Providing for Consideration of H. Res. 994, Expressing Sense of the House of Representatives on Fifth Anniversary of Terrorist Attacks Launched Agains
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 994, EXPRESSING SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF TERRORIST ATTACKS LAUNCHED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 -- (House of Representatives - September 13, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we remember that terrible day of September 11, 2001. We continue to mourn for those who are lost. Our hearts continue to ache for the loved ones left behind. We honor those first responders who saved so many lives. We continue to stand firm as we pursue justice against those who perpetrated those attacks. And we remain committed to finding and eliminating terrorists around the world.
Mr. Speaker, almost every year since 2001, Congress has passed resolutions commemorating the September 11 attacks. In past years those resolutions have been thoughtful, appropriate, and solidly bipartisan, as they should be. Sadly and unfortunately, that is not the case this year.
Instead, the Republican leadership of this House has chosen to include controversial language in the resolution, including language celebrating the passage of legislation that many of us, both Democrats and Republicans, find to be deeply problematic.
For example, the resolution before us celebrates the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, which I and many others, Republicans and Democrats, believe went too far in sacrificing American's constitutional civil liberties.
Rand Corporation terrorism expert Brian Michael Jenkins recently made this point very well. He argues that strengthening America must involve preserving American values. And I quote: ``We cannot claim to be a Nation of laws, a champion of democracy, when we too easily accept a disturbing pattern of ignoring inconvenient rules, justifying our actions by extraordinary circumstances, readily resorting to extrajudicial actions based on broad assertions of unlimited executive authority, and espousing public arguments against any constraints on how we treat those in our custody. The defense of democracy demands the defense of democracy's ideals. To ignore this is to risk alienation and isolation. And defeat.''
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us celebrates the 2005 passage of what many of us consider to be a punitive, controversial immigration bill, a bill that couldn't even pass the Republican Senate and a bill that President Bush does not even support.
Mr. Speaker, it did not have to be this way, and it should not be this way. On Monday night the United States Senate passed its own version of the September 11 resolution, S. Res. 565, and I will insert a copy of the Senate bill at the conclusion of my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill approaches this issue the right way. It sticks to remembering the victims, condemning the attacks and their perpetrators, recommitting the United States to fighting terrorism, and commending the members of our Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, first responders, members of the intelligence community, and others who are on the front lines of this effort. The Senate bill was cosponsored by every single Senator, Republican and Democrat. Every single Senator put their names on this bill, and it was passed unanimously. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the same thing is not good enough for the leadership in this House. Why on this subject, where unity is vitally important, does the leadership of this House seek disunity? Let us commemorate, not politicize, September 11.
This resolution should not be a Republican resolution. It should be a resolution that defies party label. I am worried that some in this House are so consumed with politics that they would use this terrible tragedy for partisan gain, and I find that offensive.
The resolution before us also states as fact that ``the Nation is safer than it was on September 11, 2001.'' Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the actions of this administration, particularly the war in Iraq, have made us less safe. Five years ago the world stood in sympathy and solidarity with America. Today, America's standing in the world is at the lowest point in history. Mr. Speaker, we invaded and now occupy a country that posed no imminent threat to the United States. Despite definitive and repeated findings that there were no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, a finding most recently echoed by the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, the President and Vice President continue their misleading efforts to link al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Iraq, and 9/11 all together.
The war in Iraq and the war against terrorism are distinct. The present Iraq policy, many of us believe, has made us less safe and must be changed. Even our top generals in Iraq have conceded that our policy in Iraq has actually produced more terrorists. This does not make us safer, Mr. Speaker. It makes us more isolated and more vulnerable in an increasingly dangerous world.
We know that resources were diverted from Afghanistan, where the 9/11 deadly plot was born, in order to invade and occupy Iraq. And we know now that the trail of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, has grown stone cold. We know that the President's policies in Iraq have put an enormous strain on our military, with U.S. military readiness levels now at historic lows.
We know that the independent 9/11 Commission has just issued a 5-year report card on President Bush and the Congress filled with D's and F's on homeland security. And I think we all know, if we are being honest with ourselves, that we in this Congress have underfunded so much of our homeland security.
We know that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased the budget deficit to record proportions because this administration and Congress have done what no other President and Congress have ever done in the history of the United States: they have continued to fund this war completely outside the normal budget and to grant a series of tax cuts to the wealthiest of the wealthy during a time of war.
And we know, Mr. Speaker, that Iraq is rapidly descending into an ethnic and religious civil war with a daily civilian toll that tells every single Iraqi that nowhere is safe from violence, not their homes, not their jobs, not their schools, not even their hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution could have been, should have been a thoughtful, bipartisan commemoration of September 11, its victims, and the men and women who fight to protect us each and every day. That is what we should have on the floor today. Unfortunately, the resolution before us does not meet that standard.
Members of this House have differences about policy. There are differences about the war in Iraq, and I respect and appreciate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have a very different opinion on this war than I do. We have differences about protecting civil liberties. We have differences about how best to deal with immigration. But there are no differences, there are no differences, when it comes to honoring the memories of those lost on September 11. There are no differences when it comes to commending the men and women on the front lines of the war on terror. And there are no differences when it comes to the desire to protect this country from future terrorist attacks.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that the leadership of this House, during this most solemn week, has chosen not to focus solely on the things that bring us together as Members of Congress and as Americans
BREK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from both my friend from Texas and my chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, the gentleman from California, and I would just say that that was a really good campaign speech as he went through a litany of issues. But this is not a day for campaign speeches.
Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. Once I finish my sentence.
Mr. DREIER. I was just accused of making a campaign speech when I am talking about the reverence of September 11.
Mr. McGOVERN. And I would say to the gentleman that on Monday, those Members who were in town, Republicans and Democrats, gathered on the East Front of the Capitol in solidarity. There were no campaign speeches, there was no politics. People gathered in solidarity together to commemorate those who lost their lives and to honor those who gave such tremendous sacrifice on September 11th.
The United States Senate on Monday night had a resolution that every single Member of the United States Senate, Republican and Democrat, both, all co-sponsored and passed unanimously. There was unity. There was a desire not to debate the PATRIOT Act, not to debate the House version of the Border Security bill which the Republican-controlled Senate doesn't like and even the President doesn't like. It was about putting all those issues aside where there are differences, not just between Democrats and Republicans, I would say to the gentleman from Texas, but on issues like the PATRIOT Act there were a number of Republicans who had concerns about it.
So this is not about one party versus the other. But on an issue like this involving commemorating the terrible tragedy of September 11 and honoring those who sacrificed their lives, I would like to think in the spirit here of what happened Monday night and using the example of what went on in the United States Senate, that we could rise to the occasion
Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying it was within our leadership that I first mentioned the idea of our once again singing God Bless America on the East Front of the Capitol, and I believe that that was a very important moment to once again let the American people know that we stand together, and it was my hope that we would be able to see strong bipartisanship as we proceed in these coming weeks following the fifth anniversary of September 11.
I also would like to say that as we look at this resolution, and a strong attempt was made by our leadership team to work with Members of the minority to fashion a resolution that would enjoy bipartisan support. And I believe that it is essential for us to recognize the tools that have allowed us to ensure that we have not suffered another September 11. And I deeply resent being accused of making a campaign speech as we revere the lives that were lost on September 11.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his comments and reclaim my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me state for the record that in 2002, when we had a resolution on this issue, it passed unanimously. In 2004 and 2005, the resolutions that were brought to this floor were jointly sponsored by Representatives HYDE and LANTOS both times. There was an effort at bipartisanship then, and I think that is the model. That is the model we should be following here. The bottom line is this is not a resolution that has been produced as a result of bipartisan consultation.
But let me go back to the point I was trying to make in the beginning, and that is, this is a very solemn week, and we should not be doing anything but trying to bring this House together like they did in the United States Senate so that we speak with one voice and that we make it clear that we are together when it comes to commemorating those who lost their lives and those who have sacrificed so much and those who continue to put their lives on the line for the protection of all people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind some of the previous speakers here that the title of this bill, H. Res. 994, is expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. And I do that because we have heard a lot of speeches here and we have talked about a lot of different issues that are separate from commemorating those who lost their lives, those who sacrificed on September 11, those who continue to protect our country.
We have talked about the PATRIOT Act and border security. We have talked about a whole litany of things, and those are all certainly important issues and legitimate issues for us to discuss, how best to protect this country. Those are things we should be debating here on a regular basis on the House floor, but they are controversial, some of these initiatives. They are controversial with a lot of Members of your own party.
I wish we would get back to the point that this resolution here today, and what some of us are troubled by, is that this should be about unity and this should be about honoring those who sacrificed, those who lost their lives, those who have served our country so well. That is what this should be about and not a litany of controversial items that you want to promote during a campaign year.
If you want to do that, do it in a separate resolution, take up a separate bill, but we should all be together when it comes to a resolution on September 11.
The United States Senate got it right. They got it right over in the United States Senate. We should do the same here in the House.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just respond to the gentleman by again pointing to what the other body, the United States Senate, did where 100 Senators, Democrats, Republicans, came together as one, cosponsored a resolution and voted unanimously for a resolution.
That is what we should be doing during this solemn week, not introducing legislation that inspires, quite frankly, the kind of debate that we have here today about issues that really are not about commemorating that day but issues that are highly controversial, ranging from everything to immigration to civil liberties to you name it. That is not the way we should be doing this
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just take issue with the gentleman from Texas. He says this whole question of the Nation being safer than it was on September 11, 2001, has nothing to do with this resolution. Well, that is what it says in this resolution, if he reads the resolution. There are some things contained in this resolution that people over here, and that people on both sides legitimately have some questions with.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Texas has 2 1/2 minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will close for our side.
Mr. Speaker, the issue about whether or not the Nation is safer than it was on September 11, 2001, is a legitimate topic for debate, but not on this resolution. The issue of the PATRIOT Act, there are differences on that. I have a lot of reservations about the PATRIOT Act, as do many Republicans. That is a legitimate debate we should continue to have. The issue about how best to protect our borders is a serious and important and legitimate issue. President Bush and Senator McCain have one opinion on how we should do it, which I think makes a heck of a lot more sense than the view of the Republican majority in this House, but that is certainly a legitimate debate. But it doesn't belong in a resolution commemorating the lives and the sacrifices of those individuals on September 11, 2001.
And I guess I wish that just once, just once the leadership on the other side of the aisle could bring to this floor a piece of legislation, especially on an issue like this, that is not stained with politics. Why does everything have to have a political slant to it? I think people are sick of it, I really do. I think on issues like this people want us to come together, as we have done in the past, as the other body has done, and speak with one voice. Let us not make this into something it shouldn't be.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am asking Members of this House to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can consider a much better resolution, one that respectfully commemorates this most somber occasion. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that instead of voting on the divisive partisan resolution made in order under this rule, we will consider the text of the truly bipartisan resolution that was adopted in the Senate on the fifth anniversary of September 11.
Not only was this measure passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on September 11, the actual day of the anniversary, it was cosponsored by every single Member of the United States Senate: every single Democrat, every single Republican.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is the resolution we should be considering today, and let me tell you why. It was not written for political gain or for 30-second sound bites. It was written with the sole intent and purpose of remembering the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and to honor and mourn the victims of that horrific day.
I think we owe it to the people of this great Nation to put politics aside for this one day and show that we are Americans first and that some things are sacred and should never be used for political purposes.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider the Senate version of the September 11 commemorative.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov