[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 113 (Wednesday, September 13, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6439-H6446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 994, EXPRESSING SENSE OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF TERRORIST ATTACKS
LAUNCHED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 996 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows
H. Res. 996
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 994)
expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the
fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against
the United States on September 11, 2001. The resolution shall
be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of
the question except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided
and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or
their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit which may not
contain instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of House Resolution 994
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for 4 hours of debate in the House,
equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority
leader or their designees. It waives all points of order against
consideration of the resolution and also provides one motion to
recommit, which may not contain instructions.
Finally, it provides that notwithstanding the operation of the
previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today, 5 years after the tragedy of
September 11, to speak with one voice to let the world know that we
have not forgotten the lessons of that terrible day. We are here to
remember the thousands ruthlessly murdered by our enemies who hijacked
four civilian aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade Center
towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, and to recognize the
unimaginable losses suffered by their families. We are also here to
honor the sacrifices and the courage shown by our first responders who
selflessly rushed to the flaming buildings in order to rescue the
victims of these attacks.
We are also here to let our allies in the war on terror know that we
stand united with them in the war on terror, and to recognize the
progress that continues to be made by our Federal intelligence, law
enforcement and security agencies in conjunction with intelligence, law
enforcement and security agencies of our allies, in keeping Americans
safe. And we are here to remind these allies and to place our enemies
on notice that we will never shirk from the war on terror and that we
will never forget what happened on September 11, 2001.
The six-page resolution should be recognized by every Member of this
body as an opportunity to remember our Nation's tragic loss and to
encourage every American to do the same. It is an opportunity to extend
our sympathies to the families of the lost and to honor those who
risked their own lives and health trying to protect the lives and
health of others.
It is an opportunity to extend our gratitude to our intelligence and
military personnel serving at home and abroad and their families for
their service. It is to thank the citizens of other nations who are
contributing to the effort to defeat global terrorism.
More importantly, it is an opportunity by this body to reaffirm that
we remain vigilant and steadfast in the war on terror, that we remember
the sacrifices made by so many innocent Americans on September 11 and
that we will never succumb to the cause of terrorists.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution that will be brought here before the
House for a vote is an earnest, heart-felt and comprehensive resolution
putting the House on record and standing once again against terrorism.
This House already has a strong record on this topic and has already
passed a number of bills designed to accomplish the main goal laid out
in this resolution, to remember the lessons of 9/11 and to honor the
victims by preventing another attack on American soil. We have voted to
give our law enforcement the tools they need to prosecute the war on
terror in the United States and throughout the world, and through the
passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and its reauthorization we have once
again reaffirmed that.
We have voted to implement a key component of the 9/11 Commission by
creating Federal standards for the application process in the issuing
of State identification cards through the REAL ID Act.
{time} 1115
And this House has voted to secure our borders through the Border
Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act and to
defend our ports through the Security and Accountability for Every Port
Act. We have made important reforms in the intelligence community
through the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and
provided our first responders with the resources that they would need
with our annual Homeland Security authorization and appropriations
process.
Mr. Speaker, this House has accomplished a great deal on behalf of
the American people to ensure the citizens of the United States that
they can be safe here and abroad, but we understand that this job is
not yet done. Next week the House is scheduled to consider legislation
that will build upon all of this hard work, legislation to further
boost our national security and to give our law enforcement the tools
it needs to prevent our shadowy, ever-shifting, and determined enemy to
once again demonstrate that we do not rest in the war on terror and
that we will not forget.
I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule
to let our allies and our enemies alike know that we will continue the
war on terror both in memory of those murdered on September 11 and for
the generations still to come who will look back and evaluate our
ability to put partisanship aside and to stand together on behalf of
our Nation, our citizens, and, in fact, our civilization.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we remember that terrible day of September 11,
2001. We continue to mourn for those who are lost. Our hearts continue
to ache for the loved ones left behind. We honor those first responders
who saved so many lives. We continue to stand firm as we pursue justice
against those who perpetrated those attacks. And we remain committed to
finding and eliminating terrorists around the world.
Mr. Speaker, almost every year since 2001, Congress has passed
resolutions commemorating the September 11 attacks. In past years those
resolutions have been thoughtful, appropriate, and solidly bipartisan,
as they should be. Sadly and unfortunately, that is not the case this
year.
Instead, the Republican leadership of this House has chosen to
include controversial language in the resolution, including language
celebrating the passage of legislation that many of us, both Democrats
and Republicans, find to be deeply problematic.
For example, the resolution before us celebrates the passage of the
USA PATRIOT Act, which I and many others, Republicans and Democrats,
believe went too far in sacrificing American's constitutional civil
liberties.
Rand Corporation terrorism expert Brian Michael Jenkins recently made
[[Page H6440]]
this point very well. He argues that strengthening America must involve
preserving American values. And I quote: ``We cannot claim to be a
Nation of laws, a champion of democracy, when we too easily accept a
disturbing pattern of ignoring inconvenient rules, justifying our
actions by extraordinary circumstances, readily resorting to
extrajudicial actions based on broad assertions of unlimited executive
authority, and espousing public arguments against any constraints on
how we treat those in our custody. The defense of democracy demands the
defense of democracy's ideals. To ignore this is to risk alienation and
isolation. And defeat.''
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us celebrates the
2005 passage of what many of us consider to be a punitive,
controversial immigration bill, a bill that couldn't even pass the
Republican Senate and a bill that President Bush does not even support.
Mr. Speaker, it did not have to be this way, and it should not be
this way. On Monday night the United States Senate passed its own
version of the September 11 resolution, S. Res. 565, and I will insert
a copy of the Senate bill at the conclusion of my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill approaches this issue the right way. It
sticks to remembering the victims, condemning the attacks and their
perpetrators, recommitting the United States to fighting terrorism, and
commending the members of our Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel,
first responders, members of the intelligence community, and others who
are on the front lines of this effort. The Senate bill was cosponsored
by every single Senator, Republican and Democrat. Every single Senator
put their names on this bill, and it was passed unanimously. For the
life of me, I cannot figure out why the same thing is not good enough
for the leadership in this House. Why on this subject, where unity is
vitally important, does the leadership of this House seek disunity? Let
us commemorate, not politicize, September 11.
This resolution should not be a Republican resolution. It should be a
resolution that defies party label. I am worried that some in this
House are so consumed with politics that they would use this terrible
tragedy for partisan gain, and I find that offensive.
The resolution before us also states as fact that ``the Nation is
safer than it was on September 11, 2001.'' Mr. Speaker, I would argue
that the actions of this administration, particularly the war in Iraq,
have made us less safe. Five years ago the world stood in sympathy and
solidarity with America. Today, America's standing in the world is at
the lowest point in history. Mr. Speaker, we invaded and now occupy a
country that posed no imminent threat to the United States. Despite
definitive and repeated findings that there were no ties between Iraq
and al Qaeda, a finding most recently echoed by the Republican-
controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, the President and Vice
President continue their misleading efforts to link al Qaeda, Osama bin
Laden, Iraq, and 9/11 all together.
The war in Iraq and the war against terrorism are distinct. The
present Iraq policy, many of us believe, has made us less safe and must
be changed. Even our top generals in Iraq have conceded that our policy
in Iraq has actually produced more terrorists. This does not make us
safer, Mr. Speaker. It makes us more isolated and more vulnerable in an
increasingly dangerous world.
We know that resources were diverted from Afghanistan, where the 9/11
deadly plot was born, in order to invade and occupy Iraq. And we know
now that the trail of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, has
grown stone cold. We know that the President's policies in Iraq have
put an enormous strain on our military, with U.S. military readiness
levels now at historic lows.
We know that the independent 9/11 Commission has just issued a 5-year
report card on President Bush and the Congress filled with D's and F's
on homeland security. And I think we all know, if we are being honest
with ourselves, that we in this Congress have underfunded so much of
our homeland security.
We know that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased the
budget deficit to record proportions because this administration and
Congress have done what no other President and Congress have ever done
in the history of the United States: they have continued to fund this
war completely outside the normal budget and to grant a series of tax
cuts to the wealthiest of the wealthy during a time of war.
And we know, Mr. Speaker, that Iraq is rapidly descending into an
ethnic and religious civil war with a daily civilian toll that tells
every single Iraqi that nowhere is safe from violence, not their homes,
not their jobs, not their schools, not even their hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution could have been, should have been a
thoughtful, bipartisan commemoration of September 11, its victims, and
the men and women who fight to protect us each and every day. That is
what we should have on the floor today. Unfortunately, the resolution
before us does not meet that standard.
Members of this House have differences about policy. There are
differences about the war in Iraq, and I respect and appreciate my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have a very different
opinion on this war than I do. We have differences about protecting
civil liberties. We have differences about how best to deal with
immigration. But there are no differences, there are no differences,
when it comes to honoring the memories of those lost on September 11.
There are no differences when it comes to commending the men and women
on the front lines of the war on terror. And there are no differences
when it comes to the desire to protect this country from future
terrorist attacks.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that the leadership of this House, during this
most solemn week, has chosen not to focus solely on the things that
bring us together as Members of Congress and as Americans
S. Res. 565
Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four
civilian aircraft; crashed two of them into the towers of the
World Trade Center in New York City; and crashed the third
into the Pentagon outside Washington, DC;
Whereas the fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight
93, crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, near the town
of Shanksville, after the passengers and crew of that flight
struggled with the terrorist-hijackers to take back control
of the plane, ultimately preventing the flight from reaching
its likely destination in Washington, DC;
Whereas the heroic actions of the rescue workers,
volunteers, Federal, State and local officials who responded
to the attacks with courage, determination, and skill are to
be commended;
Whereas thousands of innocent Americans, and civilians from
many other countries, were killed and injured as a result of
these attacks;
Whereas Congress declared, in the aftermath of the attacks,
September 12, 2001 to be a National Day of Unity and
Mourning;
Whereas there has not been a terrorist attack on the United
States homeland since the terrorist attacks five years ago;
but al Qaeda has perpetrated terrorist attacks throughout the
world against U.S. persons, facilities, and interests, as
well as U.S. allies during that time; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate:
(1) commemorates the life of each individual who died as a
result of the attacks of September 11, 2001;
(2) extends its deepest condolences to the victims of these
attacks, as well as to their families, friends, and loved
ones;
(3) once again condemns in the strongest possible terms the
attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated them, and their
sponsors;
(4) commits to support the necessary steps to interdict and
defeat terrorists who plot to do harm to the American people;
(5) recommits itself and the nation to bringing to justice
the perpetrators of the attacks, along with their sponsors;
(6) honors and expresses its gratitude to members of its
Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, first responders,
members of intelligence community and others who have bravely
and faithfully participated in the War on Terrorism since
September 11, 2001;
(7) declares September 11, 2006, to be a National Day of
Remembrance, in commemoration of the terrorist attacks
against the United States on September 11, 2001; and
(8) declares that when the Senate adjourns today, it stand
adjourned as a further mark of respect to each individual who
died as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, my colleague, from Massachusetts does
clearly talk about the differences of opinion that we have, and I
respect that difference. I would also say that this body has an
obligation to move forward and work on issues that we think are correct
and right. And quite honestly, Republicans do see what has happened to
[[Page H6441]]
this country, I believe, in a significantly different way than what my
colleagues, the Democrats, see.
Several months ago we had a vote, and we have done this several
times, but a vote on the intelligence bill where the Democrat Party
wanted and had a vote on the floor that would require law enforcement
and intelligence to release every single name of every single person
under investigation by the FBI and intelligence agencies to the
Congress, to nonlaw enforcement officials. These are the kinds of ideas
that Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats have about how we go about protecting
this country. We politely disagree.
The resolution here today is not about policy as it relates to what
we are trying to pass today. It is about how this act that happened on
9/11 we will not forget. We will thank the men and women who protected
us that day. We will stand behind the men and women of our military and
intelligence organizations. We give thanks to the families who are here
in this country whose loved ones serve on the front lines. And, lastly,
we will let our allies know and the terrorists know that we will stay
to the end. That is what this resolution is about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of
the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And I want
to congratulate the gentleman from Dallas for his very hard work and
superb management of this important resolution that we are considering
here.
Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago this week, an act of war pierced the
security and peace of our Nation. The murder of nearly 3,000 by
terrorist fanatics shook our country to its core and stirred within
each and every one of us the determination to defend our freedom and
our liberty with all of our might.
The global war on terror, a war that we did not start, has delivered
many successes. Most of the top leadership of al Qaeda have been
captured or killed. In Iraq and Afghanistan, where terror was once
cultivated and exported, 50 million people now have democratically
elected governments. Some of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq, such
as Osama bin Laden's deputy Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, are no longer free to
wantonly murder.
There have been quiet successes that fall beyond the scope of the
military and away from the field of battle, Mr. Speaker. Following
passage of the PATRIOT Act, we have seen terrorist cells that have been
broken up here in the United States, five in particular, domestic
terrorist cells that have been broken up because of the existence of
the PATRIOT Act.
{time} 1130
And we have also seen the breakup around the world of these cells
because of legislative initiatives that we have taken since September
11, 2001. The Justice Department has won 253 convictions in terror-
related cases across the United States.
Intelligence gathering and cooperation between allies resulted in
foiling a plot to blow up commercial airliners flying from London to
the United States just weeks ago. It is absolutely essential that those
in charge of keeping us safe have every tool necessary to do so.
The results of these diplomatic, intelligence, and military efforts
are encouraging. Five years after September 11, 2001, our homeland has
not been attacked again, and that seems to be so often forgotten, Mr.
Speaker. Every day we thank God that, because of what we have done and
because of the initiative of our courageous men and women, the United
States of America has not seen an attack in 5 years, when many
predicted that we would see them follow immediately following September
11, 2001. Yet, as the years prior to 9/11 proved, periods of security
at home can lead to a false security. An enemy that has no regard for
human life and no tolerance for freedom is an especially fierce foe.
They act and operate according to the belief that, in the words of
Osama bin Laden, and I quote, ``death is better than living on this
earth with the unbelievers amongst us.'' Those are the words of bin
Laden.
Mr. Speaker, like the Cold War, the global struggle will be measured
in decades, not years or months. While it is important and appropriate
to question the tactics used in the global war on terror, there can be
no doubt that it is critical to stay vigilant, stay committed, and stay
on the offense. There have been many trying and somber days in the
prosecution of this war, and there will be many more to come. We are
especially thankful, as the gentleman from Dallas just said, to our men
and women in uniform, from local law enforcement to those in the
military. We offer our deepest appreciation for the opportunity they
have given our Nation to know safety and freedom.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as we proceed with this legislation, I am convinced
that, contrary to what was said by my friend from Massachusetts, this
resolution will enjoy strong bipartisan support just as resolution
after resolution that we have passed since September of 2001 have
enjoyed.
Now, I have gone through and looked at past resolutions that have
enjoyed great support from Democrats and Republicans in this House, and
they have gone through many of the things that we have done to
recognize what it has taken to be successful. And I believe that
focusing on our border security is critical for that, and that is why
the House-passed version of the border security measure was important.
And I am pleased that we have the chairman of the Homeland Security
committee, Mr. King. He has worked very hard on this and testified
yesterday on behalf of the nexus between our security and the fact that
border security is national security.
Similarly, we have found that by breaking up the financial network
through legislation like the SWIFT program, which has enjoyed great
success, and unfortunately was disclosed in the media, we have had
success in breaking up the financial aspect of those who would do us in
because of the initiatives that we and this administration have taken.
Mr. Speaker, I would argue that had we not taken the initiatives that
we have over the past 5 years, things like the PATRIOT Act, we would
not be here today without having suffered another attack on our soil.
Today, we express our condolences, our thoughts and prayers with the
families and the loved ones of those what paid the ultimate price on
September 11, 2001, and the single best thing that we can do for every
single one of them and their families is to ensure that we put into
place the tools necessary so that it will never, ever happen again.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from both my
friend from Texas and my chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier,
the gentleman from California, and I would just say that that was a
really good campaign speech as he went through a litany of issues. But
this is not a day for campaign speeches.
Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. Once I finish my sentence.
Mr. DREIER. I was just accused of making a campaign speech when I am
talking about the reverence of September 11.
Mr. McGOVERN. And I would say to the gentleman that on Monday, those
Members who were in town, Republicans and Democrats, gathered on the
East Front of the Capitol in solidarity. There were no campaign
speeches, there was no politics. People gathered in solidarity together
to commemorate those who lost their lives and to honor those who gave
such tremendous sacrifice on September 11th.
The United States Senate on Monday night had a resolution that every
single Member of the United States Senate, Republican and Democrat,
both, all co-sponsored and passed unanimously. There was unity. There
was a desire not to debate the PATRIOT Act, not to debate the House
version of the Border Security bill which the Republican-controlled
Senate doesn't like and even the President doesn't like. It was about
putting all those issues aside where there are differences, not just
between Democrats and Republicans, I would say to the gentleman from
Texas, but on issues like the PATRIOT Act there were a number of
Republicans who had concerns about it.
So this is not about one party versus the other. But on an issue like
this involving commemorating the terrible tragedy of September 11 and
honoring those who sacrificed their lives, I
[[Page H6442]]
would like to think in the spirit here of what happened Monday night
and using the example of what went on in the United States Senate, that
we could rise to the occasion
Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying it was within our
leadership that I first mentioned the idea of our once again singing
God Bless America on the East Front of the Capitol, and I believe that
that was a very important moment to once again let the American people
know that we stand together, and it was my hope that we would be able
to see strong bipartisanship as we proceed in these coming weeks
following the fifth anniversary of September 11.
I also would like to say that as we look at this resolution, and a
strong attempt was made by our leadership team to work with Members of
the minority to fashion a resolution that would enjoy bipartisan
support. And I believe that it is essential for us to recognize the
tools that have allowed us to ensure that we have not suffered another
September 11. And I deeply resent being accused of making a campaign
speech as we revere the lives that were lost on September 11.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his comments and reclaim my
time.
Mr. Speaker, let me state for the record that in 2002, when we had a
resolution on this issue, it passed unanimously. In 2004 and 2005, the
resolutions that were brought to this floor were jointly sponsored by
Representatives Hyde and Lantos both times. There was an effort at
bipartisanship then, and I think that is the model. That is the model
we should be following here. The bottom line is this is not a
resolution that has been produced as a result of bipartisan
consultation.
But let me go back to the point I was trying to make in the
beginning, and that is, this is a very solemn week, and we should not
be doing anything but trying to bring this House together like they did
in the United States Senate so that we speak with one voice and that we
make it clear that we are together when it comes to commemorating those
who lost their lives and those who have sacrificed so much and those
who continue to put their lives on the line for the protection of all
people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that I think the gentleman
from Massachusetts makes a very important point. We have seen
resolutions since September 11, 2001 pass unanimously and enjoy strong
bipartisan support. I would recommend that my colleagues look at the
resolutions that were passed year after year since September 11, 2001,
and recognize that in those resolutions we talked about the different
tools and the things that have been utilized to ensure that we win the
global war on terror. We want this to be bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, I
will predict that when this resolution is voted on, that it will enjoy
strong bipartisan support
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the
gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, 4 minutes.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule
and the underlying resolution. As we just marked the fifth anniversary
of the September 11 terrorist attack launched against the United
States, it is more important than ever that we stand united in
condemning terrorism as we engage in this epic battle for the future of
civilization.
In this war on terror, Mr. Speaker, we are not in a battle of
civilizations, we are in a battle for civilization, and our enemies are
actively and aggressively adjusting their tactics while waging their
terrorist war of religious intolerance against the free nations of the
world.
Our government has achieved many successes in this war and we have
made substantial progress. We have enacted strong legislation,
including the PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which
created the Department of Homeland Security. We have strengthened our
borders and ports through the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry
Reform Act of 2002 and the Maritime Transportation Security Act of
2002. We have funded our first responders in the amount of $41.5
billion. Our intelligence agencies are working together like never
before, thanks in large part to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004.
While many of our political opponents have disagreed with our
efforts, these changes are directly responsible for preventing another
attack against our Nation since 9/11.
Thanks to our counterterrorism techniques, the United States and our
allies have foiled several terrorist plots, disrupted terrorist cells,
including several in our own country, and brought many high-profile
terrorists to justice.
Just one month ago, Mr. Speaker, British authorities in London foiled
a plot to blow up as many as 10 United States bound commercial
airliners. The cooperation of British and American intelligence and
counterterrorism authorities that led to the foiling of this plot is
proof of two indisputable facts: First, we cannot let our guard down in
the fight against terrorism; and, second, the steps Congress has taken
since the tragic events of 9/11 are indeed working.
It is therefore critically important, Mr. Speaker, that we continue
giving America the tools it needs to fight the global war on terror.
As stated by the 9/11 Commission, we must continue making strides and
using terrorism finance as an intelligence tool. It is absolutely
appalling that, in the light of this, 174 of my Democratic colleagues
still voted against H. Res. 895, legislation supporting intelligence
and law enforcement programs that track terrorists and condemning the
publication of any classified information that could potentially impair
the fight against terrorism. Not only did House Democrats vote against
making the Committee on Homeland Security permanent at the beginning of
this Congress, 120 of them opposed the creation of Homeland Security in
the first place.
Mr. Speaker, no matter how much we have at times disagreed on how to
prosecute the war on terror, none of us will ever forget the attacks of
September 11. Let me be clear. By supporting this resolution, we are
standing strong and sending a message that we will continue fighting
the terrorists. We will prevail no matter how long it takes. We are
telling the terrorists that they will never again catch us off guard,
and that an enemy committed to the death and destruction of the
American way of life will not prevail. I know the strength of America,
I know the strength of her people, and I know that we will be
victorious in this fight for freedom. We must continue honoring the
memory of those heroes who died on 9/11 by standing strong against
terrorism and taking the fight to the enemy.
This resolution simply reaffirms our commitment, and it deserves, as
our chairman and Mr. Sessions said, the full support of this fight. I
hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this rule and the
underlying resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind some of the
previous speakers here that the title of this bill, H. Res. 994, is
expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth
anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States
on September 11, 2001. And I do that because we have heard a lot of
speeches here and we have talked about a lot of different issues that
are separate from commemorating those who lost their lives, those who
sacrificed on September 11, those who continue to protect our country.
{time} 1145
We have talked about the PATRIOT Act and border security. We have
talked about a whole litany of things, and those are all certainly
important issues and legitimate issues for us to discuss, how best to
protect this country. Those are things we should be debating here on a
regular basis on the House floor, but they are controversial, some of
these initiatives. They are controversial with a lot of Members of your
own party.
[[Page H6443]]
I wish we would get back to the point that this resolution here
today, and what some of us are troubled by, is that this should be
about unity and this should be about honoring those who sacrificed,
those who lost their lives, those who have served our country so well.
That is what this should be about and not a litany of controversial
items that you want to promote during a campaign year.
If you want to do that, do it in a separate resolution, take up a
separate bill, but we should all be together when it comes to a
resolution on September 11.
The United States Senate got it right. They got it right over in the
United States Senate. We should do the same here in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we think we got it right. We think we did the PATRIOT
Act right. We think we did intelligence authorization right. We think
we do a lot of things right around here. We are going to stand up for
this country, Mr. Speaker. We are going to stand up for the men and
women who protect our country. We are going to stand up and give the
men and women of the intelligence community the things that they need.
Today, it is right and fitting to say thank you; we will not forget
and we will be vigilant to protect this country. That is what this
resolution is about
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
King), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I in particular appreciate the opportunity to be able to
speak on this issue, an issue which I believe is vital to the history
of our Nation and indeed to the future of our Nation.
As the sponsor of the legislation and chairman of the Homeland
Security Committee, I took a special interest in doing all that I could
to ensure that this resolution would reflect the thinking of the
Congress and would not be at all provocative.
But the fact is, September 11 was the darkest day in our Nation's
history. It was also a day of exceptional bravery and courage, and year
after year since September 11, 2001, we have expressed this sense of
the Congress, we have expressed the sense of the House. We have pointed
to the tremendous bravery that occurred that day, the actions of the
police and the fire and the emergency workers. We have certainly
referred to the terrible suffering that occurred that day.
But also, it is essential we not just lament what happened that day,
not just acknowledge the suffering of that day, but I believe we owe it
to history to show what Congress has done. It is not enough just to say
we feel sorry for what happened. It is important we show what we are
doing, what we are doing as Members of Congress, to respond to the
horrors of that day.
In putting together this resolution, the leadership on our side of
the aisle reached out to the other leaders certainly. On my committee,
we reached out to Democratic members of our committee trying to put
together a resolution, and the fact is the gentleman from
Massachusetts, who is a good friend of mine, he acts as if this
resolution this year is so markedly different than what was passed in
previous years.
Well, if you go back to 2004, the resolution referred to introduced
by Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos, H. Res. 757, it goes through a long listing
of what has been done since September 11, 2001. It refers to the war in
Iraq as being part of the war against terrorism. It refers to port
security and border security, to the Terrorism Threat Immigration
Center. It talks about taking away the financial assets of terrorists.
It goes on and on, listing a number of issues which apparently today
would be considered extremely controversial.
We make no reference at all to Iraq in today's resolution, other than
to mention the men and women of our Armed Forces who are in Iraq and
Afghanistan. We make no mention of the NSA electronic surveillance
program which enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of
American citizens. We make no reference to the SWIFT program, which is
going after the terrorist finances, which was to me in violation of the
Espionage Act released on the front page of the New York Times. Even
though it is entirely legal and entirely effective, we make no
reference to that, but we do talk about the PATRIOT Act because that
was a response of Congress.
Now, history may judge that we did the wrong thing. I am absolutely
convinced we did the right thing in passing the PATRIOT Act, and I
think we owe it to the American people to let them know what we did.
Also, maritime security, intelligence reform, port security,
immigration reform, all of these are tied to the issue of international
terrorism.
This is the way Congress responded, and I think it is not enough just
to say it was a tragedy that happened on September 11. Let us talk
about what we did.
The gentleman from Massachusetts says he objects to the language in
here that we are safer since September 11. Okay. Maybe we can have an
honest difference of opinion on that. The fact is, even the co-chairmen
of the 9/11 Commission say we are safer today than we were on September
11. The junior Senator from my State has said we are safer now than we
were on September 11. These are certainly not Republican apologists.
Quite frankly, while I understand the good faith on the other side, I
as a person who lost almost 150 friends, neighbors and constituents
resent the fact that by us introducing the resolution this is a
campaign speech.
As I was going to commemoration after commemoration on Monday, I did
not say this as being part of the campaign. To me, this is our way of
responding. Again, you may be right, and maybe in the future people
will say it was wrong to break down the wall between the FBI and CIA
and it may be wrong to be going after terrorist assets and it may be
wrong to listen in on terrorist conversations. So be it. Let history be
our judge.
But let this resolution stand for what Congress has done, is doing
and wants to do if we are serious about winning the war against
international terrorism.
If we want to talk about campaigns, I would wonder where were you in
2004 when a resolution, if you want some partisan references, by your
definition would be far more partisan than we are introducing here
today or is it perhaps that the political party has been changed
somehow, and now what was more than acceptable in 2004 is not even
remotely acceptable today?
So, if we are going to inject politics into it, let us be honest who
is raising the political issue. I know that our leadership and the
Speaker of the House went out of his way and their way to try to make
this a bipartisan resolution. I certainly did. When you compare what we
are stating today and what we stated in 2004, to me there is no doubt
over who is being partisan and who is trying to exploit this issue. I
find that wrong.
I am saying I am proud to stand with this resolution. I am proud to
support it. I urge the overwhelming majority of Republicans and
Democrats to put aside partisanship, you do not have to agree with
every word of our resolution, to say that Congress has responded and
has done its best to respond to the attacks of September 11.
Again, let history be our judge. I am more than willing for history
to be our judge, and I am proud to stand on the record of the Congress,
Republicans and Democrats, and I urge the adoption of the rule and urge
the adoption of the underlying resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just respond to the gentleman by again pointing to what the
other body, the United States Senate, did where 100 Senators,
Democrats, Republicans, came together as one, cosponsored a resolution
and voted unanimously for a resolution.
That is what we should be doing during this solemn week, not
introducing legislation that inspires, quite frankly, the kind of
debate that we have here today about issues that really are not about
commemorating that day but issues that are highly controversial,
ranging from everything to immigration to civil liberties to you name
it. That is not the way we should be doing this
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
[[Page H6444]]
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very much opposed to this rule. This
is an issue that deserves a lot more attention than is allowed under
this rule. It is a closed rule, has no opportunity for amendments.
Let me just cite one example of the language in this resolution which
needs much more attention than is provided under this rule and frankly
within the resolution itself.
In the resolution, it says that the United States today is safer than
it was on September 11, 2001. I disagree with that, and I think a great
many people disagree with it because all of the evidence points in the
other direction. We are not safer today than we were.
Why are we not safer? Primarily because the administration and the
leadership in this Congress corrupted the attack against the United
States on September 11, 2001, and behaved in ways that have made the
Nation less safe.
Instead of focusing on the perpetrators of the attack of September
11, 2001, the al Qaeda network and the leader, Osama bin Laden, the
administration and the Defense Department backed off. They let him
escape and he is free today.
The fact of the matter is 19 members of al Qaeda attacked the United
States on September 11, 2001. There was a handful of them in addition
to those 19. Now that number has grown enormously. There are far more
members of al Qaeda and associate terrorist networks spread all over
the Middle East, and they are engaged in activities which constitute a
threat to our country and many others.
Subsequently, the attack against Iraq was a totally corrupt response
to the attack of September 11, 2001. Iraq had nothing to do with that
attack, nothing whatsoever.
The President in his speech to the country the other night said the
regime of Saddam Hussein represented a great threat. That is not the
case. All of the intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein represented
no threat whatsoever to the United States, just as all the intelligence
now makes it very clear that there was no connection between Saddam
Hussein or Iraq and the attack of September 11 against the United
States, and there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq.
So, instead of attacking the people who attacked us, the
administration, with the consent of this Congress, attack another
country that had nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is the
world and our country today are far less safe as a result of the way in
which the administration and the leaders of this Congress behaved.
We need to live up to our obligations here in the Congress. We need
to conduct an investigation as to why the administration behaved the
way it did. Why did it not pursue the people who attacked us, why did
it let Osama bin Laden go free, why did we attack Iraq which had
nothing to do with this, why did the President of the United States say
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when all of the intelligence
indicated that there was no evidence that there were weapons of mass
destruction, no chemical or biological weapons left and no nuclear
weapons program?
So the fact of the matter is that this resolution does not focus on
the issue the way it ought to be focused upon, and this rule does not
provide us the opportunity to expand the resolution, to offer
amendments, to engage in the kind of debate that this issue needs so
that the people of this country can understand exactly what has been
happening to them.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from New York described his disagreement with the
administration. I understand that. We had seen the administration
before this President ignore, completely ignore, the advice from the
CIA. As a matter of fact, I remember at least one CIA director resigned
under President Clinton because he could not get President Clinton to
pay attention to more than 3 hours in a month to the intelligence needs
of this country.
We have already talked about how vote after vote after vote by the
Democrats that they choose to gut our ability, in my opinion, to
effectively not only have law enforcement but to chase down those that
may do harm against this country.
Some choose to characterize that we are not safer today than what we
were before the attack. I completely disagree with that. I would
completely disagree with that because I think every single American
that day learned of the tremendous forces that were aimed at the United
States that we had really been completely unaware of before.
So I think that we are better off today. Are we absolutely safe? No.
Are we safer? Yes, we are, and we have a responsibility to maintain
that line of defense.
This resolution has nothing to do with that. It is a resolution, the
force of this body, to say we respect the men and women who on 9/11
gave their lives; we are sorry for the men and women who have been
injured as a result of that; we are going to support our military; we
are going to support the families and we will never forget; and we are
going to back up our allies; and we are going to make sure that we get
it right. That is what this resolution is about.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1200
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just take issue with the gentleman
from Texas. He says this whole question of the Nation being safer than
it was on September 11, 2001, has nothing to do with this resolution.
Well, that is what it says in this resolution, if he reads the
resolution. There are some things contained in this resolution that
people over here, and that people on both sides legitimately have some
questions with.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will close for our side.
Mr. Speaker, the issue about whether or not the Nation is safer than
it was on September 11, 2001, is a legitimate topic for debate, but not
on this resolution. The issue of the PATRIOT Act, there are differences
on that. I have a lot of reservations about the PATRIOT Act, as do many
Republicans. That is a legitimate debate we should continue to have.
The issue about how best to protect our borders is a serious and
important and legitimate issue. President Bush and Senator McCain have
one opinion on how we should do it, which I think makes a heck of a lot
more sense than the view of the Republican majority in this House, but
that is certainly a legitimate debate. But it doesn't belong in a
resolution commemorating the lives and the sacrifices of those
individuals on September 11, 2001.
And I guess I wish that just once, just once the leadership on the
other side of the aisle could bring to this floor a piece of
legislation, especially on an issue like this, that is not stained with
politics. Why does everything have to have a political slant to it? I
think people are sick of it, I really do. I think on issues like this
people want us to come together, as we have done in the past, as the
other body has done, and speak with one voice. Let us not make this
into something it shouldn't be.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am asking Members of this House to vote ``no'' on
the previous question so that we can consider a much better resolution,
one that respectfully commemorates this most somber occasion. If the
previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that instead of
voting on the divisive partisan resolution made in order under this
rule, we will consider the text of the truly bipartisan resolution that
was adopted in the Senate on the fifth anniversary of September 11.
Not only was this measure passed by unanimous consent in the Senate
on September 11, the actual day of the anniversary, it was cosponsored
by every single Member of the United States Senate: every single
Democrat, every single Republican.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
[[Page H6445]]
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is the resolution we should be
considering today, and let me tell you why. It was not written for
political gain or for 30-second sound bites. It was written with the
sole intent and purpose of remembering the tragic events of September
11, 2001, and to honor and mourn the victims of that horrific day.
I think we owe it to the people of this great Nation to put politics
aside for this one day and show that we are Americans first and that
some things are sacred and should never be used for political purposes.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question
so we can consider the Senate version of the September 11
commemorative.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' because it is the honorable and
the right thing to do, to say thank you to the men and women who gave
their lives, to say thank you to the men and women who were heroic in
their efforts to try and save people, and it is the right thing to do
to say to the men and women of our military and our intelligence
communities that we believe you have not only done a great job but we
thank your families also for those sacrifices.
We believe it is the right thing to do to remember this event 5 years
later. We believe it is the right thing to do to let the world know
that the United States Congress, this body, in this House resolution,
believes that we will stay strong not only in the war on terrorism but
that we believe that fighting for civilization and peace and
opportunity in this world is the right thing.
We have heard from three of this Congress' greatest leaders, Phil
Gingrey, Pete King, who is the chairman of the committee, and the young
chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, as they have spoken
eloquently about not only what this country stands for but about how
our respectfully saying thank you and remembering this day is a part of
our job and is the right thing to do.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote on behalf of this resolution
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows
Previous Question for H. Res. 996, the Rule for H. Res. 994 Expressing
the Sense of the House of Representatives on the 5th Anniversary of the
Terrorist Attacks launched against the United States on September 11,
2001
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
``Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution printed in section 2
expressing the sense of the House of Representatives upon the
five-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks against the
United States on September 11, 2001. The resolution shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption
without intervening motion or demand for division of the
question except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided and
controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or
their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.''
Sec. 2. The following is the text referred to in Section 1:
Resolution
``A resolution expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives upon the five-year anniversary of the
terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11,
2001.
Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four
civilian aircraft, crashed two of them into the towers of the
World Trade Center in New York City, and crashed the third
into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C.;
Whereas the fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight
93, crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, near the town
of Shanksville, after the passengers and crew of that flight
struggled with the terrorist-hijackers to take back control
of the plane, ultimately preventing the flight from reaching
its likely destination in Washington, D.C.;
Whereas the heroic actions of the rescue workers,
volunteers, and State and local officials who responded to
the attacks with courage, determination, and skill are to be
commended;
Whereas thousands of innocent Americans, and civilians from
many other countries, were killed and injured as a result of
these attacks;
Whereas Congress declared, in the aftermath of the attacks,
September 12, 2001, to be a National Day of Unity and
Mourning; and
Whereas there has not been a terrorist attack on the United
States homeland since the terrorist attacks five years ago,
but al Qaeda has perpetrated terrorist attacks throughout the
world against United States persons, facilities, and
interests, as well as United States allies during that time:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) commemorates the life of each individual who died as a
result of the attacks of September 11, 2001;
(2) extends its deepest condolences to the victims of these
attacks, as well as to their families, friends, and loved
ones;
(3) once again condemns in the strongest possible terms the
attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated them, and their
sponsors;
(4) commits to support the necessary steps to interdict and
defeat terrorists who plot to do harm to the American people;
(5) recommits itself and the Nation to bringing to justice
the perpetrators of the attacks, along with their sponsors;
(6) honors and expresses its gratitude to members of the
United States Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, first
responders, and others who have bravely and faithfully
participated in the War on Terrorism since September 11,
2001; and
(7) declares September 11, 2006, to be a National Day of
Remembrance, in commemoration of the terrorist attacks
against the United States on September 11, 2001.''
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wamp). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
[[Page H6446]]
____________________