[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 18219-18220]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   EXPRESSING SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ANNIVERSARY OF TERRORIST ATTACKS 
          LAUNCHED AGAINST UNITED STATES ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 9, 2004

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, three years since the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we solemnly remember those who 
risked their lives, those whose lives were lost and those they left 
behind.
  America changed forever that day. Some called 9-11 America's wake up 
call.
  The actions of first responders and everyday citizens give true 
meaning to the word hero. I applaud the resolution in the House today 
for honoring their service and the memories of those no longer with us.
  But sadly, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that this resolution is 
flawed. While it rightfully honors the victims and heroes of September 
11, it misleadingly connects the invasion of Iraq with the war on 
terrorism. Iraq did not start the U.S global war on terrorism--Osama 
bin Laden did.
  Despite that fact, after only four months of hunting for bin Laden, 
the U.S. began redirecting military and intelligence personnel from his 
pursuit in Afghanistan to preparing for war with Iraq.
  The President then declared in a press conference that, ``I don't 
know where [bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time 
on him . . . I truly am not that concerned about him.''
  The President was clearly at odds with his terrorism advisers.
  The FBI was concerned about him. It said that al-Qaeda remained the 
``number one concern.''
  Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was concerned about him. He 
said America was still bin Laden's number 1 target.
  Despite all this, what did the President do?
  He shortchanged homeland security needs like port, rail and border 
security. He reduced law enforcement funding by over 30 percent. And he 
became less concerned with the man who started the war on terrorism and 
more concerned with Saddam Hussein--a man the 9-11 Commission 
determined had no operational connection to al Qaeda and who played no 
role in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
  Did this make America any safer? If so, redirecting resources from 
hunting the world's number one terrorist in order to invade Iraq might 
have made sense. But the fact is, the invasion in Iraq has made us 
less, not more, secure.
  And because of that fact, we do ourselves as a country and the 
memories of those who were lost on September 11, 2001 a great 
disservice by misrepresenting the facts.
  The invasion of Iraq did not deny terrorists a safe haven from which 
to operate, but rather it created one. In fact, because of poor 
planning and inadequate troop levels, U.S. forces in Iraq have 
withdrawn from unstable areas like Falluja, Ramadi and Samarra allowing 
them to become foreign terrorist safehavens. The low troop level has 
also prevented the U.S. from sealing off the borders and allowed 
foreign terrorists to enter Iraq at will.
  More American Service members have been killed since the President 
announced that all major combat operations had ended than before that 
time. All told, over 1,000 soldiers have been killed, 7,000 wounded, 
and the rate at which American soldiers are being killed is rapidly 
increasing.
  With all that said, the President still speaks of ``taking the fight 
to the enemy'' so that we don't have to fight him at home. But the 
Department of Homeland Security had to raise the terrorist alert level 
four times since the invasion of Iraq. And Homeland Security Secretary 
Tom Ridge has said, ``[al Qaeda] is still determined to strike.''
  The Bush Administration would still lead us to believe that al Qaeda 
is no longer a threat because two thirds of its senior leadership have 
been captured or killed. But Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld says ``it's 
almost impossible to have metrics'' that determine whether Al

[[Page 18220]]

Qaeda and other terrorist groups are being drained of support around 
the world. In fact some experts still put al Qaeda's end strength at 
close to 18,000.
  Secretary Rumsfeld went on to say that the War on Terrorism is not 
``a military problem alone.'' In fact the overreliance on military 
means to address the threat of terrorism might have done more to help 
al Qaeda recruit new members than it did to shrink the organization.
  So what lessons have we learned three years later?
  Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11; our invasion of Iraq made us more, 
not less vulnerable to terrorist attack; despite capturing and killing 
al Qaeda leaders, the organization remains operational; we shortchanged 
homeland security; and the President's attempt to make America safer by 
taking the fight to the enemy and invading Iraq has done nothing to 
deter bin Laden's desire to attack the U.S. again.
  The administration has failed to adequately address the worldwide 
threat of terror. It has alienated much of the international community 
and failed to assemble an effective coalition. We honor the fallen 
today, but we must also refocus America's foreign and security policy.

                          ____________________