If you had the person, you know, and you put this case on before a jury, I mean, the jury is going to want to throw the book at these crooks.

It is trying to get all those entities coordinating, and around various differences in their own laws.

I may want to ask a question just for the record about if there are countries with whom you would like to have stronger cooperation.

Otherwise, we are needlessly alienating friends and partners we need in other endeavors.

There is no evidence of the President of the United States violating the law. That is a very grave charge.

If we don't like it, we can change the law.

So there are foreign policy relations that could also be at risk because we have maybe passed a law with good intent...

I think that is really important. My time is up and I thank the chair, but the default--when in doubt, we don't do it.

I certainly want to concur with my friend from California in his critique of the mistake by Republicans in supporting the reckless foreign policy of George W. Bush.

I think it was Frederick the Great who said, 'L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace.' One needs to be bold.

Just for the record, Mr. Kerlikowske, Ms. Johnson, you aren't in some secret conspiracy to allow terrorists to come into the United States, are you?

I think that is essential, and I think we need to be providing that financial support because they are willing to fight.

I think Congress should be more involved with the use of force when we're deploying force overseas.

Wean yourself off dependence on oil from the Middle East.

It seems that sometimes they're more likely to engage in some, you know, adventurism outside their country when their internal politics and economy is in trouble.

I just don't want us to lose sight of what I consider to be the main game.

It's obviously something that we are engaged in, must be engaged in dealing with.

I'm curious as to any of your thoughts on that.