[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17921-17926]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 17922]]

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 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

[[Page 17923]]

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 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

[[Page 17924]]

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 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

[[Page 17925]]

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 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

[[Page 17926]]

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 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.

                          ____________________