[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 16, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6898-H6902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     PROVIDING SAFETY IN THE SKIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized until midnight.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have been fascinated by the previous 
remarks. I think it was excellent, and I commend the gentlewoman from 
California. I think it highlights the issue overall, and that is not 
just the abuse that the Taliban throws upon women in their society, but 
the abuse they throw upon their society as a whole.
  For them to represent that they somehow speak for the religion of 
Islam, that they somehow speak for the Muslims of the world, is an 
insult. Obviously the Muslim world does not believe in the kind of 
abuses that the Taliban throws upon its women, nor does the religion of 
Islam. In fact the religion of Islam respects women, and that certainly 
is not something that you see in any kind of fashion whatsoever. In no 
fashion whatsoever do you see women given respect that they are 
entitled to or to the privileges, the equal rights or the access that 
they should have. Obviously that is not given when you talk about 
Afghanistan.
  There are a couple issues, Mr. Speaker, I want to visit about that I 
think are very important. First of all, I listened to some of the 
previous speakers on the airport security bill. Obviously the airport 
security we have in this country has to be tightened dramatically. It 
has been tightened dramatically right now with the temporary use of the 
military. We have taken some very dramatic steps.
  As you know, it was a pretty incredible event on September 11, that 
the Department of Transportation, upon order of the President of the 
United States, was able to take 2,600 or 3,000 commercial aircraft and 
bring every one of those aircraft down to a safe landing within about a 
2 hour period of time. There were a lot of things that went wrong on 
September 11, but there were a lot of things in response to that 
horrible tragedy of September 11 that went right.
  For example, the military alert, the high alert that went out to our 
military throughout the world. Just picture yourself as a skipper of a 
carrier group out in the Pacific somewhere, or out in the Persian Gulf, 
and you are scrambled a message that the United States of America has 
just been attacked, that structures have been taken down in New York 
City, that the Pentagon itself has been struck.
  Our military was immediately upon order of the President taken to 
probably the highest alert that they have been in in decades, and we 
did not have one misfire. Not one misfire. Not one officer who acted 
out of what the rule book says they should act. It was a good, solid 
response and it shows you that in time of emergency, there are a lot of 
things that can be done right.
  We saw it, as I said, with the Department of Transportation, the 
Federal Aviation Administration, NORAD, which was contacted within 
minutes of the hijack knowledge and was able to try and track some of 
these commercial aircraft that were being used as weapons by the 
hijackers.
  There were a lot of things in our system that worked. But one of the 
things that failed us was airport security across this country, and I 
do not know any of my colleagues that do not think that we do not need 
to increase airport security. Obviously we have got to improve the 
airport security in every airport in this country. Whether it is in 
Grand Junction, Colorado, or whether it is at LaGuardia, or whether it 
is at National Airport or Denver International Airport, we have got to 
improve security.
  But the question is, how do you get the biggest bang for your buck 
for security? What kind of approach should we use to enhance that 
security, that we can be ensured that a year from now or 2 years from 
now or 3 years from now that the system is working?
  Now, some have suggested that the only way to do it is to quickly act 
and for the Federal Government to create a new bureaucracy and hire 
tens of thousands of people, tens of thousands of people, as Federal 
employees, and put them in these positions of airport security.
  To me, that makes about as much sense as the Federal Aviation 
Administration hiring all the pilots. Clearly and absolutely there is a 
role for the Federal Government to oversee security at these airports. 
They have to put down very tough and stringent guidelines as to what 
will be allowed and what will not be allowed; what training is required 
for the people that work in that security, what people will be allowed 
there, what kind of clearances they have, et cetera, et cetera, et 
cetera.
  But before any of my colleagues, and some have, obviously, but before 
you sign on that the only way to answer this is to create a new Federal 
bureaucracy, think of the problems that we have.
  Some inherently disagree with me. Some out here like a bigger Federal 
Government. Some think that the only people that can get things done 
correctly is the government. I am saying, I do not think so. I think 
the government should oversee it.
  But take a look at what happens if you hire these people. Take a look 
under our Civil Service regulations, where you cannot hardly fire a 
Federal employee if we have misbehavior. You cannot hardly move a 
Federal employee. To take an example, look at what happened in Denver 
and some of the other areas when we required Federal Aviation 
Administration personnel to move 50 miles or something like that. Take 
a look at what a racket that ended up being.

                              {time}  2320

  We lose lots of flexibility when, in a very short period of time, we 
put tens and tens and tens of thousands of people in the Federal 
payroll and create them permanently as Federal employees. It is not 
going to work. That is not the efficient way to provide the maximum 
amount of security that we want for our airports in this country.
  Now, President Bush recognized this. President Bush's approach to 
this, which I think, by the way, is the correct approach, is number 
one, we all agree we need tougher airport security, we all agree that 
the status quo is not working, but as the President says, there should 
be Federal oversight, but it does not have to mean a new huge Federal 
bureaucracy for airport security any more than as I said earlier the 
Federal Aviation Administration should all of a sudden be required to 
hire all of the pilots in this country.
  Clearly, the Federal Aviation Administration has a strong role in 
pilot qualifications, in how many hours the pilots fly, in the type of 
training that they need for particular aircraft and the type of 
training that they need for approached airports, et cetera, et cetera, 
et cetera. So the Federal Government has a strong role to play, it is 
just we should not take it across that line and, in a few weeks, end up 
hiring tens and tens and tens of thousands of people to become full-
time, permanent, Federal employees.
  So I am asking my colleagues to take a careful look at that. We do 
not need to have that many more new employees. What we need to do is 
review these procedures and make our airports safer. I look with 
disgust upon any of my colleagues that suggest that because some of us 
say we do not need a new Federal bureaucracy, that they make the 
suggestion that we do not care about airport security. I do not know 
one Member in this House, I do not know one Member in this House that 
does not want improved airport security. Not one. Not from the left, 
way over on the left to clear over on the right. We do not see it. 
Everybody in these Chambers wants better airport security. But the 
question is, how do we most effectively get there? Take a look at the 
track record. Frankly, the

[[Page H6899]]

track record of the Federal Government on previous attempts at things 
like this has not been very good. I want the best airport security that 
we can get out there.
  I want to move on to another subject, and I want to talk a little bit 
about what I sense in the national media. I do want to visit this 
evening about the different types of weapons of mass destruction and 
our kind of a threefold strategy that I think we have to utilize which 
would also include a missile defense, information defense, and defense 
against domestic terrorism; for example, a truck bomb or things like 
that.
  But I noted with interest, and let me say it this way. I am kind of a 
fan of 60 Minutes. I have watched 60 Minutes, as many of my colleagues 
have here, for a long time, for decades, in fact. I think 60 Minutes 
overall has done a very good job. But I have to tell my colleagues that 
I was very, very disappointed when I saw 60 Minutes last weekend. Do we 
know what they did? They spent the first 25 minutes or so of their show 
pointing out to the world, pointing out to the world the weaknesses of 
our nuclear generating facilities in this country and how various types 
of attacks on these may very well be successful and the catastrophe 
that they could create.
  Now, I think it is great that 60 Minutes went out and uncovered this 
weakness, although I would not give them that much credit. Other people 
have complained about the lack of security. But my question is I think 
that the media has a responsibility to play post-September 11 disaster 
as well, and that responsibility would have been much better exercised 
by 60 Minutes by simply taking their information over to the Pentagon 
or over to the Nuclear Regulatory Administration or over to the White 
House or to the Congress and say, look what we have discovered out 
there. We have some weaknesses in these nuclear facilities, and we need 
to be aware of it.
  Mr. Speaker, 60 Minutes chose not to do that. 60 Minutes instead 
thought it was much better to broadcast to the world the weaknesses 
that currently exist in our nuclear reactors. I mean some of these 
terrorists must just be sitting back in their caves or in their places 
of abode just smiling and saying, what a great society these people are 
in America. They provide us with our next target and they give us all 
kinds of information. We get good ideas by reading the American media.
  I think all of us have a responsibility here and it includes the 
media, and that responsibility is, hey, maybe we ought to figure out 
that what is being read by what we publish out there, what is being 
seen by what we televise, or what is being heard by what we put over 
the radio, maybe we should screen a little of that information. Now, 
some of the media, frankly, has been pretty darn responsible. Bob 
Woodward not too long ago, 2 or 3 weeks ago, unfortunately, on the 
Senate side, there was a leak of information, as my colleagues know. 
The President got very upset about it.

  It is my understanding from a source in the media that Bob Woodward 
did the responsible thing. He got ahold of some information that he 
himself questioned whether it should be published, and he contacted the 
appropriate government officials, which I would guess would be the 
White House and said, should I be putting this kind of information out? 
They asked him not to, and Bob Woodward respected that. That is 
responsible journalism.
  I do not think it is responsible journalism to go out and spend 20 
minutes televising to the world where the weaknesses are in America's 
nuclear generation facilities and how a strike against these nuclear 
facilities, and they even describe on 60 Minutes about how if the plane 
hit it at this angle or this happened or that happened, what the 
consequences of that would be. That is like going down and saying, 
guys, let me tell you where the weakness is in the local bank alarm 
system.
  I will bet my colleagues that 60 Minutes, Dan Rather, the whole crew 
there at 60 Minutes, I bet they never televised the weakness in their 
home alarm system: if you come to my house at this time, that is the 
weakness in my home alarm system, or I do not have this window taped so 
you could get access there and you could cause a lot of harm to my 
house because I keep a lot of material in there.
  The point being to me it is incumbent upon all of us to talk to our 
friends in the media and say, look, we all have to be more responsible. 
The world changed on September 11. The days of being absolutely 
politically correct, the days of Harvard not allowing the U.S. 
military, the ROTC on their campus, those days are gone. Our society 
has to adapt to some realities out there and the realities are that 
there is a cancer out there, there is a horrible cancer out there. Bin 
Laden happens to be a key cell in that cancer, but he is not the only 
cell of cancer we have out there. If we do not act aggressively to 
eradicate that cancer, it will kill us. It will eat us alive.
  I noted with interest tonight, going back to Harvard University, I 
noticed with interest tonight that at Fox News Network, they claim that 
one of the people, one of their guests, it was not Fox News, but it was 
one of their guests said that Harvard actually accepts money from the 
bin Laden family, takes money from the bin Laden family, either in the 
form of scholarships or grants, but refuses to take any money from the 
United States military to pay for or allow an ROTC recruiting officer 
on Harvard University or ROTC training. Give me a break. Come on. After 
September 11, we all have to put more weight on our shoulders; we all 
have to accept more responsibility of being an American. Being an 
American is not too bad a deal. It is the greatest country in the 
history of the world. Do not let people start to apologize for America.
  I think I am beginning to sense some sympathy towards this bin Laden. 
I noticed today, all they talked about today is the fact that we have 
collateral damage hitting a Red Cross warehouse. I am sorry. I feel 
badly about that. We do not intend to target innocent civilians, but 
the fact is, we are engaged in a war. We have very sophisticated 
weapons, but we do not have weapons that can go out and paint a red 
laser cross across bin Laden so that we go in and we take out bin Laden 
and nobody else gets impacted. Obviously we have to be careful. I am 
not suggesting intentional civilian deaths. But I am saying that there 
is a point in our society where we have to accept the fact that we are 
going to suffer some casualties.

                              {time}  2330

  There are going to be civilian casualties. But let me tell the 
Members, when the news media starts talking all day long about the fact 
that one of our bombs hit a Red Cross facility by mistake, I might add, 
do not forget, that score starts at 6,000 to nothing. Six thousand 
innocent citizens lost their lives in New York City, and that is a 
statistic that ought to come in over and over and over and over again.
  That does not justify going and taking 6,000 Aghan citizens, but do 
not come down on the United States military in such a way that we think 
we are going to be able to go in and find and eradicate this cancer 
without taking or hitting a few healthy cells on the way in. I do not 
know how else we can do it.
  We have gotten through several decades of being able to engage in 
military actions without a lot of U.S. casualties. Our weapons have 
become much more precise, and thank goodness they have, because if we 
take a look at conflict after conflict, our collateral damage is being 
lowered and lowered and lowered; in other words, there is less and less 
and less collateral damage because our weapons are becoming more and 
more and more sophisticated.
  But this is not the time to start to sympathize with bin Laden, to 
start to criticize the United States military, because I think they are 
doing a pretty darned good job out there. When we get into or when we 
are engaged in a war, we are going to have mistakes.
  It is just like the State patrol of a State. Over a period of time, 
some State patrolman is going to have a car accident. We regret the 
fact that that happens, we try and avoid that from happening; but that 
does not mean we sympathize with the crooks more because a State 
patrolman may goof up and have an accident.
  I think these points are very important, because I would not want us, 
as we get further and further away from September 11, I do not want our 
memories to begin to fade about what a horrible thing that cancer did 
to us. Do

[[Page H6900]]

Members know what? That cancer still exists out there. It will take a 
very dedicated effort.
  Thank goodness we have the President that we do. Thank goodness we 
have the team that we do, whether it is Vice President Cheney, whether 
it is Condoleezza Rice, who, by the way, did an excellent job on ``60 
Minutes'' the other night, or whether it is Don Rumsfeld, we have the 
right kind of team dedicated to go in and do the surgical procedure 
that is necessary to eradicate most of that cancer.
  But we have to give them a break and give them our support. So far 
this country has been very solid behind our President. I think the 
average mainstream American out there does not want people like ``60 
Minutes'' talking about the weaknesses of our nuclear generating 
facilities. Instead, I think the average American out there wants this 
President and this Government to do what is necessary to make the 
security of this Nation safe for all future generations.
  That requires some pretty nasty stuff. War is nasty. But as Winston 
Churchill said, ``The only thing worse than war is losing the war.'' It 
is the same thing here. The only thing worse than eradicating 
terrorism, and I assure the Members, there will be collateral damage, 
the only thing worse than that is losing to bin Laden; losing to the 
fact that America would have to live under the threat of fear from this 
point on; that America would have to live and tolerate what the Taliban 
does to its own people, as reflected in the earlier comments by the 
gentlewoman from California regarding the rights of women in 
Afghanistan, and what bin Laden and the Taliban have done, what they 
have done to the women in Afghanistan.
  So I think it is very important for us to understand that there is 
nothing wrong with being patriotic, that there is nothing wrong for the 
United States of America to do what it is doing. I think sometimes when 
we find out that there has been a mistake, a regrettable mistake, that 
a bomb is dropped on a Red Cross warehouse, that we tend to forget what 
has gone right.
  Take a look at the military targets that day after day, night after 
night, our military has successfully hit without collateral damage. 
Take a look at how well executed this military mission has been. There 
is a lot to be proud of here. Our military has an incredible machine. 
Our military has very sophisticated command centers. Our military has 
the most sophisticated weapons ever known in the history of man. These 
are weapons that try and minimize collateral damage.
  So I am a little concerned when I start to see sympathy actually 
heading to the Taliban, when I start to see some kind of justification 
for what the Taliban has done. We do not see it directly yet, but we 
are headed that way.
  Kudos, by the way, to the Mayor of New York City, who had a $10 
million check in his hand but gave it back because he said nothing can 
justify the horrible actions of these evil people. What they have done 
is evil. They are evil. There is only one answer with evil, we have to 
eradicate it. We cannot love it away, we cannot hope it away, we cannot 
go and hold the hands of the Taliban and say, We would like you to 
adapt yourself more to Western behavior. We would like you to commit to 
us that you are going to give women rights in your country.
  That is not going to happen. These Taliban leaders and bin Laden and 
his outfit, they are cancerous. It is a deadly, horrible cancer. We 
have tasted some of it. It hit us hard in New York City, and it is 
going to hit us again if we do not pursue the eradication of it in a 
relentless fashion. That is our obligation as Congressmen. That is an 
inherent requirement of the Government, that is, to provide homeland 
security for the people of America and for our allies.
  One of the things that I think we need to improve on, I talked to 
airport security. Clearly, we have to improve immediately airport 
security, and we have. Obviously, the Federal Aviation Administration 
and others, the security has been stepped up significantly.
  But on a long-term basis we have to make dramatic changes in our 
airport security. As I said earlier, I think we can do that without 
creating a Federal bureaucracy of tens of thousands of new Federal 
employees. So we need to have airport security.
  We also need to do a couple of other things. We need to tighten up 
our borders. I know that is not politically correct, to say that, look, 
if you are a guest in the United States, we are going to check into 
your background. If you are coming to visit the United States, if you 
want to immigrate to the United States, we have some certain rights as 
the United States to see who we are letting into this country.
  We were getting to a point in our society where it seemed to be 
politically incorrect, where it would be wrong for Members to go to a 
student whose visa expired, and by the way, of the terrorists, the Wall 
Street Journal today had an excellent article. Three or four of those 
terrorists were on expired student visas.
  The student visa program in this country has gone awry. It is out of 
control. We have, I think, 2.5 million people, and I can look that up, 
but I think there are 2\1/2\ million people in this country today that 
are on expired student visas; and we are not doing much to get them out 
of here.
  When people come to visit the United States, that is a privilege. 
This country has to start to enforce our borders. That is not to say at 
all, not in any way, that this great country should shut its borders. I 
do not believe in that. Unless one is truly Native American, we all 
have been the beneficiary of America's policy on immigration. It has 
built a great country.
  But having open borders does not mean we have to have uncontrolled 
borders. We should be having open borders that are controlled and 
managed and worked to the benefit of everybody. It works for the 
protection of the people even coming into this country. So our borders 
have to be tightened.
  I will tell Members something else we have to deploy at our borders. 
We have to put in those face-scanning computers that are able to 
determine if one is wanted or if one is a terrorist anywhere in the 
world, or find out just exactly who it is that is coming across, are 
they using false IDs, et cetera. We have to use other high-tech 
equipment at these borders.
  Some people, they jump up, and I have already heard this as a result 
of our antiterrorism bill, and say, Invasion of privacy. Do not invade 
privacy. Let me tell the Members something, I have not seen a proposal 
yet that has been on this floor that is unconstitutional, an 
unconstitutional invasion of privacy.
  It is not the intent of anybody in this House to invade or violate 
the Constitution. After all, we take oaths to stand up and protect the 
Constitution. We do not take some kind of assigned mission to violate 
the Constitution.
  So it is not that we are violating the Constitution with, for 
example, face-scanning computers and other technical equipment. The 
fact is, life is going to be a little more inconvenient. When we go to 
the airport, we are going to have to open our suitcases two or three 
times. They are going to have a right to look through our loose 
clothes, to look through our purse or wallet, which we may consider 
private.
  But the fact is in our society we have to take some affirmative steps 
to provide homeland security for our Nation. What is wrong at the 
borders with having computer-scanning equipment and data like that that 
can give us the kind of information we need?
  A lot of this is a game of quick information. We cannot sit there and 
detain or stop the borders while we spend 3 or 4 hours questioning 
everybody who wants to come across. We have to depend on quick 
information. We have to depend on an informational system that could 
quickly give us that kind of information. That is the computer-
technical equipment.
  In Britain, take a look at Britain, the United Kingdom, who have been 
wonderful allies. Boy, have they stood with us through this from day 
one. From hour one, from the moment that Tony Blair and his government 
found out that the United States had been attacked, they stood tall, as 
did many of our other colleagues. But I want to talk about Great 
Britain right now.
  They have suffered terror for years. They have had terrorists blow up 
bombs in London and places like that. They have put pretty good 
security equipment in London and throughout their country. They have 
those face-scanning cameras. They do not come

[[Page H6901]]

out and stick a camera in your face. They are on light poles, or they 
are on the sides of buildings.

                              {time}  2340

  They have lots of security cameras almost on every city block in 
London figuring out exactly what is going on. They scan the city. It 
has not brought down a violation of privacy in the United Kingdom. In 
fact, it has made the United Kingdom a lot safer. It is kind of like 
putting a guard in the bank.
  I can remember as a young man, when I used to go into the bank, there 
were never police officers standing in the lobby of a bank; and well, 
then bank robberies kept happening and happening. Guess what happened 
when we put a police officer in the lobby of the bank? It did not 
violate anybody's privacy on banking laws. What it did was lower the 
crime in that bank, made it safer for everybody.
  That is exactly what we need to do at our borders and athletic events 
that what we need to do, where it is otherwise feasible, is provide the 
kind of security, the TV cameras and things like that we can do without 
intrusion into the Constitution. So I have not seen any, any movement 
that violates the Constitution of the United States.
  Clearly, the point I am making here, we have to, and I would like to 
point out on this border, is that we have got to do something very 
quickly. Just as important as our airport security is our border 
security. We have got to tighten up the border between, for example, 
the United States and Canada. For the most part, that border seems to 
be unsecured. We have cooperation from our neighbors to the north. 
Canada is a wonderful country. They are great allies. I do not think 
one could ask for two better neighbors than we have. Mexico on one side 
on the south and Canada on the north.
  In fact, just for my colleagues' information, we have had recruiters 
that have told us that down in the South they have gotten calls from 
Mexican citizens who want to come up and join the United States 
military because they want to fight for the United States against this 
terrible cancer that we suffered on September 11 and we are now trying 
to eradicate.
  So we have got cooperation to tighten those borders, but let me give 
you some statistics, and this is off of Senator Feinstein. She put out 
a press release. She identified weaknesses of the U.S. visa system. I 
think this is an excellent piece of work. I want to just give a few 
statistics.
  An unregulated visa waiver program in which 23 million people arrived 
in this country in fiscal year 2000 from 29 different countries, almost 
no scrutiny. An unmonitored nonimmigrant visa system in which 7.1 
million tourists, business visitors, foreign students, and temporary 
workers arrived. To date, the INS does not have a reliable tracking 
system to determine how many of these visitors left when they were 
supposed to leave. The INS cannot track it.
  Among those 7.1 million nonimmigrants, 500,000 foreign nationals 
entered on foreign student visas. The foreign student visa system is 
one of the most underregulated systems we have today.
  So there are a couple of things that I want to bring up, just review 
very quickly. One, we have got to increase airport security, but we do 
not need to create a new Federal bureaucracy to do it. We clearly have 
no Federal oversight on it.
  Two, we have to tighten our borders, and let me just talk about the 
third thing I think whose time has come.
  This is the third thing I wanted to visit with, and that is the new 
strategic setting. This is a three-pronged threat as I have got on this 
poster. I will go in reverse.
  Information warfare. Clearly what does the United States have to do 
to protect, as we know, everything in our lives today is focused very, 
very heavily on computer and information. How do we protect that 
information? How do we protect homeland security to our information 
warfare?

  Terrorist threat. Clearly it was demonstrated to the United States 
that we had some huge gaps in our security system, our homeland 
security to provide protection from terrorist attacks. Now, remember, 
that gap was a horrible gap; and the results were horribly, horribly 
tragic. But the fact is we have had a lot of terrorist threats, 
including the one on the millennium that tried to come across the 
border that was stopped. We can protect against that. We can enhance 
that.
  The one I really want to focus on is the missile-delivered weapons of 
mass destruction attack. Keep in mind when we talk about missile 
defense, which I think absolutely has to be imminent for the defense of 
this country, and I think it is an inherent obligation of all of us 
sitting on this floor to provide a missile defensive system for this 
country. Keep in mind that a lot of people out there assume we already 
have missile defense; that if somebody fires a missile against the 
United States of America, that we have the capability to defend against 
it. We do not. We do not have that capability today. And that ought to 
be our highest priority as far as national security from an outside 
source. I think it is really, really critical. Let me mention a couple 
of other things.
  Most people, when we have talk about missiles coming against the 
United States, think of a nuclear missile. Of course, that is a worst 
case scenario; and we know that there are countries, there has been 
proliferation around the world of countries capable of delivering 
nuclear missiles. But when we also talk about nuclear missiles, a lot 
of people think about an intentional launch against the United States. 
I want to say, think about this for a moment, I believe that the 
possibility of an accidental launch against the United States of 
America is very possible with a nuclear warhead or a missile with a 
chemical type of weapon on top of it.
  So a missile defensive system protects us not only against an 
intentional launch against the United States but an accidental launch. 
A lot of people, including some of our colleagues, have pooh-poohed the 
idea that I say this could happen by accident. They do not give it too 
much credibility. Guess what happened 2 weeks ago. Out in the Black 
Sea, the Ukrainian Navy fired, by accident, a missile. What did it hit? 
It hit a civilian Russian airliner. It shot it right out of the sky. It 
killed everybody on board. That was accidental. If it can happen in a 
military exercise out in the Black Sea, let me assure my colleagues, it 
can happen with a missile aimed at the United States of America.
  I am not trying to create any kind of panic because I think the 
United States of America has some time, not a long period of time, but 
some time and we have the technological capability to do it to provide 
a missile defensive system for this country.
  There was a treaty signed not too many years ago and I intend to go 
into that in much more depth later on this week, but it was the Anti-
ballistic Missile Treaty. The President of the United States has 
justifiably and very accurately called that treaty obsolete. The treaty 
is obsolete with the exception of one provision within that treaty, 
contained within the four corners. The authors of that treaty, the 
first people that drew it up, realized that times on would change. They 
must have realized that the United States and Russia in the 1970's were 
the only two countries capable of delivering missiles, either 
intentionally or accidentally with nuclear warheads. They must have 
realized if it is possible that in the future it could expand and there 
could be proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries. If that 
occurred and if that became a threat to the national sovereignty of 
either Russia or the United States, then under this treaty, the Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty, there would be a clause that is contained in 
the treaty, that would allow either country to withdraw from that 
treaty upon a 6-month notice.
  That is the first step that has to take place from an administrative 
point of view. This administration is preparing to do exactly that. 
They ought to do that. That is what leadership calls for.
  From the technical point of view, this government and this Congress 
and, fortunately, our colleagues down the hallway have dedicated 
resources to continue the research to perfect that technology that we 
have. We are very close. We are very close to providing the necessary 
information to build a missile defensive system in this country. We 
have got to get closer and we have got to close that gap and we have

[[Page H6902]]

to put that defensive system into place.

                              {time}  2350

  Let me point out that the threat is real. Rogue states and weapons of 
mass destruction. Among the 20 Third World Countries that have or are 
in the process of developing weapons of mass destruction are:
  Iran. Iran has nuclear weapons, they have chemical weapons, they have 
biological weapons and they have advanced missile technology.
  Iraq. Iraq, same thing: Nuclear, chemical, biological, advanced 
missile technology.
  Libya. Well, almost the same thing, nuclear weapons, chemical 
weapons, advanced technical information.
  North Korea has all four of them. Syria has all except the biological 
weapons.
  This chart tells us a lot. This chart tells us that there are people 
out there in the world that are not friends of the United States. In 
fact, they are foes of the United States. And while we sit without a 
missile defensive system, they continue to build a missile offensive 
system.
  How can we, as Members of Congress, continue to sit idle or even 
advocate the idea of sitting idle, not building a defensive system, 
when we know there are countries like these countries out there that 
are aggressively building an offensive system? These systems are not 
defensive. These countries are designing these weapons to go after 
somebody, to fire at somebody, to destroy somebody. And let me ask my 
colleagues, who do you think that target is? After September 11, I 
think it is easy to conclude. It is not just an asset of the United 
States located somewhere in the world. It could very well be within the 
borders of the United States of America.
  That is why I am urging my colleagues to join the President, to join 
the administration and come together as a team to build a missile 
defensive system that protects the security of this Nation. We can do 
it. And do not let people tell you we are walking away from the treaty. 
The treaty allows us to do it. It is contained within the rights of the 
treaty. So it is absolutely necessary for this country to move forward 
with the development of a missile defensive system.
  Let me conclude my remarks this evening by just quickly going over or 
repeating some of the key points. Key point number one: the airport 
security in this country must immediately be improved for a long-term 
basis. Mr. Ridge, the new head of the Homeland Security Agency 
understands this. I think he has a good grasp on it. But the key 
element here is that we can dramatically and must dramatically improve 
that security.
  I think it is a mistake to rapidly go out and hire as Federal 
employees tens of thousands of people and put them on the Federal 
payroll. I think the Federal Government has a very important role in 
the tightening of airport security by issuing and overseeing the 
regulations, but I think it would be a big mistake creating a brand-new 
bureaucracy. These bureaucracies are very, very difficult to manage, 
very, very inflexible, and usually not very productive. We cannot 
afford to have an agency, an agency-bungling, so to speak, of airport 
security. It has to be improved and improved in a dramatic fashion. 
Point number one.
  Then point number two. The borders. It is now, in my opinion, 
absolutely correct, not politically incorrect but absolutely correct, 
to talk about what we have to do to tighten the borders of this country 
and who we ought to have in this country as guests and who we should 
not have as guests. And when the guest stays too long, we, this 
country, ought to be there to say it is time to go home; it is time to 
go back across the border from which you came because your invitation 
has expired. You have been around just a little too long.
  Right now, as I demonstrated with some of the numbers and statistics 
that I gave in earlier comments, this is not controlled at all in our 
country. We have tens of thousands, tens of thousands of people who are 
in this country on expired student visas. And do not let the university 
system and the college system come to the defense of these expired 
visas. And do not let the college or university system come and say, 
well, these student visas are absolutely essential for this purpose or 
that purpose. We need a balance.
  Now, a lot of these schools and universities get money, a high 
tuition charge for those people; but the fact is we have to bring it 
back in tune. I am not saying stop student visas, but I am saying we 
have to control them and enforce them; otherwise they are meaningless, 
and they provide a threat to the security of this Nation.
  Finally, the third point that I covered this evening, and I will 
reiterate it as long as I am a Congressman in the United States 
Congress, is that this Nation must proceed, as the administration has 
urged us to do, as President Bush has told us to do, this Congress and 
this Government must proceed with a missile defensive system for the 
borders of this country and for the borders of our allies. Failure to 
do so would be, in my opinion, the most horrible dereliction of duty in 
the history of the United States Congress. That is how strongly I feel 
about that.
  We have an absolute obligation, a responsibility to protect the 
security of this Nation by providing a defensive missile system. Keep 
in mind how many countries throughout this world are building 
offensive, offensive, attack systems. We know now after September 11 
that the United States will very likely be at the top of the target 
list for many, many years to come. So we, colleagues, have an 
obligation to understand that reality and to defend against that 
reality.
  A missile defensive system should be the first and the highest 
priority on that list in regards to the missile offensive system of 
these other countries. We need to defend against it. We have fair 
warning and we have a little period of time to do it and we ought to do 
it.

                          ____________________