I rise tonight on an issue that is similar to that which has been discussed on this floor for the last hour or so, and that is national security. It was focused almost entirely, the last hour, that is, on airline or airport security. It is an incredibly important issue. No one denies the fact that what is happening around the country in our airports in terms of security has got to be improved, and that there is a great deal of concern about how that should be accomplished, whether it is the federalization of screeners at airports or not. That seems to be the major sticking point, and it is an interesting one, certainly. It is not a very relevant point, however. I am afraid it is only a rhetorical point. It provides the minority party the opportunity to come to the floor of the House and suggest that the majority party is responsible for a lack of action that would lead to airline and airport security because we have not passed their brand of airport security.
Tom Tancredo: “I rise tonight on an issue that is similar to that which has been discussed on this floor for the last hour or so, and…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing national security and airport security measures during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Tom Tancredo
if passports alone provided the kind of security that the gentleman suggests they provide, then of course we would not need visas at all. Why would we impose this particular kind of background check if passports alone gave us the kind of…
some in the most radical elements of the pro-illegal immigration groups advocate something called ``Reconquista,'' or that is to say, they want to have that part of the United States that was ceded to the United States by the Treaty of…
I would be in favor of accepting those that can be actually identified as coming here under humanitarian conditions and as refugees.
The problem with the multiculturalism is it tells them they shouldn't. They should not assimilate into America.





