[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 106 (Thursday, September 9, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6989-H6994]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REMEMBERING SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here tonight speaking on
what is very close to the anniversary date of 9/11, and joining me
tonight would be the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) and the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly). I would like to at this time
recognize the gentlewoman from New York to discuss the events and the
things that we should be mindful of on this anniversary date.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the heroes of
September 11, to offer my sincerest condolences to the family and
friends of those who were taken from us on that awful morning, and to
offer my prayers to the men and women of our Armed Forces who continue
the fight spawned by those attacks.
Much has been said about the firefighters and police officers who ran
into those burning buildings, never to run out. I feel that we can
never say enough about such unparalleled bravery. In the face of an
unprecedented attack, they displayed unprecedented courage in fighting
through smoke and flames to save people they had never even met.
{time} 1930
They made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, and their
selfless action helped thousands of people escape the burning towers.
The people I represent lost a number of their friends, their
coworkers, and their family members, but because of the heroics of the
ones who ran in, many mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, and
daughters did make it home to embrace their families, and we pay
tribute to the heroic firefighters and police officers who helped save
lives on the anniversary of this attack on America.
We yet mourn the 3,000 fellow citizens who lost their lives that day.
These were men, women, and children who did nothing wrong; who had no
enemies; no foreign policy. They were killed for merely living as free
Americans.
As we speak, tens of thousands of young men and women carry the stars
and stripes on their sleeves working in hostile regions around the
globe to protect the security and freedom many of us took for granted 3
years ago. Though they may be physically detached from their families
and their loved ones, we hold a special place for them in our hearts.
The sacrifices that they make can never be fully repaid, but we in this
House and this Nation must remain committed to see that we try. And we
must try to do so by providing our men and women in uniform the wages,
benefits and respect that they deserve and that the American people
expect.
Mr. Speaker, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin
Roosevelt told a shocked and angry America, we will always remember the
character of the onslaught upon us. I do not think a person in this
House or in this country will ever forget the disbelief they felt on
September 11. We must never forget the way we felt that day watching
our friends and neighbors die before our eyes in an act of war. Our
world was changed forever that day, as our Nation's otherwise passive
course was suddenly and forcibly altered.
We need to continue the lessons learned from September 11 and
continue our steadfast and resolute fight to rid the world of this
radical form of terror. We must never forget.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
for those stirring comments, and I would now like to yield to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) for any comments that she may
have.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, the memory of September 11 and our reaction
to it will be forever with us. Most of us experienced first shock, then
disbelief, confusion, yes, great concern, certainly, but, above all,
horror when we fully realized what had been done to us. Each of us
remembers just where we were, what we were doing and how we felt.
When I am asked where I was, I am always met with surprise when I
explain that I was at the Pentagon that morning. I was there with a
handful of other Members at a breakfast meeting with Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He had asked us there to discuss the future of
the military and what changes, transformation was the word used, what
transformation had to occur for us to meet the challenges of the 21st
century and the dangers of our time.
It was a thoughtful and serious discussion, of course, as we all
considered what would be needed to meet the dangers we thought we
understood. And then, in a matter of seconds, as that meeting broke up,
we learned of that first dreadful deed. As we made our way back to the
Capitol, our worst fears were realized when the second plane hit the
second tower. Now it is 3 years later, and I often return to that
meeting in my mind, thinking how prophetic it was to be looking into
the future trying to see and prepare for what was to come.
The question being asked daily during this election period is: Are we
safer today than we were on September 11? I sit on both the House
Homeland Security Committee, and the Subcommittee on Homeland Security
of the Committee on Appropriations, and I can answer that question.
Yes, we are safer today.
We have torn down walls that kept our agencies from talking to each
other and sharing information. We have locked the doors that were open
that allowed those terrorists to use our airlines and our airports so
easily. We have enabled local communities and States to plan for proper
responses to attacks. We have undertaken one of the most massive
government reorganizations in our history by creating the Department of
Homeland Security. We have funded new technology to protect our borders
and our ports. We have provided funding to develop agents to
[[Page H6990]]
treat bioattacks of anthrax and smallpox. Most importantly, Mr.
Speaker, led by President George W. Bush, we have declared a global war
on terror and showed the courage to fight that war and not stand down.
We are leading that war, but we are not alone, for the world is
beginning to fully realize that none are safe from the hate and evil of
terrorism. That came home to all of us as we learned of the tragedy in
Russia, where hundreds were killed and injured in a school, and where
parents were made to choose among their children as to who could be
saved and who would be sacrificed.
We have broken the back of the Taliban, and we have taken Saddam
Hussein out of hiding and put him forever behind bars. And in court the
families of those hundreds of thousands of his subjects who were
executed and dumped in mass graves can tell their stories and have some
justice in their losses.
We are fighting there so we do not have to fight here, and that fight
is worth it. We are in praise to our troops for what they are doing for
us.
Mr. Speaker, the war of terror is a war we must win, and September 11
is a day we must not forget.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her
comments. In just a brief reflection, the differences between the two
parties, Mr. Speaker, I think become evident as we contemplate
responses to such events as 9/11. I do not doubt that my colleagues who
believe differently feel as sincerely as I do about the possible
courses of action that they suggest. But, Mr. Speaker, we do come to
different conclusions.
We heard just a moment ago from one of our friends on the other side
of the aisle who wanted to choose a smarter way to fight terrorism, to
choose a good way, a way that is right, and suggesting that stronger
intelligence is going to be the key to that. Mr. Speaker, I would point
out that in the very period of time when we were needing more
intelligence, the previous administration chose to bring in all of the
operatives out of our intelligence systems and only use electronic
means. And it so blindfolded us, it blindfolded us to the heart and the
passion of the people in these cells.
I have heard estimates that it could take as long as 20 years, Mr.
Speaker, to return us to the level of information-gathering that we
were prior to withdrawing all of our agents out of the field under the
previous administration.
My friend also pointed out that we should treat war as a last resort.
Mr. Speaker, war is a last resort. We have tolerated one attack after
another after another, beginning with the Olympics in the 1970s, when
the Israeli Olympic team was brutally murdered at those events. We have
tolerated as a world continuing attacks from these people who would
kill innocent civilians for no reason and with no explanation. With no
notice they would come in and do the horrific crimes that they have
committed.
War is a last resort, and this President has said we have gone far
enough. When we lost the people, those innocent civilians on 9/11,
almost 3,000 people in just moments, when we lost those, the President
of the United States, George Bush, said it is time to respond, and he
has responded with steadfastness, with intent, and with clear
direction.
I remember perfectly when he said, just after 9/11, if you harbor a
terrorist, you are a terrorist; if you are a terrorist, we are going to
come see you very soon. And he has been good for that promise.
But President Bush also laid out three fundamental things in the
fight on terror. We must first uproot the Taliban so they cannot
continue the training of new terrorists. The Taliban was operating in
Afghanistan with basic training camps of terrorism, bringing people in
to train them in the techniques of terror, the techniques of
explosions, the techniques of murder. President Bush said, we are going
to uproot you and take you out of those training camps, and he did
that.
The second thing President Bush said was that we were going to begin
to choke off their funding worldwide, and we have steadfastly worked
toward that target, even to the point that within the last 90 days, our
friends in Saudi Arabia, for the first time, have admitted they have a
problem with terror in their own country, and they have a problem with
funding mechanisms in their own country funding terrorists. For the
first time the Saudi Arabians began to help us dismantle those funding
streams for terrorists that originate inside the borders of our
friends, the Saudi Arabians.
So, first of all, we are going to uproot the Taliban. We are going to
uproot al Qaeda out of the training camps from Afghanistan. We are
going to choke off the funding, and we have to do that and continue to
do that. And, thirdly, the President said we are going to take the
fight to the terrorists.
Now, some may agree or disagree, but I will tell you that when I was
in Iraq, the Iraqi police forces that were guarding the border said
about 50 percent of the people coming across the border were al Qaeda
members. These are people from Iraq, from that northern region in
Kirkuk, who would know. They were compelling in saying that we must
continue the fight on terror.
They had two requests: Do not leave before you catch Saddam Hussein,
and please do not take your troops home before the job is done.
President Bush is firmly committed to that course of action, and I
would say that we are making great progress toward the goal of
eliminating terrorism worldwide.
It is going to be a very, very long fight. It will not probably be
accomplished in our lifetimes. But I will say that the United States,
and my children and my colleagues' children, and my grandchildren and
my colleagues' grandchildren, Mr. Speaker, are safer today with Saddam
Hussein in jail than they were previous to the removal of his regime.
Mr. Speaker, a comment was made that we need to confront the root
cause of terrorism: poverty. I am sorry, but I disagree with that
fundamentally. The cause of terrorism is not poverty. To say that
terrorism is created by poverty is to say that poor people have no
standards. It is to say that poor people do not have discretion; that
poor people cannot understand right from wrong.
Mr. Speaker, having grown up in a desperately poor family of six,
with a father who worked in the very basic lowest level of the oil
field economy of Hobbs, New Mexico, I can say that our family
understood right from wrong, no matter our income status.
Mr. Speaker, I often wonder how the people who say that poverty
causes crime and poverty causes terrorism justify that. If that is
true, then the opposite would also be true. The corollary would be
true, Mr. Speaker; that if poverty causes crime, then, as my colleague
Dennis Prager says, affluence causes kindness.
I think that each one of us would recognize that that certainly is
not the case. If poverty causes crimes, then those people who raise
themselves up out of poverty by selling drugs into our high schools
would certainly become more kind and more noble and more generous. But
instead we find exactly the opposite is true. It is simply a false
statement to continue to say that poverty causes crime, because
affluence certainly does not cause kindness.
Mr. Speaker, the root cause of this terrible scourge of humanity,
this terrorism that is being inflicted on the world right now, is not
poverty, it is caused by a radical fundamentalist religious group who
want to take power at any cost. At any cost. What else would explain a
group who would go in and kill innocent children in a school in
Chechnya?
I was in the district, Mr. Speaker, during this last August period,
and I confronted questions that really were wrestling. There were
people of noble intent wrestling with what is causing terror, and they
had read the things on Web pages that were declaring it is the United
States' policies.
{time} 1945
My answer to them and my answer to them before the Chechnyan event is
if it is the United States policy, then what on Earth is going on with
the terrorists who are in Chechnya, a place that does not have troops
in Afghanistan, a place that did not side with the United States in its
current war? Russia was completely hands off, and yet they are being
attacked the same as anybody else.
We know of the French resistance to our positions in the war; and yet
the
[[Page H6991]]
fundamentalists, the radicals, have taken two French reporters as
hostages. The cause of terrorism is not poverty, the cause of terrorism
is a desire to gain power at any cost with no public vote. The desire
of the terrorist is to destabilize world economies, individual
countries' economies; and by destabilizing them economically, they have
the potential to destabilize them politically.
Mr. Speaker, this question goes far beyond whether or not countries
are democratic or non-democratic. It has to do with stability and
stability on the world stage. We find that in many ways we might not
agree with the Mainland Chinese; but make no doubt about it, when they
stand side by side with us, and when they ask for North Korea to quiet
down the rhetoric, North Korea knows that they ought to quiet down the
rhetoric.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to find that we have allies of unusual
sorts in this battle against terrorism. We are going to find that
sometimes our friends are there and sometimes they are not, because we
are going to find unusual circumstances in their nation which cause
them to move in and out based on the resolve.
Prime Minister Tony Blair was in this body, in this Chamber, and
spoke to a combined group of the House and Senate. He asked one of the
most compelling questions rhetorically. He said you as Americans must
be wondering why us, why us? Why should we be the ones to lead this
international war on terror? He said history has placed you in the
position to where you can lead it. You have the resources, the
financial resources, the young men and women who will fight for
freedom. You have the standing military. He said history has placed you
in the position to where you can respond, and it is your duty to
respond.
I remember that comment to this day, and I use that answer when my
constituents ask me why, why is it us? I will tell Members that no
deeper disappointment has been felt by this Nation than the response of
some of our friends. It is understood now with the Oil-for-Food scandal
where nations were taking payoffs underneath the table, where nations
were taking that oil for food money and enriching themselves; and it is
understood now that probably even the vote in the Security Council,
especially by our friends, the French, was probably a vote that
reflected the payoffs that they were getting, the fact that they were
getting oil at below world prices, the fact that they were taking
payoffs.
I have asked in this Chamber if Kofi Annan can continue in his
position because his son is somewhat implicated in the scandal and can
he objectively look at what the U.N.'s response is. When my
constituents ask should the U.N. be more involved, I answer that I
think we must have the best response to terrorism possible. We must
ensure that our troops have the equipment that they need, that the
money that we intend for rebuilding Iraq and Iraq's economy is used for
those purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I personally do not want to trust friends who just
recently have been taking payoffs under the table and pulling money,
almost $10 billion, one-seventh. Almost $10 billion of the $70 billion
in the Oil-for-Food program was scammed out of it by all estimates. Mr.
Speaker, that is not the sort of results that I would like to trust the
safety of our young men and young women to.
As we think about the war on terror, we must understand that our
young men and young women are simply the last wedge between tyranny and
freedom in the world, that if we are not willing to stand up, if our
young men and women are not compelled to fight for this fight that
benefits much of the world, and not so much their own homeland at this
moment, if they stand up to fight, they are the last wedge between
tyranny and freedom.
Mr. Speaker, we owe them a debt of gratitude. We owe them the thanks
of a grateful Nation. We owe their families the thanks. And for those
who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, we owe an undying respect for the
sacrifice that they have made to make this battle, to make this war, to
make this struggle to ensure that freedom survives and sustains itself
in this world. To honor the memory of those who have given the ultimate
sacrifice, we must give respect into the system and that war to ensure
that that loss has not been in vain.
Mr. Speaker, as I contemplate the accomplishments that we can point
to in this particular war on terror, I have to understand that under
the leadership of President Bush and the 30 or so nations who are
working with us, significant things have been accomplished in this war
on terror. As far as al Qaeda, nearly two-thirds of the senior al Qaeda
leaders have been taken into custody or killed. That includes Khalid
Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11; and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin
Laden's second-in-command.
In Afghanistan 3 years ago, the nation of Afghanistan was the home of
al Qaeda, a country ruled by the Taliban, one of the most backward and
brutal regimes of modern history. Today in Afghanistan, a presidential
election is scheduled for this fall. The terror camps are closed, and
the Afghan government is helping us to hunt the Taliban terrorists in
remote regions.
Mr. Speaker, this Chamber has hosted the current President of the
Afghanistan Republic. Mr. Karzai came into this Chamber speaking to
both House and Senate Members, and the strength of his comments
reflected the change in that society. These are changes that are
generations coming, not just a few years, but thousands of years. He
was pointing out for the first time that women in Afghanistan are going
to have the right to serve in public office; and if my memory is
correct, the Constitution is reserving 25 percent of the elected
offices for women. This is in a nation where women did not previously
have the right to vote.
Today more than 15 million Afghan citizens have been freed from the
brutal zealotry of the Taliban. Women are experiencing freedom for the
first time and thousands of Afghan girls are going to school. Simply
going to school was an act which was illegal under the Taliban regime.
Because we acted to liberate Afghanistan, a threat has been removed,
and in this Nation we are safer because the threat has been removed in
that country. It has become obvious that we are going to fight this war
on terror. The only question is are we going to fight it here or are we
going to fight it in Baghdad or Kabul.
My vote has always been to protect our children and grandchildren. My
vote has always been to take the fight to the terrorists so our moms
and dads can continue their lives in this country without threat of
another 9/11. I know it has been just 3 short years since the 9/11
attacks, but that is 3 years without another significant attack inside
this country, and I think we should pay respect to the thousands of
homeland security officers and those first responders who daily look at
what they can do to interdict the potential terrorists coming into this
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, other accomplishments that we have in prosecuting the
war on terror include many things in liberating Iraq. We have 25
million people in that country who were liberated from the brutal
Saddam Hussein regime. The vast majority of Hussein's regime have been
captured or killed, including the dictator himself. This sent a
powerful message to the Iraqi people that the tyranny of that regime
will not come back. Saddam Hussein currently sits in a jail cell
awaiting trial by his own people. This gives more reassurance than any
of us in this country will know.
The press has done a very, very skimpy job of reporting on the
400,000 mass graves that have been uncovered already, and we have
members from the Iraqi civilian population who tell us that the numbers
will be far greater than that.
Mr. Speaker, just before we went home for the August break, many in
this Congress were treated and privileged to hear eight Iraqi women who
came to speak to Members of Congress. When one particular Republican
asked should we be in your country, and the obvious intention of the
question was to find out if the Iraqi people felt like we had a right
to be there, there were two comments that I was made aware of that
seemed to sum it up. The first person that spoke said, let me tell you
about my son. He simply spoke up and when he spoke up against Saddam
Hussein, they arrested him and they cut out his tongue and then they
put him on the phone trying to explain to me after they had cut out his
tongue what
[[Page H6992]]
had happened, and then they cut off his hand. She said these were the
sorts of things we were used to under Saddam Hussein.
Another woman raised her hand and said, one person of my family spoke
up, and 52 members of my family were gathered up, some summarily
executed, some were tortured horribly and then executed. The 52 members
of my family are dead, she said, because one person spoke up, and she
said, and your question is, Should you be here? She said that is the
wrong question. She said the more compelling question is what took the
world so long to come here.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes I think we have grown accustomed in this
Nation to such debates that are so removed from actual fact that we
think in some corners of this country that this war on terror is an
intramural contest, one in which after all of the flags are pulled out
and we take our positions on the sidelines, we will get to come back
out and start a new game.
Mr. Speaker, these women who came here to talk to us understood that
terrorism is a game for keeps. They understood that what we are
fighting is for freedom and for life itself.
Mr. Speaker, we have also handed sovereignty over in the interim to
the Interim Iraqi Government. The new government is leading
reconstruction of the country. In early 2005, we are going to have an
election there. When we look at the effects that the new regime is
having, we find that they can take instances that we could not. Some of
our Middle Eastern partners were very disillusioned and angry about
some of our stances; and yet when the new interim regime took strong
stances, the Middle Eastern partners in that region began to get quiet
and support them.
{time} 2000
Mr. Speaker, the changeover from the coalition forces who are
governing the Iraqi region into the interim government have resulted in
much more stability, much more ability to fight vigorously the
terrorists that live inside the population there in Iraq. I think that
we are going to see continued attacks that may even escalate up until
the time of our election, but, Mr. Speaker, we are making progress in
the war on terror as we capture or kill the terrorists. There are
simply fewer of them who have been through the training camps.
The other advances that we have made in the Middle East, Mr. Speaker,
cannot be overlooked. Libya was a country which had weapons of mass
destruction. They had nuclear weapons components. They voluntarily
offered to give those up, but it was not out of the gracious heart of
Muammar Qaddafi that they gave them up. The President has told me
personally that they received the first call in the White House the day
after we put the first Tomahawk missile through the restaurant where
Saddam Hussein had been sitting 3 hours before. Mr. Qaddafi knew that
Saddam Hussein had moved for years, close to 30 years. He had had a
regimen where he would physically move every 3 to 4 hours. So we missed
him on that day, where we started the war a couple of days early, but
Muammar Qaddafi understood that we had information that placed him in
the building a couple of hours earlier. He knew that he did not have
the same strong discipline, and so when we stuck the Tomahawk missile
through that window in the restaurant where Mr. Hussein had been
sitting, Mr. Qaddafi suddenly realized, I don't think I want to play
the game. He called the White House within 24 hours, negotiations took
9 months, but he voluntarily gave up those weapons of mass destruction
that he had, asking for someone to please come and take these things
out of the backyard.
Mr. Speaker, he did that not because of a doctrine of appeasement on
the part of the world community. He did that in the face of the
strength of the response on the part of the world community. And so my
friends across the aisle who say that there should be a kinder and
gentler way simply do not understand the thought processes of
terrorism. You cannot appease terrorists. You cannot negotiate with
them. Their intent is to get political power with as few people as
possible. Even in their own nations they cannot win elections, so they
depend on terrorism.
I have heard and understood that there are approximately 31 conflicts
going on in the world today, and that the great majority, approximately
29 of those, involve radical Islamic states. Mr. Speaker, these people
who would like to end freedom in the world as we know it insist that
their standards of behavior, their standards of treatment of women and
their standards of treatment of other people is the standard that we
should have. They fear the freedom that exists in this country. They
fear the freedom that might begin to cause people to choose a different
system than what they currently live in, and, Mr. Speaker, they are
willing to kill, they are willing to maim, they are willing to torture,
they are willing to destabilize the entire world to make sure that
their value system holds.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we are in very much a civil war in the
world. I think that it is very similar to the United States prior to
the Civil War. We as a Nation were beginning to wrestle with such
different value sets that we as a Nation understood that we could not
have both slave and free States in the same Nation, and we fought a
civil war to eliminate the slave-holding properties of this Nation.
Worldwide at this point, Mr. Speaker, I think what is happening is
that the world is realizing we cannot live with both tyranny and
freedom; that the Internet, that satellite TV, that quick, fast
communications are eliminating the potential for terrorists to keep
their people completely isolated from the current world. And I think
what we have going on is a struggle between the two value sets, and
this war on terror in essence is simply a civil war fought among the
world's countries to determine exactly what values we as a world will
hold.
We sometimes think that we in America are removed, but 9/11 has
changed everything. 9/11 brought to our understanding for the first
time that we can no longer hide. Many nations around the world had
experienced terrorist acts firsthand in their own nations prior to us
experiencing them, but now then we also understand that we will fight
the war on terror, that we will fight the war on terror here, or we
will fight it there.
Mr. Speaker, there have been tremendous changes in many parts of the
world. Pakistan for the first time is beginning to fight with us
against these radical fundamentalists. Saudi Arabia has begun to work
inside their own borders. Iran, although they are not exactly where we
would have them, has begun to have discussions about the different
programs they have that would create mass hysteria or create mass
casualties.
Mr. Speaker, these are the ways that the war on terror is working
right now in the world, changing literally thousands of years of
history. No one of us could have expected 4 or 5 years ago that we
would be where we are today in Afghanistan and Iraq, that we would be
where we are today in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The worst thing we can
do is lose our resolve, change our commitment, become less steadfast.
Many of the things that we find today in our discussions politically
do not help the situation. They do not help ensure the safety and the
security of our homeland. Many of the things in the discussion today
would have been absolutely outlawed in World War II. I am not sure
exactly why our friends on the other side of the aisle are making some
of the comments that they do regarding our war on terror, because every
time they make comments that indicate that they would pursue it
differently, the terrorists simply say, We've got to wait out to the
next election and maybe there will be a change, and we'll be emboldened
more.
Mr. Speaker, we are doing our young men and women no favors by some
of the comments that are being made in the Presidential debates on how
this war should be handled. I know that there can be differences, and I
do not think that the Republicans have every single answer, but in this
particular regard I think that we do ourselves great harm and great
danger by some of the ways that the debate is being handled.
Mr. Speaker, as we look at strengthening homeland security, we have
spent billions of dollars that were unanticipated prior to September
11, 2001, but now we recognize the need to protect our skies, our
borders, our ports and the critical infrastructure, as well
[[Page H6993]]
as support intelligence-gathering capabilities.
President Bush and Congress created the Department of Homeland
Security in 2002. We began to pull the agencies together and to insist
that they communicate the problems that each one saw at the border,
communicate them back and forth. Previously that was not accomplished.
So far we have conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols and
13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over
14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally,
created and maintained more than 90 maritime security forces. We have
hired, trained and deployed over 45,000 Federal security screeners to
America's airports to inspect all people and baggage to keep our skies
safe. We established the Terrorist Screening Center to consolidate
terrorist watch lists and ensure that government investigators,
screeners and agents use the same unified, comprehensive set of
antiterrorist information.
The majority party, the Republicans, have also enhanced America's
ability to prevent, prepare for and respond to acts of terrorism by
providing nearly $27 billion for our first responders since 2001.
Congress has also approved Project Bioshield, which will provide
incentives for America's brightest scientists, physicians and
researchers to develop lifesaving vaccines and medications to fight
chemical and biological weapons in the event of an attack.
Under the present administration, under the Bush administration and
under this Congress, the majority of which are Republicans, we have
begun to reverse years of underinvestment in both our intelligence-
gathering community and also in our military. We have increased the
number of CIA operations officers. We have begun to reverse the
crippling effects of the adverse attitude toward human intelligence-
gathering, and currently in Iraq we are finding that the human
intelligence-gathering has increased tremendously.
Mr. Speaker, as we look at ways to protect our troops, today I
visited with a company from my district who are here, they have
currently 11 prototypes in Iraq right now of an antenna that transmits
a signal to make sure that the IEDs do not explode. They are in the
process of making another 850 of these, these devices which will help
protect our troops. Mr. Speaker, I know that everything is being done
by this administration and this Congress which we can do to ensure the
safety of our young men and women who are fighting the war on terror.
Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate at this point to review some of
the conclusions which were reached by the U.S. Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence as listed in their report on the U.S. Intelligence
Community's prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq. Conclusion number
1 of this U.S. Senate select committee was that the intelligence
reporting did show that Iraq was procuring dual-use equipment that had
potential nuclear applications. Conclusion number 1 went on to say that
the intelligence reporting did support the conclusion that chemical and
biological weapons were within Iraq's technological capability, that
Iraq was trying to procure dual-use materials that could have been used
to produce these weapons, and that uncertainties existed about whether
Iraq had fully destroyed its pre-Gulf War stock of weapons and
precursors.
Conclusion number 91 told us that the Central Intelligence Agency's
assessment that Iraq had maintained ties to several secular Palestinian
terrorist groups and with the Mujahidin e-Khalq was supported by the
intelligence. The CIA was also reasonable in judging that Iraq appeared
to have been reaching out to more effective terrorist groups such as
Hezbollah and Hamas and might have intended to employ such surrogates
in the event of war.
Conclusion number 92 was that the Central Intelligence Agency's
examination of contacts, training, safe haven and operational
cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-al Qaeda relationship was
a reasonable and objective approach to the question.
Conclusion number 93 was that the Central Intelligence Agency
reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contact
between Iraq and al Qaeda through the 1990s.
Conclusion 94 was that the Central Intelligence Agency reasonably and
objectively assessed in ``Iraqi Support for Terrorism'' that the most
problematic area of contact between Iraq and al Qaeda were the reports
of training in the use of nonconventional weapons, specifically
chemical and biological weapons.
Conclusion number 95 was that the Central Intelligence Agency's
assessment on safe haven, that al Qaeda or their associated operatives
were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under
Kurdish control, was a reasonable conclusion.
Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission also reiterated the substance of our
prewar conclusions. First of all, the Chairman of the Commission,
Thomas Kean, on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, June 16, 2004, said,
``Yes, there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, a number of them,
some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there.''
Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton on that same date said, ``I don't think
there's any doubt that there were contacts between Saddam Hussein's
government and al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's people.''
Lee Hamilton is a former Democratic Congressman from Indiana who
served for 34 years in this U.S. House of Representatives.
The 9/11 Commission staff statement number 15 said that bin Laden
also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan,
despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. A senior Iraqi
intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally
meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to
establish training camps as well as assistance in procuring weapons,
but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that
contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had
returned to Afghanistan.
{time} 2015
The 9/11 Commission continues to discuss the reasonableness of the
assessment that Iraq was involved in terrorist activities. ``The Butler
Report on British Intelligence,'' chaired by Lord Butler of the British
House of Commons, declares that ``we have reached the conclusion that
prior to the war, of the Iraqi regime,'' number one, ``had the
strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons
programs, including, if possible, its nuclear weapons program, when the
United Nations inspections regimes were relaxed and sanctions were
eroded or lifted.''
Secondly, they concluded that in support of that goal, Iraq was
carrying out illicit research and development and procurement
activities to seek to sustain its indigenous capabilities. And,
thirdly, they commented that Iraq was developing ballistic missiles
with a range longer than that permitted under relevant United Nations
Security Council Resolutions.
They continue in the report: ``We conclude that, on the basis of the
intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the
Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy
uranium from Africa in the government's dossier, and by the Prime
Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we
also conclude that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union
Address of 28 January, 2003, that: `The British Government has learned
that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium
from Africa was' in fact `well founded.' ''
They continued later, paragraph 449, conclusion 21: ``We have found
no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence.'' In
paragraph 450 they comment that ``we found no evidence that the Joint
Intelligence Committee's assessments and the judgments inside them
being pulled in any particular direction to meet policy concerns for
senior officials on the JIC.''
So report after report indicates that we have good reason and we had
good reason to expect that the Iraqis were involved deeply in terrorist
activities and that our operations there have certainly made the world
more safe.
Mr. Speaker, all of us wish that 9/11 had not occurred. All of us
wish that we were not having to fight this war on terror. All of us
wish that we were not
[[Page H6994]]
losing American troops in this effort. But I will tell the Members that
the young men and women who I talked to in Iraq have declared that they
feel like their efforts are worthwhile, that their efforts are
resulting in definite changes in Iraq, and they feel like their efforts
are noble.
Mr. Speaker, we should keep in our prayers the families who lost
loved ones on 9/11 and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) and the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) made very compelling comments
about that. I would reiterate their comments that we could keep those
families in our prayers, the families of 9/11, but also the families
who lost loved ones in this war on Iraq.
The men and women who had done nothing wrong on 9/11, the families
who have suffered so much loss deserve our continued memory and our
continued remembrance. We must rid this world of the radicals who would
kill innocent men, women and children. The event in Chechnya, the event
in that schoolhouse, was not an isolated incident. It reflects the
heinous attitude that some in the world terror community have toward
other human life, even the most innocent, our children. In order to
keep my grandchildren and my children safe and your grandchildren and
your children safe, I would hope that we would all maintain our resolve
to make sure that we all fight this war on terror in another land and
not fight it here.
I would like to associate my comments with the gentleman from North
Carolina, who commented that here we are fighting for freedom and the
rest of the world and ministers in this country do not even have
freedom of speech.
____________________