To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Federal civilian and military retirees to pay health insurance premiums on a pretax basis and to allow a deduction for TRICARE supplemental premiums.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member and my colleagues who are here.

There is not a single heart of a Member of this body that I would challenge on the basis of their commitment, their passion, and the sense of loss that we have experienced through these 5 years and now on the commemoration of this 5th year and certainly on 9/11. So I will read a section from this resolution, and I am going to attest to my complete loyalty and commitment to this language: That we reaffirm ``that the American people will never forget the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and the loss of innocent lives that day,'' that we ``will continue to fight the war on terrorism in their memory, and will never succumb to the cause of the terrorists.'' That should have been the guiding moral standard by which this body continued to do its work after 9/11.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to offer my deepest sympathy and empathy to those who still grieve. The families who lost their loved ones in the World Trade towers, those who lost their loved ones in United Flight 93, American Airlines 77, American Airlines 11, and United Airlines 175, and as well those who have since lost their lives, who may have lost their lives because they were first responders and they suffered terrible injuries that caused an early demise.

I wish we could bring them back, frankly. I wish we could tell them how much we appreciated them. I wish the children who had lost their family members, their moms, their dads, their grandparents, and others could again have the joy of hugging them and showing the love. But, unfortunately, we stand here acknowledging that this tragedy will live with us forever.

We noticed on September 11 we were not Democrats or Republicans. We were not red States or blue States. We made a commitment that we were going to do the right thing, and I can remember the sense of urgency of a united America as we instigated Operation Enduring Freedom and pursued the enemy and were diligent as we toppled the Taliban and liberated Afghanistan, and as has been said, we were hard fast on the heels of Osama bin Laden. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be both remiss and dishonest to not challenge us and ask the question, where are we today?

I recently came back from Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is interesting, as I listened to the distinguished gentleman from New York, the same question was asked of us by President Karzai. He gave the same answer, and that answer was that we need security. At the time we visited, the poppy fields were raging. The Taliban was alive and well. Members of the Afghanistan Parliament asked us whether or not they could have us provide security so that they could go home to their districts. All is not well. And, frankly, I believe it is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that it was not well because we detoured from our task. The commitment we gave on the steps of the United States Capitol, as we sang ``God Bless America,'' to fight the terrorists was not kept because instead of staying the course in Afghanistan, we moved the ball. We detoured. We used up resources. We used up international capital. We used up the ability to do the job.

And I say that because I do it in the memory of the first responders, who still some of them are looking for health care benefits that we have not been able to give them. I say that in the name of an unwieldy war in Iraq that had nothing to do with the immediacy of the war on terror, a costly diversion, probably where the money for Afghanistan has gone, $308.58 billion. This red clearly gives us the picture. This is Iraq, a country that could afford to pay for many of its own needs. And in the course of that, we have failed. Our border enforcement and immigration enforcement have fallen drastically under this administration. Between 1999 and 2004, work-site immigration enforcement operations against companies were scaled back 99 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Department of Homeland Security. In 1999 the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004 it issued fines against only three. Years of neglect have brought us where we are today.

We know that Democrats offered amendments where there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents, 14,000 more detention beds, and 2,700 more immigration agents along our borders. And yet we failed. There is a concept called OTMs. Now we hear a raging voice on OTMs, ``other than Mexicans,'' who come across the border who may, in fact, be the very ones who are here to do us harm. Those very porous aspects of our border have been defeated and the resources for such have been defeated time and time and time again.

So what we find is that 84 percent of the experts said we are losing the war on terror, 86 percent said that the world is becoming more dangerous for the U.S. and the American people, and 57 percent consider an attack on the scale of the London bombing against the U.S. to be likely or certain by the end of the year.

I stand committed and wedded to the concluding language of this resolution. We will not let the terrorists win. But the debt that we owe those who lost their lives on 9/11 has not yet been paid, and this Congress is at fault. This majority is at fault. And I beg today, as we vote on this resolution with all of its inadequacies in terms of its language, that our single commitment should be as every Member has stood on this floor to those who lost their lives and to the first responders. Can we, Mr. Speaker, do our job today? Can we do it united? Can we do it on behalf of those who sacrificed? Can we do the right thing

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H. Res. 994, a resolution purporting to express the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched by Osama bin Ladin and al-Qaeda against the United States on September 11, 2006.

Mr. Speaker, in the life of this Nation there have been a few events of such consequence and moment that they have a transformative impact on the people of the country. For my parents' generation the death of President Franklin Roosevelt was such an occasion. For my generation, the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 is a moment that lives with us forever. The explosion of the Shuttle Challenger in 1986 left a traumatic and indelible impression on my children's generation. The morning of September 11, 2001 is a day all living Americans will remember forever. Because not since Pearl Harbor have we witnessed such a dastardly and deadly attack on American soil.

As I stand here today, my heart still grieves for those who perished on flights United Airlines 93, American Airlines 77, American Airlines 11, and United Airlines 175. When the sun rose on the morning of September 11, none of us knew that it would end in an inferno in the magnificent World Trade Center Towers in New York City and the Pentagon and in the grassy fields of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. How I wish we could have hugged and kissed and held each of the victims one last time.

I stand here remembering those who still suffer, whose hearts still ache over the loss of so many innocent and interrupted lives. My prayer is that for those who lost a father, a mother, a husband, a wife, a child, or a friend will in the days and years ahead take comfort in the certain knowledge that they have gone on to claim the greatest prize, a place in the Lord's loving arms. And down here on the ground, their memory will never die so long as any of the many of us who loved them lives.

Mr. Speaker, as hard as it is to believe, out of a tragedy so overwhelming and horrific, something good and great emerged. In the aftermath of September 11, there were no Republicans or Democrats. There were no Northerners or Southerners or West or East Coasters. We were not Red State or Blue State. We were all simply Americans. On that day, we were united in our shock and anger and sadness. More importantly, we were united in our resolve to defend our country and protect the freedoms that has made America the greatest country in the history of the world. We lit candles, held hands, helped neighbors, and prayed for our country and its leaders.

A united America can never be defeated as Operation Enduring Freedom showed. The brave and valiant armed forces of the United States swiftly toppled the Taliban and liberated Afghanistan and was hard on the heels of Osama bin Ladin, who was trapped in Tora Bora. But before they could bring this mass

murderer to justice, they were inexplicably diverted to Iraq, where the President had launched a new war against an enemy that posed no immediate threat to the security of America and had no involvement in the attack of September 11. In dividing our armed forces between Afghanistan and Iraq, this Administration divided the American people and alienated friendly nations who were helping us to win the Global War on Terror.

Victory in the Global War on Terror is the best way to honor those who lost and gave their lives on September 11. Ensuring that America is safe and secure and protected from another attack on American soil is the least we owe to the heroic passengers on Flight 93 and to the brave firefighters of the FDNY and officers of the NYPD and the officers and civilians we lost in the Pentagon who gave faithful service to our Nation.

So, Mr. Speaker, as we reflect back on the history-changing day 5 years ago, we need to ask ourselves today this haunting question: have we done everything necessary to make America as safe as it can be? The sad truth is we have not. Osama bin Ladin is still at large. Our seaports and trains and chemical plants are still vulnerable.

And most important, our borders are not as secure as they could be.

In recent months, the American public has been focusing on the lack of security we have on the Nation's borders. Four-and-a-half years after 9/11, it is clear that our borders remain alarmingly porous and that much needs to be done to truly make our borders secure.

The fact that our border is porous is not the fault of our hard- working Border Patrol agents and Customs and Immigration agents, who are doing the best they can with the staffing levels and resources that they have been provided. Rather, it is the result of the neglect and underfunding of border security over the last 4\1/2\ years by the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans--who have failed to provide our border security agencies the resources and personnel they need to succeed in their mission.

Indeed, under this Administration and this Republican-led Congress, from 9/11 through April 2006, only 1,641 new Border Patrol agents had been hired--which is less than a 17 percent increase in 4\1/2\ years. Furthermore, border enforcement and immigration enforcement have fallen drastically under the Bush Administration. For example, between 1999 and 2004, worksite immigration enforcement operations against companies were scaled back 99 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Department of Homeland Security. In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to only three.

After years of neglect, Congressional Republicans and President Bush are now busying themselves with speeches about the importance of border security--but the question remains: where have the Republicans been for the past 4\1/2\ years?

Over the past 4\1/2\ years, Democrats have been attempting to highlight the serious security gaps that exist along both our southern and northern borders--and have been attempting to get the GaP- controlled Congress to focus on targeting resources on unfilled gaps. But the Republicans time and again resisted efforts to enhance border security and provide our borders the agents, equipment, and state-of- the-art technology that our borders so desperately need.

Seven times over the last 4\1/2\ years, Democrats have offered amendments to enhance border security resources. If these Democratic amendments had been adopted, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents, 14,000 more detention beds, and 2,700 more immigration agents along our borders than now exist. Each time, these efforts have been rejected by the Republican Majority.

Mr. Speaker, consider these examples of the majority's failure to provide leadership for America on border security since 9/11.

1. 2001 Vote #454--November 28, 2001--H.R. 3338, FY 2002 Defense Appropriations/Emergency Supplemental: Republicans voted against consideration of an amendment that would have added $223 million for border security--to help meet the promises in the 2001 PATRIOT Act on border staffing and to build needed border facilities. After 9/11, experts recognized that the porousness of the northern border represented a major security threat to the United States. And everyone remembered the attempt by an Islamic extremist to get a large amount of explosives across the Canadian border in December 1999 to blow up the Los Angeles Airport in the Millennium bombing plot. Recognizing these concerns, Congress included a provision in the PATRIOT Act mandating the tripling of the number of border agents and inspectors along the northern border. This amendment included $145 million to make a down payment on the promise of Congress in the PATRIOT Act to triple northern border personnel, which the bill failed to do, and to purchase surveillance equipment. The amendment also included $78 million for the highest priority facility needs of the Border Patrol and other parts of the INS--particularly the Border Patrol's detention facility needs.

2. 2003 Vote #301--June 24, 2003--H.R. 2555, FY 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations: Republicans voted against consideration of an amendment that would have added $300 million for border security, including making a further downpayment on the promise of Congress in the 2001 PATRIOT Act to triple the number of border agents and inspectors along the northern border. The amendment was critically needed because the level of northern border personnel funded in the Republican bill was about 30 percent below the commitment made in the PATRIOT Act.

3. 2003 Vote #305--June 24, 2003--H.R. 2555, FY 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations: This vote was regarding the same amendment as 2003 Vote #301 above. On a vote on appealing the ruling of the chair, Republicans once again voted against consideration of this amendment that would have added $300 million for enhancing border security, including adding border agents and inspectors along the northern border.

4. 2004 Vote #243--June 16, 2004--H.R. 4567, FY 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations: Republicans voted against consideration of an amendment that would have added $750 million for border security--to help meet the promises in the PATRIOT Act on border staffing, better monitor our borders, and deploy radiation portal monitors. Under the GOP bill, the level of northern border personnel funded was still about 30 percent below the commitment made in the PATRIOT Act--so the amendment was designed to help Congress keep its promise. The $750 million would also have been used for giving Border Patrol more of the equipment they critically needed--including air stations for air patrols, radiation portal monitors, and state-of-the-art surveillance equipment.

5. 2005 Vote #160--May 5, 2005--H.R. 1268, FY 2005 Supplemental Appropriations Conference Report: Republicans voted against a motion to send the report back to conference with instructions to add $284 million for border security measures--that would bring funding for border security in the conference report up to the level in the Senate- passed bill. The $284 million included the funding for 550 additional Border Patrol agents and 200 additional immigration agents that was included in the Senate bill. It also included the funding in the Senate bill for unmanned border aerial vehicles, which have been used successfully in Arizona to assist in surveillance.

6. For FY 2006 and FY 2007, Republicans Have Repeatedly Broken the Promises They Made on Border Security in the Intelligence Reform (9/11) Act of 2004: In December 2004, the Congress enacted the Intelligence Reform (or 9/11) Act (PL 108-458). One of the key commitments Congress made in that Act was to beef up border security measures. This included the specific promise of providing 2,000 additional Border Patrol agents, 800 additional immigration agents, and 8,000 additional detention beds per year from FY 2006 through FY 2010. And yet, both for FY 2006 and FY 2007, the Republican Congress has repeatedly voted against efforts to meet this mandate, as seen below.

7. 2005 Vote #174--May 17, 2005--H.R. 2360, FY 2006 Homeland Security Appropriations: Republicans voted against consideration of an amendment that would have added $400 million for border security, to meet the promises Congress made on additional Border Patrol agents, immigration agents, and detention beds in the 9/11 Act. First, the President's budget for 2006 broke the promise of the 9/11 Act by providing funding for only 210 new Border Patrol agents in 2006--1,790 below the number promised. The Republican appropriations bill was better than the President's budget, funding 1,000 new agents--but this was still 1,000 agents short of the promise made in the 9/11 Act. The Republican bill also broke the promises on immigration agents and detention beds. This amendment was designed to live up to the commitments of the 9/11 Act. It added funding for Border Patrol agents, and also added funding for 600 additional immigration agents to get to the 800 promised and added funding for 4,000 additional detention beds to get to the 8,000 promised.

8. 2005 Vote #187--May 18, 2005--H.R. 1817, FY 2006 Homeland Security Authorization: Republicans voted against a Democratic substitute to the Homeland Security Authorization bill that was designed to fulfill the promises in the 9/11 Act. For example, the Democratic substitute included a full authorization for funding a total of 800 additional immigration agents for 2006 promised in the 9/11 Act and a full authorization for funding a total of 8,000 additional detention beds for 2006 promised in the 9/11 Act.

9. 2005 Vote #188--May 18, 2005--H.R. 1817, FY 2006 Homeland Security Authorization: Similarly, Republicans voted against a

motion to recommit the Homeland Security Authorization bill with instructions to report it back immediately with instructions to add 15 mandates from the Intelligence Reform (or 9/11) Act that had not been included in the Republican bill, including full authorization for funding a total of 800 additional immigration agents for 2006 and full authorization for funding a total of 8,000 additional detention beds for 2006.

10. 2006 Vote #56--March 16, 2006--H.R. 4939, FY 2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Republicans defeated an amendment to H.R. 4939, FY 2006 Supplemental Appropriations, offered by Representative Martin Sabo, which would have added $600 million for border security measures to the bill. The $600 million included $400 million for installation of 1,500 radiation portal monitors at locations along the border and $200 million for additional air patrols and other aviation assets at our land borders.

11. 2006 Vote #210--May 25, 2006--H.R. 5441, FY 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations: Republicans voted against consideration of an amendment that would have added $2.1 billion for border security, including $1.5 billion to meet the promises Congress made on additional Border Patrol agents, immigration agents, and detention beds in the 9/ 11 Act. The Republican Congress has failed to meet these mandates for both 2006 and 2007. This amendment provided enough funding to address the cumulative shortfalls that have resulted from underfunding in both 2006 and 2007.

For example, on Border Patrol agents, the Republican Congress had funded only 1,000 additional agents for 2006 and was funding only 1,200 additional agents for 2007--leaving the Congress 1,800 agents short of what it had promised in the 9/11 Act. Hence, the amendment provided funding for these 1,800 additional agents. Similarly, the amendment also funded the nearly 500 additional immigration agents and 9,000 additional detention beds beyond those in the bill that were promised by the 9/11 Act. The amendment also included $610 million to further increase border detection capabilities, including funding more radiation portal monitors along the borders and providing additional air patrols along the borders.

Conclusion

I believe it is the resolve of all Members of this House and of all Americans to prevail in the Global War on Terrorism. I believe all Americans want their country to remain safe, free, and invulnerable to another cowardly attack like the one we witnessed 5 years ago. We owe that much to the Americans who lost and gave their lives. We owe it to them to ensure that their children and loved ones will never again experience such pain, suffering, and loss. We can do this. We must do this. But to bring this new future into being, we need a new direction from the present course.

Mr. Speaker, as the designee of the majority leader and pursuant to H. Res. 996, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 994) 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 ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 994.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, 9/11, September 11, 2001, was a day unlike any in our history. It was a day which saw the worst tragedy befall our Nation. It was a day and the days thereafter which demonstrated the very best in America, the heroism, the courage, the willingness to fight back, the determination never again to allow ourselves to be attacked the way we were on that day.

Since that time, Congress has achieved a lot. The purpose of this resolution today was to show that we are not just going to lament what happened on September 11, we are not just going to mourn what happened on September 11, but we are going to lay the record out as to what has been done and what should be done. And, quite frankly, as the prime author of this resolution, we did not in any way attempt to make it contentious.

For instance, I really wonder why at this stage on the fifth anniversary of September 11 my friends in the opposition have chosen to draw the line on this resolution, when 2 years ago, in a bipartisan resolution which was overwhelmingly adopted, there were far more, if you want to call them, partisan matters included. I don't consider them partisan. But if they are applying the standard they are applying today to the 2004 resolution, where it went through so many items, as the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, Libya, port security, border security, Terrorist Threat Information Center, going after financial assets, all of those matters, very few of which are mentioned in our resolution today.

But for some reason, I guess with election day less than 60 days away, they have chosen to say what was nonpartisan 2 years ago is extremely partisan today.

I regret that, because there is a lot that we still have to do as a Congress, but there is much we achieved, and I believe it is important for us not to just talk about the horror of September 11, but to chronicle for history what we have done, what we intend to do and let history be our judge.

That is why we included the PATRIOT Act, that is why we included the Maritime Security Act, the intelligence reform and port security legislation, because we do believe they are significant achievements by Congress.

Now, maybe history will show it was not right to break down the wall between the FBI and CIA, or it was not right to have to have intelligence reform, but I am content and I think we have an obligation to lay that out and let the American people decide and let history decide.

If we wanted to make this partisan, we could have certainly put in about the NSA electronic surveillance, which the overwhelming majority of Americans support because they believe it makes common sense to listen to the conversations of foreign terrorists. But because of the controversy of that, it was not put in. Nor was the SWIFT Plan, which was illegally disclosed by the New York Times. Did we include that in our resolution, even though that has also been extraordinarily effective?

As far as the issue of whether or not we are safer today than on September 11, both the chairman and cochairman of the 9/11 Commission say we are, the junior Senator from New York says we are, any number of people say we are. We can debate that. But I think it is certainly fair comment to put that in this 9/11 resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I will end on this before I finish my remarks. But I just want to say no one has any monopoly on grief in this Chamber. I lost well over 150 friends, neighbors and constituents on September 11, 2001. I spent all day Monday at cemeteries and commemorations and meeting with families.

I think it is really wrong to somehow attack this resolution as our attempt to be partisan. We could have found much more ways to be partisan if we wanted to. It was an attempt to come together. For whatever reason, the opposition has chosen to draw the line today on the fifth anniversary, when they could have done it 2 years ago. For whatever reason they decided now is the time. I think history will show they are wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to

the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would remind the gentleman from New Jersey that the resolution he voted for 2 years, the 9/11 commemoration resolution, specifically said that Iraq was part of the war on terrorism, that the capture of Saddam Hussein was part of the war against terrorism, all in the ``whereases'' clauses. It also cited the fact of port security achievements we had made there. It mentioned the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, all of which was there in that resolution 2 years ago, which for whatever reason they did not object to then.

And I would say one of the reasons we didn't put the immigration bill in the legislation 2 years ago, it was not passed until last year, and the 9/11 Commission specifically stated that addressing border security is a major element of homeland security

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would remind my friend from Massachusetts, or at least suggest to him, that you don't have to agree with every word of every resolution to vote for it.

For instance, the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the 9/ 11 resolution 2 years ago, which specifically cited the war in Iraq as being an effective part of the war against terrorism. It also cited the arrest of Saddam Hussein and also cited the many accomplishments that had been made by Congress, and they voted for that then. For some reason they have now chosen to make this a very partisan issue.

Also, the gentleman said that Democrats have supported every recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, 152 Democrats voted against the REAL ID Act, which was supported by the 9/11 Commission.

And as far as the whole issue of the nuclear screening, even the Washington Post said that is nothing but a grandstand.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Speaker, again I would remind my friends on the Democratic side that the resolution that the overwhelming majority of them voted for 2 years ago, for instance, on the issue of port security, in the whereas clauses specifically cited the innovative programs which have done so much to make our ports more secure and to screen cargo. And, again, we don't have to agree with every aspect of every bill, but if it was good enough 2 years ago for them to cite it, I don't know why it suddenly now becomes such an extreme partisan issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut, who I must say is an extremely strong and very independent voice and advocate for Homeland Security

Mr. Speaker, I would just again remind my friends on the other side that we are definitely safer than we were on September 11. It is not just me saying that or the Republican majority saying that. It is the chairman and cochairman of the 9/11 Commission, people such as the junior Senator from New York who was saying that.

As far as our resolution, it certainly goes out of its way, and appropriately so, to extend the deepest sympathies to all those who lost their lives, to their family members and friends. It honors the heroic actions of the first responders.

If we made a mistake in drafting this resolution, it was I guess laboring under the misconception that the people on the other side would adhere to the same standards and principles that we set for ourselves 2 years ago when we adopted the 9/11 resolution at that time, which again goes into far more detail than anything we mentioned at all today.

And I would also mention to the gentleman from California who said that we should speak to the families of those who lost relatives on September 11. I spent Monday morning to night with those families, and I can tell you, after speaking with them, I am more proud than ever to have introduced and sponsored this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just urge my friends on the other side to perhaps read the resolution instead of just reading Democratic talking points.

The fact is there was nothing in this resolution at all that talks about the war in Iraq other than to commend the soldiers who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the overwhelming majority of Democrats 2 years ago did vote for the resolution which said Iraq was an integral part of the war against terrorism. Again, I wonder why this disconnect between 2004 and 2006.

Also, the gentlewoman from California seems very concerned about the fact that bin Laden has not been captured. Yet, the leader of her party yesterday said that capturing bin Laden would have no impact on the security of the United States.

Also, talking of the families, as far as the impact this would have on the families, this resolution, I have talked to the families in my district, the Boyle family, the Haskell family, the Cain family, the Vigiano family, or the Howard family, or any of them, who I can assure you strongly stand behind this resolution

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I have been both shocked and disappointed by the reaction we have seen on the House floor today. Not that we cannot have honest differences over the resolution, not that we cannot have honest differences about various whereas clauses. I have certainly voted for many resolutions where I did not agree with everything that was in there. I have also opposed certain resolutions because there was too much in there that I could not support, without questioning the motives and impugning the character of those who drafted the resolution.

Quite frankly, in working on this resolution and working with the Speaker and working with Members on the other side, the model that we tried to use in putting this resolution together was the resolution which was adopted 2 years ago which did have some contentious language in it, but quite frankly listed far more achievements, if you will, or far more actions taken by the Congress than ours did today.

What we did today was try to strike the balance by commemorating the memories of those who died, by honoring those who gave their lives, by expressing our deep sorrow and support and solidarity with the families who lost relatives on September 11 and lost friends on September 11.

And then also, not just rely on words but also to show actions, and lay out how we in Congress have tried to deal with the issues that involve homeland security and fighting terrorism.

We did avoid any reference to the war in Iraq, other than to say we support the men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. No mention at all of Iraq being part of the war against terrorism. No mention at all of the NSA electronic surveillance program. No mention at all of the swift program.

What we did was try to lay out exactly what Congress has done so it would be out there for history to see what we have done, what we have tried to do, where we have succeeded, perhaps where we haven't. I am content to let history be our judge.

But to somehow say this is part of some conspiracy or campaign, to me, it really does cheapen the memory of September 11. As I said before, no one has a monopoly on grief. I certainly lost many, many friends and neighbors and constituents on September 11, as did other Members of this body. And probably everyone here at least knows someone who died that day, or knows someone who knows someone who died that day or suffered from the horrific events of September 11.

I really thought on September 11 and September 12, 2001 that we would try to work together. This resolution is an attempt to do that, an honest attempt from the heart to do it. I am proud of this resolution. I urge the adoption of this resolution so we can send a message not just to those who died on September 11, to the families of those who died on September 11, but indeed a message to the world that we are united against Islamic terrorism. We are united as one to prevent another attack from ever occurring in this country. And there has not been an attack for 5 years.

And, yes, there is much more that must be done, that has to be done. We are safer than we were on September 11, but not as safe as we should be. There is so much more that we can do, but we have made this start. Let us stand behind what we have done together. Those honest differences that we have, let us treat them as honest differences and not try to make shameful partisan attacks.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution, and I pray to God that we will find a way to come together and not resort to the type of cheap demagoguery that I think characterized the debate on the floor today

Mr. Speaker, I yield 28 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the International Relations Committee, who will do so much to elevate the level of rhetoric on our side than what we have seen in the last half hour from me; 28 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the chairman of the Intelligence Committee; and the balance of the time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble); and I ask unanimous consent that each Member be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, nothing we say today can erase the pain that America felt on September 11, 2001. No resolution we pass, no speech we make can bring back the loved ones we lost or repay the heroes who rushed to their rescue.

As I stood at Ground Zero again on Monday amidst the anguished faces, the shopworn photos of loved ones lost, the sad music, the reading of names, flags everywhere, the memories of 5 years ago came rushing back. The frantic calls to my children in New York and Washington. The disbelief that we could be so vulnerable. And as the day wore on, the immense sadness for 3,000 innocent victims and the resolve to demonstrate that this Congress would not bow to terror.

This resolution, however, contains more than memories. It makes a statement about how much progress we have made in this House.

The sad, unalterable fact is that 5 years after 9/11 we have not made as much progress as this resolution claims. We have not brought to justice the most senior leaders responsible for the attacks. We have not plugged some gaping holes in our homeland defense, and we have not shared the sacrifice or stayed united as a Nation in the face of grave danger.

As ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, I want to focus my remarks on how this House has responded to the major intelligence failures of our time, the tragic failure to connect the dots of the 9/ 11 plot; the inexcusable failure to recognize that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD; and the catastrophic failure to predict the violence insurgency that would follow our military action in Iraq, and take the prudent steps necessary to prevent it.

The news, Mr. Speaker, is uneven. I believe our committee did a good job of assessing the performance of the FBI, CIA, and NSA leading up to 9/11; and so did the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11, which held 24 days of hearings, including 9 days of open hearings, provided an excellent, bipartisan report with legislative recommendations, and was the basis for the 9/11 Commission's final report.

Over major opposition from some in this body, Congress acted on some of those recommendations and, as our chairman just said, created a Director of National Intelligence and a National Counterterrorism Center, thanks to the courageous lobbying of the 9/11 family members. Our current chairman and I helped lead that effort, and I am very proud of what we did.

As for WMD failures, our committee was the first to document that clandestine sources in Iraq were thin and that the analysis was poor. But then our former chairman shut down the House's inquiry into Iraq WMD. And again in this Congress, our current chairman ceded jurisdiction on this critically important issue to our counterparts in the other body.

Just last Friday that committee released a compelling report showing that our sources were unreliable and that facts claimed by this administration are not supported by the intelligence. According to that report and other available sources, there were no links between al Qaeda and Iraq before 9/11. Yet as recently as last Sunday, the Vice President said ``we don't know'' whether Mohammed Atta ever met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. Mr. Speaker, we do know. We know the meeting never took place, and yet the Vice President refuses to acknowledge the facts.

It is one thing to have inadequate intelligence. In an intelligence war, you are never going to have pristine intelligence. But it is another thing to ignore professional intelligence assessments, make end-runs around intelligence agencies, issue hyped statements about intelligence, and use intelligence for partisan gain.

The third failure, the failure to predict and prevent the insurgency, has been in some ways the most painful. More than 2,500 U.S. personnel have been killed since President Bush declared ``Mission Accomplished'' in May 2003, nearly as many as died on 9/11.

Our committee has conducted virtually no oversight over this particular

failure. We have not examined whether the intelligence on the insurgency was flawed or whether policymakers deliberately ignored warnings and professional assessments.

Press reports indicate that the administration may still be trying to paint a rosy picture of the situation in Iraq. The August casualty reporting excluded statistics on people killed by bombs, mortars, rockets, and other mass attacks. The result is that the August statistics for murder rates in Baghdad appear 52 percent lower than the daily rate for July. Mr. Speaker, I do not think policymakers should engage in creative accounting when it comes to the lives of our sons and daughters or the lives of innocent Iraqis.

According to some reports, a draft ``National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq,'' which reportedly paints a very negative picture of the situation there now, is being held by the administration until after the November election. If that reporting is true, it is deeply troubling and could needlessly endanger the lives of our military and intelligence professionals in the field. And, Mr. Speaker, it would also keep Congress in the dark one more time.

Mr. Speaker, I often say that the point of looking back is to look forward to avoid making the same mistakes again. North Korea is test- firing missiles. Iran is defying the world community on its nuclear program. Yet we do not have solid intelligence on either target. Mr. Speaker, good intelligence leads to good policy.

But instead of insisting on better intelligence, our committee may rush through dangerous legislation on warrantless surveillance without any testimony from administration witnesses. We are issuing staff- written ``brochures'' hyping the threats posed by al Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea that do little to explain how little we truly know. It is no wonder that the 9/11 Commission gave Congress a D for intelligence oversight reform.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude where I began. 9/11 forged our Nation into common purpose. It brought out a common humanity and engendered a common resolve to protect America. Our response to 9/11 has been and will continue to be a measure of us. Mr. Speaker, what we should really resolve to do today is to do better together.

At Ground Zero on Monday, the survivors shared something so precious: the hope that their grief and suffering would inspire a Nation to prevent another attack. They were all ages, all colors, all religions, and all backgrounds. The one thing they were not was partisan

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield to a dear friend, the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to a great member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Gene Green of Texas for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), ranking member on our Intelligence Policy Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I just have a very short closing comment to make for our portion of the debate, and then I plan to yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. So I will make those comments now.

Mr. Speaker, let me close this portion of the debate by once again paying tribute to those who lost their lives on 9/11, to those who came to their rescue, and to those sent to the front lines in the 5 years since. The individual stories of bravery and heroism have provided some measure of light in an otherwise dark, dark chapter.

Five years ago, Mr. Speaker, Members of this body stood shoulder to shoulder on the steps of the Capitol in a show of bipartisan unity. We actually did that again on Monday, but I am not sure we recovered the spirit that we had 5 years ago. How I wish we could have, as another member of our committee said, considered a different resolution today, the one that passed the other body by unanimous consent and that was cosponsored by every single Member.

Mr. Speaker, let us not use 9/11 for political fodder. Let us speak with one voice. We owe the American people nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield the remainder of the time on our side to my good friend, Mr. Conyers, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee and coauthor, with me, of H.R. 5371, the LISTEN Act, legislation supported by many of our Members and a broad range of civil liberties groups that would require the so-called NSA program to comply fully with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as presently drafted.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 994

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 994, legislation that recognizes September 11th as a national day of mourning and service in remembrance of those who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks on that dark day in American history and of those too who have paid the ultimate price in our ongoing war against global terrorism.

With this resolution, we also honor the heroic actions of the first responders, law enforcement personnel, volunteers and others who aided the innocent victims and bravely risked their own lives and health to help the victims of terrorist attacks in our Nation's Capital, New York City, and the fields of Pennsylvania.

We also express our ongoing thanks for our men and women who serve our Nation in uniform in military service, as intelligence personnel, and as law enforcement officials as they continue to put their lives on the line every day here at home and around the world in the war on terrorism. This is indeed a global war and we also give thanks for all the nations of the world who have joined in this effort.

These efforts have met with tremendous success as our combined forces have thwarted a number of major terrorist organizations and specific planned attacks against American targets and our allies. We cannot, however, lessen our resolve if we are to successfully search out and eliminate these terrorists and their terror cells.

In adopting this resolution, we vow to remain vigilant in this war against terrorists and commit to providing every resource they require to win this fight. We also reaffirm our commitment to never forget the tragic loss of human life on September 11th and in doing so continue to fight the war against terrorists in their memory, never succumbing to the fear they generate.

Mr. Speaker, on that dark day, the American people came together as one in a way we have never seen in our Nation's history. We put politics and ideology aside and focused our attention on securing our Nation, healing our wounded, and consoling our grieving.

My hometown newspaper The St. Petersburg Times was right on the mark in its editorial Monday, saying, ``On this anniversary, we would do well to put aside our rancorous divisions and crazy conspiracy theories and reflect on that post-9/11 period when Americans came together in purpose and spirit and much of the world felt our pain, even if it all was too brief. That memory is worth holding on to.''

This editorial, which I will include in its entirety following my remarks, correctly states that we can never go all the way back to the way things were before terrorists struck here on our soil. However, the Times calls upon us as a nation to go back to that time five years ago in renewing our national unity to secure our shores and rebuff the threat of fear and destruction from cowardly terrorists in saying: ``But we can--and we must--hold on to the values and the spirit that some call American exceptionalism. The terrorists would like nothing better than to see us surrender our most precious freedoms and bedrock values to fear. So on this fifth anniversary of that day of unspeakable savagery, let us remember how we felt on Sept. 12, 2001, not the fear and heartbreak so much as the unity and purpose we shared. Only then can we take a full measure of our loss.''

Mr. Speaker, we recall that after 9/11 my colleagues and I in the Congress authorized the President to do whatever he deemed necessary to fight this new war on terrorism. Those who are engaged in this war today are patriots and we must all support them. While I support our current operations, I know that we have people in this country who disagree with our current war on terror. And you know what? They are patriots too. Those who agree with the President, they are patriots. Those who disagree with the President, they are patriots. Those who agree with me are patriots. Those who disagree with me are patriots. Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, we are concerned about our homeland and our security. And by and large everyone who remains engaged in this great debate is showing themselves to be patriots in their care and concern for our country and our men and women in uniform.

Let that be one of the most important lessons of September 11, 2001. While we may continue to disagree at times, let us give thanks for the freedom to disagree and at the end of the day come together in unity to support the brave men and women in all branches of service who fight the scourge of terrorism here and abroad. This can and should be the lasting tribute to all those who lost their lives five years ago.

[From the St. Petersburg Times, Sept. 11, 2006]

Freedom From Fear

Five years ago today, on a lovely September morning, bolts

of terror came out of a clear, blue sky. Nineteen men armed

only with box cutters hijacked four passenger airliners and

rammed three of them into the symbols of American military

and financial might. Two of the planes flew into the twin

towers of the World Trade Center in New York in a horrifying

spectacle. A third plane demolished a wing of the Pentagon. A

fourth, United Flight 93, believed to be headed for

Washington, crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after

passengers rose up against the hijackers, In less than an

hour, 3,000 people died that day.

That was the day terrorism came to America, and we haven't

been the same since. Neither has much of the world. Since

then, terrorists have struck in London and Madrid and

Indonesia, among other places--nothing as spectacular as 9/11

but still lethal to hundreds of innocents. But they have not

hit the United States again, not that anyone doubts that they

have been trying. President Bush said last week that scores

of terrorist plots have been foiled, and that while America

is safer than it was five years ago, it is still not safe.

Will it ever be in a world of suicidal maniacs?

On this anniversary, we would do well to put aside our

rancorous divisions and crazy conspiracy theories and reflect

on that post-9/11 period when Americans came together in

purpose and spirit and much of the world felt our pain, even

if it all was too brief. That memory is worth holding on to.

There was something unreal about watching the horror of

that day unfold on television. Who can forget the sight of

people leaping to their deaths from the top floors of the

burning twin towers? Or of the first responders--

firefighters, police officers and rescue workers--who

heroically braved smoke and fire and dust in their desperate

attempt to reach any survivors? Americans lined up to donate

blood and gave generously

to aid the families of the victims. We knew the endless

kindness of strangers. In Washington, bitter partisanship

gave way to unity and the debate over domestic priorities was

crushed by the question of how to protect the homeland from

madmen bent on mass destruction.

The world wept with us and for us as they saw America as a

victim instead of an arrogant superpower. Iranians held

candlelight vigils to express support for the American

people. Germans marched in the street to show solidarity. In

France, a front-page editorial in Le Monde, reliably anti-

American on most things, proclaimed: ``We Are All

Americans.'' The world stayed with us when Bush launched a

``just war'' in Afghanistan, where the Taliban was protecting

Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorists.

Sadly, the good that came out of 9/11 was not to last. It

began to unravel after the president, with the approval of

most congressional Democrats, chose to go to war against

Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. World

opinion turned against us, and as Iraq became a huge debacle,

Americans turned on each other.

America has taken quite a beating in world opinion in

recent years on everything from prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib

and Guantanamo to secret CIA prisons abroad and warrantless

eavesdropping at home. The debate over balancing our

liberties and our security rages on in Washington, and

America's image in the world has been badly tarnished.

We can never go back to the way things were before 9/11--or

even to the way we were in the immediate aftermath of that

calamity. It's hard to imagine a future not chilled by the

threat of terrorism, which started as a cause and has now

metastasized into a mentality among Islamic extremists.

But we can--and we must--hold on to the values and the

spirit that some call American exceptionalism. The terrorists

would like nothing better than to see us surrender our most

precious freedoms and bedrock values to fear.

So on this fifth anniversary of that day of unspeakable

savagery, let us remember how we felt on Sept. 12, 2001, not

the fear and heartbreak so much as the unity and purpose we

shared. Only then can we take a full measure of our loss.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago on Monday, on the day the terrorists attacked our Nation, Members of Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol and sang God Bless America. Many speakers today have referenced that moment, because I think it had a profound effect on all of us. We really did need God's blessing. We put aside partisanship to respond with one voice that we would do everything in our power to ensure that our Nation would be fully healed and fully safe, and that the American people would know that we were working hard to bring those who were responsible for 9/11 to justice.

Today, we should have embraced that same spirit of 5 years ago on the steps of the Capitol. The United States Senate did. This week, they passed a resolution which mourned the innocent victims of the attacks, consoled their families, praised our troops for their valor, underscored our resolve to find all of those responsible for the attacks and bring them to justice, and emphasized our commitment to stopping terrorists who would harm the American people. Democrats and Republicans alike in the Senate came together in support of that resolution.

I would have hoped that that could have come to the floor here. We were prepared to support that, Democrats were, but the Republican leadership refused.

Instead, the Republican leadership gave us a resolution here this evening which is self-congratulatory. It praises Congress, for some reason. Instead of having the focus on the innocent victims of 9/11, it talks about the accomplishments of this Congress. I can't even imagine why they thought that was a good idea. But since they opened the door to what they have done, they have opened the door to what they have not done.

Two years ago, the bipartisan, independent 9/11 Commission concluded that the American people were failed by their government on 9/11. To prevent future similar incidents and failures, the Commission made 41 recommendations. Last December, the same independent Commission issued a report card on the implementation of those recommendations. Sixteen grades that were awarded were either D's and F's, and others were incompletes. In May of this year, the Commissioners reviewed the record on implementation once again; their conclusion on the poor grades, no progress.

Two days ago, the Commission's chairman and vice chairman, Democrat and Republican or Republican and Democrat, wrote about the December report card in an op ed in the Boston Globe, and I quote: ``What we argued then is still true now; Americans are safer, but they are not yet safe.'' And concluded, ``Our sense of national urgency is lacking.''

Mr. Speaker, we have lost our focus on terrorism since the invasion of Iraq, and that is one of the chief reasons that the 9/11 Commission's report card reflected so poorly on the Bush administration and on the Republican Congress.

Our focus should have continued to be on Afghanistan. The war in Iraq is the wrong war. No matter how many times the President wants to say it, the war in Iraq is not the war on terror. The war in Afghanistan was. We had the opportunity to destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and we missed the opportunity because we lost our focus. Instead, 5 years later, the Taliban is on the resurgence, violence

has increased, the poppy crop, the opium crop is all pervasive.

Think of this. Afghanistan now supplies 90 percent of the opium supply to the world. 90 percent. The increase in just the last couple of years is 50 percent. They went from 4,000 metric tons to 6,100 metric tons of cultivation. This is what is happening in Afghanistan

A missed opportunity to crush al Qaeda, an increase in violence, a rising resurgence in the Taliban, and the increase in the poppy crop.

Mr. Speaker, let us use the occasion that we have as we consider this flawed resolution to resolve to do better. Let us honor the memories of the innocent victims of 9/11 attacks and their families by doing the unfinished business of the 9/11 Commission. We have heard about it all day, it is in the public domain, it was in their best selling book a couple of years ago, and we still haven't gotten it done.

Isn't it hard to believe and to know that 5 years after 9/11 we still do not have real-time, that means immediate communication, among police, fire, and other first responders. We paid a price for this with Hurricane Katrina. Five years later, we still do not have the screening at our ports that we should have; we are at 5 percent, we should be at 100 percent of screening. That is possible, it is affordable, and it is technologically available to us.

Five years after 9/11, we still do not have our borders secure. We have not mandated, because this Congress refuses to do so and this administration does, too, we still have not mandated the private sector to protect our nuclear and chemical power plants.

The list goes on of shortcomings. The 9/11 Commission said we should increase the pace of reform at the FBI. There are so many things that are lacking in what we are doing to protect the American people. The biggest threat to the security and safety of the American people is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the unsafeguarded radioactive material that is out there. For about $10 billion, about a month in Iraq, we could buy up all of the known radioactive material that is out there that could fall into the hands of the terrorists. It is a lot of money. It is a small price to pay for the safety of the American people. And yet, for reasons that are hard to explain to anyone, we have refused over and over again to pass legislation that would appropriate the resources to do that.

Taking the actions to correct the unfinished business of the 9/11 Commission and others recommended by the Commission other than what I mentioned is consistent with the sacrifices of the people in New York and Virginia and Pennsylvania on 9/11, and the sacrifices made since then by the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. And God bless them. They have done a magnificent job for our country. We have to do better by them. We owe it to each and every one of them to do everything we can as quickly as we can to make America safe.

Mr. Speaker, it all comes down to the personal, now. Doesn't it? As we think back 5 years, we think about those families. Nearly 3,000 people were killed that day. Two thousand children lost their parents. The emotional toll is just incalculable. And yet, as our colleague Congresswoman Maloney has pointed out, from New York, the heroes and heroines of 9/11, Congressman Nadler as well, are not having their needs met. It is the responsibility of government to meet the health care needs of the people who risked their lives, who went in there without even a thought of whether they would help save a life or not. And now, without a thought, their needs are ignored. We have an opportunity to do better by them. We owe them that obligation, because with all the talk that we can do about initiatives and proclamations and honoring and the rest, it all comes down to the people, to the personal, to the impact on their lives.

Of course we will vote for this flawed resolution. It could be better. But just because the Republicans decided that they wanted to praise themselves instead of focusing on the business at hand doesn't mean that we won't support it.

But as we vote for it, I call upon the Speaker of the House to bring to this floor before we adjourn for the elections legislation to enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We have all the time in the world to do it. Nothing is more important than the safety of the American people. We have no greater responsibility as elected officials than to provide for that public safety and the national security of our country, because nothing else matters if we don't protect the American people. Instead, we have ignored those needs. We are cutting the COPS programs so the neighborhoods are not safer. We are making matters worse. We have the opportunity to make matters better. If we do pass them, only then will we truly be honoring the memory of those who died. Only then will we truly be keeping our promise to their families that we will make America as safe as we can be.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution today, but join me in bipartisanship. We can do this in a bipartisan way without controversy. The list is clear. The support is there. The need is urgent. I urge the Speaker once again to bring the 9/11 Commission's recommendations to the floor to make America safer, to bring some peace to the families of 9/11, and to bring to justice those who are responsible for those heinous acts 5 years ago.