[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17200-17207]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2115
  THE WAR ON TERRORISM FIVE YEARS AFTER SEPTEMBER 11--HOW SAFE ARE WE?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, next Monday will mark the fifth anniversary 
of the most calamitous day in the modern history of this country. Not 
since the British torched Washington during the War of 1812 has the 
American homeland suffered such a devastating attack. For all of us, 
the terrible events of September 11th remain an all-too-fresh memory 
that still casts a pall over our national life.
  For the families of the more than 2,900 people killed in New York, 
Washington and Pennsylvania, the 9/11 attacks remain an open wound. 
Many of them have sought to redirect their anger and grief into 
ensuring that we as a Nation are secure and safe from future attacks. 
In pursuing this goal, they have only asked that our Nation's leaders 
be honest in assessing the state

[[Page 17201]]

of our Nation's security, willing to address shortfalls in our defense 
and that we act together as Americans and not as Republicans and 
Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship has been at the center of America's 
national security policy-making for most of our history. In standing 
behind our Armed Forces, in standing up for our diplomatic priorities, 
in supporting the intelligence community and in supporting the 
President in times of crisis, Congress has often spoken with one voice.
  This unanimity was never stronger than in the aftermath of the 
September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. When 
President Bush addressed the Congress and the Nation on September 20, 
this Nation was more united than at any time since the Second World 
War.
  That unity extended around the world, to friends and foes alike. In 
the wake of the attacks, NATO invoked for the first time in its history 
Article 5 of the NATO Charter, declaring the attacks on the United 
States to be an attack on the alliance. As American military assets 
rushed toward Afghanistan in preparation for the invasion that would 
topple the Taliban regime, allied early-warning aircraft patrolled 
American skies to protect us.
  Five years later, this national and international unity seems quaint. 
Here at home, the President and his fellow Republicans have made no 
secret that they intend to exploit the 9/11 attacks and the war on 
terror for political advantage in the upcoming midterm elections, and 
they have sought to smear as unpatriotic anybody who questions their 
conduct of our Nation's security policy, most recently, as Secretary of 
Defense Rumsfeld did, likening war critics to Nazi appeasers.
  Overseas, we are isolated. Where America was seen as a victim in the 
wake of 9/11, it is wrongly viewed as an aggressor. American troops are 
fighting and dying in Iraq while our closest allies sit on the 
sidelines, many of them refusing to help.
  President Bush and the Republicans have not only squandered domestic 
unity and international goodwill, they have poorly prosecuted the war 
on terror and failed to improve our security here at home. Even as we 
spend $1 billion a week in Iraq, basic security here at home has not 
been improved as it should have been. This failure has been most 
clearly demonstrated by the administration's woefully inadequate 
performance in implementing the recommendations of the independent and 
bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
  In fact, in December of last year, the 9/11 Commission Public 
Discourse Project, made up of the members of the commission, issued a 
report card on the lack of progress in improving our Nation's security. 
The report card was filled with Cs, Ds and Fs. In a statement 
accompanying the report card, Chairman Thomas Kean, a Republican, and 
Vice Chair Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, said, ``Many obvious steps that 
the American people assume have been completed have not been. Some of 
these failures are shocking.'' What we have seen over the last 4 years, 
Mr. Speaker, has been a failure of leadership and a failure of 
initiative.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, as we heard tonight, I 
guess have decided that their best response to the criticism of the 9/
11 Commission is to blame Bill Clinton. I guess that is the new 
national security strategy of my friends in the GOP, blame Bill 
Clinton. I suppose that would be fine if Bill Clinton was the President 
of the United States, but the last time I checked, it was George W. 
Bush and had been for a great many years. The last time I checked, it 
was a Republican House and a Republican Senate.
  If we step back 5 years to the immediate aftermath of September 11th 
and we ask ourselves, would we as a country choose a course that would 
lead us 5 years hence to a place where we were mired in civil war in 
Iraq, where Osama bin Laden was still at large, where he and al 
Zawahiri were issuing a dozen taped messages just in this year alone, 
where North Korea is testing missiles to carry nuclear bombs that it 
has manufactured, where Iran is thumbing its nose at the international 
community and going forward with its nuclear program, where we have 
become more dependent on foreign oil, not less, how many of us would 
choose that course for the United States of America? I submit none of 
us would. None of us would choose that course.
  The administration, all they can say is, stay that course; stay a 
course that has made us more energy dependent on the Middle East than 
ever; stay that course where Afghanistan's opium production now exceeds 
what it did under the Taliban; stay that course where sectarian 
violence is increasing and it is now a civil war in Iraq; stay the 
course where we have not protected the homeland; stay the course where 
we have earned Cs, Ds and Fs from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Stay 
the course is the best they can come up with.
  If anyone is hitting the snooze button that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle refer to, it is this administration and this 
Congress. The majority has dubbed this Security September. Well, that 
has a lovely ring to it, Security September. The problem with Security 
September is I suppose that in October it will be something else. It 
will not be security month anymore. Security September will be over. 
What will October be? October will be, what is a good old term for the 
political agenda on the floor?
  The problem is the Nation's security is not a political agenda to be 
talked about in the September before a midterm election under the 
quaint title of Security September.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that everyone has a 
role to play in the Nation's defense, and with that I wholeheartedly 
agree, but who has the administration asked among us, other than those 
brilliant and brave Americans wearing the uniform of this country and 
their families, who has been asked to be Rosie the Riveter? Who has 
been asked to make a sacrifice? Has the President asked the American 
people to sacrifice on the war on terror?
  When he was interviewed recently by Brian Williams, who said, Mr. 
President, many have criticized that you have not asked the American 
people for a sacrifice; the President said, no, that is not true; the 
American people have sacrificed. They pay taxes.
  That, I guess, was the extent of the sacrifice Americans have been 
asked to make in the war on terror. The President could have gone on to 
say he has asked the American people to sacrifice by paying less taxes, 
by ringing up large deficits on our children to pay for the war, to pay 
for our own security. That is not the kind of sacrifice, that is not 
the kind of role that we have to play in the Nation's security.
  Now I would like to go through briefly some of the criticisms of the 
9/11 Commission that have not been addressed. One of the core parts of 
the Democratic real security plan is, we will implement the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We will put them into effect, 
and when we go through some of those tonight, we will see just how 
important they are, just how derelict the majority has been and the 
administration has been in not implementing these recommendations.
  I am joined tonight by Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and by David 
Scott of Georgia, two leaders on national security issues, and I want 
to turn to them after I go through some of the failing grades that we 
have earned as an institution and this Congress, under majority GOP 
rule and that the administration has earned.
  First, in its report, the 9/11 Commission talked about having a 
national strategy for transportation security. The commission said, 
``Hard choices must be made in allocating limited resources. The U.S. 
government should identify and evaluate transportation assets that need 
to be protected, set risk-based priorities for defending them, select 
the most practical and cost-effective ways of doing so, and then 
develop a plan, budget and funding to implement the effort. The plan 
should assign roles and missions to the relevant authorities, Federal, 
State, regional and local, and to private stakeholders. In measuring 
effectiveness, perfection is unattainable. But terrorists should 
perceive that potential targets are defended. They may be

[[Page 17202]]

deterred by a significant chance of failure.''
  Well, that was what the 9/11 Commission recommended. Now let us see 
what the 9/11 Commission said about how this administration and the 
majority have done. The grade: C. ``DHS,'' the Department of Homeland 
Security, ``has transmitted its National Strategy for Transportation 
Security to the Congress. While the strategy reportedly outlines broad 
objectives, this first version lacks the necessary detail to make it an 
effective management tool.'' C on the National Strategy For 
Transportation Security.
  Airline passenger prescreening: The 9/11 Commission urged that 
``improved use of `no-fly' and `automatic selectee' lists should not be 
delayed while the argument about a successor to Computer Assisted 
Passenger Pre-Screening continues. This screening function should be 
performed by the TSA, and it should utilize the larger set of watch 
lists maintained by the Federal Government. Air carriers should be 
required to supply the information needed to test and implement this 
new system.''
  What grade did the 9/11 Commission, the bipartisan commission, give 
this administration and Congress? An F, failure. ``Few improvements 
have been made to the existing passenger screening system since right 
after 9/11. The completion of the testing phase of TSA's prescreening 
program for airline passengers has been delayed. A new system, 
utilizing all names on the consolidated terrorist watch list, is 
therefore not yet in operation.'' Remarkable. We do not have a unified 
terrorist watch list in operation that is trustworthy, that we can rely 
on to keep dangerous people off our planes. F, failing grade by the 
bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
  Checked bag and cargo screening. The 9/11 report stated that ``more 
attention and resources should be directed to reducing or mitigating 
the threat posed by explosives in vessels' cargo holds.''
  Well, that has not happened either. The grade here: D. Now, we all 
know we have got to take our shoes off and we cannot carry fluids on 
the plane, but you can still ship a crate the size of a piano in the 
cargo hold of a passenger plane, and it will not be screened for 
explosives. This is a glaring hole. We have known about it for a long 
time. The 9/11 Commission has talked about it, written about it, 
cajoled about it, as have the Democrats in Congress. What has been done 
about it? Very, very little. Precious little. Dangerously little.
  Airline passenger explosive screening, the grade given by the 9/11 
Commission for the administration and Congress work in that area: C.
  Critical infrastructure assessment, where we determine the risks and 
vulnerabilities that will guide the distribution of Homeland Security 
funds to the most threatened areas. You would expect that when we are 
identifying what the risks are to the country, that we would go about 
it in a logical way; we would identify these are the most vulnerable 
sites, these are the areas where terrorists could cause the most 
catastrophic damage and losses, and we will prioritize our resources, 
addressing the most significant risks first.
  Well, if that is what you thought we were doing, then you were wrong. 
Grade by the 9/11 Commission: D. ``A draft National Infrastructure 
Protection Plan spells out a methodology and process for critical 
infrastructure assessments. No risk and vulnerability assessments 
actually made; no national priorities established; no recommendations 
made on allocation of scarce resources. All key decisions are at least 
a year away.'' That is negligence with the Nation's security.
  Information sharing between government agencies. The grade the 9/11 
commission gave: D. ``Designating individuals to be in charge of 
information sharing'' within the government ``is not enough. They need 
resources, active presidential backing, policies and procedures in 
place that compel sharing, and systems of performance evaluation that 
appraise personnel on how they carry out information sharing.''
  Intelligence oversight reform, grade given by the 9/11 Commission: D.
  International collaboration on borders, grade given by the commission 
to this administration and this Congress: D.
  Let me just talk about border security for a minute. Again, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle blame Bill Clinton. Well, 
that is great. Let us blame Bill Clinton for everything, but border 
security? We have had a Republican President. We have a Republican 
House. We have a Republican Senate. If the GOP wanted to pass border 
security, it could have been done years ago. Positions that we 
appropriated in this House to fill border patrol positions have 
remained vacant. The administration has not followed through.
  Well, okay, Security September, maybe October will be border Security 
October. Maybe they will get around to it in October because, after 
all, the midterms are in November. But one cannot help escape the 
conclusion that this is driven by the midterm elections and not the 
national security of the United States of America, and that is wrong.
  Those brave people that protected this Capitol when that plane was 
over Pennsylvania headed our way, those brave people that protected 
this Capitol deserve better from the people working in this Capitol. 
They have the right to expect that those working in this Capitol will 
use their best efforts to protect the rest of the country and not just 
with the midterm coming up, a couple of months away.
  Now, I am joined tonight by two great leaders on national security 
issues, and I would like to turn first to my colleague from Maryland, 
Chris Van Hollen, who has joined me on several of these national 
security Special Order hours, in fact, when it was not Security 
September, and I thank Mr. Van Hollen for his leadership and yield to 
the gentleman.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California 
(Mr. Schiff) and thank you for your leadership on these very important 
national security issues, and as you have suggested, national security 
issues should not be devoted to just 1 month. We need to make sure that 
we are watching after the national security every day of this year.
  I am pleased to join you and Mr. Scott here this evening to discuss 
these issues because the President has said he wants a national 
conversation on national security issues in Iraq, but in the same 
speech, he begins finger pointing; he begins name-calling. Secretary 
Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney are out around the country name-
calling and pointing fingers and trying to malign anybody that 
disagrees with them. That is not a national conversation.
  Let us have a national conversation. I say, bring it on when it comes 
to a national security discussion here in the Nation's Capital and 
throughout the country because, unfortunately, if you look at Iraq, if 
you look at our national security policy and the implications of that 
policy around the world, you can see we have created a mess and that in 
so many ways we have made ourselves less safe than we could be if we 
had been smart, smart and tough as we went about it.

                              {time}  2130

  And it is very difficult to listen to President Bush and Vice 
President Cheney talk about how if we only stick with their plan, we 
would begin to see a way out of here. After all, we all remember 
President Bush when he was on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln back in 
May 2003, with a big banner in front of him declaring ``mission 
accomplished.'' May 2003. Well, here we are today in Iraq and we just 
had a report come out a few days ago from the Pentagon saying things 
are worse than ever before. Clearly, we are a long way from mission 
accomplished.
  We had Vice President Cheney say more than a year ago that the 
insurgency in Iraq was in its final throes, and yet the report that 
came out just a few days ago from the Pentagon, a report I must say was 
required by Congress, it wasn't volunteered by the administration, 
Democrats in Congress pushed for a little small measure of 
accountability. Not what we need, but we

[[Page 17203]]

got this report. And while the Vice President said the insurgency was 
in its last throes more than a year ago, the report says the Sunni-
based insurgency remains ``potent and viable.''
  And Secretary Rumsfeld, from day one has looked at Iraq through these 
rose-colored glasses. I remember when he sort of referenced an estimate 
by people at the Office of Management and Budget regarding the costs of 
the war as just a few million dollars. I mean, the figure he gave was 
peanuts compared to what we already have spent in Iraq.
  So I say to all those people who for all these years have said to us, 
trust us, we know what we are doing, just look at your record. Let us 
have that debate and let us have a real national conversation on these 
issues. Because the mantra ``stay the course'' is not a strategy.
  Do we really want to keep doing exactly what we have been doing when 
just a few days ago the report that came out of the Pentagon said 
things are worse than they have been in Iraq? Is that a strategy for 
success? Is that the plan for victory that the President announced last 
November at the U.S. Naval Academy in Maryland?
  I represent a congressional district in Maryland. The President went 
there and unveiled his plan for victory, he called it. Again, we have a 
report just a few days ago out of the Pentagon saying things are worse 
than ever. So I say we need a national conversation. We need to work 
together to find our way forward here.
  Mr. SCHIFF. If I can interject for just a second, we had a 
nonclassified briefing, so I can raise this point, before we had the 
August recess with Secretary Rice, Secretary Rumsfeld, Director 
Negroponte, and General Pace, and I asked a question that is based on 
your comments. It was acknowledged at that time that the sectarian 
violence now exceeded the violence from the insurgency.
  I asked them how are we changing our strategy, militarily or 
politically, because the strategy used in dealing with the 
counterinsurgency effort and the strategy you use in trying to bring a 
halt to a civil war are two very different animals. So I asked, how are 
we adjusting to these new conditions on the ground? And the long and 
short of it was, we are not adjusting to the conditions on the ground. 
We are doing the same thing, the same strategy, the one-size-fits-all, 
the stay-the-course.
  That, I think, given the history you have outlined, where this 
congressionally compelled report indicates things have gotten worse 
across almost every metric, not better, that stay the course just 
doesn't cut it any more.
  Mr. Van Hollen.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. It doesn't. And what is unfortunate is people on the 
one hand are saying let us have this national conversation and then 
finger-pointing at people who raise questions about what is happening 
in Iraq and elsewhere in our national security policy, when any 
sensible person looking at what is going on would have questions. So 
let us really get together and have a genuine national conversation 
about these very important issues.
  Now, you mentioned, and others have mentioned, that we are coming up 
very shortly to the tragic fifth anniversary of the September 11 
attacks on our country, and I do think it is important to take a moment 
to reflect again on where those attacks came from and the reaction of 
the international community, which you have outlined a little bit. 
Because we all know that those attacks were launched from Afghanistan. 
They were launched by al Qaeda. They were launched by Osama bin Laden 
as the head of al Qaeda, and they were launched from Afghanistan 
because the Taliban government gave al Qaeda sanctuary there in 
Afghanistan.
  When we were attacked on September 11, this country, and in fact the 
international community, responded. You already referred to the action 
taken by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But in fact also the 
United Nations unanimously passed a resolution saying they were with 
the United States in its fight against terror and they were with us in 
going after al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. And in fact, when we went 
into Afghanistan, we were united as a country and the world was united 
behind us.
  You would think, given a lot of the recent talk and rhetoric out of 
the administration, until just a few days ago, that Osama bin Laden had 
kind of been forgotten. We weren't talking a lot about Osama bin Laden. 
But now, just the other day, as we approached September 11 and the 
anniversary of that tragic attack, the President again raised the words 
of Osama bin Laden and the very real threat that Osama bin Laden and al 
Qaeda and their virulent form of extremist Islamic ideology poses.
  But I think we should ask the question, given the fact that the 
President has now reminded us again of where those attacks came from, 
what are we doing in Afghanistan and how much progress have we really 
made? If you look at the situation now and you look at the southern 
part of Afghanistan, we have seen, by all accounts, including from the 
testimony of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the head of that is 
General Maples, that you have seen a resurgence in Taliban activities 
in southern Afghanistan. That is the hotbed of the resistance in 
Afghanistan. Yet, while we are seeing that resistance grow, we have 
actually seen a reduction in U.S. military forces in that area. That is 
not the way you address a real threat.
  Secondly, this administration disbanded the one unit, the one unit 
within the Central Intelligence Agency that was specifically dedicated 
to targeting al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. They got rid of it.
  We have also seen reports today that opium production in Afghanistan 
is now at a record high, the highest levels ever recorded in terms of 
opium production. And those are funds that are able to be used by al 
Qaeda to help arm themselves and help promote their ideology and help 
promote their efforts against the United States and others.
  At the same time, we learned today that Pakistan, Pakistan, has now 
entered into a deal with the pro-Taliban militia in the Waziristan 
portion of Pakistan, that rugged mountain area along the Pakistan-
Afghan border, where the Taliban have been assembling and using as a 
launching pad for their attacks into Afghanistan. We have heard that 
Pakistan apparently is no longer going to sort of prosecute the war 
against al Qaeda.
  So if you look at the state of play today, and you ask yourself what 
have we done to eliminate the threat that attacked us on September 11, 
I would say the answer is pretty clear. We have a long way to go before 
we can hang up a banner of mission accomplished. And we need to 
redouble our efforts in Afghanistan.
  Unfortunately, what has happened is we have, as a result of the war 
in Iraq, diverted our resources and gotten ourselves bogged down in a 
very messy situation with a huge amount of sectarian violence, a 
budding civil war, civil war, whatever you want to call it. We heard 
from the Pentagon it is the worst situation they have seen. We have 
gotten bogged down there and we haven't finished the job against al 
Qaeda.
  Yet, at the same time, we have actually fueled the forces that 
support the extremists. We have added to their allies. We have provided 
a great recruiting tool for them. And the biggest beneficiary of all 
has been Iran. The biggest beneficiary of all has been Iran, which is 
right there next to Iraq. They fought a long war with Iraq. During most 
of the 1980s Iraq and Iran were engaged in a very bitter war. But now, 
with Iraq in chaos, Iran is extremely well positioned and is taking 
advantage of the situation. They are emboldened and they are trying to 
expand their influence in the region through Hezbollah and through 
other proxies.
  So I think as we have this national conversation, it is very 
important that the American people, not just looking at some of this 
rhetoric out there, but they really try to figure out what is going on. 
Because one of the biggest consequences of the administration's 
mistakes, and many of them are coming home to roost now, is that they 
refuse to listen. They refuse to listen to many generals regarding the 
best way to prosecute the war in Iraq. They

[[Page 17204]]

refuse to listen to the experts at the Central Intelligence Agency 
about the possible consequences within Iraq of taking the lid off 
Pandora's box and unleashing the forces between the Sunnis, the Shiias, 
and the Kurds.
  They have all the answers, the administration. We have got all the 
answers. Who are you to question us? And you know what this Republican 
Congress said? You are right, you have got all the answers, so we are 
not going to ask you the tough questions. This was a blank-check 
Congress. No tough questions. No accountability. And the result has 
been very clear: when you ignore failure, or when you reward failure, 
you are going to get more failure.
  So what we are saying is, let us have a real national conversation. 
Let us have a Congress that will begin to ask the hard questions.

                              {time}  2145

  Let's hold people accountable when they make mistakes.
  The finger pointing, you have got to scratch your head, as you 
pointed out. We have President Bush in the White House. We have 
Republicans controlling the Senate and the House. They really have no 
one to look around right now to blame. Yet they still are out there in 
the field trying to tell the American people that somehow it is the 
other guy's fault that we are in this mess now.
  It is time to hold them accountable.
  Mr. SCHIFF. On that point, Mr. Van Hollen, we had one of the very few 
hearings, you were in attendance, on Iraq in committee, after years of 
asking the committee leadership in International Relations to hold a 
hearing on the Iraq war. You would think it wouldn't be so difficult. 
We finally had a hearing.
  During that hearing, I asked the administration witnesses, who has 
been held accountable for some of the disastrous decision making that 
has been made? Who has been held accountable for the standing down of 
the Iraqi army? Who has been held accountable for the intelligence 
failures that led to the Iraq war? Who has been held accountable for 
any one of these innumerable errors?
  There was this long, painful, prolonged silence. And the answer was 
clear: No one. No one has been held accountable.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We know what the consequence of that is. We know what 
the consequence is. When you don't hold people accountable for failure, 
you shouldn't be surprised when you get more of the same. But more of 
the same is not a good strategy in Iraq. More of the same is not a good 
strategy in terms of our national security. These are tough, difficult 
issues. Nobody has all the answers.
  So, it is very important that the Bush administration and the 
Republican leadership stop pretending that they have all the answers, 
because their view of the world has gotten us to where we are now, and 
we can be doing a lot better.
  I want to thank you and Mr. Scott for your very sensible leadership 
on these national security questions.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank gentleman. You really put your finger on it. The 
reality is that ``stay the course'' is nothing but more of the same. 
That doesn't cut it anymore.
  I yield to my good friend, a leader on national security issues, 
David Scott from the great State of Georgia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much. It is good to be here with 
you and my good friend, Congressman Van Hollen, always a pleasure, and 
I commend both of you on your expert comments and thought-provoking 
comments here today.
  Accountability is the issue that we just left trippingly off our 
tongues. Accountability. The timing is right now for accountability. 
``The buck stops here,'' as Harry Truman said. ``The buck stops here.'' 
And the buck is stopping within 9 or 10 weeks, for we are right around 
the corner from true accountability. That is accountability with our 
customers, our clients, the people who put us here. They want some 
accountability.
  We have all just come back from our August recess. Paramount on their 
minds is security. The American people have lost faith with the 
direction in which we are headed. Every poll speaks that. I don't care 
if it is the Fox poll, the CNN poll, the Washington Post poll, the ABC 
poll, every poll that has been taken speaks clearly; 63 percent of the 
American people are dissatisfied with the direction this country is 
moving in, in Iraq, and half of the people in this country are finally 
getting the picture, the ability to separate the war in Iraq from the 
war on terror.
  That is very fundamental. That is a sea change. That has been a very 
serious part of our problem, and it has really been the Achilles' heel 
of this administration, of the Bush administration. I think a serious 
mistake was made in trying to link the war on terror with the war in 
Iraq, and we have had a muddled policy ever since.
  It is no wonder then that here we are on the eve of the fifth 
anniversary of 
9/11. If you would have told me 5 years ago, right after 9/11, Mr. 
Schiff, Mr. Van Hollen, that 5 years from now we would not have been 
able to catch Osama bin Laden; if you had told me 5 years ago that we 
will have expended 2,600 precious lives of our American soldiers in the 
so-called war on terror, and yet and still al Qaeda is still running 
around stronger than ever before and Osama bin Laden is turning out 
more videotapes and CDs than Michael Jackson ever did, 25 at the last 
count that he has turned out.
  And yet for this President to say that we are winning this, that we 
are succeeding, that we are safer? We are not safer, Mr. Schiff, when 
the butcher that masterminded that mass murder of our citizens and 
citizens of the world on 9/11 is still alive, and yet we know where he 
is. And, Mr. Schiff, he is not in Iraq. That was the mistake.
  What have we done? We have wasted precious resources, not only just 
in the lives of our precious soldiers there, but to the tune of nearly 
$3 billion every week. But Osama bin Laden is alive. Al Qaeda is alive. 
Terrorist attacks have increased over 250 percent since 9/11.
  No, we are not safer than where we were. And, yes, we have an 
accountability coming, and the American people are saying one important 
thing; they are saying we need a change. We don't need more of the 
same.
  Yes, the Republicans will throw out to us, if you get up here and 
criticize the President here, you are being un-American or you are not 
being patriotic or you are talking about ``cutting and running.''
  We are talking as Democrats about being courageous, being bold and 
being smart. We will win this war on terror, but we will never win the 
war on terror as long as Osama bin Laden is running around on the 
border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. We will never win this war on 
terror if we do not realize we are going to have to develop better 
intelligence.
  Military might alone won't do it, not in this war. We are not 
fighting states or countries. We are fighting non-state actors. We are 
fighting rogues. We are fighting folks who, like rats in the night, are 
looking for holes to scurry in. Now they are secure in that hole over 
there on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And you tell me how 
far we have come, when the government of Pakistan just last week 
condescended to them to give the terrorists safe haven in that section 
of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
  No, no, no, that is not winning this war. That strategy is not right. 
There is something wrong with this picture.
  They can talk and say all they want to say about Democrats, but the 
American people are very delighted and very pleased that Democrats are 
finally getting this Congress to stand up and be Congress. That is what 
they elected us for, to provide the oversight, to ask the questions.
  We control the purse strings. And before we turn loose these purse 
strings, we have to ask the questions the American people want to know. 
They want to know when are we getting to get and cut off the head of 
bin Laden? They want to know when are we going to arrest and solve this 
worldwide terror problem?
  Who would have thought, 5 years? On this anniversary, as we look, let 
us look at the landscape. Let's look at it

[[Page 17205]]

clearly. Who would have thought that a terrorist group named Hezbollah 
would be basically running the nation of Lebanon? Who would have 
thought that a terrorist group, Hamas, would be running the 
Palestinians over in Palestine? Who would have thought that Iran would 
be on the verge of nuclear weapons? Who would have thought that North 
Korea would have eight nuclear weapons as we speak and the capacity of 
producing at least six or seven in a year's cycle? Unstable regimes.
  And who would have thought that China would be eating our lunch in 
two ways, two essential ways; not only in terms of the free market and 
the market economy that they are developing over there at the same time 
they have a planned socialist economy, but the fact that they are one 
of our largest creditors, and we are one of their largest debtors. We 
are borrowing $328 billion from China, a huge debt.
  Are we safer? I don't think so. And this administration has some 
serious questions that they have got to answer, and the American people 
are expecting it.
  I hope, Mr. Schiff, that each night that we can come on this floor, 
and we are going to take this national security, and we are going to 
show the American people that Democrats are stronger on national 
security. You know why? Because we are smarter.
  We are going to find bin Laden, and we are going to destroy him. We 
are going to beef up our resources in intelligence and the State 
Department because we know that this war on terror cannot be won 
strictly with bullets and bombs. It cannot be, for we are not dealing 
with a standing target to bomb. Nations we can. But we need to make 
friends with these nations.
  We have got the world's best military, but because we are in Iraq, 
our military is coming off at the wheels. I am not going to get into 
very direct specifics on that; I don't want the enemy to know. This is 
going over C-SPAN to the Nation. I don't want our enemies to know just 
what our situation is. But you know what it is, and I know what it is.
  Without question, we are the superior force. But, by Jove, we have 
got to keep it that way. That is the greatest deterrent to these 
terrorists, to know that we have that military capacity.
  But we won't be able to win the war on military alone. We have got to 
beef up the State Department. We have got to make sure we have the 
kinds of relationships with these countries that no nation would do 
what Pakistan has done. That is unconscionable. That is one of the 
great defeats that we have had.
  Democrats can change that. No, we don't want the same course. We want 
to get smart. We want to fight this war on terror, and we want to win 
it. And in order to win it, we have got to be smart.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Scott, I thank you for those words. They are right on 
the mark. You pose the question, who would have thought, and it is a 
good one. Who would have thought, here we are, 5 years after 9/11, that 
the mastermind of the butcher of thousands of American lives would 
still be at large? Who would have imagined that the strongest nation on 
Earth would not have succeeded in hunting him down and killing him? 
That is an astounding, astounding fact.
  But I think the important thing here tonight is this country cannot, 
must not, accept this as the best America can do. We can do better. We 
can do better in aggressively taking it to our enemy. We can do better 
defensively protecting America. We have to do better.
  The fact that this crowd that runs this House, that runs this White 
House, can't capture and kill bin Laden doesn't mean he can't be 
captured and killed. He can. He must, but not on the course this crowd 
is on.
  The fact that this crowd can't stop Iran from developing a nuclear 
bomb doesn't mean they can't be stopped. They can be stopped. They must 
be stopped.
  The fact that this crowd in this House and in the White House can't 
stop North Korea from testing its missiles doesn't mean North Korea 
can't be stopped. But it does require a certain competence in an 
administration. It does require a certain diplomatic skill in an 
administration. It does mean that you cannot alienate the rest of the 
world and expect them to come to your assistance, to rally to your 
cause.
  We seem to compartmentalize and think that we can spurn the rest of 
the world on other things, and then on the issues that we care about, 
that we can count on them.

                              {time}  2200

  It hasn't worked that way. But just because this crowd has failed, it 
doesn't mean that failure is inevitable. It isn't. I believe in this 
country, as I know you do. I believe there is a better way. I believe 
the Democrats have a better way. I believe part of that better way is 
to make this country energy independent so we are not relying on these 
Middle Eastern nations.
  Do you know why Iran can thwart the international community, they can 
thumb their nose at us? Because they are a petroleum-rich state, and 
petroleum prices are through the roof.
  It is the same reason Russia can thumb its nose at the United States 
now, because they are awash in oil money. And part of the reason they 
are awash in that oil money is because we have that addiction to oil 
that this oil-soaked administration isn't willing to confront.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Well, I think you are absolutely right, and I 
think a part of that is those who are at the helm, President Bush and 
those in the White House, are good decent people, but they are oil 
people. I mean, they think like oil people.
  That is it, when our future is not in that way. We have got to have a 
clean energy policy. We have got to invest in our own farms and our 
agriculture products like corn and soybeans and sugar cane so that we 
can develop ethanol as an alternative. We have got to have a robust 
economy in this country that is based upon our own self-sufficiency of 
oil.
  We should be going down to Brazil by the planeloads, learning and 
seeing what they have done. If Brazil can take their own automotive 
industry, their main means of transportation, and run it 80 percent on 
ethanol made from sugar cane, what is keeping us from doing that? Why 
must we be so dependent on Middle Eastern oil? It is the way they think 
in the White House.
  Now, I am telling you, it is not just me here. You have been around 
this country; all the polls are saying it. Americans want a difference. 
They want a change in direction. Quite honestly, that is why you have 
two parties. That is why you have parties here. That is why the 
Founding Fathers made it that way.
  One party cannot have it all the time, and the American people 
deserve a change. I am convinced President Bush has stayed the course. 
America says, no, no, we want a new direction.
  Well, you can't take a new direction with somebody who says stay the 
course, do what the job has done, we are here, this is the way we are 
going with the Republican-led Congress. We have got to have some 
changes. Democrats are aggressive. Democrats are smart. We have shown 
time and time in the history of this country, when this country was in 
a world war. This President was in the world, the business talks about 
Naziism, he talks about fascism and he talks about all of that about 
Hitler.
  All that time, who stood up to Hitler? Who was it who said the only 
thing we have to fear is fear itself? A Democrat, Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt. When the communists were threatening in South Korea and 
North Korea, who was there? Harry S. Truman, who said, the buck stops 
here.
  When we had that missile crisis down in Cuba, when we were on the 
throes, right on the edge of what many say meant the end of the world 
if that had happened, can you imagine? It was a Democrat with steely 
eyes who stood there and looked Khrushchev in the eyes and had the 
courage. It was John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a Democrat.
  Now, the world can rest assured this Nation will be secure in the 
hands of Democrats. We are waiting on the chance to provide the change 
and direction. I am just proud of our national

[[Page 17206]]

security review by myself and Mr. Israel, who for the past 3 years have 
provided leadership on this very issue where we have had great leaders 
like Senator Nunn, Senator Sam Nunn, who has provided the way, my 
friend from Georgia all the way in; and Sandy Berger, we have had men 
and women at the helm of national security that have done a fine job 
and we are here to do that job. This is the way for us to go, strong 
and smart.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Scott, I think this is the key importance of our 
being here week after week, as you and I and Mr. Van Hollen and others 
have. The country recognizes we cannot go on with business as usual in 
our national security. We can't just have a policy that says more of 
the same. More of the same has put this Nation at inordinate risk.
  And so the country is asking, all right, we don't like what this 
crowd is doing. We don't like what the crowd in the House is doing; we 
don't like what the crowd in the White House is doing. What are 
Democrats proposing? And for weeks now we have been laying that out, in 
the pillars of our own security plan, where we will rebuild our 
military, because that is what it really means at this point.
  Our military is strained so thin, stretched so thin, we are now using 
professional recruiters to try to recruit. We are getting bonuses to 
recruit people in the Armed Forces. We are using involuntary recalls. 
These men and women in uniform, they deserve our undying gratitude, 
because, boy, are we asking a lot of them, not only them but their 
families.
  But our military is at the breaking point. Our forces are stretched, 
our equipment is degrading in the conditions in Afghanistan and 
elsewhere. It needs an investment, it needs to be better managed than 
this administration has done, and we will build that 21st century 
military. We are committed to the war on terror and to going after the 
heart of that war, which is Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. When I was in 
Afghanistan, Mr. Scott, do you know what one of our troops said to me?
  He said, Mr. Schiff, you know, we here in Afghanistan, we feel like 
we are the third front in a two-front war, third front in a two-front 
war. This won't be the third front in a two-front war under Democratic 
leadership.
  Homeland Security? We will implement those recommendations of the 9/
11 Commission that the snooze alarm policy, the snooze button policy 
this administration has ignored. In Iraq, we will recognize the facts 
on the ground, which is now a civil war. We will adjust our strategy. 
We will reduce and redeploy our forces so the Iraqis have to take 
control of their own country.
  If Shiite and Sunni are determined to murder each other in large 
numbers, it is not the job of American troops to stand in the way and 
catch the bullets. We ought to play a supporting role; we ought to do 
everything we can to reduce the conflagration there. But ultimately 
Iraqis have to decide they want to be one country.
  Finally, we will achieve energy independence. That is a key part of 
our national security agenda. The fact that this administration has 
failed in so many of these respects doesn't mean failure is acceptable 
or inevitable. This country has always done better and can do better, 
will do better.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. You know, that certainly doesn't sound like 
cutting and running to me. It says sticking and staying, but sticking 
and staying smart. Nobody is running away from this war on terror. You 
cannot run away from it. We are simply talking about putting our 
resources where they need to be. We are talking about building a 
military and not dragging it down. Let me give you one example of where 
I am talking about where we will make choices. Democrats will not make 
this mistake. Right now we are facing our military. We are trying to 
make choices about air superiority versus ground superiority. It should 
not be one versus the other. We have got to have both.
  But here we have got right now, in my home district in Atlanta, 
Georgia, in the Atlanta metro area, I represent CBO county, Marietta, 
which is the Lockheed Martin base where we make the F-22s. Right now 
there is debate, the Army, the Air Force wants 318 F-22s. Well, we have 
got 75 already moving off the line, but they cut down their request now 
to about 125.
  If the Air Force says we need 318, we should make 318. That is what 
the military says we need in order to maintain the superiority. The F-
22 fights in the air and on the ground. We need that, but here is the 
rub. The rub is the Defense Department right now is saying we cannot 
even afford the 125.
  Why? Because the war in Iraq is making us choose between how we are 
going to fit our military. That need not be. We need not allow the war 
in Iraq to be a drag on the resources of our military operation. No 
wonder you have Iran doing what they are doing. No wonder you have 
Syria and North Korea, China, even Russia.
  No wonder we can't get around and even talk with Russia and the 
Eastern European countries about gathering up those loose nukes. Sam 
Nunn brought that to our national security meeting and made it very 
clear that quite honestly that is a number one threat to the security 
of this country.
  So when you look at the entire fix we are in, we are talking about a 
reallocation of resources. Democrats are talking about being smart, 
taking our resources and using it, stopping the drain on it, making 
sure that we don't have soldiers who are going over into Iraq for the 
third and fourth tour, or having soldiers, last we had about 30,000 
marines called up, their retirement was cut short and having to go back 
to Iraq.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Scott, let's look at this, let's look at this through 
the prism of more of the same, or stay the course, as our majority is 
advocating, as opposed to what we have outlined in a new direction on 
each of these items.
  What does it mean to stay the course? Well, what it means in terms of 
energy independence is that we continue and increase our reliance on 
Middle Eastern oil, and all of the national security risk that entails 
for that country. That is what stay the course means on energy 
independence that we remain dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
  What does more of the same mean in Iraq? More of the same in Iraq 
means most costly, the continuing casualties, American troops losing 
their lives and becoming severely injured. But in addition to that, 
more of the same in Iraq means if you look at the course of Iraq, it 
means an increase in the civil war violence, because when you look at 
the curve of the Iraqi violence, it has been a steady increase in 
sectarian violence.
  So what does stay the course mean? It means stay the increasing 
course of civil war violence. The insurgent violence, which has been on 
the increase, the number of incidents over the summer reaching all-time 
highs. What does stay the course wartime policy mean? It means more 
insurgent violence.
  Is that the course we want to stay on? The only, and, boy, I have 
searched, I have searched high and low for some good news to report out 
of Iraq. The only positive news I have seen out of Iraq has been in 
terms of the political development in terms of the elections in Iraq, 
the unity government.
  But, unfortunately, that government has not been able to solidify its 
control over Iraq. It doesn't have the confidence of the Iraqi people. 
Unfortunately, if we stay that course, that doesn't offer much hope 
either. Homeland security, what does stay the course, more of the same 
mean for America under homeland security?
  It means more Cs, more Ds, and for more Fs for our failure to do more 
for airports, nuclear plants, chemical plants. More of the same on the 
war on terror, more of the same means more messages from Osama bin 
Laden, more of the same from Zarqawi, more of the same bombings in 
London, Madrid, Turkey, elsewhere, more sanctuary in Pakistan. That's 
what stay the course means in the war on terror.
  More of the same in the military means people on their third 
deployment, fourth deployment, sixth deployment. That is what more of 
the same means in the military. That just is not right for America.

[[Page 17207]]


  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. No, it is not, and more of the same means this, 
Mr. Schiff: this is the latest report on terrorism, what the facts are. 
On 9/11, more than 5 years ago, there was an estimated number of al 
Qaeda numbers worldwide, and on 9/11/2001 it was 20,000. Now, the 
estimated number of al Qaeda numbers worldwide is 50,000. Then on 9/11/
2001, the number of al Qaeda terrorist attacks in the 5 years before 9/
11, three.
  The number of al Qaeda attacks in the 5 years since 9/11, 30. The 
number of days Osama bin Laden has been at large since U.S. military 
operations commenced in Afghanistan, 1,784 days and counting. What do 
we have to show for that?
  If we look again at the 2,600 American soldiers that we have loss in 
this war on terror, good brave soldiers, where we score the more of the 
same, no more of the same, no more of this staying the course on this 
course. We have got to correct the course and stay and fight the war on 
terror, deal with the situation in Iraq, but do it smartly with the 
resources we have.

                          ____________________