[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18124-18130]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             9/11 TRAGEDIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we have seen these 
past few days events to remember the tragic incidents of September 11. 
And, frankly, when we were reliving that tragic day, among the many 
things that crossed my mind was the realization that thousands of 
Americans died. Thousands of Americans died in their place of work for 
the simple sin, their only crime being that they were free people who 
live in a free country. They were people who love freedom, and their 
only crime was that that morning, like every other morning, they went 
to work so that they could help their family, they could feed their 
children, they could pay their bills, and they could continue to live 
and prosper in freedom.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Speaker, 9/11 was not the only attack against America. It was the 
largest attack, the terrorists' most successful attack against America, 
but by no means was it the only attack or the first attack against 
America.
  The problem, Mr. Speaker, however, was that America did not realize 
until that horrendous wake-up call of 9/11 that there were a number of 
radicals around this world who had already for a generation declared 
war. They had declared war against the United States and our allies for 
the simple reason that we live in freedom, that we cherish freedom, 
that women can work and live in freedom and have equal rights

[[Page 18125]]

to men. For those reasons, there is a group of people who declared war 
against the United States. Not only did they declare it verbally, as 
they did, but they did so in actions. And again, we just didn't wake up 
to that realization.
  When President Jimmy Carter withdrew the United States' support from 
the Shah of Iran, in essence facilitating and allowing the Ayatollah 
Khomeini to take power in Iran, he didn't realize the type of enemy we 
were dealing with.
  More recently, in February of 1993 when the first bombing of the 
World Trade Center took place killing six people, the United States 
didn't realize who the enemy was, and we didn't fight back. But the 
killers persisted in trying to kill Americans.
  In October of 1993, in Somalia 18 valuable, decent brave American 
soldiers were killed. Osama bin Laden later personally claimed credit 
for organizing the Somalia fighters. We didn't fight. On the contrary, 
we withdrew immediately from Somalia. I will quote what bin Laden said 
about our withdrawal. He said, ``America exited, dragging its tail in 
failure, defeat and ruin. Caring for nothing, America left faster than 
anyone expected.'' Again, we didn't fight.
  In June 1996, a truck bombing in the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi 
Arabia, killing 19 Americans and we did nothing. We did not fight back. 
But the killers were not content. They kept trying to kill Americans.
  And then in August 1998, the bombing of the U.S. embassies in 
Tanzania and Kenya where 224 people were killed, including many 
Americans, we didn't fight back. We did nothing.
  In December 1999, the plot to bomb the Millennium celebrations in 
Seattle that was foiled when custom agents arrested an Algerian person 
smuggling explosives into the United States. The killers continued to 
persist, and we were not fighting back.
  And then of course the tragic bombing of the USS Cole in the port of 
Yemen where U.S. 17 sailors were killed, and we did not fight back. But 
the killers were not satisfied and they continued to persist.
  And then of course we got the big wake-up call, September 11, 2001, 
the destruction of the World Trade Center, the attack on the Pentagon 
where a total of 2,992 Americans were murdered on that horrendous day. 
Finally, America woke up to the realization that there had been a war 
declared on our country and our way of life and it was time that we 
fought back, that we started bringing justice to those terrorists 
wherever they may be so we would not have to fight them here on our 
streets, so we would not have to deal with another September 11 or 
another World Trade Center explosion like the first time or another 
attempt on the celebrations like those in Seattle.
  America started fighting back finally because we found out that these 
killers are not going to stop if we don't fight because that is what we 
always did. We didn't fight back. In many cases we withdrew. Did that 
appease them? No. It emboldened them, like bin Laden said.
  After that then, after September 11, this President and this Congress 
decided to fight back and decided to remove the Taliban from power. Our 
brave men and women in uniform have done an incredible job under the 
most difficult circumstances and removed the Taliban and that which was 
a state sponsor of terrorism is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism, 
and there is a struggling democracy that is gaining ground and taking 
root in that land where al Qaeda used that land to plan the horrible 
events of 9/11.
  Also on a bipartisan vote of this House and the Senate there was a 
vote to basically remove a state sponsor of terrorism and a threat that 
was Saddam Hussein. Let me read a quote from December 16, 1998 about 
why Saddam Hussein was dangerous and what the bipartisan attitude here 
in Congress was. ``The hard fact is that as long as Saddam remains in 
power he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his 
region, and the security of the world. The best way to end that threat 
once and for all is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to 
live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights 
of its people.''
  That was not President Bush that I quoted, that was President Bill 
Clinton that I quoted when he mentioned the only way was to remove 
Saddam Hussein.
  Let me read another quote on how Congress and the country was united 
against international terrorism. ``Saddam Hussein in effect has thumbed 
his nose at the world community, and I think the President is 
approaching this in the right fashion.'' That is Senator Reid, the now-
minority leader in the Senate.
  Let me give another quote about how the country felt in a bipartisan, 
unified, united front against international terrorism and against that 
state sponsor of terrorism that was Saddam Hussein. ``I can support the 
President. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I 
think it is in the long-term interest of our national security.'' That 
is a quote from NBC Meet the Press, Senator Hillary Clinton. There was 
bipartisan support because there was a realization that Saddam Hussein 
was so dangerous.
  One last quote, Mr. Speaker. This is I think a very powerful quote. 
``It would be unrealistic, if not downright foolish, to believe we can 
claim victory on the war on terrorism and a more secure world if Saddam 
Hussein is still in power 5 years from now.'' That sounds like I 
plagiarized President Bush; but no, that was by Senator Joe Biden in 
February of 2002.
  Again, as Senator Joe Biden said, and I think it is worthwhile 
reading that quote again. He mentions that we cannot claim victory, in 
his words, he says, ``the war on terrorism and a more secure world if 
Saddam Hussein is still in power.'' Joe Biden understood that Saddam 
Hussein, a state sponsor of terrorism, the leader of that terrorism, 
had to go for our national security and for the fight, as he said, 
against international terrorism.
  It saddens me to see now how the very same people who I just read 
their quotes who were so united, who so supported this country's 
efforts in the fight against terrorism, including in the fight against 
Saddam Hussein, recognizing that he was a major state sponsor of 
terrorism, where Senator Biden says we cannot win or claim victory. And 
I will quote him again. ``It is unrealistic, if not downright foolish, 
to believe that we can claim victory on the war on terrorism and a more 
secure world if Saddam Hussein is still in power.''
  Yes, that was the consensus. So what happened? I keep hearing now the 
country is divided. But the President has not changed his tune. The 
President agrees with what these fine Members of Congress from the 
other party said and believed and were sure of because they were right 
then. The United States is the source of good for the entire world. For 
all of the oppressed people, we are the source of good and the source 
of light, the beacon of light for the entire world.
  When you had a regime like the Taliban or a regime like Saddam 
Hussein, it was a threat to our national security, as Senator Clinton 
said and as Senator Biden said and as Senator Reid said. But all of a 
sudden, when things get a little bit more difficult, then all of a 
sudden, oh, everything they said, everything they believed in, year 
after year, is thrown out the window because it is election season, 
because it is an election year.
  The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that we are at war. The reality is that 
we have people, men and women in uniform, in harm's way doing an 
incredible job. The reality is we are winning the war against 
terrorism, against these evil thugs who murder, have murdered and would 
like to continue murdering Americans if they could.
  I would like to talk about some of the many accomplishments, which is 
why we have not had another attack on U.S. soil despite the attempts of 
the terrorists because of what this Congress did under the leadership, 
the Republican leadership and the leadership of the President.
  But before I go into more detail, I would like to yield to a man who 
is a

[[Page 18126]]

leader on the fight for human rights anywhere around the world where 
human rights are violated, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). It 
is a privilege to have you here, sir.
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding, especially given the 
relationship I have with he and his brother because I am the middle of 
three sons. I have brothers on both sides of my life, and I know the 
bond between brothers and it is a privilege to serve with you and your 
brother and to fight the good fight with you.
  Before I begin talking about the threats we face, the vulnerabilities 
that we have, and frankly the courage of the men and women in uniform 
that stand in harm's way on behalf of a very grateful Nation, let me 
first honor the sacrifices of September 11.
  I was here with the leadership on the steps Monday night when a 
bipartisan group of Members of the House and Senate came together with 
extraordinary unity again to honor what happened because one of the 
great things I came away with on September 11 and that whole experience 
is that love overcomes fear, and really the only more powerful thing in 
the world than fear is love. Our country came together in a remarkable 
way. I feel even the greatest generation, which set the standard for 
sacrifice and courage in our country, was impressed with the bravery 
and the willingness to lay their life down of all of the first 
responders that entered burning buildings following the scriptural call 
that says, ``No greater love hath any man than to lay down his life for 
a friend,'' and in this case lay down their life for people they never 
knew or would know.
  We saw extraordinary heroism in the wake of September 11. That is 
what the character of this great Nation is all about. Just like in our 
own personal life, we gain our character out of these struggles. And 
boy, this has been a struggle. But I just want to pay tribute to all of 
those first responders. It seems that we still don't fully appreciate 
the heroism of men and women in uniform. It is not just soldiers, 
sailors, airmen and Marines, it is those first responders at the local 
level that have now stepped up in an amazing way, and so we pay tribute 
to that as we begin.
  But I came last week on Wednesday night and talked about the threats 
and specifically jihadism, which is really the great threat. As I was 
preparing some notes to come over tonight, I saw a scroll on Fox News 
that today the Pope spoke out and condemned fanaticism in the Islamic 
world and said we must be careful of this call for a holy war. I don't 
want to paraphrase the Pope, but I am really grateful to see that 
because I asked the question when we are looking at jihadism, or what 
they call in other countries the Islamists, which are the radicals in 
Islam that promote jihadism, waging war against anyone who doesn't 
believe as they believe, my question for all of the religious leaders 
in Islam is: Where are the mullahs?

                              {time}  2115

  Where are they in condemning suicide bombers and condemning this kind 
of violence and condemning this full-scale assault on people and 
nations that do not agree with them on their world view? That is the 
enemy, jihadism.
  Last week I talked about how it is spreading like wildfire through 
Great Britain and Europe. A book called ``Londonistan,'' talking about 
how jihadism has spread in London and Great Britain, calling even 
members of the Parliament like George Galloway by name in the book, and 
then his name surfaces in the conversation of the 24 hijackers who were 
apprehended just a month ago; talking about a book called ``While 
Europe Slept'' about other European countries that have, in the name of 
tolerance, just almost ignored the incredible rise of jihadism 
throughout Europe, and how this is a rampant problem.
  Today I wanted to bring some more information to the floor from other 
writers that I have come across that I think is helpful.
  The American Enterprise Institute, which is not exactly a 
conservative bastion or defender of this administration, one of their 
top analysts writes this, and I think it is instructive. Hamas and 
Hezbollah see themselves as part of a global movement of jihad. Hamas 
is, in fact, the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 
Egypt, with affiliates across the Muslim world. Although the Muslim 
Brotherhood in Egypt renounced violence in order to survive fierce 
government repression, it supports violence and terrorism in other 
places. Hezbollah was founded by Iran. These groups take pride in being 
the brothers and comrades-in-arms of the terrorists who attacked New 
York, Washington, London, Madrid, Bombay, Bali; and they celebrated 
when those atrocities happened.
  As they also say, quite openly, they are aiming to establish a new 
caliphate that would create what they view as the golden age of Islam, 
and they want this caliphate to rule over all the lands of the Muslim 
empires of the past, from Morocco in Spain to the west, to the 
Philippines in the east, taking in the southern half of Europe, the 
northern half of Africa and most of Asia.
  Now, as I said last week, we intercepted a letter between Zarqawi and 
Zawahiri before we killed Zarqawi. In that letter, it says exactly 
this, use the infidels', us, presence in the Middle East, to expand the 
caliphate, revive the caliphate, and they said in the letter, from 
Morocco to Indonesia, this same extraordinarily large territory, which 
they considered their rule, their empire.
  So, if anyone is naive enough to think that this is all about our 
presence in Iraq, they are in denial. They are simply not wanting to 
face the facts of the threats of jihadism spreading around the world. 
That is really the enemy. We talk about a war on terror, but terror is 
a tactic used by the enemy. The enemy are the jihadists, and this is an 
aggressive plan. The Wall Street Journal editorialized 2 weeks ago and 
said that some people have an aversion to conflict. We just don't want 
to face this.
  I mean, 5 years after September 11, in amazing unity, and I am 
grateful for that, in a bipartisan way we gathered. But some people 
that gathered don't want to face the facts that these threats are 
growing. History will sort out what caused it to grow and whether 
things that we have done or said aggravated it. But the truth is, it is 
a real threat.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, a very prominent Tennessean, the former Vice 
President of the United States, he has a movie out called ``An 
Inconvenient Truth.''
  I am glad that we talk about global warming. We had a great hearing 
today on it and talked about nuclear energy. Even the founder of 
Greenpeace reported today, at our hearing, the concept of nuclear 
energy to reduce CO2 emissions to clean up the global air 
quality and save the planet. Nuclear energy is a solution. We need to 
face that.
  But I want to tell you about another inconvenient truth. It is an 
inconvenient truth that over half of the Democrats in the United States 
Senate voted to remove Saddam Hussein by force, and almost half the 
Democrats in this House voted to remove Saddam Hussein by force, and 
now a whole lot of them are wanting to either leave early or publicly 
tell the world that it was a mistake.
  Now, let me tell you, when you vote to do something, you need to 
understand when you vote to remove Saddam Hussein, a dictator, a 
tyrant, a genocidal mass murderer, who had invaded other countries and 
had built up its guard around Baghdad to protect his empire, that it is 
not going to be easy, and it could be tough. It could require 
extraordinary sacrifice and we, as a Nation, voted to do it, and it is 
an inconvenient truth for them that they voted to do it, because it 
would be real easy just to erase that and say, oh, I don't have 
anything to do with that. But we agreed to do it, and why can't we, any 
more in this country, stand at the water's edge together when men and 
women are in harm's way on our behalf at this critical moment in 
history.
  Now, let me just get to our vulnerabilities. Maybe I should come back 
to our vulnerabilities.

[[Page 18127]]


  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. If I may, I would like to, because 
I think the gentleman from Tennessee brings up some really, really 
important points, I guess that some of the fine men and women on the 
Democratic Party side believe that if we just went away, if the United 
States just left the Middle East, I assume that would be stop 
supporting Israel, I don't know.
  But if we just pulled back from the Middle East as some have said, 
some have said we should pull back to Japan, to Okinawa, which, by the 
way, in military terms for the Navy is farther away than the Navy yards 
here in Virginia. So in other words if we left there, if we were just 
good, if we just behaved, that these terrorists would leave us alone, 
that they would go away.
  I mentioned a little while ago a list of attacks against America that 
were way before 9/11, way before we were in Iraq. But I guess some just 
believed naively that if we just left Iraq, just left Afghanistan, that 
everything would be hunky dory
  Yet, I think it is important to kind of listen to what our enemy is 
saying. When you have Hezbollah leader Nasrallah saying, ``Death to 
America,'' and let me quote him, regardless, this is a quote, 
regardless of how the world has changed after 9/11, after the 11th of 
September, death to America will remain a reverberating and powerful 
slogan. Death to America.
  I guess some believe that he doesn't really mean it, that if we just, 
I don't know, retracted from the world that they would go away, bin 
Laden, who, by the way, very cleverly, started a media campaign to try 
to divide our country, very effectively, I might add. Let me quote you 
about that, by the way, what bin Laden said. He said, al Qaeda intends 
to launch a, quote, media campaign to create a wedge between the 
American people and their government.
  He also said that the media campaign, and I am quoting him now, aimed 
at creating pressure from the American people on the American 
Government to stop their campaign. There are some that, I guess, 
because they are naive, are doing exactly, exactly what our enemy says 
that has to happen in order to defeat the United States, in order to 
defeat the United States.
  Let us be very clear that the terrorists' aim, the aim of the 
terrorists is total destruction of the United States of our way of life 
and everything that we believe in. It is not because we may have been 
in Iraq; it is not because we support Israel. All those things, 
obviously, upset them.
  But let me quote Osama bin Laden again, where he says, quote, the war 
is for you or for us to win, talking about the West. If we win, if we 
win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever. That is how they 
think.
  So I don't understand how, when there was such a consensus, how 
everybody understood that, how the terrorists continue to do the same 
thing, how to kill Americans, but because of the efforts of this 
President and this Congress, they have not been able to do so here, and 
the terrorists continue to say what they are going to do.
  How is it possible that some refused to listen, like I guess happened 
in the 1930s, when some refused to listen to Winston Churchill when he 
said there is an evil out there, the Nazis. They are not going to go 
away, we have to confront them.
  So I kind of pose that as a question to my colleague from Tennessee, 
because I don't get it, I don't get it. How much clearer can the 
actions and the words of the terrorists be before some of our men and 
women get it, understand it. Realize that we are not the bad guys, we 
are the good guys. It is the terrorists that we are fighting, and they 
are not going to stop, they are not going to go away if we just send 
our troops to Okinawa and Japan and pretend that they no longer exist. 
I mean, I don't get it.
  Mr. WAMP. I think it was General Casey who said if we leave Iraq 
prematurely, they will follow us home. I will finish what the American 
Enterprise Institute analyst said about this presence in Iraq. He said 
jihadists from around the world have flocked to Iraq to fight America 
and its allies. They believe they will win and drive the infidels from 
Mesopotamia, the name they use to emphasize that they have no regard 
for modern national identities.
  If they succeed in Iraq, they say they will use it as a base from 
which to conquer the rest of the lands surrounding the Persian Gulf, a 
jumping off point for further conquest. In Time magazine Sunday, Max 
Boot writes this. He says, if we believe that wholeheartedly supporting 
friendly dictators works, we should remember that our support for the 
Shah of Iran in the 1970s and Yasser Arafat in the 1990s has taught us 
that secular strongmen cannot keep the lid on forever.
  Either we push for change now, or we risk a fundamentalist explosion 
later on, and we need to be honest with the American people, to my 
friend from Florida, and let the people know that we have difficult 
days ahead. I have been on the Homeland Security appropriations 
subcommittee for 4 years. I have been briefed at the highest level. I 
have been to the United Nations, I have met with our allies from Europe 
and the Middle East.
  I have got deeply into the issue of the nuclear threats and how 
terrorists are very interested in the A.Q. Kahn network, an 
international nuclear arms broker who is now, frankly, under house 
arrest in Pakistan, and how Libya gave up their nuclear weapons. The 
greatest threat of all is that these jihadists are able to get a 
nuclear weapon. We had better emphasize our security for the future of 
the free world.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Look, it is clear who our enemy is. 
It is clear that they have been there before Iraq, before the 
liberation of Iraq. Before Afghanistan, they were in Iraq. They have 
killed Americans for a generation. They are not going to go away if we 
just wish them to go away. But luckily we have had some great success. 
Is there a reason why there has not been an attack on American soil?
  To talk a little bit about that, I would like to recognize a person 
who I greatly admire from the great State of New Jersey, but Mr. 
Garrett has been a leader, particularly on cutting government waste, on 
fighting for the little guy for small business. I would like to 
recognize him. Maybe he could tell us a little bit about why we are 
succeeding, why we haven't had an attack. What is it that we have done 
that is working.
  With that, I would like to yield to Mr. Garrett.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank you for that. I thank the 
gentleman from Florida for bringing this matter to the floor tonight, 
and I appreciate your comment ``fighting for the little guy'' with 
regard to the economic issue, and I think we are all fighting for the 
little guy and the middle guy and the big guy in the sense that we want 
to have security here at home for America.
  What I would like to do, if I may, just spend a couple of minutes 
speaking about some of the strides we have made in this country through 
the efforts of this House to make America stronger. I will touch on 
some of the comments made on the other side of the aisle where they are 
saying we have not made improvements, specifically in the area of port 
security.
  I represent the Fifth Congressional District in New Jersey, the very 
top of the State of New Jersey. The people I represent in the Fifth 
District of New Jersey remember all too well the events of September 
11. We live in the shadows, really, of the former World Trade Center as 
well as three major airports, the second busiest port in the Nation, 
Newark, and a number of national landmarks as well, such as the Statue 
of Liberty. So the threat of another attack in our area looms very 
large in our daily lives. Ensuring that government is doing its best to 
prevent terror attacks and prepare should the worst occur is more than 
just an important part of my work here in Washington.
  It is a matter of life and death for my neighbors and fellow New 
Jerseyans. This last Wednesday I had the opportunity to tour Newark 
Seaport, along

[[Page 18128]]

with U.S. customs and border protection officials. Basically, I went 
there to assess current procedures and technologies, since I had been 
there several years before, to see what they are using now to detect 
and prevent future threats.
  While I was there, there was obviously, still, always things that we 
can do to make our security more airtight. But what I saw on this tour 
was encouraging, to say the least. You know, terrorists consistently 
alter their techniques and targets that keep Americans guessing where 
and when they might attack next and where we might be most vulnerable.

                              {time}  2130

  So that means that we must remain one step ahead of them in every 
facet, and the funding we have allocated towards port security has 
really gone a large step in that direction.
  When we awoke to the very real dangers of the contemporary world on 
September 11, 2001, you can say we were shocked to discover the dangers 
hidden in our unsecured trade infrastructure. But today we have a 
layered approach to port security that has significantly increased our 
safety, an approach that is improving daily with the development of new 
tools, new technology, new methods to ensure that our trade is safe, 
yet as efficient as possible.
  Right now, and I want to make a note of this, right now 100 percent 
of all containers coming into ports shipped to the U.S. receive a risk 
assessment. Each and every container must have a detailed manifest that 
accurately depicts what is being shipped in it and we know who is 
sending it and receiving that container as well. We also have detailed 
data on their shipping habits in the past and we can prioritize our 
inspection efforts now.
  So the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the past has led to 
the efforts to push our borders actually out past where our borders 
are, all the way back to where the manufacturers who are building those 
items come from, whether it is in another country or another continent, 
all those items that come into this country for our consumption.
  We now have CBP officers at 44 ports around the world. That is up 
from zero prior to 2001. By the end of this year, CBP will have 
officers at 50 ports around the world. That represents 90 percent of 
all the trade bound for the U.S.
  These officers work with the host countries there, and what they do 
is they inspect the containers before they are even loaded. Then there 
is radiation detectors at each of these ports to ensure that the trucks 
entering the port are scanned for the most dangerous of weapons.
  As I said before, the terrorist seeks to exploit whatever our weakest 
link is and find the easiest way to find access to our Nation. Our 
allies and trading partners have recognized the great risk to worldwide 
trade posed by terrorists, and they are now volunteering with our 
Customs Trade-Partnership Against Terrorism Plan, that is the CT-PAT.
  This effort allows us to work all the way back with the shippers, the 
manufacturers, to secure every aspect of trade, from the factory to the 
railcar to the truck all the way right here to our port. So by 
strengthening the security before even shipping items reach our 
stateside ports, we make our ports dramatically safer.
  This goes to a point made on the other side saying that all the 
security at our ports now, when it comes to items coming into our 
country, are done at our ports. The fact of the matter is that is 
absolutely wrong, what they were saying. To reiterate, 44 ports around 
the world right now, it is going to be up to 50 by the end of the year, 
90 percent of everything coming into this country.
  After the attacks on September 11, the Federal Government invested 
millions of dollars into new technology to enhance our port security. 
Scanning equipment that was unheard of literally 5 years ago is now 
installed and working in each of these ports. I have seen this stuff. 
It is amazing.
  The latest scanning technology can not only detect radiation, but it 
can even determine what type of radiation is present within that 
container by simply a single sweep of that container. It is 
fascinating. If you are not an engineer, as I am not, it is just 
amazing what they can do.
  Now what they have is new technology, even newer than just a couple 
of years ago, and what they have done is replaced a three-step process 
down to a one-step process. So now the entire scan is done in one step, 
not three, and what this does, of course, is give the agents even more 
time to scan more containers.
  In the State of New Jersey, where I am from, we are fortunate to have 
Rutgers University. What our university has done through Federal 
funding is establish a multi-disciplinary Port Security Laboratory and 
research facility, which I had the opportunity to look at as well. They 
are using homeland security funds to develop still better detection 
systems for the future in tracking container ships.
  There are also private companies out there as well, besides 
universities. One such company is SI International. This company, that 
I had the opportunity to check out as well, they are engaged in some of 
the most amazing and greatest advances in military technology and they 
are turning to homeland security that I have ever seen or any of us 
have seen before, coming up daily with better innovations.
  So I sit back not as an engineer just to marvel at this and I applaud 
all of the brilliant minds for their efforts to make Americans safer. 
As one Member of Congress, I sleep a little bit better knowing there 
are great minds out there that are working on these projects from a 
technical point of view.
  We have come great strides, made great improvements since 9/11, and 
it is in part because of the actions of this House. Just recently, as 
you know, we have invested $1.2 billion in further appropriations to go 
for the Security and Accountability of Every Port Act to make sure all 
the ports have the latest in technology, training and personnel at 
them.
  We must agree here today that we will continue to ensure that our 
homeland security officials have those resources to prevent future 
terrorist attacks from using our global trade system ever to take lives 
of Americans again.
  With that, I appreciate again your efforts here on the floor tonight, 
and applaud your work.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman from New Jersey for bringing up those important points. The 
ports are such a huge part of our economy and the steps that have been 
taken to strengthen our ports
  But there is so much more that has been done, the funding for the 
first responders in homeland security. Through a variety of programs, 
these are amazing programs. Over $30 billion in Federal funding has 
been allocated for the first responders since 2001.
  The U.S. PATRIOT Act of 2001, which was reauthorized recently, which 
is obviously a key tool in preventing another domestic terrorist 
attack. By the way, that was a bill that was reauthorized, and 156 
House Democrats voted to oppose the reauthorization of that essential 
tool to fight terrorism here, so the terrorism doesn't hit us here 
specifically.
  So much more. The Homeland Security Act of 2002, which established 
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as an executive department of 
the U.S., and tasked that department with preventing domestic terrorist 
attacks. That was opposed by 120 House Democrats who voted no against 
the creation of that department to protect the homeland against 
domestic terrorist attacks. Thank God, thank God, the majority 
prevailed and that took place.
  The SAFE Port Act the Congressman just mentioned. The Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which made important 
reforms in the intelligence community, including the creation of the 
Director of National Intelligence to coordinate and oversee all 
intelligence-related gathering. A huge issue that this Congress got 
done, which is why we are a little safer.

[[Page 18129]]

  Project BioShield, which delivered $5.6 billion, with a B, to enhance 
research and development and procurement and the use of biomedical 
countermeasures to keep us safer.
  There are so many other issues that we have done, which is why 
America is safer now than it was before 9/11, despite the fact that 
many of those key pieces of legislation, the Democrats opposed them 
every single step of the way. They always opposed them. But we have to 
do more, such things as emergency communications, which we have to do 
better at.
  The reason we have to do more, Mr. Speaker, is because the 
terrorists, they are not this little rag-tag group of people. They are 
organized. They are funded. They are out there. As a matter of fact, I 
understand there is a number of them meeting, state sponsors of 
terrorism, that are meeting really close to our shores here off the 
United States.
  To give us an idea of who they are and what they are doing and how we 
have to be vigilant, I would like to now recognize the vice chairman of 
the House Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Thank you very much. I want to commend you 
and all of the distinguished colleagues who have spoken in this hour on 
this special order on this ultimately important matter, especially 
always important, but especially in this week when we recall one of the 
greatly tragic dates in our history.
  There have been other dates in our history that have been tragic, but 
in terms of an attack on unarmed civilians, September 11, 2001, is 
without precedent in terms of not only the cruelty with which harm was 
inflicted that day upon thousands of families, upon our great Nation, 
but in a cowardly way, in this way of unfortunately the new war, the 
war upon values, the war upon our way of life, the war where civilians 
are not only fair game, but the primary objective of the enemy.
  We have to learn from history in order to be able to act as 
effectively as possible to protect the homeland. We have to learn from 
history. Sometimes we even have to learn from the strangest sources, 
most unorthodox sources, the animal kingdom. The ostrich, for example.
  The ostrich, when in fear, adopts a curious position. It hides its 
head in the soil. Not only by doing so does it adopt physically a 
peculiar position, but it diminishes its security by doing so because 
it has not the ability to see what is happening in its surroundings.
  So even from sources as unorthodox and unexpected as the animal 
kingdom, specifically with the ostrich, we have to learn, because I 
would maintain, always respectfully, that some have adopted the 
position of the ostrich with regard to political positions and 
positions with regard to public policy, even as important as with 
regard to our national security. Hiding our heads in the soil, in the 
sand, to avoid seeing the fact that we have many enemies, is not an 
appropriate, not only physical position, but one that is conducive to 
security.
  On the contrary, we have many enemies. In recent history the enemy 
was acting with impunity. When the enemy acted in 1993, I remember I 
had just arrived in this Congress, Mr. Speaker. I had just arrived and 
we were meeting.
  I remember the Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich, who at that time was not 
yet Speaker, was addressing us in a retreat in February of 1993. I had 
just arrived the previous month to this Congress. As he spoke, the news 
arrived about a dreadful terrorist attack upon civilians in New York 
City. I recall how then Congressman Newt Gingrich, who was to be the 
Speaker in the next Congress, addressed us and very calmly and with 
great wisdom told us that we were living in a new era, an era that 
included the savage attacks upon unarmed civilians by cowardly enemies. 
February 1993.
  The reality of the matter is that the enemy saw that it could act 
with impunity. And the years passed, and the enemy attacked again with 
impunity. And the enemy attacked again with impunity, attacked American 
embassies in different countries with impunity. The enemy went so far 
as to attack a vessel of the United States Navy, killing many sailors 
of the USS Cole, inflicting great harm upon the United States.
  The enemy acted with impunity. The enemy was convinced that it could 
continue to act with impunity, so it organized what became the most 
horrendous attack upon unarmed civilians in the history of the United 
States.

                              {time}  2145

  And the enemy was convinced that it could continue to act with 
impunity. The enemy miscalculated because a new day had arrived in the 
United States of America and thus a new day had arrived in the world. 
The free world led as it is, and it must be by the United States of 
America. The enemy miscalculated.
  So from where the enemy had prepared the most horrendous attack upon 
civilians in history, thousands of miles away in terrorist training 
camps in a desolate country with a great people and a great history but 
a country that has suffered much, in Afghanistan.
  The enemy was convinced that geography, distance, and history, 
especially the lessons of recent history, would continue to protect it. 
But a new day had arrived, and, of course, the enemy did not act on 
September 11, 2001, with impunity. It acted in a cowardly way but not 
with impunity. And the United States of America, led by the Commander 
in Chief, attacked the enemy in Afghanistan and subsequently attacked 
the enemy in Iraq.
  And today the reality of the matter is that those who would like to 
and who dream and who, if they can, they actually plan to attack 
unarmed civilians in American towns and cities, those terrorists to a 
great extent today are occupied, trying to defeat, trying to inflict 
damage upon the United States Armed Forces in Iraq and our allies in 
Iraq, not in American towns and cities. And the fact that there has 
been no attack upon American civilians, American towns and cities for 5 
years, the anniversary that we commemorate this year, is not by chance 
nor is it by luck. It is by hard work.
  Mr. Garrett, I am so glad that he spoke, whom I admire so much, like 
Mr. Wamp, who is here also. And Mr. Garrett talked about the actions of 
this Congress. I was tasked by Speaker Hastert in the last Congress to 
chair the subcommittee of the then temporary Homeland Security 
Committee that Speaker Hastert created. I was tasked with the job, a 
difficult job, among the most difficult jobs I have ever had because it 
is always difficult when you are dealing with committee chairmen and 
jurisdiction. It is a very difficult task. But he asked me to help him 
to create a permanent Homeland Security Committee. And in the last 
Congress that was what took up most of my time, and we succeeded, with 
the leadership of Speaker Hastert and with the help of the majority of 
our colleagues. We succeeded. We created a permanent Homeland Security 
Committee.
  And we have taken other steps that Mr. Garrett outlined, the PATRIOT 
Act and its reauthorization and many other steps, to try to make the 
homeland, the people of the United States of America as secure as 
possible. And we are more secure. We are safer today than we were 5 
years ago.
  But when we see, as was pointed out, and it does not surprise me, but 
it is very rare to see the media talking about the fact that 90 miles 
from the shores of the United States this week, celebrating the fifth 
anniversary of 
9/11, all of the state sponsors of terrorism throughout the world have 
gathered, and they are now gathering, receiving instructions and 
receiving orientation and inspiration from themselves and coordinating. 
They are today 90 miles from the shores of the United States. I think 
it is called, under the umbrella of the United Nations, the Summit of 
Nonaligned Countries. How interesting. Nonaligned.
  You have Mr. Ahmadinejad, who does not stop in his extraordinary 
pursuit of the atomic weapon and publicly says that he wishes to wipe 
from the face of the map a democracy and friend of the United States, 
Israel. You have Mr. Ahmadinejad now receiving inspiration

[[Page 18130]]

as we speak, receiving inspiration and guidance from the other state 
sponsors of terrorism. And, of course, the state sponsor of terrorism 
with all that experience, the dictator in Havana with 47 years of 
experience exporting terrorism, attacking the United States of America 
in every form and every way possible as long as he can protect his 
totalitarian power.
  Mr. Ahmadinejad is there now, as is Mr. Chavez and all of the other 
state sponsors of terrorism. They are there. The North Koreans, the 
Syrians. You name them, Mr. Speaker, they are there.
  So the enemies, our enemies, the enemies of freedom, they haven't 
stopped in their efforts. So we must not stop either, working to 
protect not only the national security of this great land but the 
security and the safety of the people of this great land and of all of 
the freedom-loving people in the world as we work to expand that sacred 
right of freedom that all people are entitled to, including those who 
are oppressed by those state sponsors of terrorism. They may be 
oppressed by totalitarian states, but they have freedom in their hearts 
and they long to be free, and they deserve our support and they always 
will have it.
  I appreciate your convening us this evening on this ultimately 
important subject.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  He mentioned how America had been attacked so many times with 
impunity, and yet some in this country still do not understand that we 
are at war. But listen to what our enemy is saying. Bin Laden calls the 
war against terrorism in Iraq the Third World War, and yet some in our 
country still refuse to admit that we are at war.
  And he talks about how in Iraq the whole world is watching this war 
and the two adversaries, the Islamic nation on the one hand and the 
United States and its allies on the other. And he goes on to say, Mr. 
bin Laden does, it is either victory and glory or misery and 
humiliation.
  What is hard for me to believe, though, is that Members of this body 
and of the Senate, and I think it is very important to be respectful of 
this institution, but there is a Member of the Senate who said that it 
would be unrealistic, if not downright foolish, in other words, you 
would be a fool, to believe that we can claim victory in the war on 
terrorism and a more secure world, that you would be a fool, according 
to this prestigious, recognized Democratic leader, if Saddam Hussein is 
still in power. You would be a fool is what Mr. Biden said. And yet now 
how is it possible
  I would never say that those who said that and now have changed their 
minds are fools. But that is what Mr. Biden said. You would have to be 
a fool to believe that Saddam Hussein could have stayed in power and we 
could have been victorious in the war on terrorism. And I have a hard 
time believing how they don't unite with the President of the United 
States to support our troops on the field while we are at war.
  Mr. Speaker, I will now yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And I will take us through the balance of our hour here in just a 
couple of minutes. I want to make myself perfectly clear as we close.
  The enemy is not the Democratic Party. The enemy is al Qaeda, 
Hezbollah, Hamas, the jihadists. They are the enemy. Our opponents here 
in this very healthy discussion are the Democrats. But I have to say I 
believe deep in my soul that the members of the minority party in 
Washington who believe that we should pull out of Iraq by a date 
certain are wrong. Senator Lieberman is right; Ned Lamont is wrong. And 
there is disagreement in their party over this, but it is a matter of 
life and death, war and peace, tyranny and freedom; and Ned Lamont and 
that mentality is wrong. We cannot afford to fail in Iraq.
  I also want to talk about our vulnerabilities briefly. The border is 
a vulnerability. We had testimony yesterday by Duncan Hunter, the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee; and Harold Rogers, my 
chairman of Homeland Security appropriations, about how the southern 
Border is being infiltrated by people not just from Mexico and Central 
America but from all over the world; and it is a vulnerability for us.
  But I want to say it goes unreported, underreported that tremendous 
progress has been made, especially in the last 12 months. We heard the 
testimony yesterday, crystal clear, we now do not catch and release. 
Ninety-nine percent last month, certified, illegals coming across the 
border were detained and held to be returned to their country of 
origin, and the word is out. That is a tremendous deterrent, and the 
numbers are way down of people coming across the border. The fence 
below San Diego, two tiered, is making a big difference. The National 
Guard is making a difference. Billions of dollars having been spent is 
making a difference. As you heard the gentleman from New Jersey say, 
our ports are more secure. And most importantly, we are in the 
intelligence business again because that is why we failed prior to 
September 11.
  And I want to close with this for our troops: John Stuart Mill said 
this: ``War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.'' He said: 
``The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which 
thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.'' He said: ``The person 
who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more 
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has 
no chance of ever being free unless those very freedoms are made and 
kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.''
  And those people are our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. And 
we hail them and thank them for their courage and their sacrifice.

                          ____________________