, is that the resolution in one respect is not broad 
enough, because it gives the President the power to deal with the 
terrorist acts of September 11. I think the President should have equal 
power to deal with the horrendous bombings of our embassies in 
Daressalam and Nairobi and to deal with the murderous attack on our 
sailors on the USS Cole. One advantage of giving the President the 
power to deal with those incidents is we already know who is 
responsible: Osama bin Laden; whereas it may take weeks or months to 
establish who is culpable for this week's terrible crimes.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not a senior member of this House; I am a man 
of limited responsibility and far more limited wisdom. But I do have a 
few ideas as to how we should respond to what has happened to us.
  I sit on the Committee on Financial Services, and I know it has been 
suggested by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means that we 
somehow help our stock market by providing a lower capital gains tax. 
That would the panic-selling facilitation act. It would mean that those 
who want to sell in panic, get out of the stock market and weaken 
America, in doing so would pay less tax. Instead, what we need, Mr. 
Speaker, is to encourage Americans to bet on America. We will prevail, 
we will be strong, and those who bet on America on Monday will be 
rewarded.
  If it should be necessary to change our policy, and I do not think it 
is, in order to help the stock market, then we should allow more money 
to be invested in IRAs and 401(k)s on the assumption, or on the 
requirement that the additional funds be invested in the stock market. 
I do not think that will be necessary. The international stock markets 
have responded relatively well, and the smart money will be bet on 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, also on the Committee on Financial Services, I am 
concerned that the bank secrecy laws of our allies may interfere with 
our investigation of Osama bin Laden and other groups. Bin Laden has at 
least $100 million, maybe $200 million in assets, and these are not 
held in gold bars in Qandahar, Afghanistan. Financial institutions do 
business with Osama bin Laden and we need to hear right now from the 
Ambassador from Switzerland and the Ambassador of every country that 
has bank secrecy laws, that those laws will be waived to assist America 
in its hour of need. No country dare withhold information that we need 
and claim to be America's friend. We cannot do business as usual with 
those who do business with terrorists and then will not share the 
financial records with us.
  Mr. Speaker, we should also look at the Attorney General guidelines 
for investigating domestic organizations. I am told that the FBI, 
before they investigate an organization, must have evidence that that 
organization is actually plotting crimes. We should also, and this is a 
tough one, but we should at least consider a congressional mandate that 
the FBI also investigate those organizations that strongly advocate 
killing as many Americans as possible while disclaiming that they are 
actually involved in carrying out plots to do so; because if an 
organization is able to advocate killing as many Americans as possible 
and do so on American soil, they will be able to recruit individuals 
who will be able to plot to actually carry out those beliefs.
  Mr. Speaker, we should look at the proposals that have been made to 
have a locked cabin, in which the pilot sits, with bulletproofing. I 
know that there are some details to be worked out in that, particularly 
as to pilot safety, but a law that does not allow hijackers into the 
pilot cabin.

                          ____________________