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.

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, 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

S. Res. 565

Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four

civilian aircraft; crashed two of them into the towers of the

World Trade Center in New York City; and crashed the third

into the Pentagon outside Washington, DC;

Whereas the fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight

93, crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, near the town

of Shanksville, after the passengers and crew of that flight

struggled with the terrorist-hijackers to take back control

of the plane, ultimately preventing the flight from reaching

its likely destination in Washington, DC;

Whereas the heroic actions of the rescue workers,

volunteers, Federal, State and local officials who responded

to the attacks with courage, determination, and skill are to

be commended;

Whereas thousands of innocent Americans, and civilians from

many other countries, were killed and injured as a result of

these attacks;

Whereas Congress declared, in the aftermath of the attacks,

September 12, 2001 to be a National Day of Unity and

Mourning;

Whereas there has not been a terrorist attack on the United

States homeland since the terrorist attacks five years ago;

but al Qaeda has perpetrated terrorist attacks throughout the

world against U.S. persons, facilities, and interests, as

well as U.S. allies during that time; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate:

(1) commemorates the life of each individual who died as a

result of the attacks of September 11, 2001;

(2) extends its deepest condolences to the victims of these

attacks, as well as to their families, friends, and loved

ones;

(3) once again condemns in the strongest possible terms the

attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated them, and their

sponsors;

(4) commits to support the necessary steps to interdict and

defeat terrorists who plot to do harm to the American people;

(5) recommits itself and the nation to bringing to justice

the perpetrators of the attacks, along with their sponsors;

(6) honors and expresses its gratitude to members of its

Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, first responders,

members of intelligence community and others who have bravely

and faithfully participated in the War on Terrorism since

September 11, 2001;

(7) declares September 11, 2006, to be a National Day of

Remembrance, in commemoration of the terrorist attacks

against the United States on September 11, 2001; and

(8) declares that when the Senate adjourns today, it stand

adjourned as a further mark of respect to each individual who

died as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

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

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.

Once I finish my sentence.

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).

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here tonight. We have some good discussions planned.

I am joined by the gentleman from California, Mr. Doolittle. We want to take this opportunity to show some of the contrasts that are going on as far as the debates are concerned here on the floor of the House and across the Nation.

We have had some great opportunities for us to get together as Republicans and talk about our plans for the

future and pull together a vision for where we think this country ought to go. I thought I would just start out with giving us some of the words that have been agreed to by the Republican Conference to start our vision for the next century.

For the next century, the Republicans have agreed that we will promote the dignity and future of every individual by building a free society under a limited, accountable government that protects liberty, security and prosperity for a brighter American dream.

Mr. Speaker, we have looked through the material that is available from the minority leader's office and other publications. We have yet to find the vision that the Democrats are presenting. They have no such vision. They have been lately the ``party of no,'' and they have really developed no plan to lead this Nation.

We have uncovered some statements they have made on what they would like to do, and tonight we will be sharing those contrasts. One of the things we are going to start out with is talking about our economy.

President Bush said over and over again at the State of the Union that the state of our economy is strong, and today's economic numbers prove that. Our Nation has bounced back from the blow the economy took after the attacks from September 11, 2001. Our economy between September 11, 2001, and the end of 2001, in that short period, took a $2 trillion hit. Our economy was reduced by $2 trillion.

That is a lot of money. We don't write checks for $1 trillion. But to give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of how much $1 trillion is, if you had started a business the day after Jesus Christ rose from the dead and made $1 million that first day with your business, and the next day you made another $1 million, and the next day until today, every day until today you made $1 million, in other words, $1 million a day for 2000 years is not yet $1 trillion. It is only about three-fourths of the way there. So this is a tremendous hit to our economy following September 11, 2001, a hit of over $2 trillion.

Now, since that time, we have done things under the leadership of the President and the Republican House to revive our economy. We cut taxes. We have held the line on regulations. We have looked at making sure that health care costs do not grow too fast. We have made some minor changes to litigation, to our liability. And we have seen the employment gains continue. In fact, in August, 128,000 new payroll jobs were created.

Today, there are more Americans working than ever before in the history of our Nation, and the average wage of those workers is higher than it has ever been in the history of our Nation. In fact, there are more homeowners today than ever before in the history of our Nation and more minority homeowners than ever before in the history of our Nation.

Total jobs created since August of 2003, after we saw the final bottom of the hit following September 11, 2001, since August of 2003 this economy has created 5.7 million new jobs and the unemployment rate is down to 4.7 percent. That is lower than the average of the 1990s, 1980s and the 1970s. It is a tremendous statement on the strength of our economy.

Many of you have noticed recently that gas prices are now down below $2.70 a gallon, in fact, in Wichita last week, I saw gas at Sam's Wholesale, gas for $2.259 per gallon. Now, that is a long ways down.

I remember seeing the articles in our newspapers across the Nation where it said gasoline prices, and an arrow was poking up in the air. They did rise. They rose up above $3 per gallon. But now, when gas prices are coming down, we are all waiting to see where is the article to say, Congratulations, Republicans, gas prices are down. Thank you for expanding our refineries. Thank you for expanding our production. Thank you for expediting the things through the regulatory process so we can get more product on the market so we can lower the prices of gasoline. Thank you for changing the number of boutique fuels, which shortened supply and made prices rise. The article was never printed. I haven't seen it.

But the fact is, energy prices are down, and they are down because of the policies of a Republican House, not down because of the naysaying Democrats, the obstructocrats, that have been trying to stop everything that has come through this House floor in the last year.

Majority Leader Boehner said that ``while Capitol Hill Democrats' rhetoric may be misleading, their hypocrisy always gives them away. There is a clear choice between Republicans who are working to enact serious reforms that grow our economy and reduce our deficit and Capitol Hill Democrats who want to spend more of America's taxpayer dollars on wasteful government programs as they see fit.''

Well, the economic recovery was successful even though the Democrats opposed the reforms every step of the way. And it is clear the Democrats have no clear plan to strengthen our economy, as Republicans do.

Now, off the Web site of the minority leader, there is a document that is available. It is called ``A New Direction for America.'' And in that they have their idea of how we are going to strengthen the economy. According to this document and according to the minority leader of the Democrats, prosperity for a better America and better pay: We are going to raise the Nation's minimum wage, and we are going to end the tax giveaways for companies that are moving oversees.

Let us just talk about those two things for just a little bit because I believe the best policy for America so that we can keep and create jobs is to free those who create jobs, free those who create jobs, and not punish them for doing things that are demanded by the marketplace.

Now, let us just talk a little bit about raising the minimum wage because the concept that we always hear is that this is not a livable wage and if you raise the minimum wage then people will have more money. They can have a livable income now. So we are going to raise it $1.15 an hour. Friends, that is not going to make a living wage. And the fact is, according to a Duke University study, the people they say they are trying to help actually become hindered and they do not get hired. In fact, the people who get hired are teenagers and people in their early 20s from middle-income families. They get hired instead of the working poor. So the minimum wage actually ends up punishing the working poor. And another interesting thing that they found out is that employers, when they are forced to pay more in wages, forced by the government to raise their wages, they come up with new innovations.

Have you ever been to your local grocery store and had the ability to check yourself out or gone to a Home Depot or to a Wal-Mart or to other businesses where you shop, you pick your products out of your basket, you run them across the scanner yourself, you stick in your credit card, you put your purchased products in your own bags, and then you load them up after you pay your bill and go out the door. What does that mean? That means there is no checker. Why is there no checker? Because we forced the minimum wage up so much that it is cheaper for that company to bring in this new automation because they cannot afford to pay the additional wages.

So the first step in their plan is to punish employers by forcing them with a new regulation on wages.

The second one is to end tax giveaways for people who have moved jobs overseas. Why do jobs go overseas? Why are we losing American jobs? It is really pretty interesting. I sat down with the CEO of Raytheon in Wichita, Kansas. He was moving 400 jobs over the border to Mexico. And I said to him, Have you looked at working with the union to make sure that we can save these jobs?

He said, Yes, we sat down. We did everything we could. We went to productivity. We tried new ideas. We sketched it all out. And he said, Todd, I realized that even if my workers came in and worked for me for free, I would still have to look at moving those jobs to Mexico.

Well, it dawned on me then it is not about wages. And from my previous experience I can verify that. I used to work at the Boeing Company. My job was to bring jobs into the Wichita area. When I was asked to bid a job, I had a predetermined rate that I could use based on a manufacturing hour or an engineering hour or a modification

hour for the Boeing Company in Wichita. And for a manufacturing hour, the going rate back in 1994 was $150 per hour, and yet the average wage was about $15 an hour. In other words, 10 percent of the cost of making a product in Wichita, Kansas was wages, and the other 90 percent, a large part of which was driven by the cost forced on that company and every company in America by the Federal Government, barriers placed on these businesses by the Federal Government, keeping them from being more competitive and creating and keeping more jobs.

I have something that we have been working on, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and I have been working on, in the Economic Competitive Caucus. We have decided that we can identify the areas where the Federal Government has created barriers to new jobs and we are going to try to eliminate those barriers. And one of the first ones that we are going to try to eliminate is the tax system that is so punitive on new jobs.

One of the things that is in the document the Democrats have is ending tax giveaways. We have very little ways that we can getting things done that we hope to see done. For example, we want to have alternative fuels in America. So what we have done is we have the process. We have used tax credits and tax relief to see that we have alternative fuel sources available. Well, the Democrats want to end these tax giveaways because they think they are just a giveaway. They want to hold that money and create more bureaucracy.

But we think we can get some better results if we trust these companies to take a little of their money and reinvest it into creating more jobs in America. So we want to change the tax system. We want it to be fair, and we want to see some tax relief because people do three things when they get a little extra money in their pocket: They save it or they spend it or they invest it. If they save it, that goes into saving accounts which create money for mortgages so people can go out and buy new homes. If they invest it, they invest it in companies that sell their stock. The companies take that stock and they build more facilities and they hire more people. That is also good for the economy. The third thing is they spend it. When they spend it, that is a demand for goods. Those goods then are off the shelf and they have to hire people and create new products and bring products in so that they can replace what has been taken from the shelf when people spend their money.

I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from California.

And also in that regulation, it is all based on an adversarial system between government and the private sector.

One of the things that I look through is how we can improve the relationship between the Federal Government and how they do business with the private sector because everything is set up as an adversarial relationship. The EPA, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency, spends over half of their budget on lawyers. The reason they spend it on lawyers is because they are taking companies to court and suing them, and that means that these companies are spending more of their money just to defend themselves.

And we had a very good example happen in Wichita, Kansas about how the government could actually work as an advocate instead of an adversary and still get the accomplished goal completed. I got a call from the Wichita Area Builders Association, and they told me that the home building industry in Wichita, Kansas had been shut down. This was three summers ago. I started looking into it, and I found out that OSHA had targeted that county in South Central Kansas, Sedgwick County, where Wichita is located, and they brought all their personnel down there and they started going through all these job sites and writing citations and assessing fines, and everybody just left and went home. And as one subcontractor told me, he said, When I build a house, my portion is very small. I am just a framing contractor, and my profit is probably only about $2,500 per job as an average; so if I get a $5,000 fine, I may as well not go to work. So they have stayed home.

So I called up the regional director of OSHA, and I got them together with the people from Wichita, the Wichita Area Builders Association, and they worked out an agreement where OSHA would announce that they were coming and then they would go through the job site together with the contractor and make a list of any potential violations, and then they would leave them alone without any fines, any citations, and let them work out the problems. They would come back in 6 weeks and check on them. They did this. In the meantime the Wichita Area Builders Association hired someone out of the insurance industry that taught workplace safety, and he started sending them

around to job sites. At the job sites, they realized that the biggest problem that employers were facing was the inability to talk effectively with their workers. There was a language barrier. Many of the workers were Hispanic. They didn't have good English skills. And how do you tell somebody that you cannot prop a ladder up against a wall at 45 degrees, that you need to prop it up at 60 degrees? Well, if you don't have good language skills, it is difficult to do that. So they hired an interpreter to go around with this insurance safety engineer, visited all the job sites, and then they completed that process. OSHA came back and they found out that all the checklists had been completed and everybody was back to work. So here was an instance when OSHA, working with the private sector as an advocate for a safe workplace, brought everybody back to work. Costs were reduced. Everyone went back to work. The same goal was accomplished. The goal that OSHA has of a safe work environment and the goal that the workers have, keeping their workers from being injured and raising the Workers' Compensation claims.

And what is interesting is that when we have put this legislation together to codify the very example that I gave you before, Republicans are for that, the Democrats are against it. And here we see this, once again this contrast, and it goes through all eight barriers that have been created by Congress over the last generation. Most of these barriers, in fact probably 99 percent of them, were created under a Democrat Congress and we are still trying to undo the mess that has been done.

And, more recently, we are trying to make health care less expensive in America. We are trying to do it by innovative practices, by bringing market forces to bear on things like prescription drug and insurance sales. And one good example is associated health plans, where we would allow Americans in associations like your real estate agent or your insurance agents or farm bureau members, where they could join as an association to purchase health care. But the Democrats have opposed those innovative ideas because they want a single-payer plan. They want universal health care. They want socialized medicine.

Now, we have seen a lot of socialized medicine. We have seen it in the United Kingdom, we have seen it all through Europe, we have seen it in Cuba, we have seen it in Canada. In fact, if you look at our northern border, look at the hospitals in Seattle, Detroit, Buffalo, they are filled with Canadians who are unable to get health care in Canada. So they come down to America and they pay right out of their pockets; they are so glad to get it. But they have limited health care in all of these places, because if you have a single-payer plan it is like every contract is a cost-plus contract.

You know, the government right now, when they purchase things, they want to have a competitive contract. We see that whether they are buying tankers or toilet paper. They want a competitive contract. Why is that? Because when two companies compete, it brings the price down. When you have a single, sole-source contract which is based on all the costs plus a little profit on top of it, then there is a real incentive for all these people who are providing services to the government to drive up their costs higher and higher, because that means the profit margin, which is a percentage of cost, is greater and greater. So the costs go up dramatically.

And in socialized health care where it is a cost-plus contract for every service provider in health care, it drives the costs up, and so the government has no choice but to limit health care access.

And my dad is a good example. When he was 82 years old, because we have a free market system, he was able to get open-heart surgery. Had he been a Canadian citizen, he wouldn't be with me today. But he is 87 years old, he is healthy, he just had a trip to the West Coast, and he did that because he got open-heart surgery at age 82, something he could not have gotten in socialized medicine.

Our system is very good, but we have opposition in trying to make it more innovative and market responsive, from the Democrats.

That is an interesting concept, because the two things that we need the most in our economy are a good education system and a good

health care system, and those are the two things that the Democrats do not want to trust to the free market.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 996 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for 4 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their designees. It waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution and also provides one motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions.

Finally, it provides that notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today, 5 years after the tragedy of September 11, to speak with one voice to let the world know that we have not forgotten the lessons of that terrible day. We are here to remember the thousands ruthlessly murdered by our enemies who hijacked four civilian aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, and to recognize the unimaginable losses suffered by their families. We are also here to honor the sacrifices and the courage shown by our first responders who selflessly rushed to the flaming buildings in order to rescue the victims of these attacks.

We are also here to let our allies in the war on terror know that we stand united with them in the war on terror, and to recognize the progress that continues to be made by our Federal intelligence, law enforcement and security agencies in conjunction with intelligence, law enforcement and security agencies of our allies, in keeping Americans safe. And we are here to remind these allies and to place our enemies on notice that we will never shirk from the war on terror and that we will never forget what happened on September 11, 2001.

The six-page resolution should be recognized by every Member of this body as an opportunity to remember our Nation's tragic loss and to encourage every American to do the same. It is an opportunity to extend our sympathies to the families of the lost and to honor those who risked their own lives and health trying to protect the lives and health of others.

It is an opportunity to extend our gratitude to our intelligence and military personnel serving at home and abroad and their families for their service. It is to thank the citizens of other nations who are contributing to the effort to defeat global terrorism.

More importantly, it is an opportunity by this body to reaffirm that we remain vigilant and steadfast in the war on terror, that we remember the sacrifices made by so many innocent Americans on September 11 and that we will never succumb to the cause of terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution that will be brought here before the House for a vote is an earnest, heart-felt and comprehensive resolution putting the House on record and standing once again against terrorism.

This House already has a strong record on this topic and has already passed a number of bills designed to accomplish the main goal laid out in this resolution, to remember the lessons of 9/11 and to honor the victims by preventing another attack on American soil. We have voted to give our law enforcement the tools they need to prosecute the war on terror in the United States and throughout the world, and through the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and its reauthorization we have once again reaffirmed that.

We have voted to implement a key component of the 9/11 Commission by creating Federal standards for the application process in the issuing of State identification cards through the REAL ID Act.

And this House has voted to secure our borders through the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act and to defend our ports through the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act. We have made important reforms in the intelligence community through the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and provided our first responders with the resources that they would need with our annual Homeland Security authorization and appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, this House has accomplished a great deal on behalf of the American people to ensure the citizens of the United States that they can be safe here and abroad, but we understand that this job is not yet done. Next week the House is scheduled to consider legislation that will build upon all of this hard work, legislation to further boost our national security and to give our law enforcement the tools it needs to prevent our shadowy, ever-shifting, and determined enemy to once again demonstrate that we do not rest in the war on terror and that we will not forget.

I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule to let our allies and our enemies alike know that we will continue the war on terror both in memory of those murdered on September 11 and for the generations still to come who will look back and evaluate our ability to put partisanship aside and to stand together on behalf of our Nation, our citizens, and, in fact, our civilization.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, my colleague, from Massachusetts does clearly talk about the differences of opinion that we have, and I respect that difference. I would also say that this body has an obligation to move forward and work on issues that we think are correct and right. And quite honestly, Republicans do see what has happened to

this country, I believe, in a significantly different way than what my colleagues, the Democrats, see.

Several months ago we had a vote, and we have done this several times, but a vote on the intelligence bill where the Democrat Party wanted and had a vote on the floor that would require law enforcement and intelligence to release every single name of every single person under investigation by the FBI and intelligence agencies to the Congress, to nonlaw enforcement officials. These are the kinds of ideas that Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats have about how we go about protecting this country. We politely disagree.

The resolution here today is not about policy as it relates to what we are trying to pass today. It is about how this act that happened on 9/11 we will not forget. We will thank the men and women who protected us that day. We will stand behind the men and women of our military and intelligence organizations. We give thanks to the families who are here in this country whose loved ones serve on the front lines. And, lastly, we will let our allies know and the terrorists know that we will stay to the end. That is what this resolution is about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, 4 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, we think we got it right. We think we did the PATRIOT Act right. We think we did intelligence authorization right. We think we do a lot of things right around here. We are going to stand up for this country, Mr. Speaker. We are going to stand up for the men and women who protect our country. We are going to stand up and give the men and women of the intelligence community the things that they need.

Today, it is right and fitting to say thank you; we will not forget and we will be vigilant to protect this country. That is what this resolution is about

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

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

The gentleman from New York described his disagreement with the administration. I understand that. We had seen the administration before this President ignore, completely ignore, the advice from the CIA. As a matter of fact, I remember at least one CIA director resigned under President Clinton because he could not get President Clinton to pay attention to more than 3 hours in a month to the intelligence needs of this country.

We have already talked about how vote after vote after vote by the Democrats that they choose to gut our ability, in my opinion, to effectively not only have law enforcement but to chase down those that may do harm against this country.

Some choose to characterize that we are not safer today than what we were before the attack. I completely disagree with that. I would completely disagree with that because I think every single American that day learned of the tremendous forces that were aimed at the United States that we had really been completely unaware of before.

So I think that we are better off today. Are we absolutely safe? No. Are we safer? Yes, we are, and we have a responsibility to maintain that line of defense.

This resolution has nothing to do with that. It is a resolution, the force of this body, to say we respect the men and women who on 9/11 gave their lives; we are sorry for the men and women who have been injured as a result of that; we are going to support our military; we are going to support the families and we will never forget; and we are going to back up our allies; and we are going to make sure that we get it right. That is what this resolution is about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' because it is the honorable and the right thing to do, to say thank you to the men and women who gave their lives, to say thank you to the men and women who were heroic in their efforts to try and save people, and it is the right thing to do to say to the men and women of our military and our intelligence communities that we believe you have not only done a great job but we thank your families also for those sacrifices.

We believe it is the right thing to do to remember this event 5 years later. We believe it is the right thing to do to let the world know that the United States Congress, this body, in this House resolution, believes that we will stay strong not only in the war on terrorism but that we believe that fighting for civilization and peace and opportunity in this world is the right thing.

We have heard from three of this Congress' greatest leaders, Phil Gingrey, Pete King, who is the chairman of the committee, and the young chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, as they have spoken eloquently about not only what this country stands for but about how our respectfully saying thank you and remembering this day is a part of our job and is the right thing to do.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote on behalf of this resolution

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows

Previous Question for H. Res. 996, the Rule for H. Res. 994 Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives on the 5th Anniversary of the Terrorist Attacks launched against the United States on September 11,

2001

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:

``Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order

to consider in the House the resolution printed in section 2

expressing the sense of the House of Representatives upon the

five-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks against the

United States on September 11, 2001. The resolution shall be

considered as read. The previous question shall be considered

as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided and

controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or

their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.''

Sec. 2. The following is the text referred to in Section 1:

Resolution

``A resolution expressing the sense of the House of

Representatives upon the five-year anniversary of the

terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11,

2001.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four

civilian aircraft, crashed two of them into the towers of the

World Trade Center in New York City, and crashed the third

into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C.;

Whereas the fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight

93, crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, near the town

of Shanksville, after the passengers and crew of that flight

struggled with the terrorist-hijackers to take back control

of the plane, ultimately preventing the flight from reaching

its likely destination in Washington, D.C.;

Whereas the heroic actions of the rescue workers,

volunteers, and State and local officials who responded to

the attacks with courage, determination, and skill are to be

commended;

Whereas thousands of innocent Americans, and civilians from

many other countries, were killed and injured as a result of

these attacks;

Whereas Congress declared, in the aftermath of the attacks,

September 12, 2001, to be a National Day of Unity and

Mourning; and

Whereas there has not been a terrorist attack on the United

States homeland since the terrorist attacks five years ago,

but al Qaeda has perpetrated terrorist attacks throughout the

world against United States persons, facilities, and

interests, as well as United States allies during that time:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) commemorates the life of each individual who died as a

result of the attacks of September 11, 2001;

(2) extends its deepest condolences to the victims of these

attacks, as well as to their families, friends, and loved

ones;

(3) once again condemns in the strongest possible terms the

attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated them, and their

sponsors;

(4) commits to support the necessary steps to interdict and

defeat terrorists who plot to do harm to the American people;

(5) recommits itself and the Nation to bringing to justice

the perpetrators of the attacks, along with their sponsors;

(6) honors and expresses its gratitude to members of the

United States Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, first

responders, and others who have bravely and faithfully

participated in the War on Terrorism since September 11,

2001; and

(7) declares September 11, 2006, to be a National Day of

Remembrance, in commemoration of the terrorist attacks

against the United States on September 11, 2001.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.