[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 130 (Tuesday, October 2, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6121-H6127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          NATIONAL SECURITY IN WAKE OF EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tiberi). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to pass some 
comments on to a former employee, a former reporter here, who is facing 
some trying times as he sits in the hospital, Bob Cochran. Bob's son 
works here in the House. Bob, while I cannot speak to the TV audience, 
I know that if he were here today, all my colleagues would go up, pat 
him on the back and wish him our very best. He set a good record while 
he was here. Once again, he faces another challenge. I am sure that he 
will be successful.
  This evening, Mr. Speaker, I want to visit with my colleagues at 
length about the Nation's security. Obviously that is the issue on 
everyone's mind since September 11 and the tragedy that we all 
witnessed on TV. There are a number of issues that I want to visit with 
Members about this evening. One of them is the description of the 
events and the battle that we face, given by even Tony Blair today or 
Rudy Giuliani yesterday when he spoke to the United Nations, the first 
time a mayor of New York City has spoken to the United Nations in I do 
not know how many years. And our brothers in thought and our brothers 
in capitalism and our brothers in democracy, the United Kingdom and 
Tony Blair and his speech and his remarks this evening, I want to go 
over a few of those remarks because I think they are very pertinent.
  My analogy of the situation, of the challenge that we face, that our 
President is so ably leading us through at this time, is a battle that 
you can figure like it is against a cancer. You know that that cancer 
is there. We know the viciousness of cancer. I can tell you that some 
people, as time goes on, some people in our country are saying that, 
well, this is a perfect example, a perfect time for us to turn the 
other cheek, for us to kiss and make up, and to pretend that that 
cancer, that you do not have to eradicate it off your arm or eradicate 
it from your body, that you can love it off your body, that you can 
pray it off your body.
  I have no doubt, I am a Christian, I strongly believe in a supreme 
being, but I believe that our supreme being expects us to have some 
self-help, that our supreme being does not think that we think that we 
can discover a horrible cancer on our body and pray it off, or wish 
that it was not there and somehow it is going to disappear on its own. 
Or pat it with your hand and think that that cancer is going to turn 
friendly. Do not be mistaken. I do not think anybody on this floor is. 
I hope you are not. But do not be mistaken.
  This bin Laden is the most vicious cancer that you have ever 
encountered. It is not a cancer that you can negotiate. The President 
of this country has made it very clear we will not negotiate with this 
cancer. It is a cancer that you have no choice but to eradicate, 
because if you do not, it will be a battle you wish you would not have 
lost. We cannot, as an American Nation, we cannot as a free world, any 
country in this free world, afford to lose this battle.
  Do not be taken in by some of the peace protesters across the country 
who interestingly enough in this country have the right to protest and 
they are protesting against the action that we should take against bin 
Laden because of the viciousness that it may involve.

                              {time}  2130

  This is against bin Laden, whose very strike at the center of America 
was not to take American lives. That is not the intent of this cancer 
that is trying striking us. The intent of that cancer that is striking 
us, the intent of bin Laden and his followers out there, is to destroy 
a nation, to see the United States and all countries of democracy 
buckle at the knees, to take them down, as communism was taken down in 
Russia. That is what their goal is.
  These protestors, who are so strong in their thought, ought to take 
just a moment to see how bin Laden and his followers treat women, for 
example, what they think about human rights, what they think about 
homosexuality, what they think about the ethnic issues and the all-men-
are-created-equal type of philosophy. Take a look at the prevalence of 
class structure, of which bin Laden came from, and which bin Laden 
rules. It defies everything that these peace protestors believe in.
  What he is seeking to do is to destroy the constitutional right that 
our country allows for people to have the freedom of speech, for people 
to go out and protest. But yet their vision seems to be shortsighted.
  Then there are those who I have seen in the last few days who say, 
well, somehow we can love this thing off, or we can pray this thing 
away. Look, we need all the prayers we can get and it will be a strong 
element of our success, and we need all the love we can gather 
throughout the world. There is no question about that. In fact, our 
country has given more foreign aid to Afghanistan than any country in 
the history of Afghanistan. Our country, of any country in the world, 
believes in the warmth and the prayer and the need to help other people 
not so privileged.
  But that is not what this is about. This is about a horrible cancer 
that has attacked everybody in the free world; and, if we are not 
successful, then logically it will be successful.
  Think about the last time you ever saw anybody say that they wanted 
cancer to be successful. Think about the

[[Page H6122]]

last time you ever saw anybody that did not want us to have a battle 
against cancer be successful. We support cancer research through this 
country strongly; and, I am telling you, the battle we face now is as 
threatening to our society as cancer is to the human body.
  I want to read a little from Tony Blair, some of the comments he made 
in his speech today. I think it is very appropriate. Let me just read 
just a couple of quotes. Again, I am quoting from Tony Blair. ``There 
is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of the minds, no 
point of understanding with such terror.''
  Think of the words that Tony Blair said today. Let me repeat them. 
``There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of the 
minds, no point of understanding with such terror. There is just one 
choice.'' And if there were any words I have heard, with the exception 
of the President's speech given right here on this House floor, these 
words would come in right behind it. ``Defeat it, or be defeated by 
it.'' ``Defeat it, or be defeated by it.'' And defeat it we must. That 
is exactly what Tony Blair said today.
  If we do not beat it, it is going to beat us, and the results of it 
defeating us will be the end of the free world as we know it; the end 
of democracy, the end of the dreams of the multiple generations, the 
multiple generations in this country that built this country to the 
physical strength and to the moral strength that it has, and to the 
success that this country has. All of that, all of that success, all of 
that compassion, all of that love, all of that that our predecessors by 
the hundreds of thousands have laid their lives down for, all of that 
will be nil if we lose this battle. And that is what Tony Blair says.
  He says there is no negotiation. He said, my analysis, you cannot 
negotiate with cancer. You cannot look at the cancer on your body and 
say I want to negotiate with it. It has no love, it has no compassion. 
It only has one goal. Cancer's goal is to destroy your body. That is 
all it is there for. It is not there to assist your body, it is not 
there to make your body better, it is not to make your body healthier 
in some manner. Cancer is in your body for one purpose, and that is to 
destroy your body, and its ultimate goal is death of the human body.
  That is exactly what bin Laden and his radical followers are. I think 
our President was very careful, as are the national leaders, and thank 
goodness we have George W. Bush, and we have people like Colin Powell, 
or Condoleezza Rice, or Donald Rumsfeld, and I could go right on down 
the list, that are leading our country.
  They have been very careful to distinguish, as have many of my 
colleagues here on the floor, they have been very careful to 
distinguish that this is not the religion of Islam, that this is not 
the belief of Islam. Islam does not have in the Koran or anywhere else 
the destruction of democracy. It is not the belief of the majority of 
the Muslim population. It certainly is not the belief of the Muslim 
population that resides as American citizens who are American citizens 
who have a Muslim background.

  One of my close friends is Muslim, he and his family, Dr. Malik and 
Seme Hassen, Pueblo, Colorado. The other day, I saw, and if Members 
have an opportunity, the Discovery Channel gave us a tape last week for 
our personal viewing, and the tape is titled ``Behind the Terror, 
Understanding the Enemy.'' ``Behind the Terror, Understanding the 
Enemy.'' If Members have not seen that, they ought to get their 
constituents together and ought to watch that jointly. It is a 2-hour 
tape. It is a wonderful production by Discovery. ``Behind the Terror, 
Understanding the Enemy.''
  You will understand the background of what we are talking about. That 
2-hour film will give one the equivalent of 1 year of education in a 
university, in my opinion. It is outstanding.
  To go back to my friend, Dr. Hassen and his wife, Seme, I invited 
them last week to come and sit down with other citizens in Pueblo, 
their fellow citizens, fellow Americans, and watch this film. Then, 
after the film, I asked Dr. Hassen and his wife Seme to stand up and 
give their point of view. I will tell you, I was so proud to listen to 
these people. The patriotism, the sense of belief in this country and 
what this country offers, is intense.
  So our President's thoughts and our President's words, as well as the 
words of others, whether it is Condoleezza Rice or Tony Blair or any of 
the world's leaders, is the very careful distinction between the Muslim 
population, the majority of the Muslim population, and these radical 
cancers that we are now dealing with.
  Mr. Speaker, let me go on and talk just for a moment about Mayor 
Giuliani's comments, which I thought were just wonderful. He gave them 
yesterday at the United Nations. Many of the people, I think, across 
the country did not get an opportunity to hear the Mayor speak to the 
United Nations. I am not sure all Members were able to watch it. I 
thought it was fabulous, and I want to repeat just a few things that 
the Mayor said.
  No Mayor in the history of this country has faced the challenges that 
Mayor Giuliani has faced and the people of New York City have faced, 
and they have risen to the challenge. ``They have suffered a horrible, 
horrible blow; a horrible blow to the persons of New York, a horrible 
blow to the infrastructure of New York, a horrible blow to the moral 
senses of every citizen, to the citizens of New York City.'' This is 
what the Mayor said. These are excerpts from Giuliani's speech to the 
United Nations.
  ``Indeed, this vicious attack places in jeopardy the whole purpose of 
the United Nations.'' So the Mayor talks about the United Nations. What 
is the purpose of the United Nations? Many of us in these Chambers have 
questioned the United Nations, when really put to a test, can the 
United Nations stand up to it? Is the United Nations really a body that 
really truly will bring together a united solution? Or will they back 
down at the moment of the test?
  Mayor Giuliani's remarks, ``Indeed, this vicious attack places in 
jeopardy the whole purpose of the United Nations.'' And he goes on. 
``The United Nations must hold accountable any country that supports or 
condones terrorism. Otherwise, you will fail in your primary mission as 
a peacekeeper.''
  Let me repeat that. ``The United Nations must hold accountable.'' It 
is not should hold accountable. It is not a negotiable process. The 
Mayor says that the United Nations must, no choice, must hold 
accountable any country that supports or condones terrorism. Any 
country, any individual. ``Otherwise, you will fail in your primary 
mission as a peacekeeper, which is exactly what the primary mission of 
the United Nations is.''
  He says, ``It must ostracize any nation that supports terrorism. Now, 
that is a test for the United Nations. It must isolate any nation that 
remains neutral in the fight against terrorism. Now is the time, in the 
words of your charter, the United Nations charter, to unite our 
strength to maintain international peace and security.''
  So the Mayor has said to the United Nations, now is your time, now is 
the time; the challenge is here today. This is not a time for further 
study or vague directives.
  Many of us on this floor have debated extensively about how many more 
directives or how many more studies does the United Nations need before 
the United Nations does something. It is a collective body of nations 
throughout the world, but at some point the United Nations needs to 
make decisions, and now could be the finest hour of the United Nations, 
or the worst failure of the United Nations, to see how exactly they 
address September 11, 2001.
  Let me go on with Mayor Giuliani's remarks. ``The evidence of 
terrorism's brutality and inhumanity, of its contempt for life and the 
concept of peace, of its contempt for life and of the concept of peace, 
is lying beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center, less than 2 
miles from where we meet today.''

  He could not have said it any better. For those people who are 
protesting our fight against this cancer, keep in mind, you ought to go 
visit that site of rubble. You ought to keep in mind what evidence is 
still, as we speak this hour, what evidence is still trying to be 
recovered, to return to the thousands, not the few families, but the 
thousands of fellow Americans, which include not just fellow Americans, 
but 80 separate countries throughout this world and every type of 
ethnic background you

[[Page H6123]]

can imagine, including Muslims, that were destroyed and now lay in a 
pile of rubbish called evidence.
  Mayor Giuliani goes on. ``Look at that destruction; that massive, 
senseless, cruel loss of human life. And then I ask you to look in your 
hearts and recognize that there is no room for neutrality on the issue 
of terrorism. There is no room for the issue of neutrality on the issue 
of terrorism. You are either with civilization or with terrorists. On 
one side is democracy, the rule of law and the respect for human 
life,'' Giuliani says. ``On the other side is tyranny, arbitrary 
executions and mass murder. Mass murder.''
  We are right, and they are wrong. That is exactly what Giuliani says. 
We are right, and they are wrong. No shoulds, no question of 
deliberation by a jury. It is clear who is right and who is wrong.
  Mayor Giuliani says it very well. Let me repeat what Mayor Giuliani 
says. ``We are right, and they are wrong. It is as simple as that. And 
by that I mean that America and its allies are right about democracy, 
about religious, political and economic freedom, and the terrorists are 
wrong, in fact, evil, in their mass destruction of human life in the 
name of addressing alleged injustices.''
  That paragraph says just about all of it that needs to be said.
  Let me continue. ``Let those who say that we must understand the 
reasons of terrorism, come with me.'' Listen to this. All of you out 
there willing so quickly to carry up a sign and call America a bully, 
that say in some way America probably had this coming, that America 
does not understand these so-called freedom fighters. They are not 
freedom fighters. They are cancer. That is exactly what they are.
  Listen to this paragraph by the Mayor of New York City. ``Let those 
who say that we must understand, let those who say that we must 
understand the reasons for terrorism come with me to the thousands of 
funerals, the thousands of funerals we are having in New York City, 
thousands, and explain those insane maniacal reasons to the children 
who will grow up without fathers and mothers, and to the parents who 
have had their children ripped from them for no reason at all.''

                              {time}  2145

  So we can see that Giuliani, the Mayor of New York City, in his 
address to the United Nations yesterday, and to Tony Blair in his 
remarks today, we have people who stand strong; and we have people who 
are willing to say, it is as clear as night and day. There is no 
question who is right, and there is no question who is wrong. That is 
what Mayor Giuliani said. The evidence lays 2 miles, less than 2 miles 
from the United Nations building, from where he gave that speech. I 
commend the Mayor, all of us commend the Mayor for his actions in New 
York City; but I commend the Mayor for having the guts and the gumption 
to show up in front of the United Nations and lay it on the line.
  This is not something that we negotiate, as the President has very 
ably said. It is nonnegotiable. It is a cancer. We do not negotiate 
with cancer. We need to eradicate cancer. To my left, we could put the 
word ``cancer'' right across the top of this. Our Nation's security is 
an imperative requirement for those of us who have responsibilities of 
leadership, not only to our generation, but for the future generations 
of this country. The test of our leadership is here today. The test of 
our will and the strength of our beliefs are being challenged today by 
a horrible cancer. Can we and will we rise against this, even though it 
requires patience?
  It is not an easy battle, and nobody out there believes it is an easy 
battle. We were not able to destroy a country. This, we do not believe, 
was sanctioned by a country, although it appears that Afghanistan is 
going to continue to shelter the terrorists; and as the President, and 
I think the belief of the American people have said to that Taliban 
regime over there, look, you cannot cooperate with this cancer. You 
have to get out of the way. Our focus is to get the cancer, and if we 
find you are a contributing cause to the cancer, you need to be 
eliminated. There is no question about it. If you are not a 
contributing cause to the cancer, get out of the way so that we can 
take on the cancer. If you are a contributing cause to the cancer, it 
must be eliminated; and that is exactly the message.
  In our time today, I say to my colleagues, it is perhaps in our 
career the one deciding point of how well we can exert leadership and 
our responsibilities as Congressmen of the United States of America.
  There are several different issues that we need to be concerned about 
for the security of this country. One of them that I found very 
interesting in the last couple of days, just some recommendations I 
think we should take a look at. The Feinstein proposal, Senator 
Feinstein. Let me just give the background. She has mentioned, she 
said, there is no question we have to look at our immigration laws. Our 
borders are too loose. There has been a lot of focus on our borders. 
Take a look at what is happening at the borders. What can we do to 
improve the borders?
  Well, we also have to take a look, because we have a big problem once 
people get inside our borders. What kind of enforcement do we have 
across this country? My understanding is that the INS has about 2,500 
agents for the interior of the United States, for our homeland; and 
that is what we are talking about. How do we defend the homeland? We 
have to assume that people will get by those borders, on legitimate 
reasons perhaps and then turn to illegitimate purposes, or get by those 
borders through illegitimate means and then they get into the center of 
the homeland. We have to provide the INS with the type of resources to 
have a homeland defense against those who violate some of the most 
liberal immigration laws in the world. Our country stands proud on its 
open arms to immigrants. Most of us were beneficiaries of that policy. 
But it does not mean that we should shirk our responsibility or look 
the other way at the problems that we have with the immigration 
policies that are in place.
  Senator Feinstein, through her proposal, the Feinstein proposal, 
urges major changes in the United States visa program. This proposal 
has found its time. These student visas, let me give a little 
background. This is from the proposal. One of the suicide pilots of 
American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, had 
enrolled in an Oakland, California, college in November 2000 for an 
English language course, but never showed up. Mr. Speaker, when a 
foreigner gets a student visa, they are required, once they get the 
visa, to go to school; or obviously, they are not using the student 
visa to go to school, they are using it just to gain access to the 
country. That is what appeared to happen here. Investigators are also 
examining whether or not three others, also believed to be involved in 
the hijacking of Flight 77, attended a community college in San Diego.
  Officials estimate that 245,000, 245,000 foreign students have 
entered the United States this year to pursue a course of study. 
Between 1999 and 2000, in other words, in a 1-year period of time, the 
State Department issued 3,370 visas to students from nations on the 
United States Terrorism Watch List. In other words, the United States 
keeps a watch list of countries we consider that harbor or otherwise 
condone terrorism; and from those States, we allow almost 4,000 
students to come to college in the finest universities in the world 
here in the United States.

  What are we? Did we just hit our head falling out of a swing? I mean 
not even the civil libertarians can defend that kind of policy. We have 
a right to accept students, and we have a right to say no to students; 
and if we have students who are coming from a regime who have harbored 
terrorism, in my opinion, that should stop immediately. There should 
not be one more student, not one more student visa issued to a country 
on this Nation's terrorism list, not one. And that statement goes 
further than the Feinstein proposal.
  The Feinstein proposal, as I have read it, does not say that. I have 
said that. I do not think that the United States of America has to give 
one inch, has to give one inch to any country or any regime in the 
world that harbors or condones terrorism and allows their young people 
to come to our Nation for their education. We should not do it. We do 
not have to do it. It is not a question of being politically correct or 
not. In fact, being politically correct would say that our primary 
concern ought to be the national security, the

[[Page H6124]]

security for our homeland. It is not being racial or racist by any 
definition of the word. It simply is saying, look, it is logical, it is 
common sense. Do not educate the young people in our own country or 
countries that condone terrorism against our country. Do not take in 
the enemy's children to educate them and turn them against ourselves. 
It does not make sense.
  Mr. Speaker, let me continue on with the Feinstein proposal. In 1996, 
Congress approved a Federal law to require the INS to electronically 
collect data on all international students by 2003; but to date, the 
system has not yet been set up. They have no funding. It is section 
110; it is under the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
Act of 1996. Zero funding for it. It is not and should not be 
considered ``politically incorrect'' to talk about the immigration 
policies of this Nation. What more of a wake-up sound do we need? What 
kind of an alarm do we need to sound before we start to look at these 
issues; and the student visas are an excellent place to start, a good 
place to start. So I think that the Feinstein proposal is something 
that this Congress ought to look at immediately.
  I want to move on to something else that I think is absolutely 
critical. I want to talk to my colleagues about missile defense. I am 
appalled that since the September 11 tragedy, that some people have 
addressed missile defense as something that is not necessary. If ever 
there was an example of a need to defend the homeland, that September 
11 displayed to us that this time it was an airplane, next time it 
could be a biological weapon or it could be a missile.
  I will tell my colleagues something else that people are not thinking 
about. We not only in this country have zero defense against incoming 
missiles to this country; but we do not have any defense, not just a 
missile that is intentionally launched against this country. We frankly 
do not have a defense against a missile launched against this country 
by accident. Think about it. Everybody that talks about missile defense 
puts it in the context of an intentionally launched attack against the 
United States. I think that that is a high possibility at some point in 
the future, and I think we have an inherent obligation as Congressmen 
to defend this country, to defend the homeland, to give us homeland 
security against a missile defense.

  But we also need to broaden our thoughts and think about what would 
happen if Russia, for example, by accident, not intentionally, but 
through carelessness or through negligence or by accident, launched a 
missile against the United States and we do not have a missile defense 
system to stop it. Would that, because a country, which we could 
establish was a country, not a terrorist, but a country, fires a 
missile accidentally, and it hits a major city, and we know what kind 
of damage a nuclear weapon would do, it would make September 11 look 
kind of small compared to the damage that a nuclear weapon would do. 
What do we do, start a war? Every peace advocate in America ought to be 
some of the strongest proponents in America for missile defense. Why? 
Because missile defense could help us avoid a future war. Think about 
that accidental launch as I go through my remarks.
  Obviously, what we have to think about is preemptive defense. How do 
we preempt the challenge that faces us out there? Now, we know, for 
example, NORAD located in Colorado Springs, we have thought well enough 
into the future, and our forefathers had the foresight to say we need 
to have a detection system. We need to detect where the enemy moves 
around. We need to detect when people who do not have the best 
interests of this Nation in mind, we need to be able to detect what 
they are up to. And if they launch aircraft against us, if they launch 
a balloon against us, a hot air balloon, if they launch a missile 
against us, we need to track it. We need to have the capability to pick 
it up very early.
  Mr. Speaker, we did that, and NORAD, which is a joint operation with 
our good neighbors to the north, Canada, put together a system that has 
incredible detection. We have through this system that we have, that is 
in place today, we have the capabilities to pick up a missile launch 
anywhere in the world. We can, within seconds, tell where its target 
is, we can tell the speed of the missile, we can tell with pretty high 
probability what the speed of the missile is, whether it has multiple 
warheads on it; but much beyond that, we cannot do anything else. A lot 
of citizens out there today are asking questions: How do we defend 
ourselves? What do we actually have in our arsenal for homeland 
defense, for national security? Mr. Speaker, we do not have anything 
for missile defense.
  Our President, before September 11, one of the issues that he 
campaigned on and one of the issues that he has followed through on and 
has been very aggressive about is that we as a Congress, he as a 
President, and this Nation as a Nation has the responsibility for 
future generations to preempt missile attacks against the United States 
of America.
  Probability of events. I have two things listed on this poster. One 
of them, of course, as we look to my left is the intentional launch. 
Obviously, at some point in the future, now, people, it could be 
realistic that a nuclear missile would be launched against this 
country. Do we think that bin Laden or those terrorists who committed 
this terrible act, do we think that if they would have had a nuclear 
weapon in their hands that they would have thought twice about using 
it?

                              {time}  2200

  If they would have had the capability to deliver a missile into this 
country, that would not have been an airline that hit those towers, 
that would have been a missile that hit those towers, in my opinion.
  The only thing that stopped those people from using a nuclear missile 
or a nuclear weapon is they did not have it. It was not because, by the 
way, we would stop it, because it is pretty well known we have no 
capabilities to stop it. We have the technology that has very rapidly 
progressed to the point where we think we can develop within this 
country, in a few short years, a very effective missile defense system. 
We need to do that. We need to do it today. The time is here, it is 
now, for a missile defense system.
  As I said earlier, again to my left, not necessarily an intentional 
launch, but take a look about an accidental launch. What if somebody 
accidentally launched against this country? If we had the capability to 
stop an accidentally-launched missile as it began to head for this 
country, if we had the capability to stop it, we may very well have 
averted a major, major conflict, the likes of which history has never 
seen.
  But if we do not have the capability to stop that missile, what do we 
do? What do we do if a country accidentally launched a nuclear missile 
into a major city in the United States, and we lost hundreds of 
thousands of people? We would feel pretty horrible that we did not take 
the opportunity we have today to put a missile defense system into 
place. We would feel pretty horrible that we did not take the time and 
the money that we have to continue to develop the technology to perfect 
defense for the United States of America for security for our homeland.
  I wanted to point out a few things here, that the terrorist attack of 
September 11, the terrorist attack of September 11, confirms the 
growing need for a missile defense. Homeland defense is insufficient 
without missile defense.
  I have heard people say in the last few days, we need to be 
biologically prepared to fight a biological attack. We need to be 
prepared to tighten up our airport security so we do not ever see a 
repeat of what happened on September 11. We have to be prepared for 
other types of attacks.
  Let me tell the Members, one of them that to me is the most dangerous 
threat for future generations, and frankly, for our generation, but as 
more countries develop and acquire nuclear weapons, our threat, one of 
our major threats, not the only threat, and I am not taking anything 
away from airport security, obviously, I am not taking anything away 
from biological defense for homeland security, but I am saying, put 
into that formula a missile defense system, or we will live, I think, I 
truly believe that my generation will live to see the day that we 
regretted back in the early part of the 2000's not putting a missile 
defense system in order.
  While systems are in place to thwart terrorism, the Nation still has 
no defense, and I stress the word ``no,'' the

[[Page H6125]]

Nation has no defense against missile attack. Missile attacks will be 
far more destructive than the September 11 assaults. I do not think 
anybody questions that.
  Terrorist groups, not just states but terrorist groups, have the 
means to buy ballistic missiles. Missile defenses are needed to shield 
the United States from retaliation, should it take action against 
terrorist-harboring states.
  Look at that last point. Missile defenses are necessary. If the 
United States decides to take action against a country that is 
harboring or condoning terrorism, or actively engaged in terrorism 
against the United States, one of the critical elements of our offense 
against terrorism is the ability to defend our Nation from missile 
attacks that might come back as retaliation. Those are very, very key 
elements.
  The red is nuclear proliferation, nuclear proliferation. That is the 
red right now. Right now that is what we have. Countries of nuclear 
proliferation concern, that is the green.
  I say to my colleagues, take a look at this map today in 2001, a 
month after the worst disaster this country has ever suffered. Take a 
look at this map. If we do not do something about it, if we do not 
defend against it, take a look at how threatening this map will be just 
in 10 years. See what happens to these colors, and see how widely they 
spread throughout the world if we do not take decisive action in the 
period of time that we now have the opportunity to take decisive 
action.
  We have a little gap in there. We have a window of opportunity to 
develop this missile defensive system. Right now the countries that 
would intentionally launch against the United States I do not believe 
would engage in that kind of conduct within the near future. I do, 
however, believe, and I think every one of my colleagues would agree 
with me, that today every country in the world that has nuclear missile 
capability also has the capability, frankly, to screw up, to fire a 
missile by mistake.

  If that missile comes to the United States, we have an obligation, we 
have a need for the American people to defend against it. We have this 
short window of opportunity, a few short years here before this red 
spreads throughout the world to provide us, to provide Canada, to 
provide any of our allies or any of our friends defense against missile 
attack.
  Watch this map. Mark this map. A few years from now, a few years from 
now, take a look at it. By God, if we as a collective body have not, 10 
years from now, provided this Nation with a missile defense system, we 
will have been grossly derelict in our duties. We will have been 
grossly derelict in our responsibilities for the future survivability 
of this Nation. That is how much weight I put on this decision to 
defend against accidental or intentional launches against the United 
States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, ballistic missile proliferation. I just showed Members 
what was happening with the nuclear spread throughout the world. Now 
take a look at what has happened with regard to proliferation with 
regard to ballistic missile capabilities. This is a very, very 
important chart. This indicates very clearly that when the 
antiballistic missile treaty was signed, for example, there were two 
countries in this world capable of attacking each other with nuclear 
missiles. It was Russia and the United States.
  But today, look how this has changed, ballistic missile 
proliferation. Look at the purple throughout this map. Countries 
possessing ballistic missiles.
  Let me just give some examples. There are Iran. Heard that name 
lately? There is Iraq, India, Hungary, Libya, Pakistan, Poland, 
Rumania, Syria, Taiwan, South Africa, Slovakia, Saudi Arabia, Russia, 
United Kingdom, Vietnam, Algeria, Argentina, Bulgaria, Afghanistan, 
Afghanistan, Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, the capability of nations in this world to develop and 
to deliver a ballistic missile threat to the United States is no longer 
a threat in somebody's imagination, it is reality. It is there that we 
have a demand upon our authority and our power to protect this country 
to stand up and protect against ballistic missiles, either accidental 
or intentional, against this country.
  When we talk about ballistic missiles, when we talk about missile 
defense in this country, we obviously have to discuss the treaties that 
have some type of oversight on missile defense of a particular country. 
There is only one big treaty out there. It is called the ABM treaty, 
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
  Now, some people have said that we cannot break or we cannot abandon 
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, that we are walking away, that we 
are breaching a treaty, that we have broken a treaty, in one of the few 
times, outside of the Native Americans, one of the few times in 
international relations the United States has broken a treaty.
  That is not the case we face. That is not what the Anti-Ballistic 
Missile Treaty says. I will go into some detail here in just a minute. 
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty obviously has a historical story to 
it. Let us look at that story.
  Back 30, 40 years ago, Russia and the United States were worried 
about Russia and the United States. They were not worried about 
Pakistan or India or Romania or Slovakia. They were not worried about 
any of these countries, they were worried about the nuclear 
capabilities of each other.
  So the United States and Russia sat down at a table and said, ``Let 
us negotiate some type of agreement to minimize the risk of us 
attacking each other.'' Remember, at that point in time, there was no 
other Nation in the world, no other Nation in the world that had the 
capability to deliver a ballistic missile onto the U.S. mainland or 
onto Russia with a nuclear warhead. Only two countries had it.
  So they sat down at that time and they came up with a theory. 
``Look,'' the United States says to Russia, and vice versa, Russia says 
to the United States, ``Let us sign an agreement that will not allow 
either one of us to defend against the other's missiles.''
  Now, that sounds perfectly illogical. I think today it is absolutely 
crazy. But back then, there were some who thought, hey, that is 
logical. We will not attack because we are afraid of the retaliation. 
Since we cannot protect ourselves from the retaliation, the incentive 
to attack is taken away. That is the fundamental theory upon which this 
treaty was drafted.
  But when they drafted this treaty, both the Russian negotiators and 
the American negotiators had enough foresight to say, ``Look, treaties 
protect what is in effect today, as far as we can see into the future, 
but both countries must have the allowance or the flexibility under 
this treaty and under the terms of this treaty that if things change in 
our society, that there is a way to modify or to terminate the 
agreement.''

  So when people tell us the only way we can provide a missile defense 
is to breach a treaty, they are patently false. It is false on its 
face, that type of statement. In fact, the treaty itself allows for 
withdrawal from the treaty.
  Let us go over the critical language here that would allow us to 
withdraw from this treaty. Article 15 of the Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty, again, the ABM, ``This treaty shall be of unlimited duration. 
However, each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have 
the right to withdraw.''
  So this is a right contained within the treaty. It is a right, a 
treaty right. We are not breaching it, we are exercising a right. 
``Each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the 
right to withdraw from this treaty if it decides that extraordinary 
events related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized 
its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the 
other party 6 months prior to the withdrawal from the treaty. Such 
notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the 
notifying party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.''
  September 11 was a horrible, extraordinary event. That, true, was not 
caused by a missile, or a missile as we define it. It actually turned 
an airline into a missile. But the fact is, we have now discovered, 
unfortunately, we have been rudely awakened to the fact that attacks 
like this are no longer happening in other countries. It is not 
terrorist acts that we read in the morning papers or see on the morning 
TV being committed in the Middle East, it is in the center of our 
homeland. It is in New York City. It is through the expense of 6,000 or 
7,000 lives that we have

[[Page H6126]]

now learned that extraordinary and terrible and horrible events can 
occur within the borders of our country.
  It should enhance the determination of every one of my colleagues, 
every one of us on this floor, that we need to defend against every 
possible tool of murder that we see existing out there, whether it is 
by another country or by terrorists. This treaty prevents us from 
having a missile defense system unless we can show that an 
extraordinary event has occurred.
  Let me give an example of the extraordinary events. Obviously, 
September 11, 2001, was a horrible, horrible tragedy and an 
extraordinary event. But let us look at other extraordinary events. 
Remember the graph I just showed a few minutes ago of the proliferation 
of ballistic missiles throughout this world? That is an extraordinary 
event. It is a high-risk event. When this treaty was drafted, nobody 
ever imagined that the ballistic missile would be found in all of those 
countries.
  Remember the chart I showed before that chart about the proliferation 
of countries that now possess nuclear capabilities? No one ever 
imagined when this treaty was drafted that anyone other than Russia and 
the United States would have nuclear capabilities. Those are 
extraordinary events.

                              {time}  2215

  Those are the kind of events that the negotiators for both Russia and 
the United States realized there had to be a right contained within the 
four corners of the treaty that would provide for a country, for its 
national sovereignty, would provide for that country to provide 
homeland or national security.
  So the treaty itself allows us, contains a right for us to walk away 
from it if, in fact, extraordinary events have taken place, and I have 
shown to you that these kind of events have taken place, that our 
Nation now needs to focus and refocus lots of energy, lots of resources 
at homeland security. On that list, towards the very top of that list, 
ought to be a missile defense system.
  Let me summarize, go back to some of the comments that I think are so 
critical this evening for us to talk about.
  First of all, I think it was a very meaningful speech that Mayor 
Giuliani gave to the United Nations yesterday. Mayor Giuliani laid it 
on the line. He in essence said to the United Nations: today is your 
test. Today, your ultimate and your whole reason for being peacekeepers 
is being tested. You cannot remain neutral, United Nations, on this 
issue. You need to come forward. This is not a negotiable type of 
event. This is a horrible, tragic event, as the Mayor said, with the 
evidence buried less than two miles from the United Nations.
  As Tony Blair said today in his remarks which were probably next to 
President Bush's remarks and Giuliani, those three speeches I think 
will probably go down as three of the finest speeches given in a 
warlike situation like we have faced and like we face today, and what 
Tony Blair said is you must defeat it or it will defeat you. Think 
about it. You must defeat it or it will defeat you.
  Think of it like a cancer, and that is exactly what terrorism is. 
Terrorism is a horrible, horrible cancer. You do not negotiate with 
cancer. You have to kill cancer. You have to eradicate cancer. It is 
not negotiable. Cancer does not listen to you. Cancer does not care 
about your children. Cancer does not care about your future life. 
Cancer does not care about your youth.
  Cancer only cares about one thing, and that is, the destruction of 
the human body. And terrorism is exactly the same thing. It does not 
care.
  Do you think those terrorists cared about the widows or cared about 
the children whose parents are gone forever, who cared about the 
parents whose children are gone forever? You think they cared at all 
about those people that Time magazine or some of these others have 
pictures of them intentionally jumping off the World Trade Centers, 
including one couple that is holding hands as they fall? You think 
those terrorists cared about that? You think those terrorists cared one 
iota about the passengers on those airplanes?
  You differentiate for me between a terrorist and evilness of cancer. 
There is no difference, and nations throughout the world today must 
make that choice. As said by President Bush, as said by Tony Blair, as 
said by Mayor Giuliani of New York City, the choice must be made. There 
is no neutral territory here. No, none, zero, zip. It is nonnegotiable. 
You either defeat it or it defeats you.
  I say with due respect to those people who are saying, including some 
college professors around this country, who are saying that, gosh, the 
United States has got it coming, because of our bullying, our foreign 
affairs. Keep in mind, no country in the world, no country in the 
history of the world has done for its neighbors or for people with less 
good fortune what the United States of America has done. No country in 
the world has educated as many students from all countries as America 
has done. No country in the world has guaranteed in its Constitution, 
and judiciously followed its Constitution, the rights and civil 
liberties that America has for its citizens.

  No country in the world has seen the economic power that the United 
States has developed through capitalism. No country in the world has 
taken its military might to help its allies as often as the United 
States of America has done. No country in the history of the world has 
allowed the thousands and thousands of its citizens to give their lives 
for the defense of a country clear across an ocean like America has 
done.
  No country in the world has done for medical research what America 
has done. No country in the world has helped Afghanistan as America has 
done. No country in the world allows immigrants from all parts of the 
world to come in in an orderly fashion and be able to become Americans 
and be able to live the American dream.
  We have a lot of good things about this country, and of interest, Dr. 
Hassan said the other day, after we had this town meeting in Pueblo 
Colorado, Dr. Hassan said, we need to continue to put the message out 
there. We need to tell people what America is about and how good 
America is and what fine people America has, and he used an example.
  He says, you hear people talked about these terrorists and how dare 
they say something like freedom fighters. Remember what those 
terrorists did. In some of the writings that you have seen since that 
horrible day 3 weeks ago, you have seen people say, well, these people 
were so devoted to their cause that they gave their lives; these 
terrorists were on a suicidal mission because they were so devoted to 
their cause.
  What was their cause? Their cause was to bring down the free world. 
Their cause was to destroy democracy. Their cause was to destroy human 
rights. Their cause was to destroy the rights of women or the rights of 
any ethnic race. Their cause was to destroy a society that recognizes 
the value of its population. As my friend Dr. Hassan said, remember, 
they were in an airplane and they gave their lives for one reason, to 
take other lives, to destroy a nation.
  Not long after, those terrorists committed suicide in these terrible 
things they did. But add 300 some New York City firemen and 200 or 300 
some New York City police officers who ran into those towers, ran up 
those towers on what they had to know was a certain death. They knew 
when they went up those towers they would probably never see their 
children again, they would probably die a horrible death. And, 
unfortunately, they did. But when they were running up those towers, 
giving their lives, they went up those towers to save lives, to save a 
Nation. And that ought to distinguish pretty clearly the kind of cancer 
that our President is so capably leading our country towards 
eliminating.
  Now, we have to be patient in our upcoming battle. It will be kind of 
like a cat on the hunt for a mouse. A cat will sit there patiently and 
the mouse may go by and the mouse may come back by, but until that 
mouse is in exactly the right spot, the cat will not strike. And that 
is what we have to do.
  We have no gripe with the Muslim population. We have only a gripe 
with the cancer that has penetrated that population and penetrated our 
population. It is like delicate brain surgery. We do not want to blast 
the entire brain out of the human head. We do not

[[Page H6127]]

want to go off half-cocked, and our President is showing us he is not 
doing it this way. We need to go in very methodically and focused and 
take that cancer out of that human body. And that is the mission of 
every one of us on this House floor. And that is what the American 
people expect of us, what all the world's democracies expect. In fact, 
it is what the entire world expects of us, nothing less.

                          ____________________