2001CRH8403A ECO-TERRORISM, THE CHARACTER COUNTS PROGRAM, MISSILE DEFENSE, AND
no...@house.gov
[Congressional Record: November 27, 2001 (House)]
[Page H8403-H8408]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr27no01-84]
ECO-TERRORISM, THE CHARACTER COUNTS PROGRAM, MISSILE DEFENSE, AND
MILITARY TRIBUNALS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to take a few minutes
to talk about a number of subjects which I think are very important,
especially considering the times that we are in.
The first subject that I want to talk about is domestic terrorism.
Specifically, I want to focus in on ecoterrorism and talk a few minutes
about that.
Second, an exciting program which has been implemented in many
schools across the country, the program Character Counts. This evening
I am just going to do kind of a teaser on it and discuss some of the
elements of the program, but I intend later to go into much more depth
about the program and why it would be important for my colleagues to
try to encourage their local schools to adopt the program Character
Counts.
Then I would like to move on to a subject which I have addressed many
times, and that is missile defense and the importance of missile
defense.
I would also like to touch on the military tribunals that the
President has proposed for war criminals, not for American citizens but
for those individuals who have committed acts of war against the United
States.
Keep in mind that military tribunals were first used by George
Washington, Abraham Lincoln and President Roosevelt. The United States
Supreme Court on a number of occasions has found that military
tribunals are constitutional, so our discussion this evening about
military tribunals will not be on constitutionality because that issue
has been determined. Our discussion this evening should center more
instead on why they are necessary, why they are important and of what
benefit are military tribunals to the United States of America in its
continued and long-lasting fight against terrorism worldwide.
Let me begin with terrorism on a domestic picture. For some reason,
over the last few years there seems to be kind of a Robin Hood image
given to those people who are so dedicated to the environment that they
think that their dedication to the environment justifies acts of
terrorism against the property of others and at some point in time
against humans and other citizens in the United States.
This Robin Hood picture is kind of being played on by the media. It
is not a noble act. Environmental terrorism is not the way to
accomplish their means. There are many active organizations in this
country who care very, very deeply about the protection of the
environment. Many of us on this floor, including myself, care very
deeply about the environment.
Obviously, on many occasions we have a difference of opinion. In
fact, on this House floor, the two sides of the aisle are sometimes
urban versus rural. We have deeply held differences with the people
from the other side of the aisle or with our colleagues from another
State. For example, in Colorado we generally find ourselves with strong
differences on issues of Colorado water when we discuss that issue with
Members from the State of California, which is a large user of water
from the Colorado River.
But never on this floor, never on this floor do we engage in
conversation or strategy or do we engage in the actual act of terrorism
against our colleagues who disagree with us on this floor. We have
never even heard of that. It has never been considered. If it were
considered, it would be quickly squashed by my colleagues under our own
self-policing process. Members just do not do it.
In America we have a process which has been defined more accurately
against September 11, a process which allows us a legal venue to carry
these disputes. There is no justification for domestic terrorism. I do
not care whether we are talking about a bomb on the Greenpeace ship, or
a threat on an abortion clinic, or if Members are talking about
organizations like ELF, which is an organization completely focused on
accomplishing goals for the environment through the tool of terrorism.
It has no place in the United States of America.
Recently, I contacted a number of environmental organizations across
the country and asked them to join me, to join my coalition, my
coalition consisting of several of my colleagues' joint effort with me,
our coalition, to come out as a group and speak against, regardless of
which side of the spectrum Members are on, come out as a coalition,
just like we have done for international terrorism, to come out as a
coalition and speak against domestic terrorism under the name of the
environment.
I have actually been a little surprised by some of the responses I
have received. Over the weekend, there was a nasty article in the
Denver Post, a letter to the editor. It is amazing how people squirm to
somehow say why do you ask us to join your team against environmental
terrorism? Do you think that we are terrorists? I have never said that.
Organizations like the national Sierra Club, other organizations, I do
not think that they are terrorists. But there are some organizations
that, under the guise of the environment, are terrorists, and they
commit acts of terrorism.
It is justified to ask every legitimate organization in this country
to join the coalition that we are putting together to speak out as a
unified voice, to speak out against acts of terror and against those
people who think that it is the lesser evil for protection of the
environment.
I had some negative responses to my letter, asking, not accusing
anybody of terrorism, asking them to join our team, kind of like the
President said, you are either with us or you are not with us. The same
context as this letter. Hey, join us, help us. Because, frankly,
environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, like some of these
other national organizations, a lot of people look to them for guidance
on the environment.
In a lot of cases I disagree with the national Sierra Club, not so
much with the local but the national policies, especially when it
regards the Colorado Rockies in my district. But the fact is I have
never considered that organization or the organization of Greenpeace a
terrorist organization. They do not advocate it. I have never seen any
evidence that they are proponents of terrorism.
On the other hand, these groups are nationally recognized, and
perhaps some of the radicals who are committing ecoterrorist acts will
listen to what these organizations say and listen to their experienced
opinion that terrorism does nothing but hurt the cause. It does not
help forward the cause of the environment. Committing acts of
ecoterrorism, as they did in my district and throughout this Nation,
those acts did not further the cause of the environment.
In fact, what it does is it makes the people who really care about
the environment, the organizations like the national Sierra Club and
others, it kind of draws them in by association. Even though they are
not associated, it draws them in by association and starts to give a
black eye to what otherwise might be a legitimate cause.
{time} 2015
So why would someone not join our effort, our coalition? I got some
positive responses, though, and I think some very mature responses, one
might say, very well thought-out responses. I would like to read one of
them from the Natural Resources Defense Council:
Dear Congressman McInnis and Chairman Hansen:
Thank you for your letter of October 30 in which you and
your colleagues invited us to repeat our long-held position
concerning violence by some who claim to be part of the
environmental movement. Let me state, therefore, that the
Natural Resources Defense
[[Page H8404]]
Council unequivocally condemns and abhors any act of violence
committed in the name of environmental protection. Violence
has no place in the struggle to protect the earth and its
people from the ravages of pollution and exposure to toxic
chemicals. There is no excuse for fire bombings and other
acts of violence that you have detailed in your letter. We
are blessed to be living in a country where people are free
to have differing opinions on matters of public policy.
Moreover, it is especially at times such as these when we see
the horrible way in which disagreements are handled in other
countries that we appreciate our American tradition of
honest, forthright and civilized debate. As you know, the
Natural Resources Defense Council's more than 500,000 members
from all 50 States feel strongly that our children have
entrusted the earth to us for safekeeping until they are
ready to assume their place as leaders. We will continue to
fight what we consider bad public policy with every legal
means at our disposal. And as we find ourselves in agreement
on at least one issue, that violence has no place in policy
debate, I want you to know we would be pleased to discuss
environmental policy issues with you, your colleagues and
your staff at any time that is convenient.
And that is signed by the executive director.
That violence has no place in policy debate. There are lots of policy
debates on environmental issues, but as it was very clearly stated in
this letter, as I have very clearly stated on a number of occasions,
violence has no place in this public policy debate.
Over the weekend, I had an opportunity to write a response in the
Denver Post. I would like very briefly to read this and put this as a
matter of record. Let me say that in regards to ecoterrorism, this is
not something that has happened since September 11. We suffered a
horrible loss in our district, not horrible as compared to the horrible
loss we have suffered over at the Pentagon and New York City. Those two
do not compare, other than the fact that they are both acts of
terrorism. Unfortunately, we had horrific loss of life on September 11.
But what is happening with ecoterrorism in this country is gradually
and over time throughout and probably riding this kind of concept that
they are a Robin Hood or that it is the lesser of two evils, that
somehow terrorism is justified in environmental policy arguments, we
begin to see groups like ELF, which is the Earth Liberation
Organization, and ALF, which deals with the animal rights group, we are
beginning to see that these organizations are becoming bolder and
bolder in their acts of property terrorism; and soon unfortunately I am
afraid that these acts of property terrorism such as burning down the
lodge in Vail which was a $12 million lodge and by the way as a result
of them burning down this lodge, the ELF organization, what happened is
now we had to use twice as many logs as we would have used before, they
have put a lot of people out of work.
There was clearly no justification for this, but they are becoming
bolder. One of these days by accident or intentionally they are going
to take human life, all in the name of the environment, which as I
stated and I would like to repeat this letter because I think it is an
outstanding letter from the Natural Resources Defense Council which, by
the way, is a very well-respected, very active environmental
organization.
Bombing and fire bombings have no place in this argument. Acts of
violence have no place in the policy debate of the environment.
Let me read my response:
``Several comments attributed to me by critics are at best taken out
of context, a self-serving manner in order to make their case appear
stronger. As America begins the long haul back following the
monumentally tragic events of September 11, we all have to come to more
fully appreciate and understand the cancerous effect of terrorism on
free and civilized people. Now more than ever, America knows in its
collective heart of hearts that terrorism, no matter its form, and no
matter its motivation, is intolerable. Whether it is crashing a plane
into the Pentagon, sending a mysterious white powder to an abortion
clinic, burning up a Greenpeace ship or burning a Vail lodge into the
ground, terrorism has no place. I am chairman of a House subcommittee
charged with overseeing our national forests. One form of terrorism is
high on the committee's radar screen, ecoterrorism. While not as
menacing or destructive as the terrorist attacks of September 11,
environmentally motivated violence has nonetheless reached such a level
that the FBI now recognizes it as one of America's primary domestic
terrorism threats. Let me repeat that. The FBI now recognizes it as one
of America's primary domestic terrorism threats. Shockingly,
ecoterrorists continue their war against American communities, fire
bombing a biomedical research lab and a Federal facility just days
after America was rocked by Osama bin Laden and his network of
terrorists.
``Ecoterrorism is not an imagined problem. Environmental vigilantism
is on the rise and it is for real. Recently the national dialogue about
ecoterrorism took a heated turn when a handful of environmental groups
objected to a letter written by myself and several of my colleagues
urging organizations to openly disavow the action of ecosaboteurs like
the Earth Liberation Front and its sister organization, the Animal
Liberation Front.
``ELF, as the Earth Liberation Front is known, and ALF, as the Animal
Liberation Front is known, have reigned terror on communities in all
corners of the United States over the course of the last decade;
setting fire to homes, academic research labs, government buildings and
many businesses.
``Colorado has not been immune from this type of ecoterrorism threat.
In 1998 ELF's henchmen burned a $12 million ski lodge in Vail to the
ground. In all, these groups have prosecuted a campaign of terror with
a price tag well over $40 million, and it is just a matter of time
before human life is taken.
``Alarmingly, ELF and ALF, and other like-minded radicals, have found
refuge in certain circles of the popular press. Instead of being
forcefully condemned, too often these groups have received a wink and
nod and a rhetorical pat on the head from those who view
environmentally motivated violence as a lesser evil in the furtherance
of a greater society of good.
``A National Public Radio guest commentator, and I stress guest
commentator, when recently reporting on a series of arsons in Arizona,
then thought to be the handiwork of ecoterrorists, offered a shocking
on-the-air endorsement of environmental push saying she would be happy
to buy matches for the ecoarsonists the next time they were prepared to
strike.''
I should add, taking away from the letter for a moment, that National
Public Radio readily acknowledged that this should not have been on the
commentary, that it was not professional journalism, and I can tell my
colleagues that National Public Radio apologized. I felt they acted in
a very professional manner, but let me continue.
``In 1999, a story in the Portland Oregonian chronicled a subtle and
sometimes not so subtle, claim that certain members of mainstream
society offer groups like ELF. It is exactly this kind of thinking and
rhetoric that fuels the destructive tendencies of environmental
terrorists. If America is going to get the upper hand on ecoterrorists,
we have got to strip away the Robin Hood mystique and perceived moral
high ground that some gleefully give these radicals which brings me
back to the letter of the environmental groups.
``The purpose was not to impugn or otherwise link organizations like
the Sierra club to ELF or ALF, and nothing in my letter could
reasonably send that impression. The letter has just one purpose, to
send a powerful message to the ecocriminals of ELF and ALF and their
sympathizers that even those who share a similar environmental ideology
deny and reject the use of terror as a tool to promote those thoughts.
``Notwithstanding the self-serving criticism and outrage coming from
the lips of certain excitable commentators, this letter is singly
targeted at building a cultural coalition against environmental
terrorism and provides the opportunity for those who care about the
environment to openly express distaste and disapproval of
ecoterrorists. Those who commit these shameless acts of terror should
find themselves with no support because all of us can unite against
it.''
My point is this, that environmentally motivated terrorism is not
noble. It is not a noble act, and it is not some kind of lesser evil in
pursuit
[[Page H8405]]
of greater good. It does not work on domestic terrorism in this
country. We have policy debate and acts of terror have no place
regardless of how deep one feels, regardless of how intense the debate
becomes.
We have a system in the United States that allows remedy, that allows
claims to be heard. We have the freedom of speech in this country. All
of these rights that were written by our Bill of Rights and are
protected by our Constitution were put in there for the very purpose of
avoiding utilization of the tool of violence as a way to dissolve or
resolve domestic dispute. So I intend to be very aggressive in my
continued pursuit against the ecoterrorists of this country.
I want my colleagues to know that this pursuit started well before
September 11. In fact, we attempted and were eventually successful at
subpoenaing the spokesman for the ELF organization, and I would like to
read that letter very briefly, the response, so that my colleagues
understand what kind of individuals that we sometimes deal with.
This is a letter from a guy named Craig Rosebraugh. Craig is the
spokesman of, although I understand he has recently resigned, was the
spokesman for the North American ELF press office; and by the way, my
colleagues ought to take a look at their Web site. If my colleagues
think that I am exaggerating things, take a look at the Web site of the
Animal Liberation Front, ALF, put it in a search. Just put ALF in a
search and take a look at it or put ELF in a search.
The Earth Liberation Front, now their particular Web site, look it
up, take a look at what they talk about is justification within the
borders of the United States to further their policy position. They
advocate, they encourage and I think they coordinate acts of
destruction and acts of terrorism.
When we served this gentleman with a subpoena, first, however, before
I served him with a subpoena, I asked him to voluntarily come back.
This is the response I got:
``Dear, Mr. McInnis: I received your letter, whether or not I am
available to testify at the upcoming hearing regarding the emerging
threat of ecoterrorism on the national forest lands. It is unclear to
me why my testimony is desired at such a function. Furthermore, the
topic of discussion appears, at least to me, to be somewhat vague, with
no stated goals in mind.
``By addressing the subject of ecoterrorism threat on national public
lands, are you referring to the ongoing destruction caused by the State
itself along with industry as both continue to exploit and alienate the
natural resource wilderness and ecosystems for this country for the
sake of profit or it is a given subject in reference to the State and
mainstream media created label which attempts to place a negative
stigma on those actions attempting to place life in front of profits?
{time} 2030
``In answer to your question am I available, the answer is no. I see
no value, unless I am mistaken in your intent, in cooperating with the
same state,'' referring to the United States, ``in cooperating with the
same state that is directly responsible for the ongoing murder and
exploitation of life, both within this country and internationally.''
And it is signed by this guy.
This is the leading spokesman for this radical organization. They are
not environmentalists, they are terrorists. There are a lot of
organizations in this country that you can label environmentalists that
are legitimate and, in my opinion, on a number of occasions there are
issues I actually agree with. But they represent the views of a lot of
people in this country. These are organizations that speak for a lot of
people, like the Natural Resources Defense Council, but they do it in a
legitimate fashion.
This should no more be accepted than bombing an abortion clinic. In
my opinion, a bombing of an abortion clinic or burning down the Vail
Mountain lodge, burning it down to the ground, and putting a bomb on
the Greenpeace ship, those have no place in our society. And we as a
society, regardless of where you stand on an issue, whether you are
pro-life or pro-choice, whether you consider yourself a Sierra Club
member or not a Sierra Club member, whether you like Greenpeace or do
not like Greenpeace, we can all come together as a coalition.
We can all speak as one voice, that environmental terrorism has no
place in policy debate in this great country that we have, because this
great country has become great because there are platforms, such as
this platform, that allow us to have policy debates, as we have day in
and day out in this great chamber of this House of Representatives.
So I would urge people, my colleagues across the country,
representing places across the country, speak up against eco-terrorism.
Emphasize that while someone may have deep, deep beliefs about an
environmental issue, that at no time is there justification to pull out
a pack of matches, as that commentator in Arizona said she would
supply, at no time is there justification to go to Vail, Colorado, and
burn the lodge down; at no time, if you are pro-life, is there
justification to go after somebody who is pro-choice, or vice versa,
pro-choice after pro-life. It just does not fit. It is not the policy
of this Nation. We should not tolerate it for one moment.
Now, I hope that we can come together, and I hope our law enforcement
agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, our State investigative
agencies, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, whatever law enforcement arm
we need, will be able to crack down on the individuals who believe that
terrorism is the correct tool to use to further their cause, regardless
of what that cause is.
Well, enough for that. I think it is important. I want to visit now
on some other issues. I intend however to come back when I make
comments to my colleagues and talk about environmental terrorism and
talk about the importance of eradicating terrorism within our own
borders, going after it, stopping it. This is how policy debate ought
to be handled.
Now let us move to another subject which I have seen a lot of
discussion on lately in the last few days, discussion, as if this were
an unconstitutional movement by the President of the United States, and
that is military tribunals.
The President of the United States, who has done a very, very able
job of leading this country in a time of need, in a time of war, has
proposed to do just exactly what previous great presidents have done
when this country has been in a time of war, and that is to take war
criminals, whether they are Nazi war criminals, or whether it is Osama
bin Laden or some of his lieutenants. These people are war criminals.
This is not a traffic violation or a civil violation or a U.S. code
criminal violation or state code criminal violation. These are acts of
war committed against the United States of America. Throughout the
history of this country, for justice for those people, we have had
military tribunals. Military tribunals were first utilized by George
Washington at the beginning of this country, the birth of this country.
Abraham Lincoln used military tribunals. Roosevelt used them in the
war.
Two times in the forties, as recently as the forties, the military
tribunals in and of themselves were questioned in regards to
constitutionality, and on both occasions the United States Supreme
Court has ruled that military tribunals are constitutional within this
country.
So do not let people divert your attention on these military
tribunals by saying it is an unconstitutional act, or somehow we are
leaving what America is all about. America is about defending its
borders. America is about bringing justice to the people who bring
great harm outside the boarders of this country to the inside of the
borders of this country.
America is a strong Nation and should not bow to the politically
correct who are afraid they might offend some of these war criminals.
These war criminals are not going to have their rights violated. What
rights do they have?
How many rights did those people in New York City have when those
towers tumbled, or, not very far from here, when the Pentagon was hit?
Oh, sure, they are going to be granted certain rights, as they should
be, during their trial. But I will tell you, they are not entitled to
what an American citizen should be entitled to on a civil or
[[Page H8406]]
criminal dispute, outside of an act of war. This is an entirely
different picture. This is an act of war that we are talking about. So
you are comparing apples to oranges.
When you talk about a crime committed outside of an act of war in the
United States, that is entirely different than talking about an act of
war committed against the United States of America.
Now, why are these military tribunals necessary? First of all,
understand that any time, and take a look at the spy cases we have in
our own Nation, one of the easiest tricks in the book for a defense
attorney if they are defending under our current legal system, if they
are defending a spy, for example, one of the first things they would do
is to issue a subpoena to try and force the government to open up
secrets, for example, everything they can open up, whether or not if it
has the faintest thing to do with their case, like open up the CIA.
I can just see it. If you were defending one of these people who
committed this act of terror against the United States, the defense
attorney would want to know all our secrets about the satellites that
located the person for their arrest, all of our financial spy network
that was able to locate how this person got their money, all of our
communication equipment. They would want to know publicly and they
would disclose it publicly. Why do they do that? These defense
attorneys want to drive a plea bargain. That is exactly what happens in
spy cases.
Take a look at the most recent spy cases, any of the last five most
recent. That is why plea bargains were driven, in part, because of the
information that our intelligence services would have to disclose, that
our enemies would love to get their hands on. So military tribunals
avoid that.
The military tribunals also do other things. It is a tested method
for bringing these individuals to some sort of justifiable trial.
Now, can you imagine, where are you going to locate this trial? It
allows us to hold them on military bases. Can you imagine, you do not
have to have juries that are disclosed publicly, like a civil jury
would be or a criminal jury today in America is.
So what I would say my comments tonight are not extensive, not
extensive on these military tribunals, but before you buy into the
rhetoric that they are unconstitutional on their face or they are
somehow unfair, take a look at the legal history, take a look at the
legal history of this country, and you will find out that while they
are different than a bank robber might be tried, for example, the type
of tribunal or the type of court system that a bank robber would go
through, in fact they do allow defense for the defendants. They do
allow the defendants certain rights, but it is taken in a different
context.
It is viewed by this country and by the United States Supreme Court
as an act of war against the United States, and it is justified to have
these types of military tribunals, this type of venue for remedy, not
only for the country, but a remedy that provides legitimate protections
to the defendant, while not going overboard to the politically correct
sometimes theory that we ought to just open the door and let these
defendants get the best of everything we have got in this country and
force disclosure of some of this Nation's top secrets.
So, give it a chance. Read about these military tribunals. Everyone
from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times, there has been lots
printed just in the last 2 weeks. But I think when it all comes down to
the bottom line, colleagues will agree with me, or most will agree with
me, that military tribunals have a legitimate place in our justice
system, and that that legitimate place has found a proper venue under
the circumstances that our Nation faces today.
Let me move on. Let me visit about a real positive program called
Character Counts. Now, I intend later on this week, I hope, or perhaps
early next week, to have much more, many more extensive comments in
regards to this program.
This is a program that has a Board of Directors that are nonpartisan.
In other words, it is not a politically driven program. It is not
sponsored by the Democrats, it is not sponsored by the Republicans. It
is a program that was put together by leaders, various national
leaders, leaders of the communities, leaders of religion, leaders of
community groups, all types of facets of society.
The way the program was put together was people were invited to come
together and say, look, what do we need to do for our young people in
this country? How can we define the word ``character?'' What can we do
to bring character back as a process of our education of our younger
generation? How can we once again deploy character into maturity when
we speak of the youth of this country? How do we do this, and how can
we do it in a way that is not racially offensive, that is not
religiously offensive, that is not political or partisan in any fashion
whatsoever?
So this group of people got together, and I will go into this in much
more depth in the next week or so, but this group of people, to
summarize it, got together and said, hey, let us define the elements of
character, in other words, the characteristics of character, and see if
we can come to an agreement. And they did come to an agreement.
They wanted to call the program Character Counts. You know, whether
you are in the Boy Scouts or whether you are in the Girl Scouts or in
some other type of organization, all religious organizations,
community, activist organizations, all of these have as a fundamental
base character. That is what it is about. The greatness of this country
was developed through the character of its leaders, through the
character of its citizens, through the character of the everyday person
who believes in honesty, who believes in hard work, who believes in
diligence. That is what has made our Nation great.
But that trait is not an inherited trait, those traits. It does not
just automatically appear in our young people. It has to be taught and
it has to be taught not only in a classroom sense, it has got to be
taught by example.
So we, too, have to adopt those characteristics of character and
follow those, and we have to deploy the education of those
characteristics of character in our schools and in our educational
system in hopes that character begins to replace what some people would
say is not politically correct, that it is not politically correct to
talk about character.
It is politically correct to talk about character. It is a very
important thing to the foundation of our Nation.
Let us look at the various elements that I have over here to my left.
Character Counts. Trustworthiness. As you will see as we go through
these characteristics, there is not one of these on this chart that any
of my colleagues could object to, not one, and put together as a unit,
it is a very powerful message to educate, not only ourselves, but our
young people, and to take into our schools. Character Counts.
Trustworthiness.
Responsibility. The ability to trust. The ability to be responsible,
responsible for the actions that you take, responsible for the work
product that you come out with, responsible for your family,
responsible for yourself, responsibility.
Citizenship. You know, one of the horrible things that has occurred
to our country in many, many decades, some would argue throughout the
history of this country, although I would argue perhaps the Civil War
was more of a horrible thing, but you take a look September 11. What
has it brought out? There are some good things that have emerged from
that horrible, horrible disaster.
{time} 2045
One of them is, people now are taking a much more positive view
towards citizenship and what it means to be a citizen in the United
States of America and what kind of price we have to pay to make this
country and to continue this country to be the greatest country in the
history of the world. Citizenship is a big part of it.
Recently, there was a book by Tom Brokaw, and that book I think was
titled ``The Greatest Generation.'' I do not agree with that title. I
do not think there has been a greatest generation. I think every
generation has great people within it. I think every generation in the
history of this country displays the greatest, not just one generation,
although certainly the generation that Tom Brokaw talks about
[[Page H8407]]
that my father and mother were involved in, the war effort, et cetera,
these were great people. But every generation has great people, and we
can continue, and I think we can measure greatness through
trustworthiness, through responsibility, through citizenship, and
respect. Respect is an important element in our society.
Mr. Speaker, when I grew up, my folks, I never was able to call
anyone that was more than 1 or 2 years older than me anything other
than Mr. and Mrs. In fact, there are friends of my parents today that I
have known for decades and I could not tell my colleagues their first
names. I have always known them as Mr. Delaney or Mrs. Delaney or Mr.
Jackson or Mrs. Jackson or Dr. Jackson, et cetera, et cetera.
Respect. When I was growing up, we always opened the doors for the
elderly, or for women. And I realize that society changes on some of
these things, but respect can be demonstrated in many, many different
ways, and every generation has a different way of demonstrating that, a
different use for respect. But respect must make the transition from
generation to generation. It is an important element of character.
Fairness. I think fairness has been demonstrated clearly by President
Bush in his response to those acts of terror on September 11. The
United States has a reputation for fairness. That is what has made it
the greatest country in the history of the world. When we talk to
people about the United States who have a nonbiased view of the United
States, they will talk about the fairness in the United States.
Fairness, it is important. Not only is it important in education, it is
important in every aspect of our lives, fairness and caring.
Think about caring. We go over, and I have heard a number of people,
and we have held the war in awe about our military machine in
Afghanistan. But if people think our military machine has been mighty
and something to behold, wait until they see the American feeding
machine. We are over there in Afghanistan and we care about the people
over there that did not commit an act of wrong against this Nation. We
care not to make innocent people the victims if it at all can be
avoided.
This country does not go in and take care of its business and then
walk out. This country has gone on, it has gone after the war
criminals, and it will hunt them down one by one and destroy their
empire piece by piece. But the innocent citizens, the citizens who have
now seen liberation, liberation of playing music, liberation. This
winter, with the tough winter, they will see more food in that country
than they have seen in many, many years, because the United States of
America cares about those people.
Mr. Speaker, the United States of America cares about people other
than themselves. There is no country in the history of the world that
has done more charitable acts, contributed more foreign aid, helped
more countries in need than the United States of America, and that is
because the United States of America cares.
So these are the elements of Character Counts.
Now, when I continue my comments later on in the week or early next
week, I am going to really talk about the structure of the Character
Counts program and why that program is important for all of my
colleagues to encourage their local school districts to deploy within
their classrooms, to utilize as one of their core courses, so to speak.
Because I think in the end, by relooking, by reemphasizing
responsibility, by reemphasizing to our young people through our
educational process responsibility, the caring, take a look at this,
the citizenship, the fairness, the trustworthiness, the only winners by
educating Character Counts are us, our Nation and our future.
Let me wrap up. Let me conclude my remarks with a final subject, a
subject which I have talked about on a number of different occasions,
and that is missile defense.
Many people in the country today are especially aware of the military
might of the Nation, and they are asking a lot of questions that we
never thought of asking before. Mr. Speaker, prior to September 11,
many people in this Nation thought that wars were fought outside
our borders and that what we worried about within our borders were
domestic murders, for example, an act of violence like that. No one
imagined that we would have the strike against this Nation that took
place on September 11. Now people do, and many of my colleagues'
constituents are beginning to ask the what ifs: What if we had another
act of terrorism? What are the acts of terrorism? What if we had a
biological attack?
And one of the questions that needs to be asked is what if a missile
were launched against the United States of America? What if the United
States of America were the victim of a missile attack? What could the
United States of America do to defend itself against a missile attack?
Remember, a missile attack, a missile being launched against the
United States of America does not necessarily have to be an intentional
launch. We could very easily have a missile launched against the United
States of America that was an accidental launch. And if we do not think
accidental launches cannot take place, take a look at what happened
over the Black Sea about a week after the September 11 event when the
Ukrainian navy accidentally fired a missile into an airliner and blew
it out of the sky. These accidents happen, and it could happen to the
United States of America.
I think it is important today that we all stand up and support the
President's determination to put in place for this country a missile
defense system.
Now, most people believe that if a foreign country fired a missile
against us today, that our NORAD command center, which is located in
Colorado Springs, buried deeply within a granite mountain, that NORAD
would quickly pick up on its radar and on its devices the fact that a
missile has been launched; and that is, in fact, accurate. They would
pick it up, in fact, within a few seconds. NORAD could tell us that a
missile has been launched. It could tell us the size of the missile, it
could tell us the speed of the missile, it could tell us the
approximate target of the missile, and it could tell us the estimated
time of arrival of the missile. But, after that, there is not much more
NORAD can do.
A lot of our citizens, I say to my colleagues, assume that we then
would fire a missile to stop it or somehow we could defend ourselves.
But all we can do today is quickly advise Oklahoma City or somewhere
else, hey, there is a missile, an in-bound missile, and it is going to
strike at this point in time. That is all we can do for you.
Today, our responsibility has risen to a higher standard as a result
of the events of September 11, and that standard is to follow the
President's lead and deploy within the borders of the United States of
America a missile defensive system that will protect its citizens, that
will provide a defense for the security of this Nation. Failure to
deploy a missile defensive system is, in my opinion, gross dereliction,
gross dereliction of our constitutional duties to protect the security
of this Nation. This is critical that we put this type of system into
place.
Now, some will tell us, wait a minute. There is a treaty out there
called the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. It is a treaty between the
USSR and the United States of America that prohibits either country
from building a missile defensive system. That treaty ought to be
trashed. That treaty has within its four corners, and it is contained
right here, let me show my colleagues. It allows, the legal rights of
that treaty called the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, it allows within
its four corners each party, in exercising its national sovereignty,
have the right to withdraw from the treaty. It is a right to withdraw,
the right to withdraw. We are not abrogating the treaty. We are not
breaking a treaty. We have the right to withdraw from that treaty.
But it is subject to one condition, and that condition is that if it
decides extraordinary events relating to the subject matter of this
treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. Have extraordinary
events jeopardized the supreme interests of the United States of
America since this treaty was signed between Russia and the United
States? The answer is clearly and undebatably yes. It has changed for
Russia, and it has changed for the United States.
Take, for example, the proliferation of missiles, the proliferation
of missiles that have taken place since that
[[Page H8408]]
treaty, countries that possess ballistic missiles. Look at them.
Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Belarus, China, Croatia, the Czech
Republic, Egypt, France, India, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, this list goes on
and on. When that treaty, the Antiballistic Missile Treaty was signed,
there were only two nations in the world capable of delivering these
missiles. It was the United States and Russia. Whether or not we agreed
with the merits of the treaty at that point in time, surely today we
would agree that the circumstances have changed dramatically, that it
is in both Russia's best interests and the best interests of the United
States of America that we provide the people of this Nation not further
offensive missile capability but defensive missile capability.
Every peace advocate in this country ought to be a stronger advocate
of a missile defense system. Why? Because it could possibly avoid a
war.
Let us say that some country launches accidentally. Let me tell my
colleagues, the consequences of being able to stop a missile over the
ocean or stop it before it gets very far off its launching pad, dealing
with those consequences are much easier to settle than dealing with the
consequences of a missile landing on a major city in the United States
of America.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come. The time is here today to follow the
lead of our President, and that is to deploy a missile defense system
for the defense of this country. Every one of my colleagues, in my
opinion, has an inherent, an inherent obligation, an inherent
responsibility to provide the constituents, the citizens, and the
people of this Nation security on the home front by putting in place
and deploying a missile defense system.
At some point in the future, at some point in the future, a missile
will be launched against the United States of America. That is my
opinion. And if we today, while we have the opportunity, fail to
provide a defense against that missile, how could we ever, ever face
ourselves again in a mirror and say that we carried out our
responsibilities for the protection of this Nation?
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to speak strongly, because I feel deeply
committed about our obligation, I say to my colleagues, to provide our
citizens, to provide the people of this Nation a security blanket, and
that security blanket in a missile defensive system, is one that is
technically available, it is economically available, and it is an
absolute must.
Again, I repeat, it is an inherent obligation of the leaders of this
Nation, and we are leaders in this Chamber, to follow our President's
lead and to put that security blanket of a national missile defense
system in place and to do it without haste or waste.
{time} 2100
We can do it. I expect that we will have to do it much sooner than
later.
____________________