[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 136 (Thursday, October 11, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6691-H6695]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H6691]]
                 AMERICA'S DEFENSES IN THE CURRENT WAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schrock). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I hope all of the Members have 
had the opportunity at 8 o'clock, so about an hour and a half ago, to 
listen to the President of the United States address the Nation. It was 
a press conference, but I think the President made several pertinent 
comments.
  Let me begin by saying this: I think the President of the United 
States and his team, whether it is the Vice President, Dick Cheney, 
whether it is Condoleezza Rice, whether it is Don Rumsfeld, whether it 
is John Ashcroft, I think they are doing a heck of a job.
  If this kind of horrible tragedy had to occur, I think that it could 
not have occurred with a better team in place than the team we have 
today. I think it was indicated and reflected by the President's 
comments during his press conference this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to go through a few of those comments and discuss 
them at length. I, of course, want to finish what I started yesterday, 
and that is a discussion, I think a good discussion, of missile defense 
and why this Nation needs missile defense, and why we as Congressmen 
have an inherent responsibility for the security of this Nation to 
provide missile defense. I want to talk about that tonight.
  But let me talk, first of all, about a few comments that the 
President made. I also want to visit briefly about civil liberties. I 
also want to talk for a few moments about the great fight that we are 
involved in.
  We have heard people use the term ``war.'' That is exactly what this 
is. As the President very ably said tonight, ``This is not a 
conventional war that we are fighting. This is a war unlike we have 
ever experienced in the past. First of all and foremost, we have been 
attacked by the enemy within the borders of the United States. We have 
suffered horrible losses in civilian casualties. These people, as the 
President said, they did not agitate this, they did not provoke this 
kind of thing. It was a blind attack of cold-blooded murder. There is 
no justification.''
  By the way, kudos to Mayor Rudolph Giuliani today, who received a $10 
million check, a $10 million check from an individual. But that 
individual, in handing that check, issued a statement that said that 
the United States, as a result of this action, should reexamine its 
policies in regard to Israel.
  Rudolph Giuliani in New York City today said ``Look, you may have 
just given us $10 million for our recovery fund for New York City, but 
do not dare try and justify or say that perhaps there is some 
legitimacy; to take a message across, regardless of the merits of the 
message; do not try and legitimize this as a vehicle for communicating 
that message, the act of terrorism. It is not justified.'' These were 
the acts of evil men, as the President said this evening.
  So Rudolph Giuliani gave the $10 million back and said, ``We do not 
want the money. Do not come to us, no matter how much money you have, 
do not come to the United States, do not come to New York City and 
offer a lot of money, which was appreciated for the recovery effort, 
but to have a little string attached to it that says, hey, maybe if 
terrorists commit these kinds of acts against the United States of 
America, America will adjust its national policies as a response to 
that terrorist act.''
  That is the wrong thing to do. We should not let this kind of act 
that occurred on September 11 gain any kind of credibility whatsoever, 
zero credibility, because if we begin to give those kinds of attacks 
credibility; in other words, allow them to legitimize their cause, even 
a slight legitimization of their cause, we in fact are contributing, in 
my opinion, to the awful acts that are a result of terrorism. They 
should not do that. Thank goodness, the Mayor stood up to that tonight.
  I thought the President's comments about this war, it was amazing to 
me. I thought the reporters on a couple of occasions tried to trap the 
President: ``Can you give us an assurance, Mr. President, just how long 
we are going to be engaged in this?''
  Of course the President did not fall for that trick. He said, ``We 
are going to be engaged in it until we get the job done.'' 
Congratulations, Mr. President. That is exactly the response that the 
American people wanted to hear. That is exactly the response that the 
American people feel in their heart.
  This country cannot afford to do this job half-heartedly. We cannot 
do the job halfway. We have to complete this job. We have to do 
everything we can to minimize the threat of terrorism anywhere in the 
world. Terrorism has no legitimate spot. Terrorism has no legitimate 
spot anywhere in this world with any country.

                              {time}  2145

  It must be eradicated, or as close to eradication as we can possibly 
get. And the President said he is committed; that as long as he is the 
President, he will stay the course. Did my colleagues hear that? He 
will stay the course.
  And that is exactly the kind of commitment that the United States 
Congress has to give to the President as well. There will be lots of 
trials and tribulations that we ourselves as leaders in this country 
will come across, but we need to stay the course, keep her steady as 
she goes. Keep her steady as she goes. As the President said, slowly 
but surely, slowly but surely we are gaining ground; and we are gaining 
victory in this battle against these evil people.
  Now, I say they are evil people. I compared them in comments I made 
yesterday and in comments I have made since the September 11 tragedy to 
a cancer. There is no way to justify a cancer, ever. There is no 
medical doctor in the history of the world that has come up with some 
kind of a justification for not the cause, but some kind of a 
justification to say that the cancer helps the human body. Cancer never 
helps the human body. It is a foreign agent inside the body, and it has 
one purpose in mind and that is to destroy the human body. That is what 
cancer is about, to destroy the human body. It has one mission: 
destruction, destruction, destruction.
  There is no difference between bin Laden, between all of his 
followers and between other terrorists in this world; there is no 
distinction between those terrorists and cancer. They all are out for 
the same thing. They are out there, as the President said tonight very 
ably, and with a lot of credibility, he said what they have done is 
hijacked a religion. They are trying to cloak themselves in Islam. 
Islam does not allow terrorism. Islam does not permit the striking of 
innocent people. Certainly Islam does not preach striking down other 
people of the same faith, of those practicing Islam, that same faith.
  Keep in mind that these terrorists, these evil people, when they hit 
that tower, they did not just kill Americans; they killed the citizens 
of 80 separate countries. They killed fellow Muslims, they killed 
people who practice the Islamic faith. They killed Irish, they killed 
black, they killed Canadians, they killed British, they killed Belgian, 
German. Eighty countries suffered. These terrorists did not 
discriminate amongst their victims, and now they have the audacity to 
cloak themselves in religion, one of the great religions, as President 
Bush said tonight, the religion of Islam.
  Come on. We know that is a falsehood. And we have an obligation to 
continue to look through that falsehood. As the President said tonight 
again, and well said, I think, that bin Laden is just one part of the 
puzzle, just one part of the cancer. And there is more than one element 
to that cancer. Bin Laden is just one of the cells there. We have a 
number of cells that we have to eliminate to cure ourselves, to cleanse 
ourselves of this horrible cancer that has found its way to us.
  So I thought the President spoke well. He spoke of our determination, 
our will and our patience. The President has been very methodical in 
his planning. He and his team have been very focused, and they are 
determined, and they are strong, and they are patient. And I think the 
President said it very well this evening.
  I was very dismayed in the last week or so when one of our colleagues 
here criticized the President, saying how could the President launch an 
attack in 4 weeks; that he does not have enough preparation; he had not 
done enough planning. Well, that colleague of mine was out of order, in 
my opinion. Our constituents should know that

[[Page H6692]]

 we do not sit in the war room and help design the day-to-day combat 
activities of our military forces. Thank goodness, we do not. That is 
not our job. We are not military experts. A lot may think they are 
military experts, but the fact is we are not military experts. So to 
stand up at this point in time and criticize our President, saying the 
President did not do enough planning, when this colleague of ours did 
not spend 2 minutes in the assistance of that planning, how the heck 
does he know what went on down there?
  What you do, as the President said tonight, you measure by 
performance. And you can go turn on the TV tonight and look at the 
performance. Slowly but surely, as the President said, we are gaining 
ground. Obviously, we are gaining ground, and we are going to gain 
ground every day. Now, some days we may get set back a little. But 
every time we are set back, the sun will come again and we will gain a 
little more the next day. The end game is that America will prevail. 
America and its allies will prevail.
  This Nation is too great, its civil liberties are too strong, its 
freedoms mean too much to the world for the United States of America to 
fail, and it will not. Failure is not even an option. Failure is not 
even something to be discussed. The United States will be victorious at 
whatever the cost, at whatever the sacrifice, at whatever amount of 
time it takes. Mark my words, the United States of America will prevail 
over this evil cancer.

  Now, I want to mention a good friend, a good colleague of mine, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger); and he and I were talking about 
missile defense. We were also talking about civil liberties. Now, the 
gentleman from California and I agreed, and we agree on most things; 
but we were talking about the fact that I want the American people to 
know that in our anti-terrorist bill, for example, that we bring up 
tomorrow on this House floor, that we need to let the people know that 
we are not out there violating the constitutional rights of privacy or 
the constitutional civil liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. 
That is not what is going to happen in this Congress.
  What is happening is this: we are saying, look, we all have to pitch 
in together. So what if they check our baggage a little more closely at 
the airport? In fact, the previous speakers were talking about how 
necessary that is. So what if someone decides they want to cross the 
borders where they have a computer, a television face measuring 
computer that will tell them whether or not an individual is wanted 
anywhere in the world? So what if someone is requested to give a 
fingerprint if they want to cross the borders into America? The fact is 
America is going to have to tighten its borders.
  We cannot afford to have 2\1/2\ million students, students who are 
guests of the United States of America, we cannot afford to have 2\1/2\ 
million of them stay in our country after their visas expire. Of 
course, we have a huge gap in regards to our student visa program. And 
it was amazing to me the other day, even in my own State, that some of 
the colleges and universities in my own State said that we should not 
clamp down on student visas. The reason is because they need the money. 
They want the money. They may charge high fees for these foreign 
students to be educated in the United States. Well, it is about time 
the United States thought of the United States.
  Our homeland security requires that we have a border policy that 
makes sense; that we have a border policy that protects America; that 
we have a border policy that lives within the philosophy of America. 
That philosophy of America is that America has always opened its arms 
to citizens of other parts of the world; but we have to do so within a 
system that is regulated. We just cannot open the borders and allow 
anybody in here that wants to come in here. As we have seen, 
unfortunately, on September 11, not everybody has good intentions in 
mind. Some of those people are cancerous; and they want to lay cancer 
on every woman, every child, and every man they can, regardless of 
their religion, regardless of their ethnic background. These people 
want to destroy.
  We have every right, without violating the Constitution, to tighten 
up our borders. We have every right, and it is not a violation of our 
civil liberties, if someone wants to fly on an airplane and checks on 
baggage, they should expect that someone is going to look in their 
suitcase. They may even be looking through your nighties or your 
pajamas. The fact is there are certain inconveniences, not civil 
liberties, but there are certain inconveniences that all of us will now 
have to suffer to try to keep our country safe from this active cancer 
and the acts that these terrorists are trying to put upon us.
  I think the President handled very well tonight this general threat, 
this seemingly high level of confidence of a legitimate threat against 
the United States. Obviously, the President and the law enforcement 
arms in our country, and by the way, kudos to our law enforcement 
people that are so dedicated and put themselves out there on the front 
line, and all of our emergency personnel, whether firemen, ambulance 
drivers, et cetera; but the President made it very clear he does not 
have specific information.
  Obviously, if they did, if it was a train that was threatened or an 
airplane that was threatened, they would shut it down. They just have a 
general threat against the well-being of the United States.
  I almost thought I heard criticism of the President not being more 
specific, when the President did not have more specific information as 
far as what the targets would be. The President made it very clear this 
evening that the targets were not specific. I think the President did 
an excellent job in his communication to the people that he leads, to 
the people that he has assumed a major responsibility, the ultimately 
responsibility for their security.
  So the fact is, as the President said this evening, all of us have to 
be more aware of our surroundings, and that is not just for the next 2 
or 3 days; that is kind of something we are going to have to 
permanently put into our minds. If we see something that looks odd, 
it probably is out of place; and it probably arouses enough suspicion 
we should call the authorities. The old saying, if it looks unusual, it 
probably is. That is the kind of thing that we are facing here.

  I used to be a police officer, and we did not develop any sixth 
sense, as people say, that police officers develop. What we actually 
did is develop common sense. Common sense that if in the middle of the 
night you see somebody coming out of a window of a retail store that is 
locked up, you might think that is a little unusual, and you would then 
take appropriate action. That is what the President is cautioning the 
American people to do, to just use common sense. If it does not look 
like it makes sense, report it to the authorities. That is how we are 
going to get ahead in this ball game.
  Let me move on from the President's comments, although I want to 
repeat once again that I thought the President did an excellent job. I 
think the President and his team, the Vice President, the Secretary of 
Defense, the national security advisers, Condoleezza Rice, this entire 
team, combined with all those young men and women that are serving in 
our military forces throughout the world, combined with our people like 
our volunteers in the Peace Corps, with the Government employees, with 
all the law enforcement agencies across this land, the firemen, et 
cetera, et cetera, we are all coming together as a team to provide the 
security that every citizen out there has a right to expect from their 
government.
  And thank goodness we live in the strongest country in the history of 
the world. Thank goodness we have a country that has freedom of 
religion, that has freedom of speech, that allows its borders to be 
open to the world with reasonable regulations. That is what has made 
this country such a strong country. And the blow we suffered on 
September 11, and the blows that we will face in the future, if we stay 
together as a team, if we bring together as a group but act as one, we 
will survive this and come out of this stronger than we were before. 
Sadder than we were before, because of the friends and the family and 
the good people that were lost in this terrible tragedy, but stronger.
  Let me visit about the question that the President was asked this 
evening,

[[Page H6693]]

an area that I spend a lot of time on, and that is missile defense and 
the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. Let me put out the premise right now 
that I think every one of us in these Chambers, every Congressman, 
every Senator in Washington, all of us had better not live on a hope 
that we never get attacked by a missile. The far left in this country, 
the radical left, wants the American people to hope and believe that a 
missile will never be launched against the United States, and that a 
missile probably will not be just based on that hope. It is like hoping 
away cancer. It is not going to happen.
  At some point in the future, the United States of America will face a 
missile attack. It may be one missile that is accidentally fired 
against the United States, or it may be a series of missiles that are 
intentionally fired against the United States.

                              {time}  2200

  Today we have time to prepare for it. That is exactly what we need to 
do. There are several steps that we need to do. First of all, this body 
has to stay together. We have to give the President the support that he 
has asked for in building a missile defense system for this country. 
Keep in mind what the country has today. This country has tremendous 
capabilities as far as detection of a missile launch is concerned. In 
fact, within moments after that missile was launched by accident by the 
Ukrainian military during military exercises and hit a commercial 
airliner one week ago, the United States of America, it was the United 
States of America that knew about the launch. We picked it up at NORAD 
in Colorado Springs.
  We were within a couple of seconds able to figure out what kind of 
missile it was or at least a good guess, the direction, the target, et 
cetera. But once our NORAD defense system determines that a missile 
launch has taken place, and after they figure out what size missile it 
is and where its likely target is, all they can do is call up the 
victims of the likely target and say, say a prayer, it is over. You 
have an inbound missile. Its expected time of arrival is 15 minutes. 
Nothing we can do for you.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation. We are required to protect the 
American people, the American continent and our allies. How can we 
stand up in front of our constituents, colleagues, how can we stand in 
front of them and say that we have chosen not to provide an actual 
missile defense system. Instead we have chosen the policy of the far 
left which is let us hope it never happens, and it is crazy to think 
that someone will attack this country with a missile.
  I think a lot of people have thought some crazy things that we never 
thought would happen, i.e., a terrorist attack would occur that would 
kill thousands and thousands of American citizens. It occurred on 
September 11. Who would imagine during a military exercise that a 
military, under strict discipline, under careful scrutiny, would 
accidentally launch a missile that brought down a commercial airliner. 
The concerns we have in the future are not entirely focused on an 
intentional launch of a missile against the United States. It could be 
an accidental launch.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the likelihood of an accidental missile launch 
against the United States is pretty high. I think there is a good 
likelihood it could be as much accidental as it is intentional. That is 
why I think it is imperative that the Congress of the United States 
follow the lead of the President of the United States, and that is to 
deploy a missile defense policy in this country.
  Let us go through the different arguments brought up. The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger) and I talked about, we do not have the 
technology. That technology is almost there. We have the laser 
technology. We have the satellite technology. We have the detection 
technology. Two months ago we were able to intercept an incoming 
practice target missile. That technology is going to be there. Sure it 
is going to take some trial and error to get there.
  People say what if we fail. One way you can guarantee failure is not 
to try at all. That guarantees it. So my colleagues in these Chambers 
who do not want to try at all to provide missile defense for this 
country, you have guaranteed failure to your constituents. We have the 
capability to come up with the technology. We have the resources to 
deploy a missile defensive system to protect the people of this 
country, and we ought to do it.
  Some people will say what about the anti-ballistic missile treaty. 
That was the question tonight to the President. When you meet with 
President Putin from Russia, are you backing off, abandonment of the 
anti-ballistic missile treaty, and the President said that treaty is 
obsolete. It does no good for Russia or the United States.
  Let me tell you a little history about the anti-ballistic missile 
treaty. A few facts about it. First of all, the anti-ballistic missile 
treaty is a treaty between two countries. Only two countries are 
signatories to the treaty, the United States of America and the Soviet 
Union. This treaty was signed in the 1970s. The treaty is well over 30 
years ago. It went on a theory that was abandoned a long time, a theory 
whose premise was questioned from the very first day.
  What is the theory? At the time of the Cold War, at the time the 
anti-ballistic missile treaty was drafted in the 1970s, there were only 
two countries capable of delivering such weapons in the world, the 
United States of America, and the Soviet Union.
  Some people, that administration, thought it was logical for the 
United States and Russia to get together and say look, you are the only 
two in the world capable of delivering these types of missiles. Make a 
treaty that will give you the ultimate resistance to fire a missile in 
an offensive state against Russia or against the United States.
  So the treaty they came up with is called the Anti-ballistic Missile 
Treaty, and it works like this: Russia agrees not to build a missile 
defensive system, and the United States agrees not to defend itself 
with a missile defensive system. The theory being if you do not have 
the capability to defend yourself, you would not fire a missile against 
the Soviet Union because you know the Soviet Union would retaliate, and 
your fear of retaliation would be enough incentive not to fire your 
missile in the first place.
  Well, the one good thing they did when they drafted this treaty was 
they put a clause in there. The people that drafted this said, 
justifiably, Look, we are not smart enough to be able to read the 
future. We do not know what the future holds for the Soviet Union. We 
do not know what the future holds for the United States of America. So 
as we draft this treaty, the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, let us make 
a provision, let us put a right within the treaty for the treaty to be 
modified for either party, the Soviet Union or the United States, to 
withdraw from the treaty.
  Let me show Members that specific language. This is it right here. 
Article XVI of the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. That treaty is called 
the ABM. This treaty shall be of unlimited duration. Each party, and 
look at this emphasis that I have put on here. This is a guaranteed 
right. The parties have a right to abrogate this treaty. This is not a 
breach of the treaty. It is not a breaking of the treaty. It is 
exercising a right contained within the four corners of the treaty. 
That is exactly what this language is. Let us go through it.
  Each party, remember there are only two parties to the ABM, the 
Soviet Union and the United States of America. Each party shall, in 
exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from 
this treaty. See the word ``right.'' It is not iffy. It is a guaranteed 
right of the treaty. The treaty has it within its provisions. 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.
  So we know that the right to abandon the treaty is contained within 
the four corners of the treaty if in fact extraordinary events have 
occurred. So the argument here is have extraordinary events occurred to 
the extent that the supreme interests of the parties have been 
impacted? Of course they have. I am going to show Members that in just 
a moment.
  It shall give notice of its decision to the other party 6 months 
prior to withdraw from the treaty. Such notice shall include a 
statement of the extraordinary events the notifying party regards as 
having jeopardized its supreme

[[Page H6694]]

interests. What are extraordinary events.
  Take a look at what has happened in the world in the last 30 years. 
This is ballistic missile proliferation. Remember at the time the 
treaty was drafted, there were two countries, the Soviet Union and the 
United States of America, that were capable of ballistic missile 
delivery against each other. Only two countries. That is why only two 
countries signed the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. Take a look at what 
has occurred in proliferation in countries throughout the world as 
indicated by the purple color on this chart. This is the proliferation 
of ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles do not have to contain a 
nuclear warhead. They can, in fact, contain a warhead that has got a 
biological weapon. So these can be missiles with incoming biological 
weapons.
  The fact is numerous countries throughout the world have acquired the 
capability to deliver a ballistic missile against the United States or 
against other countries or against allies of the United States or in 
fact against Russia. It is in Russia's best interests as well as the 
best interests of the United States that we acknowledge the fact that 
the world, that extraordinary events have occurred, and at the very top 
of that list is the capability to deliver a biological or nuclear 
weapon in either one of our countries by people who have not signed 
this treaty. That is the proliferation.
  That is an extraordinary event. On that alone, this treaty should be 
abrogated. Let us look here. Remember again when we signed the treaty 
in the 1970s there were two countries with nuclear capability. Two of 
them, the Soviet Union and the United States. Now take a look. These 
are countries that now possess nuclear weapons: Britain, China, France, 
Pakistan, Israel, United States. I would add to that list North Korea. 
Of concern over here, I think North Korea has already accomplished it, 
Iraq, Iran, Libya.
  Mr. Speaker, we are seeing, unfortunately, extraordinary events take 
place with the proliferation of countries, rogue countries, Third World 
countries, that are doing everything they can to acquire nuclear 
weapons. We stand back and say we should not build a missile defense. 
We are doing an injustice to future generations of this Nation. We see 
the disaster coming. We see the disaster coming. We have the 
opportunity today, the American people, the leaders of the American 
people, the government of the American people, we have the opportunity 
today to build a system that will stop missile delivery of nuclear 
weapons. That will stop missile delivery of biological weapons. That is 
our obligation. We can do it.

  So any kind of argument that we see in these Chambers about the fact 
that the United States does not need missile defense are ill-founded on 
their face. Of course this Nation needs it. Thank goodness the 
President of the United States recognizes the fact that the Anti-
ballistic Missile Treaty, which is the only thing standing in the way 
of an effective missile defense for this country, thank goodness that 
the President recognizes that extraordinary events which trigger the 
ability to leave the treaty have occurred.
  The President's response tonight, which I thought was very eloquent, 
he talked about it is to Russia's benefit as well. The United States is 
not developing a missile defensive system to the exclusion of every 
other country in the world. It is our intent to develop a system that 
we can share with our close friends like the British, like Canada, and 
Mexico and frankly be willing to share with other countries. If we 
build the right kind of system, satellite laser system, we actually 
could assist any country in the world, friend or foe, from a missile 
attack against that country.
  Just imagine for a moment if Russia, for example, by accident 
launched a missile on this country. A nuclear missile. Let us say that 
it hit Philadelphia or some city and wipes out a city. You know, the 
retaliation or the repercussions of the actual hit, the result of that 
missile, would be so significant none of us can even imagine. It is as 
hard to imagine those kinds of results as what we saw occur in New York 
City on September 11.

                              {time}  2215

  What would it mean? Would it mean a new world war? Would it mean such 
massive retaliation by the United States that Russia then would fire 
whatever they had left at the United States? We have an opportunity to 
avoid that disaster by providing this country with the capability to 
stop incoming missiles whether they are accidentally fired at the 
United States or whether they are intentionally fired against the 
United States.
  Now, some people will say to you, ``Well, now look, you know, Scott, 
this kind of missile thing is not going to happen. Let's hope it 
away.''
  And I just tell you 10 days ago, although the press has been very 
heavy on Afghanistan and our military theater of operations over there, 
consider the fact that about 10 days ago, a missile was fired by 
accident, and a missile did hit a target that no one intended for it to 
hit and it did in fact bring down a commercial airliner and killed 
everybody on board. That ought to tell you that accidents can happen. 
We are naive, and we are almost shameful if we do not think that in the 
future at some point this country is going to be challenged by a 
missile that is inbound, and we have the opportunity today to stop it. 
We have not only the opportunity today to stop it, we have the 
obligation to stop it. And we can do it.
  So missile defense, I was so pleased that that question was asked of 
the President tonight. This President intends to lead this Nation not 
only to victory over the cancer of terrorism but he also intends to 
lead this country to victory in its defense of its homeland security. 
And a part of that is to build a missile defensive system that will 
give us the kind of security that a lot of us think we have right now. 
There are a lot of people out there that think we have the capability 
to stop these kind of things. So this President, as he is doing with 
other causes, is taking the leadership role. I for one am more than 
happy to stand tall behind him. As all of us are standing, most of us, 
tall behind his leadership against the cancer of terrorism, let us too 
be counted standing behind him for the missile defense system of this 
country.
  Let me go back, leave this subject for a moment, and talk very 
briefly about the economy, because the President also covered the 
economy this evening, and I think his remarks were very important. This 
economy will recover. This economy has some very fundamental strengths 
to it. This economy has been bruised by the September 11 attacks. The 
economy was limping along prior to September 11. It happens. Our 
economy runs in cycles. It has run in cycles throughout the history of 
mankind. The economies of every country in the world run in cycles. We 
are in a cyclical state. The worst thing that can keep us in a downward 
cycle, the worst thing that can continue to propel us into the ground 
is loss of confidence. It is just like the worst thing that could work 
against us is the fear of fear. Our greatest fear is but fear itself. 
And it is the same thing, too, we should apply to our economy. We as 
Americans need to continue to go out and do what we can to bolster our 
economy, increase our job performance. Employers, you need to pay your 
employees what is necessary to keep them so that they can support their 
families. Our inventors, our capital investment, our inventors need to 
continue to invent the great products that this country is known for. 
We need to keep incentive in the system out there. I am very confident 
that the economy will continue through its cyclical correction but that 
the country will again see an uplift in our economy. So I urge people 
not to panic. I urge people that as the Christmas season approaches, go 
out and buy and spend as you would in a normal Christmas. I am not 
saying to do it unwisely. I am not saying to waste money. But I am 
saying that your consumer confidence, our constituents' confidence is 
the big engine that is driving this economy. And if we can, whatever we 
can do to sit down with our constituents and tell them just what the 
basic fundamentals of our economy are and how strong they are, we are 
not going to have a recovery tomorrow. We are not going to see the boom 
times with the stock market. People were actually writing and selling 
books about what happens when the Dow hits 30,000. We are not going to 
see that. But what we are going to see

[[Page H6695]]

is a cyclical correction that also leads to the recovery of an economy. 
We here in the United States Congress will be acting on a stimulus 
package. In fact our fine chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas), will be chairing the Committee on Ways and Means upon which I 
sit tomorrow to consider debate and to report out a bill for some type 
of stimulus package. The government cannot do it all. I think our 
constituents understand that. We do not need to lecture our 
constituents. They understand the government cannot do it all, but the 
government can help. Alan Greenspan has helped by putting more money 
in, by lowering interest rates. Any of our constituents that are out 
there that are paying credit card interest that is at all above 10 
percent in my opinion, I would consider it excessive. I mean, Greenspan 
has lowered those rates so dramatically that every American, every 
American that uses credit, whether it is on your credit card or whether 
it is for your house ought to be seeing the benefit. And if you are not 
seeing the benefit, if your constituents are not seeing the benefit of 
lower interest rates from their credit card companies, tell them to 
dump that company and go with a company that is going to be fair with 
them, that is going to give them a rate that fairly evaluates the risk 
that is involved in doing business with them.

  There are a lot of things out there that are going to work in our 
favor. One of the things that I think that can come out of that 
stimulus package tomorrow is broad based tax cuts, not tax cuts for one 
specific individual or one specific industry but broad based. We need 
to get consumer confidence back in an upward mode. A stimulus package 
cannot do it all, as I said, but we can go a long ways, in putting 
incentive out there in the system so that once again our economic 
engine warms up and begins that climb up the hill. I know I can; I know 
I can. We know that that is going to happen. So I feel confident about 
our economy.
  To wrap it up, I want to first of all thank my colleague the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for the discussion, I thought a 
very thorough discussion we had this evening on missile defense. I 
think the President did a very commendable job. And I, like many, many 
hundreds of thousands of Americans, and I like most of my colleagues, 
if not all of my colleagues on this House floor, stand in gratitude for 
the leadership that the President has shown to this country, to the 
leadership that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice 
and the other Cabinet members and our national security team and our 
military leaders and our military personnel, all across this country, 
thank God we have got these kind of people that are dedicated, in many 
cases with their lives, are dedicated to the cause of the United States 
of America. Thank God we have got people who are willing to make it 
their entire focus, in a patient, strong but dedicated way to make sure 
that the United States of America continues to prevail for the next 
generation in the good way that it has prevailed for our generation. 
Thank goodness we have got a country that recognizes all types of 
different religions, that allows people of different ethnic backgrounds 
to thrive in this country. We are equal under our laws around here. 
There are some countries in this world that will not allow foreign 
people to come in and be citizens. Many countries do not have open 
borders at all. They have closed borders. There are a lot of countries 
in this world who discriminate very clearly against other religions. 
But in the United States of America, whether you practice Islam, 
whether you are a Catholic, whether you are a Methodist, Episcopalian, 
a Mormon, even being an atheist in this country is protected by our 
Constitution. It is the strength of that Constitution that will 
increase the strength of this country. It is being respected by this 
President and his team.
  My final remark is that I stand tall with all my colleagues in 
backing the President and his team. Let us go out there and let us 
eradicate the cancer that has fallen upon us. We owe it to ourselves. 
We owe it to future generations. It is an obligation and a 
responsibility of our job. And, frankly, we can get the job done.

                          ____________________