Congressional Record: March 17, 2004 (House)
Page H1142-H1202
RELATING TO THE LIBERATION OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE AND THE VALIANT SERVICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AND COALITION FORCES
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 561, I call up
the resolution (H. Res. 557) relating to the liberation of the Iraqi
people and the valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and
Coalition forces, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of House Resolution 557 is as follows:
H. Res. 557
Whereas Saddam Hussein and his regime committed crimes
against humanity, systematically violating the human rights
of Iraqis and citizens of other countries;
Whereas Saddam Hussein's terror regime subjected the Iraqi
people to murder, torture, rape, and amputation;
Whereas on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein's regime had and
unleashed weapons of mass destruction against Kurdish
citizens, killing nearly 5,000 of them;
Whereas as many as 270 mass grave sites, containing the
remains of as many as 400,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's
regime, have been found in Iraq;
Whereas rape was used to intimidate the Iraqi population,
with victims often raped in front of their families;
Whereas the regime punished the Marsh Arabs by draining the
marshlands, which created hundreds of thousands of refugees
and caused an ecological catastrophe;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-
338), passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 360
to 38, made it United States policy to support efforts to
remove from power the regime headed by Saddam Hussein;
Whereas with the Iraqi regime failing to comply with 16
previously adopted United Nations Security Council
resolutions, the Security Council unanimously approved
Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, declaring that Iraq
``has been and remains in material breach of its obligations
under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991),
in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United
Nations inspectors''; and
Whereas on October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives
passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) and on March 19,
2003, the United States initiated military operations in
Iraq: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) affirms that the United States and the world have been
made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime
from power in Iraq;
(2) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face
of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by
Saddam Hussein's regime;
(3) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's
interim constitution; and
(4) commends the members of the United States Armed Forces
and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its
gratitude for their valiant service.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 561, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lantos) each will control 2 hours.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
[[Page H1143]]
General Leave
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on the resolution under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important moment in our history. We are in
the middle of a war the like of which has not been seen in recorded
history. Everybody is a combatant, and the enemy works by night and
works through cowardice. We do not see them. It is not like when Hitler
marched through Europe with the blitzkrieg, where you could see the
enemy. The enemy extends from New York City to Madrid to Indonesia. And
if ever there was a time for this country, the United States of
America, to be unified, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha)
said earlier, it is now.
Now, there are two aspects to this issue that we have here today. One
is the procedure by which we got here, and that is controversial and
has evoked some harsh words. And the other aspect, the one that I
choose to dwell on, is the substance of the resolution.
The resolution, it seems to me, is simple, straightforward and one
that everybody can support. It does four things. It congratulates the
Iraqi people on withstanding the torture, the brutality, and the
oppression that Saddam Hussein has visited on that country for so long.
It affirms that the United States and the world has been made safer
with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime. And I understand
there are some who doubt that and wish to contest that. I would suggest
to them that they look at Libya and they consider that Libya has given
up its pretenses to have weapons of mass destruction, its capacity to
develop nuclear weapons, and is rejoining the community of nations
without a shot being fired. And anyone who doubts that that is not a
direct result of our intervention in Iraq, seems to me, is not a very
good logician nor a student of history.
The other two things the resolution does is commend the Iraqi people
on the adoption of an interim constitution. This, Mr. Speaker, is a
miracle. You have Sunnis, you have Shiites, you have Kurds who have
been at each other's throats for a long, long time. You have them
coming together in a period of 9 weeks reaching a constitutional
document. Not perfect, but a giant leap forward from where they were.
This is an immense contribution towards democratizing the volatile
Middle East, and they deserve recognition.
And, of course, this resolution commends the United States Armed
Forces and the Coalition for their valor and their courage in the war
in the Middle East.
Now, those things, it seems to me, everybody can support. And
regardless of our disagreements on process, regardless of our concerns
about how we got here, I would ask, in the spirit of, dare I say,
patriotism, sticking up for our country, never mind our ruffled
feelings, justified or not, let us stand as one with our military
people who are fighting this war, this strange, weird, deadly war,
where all of us should be Americans, not Republicans and not Democrats.
{time} 1415
Mr. Speaker, the vote in Spain was a great victory for al Qaeda, but
it was simply a battle, it was not the war. The war will be a long,
long war; and the voices of appeasement are being heard in Europe, but
there are other voices, some from the past, voices like Churchill,
voices like de Gaulle and voices like Roosevelt that caution
resistance, resistance to tyranny. I would ask that Members read the
resolution. It is very simple, very straightforward; read it and then
put your bruised feelings aside and support it.
If we want to go into bruised feelings, both sides have ample cause,
we certainly do, being called, and I say this in sorrow not anger,
crooks and liars and having it suggested that the war was started by
the President. Those kinds of ideas are not conducive to getting
together and embracing each other in the unity that must prevail if we
are to win. We do not dare lose this war. What can we do to help win
it? I ask Members that, and I ask my friends on the other side of the
aisle to give it heartfelt thought and support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are considering today is deeply
flawed. The way it was handled was meant to be divisive, and it has
achieved that goal. None of us in this House knows if next January we
will have a Kerry administration or a Bush administration, but we do
know that whoever is in the White House must ensure the success of U.S.
policy in Europe. Success in time of war requires cohesion and unity.
We do not need a divisive, partisan resolution. This may be the way to
prepare a Republican tax bill, but it is not the way to prepare a
foreign policy resolution to win broad bipartisan support.
Mr. Speaker, the conflict in Iraq should not be a partisan issue. The
soldiers who are fighting in Iraq are Democrats and Republicans and
Independents. The soldiers who are wounded and killed in Iraq are
Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The families who grieve for
their sons and daughters who died in Iraq are Democrats and Republicans
and Independents. The citizens of this country who are paying for this
war are Democrats and Republicans and Independents.
Mr. Speaker, it is totally unacceptable that not a single amendment
to this resolution was made in order. This was a Republican resolution,
drafted with partisan intent by the Republican leadership. Many of us
in this House who have been committed to and who have worked for a
bipartisan foreign policy for decades know that this is a slap in our
face.
A resolution that commends our troops ought to receive the unanimous
support of this body, but this resolution has been written specifically
to prevent that result.
Mr. Speaker, war is a time for shared sacrifice, a time when we are
all united in a common struggle. This is not shared sacrifice. Some
Americans are being killed, some are being wounded, some are asked to
leave their families and risk their lives far from home; and some at
the very top of the income scale are being asked to accept massive tax
cuts.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution commends the troops, but it does not
acknowledge the supreme sacrifice of many who are fighting. This
resolution makes no reference to the more than 550 service men and
women who have died in Iraq. It makes no reference to the thousands
more who have been wounded. It offers no condolences to the families of
those who have been killed. It makes no reference to the sacrifices of
the families whose members are away from them serving in Iraq for many
months or over a year. It makes no reference to the many civilian and
humanitarian workers who risk their lives daily. It makes no reference
to the contribution of our allies who have thousands of troops in Iraq,
and it makes no mention of the death and casualties they have suffered.
And it makes no reference to the Iraqi civilians who have lost their
lives and suffered injuries, including dozens who were killed today.
Mr. Speaker, there are other serious omissions in this resolution. We
should spend our time today debating substantive legislation to fix
these problems. The American people have not sent us here just to be an
``amen'' chorus for this administration. There are serious problems,
and we should be debating serious solutions.
There is no mention in this resolution of the flawed intelligence
that was the basis of the administration's argument for going to war in
the first place. We should be debating the establishment of a truly
independent commission to examine the shortcomings of U.S. intelligence
and the way it was used.
The members of this commission must not be appointed solely by the
President, and the commission should make its findings known before
Election Day. Only a truly independent investigation, and an
investigation that the American people perceive to be independent, can
bridge the credibility
[[Page H1144]]
gap in our intelligence both here at home and abroad.
The failure of this Congress to deal with the problems facing our
intelligence agencies will ultimately harm our national security, the
war against terrorism, and our fight against the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Speaker, we are commending our troops but we are not taking
action that we can and should take to make their lives and to make the
lives of their loved ones easier. The sacrifices being made by our
National Guard and reservists in Iraq and elsewhere are extraordinary.
Many National Guard and Reserve families have suffered serious
financial losses because of the pay gap between their military pay when
they are called up and their private sector pay. With longer rotations,
Guard and Reserve families are facing dramatically increased financial
burdens while their loved ones risk their lives far away from home. One
of the consequences is a serious problem with reenlistments in the
Reserves and the National Guard.
My legislation, H.R. 1345, legislation that I introduced 1 year ago
this week, would fill that pay gap. My bill would ensure that
government and private sector employees can continue to defend our
country without being forced to worry about their families facing
financial disaster.
Words of support for our troops ring hollow when substantive
legislation to improve their conditions is sandbagged by the leadership
on the other side.
Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that this resolution in its present
form is brought before the House today. This should be a time for
bipartisan unity and cohesion, not a time for partisanship. This should
be a time for us to deal substantively with serious problems we face in
Iraq and in our foreign policy. This should be a time for us to take
serious action to help our service men and women. All of us join in
commending our brave men and women of our Armed Forces.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a leading member of the Committee
on International Relations.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Let us
review and remember the history of Saddam Hussein, a history of
torture, murder and massive abuse of human rights. Saddam was not only
an aggressor against his neighbors, but he murdered his own people.
This is an outrage against all humanity.
Under Saddam Hussein, torture was widely used. Rape was a standard
practice to intimidate and punish families, an outrage against women
and all humanity. Murder was common. Truckloads of bodies took away
victims. Ethnic cleansing was practiced with precision and effective
organization, again an outrage against humanity.
The mass graves he created could barely hide the devastation of
Saddam Hussein. Let us remember that Saddam Hussein was known in his
own neighborhood, the Middle East, as The Butcher of Baghdad. Back in
1998, Saddam Hussein made a poison cocktail for the town of Halabja,
using a combination of nerve agents, mustard gas and conventional
munitions to kill 5,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, again an outrage
against humanity.
And from 1983 to 1988, he went on an ethnic cleansing rampage against
Iraqi Kurds, killing nearly 30,000 and wiping out 60 individual
villages.
If you were not marked for death, Saddam Hussein was a master at
torture and these were his favorite tools of torture, electric shock,
drip acid on victims' skin, gouging out eyes, pulling out fingernails,
suspending individuals from rotating ceiling fans, and for those who
spoke ill of Saddam Hussein, they ripped out those victims' tongues.
This is all an outrage against humanity.
There are over 400,000 unidentified bodies being unearthed in Iraq
which call out for justice. I have a photo of a woman searching the
remains of a mass grave for a loved one. Tell me this is not a just
cause for freeing Iraq from Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress, this President, and our American military
men and women had the leadership, the courage, and made the sacrifice
to liberate Iraq from the mad, mad man, Saddam Hussein. It was the
right step to take for all humanity.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I will support this resolution. I will support it as an
expression of our Nation's gratitude and pride in our men and women in
uniform who have performed with brilliance and valor in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. To date, 565 Americans have given the ultimate measure of
devotion to our country in Iraq, including a young soldier from my
district, Jason C. Ford who was killed just a few days ago by a
roadside bomb, 2 weeks after arriving in Iraq.
We mourn the loss of Jason and all other fallen patriots, and extend
our most profound sympathies to their loved ones. We also pray for the
full recovery of the more than 3,200 servicemen and -women who have
been wounded there.
{time} 1430
And to the approximately 110,000 Americans still in Iraq, we must
offer this pledge: we will do everything within our power to ensure
your success and safe return home.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution should have simply expressed the support
of this House for our Armed Forces now in harm's way. Regrettably,
however, the majority has handled this resolution in a manner which
inevitably led to division. Our troops and the American people expect
and deserve better. On a matter of the highest national importance, the
majority has undermined the democratic process in this House, treated
those who hold different views with disdain, and created a bludgeon
where it should have built a bridge. This is the same approach that has
guided the current administration's foreign policy and which has
undermined our Nation's credibility and driven many allies away from
us. This is a time to bring together, to consult, to be unanimous.
Mr. Speaker, I share the view that the Middle East and the world are
better off with Hussein in custody and his Baathist regime on the run.
But our mission in Iraq has not been accomplished. Even as we speak
here, a car bomb has rocked Baghdad and killed more than 20 people.
This comes on the heels of attacks on our troops, civilians and even
innocent worshipers. Success must be our only exit strategy. And only
when our objectives are accomplished can we say with certainty and
conviction that the world has been made safer. As today's events in
Baghdad and last week's horrific attacks in Spain make clear, this war
has not been won. Yet. But we send an unequivocal message to those who
perpetrate such madness: we will not retreat from our objective to
eliminate the source of terrorism and those who perpetrate it. The
legacy of the men and women who have committed the ultimate sacrifice
in Iraq demands that we do no less. It should also demand that we do so
united, united by common resolve and not divided by efforts to achieve
political advantage.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the debate on Iraq today I think confuses the American
people. After all, one side focuses solely on parliamentary procedure
or when they do on substance they focus solely on the tough times and
the challenges that we face, which are very real. But its message all
too often is devoid of any mention of progress. Sometimes it even
suggests that we are not better off, we are not safer since Saddam's
capture. However, the other side, Mr. Speaker, the side that I am on,
talks openly of our soldiers' historic victories, how just 1 year after
the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam is in a dark cell, Osama
is in a dark cave, and General Qaddafi is learning to play better with
others.
The good news for the American public is that soon they will not have
to rely on the media or the politics from either side of the aisle as
the troop rotations take place. The public will get to hear from the
soldiers themselves, our hometown heroes. And the story that they are
going to hear is moving, it is amazing, it is historic. On the sobering
side, the public will hear of
[[Page H1145]]
mass graves discovered and death cells shut down. On the thrilling
side, they will hear about some of the things I saw myself when I was
in Iraq just a few months ago. The public will hear of schools and
universities that are open and operating, clinics and hospitals that
are open and serving, and democratically elected governing councils
that are open and governing. They will hear that well over 100,000
Iraqis now serve in the military and the police and that water projects
and economic development are well under way. In Mosul when I was there,
I saw a sign on the wall of the headquarters of the 101st which read:
``We are in a race to win over the Iraqi people. What have you done to
contribute to victory today?'' The answer from our magnificent troops
is clear, a lot, an unbelievable amount. And Lord willing, the public
is going to hear more each and every day about just what these
fantastic brave men have done.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from
Florida, let me remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that national unity
and cohesion are not matters of parliamentary procedure. They are at
the core of uniting the United States and the American people at a time
of war.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Wexler), a distinguished member of the committee.
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, while I strongly support the brave American
soldiers risking their lives to defend security and freedom, I rise in
opposition to this politically motivated resolution because it is a
farce and anyone who says otherwise is too blinded by politics to see
the truth. The truth is Iraq was not an imminent threat to America.
There were no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons; and there was
no link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The only mushroom cloud
resulting from the war in Iraq is that represented by the Bush
administration's barrage of deception and lies. While President Bush
considers himself a war President, he is actually a self-made President
of war. The President created the pretext for the war in Iraq. He
planned for it before September 11, and he misused and fabricated
intelligence to sell it to the American people. Instead of debating
this empty resolution of praise for President Bush, Congress should
investigate the President's unconscionable misuse of power and
manipulation of the truth.
Despite this second declaration of ``mission accomplished'' in Iraq,
history will tell the true story as it did in Vietnam. The mission is
far from being accomplished, and President Bush will be judged harshly
for the tragic events of the past year.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, as a political refugee from a brutal, sadistic regime, I
know of the terrible crimes that dictators commit against their own
people. Yet after talking to survivors of Saddam Hussein's regime and
speaking with the teams who uncovered Iraq's mass graves, I was left
speechless in the face of such atrocities. The Iraqi dictatorship
indiscriminately slaughtered Iraqis but the women were among the most
vulnerable. The notorious Fedayeen beheaded women in public, dumping
their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. According to the
September 2001 report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur, at
least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001,
in just 1 year. The regime used widespread rape to extract confessions
from detainees and would intimidate members of the opposition by
sending them videotapes of the rapes of their female relatives. At
times, family members were forced to watch those tapes.
However, Saddam Hussein's legacy of terror knew no boundaries. Even
small children were not spared the butchery as evident from the tiny
skeletons found in mass graves throughout Iraq. In 1998, the evidence
of the Iraqi regime's threatening behavior continued to mount and we as
Members of the United States Congress in a unified manner
overwhelmingly approved the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, calling for
the regime of Saddam Hussein to be removed from power and replaced with
a democratic government. By 2003 after 6 more years of Saddam's
oppression, the death toll had reached frightening proportions. The
U.S. could not watch idly and do nothing. As a Nation which stands for
freedom, democracy and human rights, we were compelled to act. Today as
a result of the President's resolve in Iraq and the courageous
dedicated service of our troops, the Iraqi people are free.
As Iraq's new female minister of Municipalities and Public Works said
last week to us: ``On April 9, 2003, Iraqis were offered the
opportunity to begin to dream their future.'' To determine if going to
war in Iraq and liberating the Iraqi people was the right decision,
just ask Dr. Khuzai, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council and
National Council on Women. After being prisoners in their own country
for 35 years, she told us: ``For the Iraqi women, the morale is so high
that you can't understand it unless you go and see. All the Iraqis are
very grateful to Mr. Bush and to the U.S. for liberating us from the
dictatorship regime. We will be grateful forever.''
Today, the United States is helping Iraqi women reintegrate
themselves into Iraqi society and, indeed, the outside world. Toward
this end, the administration has embarked on the Iraqi Women's
Democracy Initiative to train Iraqi women in the skills and practices
of democratic public life. It has also established the U.S.-Iraqi
Women's Network, helping to mobilize the private sector.
This is just the beginning. We will have a better, safer world for
the Iraqi people, especially for the Iraqi women, and for all.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the distinguished chairman of
the Democratic Caucus and an important member of the Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleagues now talk about human rights and
brutality, and there is no question about that; but there is human
rights and brutality in many parts of the world, and that has not
caused American troops to intervene in those countries. One year after
the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it is time to focus on the truth. Yet this
resolution leaves out the administration's most important justification
for the war in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction. This administration
systematically misled the American public and Congress into believing
that there were weapons of mass destruction and that we were under an
imminent threat. According to the Carnegie Endowment For International
Peace recent report, the administration systematically misrepresented
the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction by presenting the
case as solid instead of expressing the uncertainty that existed in the
intelligence assessments, and making the threat seem dire rather than
minor by misrepresenting the inspector's findings.
In fact, a report by the minority staff of the Committee on
Government Reform found the administration made over 200 misleading
public statements on the Iraqi threat.
The truth is that this administration will not have the American
people know what really happened with the intelligence until after the
November elections, a year from today. Most importantly, this
Republican Iraq resolution, crafted with no input from Democrats, makes
no mention of the over 565 American men and women who gave their lives
in Iraq to date and over 3,500 others who are wounded. I say we should
honor those who gave their lives, not ignore them. This resolution
should commemorate that ultimate sacrifice.
In the wake of the recent attacks in Spain, it is shameful that
Republicans are acting as dividers, not uniters. It is shameful that
the Republicans without input from Democrats on a crucial resolution
that could express our collective sentiment as we did after September
11 seek partisan gain out of what should be a national embrace.
[[Page H1146]]
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).
(Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARRIS. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 557, which
reaffirms the morality and justice of Operation Iraqi Freedom. One year
ago, our brave men and women in uniform began to liberate a proud and
resilient nation from an unspeakable 30-year nightmare. They also
delivered a clear message to terrorists and tyrants alike: the United
States will not tolerate a regime that pursues tools of mass murder and
destruction. Operation Iraqi Freedom reversed more than a decade of
failed diplomacy which exacted a devastating price. Because the world
permitted Saddam Hussein to violate 16 U.N. resolutions with impunity,
the terrorists became convinced of our weakness. Meanwhile, Saddam
continued to murder, torture, mutilate and rape men, women and children
by the millions. After routing Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait in
1991, we urged the Iraqi people to rise up and rebel against this
brutal dictator. Then, because United Nations and international opinion
required us to leave Saddam in power, we betrayed them.
During the Pryce delegation's mission to Iraq last fall, we listened
to the victims and witnesses describe the horrors of this wicked
regime. Incredibly, however, the faces of the Iraqis with whom we met
reflected a new hope, born from the blood, sacrifice, heroism, and
successes of our troops. Even as they endure the attacks of the enemies
of freedom, they know that by working together, we will win the
twilight struggle for their future.
{time} 1445
In the heart of the Middle East, we are replacing the oppression and
despair that breeds terrorists with the freedom and hope that defeats
them. Mr. Speaker, this stunning transformation is the very essence of
the war on terror and let us not permit the rhetoric of an election
year to obscure this fundamental truth.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), ranking member of the
Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia of the Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is extraordinary, not for
what it says but for what it deliberately refuses to admit. The
President took us to war. An immediate nuclear threat was the bait.
This resolution is the switch.
In the aftermath of the war, we found no stockpiles of weapons of
mass destruction, and with shifting justifications coming from the
President and memorialized here in this Republican-crafted resolution,
I cannot help but feel, as my constituents do, that we were sold a bill
of goods. Not surprisingly, today's feel-good pep-rally resolution does
not speak to these issues. What it does provide is the background music
for justification revisionists.
But since we have not discovered the promised stockpiles of weapons,
we have a big problem. Not that our failure to find the weapons is not
a big problem or that al Qaeda forces sneaking into Iraq is not a big
problem or that nation building a place the size of California is not a
big problem. The real problem is an utter lack of White House
credibility. It is gone. Having not just cried wolf, but rabid wolf,
this administration has lost its credibility with the Congress, with
the American people, with the people of Europe, even with the people of
``New Europe,'' and with the international community.
And the credibility gap extends to the plans for what we would do
after the war. We won the war. The Secretary of War makes good war. And
for the peace we were assured, the American people were assured that
there was a plan. In fact, there was. It was crafted by the State
Department. It spoke to all of the issues and problems that we have
come up with until today, and it was scrapped by the Secretary of
Defense. So how are the American people supposed to believe that the
current plan to hand over power to the Iraqis on June 30, ready or not,
come hell or high water, will actually work when all the expertise the
United States Government could muster in advance has been summarily
dismissed? I have concluded that the administration's plans to get us
into the war was bait and switch, and the plan to get us out looks like
cut and run.
Finally, I am deeply concerned that the war against Iraq has
undermined our stated Bush national security doctrine on preemption.
Surely we face a new and different world in the wake of September 11
and we must think differently about how to win the war on terror, but
preemption as a valid and legal doctrine for self-defense depends on
imminence, an imminent threat to our national security. What we have
discovered in Iraq is that there was no imminent threat and that our
intelligence about Saddam's weapons was far from the mark. The
administration has destroyed its credibility with the world community,
and if by our actions we have transformed preemptive war into
preventative war, then despite what today's resolution says, we have
not made the world a safe place but a more dangerous place in the long
run.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I would just like to comment on the use of the word ``imminent.'' I
wonder when the aircraft smashed into the World Trade Center, what was
imminent. That morning? The day before? See, when we are dealing with
suicide bombers, ``imminence'' is a rather difficult term to apply to
circumstances. Sometimes by the time one finds out it is imminent, they
are dead.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support
of this important resolution. It has been almost a year now since our
brave men and women in uniform liberated the Iraqi people from the
oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. In doing so, our Armed Forces
brought individual freedom to a people who have for decades only known
persecution. Now they are proving just as impressive at rebuilding the
country.
Mr. Speaker, several of the previous speakers have said that the Bush
administration falsely claimed that the threat posed by Iraq was
imminent. The threat was not imminent. The administration made no such
claim. The threat was it needed to be dealt with before the issue
became imminent. Saddam's regime continued to try to kill our American
and British air crews patrolling the no fly zone, people like the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), who flew those missions as a naval
reservist. The United States could not keep a potential invasion force
on station near Iraq indefinitely, nor would we want our soldiers to
have to fight at the height of the summer.
With the ousting of Hussein from power, we have discovered the true
horror and atrocities of this regime. As we look at the unearthed mass
graves and reflect on the countless human rights abuses, how can we
possibly question the legitimacy of this decision? The world is a safer
place with the liberation of Iraq, particularly for the 25 million
Iraqis who no longer have to live in fear of a brutal tyrant.
We entered Iraq to free its people and plant the seeds of a
democratic government, and that is precisely what we are doing. If a
few years ago, one would have told someone, anyone, that in the year
2004 the Iraqi people would be creating a constitution founded on
democratic principles, I daresay that no one, no one, would have
objected. Consequently, that is just what our decision has done.
I commend the diligence of our Armed Forces in the reconstruction
effort, and I am pleased with the rapid progress that is being made.
The road is certainly not an easy one, but I remain confident in the
ability of the Iraqi people, with the cooperation of the coalition, to
rebuild their country and to create a secure and stable sovereign
nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown), a distinguished member of the committee.
[[Page H1147]]
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for
yielding me this time.
We all in this institution support our troops. We marvel at and
applaud their bravery and their courage. It is not, Mr. Speaker, what
is in this resolution. It is what is not in it. I suggest to my
Republican colleagues that they meet with families of the men and women
who are serving in Iraq, something many of us in this institution have
done. They will learn how badly this administration has supplied our
troops.
There is no mention of the lack of body armor in this resolution and
how the Bush administration has failed to outfit our troops. There is
no mention in this resolution about the lack of safe drinking water for
our troops, something that this administration has failed to supply.
There is no mention in this resolution of cuts in prescription drug
benefits to veterans that this administration has forced on those who
have lived up to their obligation for our country. There is no mention
in this resolution of the $1.2 billion underfunded for the Veterans
Administration in the President's budget. There is no mention in this
resolution of 558 courageous young men and women who have died in Iraq.
There is no mention of the 2,788 soldiers and sailors who were wounded
since President Bush dressed in his flight suit and declared, ``mission
accomplished.'' There is no mention in this resolution of weapons of
mass destruction. There is no mention in this resolution of the Bush
administration's deceit in leading us to this war.
Mr. Speaker, the best way to honor our troops is to supply the troops
adequately, to protect the troops and make sure they are safe, and to
fulfill the promises to our veterans. Something the Bush administration
has failed to do. Something my Republican friends on the other side of
the aisle have failed to address.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I was fascinated by the remarks of the last gentleman. We have been
checking records of people who have strong views on this subject, and I
find the gentleman has voted 11 times to cut the intelligence budget.
That is pretty consistent, and I give him an A for consistency. He also
voted against the supplemental to provide the wherewithal for the
troops to be fully equipped. And so, as I say, the gentleman talks a
very robust military, but he does not quite follow up with supporting
funding for our intelligence.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the $87 billion, first of all, I
voted to equip the troops in Iraq in the first vote. When the Bush
administration failed with enough money in that budget to provide safe
drinking water, to provide body armor, when the administration failed
to do it, they had plenty of money to do it; yet it took them months
and months and months to make our troops safe. That is why so many in
this body said do not give the Pentagon more money, do not give
Halliburton more money, do not give more money to the company that is
paying Vice President Cheney $3,000 a week while he is Vice President
of the United States.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said what is not in our
resolution. I will tell the Members what is not in. The 11 votes he
voted to cut funds for intelligence, his vote against the supplemental.
And so to talk out of one side of his mouth for a vigorous military and
that they should be supplied, and then to deny them the wherewithal to
do it, it seems to me is standing on two stools. It is a great way to
get a political hernia.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Kelly).
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
resolution, first to praise the efforts of our men and women in the
military who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much on behalf of
this country. I also want to take a minute to recognize the courage and
resilience of the Iraqi women.
Under Saddam Hussein, Iraqi women lived in fear. They endured years
of great beatings, torture, under a farce of a legal system under which
they had no rights. Does no one remember the pictures of the Kurdish
people, dead, holding their babies in their arms, trying to shield them
from the horror of a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq? Only Baathists
were awarded the right to have medical care. Families were torn apart
on trumped-up charges. Divorce was grounds for having their children
taken away. Imagine a mother watching her child die because of her
political beliefs. Imagine watching a husband leave for work one day,
never to come back. Imagine walking down the street and having their
children ripped from their hands.
The persecution of women under Saddam Hussein was brutal and
systematic and left deep and damaging psychological wounds. Women were
afraid to walk down the streets. Girls were afraid to go to school.
With the source of that oppression now removed great challenges lie
ahead. Some estimate, for example, that over 70 percent of the Iraqi
women are illiterate. They could not go to school.
Somehow this battered and oppressed nation has to educate a new
generation of Iraqi children. And in the face of that tough task, there
is optimism in Iraq. For the first time in generations, they see an
opportunity where only once they had terror. Where once there was
depravity, there is excitement and hope in these women for the future.
I have met with these women. I have talked with these women.
The optimism is due to the United States' intervention and the
selfless service of our men and women in uniform. In our Armed Forces
stationed in Iraq, women stand alongside with men there and they serve
as a model for the Iraqi women who aspire to that kind of equality on
their own in their own country.
The new Constitution of Iraq calls for almost a 25 percent
representation of women. The Iraqi women themselves have asked for 40
percent. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us commends the Iraqi
people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression. I
commend the women of Iraq for overcoming that unspeakable adversity. I
hope that everyone will back this bill.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman), the distinguished ranking member of the
Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Human
Rights.
(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we send troops into battle without body
armor. Shame. Those troops come back deprived of the veterans benefits
we promised. Shame. And now we deliberately divide the homefront for
political advantage. Shame.
Make no mistake about it. This resolution was designed by political
consultants to generate the largest possible Democratic ``no'' vote
which can then be the subject of political ads saying one of our
Nation's great political parties does not support our troops. Shame.
The world is better because Saddam is gone. But a fair resolution
would acknowledge that we are worse off because 566 of our troops are
now deceased and 3,254 were wounded. And we are less safe because our
military is exhausted and overextended. Our international credibility
has been mangled beyond belief. So the real threats to our security,
North Korea and Iran, are able to make progress on their nuclear
weapons programs. We are not safer now than we were a year ago because
those who would develop nuclear weapons and smuggle them into our
cities have had a year further to progress.
{time} 1500
And one party devotes a day of floor time to dividing our Nation
during our war on terrorism. Shame. Just as that political party
brought forward money for our troops in a supplemental and linked it to
a giant welfare program for Halliburton and forced us to vote on it as
a package. Now it attacks our patriotism when we said ``no'' to
Halliburton, because they would not let us say ``yes'' to our troops
and ``no'' to Halliburton at the same time. Shame.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
learned gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
[[Page H1148]]
After listening to some of this debate, and I am sure it will get
worse during the day as we deal with this politically, from a policy
point of view, I would just like to take a minute and review what
really we are talking about here. We are talking about a resolution
that I cannot imagine any American, frankly, could not support. I mean
we are simply saying that we affirm that the United States has made the
world safer by the removal of Saddam Hussein. Well, I believe that
pretty strongly.
We are commending the Iraqi people for their courage and going
through all they have gone through. We are commending the Iraqi people
because they actually have an interim Constitution and a Bill of
Rights. That ought to have been on the front page of some paper
somewhere. And we are commending our troops. What is there to be
against, against that? All of it is true.
Do we want something else added to it? Well, I do too. And my
colleagues will vote no because they did not get it exactly like they
wanted it. I would like for this resolution to have commended the
Commander in Chief of the United States. I would like for us to say to
President Bush, thank God we have a man who has come along with enough
backbone to stand up to the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction around the world and is willing to stand up to the
terrorists. Thank goodness we do that.
My colleagues spend all of their time talking about weapons of mass
destruction. What this President has said to us about weapons of mass
destruction is precisely what the previous administration said to us
also. The difference is, we have a 9/11. And the difference is, we had
a President that was willing and ready to act as we should have acted.
Just think about it a minute. We knew he had weapons of mass
destruction. We knew he had the ability to make weapons of mass
destruction, did we not? We knew he used weapons of mass destruction.
When I voted yes for the President, I thought he had weapons of mass
destruction, but I was not by myself. Israeli Intelligence thought so;
British Intelligence, German Intelligence, French Intelligence, the
U.N., even Saddam Hussein thought he had weapons of mass destruction.
Get off of that.
We are doing the right thing to protect this world, and we are doing
the right thing to protect our security here at home.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), a distinguished member of the
committee.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but praise for our
warriors in Iraq, but I oppose the President's Iraq war.
If this was a resolution praising our warriors instead of using them
as a pretext for applauding the President's after-the-fact arguments
for going to war, I would vote for it. If this was a resolution
proposing ways in which Congress and the President will raise our
soldiers' pay, improve their housing at home and abroad, ensure quality
health care for their families and survivors, I would vote for it. If
this was a resolution guaranteeing the greater benefits, job training,
educational and employment opportunities for returning veterans, I
would vote for it. If this was a resolution demanding that the
President develop a real foreign policy agenda instead of a doctrine of
preemption and preventative war, I would vote for it. If this was a
resolution calling on the President and the Intelligence Community to
come clean on why no weapons of mass destruction have been found, I
would vote for it. If this was a resolution condemning the no-bid
contracts by which private military companies like Halliburton have
enriched themselves and whose contributions have fattened the
President's campaign war chest, I would vote for it.
But since this resolution is none of the above, I am compelled to
vote against it. Since this resolution is steeped in hypocrisy and
self-congratulatory bravado while refusing to address the false
pretenses upon which the Iraqi war was launched, I am compelled to vote
against it.
Again, this is poli-tricks, again, as this resolution was crafted to
divide this Nation, not bring this Nation together. No, none of us had
an opportunity on this side to contribute anything to this resolution,
if, in fact, they want to have any kind of unity.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for authoring this very important resolution.
Mr. Speaker, much of the dark and unseemly world of Saddam Hussein is
only now coming to light, and it is significantly worse than many of us
had thought. The fact that as many as 400,000 victims were
systematically brutalized and raped and tortured to death ranks the
Hussein dictatorship as one of the worst in modern history. Had the
United States and coalition forces not gone in to liberate Iraq, there
is no doubt whatsoever that the killing fields would have continued
unabated and that tens of thousands Iraquis or more would have met a
terrible fate.
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of chemical weapons, we know that chemical
weapons used by the Iraqis are not mere conjecture. Hussein used
weapons of mass destruction and used them with impunity both in the
Iran-Iraq war and he used them against the Kurds. We know for a fact,
according to Human Rights Watch and many other organizations and the
U.S. Department of State, that upwards of 5,000 Kurdish people died a
horrific death from those chemical attacks. There have also been, as my
colleagues know, a staggering number of disappearances, believed to
range between 250,000 to 290,000.
Mr. Speaker, the Armed Forces of the United States and our coalition
partners have conducted themselves in Iraq with incredible valor,
professionalism, and commitment. Our forces and those of our allies are
peacemakers. We often talk about peacekeepers, soldiers who go in when
the situation, while volatile, presents the opportunity to ensure that
the combatants can be separated. Our men and women went into Iraq and
they ``made'' the peace. They are peacemakers in a place in the world
where peace was an oxymoron.
The recently adopted interim Iraqui constitution, Mr. Speaker, will
more likely get further worked once the new assembly is up and running
next year, is historic; a constitution which articulates basic
fundamental human rights and the rule of law in the Middle East. After
Israel, which has an excellent constitution, we now have Iraq. And I
think there is a great opportunity for democracy to break out and the
rule to be respected and that also mitigates the danger of Iraq which
now is a peacemaker itself to its friends and allies in the region.
Finally, just let me say, a previous speaker talked about shame when
it comes to our veterans and our men and women who are returning home.
I chair the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. We have seen, since
the Bush Presidency began, and it continues the trend line of the late
1990s, more than a 30 percent increase in health care funding and we
will increase it again this year, and we will do so significantly.
President Bush has signed no less than 16 separate bills to enhance,
to expand veterans benefits. The Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 was
signed on December 16. There were seven titles to it, filled with very
important provisions to enhance veterans benefits. The Veterans
Education and Benefits Act contains a 46 percent increase in the GI
Bill, 46 percent increase in college funding. I know, because I
authored it. I was the prime sponsor of the bill. With no fanfare
whatsoever, this President signed that legislation and 15 other bills
into law.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that these trying to use veterans issues as
a political football would cease on this floor today. We are trying, in
a bipartisan way, to meet the obligations and the needs of our
veterans. I stand committed to that. This party, and I would say to my
friends on the other side of the aisle, to do so as well, we should all
be pro-veteran, and we are matching our words and our rhetoric with
funding and with responsive and responsible laws.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a
[[Page H1149]]
distinguished member of the committee.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this resolution, but I am going
to do it with a heavy heart. I am going to do it with a heavy heart
because this is obviously a politicized resolution. It is a resolution
that was designed to make Democrats look bad. It is a resolution which
Democrats had no input in whatsoever. It is a resolution that really
smacks, I think, of hypocrisy, because when we look at the self-
righteousness on the other side, when we had a resolution on the House
floor several years ago when Bill Clinton was President to support our
troops in Kosovo, almost everyone on the other side voted no.
I am going to vote for this because I support our troops. I am glad
that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and I am glad that there is
an Iraqi Constitution, and that is essentially what this resolution
says. I believe that whether one believed that the war in Iraq was
justified or unjustified, the fact that we are there now and we cannot
cut and run because if we did, Iraq would surely be a terrorist state
now if it was not one before, we really cannot cut and run.
But I think my friends on the other side of the aisle really ought to
build a consensus. Democrats should have had input into this
resolution. Democrats should have been allowed to amend this
resolution. If we truly want bipartisanship, then we really need to
stand together.
I am troubled that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
I am troubled that it seems that our intelligence was not exactly up to
snuff. I am troubled that the American people were not told the entire
truth. But I think we have to come together to support our troops.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say again to my friends on the other side of
the aisle, we support our troops whether they are in Iraq, Kosovo, or
anywhere around the world, and we have to stand together and say it,
not play partisan political games.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res.
557. Americans should be proud that we are again confronting an evil
threat to the Western world. We have done that before and we will do it
again. We should be proud of our soldiers and we should be proud of our
President.
The last administration did nothing. What we are doing now is making
up for what was not done 10 years ago. Ten years ago, we let
Afghanistan be turned into a terrorist base. Ten years ago, we let
Saddam Hussein continue his dictatorship and yes, the administration
before the last, George Bush's father, deserves some of the blame for
this; but for the 8 years of the Clinton administration, Saddam Hussein
was murdering his people and aligning himself with the terrorists of
the world. Yet we did nothing.
Now, I remember voting for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. It passed
this House by 360 to 38. Now, today, we hear oh, the President of the
United States did not justify going into Iraq. Well, many of the people
making that point voted for the Iraq Liberation Act in which section 3
of the Iraq Liberation Act authorizes the President of the United
States to remove Saddam Hussein by force. Yet this President is taking
care of business, while the last administration did nothing. Finally,
we have a President who is taking care of business, protecting our
national security. And what do we get? What do we hear? Nitpicking and
back-biting from day one.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to support this resolution because it
indicates that America is standing proud again. We have a President
that is providing leadership. We are courageous and we are going to
change the course of history. By getting rid of Saddam Hussein, we are
going to create a democratic Iraq and we are going to stick it out
there. Nobody is going to force us to cut and run; no amount of
nitpicking or back-biting will hurt our resolve. We are going to create
an alternative for moderate Muslims throughout the world, and that will
change history. It will take the power away from the radical Islam. We
are taking care of business now. Let us support our troops and our
President.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of my time to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the House Committee on
Armed Services, and 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, for purposes of control.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a valued member of our
committee.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first let me just say I rise in total
opposition to this resolution. This is another resolution to deceive
the American people. This resolution completely distorts and ignores
the basis for this war and its costs.
{time} 1515
This resolution never even mentions the more than, now,
unfortunately, 560 Americans and countless others who have died in this
war. This is really insulting, and it is insensitive.
It also leaves out any mention of weapons of mass destruction, which
was the rationale for this war. And it claims the war made the world a
safer place. That ignores reality.
We had choices. We had options. We did not have to go to war. In the
last year, for example, 72 Members of this House voted for my amendment
to the Bush administration's war resolution that would have rejected
the unnecessary rush to war and instead strengthened our commitment to
the United Nations inspections process.
Now we have a resolution today that celebrates this war but ignores
its cost, its cost to our soldiers, to our credibility, to our
children's future. This pattern of deception and distortion must end.
I tried to offer an amendment to this misleading resolution
yesterday. It just expressed our deep sorrow for all those who have
been killed in this war and pointed out the terrible toll this war has
taken on our own security. The Committee on Rules did not even allow my
amendment honoring the sacrifice of our troops or offering the truth
about the war. Once, again, the debate is being stifled.
What has happened to democracy in this body? Once again, this
administration and the Republican leadership are attempting to trick
the American people. And they are neglecting the very soldiers they
claim to honor, the men and women who need health care, proper
equipment, and veterans benefits, whose families need economic
security. We must call them out on this and vote against this
resolution.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is the opportunity for Members of the Committee on
Armed Services to talk about our piece of this important resolution,
and that is, I think, the most gratifying part of this resolution,
which I think we can all join together on and that is commending our
great troops who have been carrying out this effort in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, from the time when they spearheaded this drive up from
Kuwait up through the choke points in Nasarea with the Marines out to
the east and the Army, the 101st Airborne and the 3rd Infantry Division
further to the west and worked up to those choke points at some places
where RPGs were coming like volleys of high-tech arrows at those
convoys of Humvees and trucks and tanks, to where they got up and went
past the bridges before they could be blown, took the positions in the
dams before the electronics could be executed to blow those places, and
launched one of the most rapid-moving attacks in the history of
warfare, with great heroism and great accomplishment, from those days
to today when our troops are in this AO, this area of operation, not as
much as attackers but in this case defenders of the new freedom of the
Iraqi people, and hooking up pipelines and sanitary systems and getting
children to school and opening up medical clinics, our people in
uniform have performed heroically.
The most important message we can send from the United States House
of Representatives is, you did a great job, America's people in
uniform. You did a wonderful job for our country. And what you are
doing has great value and
[[Page H1150]]
will enure to our freedom over the coming decades as well as the
freedom of the world.
So, Mr. Speaker, we stand together and even united in commending our
troops. I am glad that my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), is here as my partner on this committee to also commend the
troops for the great job that they have done.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a valued member of our committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, if the Republican leadership wanted to
work on a bipartisan expression of support, we would have been able to
get some place today. They could at least have had an opportunity for
Congress to step back and examine what we have learned.
We were prepared to win the war in Iraq. It was never an issue. A
major concern is that we were not adequately prepared to win the peace,
either in terms of equipping or staffing the occupation of Iraq nor
preparing the American public for the full scope of the cost and
consequences.
Giving too much money to the wrong people to do the wrong things in
Iraq is a legitimate object of debate, and I hope that we will some day
have it. But, in the meantime, the most important unanswered question
is whether the massive investment of the troops, the money, and the
attention was best spent rushing to Iraq rather than concentrating on
continuing the global struggle against al Qaeda and the other forces of
terror.
By delaying for over a year and a half the concerted efforts in
searching out bin Laden, it has allowed al Qaeda and other terrorists
to gain strength, to metastasize, making bin Laden almost irrelevant
other than as a symbol of our policy failure. Our unwillingness or
inability to launch a concentrated effort to mobilize global support
when we had the entire world united on our side is a sad by-product of
this administration's policies.
We are long on celebration; we are short on analysis. We are long on
talking; we are short on accomplishment. Congress's job is to know what
is going on, define the policy, to fund the right things, and provide
oversight. That is our job, and we are falling far short of the mark.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff), my colleague and a distinguished member of the
committee.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago this Friday, the President
ordered the men and women of our Armed Forces into Iraq. They performed
magnificently and have continued to do so despite an ongoing guerilla
campaign, difficult conditions, and a shortage of protective gear such
as Kevlar vests and armored Humvees.
As we celebrate their courage and skill, we must also reflect on
their sacrifice. As of today, 565 American troops have been killed in
this war including United States Army Specialist Rel Allen Ravago, IV,
one of my constituents.
I will support this resolution because it includes language honoring
our troops, but I am very concerned over what the resolution excludes
and deeply disappointed that it was not crafted in a bipartisan manner.
Our troops in Iraq are not representatives of one political party or
the other, and those who seek to exploit their daring and sacrifice for
partisan gain would do well to remember that.
This resolution fails to address a number of serious issues that have
arisen as a result of the war. Although the resolution before us makes
no mention of it, this Nation went to war over intelligence that Saddam
Hussein had both an existing arsenal of biological and chemical weapons
and an ongoing nuclear weapons program. A year has passed, and we have
yet to find evidence that this was correct.
Clearly, we must look at the totality of the circumstances that led
to such a colossal intelligence failure. This failure cannot be
minimized or, in the case of this resolution, ignored all together. To
do so does no honor to our troops who have been lost and further
imperils our future.
The planning for the post-war period of this operation was also
deficient and based on a number of unsupported assumptions. Over the
past decade and a half, our forces have been engaged more and more in
post-conflict operations. Clearly we need to organize ourselves better
to meet the challenges posed by post-conflict reconstruction.
In the coming days, I will offer a House companion to a bill
introduced in the Senate by Senators Lugar and Biden that does just
that, and I hope my colleagues will support it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Watson), my good friend and distinguished
colleague.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, for more than 200 years the men and women of
the United States military have, through their valiant actions, earned
a well-deserved reputation for courage, honor, and sacrifice in defense
of liberty. The brave Americans now fighting and dying in Iraq are
heirs to a legacy that flows from Lexington and Concord through
Normandy, straight up to the present day. They should be very proud of
what they have accomplished in Iraq, and they deserve our firm support
as they continue to face danger there.
I am sure that my colleagues who support H. Res. 557 are sincere in
their desire to salute our troops. However, I feel they have committed
a grave error by confusing the valor and the sacrifice of our troops
with the misguided and misleading policy that sent them to Iraq in the
first place.
Members of Congress voted in good faith for a resolution on the use
of force believing that Iraq was capable of unleashing deadly weapons
of mass destruction. We were told that the threat was imminent and
could directly impact our Nation's security. Certainly the people of
Iraq had suffered from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, but this
was not the primary reason given for the preemptive strike by the
United States.
It is good that Congress is on record listing the many atrocities of
Saddam Hussein's regime. Saddam was a brutal dictator. That is not
debatable. What is debatable is whether our actions in Iraq have
improved the security of the United States and our allies. I therefore
question the resolution's assertion that ``the United States and the
world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his
regime from power in Iraq.'' In fact, our laser beam focus on Iraq,
with no proven connections to 9/11, has allowed al Qaeda to regroup and
again unleash its destructive capabilities on one of our closest
allies. Moreover, I believe our involvement in Iraq is a major
contributing factor to America's declining image around the world,
which Margaret Tutwiler, the administration's head official in charge
of public diplomacy, admitted ``will take us many years of hard,
focused work'' to restore.
When the President announced on May 1 of last year that major combat
operations in Iraq had ceased, I expected a quick draw-down of American
troops and a significant increase of United Nations peacekeepers.
Tragically, our Nation has lost more American men and women in Iraq
after the President's declaration that major hostilities had ended. The
total now stands in excess of 565 and is climbing.
This resolution is disingenuous. In its place should be a
straightforward resolution of commendation for those who fought
valiantly and risked their lives to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime.
And condolences to those whose lives were snatched from them in this
most unjustified conflict.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), our last speaker.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today we are asked to commemorate a
preemptive war. President Bush told the world there was no doubt Iraq
was concealing weapons of mass destruction, but this Republican
resolution instead reinterprets history.
It would have the American people believe that President Bush took
our Nation to war because in 1988 Saddam gassed the Kurds while
President Reagan appeased the Iraqi regime or because Saddam punished
the Marsh Arabs by draining the marshlands while the first Bush
administration watched.
This resolution memorializes the horrors of a dictator to justify the
flawed premise for preemptive war, but it fails to acknowledge the 565
American patriots who sacrificed their lives. This resolution exploits
the sacrifices of our troops, the suffering of the Iraqi people, all
for partisan gamesmanship.
Our Nation is at war. Our troops, their families, and the American
people deserve honesty from this House and from the White House.
[[Page H1151]]
We all support our troops. We all want a safer world. And the
American people deserve the truth.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I designate each of
the following three Members to control \1/2\ hour of time allotted to
me under the rule: \1/2\ hour for the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), \1/2\ hour for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman),
and \1/2\ hour for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the greatest asset our
Nation has known, those heroes, and they are heroes, that we call on
every time when we need courage and effectiveness on the battlefield,
the incredible American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that
reflect the best attributes of those who have served before them; and
they are a wonderful reflection of America across our country. So we
thank them and we honor them.
Like many Members, I have had the privilege of traveling to Iraq
twice, this last time with our minority leader, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), and with the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Hayes) from the Committee on Armed Services.
And what was clear is that our men and women are doing an
extraordinary job in the most trying of circumstances. They are
superbly trained, superbly led, and are just the finest force in the
world. We owe them a great debt of gratitude.
We also owe the same to more than 550 families of those who have
given the ultimate sacrifice to our Nation in Iraq. But what was also
clear in my trips, there was no effective or realistic planning done
for the aftermath of the military invasion of Iraq. We did a superb job
on the battlefield; but since that time, sadly, as I warned the
President in two letters, September 4, 2002, and then one a couple of
days before the actual invasion, I feared the outcome and I warned the
administration in these letters about what the potential consequences
might be of getting the post-war wrong.
{time} 1530
Sadly now, we are seeing those consequences come home to roost, and
some of the issues that I raised in those letters are sadly coming to
pass today.
While the Iraqis now have an interim constitution and we should
congratulate them for that, it is no clearer now than it was back in
November, when the timetable for transformation was laid out, who will
take over on June 30. Now it looks like there will be no status of
forces agreement negotiated before that time. Let me tell my
colleagues, a status of forces agreement is very important because it
can establish limitations. It could establish rules of engagement that
make it more difficult for our forces to protect themselves.
Perhaps most dangerously we see more signs of ethnic and religious
strife, raising the possibility of a civil war in Iraq. I truly hope
that does not happen, but the tensions are growing, and there are
insurgents and foreign fighters who have fanned those flames. Today's
most deadly and tragic bombing of the hotel in Baghdad seems to be the
only recent sign of this. We need to do a better job in planning.
Everything we have worked to achieve in Iraq will be undermined if we
do not figure out who we are turning sovereignty over to on June 30 and
how to manage the transition in a way that avoids civil war.
These are dangerous times. This is not an easy day for our troops or
for the leadership in our country, and that is why I raise these
issues, Mr. Speaker. The security of the Iraqi people, the security of
our troops, the stability in the region, and even our own national
security depends on doing this right.
I will support this resolution because I support the men and women
who are sacrificing daily, and I support those families who are
fighting the insurgency in making Iraq secure, but I urge the
administration to do the hard planning, to figure out quickly what will
happen after June 30 to hold off a potential civil war, and we cannot
have that.
We must not let last year's military victory become a long-term
defeat because of more failures due to the tough planning ahead. June
30 is a date that must be taken very seriously by our country. We must
make sure there is a stable Iraqi transition, and that it works;
because if it does not work, if there is civil war, all of the
sacrifices of those young men and women in uniform, whether wounded or
killed, and the families that have grieved and shared their burdens
with them, will have been in vain. We really, really cannot afford to
have that.
So let us praise the troops. And every American should be proud of
them as I am.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his
thoughtful statement, and I yield for a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
(Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I rise in support of
this resolution, support of our troops and particularly pay my great
admiration to the 124th Infantry, Bravo Company, that just returned
safely to Palm Beach County, Florida.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 557 and to offer my
gratitude to all the men and women who have worked, and who continue to
work, so hard to serve their country in Iraq. In particular, I'd like
to extend my respect and admiration to Captain Joseph Lyon and the
reservists of the 1st Battalion, 124th Infantry, Bravo Company, who
have returned home safely to West Palm Beach from service in Iraq.
The contributions of these brave soldiers can be seen every day in
the numerous improvements in the Iraqi economy and society. With the
aid of the Coalition forces, the transfer of power to the people of
Iraq is progressing smoothly. Iraqi forces are gradually relieving and
will completely replace coalition forces in all aspects of the
reconstruction.
I am thankful to all who have helped the Iraqi people establish a
stable and peaceful country. By doing so, we defend our people from the
danger of Iraq returning to being a haven for terrorists. Today, Iraq
is a safer place and is on the road to establishing their own democracy
to serve as an example in the heart of the Middle East.
I urge all my colleagues to support H. Res. 557.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, who spends more
time with the troops than he does with us.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of traveling to Iraq twice in
the last few months to visit our troops and to thank them for the job
they are doing, as well as to see firsthand the progress that is being
made by both the Iraqis and the international coalition in providing
security and growing stability to the Nation.
I was amazed to see and hear some of the very real and significant
success stories that our forces are accomplishing. When one travels by
air, for example, over Iraq, it is easy to realize that 65 percent of
the Iraqi people live off the land. Many are accomplished farmers, but
others are being aided by the efforts of the American soldiers and by
American generosity.
In Iraq, the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture once ran a 400-acre farm
not far from where Saddam Hussein was captured. It was called Saddam
Farm, and it produced a harvest that benefited only Saddam Hussein and
his family. Today, the Army is helping Iraqis establish the nation's
very first cooperative farm on that 400 acres. Iraqi farming families
are also being helped by the generosity of the American citizens who
have donated some $20,000 worth of seeds, and the Army has distributed
them.
Throughout my travels in Iraq, I have found Iraqi children with
smiles on their faces. It is remarkable to think that they are living
in freedom for the first time. They know it and they like it. Like many
children throughout the world, Iraqis enjoy the sport of soccer, and I
have seen Iraqi children kicking soccer balls on the playing fields and
vacant lots and empty streets. American troops have undertaken projects
to give soccer balls to some of the poorer Iraqi children who may not
be able to obtain for themselves. For example, the 501st Forward
Support Battalion undertook one
[[Page H1152]]
project and gave away 150 soccer balls to kids in Baghdad. The 101st
Airborne also distributed soccer balls in the north.
Perhaps the greatest and most noteworthy accomplishment that I have
seen in Iraq, however, is the increase in the level of security and
stability for the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, there are still those
that want to see a free Iraq fail, but for our troops, many changes in
the Iraqi lifestyle have been evident. In many other areas, security
and stability are succeeding because of the efforts of the
international coalition forces and the Iraqis themselves.
Iraq's security forces have grown tremendously in the last year since
they were first created. The Iraqi Department of Border Enforcement now
employs 80,000 Iraqis and 9,000 border enforcement agents, as well as
to monitor the nation's 3600-kilometer border. More than 11,000
experienced policemen now patrol Iraq, and another several thousand
Iraqi policemen will join their ranks by the end of this year.
There is still much to be done in Iraq, but the fact of the matter is
that there are many success stories, many more than one reads in the
morning newspaper or sees on daily television reports, and certainly
many more than I have time to outline here.
The successes I spoke of and the countless others not only are
helping Iraq to become more stable, but they are helping Iraqis to
provide for that security and stability. Ultimately, the sooner Iraq is
run and secured by Iraqis, the sooner our great troops will come home.
I am proud to stand here today and commend the Iraqi people for their
courage and to say again thank you to our troops for a great job well
done.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman,
formerly from Missouri, now from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Missouri for
recognizing that Missouri, too, is the State of my birth, and I am
delighted to be on the floor today with him because he has provided
wonderful leadership for our caucus.
Mr. Speaker, I came today to the floor to shame the Republicans and
the President for politicizing this tragic war in Iraq. God bless our
soldiers. They do not deserve to be made pawns in political
gamesmanship. There are many Members who love and support our soldiers
but refuse to be blackmailed into supporting this preemptive strike
doctrine of this administration and to be used by this President. Just
as President Bush is attempting to use the New York 9/11 scene as a
backdrop in his political advertisement, this resolution is being used
to paint the picture that this President is a tough leader, fighting
terrorism and winning.
Mr. Speaker, this President is not winning. Our country and the world
is not more secure. Tragically, over 564 soldiers have died since the
war began last year, and thousands more have been injured. The
administration has spent $157 billion so far in this war, and even the
allies who have supported him are being retaliated against.
If my friends on the opposite side of the aisle were sincere about
gathering us all together in a resolution to say to our soldiers thank
you for your sacrifices, they would have done what was asked of them by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) today: Pull this one-sided
resolution off the floor, get Democrats involved, let us join hands and
support our soldiers.
This is the most divisive administration that this country has ever
had, polarizing us, putting us at each others' throats. It is a shame,
and I do not mind saying it on this floor today. You need to withdraw
it.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank our great chairman for yielding me
the time. And, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues in this Chamber have any
doubt about the necessity of our war against the sadistic and despotic
regime of Saddam Hussein, I urge them to look at this photo that I took
with Iraqi girls during a congressional trip that some of my colleagues
and I went on last December.
If my colleagues take a close look at this picture, they will see
bright, sunny faces of happy girls who look like they could live in my
district or any of their districts around this country, but the sad
reality is that a little over a year ago, these young girls were living
under the ugly regime of a murderous dictator who would not hesitate to
take their lives or the lives of their friends and family. In fact,
from 1983 to 1988 Saddam Hussein wiped out 60 villages and murdered
more than 30,000 Iraqi citizens with weapons of mass destruction. Human
rights organizations continually received reports from women who said
that rape was routinely used by Iraqi officials as weapons of torture,
intimidation, and blackmail.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what would have happened to these girls if
the United States had not acted against Saddam Hussein's ruthless
Baathist regime, but I do know this much. Since the liberation of Iraq,
more than 5.5 million children went back to school this year; 2,300
schools which fell into disarray under Saddam's regime have been
rehabilitated. School children have books, shoulder bags, notebooks,
pencils, papers and desks to use for their studies; but, most
importantly, they are now living free from Saddam's repressive regime,
and they never have to worry again about being harmed by their
tyrannical government, thanks to the strong leadership of President
Bush and the heroic efforts of our men and women of the armed services.
I cannot say enough about our troops who risk life and limb every day
to bring freedom to these girls and to the other people of Iraq. I urge
strong support of this resolution endorsing our troops.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and it is unfortunate that this resolution has become so
political because I think clearly all of us should have been able to
sit down and come up with a resolution that would be united and that
would send a clear voice to all of the world how much we support our
troops.
We are going to have 4 hours of debate, and there are so many
important things we should be discussing, like the fact that we failed
to provide our troops with critical protection and equipment that they
need, from interceptive body armor to anti-jamming devices, to armored
humvees.
Yesterday, I met with Brian Hart, the father of Private First Class
John Hart who was killed in Iraq last October when the unarmored humvee
that he was patrolling in was ambushed and sprayed with bullets. Just
days before his death, Pfc. Hart called his father and told him how
unsafe he felt riding around in humvees that lacked bulletproof
shielding or reinforced doors.
The story of John Hart is all too familiar. A couple of months ago,
the Defense Department stated that 29 American troops had been killed
and 290 wounded on attacks on humvees. Now I hear they are not even
tracking those numbers anymore, but I do know that of the 18 soldiers
killed in Iraq from Massachusetts, 6 died in unarmored humvees or
trucks.
Look at this chart. Almost 80 percent of the 12,500 humvees deployed
in Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom lack reinforced windows
and doors. The evidence here is overwhelming that we have not gotten
what our troops need fast enough.
{time} 1545
And what bothers me is that the Army did not even begin to address
this shortage until August 2003, 3 months after President Bush
announced the end of the war in Iraq. The Secretary of the Army says
that they will get this done by August; but as of today no new orders
have been placed, leaving our troops, many of them, in this vulnerable
position, in unarmed vehicles. August just is not good enough.
For too long, the Army has dragged its feet because it failed to
consider quick, effective alternatives to uparmoring Humvees like
installing add-on armor kits.
If we purchased more add-on kits and reached out to other vendors, we
can get these Humvees armored now.
Recently, 25,000 Marines deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and took
with them 3,000
[[Page H1153]]
trucks and Humvees, all of which have been armored with protective
plating. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Hagee, understood
that installing temporary add-on kits provides a quick, easy
alternative to uparmoring Humvees in depots at home. So Gen. Hagee
purchased $9 million worth of add-on armor kits to outfit Humvees
before he sent his Marines back into the battlefield.
I have introduced a resolution urging the Defense Department to use
whatever means possible to armor these Humvees as quickly as they can.
If we truly want to support our Armed Forces, this would provide them
with the critical protection and equipment they deserve!
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
let my colleagues know that all Humvees are manufactured unarmored.
They are basically big Jeeps, and this Congress has been rushing to
armor Humvees in the wake of the new threat known as the IED, the
remotely detonated device. We put some $400 million in the last
supplemental to pay for that armor.
I just would say to my colleagues, it would have been great if they
could have voted with us on that one because that is the funding
supplemental that paid for the arming of the Humvees.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why I could not vote for
it. We were supposed to have this money appropriated. We have troops
over there in unarmed vehicles. It is inexcusable.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the idea that you do not
armor vehicles because it is not done already at the factory makes no
logic to me.
I would urge the gentleman to work with me to continue to armor them,
because we are shipping steel in there now.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, just as an introduction, it seems to me that,
to a certain degree, the other party doeth protest too much.
The first thing I have been hearing about is complaints about
intelligence information. Yet it was the other party, the Democrat
Party, that under the Church Commission dismantled our human
intelligence and has consistently done that. Over the 8 years Clinton
was in office, they voted to cut the human intelligence budget 30
percent and now want to complain about the fact that our intelligence
information is not that good.
This is also a party that cut the defense budget close to half and
wonders why there is not some equipment sometimes. They cannot have it
both ways.
But I would like to focus, rather, about what was and what is now.
What was, we saw. We saw the late-night knock of the secret police. We
saw the torture chambers when I was in Iraq that used to exist. We saw
the women that had been raped as a form of political coercion. We saw
women that were not educated.
Those things have changed. Because what is now is a society that is
moving into a new century, a place where women can be educated, where
no longer torture and murder and amputation are used as a tool to
intimidate, and where we saw on the streets of Iraq people starting to
emerge into a free civilization. There are all kinds of new businesses
being formed.
These are words from a brave Iraqi Parliamentarian, probably risking
his life, talking about the new constitution. Some, he says, may say
that the Bill of Rights is copied from the West. My answer: these
rights and values are not exclusively the property of the West. They
are universal and should be respected and implemented everywhere. We
have put up a high standard so that the people of the future may always
try to reach.
I think that is a statement of our success. Americans have always
succeeded when we invest in those tremendously important principles of
our own founding, the belief that people are valuable. And we continue
to attest to that by our presence in Iraq, by our brave soldiers there.
They believe people are important, as opposed to the terrorists that
say they are mere pawns.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution claims to honor our troops, but it is
nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to run a political campaign on
taxpayers' time.
We have the best military in the world. I am honored to represent the
men and women of Travis Air Force Base in Congress, and I will always
be grateful to all of our men and women in uniform for their
patriotism, courage, sacrifice, and devotion to our great Nation. As
Members of Congress, we must support them in word and deed.
I have been to Iraq and the Persian Gulf twice in the past year to
talk to our troops serving there and learned firsthand what they need
to get the job done and return home safely. Forty thousand American
troops were sent to Iraq without bulletproof vests, and many more still
do not have reinforced Humvees to protect them from daily roadside
bombs. But this resolution does nothing to get this critical lifesaving
equipment to our troops.
I am very disappointed this resolution does not offer condolences to
the families of the 564 Americans killed in Iraq thus far, nor mention
the 2,500 wounded in action.
It is also hard to believe that these congressional leaders would
consider a resolution that categorically reaffirms that the United
States and the world are made safe by the removal of Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath Party from power just days after the Spanish people buried
more than 200 of their citizens in the worst act of terror in European
history, and on a day, today, when a bomb blast killed dozens in Iraq.
Instead of patting ourselves on the back, it is time to ask whether
this administration's approach to the war on terror and the war on Iraq
have made us safer. Two and one-half years after the September 11
attacks, al Qaeda is more dangerous than ever. The war in Iraq removed
a dictator, but has created a new front on the war on terror that did
not exist before and has pinned down a large amount of our troops in
the Middle East for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this resolution. I urge my
colleagues to support our troops with action, not shameless political
ploys, and do the same.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, all too often the voices whining about what
they find wrong with our planning, our troops, or our military tend to
drown out their great successes. But when I went to Iraq, I found our
troops were proud that they had liberated 24 million Iraqi people in
just 3 weeks.
The untold story of Operation Iraqi Freedom were the stories
describing the logistics warriors who not only accomplished
extraordinary things but who were often also put in harm's way to
support the phenomenal contributions of our combat troops. Sometimes we
just assume that food is going to get there and our ammunition is going
to get there, but let me tell you some of the truly amazing logistics
work that occurred during this conflict.
The main supply line stretched 350 miles; and on any given time,
there were 2,500 logistics and support vehicles on the road. There were
2.5 million gallons of gas per day delivered effectively to fly our
aircraft. We built the longest pipeline the Army has ever built, 220
miles long. There were 66,000 pipe sections hand laid to construct that
critical system, and it is still in service today serving the Iraqi
people. We delivered 1.5 million liters of water a day successfully and
effectively. A third of a million meals were served per day. Two
million tons of spare parts and equipment were moved effectively every
day.
In particular, the tremendous effort of the Army's Quartermaster
Corps, the home of which is in Fort Lee, Virginia, are reflected by
these totals from the war: 186 million gallons of fuel, enough to fill
the tanks of 40,000 cars; they served 53 million meals, enough to feed
the entire population of New York State with three meals a day;
provided 330 million gallons of water, enough for a daily shower for
the half million residents of Las Vegas; and delivered nearly 8 million
pieces of mail.
[[Page H1154]]
With so much success and such an enormous effort, it should not be
hard to find additional improvements to be made. But, Mr. Speaker, I
think it is only fitting today that we stand up and pass this
resolution to honor their great work.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Guam (Mr. Bordallo).
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for
yielding me this time, and I rise today in support of our service men
and women who need much more than the words we speak here today to help
them in Iraq.
As the fires from the most recent terrorist attack today in Baghdad
burn against the night sky, I am moved to remember Army Specialist
Christopher Jude Rivera Wesley, who died in Iraq, the first Chamorro
casualty of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I also want to take time to pay tribute to Army Specialist Hilario
Bermanis of the 82nd Airborne Division. He joined the Army from the
Federated States of Micronesia, and after losing both legs and his left
hand fighting in Iraq, he has now become an American citizen. I visited
him at Walter Reed Medical Hospital. One day he might even become a
Senator, like Max Cleland, who also sacrificed for his country a
generation before him.
In my mind, this resolution affirms that we are yet to do everything
that we can for our troops. We need the best technology to defend our
troops and care for the wounded, the best diplomacy to make sure they
do not stay a day longer than they have to, and the courage of our
convictions to finish the job.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the leadership of President George W. Bush,
the valor of the American military and the courage of our coalition
partners, 1 year ago this week the liberation of Iraq started marking
the beginning of the end of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.
My gratitude for this historic success is as a Member of Congress. I
had the opportunity to go with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) and visit our troops in Iraq. Additionally, I am grateful as a
veteran myself. I retired last July after 31 years of service with the
Army National Guard, and I am so proud of what our active Guard and
Reserve forces have done. But additionally, I am proud and grateful as
a parent. I have three sons who are in the military of the United
States, and one of my sons began his deployment in Iraq this week. We
are very proud in the Wilson family of our contribution and the success
of the American military.
Some today have incorrectly accused the administration of saying Iraq
was in imminent threat. In reality, the case for the war with Iraq was
made precisely because Iraq was not yet an imminent threat. After the
hard lesson of September 11, we can no longer wait until our enemies
grow stronger and more deadly before we take decisive action to prevent
future tragedies.
Saddam Hussein posed a unique danger to the people of the United
States and the world. He ignored 17 United Nations resolutions for over
a decade, harbored and supported terrorists, and had used biological
and chemical weapons on his own people, had a history of violent
aggression against his neighboring countries, and attempted to
assassinate a President of the United States.
Today, Saddam Hussein's regime of terror has ended and the world is a
safer place for it; yet we know the war of terrorism is not over. We
need to remain vigilant to protect America's families by promoting this
resolution today, and I urge its support. In conclusion, God bless our
troops. We will never forget September 11.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution, never opened for committee discussion
and now closed to amendments, is perhaps a consistent way to mark the
anniversary of an unnecessary war that was built on misleading
statements, dangerous disregard for the facts, and dangerous policies.
To a person, we believe that our military men and women have done a
remarkable job in very difficult conditions, conditions like traveling
in tactical vehicles that do not have steel armor, leaving them
dangerously vulnerable to grenades, small arms, and roadside bombs.
Soldiers in Iraq are hanging flack vests and even plywood on their
Humvees in desperate attempts at protection, army officials are quoted
as saying, and the casualties mount week by week.
Republicans who choose to slime the records of opponents of this
resolution would be better to turn the mirror on themselves. Many of us
will be supporting a Democratic budget resolution that will back up our
rhetoric with the resources needed to provide equipment, compensation,
military housing, child tax credits for military families, and other
necessities that are missing in the Republican budget proposal. Let us
put our money where our mouth is.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), who provides all those quality-of-life issues to
our uniformed services.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today to support House Resolution 557.
Under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people lived in
poverty and fear. During his 30-year reign of tyranny, he massacred
tens of thousands of his own people, some murdered for their religion
and some for their ethnicity.
On March 19, 2003, the United States and its coalition partners
launched the first air strikes of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 3 weeks,
Iraqis in Baghdad danced and waved their country's flag as U.S. forces
toppled a statue of Saddam Hussein, signaling the end of Saddam's
brutal tyranny.
{time} 1600
Operation Iraqi Freedom was a military success, courageously executed
by American men and women in uniform. It was an operation of
unparalleled precision and speed, and was carried out in a way that
prevented widespread destruction of Iraqi's infrastructure, lengthy
street-by-street fighting or a humanitarian crisis. Food and medical
aid flowed into Iraq immediately after the troops and there was no
``adventurism'' by Iraq's neighbors or other destabilizing action in
the region.
One year later, Iraqis are engaged in the enormous challenge of
rebuilding their country after decades of neglect, and are working with
the coalition toward the creation of a secure, stable, sovereign and
peaceful Iraq. To date, in nearly all major cities and most towns and
villages, Iraqi municipal councils have been formed, and for the first
time in more than a generation the Iraqi judiciary is fully
independent. More than 600 Iraqi judges preside over more than 500
courts that operate independently from the Iraqi Governing Council and
the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Mr. Speaker, U.S. forces are handing the torch to the Iraqi people as
they take control, form an army, build an effective police force, and
develop a fair justice system.
Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution. I have a lot of other good
stuff to say, but my time has expired.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise first and foremost to thank
the men and women of the Armed Forces serving bravely in Iraq,
Afghanistan and literally all over the world. I supported the
resolution to authorize the war, and in the supplemental request I
continue to support those troops and their work, but I must express my
continued concerns about the safety of the troops and the haphazard way
the administration has proceeded in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, we have no end game in sight. Our exit strategy is
murky, and our efforts to help this fledgling democracy seem to be
going nowhere. When this war began last year, it became clear our
troops do not have the
[[Page H1155]]
life-saving body armor and vehicle armor they needed. Even with the
passage of the Iraq supplemental last November, there are still too
many soldiers at risk, and we are experiencing increasing reports of
street fire, mines and ambushes aimed at our troops. It is
unconscionable that they continue to lack the protective gear they
need.
On yesterday's evening news, Houston's CBS affiliate KHOU reported
there are still a number of Humvees in Iraq without bulletproof armor,
and I will include for the Record the news report. In fact, there are
Humvees on the streets of Houston that have more safety features than
the ones being used by our troops, according to the report. These
vehicles are intended to transport soldiers and defend them in the war
zone, and the last thing we should hear is soldiers' complaints that
their family's sedans are safer than the military's soft-sided Humvees.
A year ago today, we started a war to remove an evil man from power;
but in doing so, the lives of our troops are unnecessarily jeopardized
by sending them into harm's way without proper armor and underequipped
vehicles. Our troops are doing a dangerous job, and I hope the
administration will correct these problems.
[From KHOU.com, Mar. 17, 2004]
Up Close: Military Leadership Little Soft on Vehicle Protection
(By Dave Fehling)
As we approach the 1-year anniversary of the war in Iraq,
we're learning more about an additional risk to our troops
overseas. Thin-skinned vehicles not designed for combat are
currently being driven by hundreds of soldiers in Iraq right
now. And several service men have been killed, including one
from League City. 11 News looks at the shortage of armor and
the rush to fix what some call a deadly miscalculation.
Last October, 20-year-old paratrooper John Hart phoned his
parents from Iraq and whispered words that shook them. He
felt exposed in his softsided humvee, the same kind in which
friends already had been killed or wounded in ambushes. The
vehicle offered less protection than the family sedan.
``We were thinking about how best to address it,'' says
John's father, Brian Hart, ``when we got news the following
week that John had been killed in an ambush.''
John Hart was shot to death in his unarmored humvee, along
with Lieutenant David Bernstein, fifth in his class at West
Point.
Diane Elliott lives in fear that her husband is also an
easy target in his unarmored humvee. ``A bullet came through
the humvee and through the back of his seat,'' she says. ``He
said there was a bullet hole, just barely missed his head.''
That was the second time Army reserve Captain Roger Elliott
escaped death in a canvas covered humvee in Baghdad.
The first time he got hit by a homemade bomb. ``They said
it hit the humvee, rolled off and hit the ground, and it blew
a big hole in the ground,'' says Elliot. ``Here's the humvee,
and screws and nails and everything flying, just goes right
through it.''
Captain Elliott's Purple Heart arrived in an ammo box,
along with his wife's wedding anniversary gifts.
Bullets, nails and shrapnel go right through the vast
majority of humvees in Iraq because they were designed to
transport soldiers, not to protect them.
A factory near Cincinnati is the only plant in the world
that produces armored humvees. ``This is what we end up with.
Fully armored doors, armored perimeter, turret,'' says a
factory worker. ``Underbody capable of defeating a
landmine.''
And windows that stop bullets. It's the kind of protection
soldiers are asking for, and dying for.
``It's maddening,'' says Brian Hart. ``It's absolutely
maddening.''
Maddening for John Hart's father, for Roger Elliot's wife.
``How could you not know you need armored humvees when you're
going into a war?'' asks Diane Elliott.
And maddening for the parents of Texas National Guardsman
Nathan Feenstra who says their son was sent to Iraq with old
soft sided humvees, and without new bullet proof vests that
have saved an untold number of lives since the war began.
``Basically, they're saying they've done all they can for
now, `It's too late for your unit, but we are preparing for
the next group going into Iraq,' '' says John Feenstra. ``I
said that's not good enough.''
The Feenstras write letters to military leadership, and
pray their son comes home alive.
Brian Hart is pressing congress to press the Army to speed
up production. The plan in Ohio is boosting output. But some
lawmakers are outraged. And the republican chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee called the shortage of
armored humvees ``unacceptable.''
The Army Vice Chief of Staff told Congress in September
more armored humvees weren't sent to Iraq because ``To be
honest, we just didn't expect this level of violence.''
Back in May there were only about 235 armored humvees in
Iraq. The army now wants more than 3,000. But it's expected
to take until summer of 2005 before the Army gets all the
beefed up humvees it wants.
To Brian Hart who made a promise to his son and to the
soldiers who brought home his son's body, that's not good
enough.
The army says it's rushed all available armored humvees to
Iraq, and is sending 6,000 kits to toughen up standard
humvees. It's also speeding up production of new armored
vehicles.
Meanwhile many soldiers are improvising, using steel
plates, rubber mats and sandbags to harden their humvees
against attacks.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
(Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, the measure before us contains many
consentaneous American thoughts: Recognition that Saddam was a despot
of tyrannical proportions; support for a process of democratic self-
governance in Iraq; and, profoundly, appreciation for the sacrifice and
commitment of Americans serving in our armed forces in these very
troubling, indeed dangerous, times.
But as widely accepted as these notions are, care must be taken in
this debate to underscore what this resolution is not. It cannot be
read either as a Gulf of Tonkin-like resolution giving the Executive a
blank check for future actions or considered an indication of
Congressional approval of executive action to date.
Many in Congress, perhaps a majority, would be willing to vote for a
more expansive resolution, but such is not before us today.
Nonetheless, the subject matter of this resolution necessitates a
review of what has transpired since the Congress, without my support,
authorized military intervention in Iraq a year and a half ago.
All of us recognize that Iraq is a judgmental quagmire. Thoughtful
Americans are conflicted. The President has a case for the actions he
has taken. But I feel obliged to make clear why I continue not to find
it compelling and indicate, in as constructive a way as I am able, the
problems that a lengthy occupation may yield and present a theoretical
framework and the case for timely disengagement.
Perspective is difficult to apply to current events or for that
matter life itself. But it is important to attempt to frame the
discussion of the war in which we are engaged in relation to our
history, to the development of knowledge (particularly science), and to
our relations with other countries.
First our history. In the broadest sense the political history of
America has encompassed four great debates. The first was the question
of whether a country could be established based on the rights of man.
The second was about definitions: whether the concept of ``man''
included individuals who were neither male nor pale. It took over a
century, a civil war and suffrage and civil rights movements to bring
full meaning to the universal language of the Declaration of
Independence. With courage and sacrifice Americans finally came
together to embrace the democratic notion that consent of the governed
lacked legitimacy unless all individuals of all backgrounds had rights
of citizenship.
The third debate is about opportunity, whether individual rights can
be protected if every citizen doesn't have a fair crack at the American
dream. There are many on-going elements of the opportunity debate,
which in the 20th century was symbolized by the New Deal initiatives of
Franklin Roosevelt and the counter-weight of the Reagan revolution. But
I would like to emphasize an aspect of this debate which gets little
attention because it is taken for granted, and that is the role of
public education. All young Americans not only have access to public
education, they are required by law to attend public schools or
comparable alternatives. As society becomes more complicated,
educational opportunity becomes increasingly central to advancing
social opportunity. And as we look at the narrow schooling provided by
madrasses abroad it becomes apparent that how and what others teach has
relevance to the security of Americans at home.
The fourth debate is symbolized by Hiroshima and Nagasaki and
revolves around the question of whether any right can be valid if it is
not underpinned by a right to peace.
In these debates the role of foreign policy is critical, and even
when we've looked inward it has been with an eye to establishing a
shining city-state on a hill, a beacon for all.
The greatest legislated act in American and perhaps human history is
the Declaration of Independence. The universality of its principles
constitutes the cornerstone of historic American idealism in foreign as
well as domestic policy.
As architect of the Declaration, Jefferson--while never a member of
Congress--was our greatest legislator. And as the architect of the
Louisiana Purchase, he stands as our greatest
[[Page H1156]]
diplomat-president. The precept implicit in the Declaration and the
Louisiana Purchase is the notion of individual rights and collective
decision-making by a people entrusted with the capacity to make
sovereign decisions.
Jefferson was the philosophical godson of John Locke, who borrowed
from Thomas Hobbes the 17th century paradigm of a state of Nature
where, according to Hobbes, life was nasty, brutish and short.
Hobbes had a pessimistic view of human nature. Self-centered man
could not escape from the jungle of human relations. Locke, on the
other hand, was an optimist. He also assumed that man was self-
centered, but, unlike Hobbes, he believed that individuals were
rational enough to recognize the necessity of accommodating the self-
interest of others. Civil society--the condition where rules would
govern disputes and third-party arbitration would exist--was thus
possible as well as necessary.
Whether or not the theoretical constructs that political philosophers
relied on three centuries ago have relevance to real life on the
planet, then or now, the progress of science has made man's efforts to
protect the rights of individuals and society more difficult today. In
one of the most profound social observations of the 20th century,
Einstein noted that splitting the atom changed everything save our mode
of thinking.
Physics has brought us nuclear energy and perhaps a way to help live
a modern life without reliance on fossil fuels. Biology has brought us
the capacity to extend the life of man by several and perhaps many
decades. But just as splitting the atom has a dark side--nuclear
weapons--splitting genes has ominous implications, too--the ability to
manufacture diseases for which there may be no antidote. Hence the
obvious: at no time in human history is there a greater obligation for
people in public life to appeal to the higher rather than lower angels
of our nature.
This is particularly the case as the world has smallened and friction
between peoples has increased in economics, politics and, most
profoundly, religion.
Perhaps the most thoughtful speech ever given in Iowa was delivered
four decades ago by the Oxford historian, Arnold Toynbee. A decade
earlier, Winston Churchill chose a small Midwestern college in Fulton,
Missouri, to warn of the dangers of Soviet expansionism; an ``Iron
Curtain,'' he said, had descended on Eastern Europe. Toynbee picked
Grinnell College to chastise Marxists for shallowly looking at history
through the lens of economic determinism and Americans for assuming, in
part because of the civil rights movement then underway, that the most
contentious issues in the world related to race. Toynbee argued that at
this stage in history conflict would more likely erupt because of
religious differentiations than economic or racial ones. As we look at
the Middle East, at Northern Ireland, at the Balkans, at the divisions
between Pakistan and India, Toynbee's observation appears to be
vindicated.
Expanding on Toynbee, Samuel Huntington of Harvard has propounded a
theory of international relations over the past several decades that
suggests that the next great wars are less likely to represent battles
between countries than clashes between various civilizations.
Given Toynbee's predictions and Huntington's civilization-clash
paradigm, it is appropriate to return to Jefferson, who at the public
level strove assiduously to protect individual freedom of religion and
at the private level believed that what mattered most was not nuanced
differences between religions or denominations, but the moral threads
common to all creeds. In terms of guides to individual behavior, it is
impressive, for instance, that the Ten Commandments underpin Islam as
well as Judaism and Christianity. And the Confucian doctrine of
``shu,'' which asserts that moral behavior should be premised on not
doing unto others what one would not have done to oneself, is an
inverted kind of Golden Rule.
Despite the fact that history is rife with examples where religious
differentiations have caused and intensified conflicts, there is no
credible substitute for the constructive role of faith-based
convictions. Conflict may be envisioned, but it can be constrained if
individuals are taught the most esoteric of precepts: loving, or at
least not hating, one's neighbor.
Ironically, genocide, which is disproportionately a 20th century
phenomenon, is about weapons of lesser lethality: machetes, bullets,
poisonous gas.
But if mankind can't prevent killing up close, the question must be
pondered whether there can be any optimism that the world can avoid a
cataclysmic exchange from afar of weapons of mass destruction, which
would make the greatest crime of mankind to date, genocide, the second-
to-last crime in human history. It is simply a short stop from
genocide--the killing one at a time of millions--to ``global-cide''--
the end in a single stroke of all life on the planet.
In recognition of the 20th century's experience with Holocaust and
other brutal genocides, from Cambodia to Rwanda, we have no choice
except to change our mode of thinking. Man's instinct to hate must be
curbed and social wisdom applied to the new challenges science has
thrown at man.
In this context, I want to stress a second challenge of science that
has nothing to do with war and arms making but is clearly the largest
foreign policy issue of our day. It is the problem of disease. In Iraq
more than 500 Americans and perhaps as many as 20,000 Iraqis have been
killed in the past year. But over the last two decades 20 million
people have died of AIDS and 40 million are infected with HIV. In
Africa, Southeast Asia, and Southern Russia, AIDS has hurdled well
beyond the groups considered most vulnerable in the U.S. In many
countries children are infected through mothers at birth and in several
countries a 15-year-old girl is far more likely to have the disease
than a 15-year-old boy. We simply must expand resources to stop this
disease abroad before it stops our families at home.
Not that everything in the world is dark or unraveling. Promising
political breakthroughs are occurring between India and Pakistan; in
the civil war in Sri Lanka; in Libya, where Muammar Khaddafi may be
giving up a quest for nuclear weapons; and even with North Korea, as
six-party talks unfold. Several of these bits of good international
news are developing without a central U.S. role; several will require
our leadership. My only advice to the Executive is to meet every
positive step of others with at least two steps of our own. Progressive
change from suspect leaders cannot be sustained if peoples of various
societies are not convinced that America prefers extending carrots to
applying bullying tactics. We simply can't wait for tomorrow to respond
to good omens today. This is especially true of a country like Libya
where backsliding is so easy. It may be more difficult with the hermit
country--North Korea--simply because paranoia and anti-Americanism run
so irrationally deep in the people as well as the government. But
constructive steps, especially of a humanitarian dimension, can be
taken.
Iowa also has brought some good news to the world. In January I
attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and a
Conference on the Prevention of Genocide in Stockholm, Sweden. In
conversations with Europeans the depth of anti-American sentiment
becomes quickly evident. But when asked what state I represent, I was
impressed with the sincerity of the positive responses when I indicated
I was from Iowa. Everyone knew of Iowa because of the caucuses. In Iowa
the caucus process seems a bit mysterious. In other states it is very
mysterious, and in Europe it is a full blown mystery. But people in
Europe were deeply impressed that individuals seeking the most
important political position in the world had to come to the homes and
schools and offices of private citizens who, with real care, reviewed
their credentials and platforms.
For many years I have had reservations about the caucus system
because the ballot is not secret and because participation is not as
large as in a traditional primary. But I feel obligated to reconsider
and, as a Republican, must tip my hat to the Iowa Democrats for the
thoughtfulness with which they advanced American democracy and
spotlighted our values for the world. Abroad, people followed but did
not necessarily identify with the individual candidates, but everyone
was impressed with the process and the care with which citizens carried
out their duties.
It is instructive to put the current tension in transatlantic
relations in historical perspective. With regard to the profoundest
issue--war and peace--attitudes on each side of the ocean have come
full circle over the five centuries of interaction.
The U.S. was founded by immigrants seeking refuge from religious
persecution and a spate of seemingly senseless wars among European
countries and principalities. The new Americans sought to distance
themselves from the violence and religious intolerance of the
Continent. It was with the greatest reluctance that in 1917 a pioneer
country, which had been convulsed with the magnitude of a westward
moving Manifest Destiny, determined that blocking a Kaiser's ambitions
called for intervention in European affairs.
In the wake of a war trumpeted to end all wars, America retreated
into political isolation in the 1920's. After inspiring its creation,
we refused to join the League of Nations; and after expanding trade in
industrial and agricultural products, we succumbed to economic
protectionism in the 1930's. Only a direct attack on our territory
caused us to enter World War II.
Today, it is Europe which is looking inward, pre-occupied with its
manifest destiny, political integration made feasible by a growing
economic union. Increasingly secular Europeans desire to separate
themselves from an America that appears to them to be too unilateralist
and quick to go to war, too fundamentalist and
[[Page H1157]]
thus blind to tolerance, and too simplistic to realize that conflicts
with religious overtones are the most traumatic to manage.
When speaking to constituents of the rationale for and against the
Iraq War, I have over the past couple of years referenced a set of
books that held particular currency in the 1960's: the Alexandria
Quartet by Lawrence Durrell. Each of the four books describes the same
set of events in inter-war Egypt from the perspective of a different
character. While the events are the same, the stories that unfold are
profoundly different, causing the reader to recognize that one person's
perspective is at best a snapshot of reality. A clear picture cannot be
pieced together without looking through the lens of a multiplicity of
eyes and experiences.
The Moslem experience gives substantially less weight than the
Western experience to the two cataclysmic wars of the 20th century.
Despite Lawrence's involvement in Arabia and the battles between Allied
forces and Rommel's tanks, the engagements in the Middle East and North
Africa were skirmishes compared with the struggles in Europe and the
Far East. Not only do Moslems see the 20th century differently from
Westerners, but Europeans and Americans have drawn different strategic
parallels in the application of common experience to current challenges
in the Middle East.
In the immediate aftermath of the First World War, historians and
political strategists in Europe rightly concluded that the European
alliance system had been too rigid and the assassination of a
relatively minor figure, an archduke, should not have precipitated a
war of such devastating consequences. Hence European leaders in the
1930's falsely concluded that historical wisdom necessitated initial
accommodation with Hitler's adventurism. Too little flexibility caused
one war; too little spine led to Munich. In the current context,
President Bush sees himself as Churchill rather than Chamberlain, but
Europeans see 9/11 as more analogous to the shots fired at Archduke
Ferdinand than as a cause for a doctrine of preemption or war with
Iraq, a war that could too easily spring into a clash of civilizations.
Second guessing is always conjectural because history gives few second
chances. Unlike football, downs aren't repeated.
Accordingly, the challenge today on both sides of the Atlantic is to
put debate about going to war behind and work together to figure out
how we proceed from here. A lot of polite observations have been made
that European leaders seem less angry about American decisions related
to Iraq this year compared to the differences expressed during the pre-
war buildup. This may appear that way on the surface, but my sense is
that European judgment, if anything, is more solidified and definitive
today. Europeans may have become resigned that events have unfolded
without their concurrence. By the same token, frustration that their
advice has been discounted has caused anti-American anger to
metastasize into anti-American smugness. Europeans believe that their
skepticism has been vindicated by events. The stark good-versus-evil
clarity that Washington policy makers seek appears to Europeans to be
un-nuanced, unsophisticated, and unappreciative of differing judgments.
Americans countenance criticism of our President and his policies by
fellow Americans, but we are not so tolerant of foreign dissent. The
assumption in Washington is that Continental leaders deliberately
sought to undercut U.S. leadership in the world community and that, in
particular, the refusal of the French and Germans to support the
President's position in the Security Council and NATO has made matters
more dangerous for our troops and reconciliation more difficult in the
current post-war setting.
On our side of the Atlantic, the sense exists that French and German
political judgment has not only been at variance with American ideas
but that a concerted effort was made on the Continent to triangulate
the terrorist challenge and take advantage of America's dilemma. By
distancing themselves from Washington, Paris and Bonn are seen to be
encouraging the re-direction of Moslem discord. Whereas the rhetoric of
Osama Bin Laden and other extremists was initially anti-Western, it is
now more exclusively anti-U.S. The opportunity to transplant America's
commercial as well as political position in parts of the world consumed
with anti-Americanism appears not to have been lost on the European
political-industrial elite.
With all of the attention given to the new transatlantic tensions,
the implications of the Iraq war on Russia have received short shrift.
But the new European antagonism to America has not gone unnoticed in
Moscow. The cleavage between Washington and Europe and the
preoccupation of America with the Middle East clearly give Putin a
freer hand to advance a less democratic and more nationalistic set of
policies at home. This is one reason why it is so important that
America and NATO demonstrate then can work together in such areas as
Afghanistan, where strategic common ground exists.
Likewise, the priority we have given to Iraq as well as North Korea,
two charter members of the so-called ``Axis of Evil,'' means that we
have been implicitly forced to subordinate trade and human rights
issues with China. China's support, or at least not opposition, in
international strategic affairs, has become so central to
Administration policy makers that Beijing has been able to downgrade
U.S. concerns about the historic shifts taking place in trade terms. A
Chinese trade surplus with the U.S. that now exceeds $10 billion a
month and an undervalued currency pegged to the dollar that makes
flexible trade adjustments impossible are simply not being given the
attention they deserve.
Economics and politics have seldom been more intertwined. Yet
underappreciated is the prospect that a protectionist backlash of
1930's dimensions could develop if our political policies fail and our
government loses respect in the world. Analogously, a political
backlash could sweep the country if Washington doesn't develop
institutional reforms to protect the political system from
vulnerabilities to single-issue and special-interest constituencies. At
a time when our foreign policy appears too attentive to ideological
forces and too prone to rely on proxy empowered corporations to advance
the national interest, Congress has an obligation to aggressively
provide oversight of the contracting as well as intelligence judgments
advanced by the Executive. Just as committees to review a new
intelligence inadequacies are in order, so is a new committee to
oversee government contracting related to operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The professionalism and integrity of government decision-
making about issues of war and peace must be above reproach. The
country can afford neither ideological posturing nor war profiteering.
As for the dilemma of the moment, policy makers have been caught
philosophically short. As mistaken as the overestimation of Saddam's
WMD capacities was, the greater judgmental error may relate to the
political pressure applied to the intelligence community on the issue
of Iraqi complicity in the plane strikes on 9/11. Initially, the CIA
straightforwardly noted that there was no credible evidence of Iraqi
involvement. Then, under obvious pressure, it changed its stance and in
presentation after presentation to Congress ominously suggested they
had an ``evolving'' view of the role of Iraq, despite, to date,
producing nothing of a definitive nature to show why the community
changed its initial representation. Hence, the decision to go to war
was against the backdrop of public opinion polls showing 60 percent of
the American people believed significant Iraqi involvement existed in
the 9/11 attack.
Compounding this lack of forthrightness, where the intelligence
community knew the situation but refused publicly to differ with the
political decision makers, was a judgment showing doubtful
understanding of Moslem attitudes. The notion that American forces
would be welcomed in Iraq as a liberating force with the well-
intentioned option to reshape over time Iraqi political institutions
was a mistake of profound proportions. Now, given the anarchy that has
mushroomed in the country, Washington is swept by occupation analogies
of World War II. Japan and Germany, it is noted, were occupied for more
than five years after hostilities ceased. Hence, many are suggesting,
we must be prepared to stay at least this long in Iraq.
I have seldom been more apprehensive about an historical analogy.
Japan and Germany were the instigators of war; their citizens
understood this. Iraqis don't see it this way. They see the U.S. as the
aggressor. Images form Al-Jazeera portray a country under siege. In the
Moslem world Iraq looks more like a police-cordoned West Bank than a
great and ancient society on the move to a better life. Outsiders are
viewed as unwanted intruders acting out of great power self-interest,
unrespectful of the culture and values of the country being occupied.
The irony that it is Shi'a clerics, not American statesmen, who are
pushing for democratic elections at this time is not lost on the Iraqis
or the Moslem world.
More profoundly, I am amazed that pundits haven't caught on to the
possibility that the only thing worse than being wrong in our
intelligence assessments of Iraqi WMD would have been if we had been
right and thereby taken the risk of precipitating a retaliatory BW
attack against Israel or possibly an American city. Biological weapons
in the control of petty potentates is mad science in the hands of mad
men. To go to war against a country with BW weapons, especially if the
initiator has no knowledge where they are, is to hazard more than a
clash of civilizations; it is to instigate a potential challenge to the
maintenance of civilization itself.
In any regard, if a WMD rationale for intervention can't be
established, we must not allow the democracy case to founder. To
authorize an additional $80 billion for Iraq and
[[Page H1158]]
not be able to find the means to conduct timely elections is
preposterous.
Legitimacy is critical for all countries. There may be times and
circumstances in which the U.S. national interest requires action
without a U.N. sanction. But the U.N. is ignored at great risk,
especially when the international community is at odds with a nation
state's policies. The U.N.'s help, for instance, could be significant
at this point in facilitating elections and helping legitimize new
governing structures. If a commitment to a time frame for democratic
elections isn't soon forthcoming, the Administration may see an
escalation of violence in Iraq led by the Shi'a in the South, thus
adding to the traumas precipitated by Saddam's old henchmen and foreign
trouble makers in the Sunni triangle to the north, where disorder is so
prevalent today.
The judgment call Washington must make is whether to employ something
closer to a ``get in/get out'' strategy or one of prolonged occupation.
Each approach caries risk, with the likelihood of a certain amount of
disorder developing whenever the American presence is reduced. Whether
that disorder becomes less deep with time or whether time allows
anarchist forces to organize more vigorously and lay claim to a
legitimizing nationalist mantle is conjectural.
In the realm of policy timing can often be as important as substance.
Just as Senator Dirksen once noted that a billion dollars here and a
billion dollars there and pretty soon you're talking about real money,
in foreign affairs a week here and a week there can soon add up to a
policy dilemma.
The difficulty of timing was underscored this week when some in
Washington charged the newly elected Spanish Government with
``appeasement'' for its announced intention to withdraw its forces from
Iraq in the wake of last week's bombings in Madrid unless the U.N. role
in Iraq is broadened. The language of appeasement may appropriately
describe the lack of resolve of Western leaders when they refused to
stand up to Hitler's growing power in the 1930s, but it may not be as
fair to apply such a term to Spanish policy today. Indeed, doing so may
carry irresponsible implications because fear of its connotations may
make disengagement more difficult if the country or forces of an
occupying power are ever under attack. For instance, if ``appeasement''
is considered the dominant potential issue, U.S. policy makers
relinquish their sovereign discretion and instead could give terrorists
the determinative say when we will disengage from Iraq. A few radicals
could with relative ease launch a steady dose of terrorist attacks on
our civilian and armed services personnel and ``force'' us to stay or
then be in a position to argue when we eventually leave that they
forced us out. That is why it is so critical that we lay out a basis
for withdrawal that has nothing to do with the terrorist behavior of
Iraqi radicals and everything to do with the establishment of a freely
elected leadership.
On the issue of the timing of the hand-over of civil authority I give
less judgmental weight in the Iraqi circumstance to historical
analogies to the post-war occupation of Japan and Germany and more to a
personal anecdote about the manner the Vietnam war came to be
concluded. Early in my career in Congress, I was invited to the Library
of Congress to join a small group of historians to listen to a lecture
by Henry Kissinger about the negotiations that led to the end of that
war. The night before the lecture, I perused one of Secretary
Kissinger's autobiographic tomes and came across a paragraph that so
startled me that I asked him about it in the seminar that followed the
lecture. Kissinger wrote that in December 1968, shortly after Richard
Nixon had asked him to be his National Security Council director, he
met with the President-elect to discuss the direction of the new
administration's foreign policy. They determined together, he noted,
that their policy would be to get out of Vietnam. So I asked him why
they didn't just proceed to do that. Kissinger looked at me for a
moment and then uttered words I will never forget. ``Young man,'' he
said, ``we meant with honor.'' I then asked him if ``honor'' required
escalation. ``Absolutely,'' he responded.
In governance, judgment to be good must be timely. The course of
history and attitudes toward America would be very different today if
the Nixon administration had acted forthrightly on its own judgment. In
Iraq, where we are fast becoming a magnet of instability rather than a
force of stability, we must not hesitate. If the issue is democracy,
let's hold elections with dispatch and use the democratic transition as
the rationalization for deep troop reductions.
If we maintain a heavy presence much longer our president could find
himself in a dilemma of the kind Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon came
to know too well. There are circumstances in life where the small can
humble the powerful. This has the makings of one. Despite the
overwhelming nature of our military victory and the courageous
commitment and sacrifice of our armed forces, policies can fail if the
timing of disengagement is wrong.
This is why clarity of purpose and flexibility of response are so
crucial. And why the neo-con mantra--``we must see this through''--
deserves review. Hasty withdrawal is problemsome; orderly,
philosophically cogent decisions to wind down the military dimension of
our presence in Iraq should, however, be our highest national
interest priority. Democratic elections are the key. They can be held
in relatively short order (at least by year's end; preferably earlier)
if there is a will and commitment to do so. But the longer we heed the
advice of those who want to hold onto power in Iraq, the harder it will
be to avert increased terrorism here and abroad.
Here I would like to return to what in most contexts must be
considered a rather esoteric paradigm: the Hobbesian notion of a state
of nature. Terrorism is a military or, more precisely, militant tool of
anarchy. It is the desire of terrorists to make Iraqi society a social
jungle, a state of nature where anarchy rather than law rules.
Legitimacy of government in this setting can perhaps be precipitated
but it cannot be imposed from the outside. Outside pressure is less
convincing when it appears to be presented by a singular authority--
i.e., the United States. One of the reasons so many countries prefer a
strong U.N. role is that such a role not only provides greater
legitimization of intervention but greater legitimization of processes
leading to a new government. U.S. slighting of the U.N. undercuts
governmental legitimizing efforts and causes the entirety of the Moslem
world to become more antagonistic to our country.
For our part, we have gotten caught in a web of events we can
influence but not control. In the end, legitimacy of any new government
in Iraq will depend on consent of the governed. The only wise U.S.
policy is to steamroll ahead with a constitutional framework of
democratic elections with a pre-announced strategy of large-scale troop
withdrawals commencing somewhat before or just after elections are
held.
In conclusion, let me suggest a corollary to Lord Acton's maxim that
power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. The
Leach corollary is that military power tempts and excessive power tends
to tempt excessively. America's enormous military strength is critical
at this stage in history. But while we are obligated to recognize that
its maintenance is imperative, we must also realize that its
utilization may not fit, and may indeed be counter-productive, in
certain strategic settings. We have to use more than just our own eyes
and rely on more that just our own expertise if in turbulent times we
are to manage prudently the affairs of state.
Analogies between all wars exist, but comparisons between Iraq and
Vietnam are frail. What must be understood is not that Iraq could be as
bad as Vietnam; rather, that it could be far worse. Vietnam, after all,
involved no WMD issues; and while the North was predominantly Buddhist
and the South Catholic, there were no implications of a world-wide
religious struggle; nor of a conflict that might last many decades, if
not centuries. The issue at the time was Communism and fear that if
Vietnam fell, neighboring governments would topple like dominoes. In
retrospect, the real domino lesson of Vietnam was about political
decision-making. Once the patriotic flag was raised, stands taken,
words uttered, one doubtful decision precipitated another, and the
pride of politicians did not allow a change of course until the people
demanded common sense reconsideration.
In this context, there is an aspect of this resolution that deserves
reflective review. It is true, as the resolution asserts, that Iraq and
the world are better off without Saddam Hussein ensconced in power. But
it is not necessarily true that our country and the world are safer if
the overthrow of one thug leads to the creation of millions of rebels
with a cause.
It would be a mistake of historical proportions if respectful
relations not only between America and the Moslem world but between
America and its traditional allies were to rupture. We are obligated to
see that they don't.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a very distinguished member of the Committee on
Armed Services.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 557 expressing the
views of the House on the liberation of Iraq. Frankly, I find myself
amazed that this resolution is the topic of such an extended and
spirited debate.
Who can seriously dispute H.R. 557's main points? The world is safer
with Saddam Hussein in prison as opposed to being in power. If anyone
questions that, let them ask the citizens of the two Muslim countries
he invaded, the Kurds whom he gassed or the Shiites whom he butchered
by the thousands. The Iraqi people should be commended for their
courage in overcoming 35 years of oppression and they should be
[[Page H1159]]
recognized for adopting an interim constitution and moving forward
toward a democracy, similar to the same situation faced in our own
Civil War.
Certainly the United States military and our allies in the coalition
deserve to be recognized for their heroic service and their valor on
the battlefield and their continuing struggle in Iraq.
The American people and our allies ought to also take pride in what
we have done to improve the lives of the average Iraqi. Since the end
of the war, 4.2 million children and 700,000 pregnant mothers have been
vaccinated. Over 30 million vaccine doses have been procured and 22
million actually delivered to Iraq. By the end of 2004, 90 percent of
Iraqi children will have been vaccinated against polio, tuberculosis,
and measles; 600 primary health clinics have been reequipped to provide
health care, dozens of schools opened, colleges kept operational and
the sanitation extended.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what America and Americans have done in
Iraq. I hope and trust that pride is shared by Members of this House
and every American.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, a number of Members have said this resolution
is simply about commending the troops and the people of Iraq. If that
were truly the case, this measure would enjoy unanimous support. On the
contrary, in what it says and what it fails to say, it attempts to
speak to the handling of the war. It glosses over the serious
intelligence failures and serious misstatements by the Bush
administration concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
It papers over the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the war
as well as the initial failure to actively seek international support
and continued lack of it. It ignores the equipment shortages that need
to be addressed to protect our troops. It fails to make any mention of
the 565 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq, or the thousands who have
been wounded, or the sacrifices of their families.
The resolution before the House today does not bring credit to this
institution. It tries a well-used tactic to divide and conquer.
Instead, it is a case of dividing and losing: dividing this House when
it is a subject that needs unity and losing further credibility for the
Republican House that does not even try to act on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleagues if I am reading the
same resolution they are, this resolution and I quote, commends the
Members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces for
liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service
to our country. That is not a political statement, that is a
commendation, and it should be from all of us, Democrats and
Republicans.
I do not read politics into that, and nobody else should.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I represent Fort Benning, the home of the
Infantry in Columbus, Georgia, and I rise in support of the resolution
to pay tribute to those Americans serving in uniform who have brought
liberty to 24 million Iraqi citizens. It is their courage, commitment,
and endurance that made possible the unprecedented success that we have
witnessed halfway across the world.
While soldiers are hunting down leaders of Saddam's regime, Americans
and Iraqis are working together to construct hospitals and schools and
establish a new Iraqi government. As a physician, I know what it takes
to provide health care for a large number of patients. That is why it
amazes me to learn 52 clinics have been renovated and over 600 have
been reequipped to provide primary health care.
Mr. Speaker, I call attention to this chart which shows that more
than 22 million doses of vaccines have been delivered to 4.2 million
Iraqi children and 700,000 pregnant women. In fact, by the end of 2004,
over 90 percent of Iraqi children under the age of 5 will be immunized
against diseases such as polio, tuberculosis, and measles.
In February alone, 800 tons of high-protein meals were delivered to
malnourished children. Sadly, those who oppose us are not idle. I do
not know how long the war on terrorism will last, but I know America is
right and our military and humanitarian efforts must continue until
this evil is eradicated not only in the Middle East but in the entire
world.
While we hope our allies will not abandon us when we face inevitable
hardships, if necessary, we have the courage and the commitment to
stand alone.
Mr. Speaker, my prayers remain with the soldiers, sailors, airmen and
marines deployed around the world, and with their families who wait for
them at home with love and patience. I wholeheartedly support this
timely resolution.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, in October 2002, I voted to authorize the
use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, and I would again. I think it
was the right decision for this country.
I agree with the resolution statement that the world is safer with
the removal of this leader from Baghdad; I believe it is. And the
succession of changes that we have seen in Syria, Libya, and Iran are
evidence of that.
I went to Iraq in January and saw young people serving this country
in uniform and the leadership that they showed us, and I was so proud
of them. They have never let us down.
I think today with this resolution we are letting them down.
Leadership is about unifying people; it is about healing wounds; it is
about bringing people together. There are many patriotic Members of
this body who in good faith believe the world is not safer because
Saddam Hussein is gone. I respectfully disagree with them, but we
should have been able to come together today on the first anniversary
of the initiation of hostilities and focus on the soldiers, sailors,
airmen and marines and the guardsmen, and we should have been able to
focus on what we agree on; and what we agree on is we respect their
service, we mourn the loss of our dead, we are ready to heal those who
have come home wounded, and then we are ready to debate the foreign
policy of this country as to how we should go forward. We have let our
troops down by this resolution, and it is a shame.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, no one can ever forget the
horrific attacks on our Nation of 9/11. Our lives changed that day; the
world changed that day; and America looked for answers and we looked
for justice. And we looked, most importantly, for leadership.
I think the terrorists, recognizing the very limp response that
America had made to terrorist activities during the 1990s, probably
thought we would make a lot of noise, we would be out here rattling our
sabers, and then go back to our comfortable lifestyles and that we
would not respond in any meaningful way.
Well, these cowards, these terrorists who prey on the weak and
innocent, seriously underestimated the will of the American people, and
they certainly did not understand the political resolve of our great
President George W. Bush, our President who understands that his
constitutional responsibilities are to protect the homeland, to protect
Americans.
And so we went to Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. We went into
Iraq where we liberated the Iraqi people from the oppression of Saddam
Hussein.
Mr. Speaker, recently I had the opportunity to travel to Libya where
we met with Moammar Qaddafi, and as we all know, he has opened up the
borders to Libya to let the Atomic Energy Commission come in and
voluntarily dismantle his nuclear program. Apparently he watched Saddam
Hussein get drug out of a rat hole and thought this regime change is
not all it is cracked up to be. Clearly the Bush doctrine is working.
Mr. Speaker, we recognize the brave Americans who have lost their
lives fighting for freedom, fighting the war
[[Page H1160]]
on terror. We recognize that battle is not over yet. Every one of them
is a hero, every American who puts on the uniform is a hero, and we
thank our partners in the coalition as well. God bless them all, God
bless our Commander in Chief, and God bless America.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I support commending our troops, but I
believe the war with Iraq did not make the United States safer. We know
that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and no connection to al Qaeda
which poses the real threat to the safety of the American people.
We know that the war in Iraq diverted resources from the war against
al Qaeda and the Taliban, which is staging a resurgence in Afghanistan
today. We know that the war in Iraq alienated our allies whose help and
intelligence we need to fight the real threat, the Islamic terrorists.
We know that the war against Iraq makes it much harder to take action,
perhaps military action, if necessary, to deal with the very real
potential threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
After the administration misled this House, misled the American
people, and misled the world about the nonexistent Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction, who will believe us if we need to act against the
real nuclear threat from Iran?
{time} 1615
I believe this war made us less safe because it dealt with a phantom
threat, not the real threat. It diverted resources from the real
threat. This resolution is good in commending our troops, but
untruthful in saying the war against Iraq made us safer. Therefore, I
cannot vote for it.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), a member of our committee.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of
House Resolution 557. The U.S. investments in the war on terror and in
Iraq are proving worthwhile and are making the world safer. As of
February 2004, 44 of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders are dead
or in custody. The Iraqi people have created and signed an interim
constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms, rights and protections to all
Iraqis previously unrealized in Iraq.
I visited Iraq in October and saw firsthand that Iraqis are much
better off than they were under the oppressive regime of Saddam
Hussein. Children are able to go to school without being taught
government propaganda. Small businesses are able to open. Iraqi
citizens have access to health care formerly denied to them, and once
neglected infrastructure is being rebuilt. No one who argues against
this resolution can deny that Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the United
States and an enemy of the Iraqi people. The war on terror has
encouraged nations to protect their national security, track down and
arrest known and suspected terrorists, and to make ovations to the
international community in order to create a more peaceful and stable
environment.
Last fall, the United States stopped a ship carrying nuclear
components bound for Libya. Recently, Libya voluntarily turned over
equipment from its nuclear weapons program to the United States. Had
Libya kept these materials, they had the ingredients to create nuclear
weapon capabilities. The 50,000 pounds of machine parts to enrich
uranium is just a small portion of the material and information that
they have turned over. Qaddafi himself has cited the fall of Saddam
Hussein as a reason for Libya abandoning its nuclear weapons of mass
destruction program. Can anyone have imagined a nuclear power as Libya?
Libya's decision is an example of the administration's tough line
against states that sponsor terrorism and have unconventional weapons
programs. United States investments in Iraq are proving themselves
effective. Iraq is a safer nation, as is the United States. I commend
our Armed Forces of the United States and the coalition forces.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. First and foremost, let us all begin by thanking and saluting
each and every American soldier, more than 500 of whom have died,
thousands who have been injured, and several hundred thousand who are
on active duty today, for their service and continued service doing
what they are commanded to do every day. But under the shield of
commending our troops, the sponsors of this measure are trying to run
through what I believe is a resolution that does really nothing to,
one, equip our soldiers with the body armor they still need and the
extra protection for the armored vehicles that they use in Iraq, does
nothing to restore veterans benefits that President Bush's budget
proposes to cut for health care for our veterans, does nothing to bring
in meaningful assistance from our so-called coalition partners or the
international community to help patrol the streets of Iraq and rebuild
the nation and the billions of dollars it will cost. And this
resolution does nothing to lay out the exit strategy this Nation will
need to tell our troops when they will be able to come home and when we
will be able to stop spending the billions of dollars every day abroad.
Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution which can commend our troops, and
should; but it does nothing to move the ball forward.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would just take a minute to remind my
colleague that every single soldier in Iraq has body armor as does
every single civilian worker in Iraq and that the gentleman who just
spoke voted against the very supplemental that sent that body armor to
Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Hayes), who has spent so much time with the troops and is home to
the 82nd Airborne, the All-American Division.
Mr. HAYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I do represent Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, the
epicenter of the universe. I rise with great pride and admiration to
support this resolution because of those troops.
The tragic events in Spain last week and in Iraq today remind us that
terrorism is an ongoing threat to people around the world. However,
today we live in a world that was different just 1 year ago. The Iraqi
people were living under a tyrant, a brutal dictator who gassed his own
people. The U.S. military victory in Iraq was unprecedented in military
history. Our brave men and women in uniform liberated 24 million Iraqi
people in just 3 weeks. Because of the actions and sacrifices of our
troops, the regime of Saddam Hussein has been deposed and Iraq is on
the path to becoming a free and prosperous nation.
The U.S. military victory in Iraq was truly unprecedented. On March
19, 2003, offensive operations began with air strikes against Iraqi
leadership positions. Operation Iraqi Freedom was executed with a
combination of precision, speed, and force that stunned our enemy.
Soldiers and Marines, many from my home State of North Carolina,
charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile territory in one of the
fastest military advances in the history of warfare. I am proud of
those soldiers at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base and other posts
around this wonderful country. The Hussein regime fell on April 9. By
April 15 after only 27 days of offensive operations, coalition forces
were in relative control of all major Iraqi cities.
I would like to highlight some of those military victories. Coalition
forces carried out hundreds of raids and thousands of patrols seizing
caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition that can no
longer be used against our troops or innocent civilians. As of
February, 44 of the 55 most wanted Iraqi leaders are dead or in
custody.
In addition to bringing down Saddam's regime with great skill,
courage and speed, we can also be proud that our military conducted
operations with minimal collateral damage to the country's
infrastructure. No neighboring countries were hit with Scud missiles,
as was the case in the first Gulf War.
Mr. Speaker, when I was in Iraq, Command Sergeant Major Gainey gave
me the following quote: ``You have never lived until you have almost
died. For those of us that have been deployed or fought for it, freedom
has a
[[Page H1161]]
special flavor the protected will never know.''
God bless our troops and protect them.
Mr. Speaker, I represent Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base and I
rise in strong support of this resolution. The tragic events in Spain
last week and in Iraq today remind us that terrorism is an ongoing
threat to people around the world. However, today we live in a world
that was different just one year ago. The Iraqi people were living
under a tyrant, a brutal dictator who gassed his own people. The U.S.
military victory in Iraq was unprecedented in military history. Our
brave men and women in uniform liberated 24 million Iraqi people in
just three weeks. Because of the actions and sacrifices of our troops,
the regime of Saddam Hussein has been deposed and Iraq is on the path
to becoming a free and prosperous nation.
The U.S. military victory in Iraq was truly unprecedented. On March
19, 2003, offensive operations began with air strikes against Iraq
leadership positions. Operation Iraqi Freedom was executed with a
combination of precision, speed and force that stunned our enemy.
Soldiers and Marines, many from my home State of North Carolina,
charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile territory in one of the
fastest military advances in the history of warfare. I am particularly
proud of the soldiers, airmen, special operations forces and others
from Ft. Bragg and Pope Air Force base in my district in North
Carolina. The Hussein regime fell on April 9, 2003 and by April 15
after only 27 days of offensive operations, coalition forces were in
relative control of all major Iraqi cities, including Baghdad, Basra,
Mosul, Kirkuk and Tikrit. Iraqi political and military leadership had
collapsed.
I would like to highlight some of our military victories. Coalition
forces carried out hundreds of raids and thousands of patrols, seizing
caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition that can no
longer be used against our troops or innocent civilians. As of February
2004, 44 of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders are dead or in
custody, as well as thousands of other Baath Party loyalists and
terrorists.
In addition to bringing down Saddam's regime with great skill,
courage and speed, we can also be proud that our military conducted
operations with minimal collateral damage to the country's
infrastructure. No neighboring countries were hit with Scud missiles as
was the case in the first Gulf War. There were virtually no instances
of civilian casualties, nor were there large masses of fleeing
refugees. Bridges were captured intact and rail lines protected. Dams
were taken whole and villages were not flooded. Oil fields were
protected and we denied Saddam's regime the opportunity to ignite
widespread oil field fires. Of 250 wells in the key sections of the
Rumaila oil field, only nine were detonated, causing just seven fires.
Operation Iraqi Freedom will go down in military annals as a truly
unprecedented offensive. The Saddam Hussein regime was not a government
of benevolence; it was a reign of terror. The U.S. men and women in
uniform have deposed of that terror with their remarkable achievements.
Mr. Speaker, I have been to Iraq twice: the first time right after
major combat operations ceased and we witnessed a country just
beginning to consider life in the post Saddam era. The second time I
visited was just this past month. Along with Leader Pelosi and Ranking
Member Skelton, we saw incredible progress being made. Command Sergeant
Major Joe Gainey, one of the outstanding soldiers with whom we met,
shared with me his favorite quote. I would like to share it with you:
You have never lived . . .
Until you have almost died.
For those of us that have been deployed or fought for it,
Freedom has a special flavor . . .
The protected will never know.
Our military success is about that freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I extend my heartfelt thanks and admiration to our men
and women in uniform for their service and success. May God protect and
bless them as they secure freedom for Iraq and protect freedom for
America.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. I would like to thank the ranking member for his
leadership.
Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues on the House Committee on Armed
Services, I have been pleased to provide our troops with the support
and the equipment that they need to succeed in their mission, and I
have had the privilege of traveling to Iraq to meet with some of them
personally. I am so proud of the job that they are doing. God bless
them. Iraq's transition to democracy and the ongoing war on terrorism
will pose new challenges for our men and women in uniform, but they may
take comfort in the knowledge that this Congress stands behind them.
Yet despite the fact that every Member of this Chamber supports our
troops, this resolution was prepared with no input from Democrats. Just
as the administration has adopted a ``go it alone'' strategy on
numerous foreign policy initiatives, the House leadership has done the
exact same thing when drafting legislation. This resolution could have
and should have been prepared with bipartisan input. I am disappointed
that inappropriate tactics have overshadowed the unanimity we share in
support of our Armed Forces.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), a most distinguished member of the committee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, as we speak here today, progress is being
made in Iraq. As chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, I have
visited Iraq and witnessed firsthand their accomplishments. With our
help, they have surpassed prewar electrical generation levels and are
on track to be generating at almost 140 percent over their prewar level
by June. Water facilities are currently operating at 65 percent of
prewar levels and are improving. Current projects include the
rehabilitation of 15 water treatment facilities and a canal to Basra.
These projects will benefit millions of Iraqis and provide for a future
of water reliability.
But make no mistake, we did not go into Iraq to improve water
infrastructure or increase electrical power capabilities. One year ago,
this country, along with our allies, made the decision to topple a
tyrannical regime, liberate a people, and help build a democracy in the
heart of a terrorist breeding ground. However, the gift of freedom and
democracy is being built on the basic level of services and quality of
life which they are building today. We must stand by the Iraqi people
in their long and challenging journey toward democracy because their
freedom contributes to our security and the security of the world.
God bless America and God bless our troops.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member on the
Committee on Government Reform.
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
As we near the 1-year anniversary of the commencement of hostilities
in Iraq, now is an appropriate time to examine how we got into the war
in Iraq in the first place. The resolution before us contains many
``whereas'' clauses about how brutally Saddam Hussein treated his own
people. I agree with those clauses. But let us not fool ourselves about
the reason the American people were told that we needed to launch a
preemptive war against Iraq. Over and over again, President Bush and
his senior advisers told us that we needed to go to war to protect
America from weapons of mass destruction.
Several months ago I asked my staff to prepare a comprehensive
analysis of the statements made by the top administration officials
most responsible for making the case for war. Yesterday, I released the
results of this work in a report entitled ``Iraq on the Record.''
Members can find the report, and a searchable database of
administration statements, at www.reform.house.gov/min. What we found
was that the President, the Vice President, and other top
administration officials repeatedly and systematically misled the
public about the threats posed by Iraq. They made claims that Iraq
posed an urgent threat; they exaggerated Iraq's nuclear capabilities;
statements that overstated Iraq's chemical and biological weapons; and
statements that misrepresented Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda. We
judge whether a statement was misleading based on what intelligence
officials knew at the time the statement was made, not what we know
now.
If Congress really wanted to show respect for the troops, it would
enact legislation calling for an independent commission, a real
independent commission to examine how the President and his top
advisers made hundreds of misleading statements to the American public.
The resolution before us is reminiscent of these statements. Vice
President Cheney said: ``We do know with
[[Page H1162]]
absolute certainty that he, Saddam Hussein, is using his procurement
system to acquire the weapons he needs to build a nuclear weapon,''
when this resolution says the same thing so unequivocally, quote, ``the
world has been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein.'' I hope
that is true, but we do not know it yet. Ask the hundreds who have died
since Saddam Hussein was captured.
The purpose of this resolution is an attempt by the Republican
leadership to divide us, not to unite us behind our troops. They are
using the sacrifice of the lives of our young men and women for their
own political gain. I will not vote for this resolution or against it.
I will vote ``present'' as an act of disdain for those who want to play
politics with the lives of Americans and the credibility of this great
Nation as the world's leader.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just make a point to the gentleman who just spoke, that every
Member in this House received a personal invitation from me for
classified briefings dealing directly with our intelligence agencies
with the opportunity to ask any question they wanted to ask so that
when they made the vote on whether or not we should go into Iraq, they
could make an informed vote. I presume that the gentleman accepted that
opportunity and made an informed vote based on his own understanding of
what the situation was. Let me just reiterate that every person in
uniform in Iraq has full body armor, as does every civil servant.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the point of difference today
appears to me to be the question of are we safer. I could not disagree
more with my colleague from California on this issue.
{time} 1630
It is not a question of truth or falsity or even of credibility. It
is a question of judgment, a judgment that we collectively exercised as
a body when we undertook our responsibility under the Constitution to
authorize the use of force in Iraq. There were some things that were
very important to me when I made that decision, which are reinforced
here today. We knew that Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass
destruction against his own people and against his neighbors. We knew
that he had tested unarmed aerial vehicles with sprayers. We knew that
he had another unarmed aerial vehicle program with smaller drones that
they were building and testing at long ranges. And we knew that that
unarmed aerial vehicle program sought to purchase route mapping
software over the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, September 11 we watched 3,000 people die in a morning.
That would be a footnote in American history compared to someone
determined to use disease to kill Americans. This is a question of
judgment, and we did the right thing to remove Saddam Hussein from
power.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
National security is not only a bipartisan effort, it is truly a
nonpartisan effort. On the Committee on Armed Services, under the
chairmanship of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), we do our
very best to be bipartisan in nature. And, frankly, it concerns me a
great deal that no Democrat was even asked to make a recommendation on
what might or might not be in this resolution. I would have included
several items including reference to the families. I would have
included reference to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. I
would have included a wish that the transition on June 30 be done
correctly. And I would include that there should be increased
international participation.
But I was not given that opportunity. Young men and young women from
Democratic homes and from Republican homes and from Independent homes
have paid the ultimate sacrifice. And I think it is incumbent upon
everyone that offers such a serious resolution as this to give
everybody an opportunity to make recommendations and to help write it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
would relinquish to the next group that has jurisdiction for the next
hour.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is a picture that Mr. Stavenas of our staff took of a
reenlistment ceremony at Saddam Hussein's spider hole in Iraq. It
symbolizes the willingness of our military, our soldiers, our people in
uniform, to come back under very difficult circumstances and reenlist
and continue to fight this wonderful fight for the United States and
for freedom. And our soldiers have done a great job for us, and this
resolution is commending those soldiers. All those people who wore the
uniform of the United States supported our country at a time of need
and are continuing to undertake the biggest deployment right now,
redeployment, since World War II.
Let us all stand behind them, Republicans and Democrats, cast off the
partisan positions that have been taken today on the House floor, and
let them know that we support them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 557 and claim the
time set aside for us under the rule, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, our President, having exhausted all other options, made
the decision to take action against Saddam Hussein and the threat posed
by his evil tyranny. During that course, the debate about that, this
House was presented with an overwhelming body of evidence detailing the
brutal inhumanity of Saddam Hussein and his regime, the suffering of
the Iraqi people under his repressive dictatorship, the threat that
Saddam presented to his neighbors and to the world, and indeed the
piles of bodies in neighboring countries he left behind. Today, now
that Saddam has been removed from power and the mass graves, the secret
laboratories, the vast military stockpiles, missile capacities that he
had, have all been exposed to the world, the world is a safer place.
Certainly the Iraqi people, all Iraqi people, have a new hope for a
better future today than they did just a year ago. Just a year ago.
What a remarkable accomplishment by our troops and the coalition.
Yet we continue to hear claims from some that the liberation of Iraq,
no matter how worthy the result, no matter how necessary to improving
U.S. national security, was somehow a flawed endeavor. Yes, it was
hard, but they claim it was a flawed endeavor because the intelligence
that the United States had prior to the war was not perfect.
Some apparently feel that either the Intelligence Community was
pressured by the administration into stating that Iraq was a threat or
the Intelligence Community did not really believe Iraq was a threat but
the administration misused the intelligence provided to it. The truth
is neither of those are correct. But that has not deterred some
conspiratorially critics from contorting themselves, trying to make
both arguments simultaneously.
Looking back about a year and a half ago, while the Intelligence
Community was focused heavily on Iraq, the President stated that Saddam
was ``a grave and growing threat.'' And he was right. Today we have the
benefit of hindsight, of a presence on the ground in Iraq, and of the
thousands of hours of studying all there is to study on the prewar
intelligence picture of Iraq, and we have barely begun to get that job
finished.
Taking advantage of all these benefits, I would like to share my
assessment so far, and I would note that the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence of the House, and I know of the Senate also, is
underway in coming forward with a formal review of all this, which I
hope we will be able to share with our colleagues before too long. That
is our plan.
The intelligence picture of Iraq, of the threat Iraq posed to its
neighbors and to the United States, including the assessment of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction, was entirely consistent over a period of
almost a decade. The assessment is consistent in the finished
intelligence and the daily current intelligence pieces from the mid-
1990s onward. It is consistent in the classified records that have been
provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on
[[Page H1163]]
Intelligence over the past year. So I have to conclude on that basis
alone, if the intelligence adjustments regarding Iraq were the result
of political pressure or manipulation, any such machinations must have
occurred in the middle of the 1990s. But I do not believe that that is
the case. Therefore, if the intelligence picture is unchanging, was
there a change in the substance or tone used by this administration to
describe that threat? We do not need to go to the Intelligence
Community or to any classified records to answer that question. We just
need to compare public statements that have been made, and they are
available to the world.
In 2003 President Bush said this: ``Today, the gravest danger in the
war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is
outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror,
and mass murder. They could give or sell those weapons to terrorist
allies who would use them without the least hesitation.''
In 1998 then President Bill Clinton said: ``In the next century,''
which is now, ``the community of nations may see more and more the very
kind of threat Iraq poses now, a rogue state with weapons of mass
destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who
traveled the world . . . if we fail to respond today, Saddam . . . will
be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with
impunity.''
And again in 1998, then President Bill Clinton said: ``There should
be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass
destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the
security of the world . . . His regime threatens the safety of his
people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of
us.'' President Clinton, 1998.
Fast forward, 2003, President Bush: ``Some have said we must not act
until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants
announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they
strike . . . Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is
not a strategy, and it is not an option.''
Actually, there is not a lot of difference in the leadership that was
taking place in this country on the question of the threat that Saddam
Hussein and his regime and weapons of mass destruction that might be at
his disposal were to the rest of us. It is pretty clear that that was a
consistent view.
So, were the intelligence assessments perfect? No. In fact, comparing
the intelligence assessment to what has been found in Iraq today, it is
clear there were insufficiencies in our intelligence capabilities and
they are of concern to us, and on a bipartisan basis we are looking
into that. What was the cause of these insufficiencies? Perhaps Iraq,
under Saddam, was a difficult target. It was sort of a denied area.
There was a ruthless security apparatus there that made information
gathering inside the country extremely difficult, very dangerous. We
also know that Iraq instituted a truly massive denial and deception
program designed to mislead anyone attempting to learn about Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction and related programs. Virtually everybody
who tried found out that he was involved in denial and deception. So
these factors made intelligence collection a little difficult, but it
is the tough job that intelligence is there for.
So, what else? I found that cuts in intelligence resources,
personnel, and political support in the mid-1990s made many aspects of
the intelligence mission in Iraq even more impossible than what we are
up against.
Where were these cuts most severe? In the case of Iraq, it turns out
it was the decline in our intelligence capabilities that hurt the most.
Human intelligence is where we get more than pictures, more than
fragments. We get insight into the plans and intentions of our target.
What is going on in the minds of the troublemakers? And without good
human intelligence, HUMINT, as we call it, it is very difficult indeed
to get an accurate picture of what an adversary is up to.
Yet from 1991 to 1998, a time of cutbacks for military and
intelligence resources across the board, our human intelligence
capabilities suffered dramatically. The number of officers collecting
information shrank by about a quarter; the number of operating
locations overseas dropped by about a third; reporting sources declined
by almost 40 percent; and the number of intelligence reports produced
were cut in half or thereabouts.
So we add on top of that the politically correct ``nice spies''
guidelines that were posed in 1995, the risk aversion problem, and we
begin to see why information in Iraq was so hard to come by. Good
information about plans and intentions, the eyes and ears, just were
not sufficient.
So despite these severe limitations, I think the scorecard shows that
the United States Intelligence Community provided the best assessment
it could. And referring Members to the Director of Central
Intelligence's recent speech at Georgetown, the assessments were not as
far wrong as some critics of the war would have us believe.
In the final analysis, I think it is important that we get it right.
Saddam was a threat. The United Nations believed he was a threat. The
vast majority of the Western nations, even those outside of the U.S.-
led coalition, believed he was a threat. The U.S. Intelligence
Community assessed consistently that Saddam was a threat. The previous
administration told the American people that Saddam was a threat. And
it has been the official policy of the United States to seek regime
change in Iraq since 1998 across two administrations. The difference
between 1998 and 2003 is that President Bush took the bold action
necessary to address a grave threat where others before him did not.
The world is a safer place for it.
{time} 1645
Freedom is not free. The purpose of this resolution is to recognize
the hardships that the men and women who are doing the dangerous, risky
work of protecting our freedoms, the people in our military services,
the people in the coalition, the people who are taking risks. After a
year, we are here to say, you are doing great work, keep it up, we are
so grateful.
We are also including some applause for the people of Iraq who have
gone through miserable times and now have some hope, and they have
completed the remarkable achievement of a temporary constitution
already. This is the sign of a spirited people who are looking for a
better life.
This resolution simply says that and commends that. I believe we can
all agree that these are the times that we can get together and say,
well done, more to do, let us get on with it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) is recognized for 30 minutes.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I came here to talk about how we can improve this
resolution, but I would like to say to the able gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Goss), the chairman of our committee, that some of the things
he just said in his opening remarks might deserve amplification. It is
true that during the 1990s, overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both
Houses of Congress approved cuts in funding for intelligence. So strong
was this bipartisan position that often no one called for a recorded
vote; Intelligence budgets were approved on a simple voice vote. The
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is correct that overseas intelligence
operations were canceled and that the core of our overseas intelligence
operations declined by about 25 percent. But what he failed to mention
is that those cuts were ordered by the 41st President, President Bush.
They were supported by more than 95 percent of Republicans in Congress,
including the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss).
What I am here to say today, however, is that this resolution could
be improved if it called for steps now on a bipartisan basis to fix
what are obvious intelligence problems. In addition to commending our
troops, we should be calling for action to make them safer.
Had I been consulted on this resolution, I would have suggested
adding a clause calling on the President to acknowledge the obvious
problems with our intelligence and to take steps to fix those problems
now. Had I been consulted, I would have insisted on adding language
applauding the brave and
[[Page H1164]]
dedicated cadre of people serving in Iraq and around the world as
intelligence officers. They work in the shadows with little thanks and
recognition.
Mr. Speaker, the terrorists are clearly not waiting for us to fix our
intelligence, witness today's tragic bombing in Iraq and last week's
bigger tragedy in Madrid. The insurgents in Iraq are not waiting for us
to fix our intelligence. Ask the young men and women at Walter Reed
Hospital.
The North Koreans and Iranians are not waiting for us to fix our
intelligence. Their nuclear weapons programs are far more advanced than
Iraq's ever were. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the
chairman of our committee, acknowledged this morning, the world is not
safe just because we removed a brutal dictator. We all know this. It
will not be safer until we fix our intelligence.
After deep study on the Select Committee on Intelligence, it is clear
to me that our senior leaders remain in a deep state of denial. There
are no discernible signs from the President or the Vice President
acknowledging the obvious flaws in our intelligence systems and
committing our country to fix the problems now. Force protection in
Iraq depends on accurate, timely, and actionable intelligence to
counter terrorism and insurgency. We must do better.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), and chairman of one of our
critical subcommittees.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 557,
recognizing the liberation of the Iraqi people and the valiant services
of American and coalition forces.
In the years since the United States led a coalition of willing
States to disarm Saddam Hussein, we have arrested a dictator that
killed hundreds of thousands, possibly as many as 1 million people,
during his reign. We have returned children to school and given the
Iraqi people a new destiny.
I have been to Iraq several times. It continues to be a dangerous
place. Iraq is also a complicated place. There has been a considerable
amount of debate and attention to what we knew before we went to war
and how well our intelligence is measuring up with the realities on the
ground in Iraq.
I would like to take this time to clarify the record on a number of
charges that have been levied against both the administration and our
intelligence community.
A number of Members who voted for the Iraq war resolution claim they
did so because they were fooled by the President who overstated the
threat from Iraq. In fact, some suggest that the administration knew
Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and went to war
regardless of the facts. These critics do not understand the difference
between intelligence and policy formation.
The President considered the intelligence in Iraq and calculated the
risk of engaging in a conflict with Iraq and decided war was just. He
took action, and we are all safer as a result. Some argue that the
President portrayed Iraq as an ``imminent threat,'' that the
administration misled the American public by overstating the threat
posed by Iraq. This is what he said in January 2003, 2 months before
the war: ``Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.
Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions,
politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is
permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all
recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and
restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy and it is not an
option.''
In fact, this President's statements on Iraq are not all that
different from the previous President and his administration's remarks
when they discussed the threat posed by Iraq: ``If we fail to respond
today, Hussein and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be
emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity.''
And: ``What if he fails to comply and we fail to act? Some day, some
way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal.''
These were President Clinton's words in August of 1998.
Another quote: ``And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has
assisted in the chemical weapons activity in Sudan. We had information
linking bin Laden to the Sudanese regime and the Al Shifa plant.''
These words were written by former National Security Adviser Sandy
Berger.
Another quote: ``Sometimes the United States has to act alone or at
least has to act first. Sometimes we cannot let other countries have a
veto on our foreign policy.'' That was a quote from President Clinton
during his election campaign.
President Bush used the best intelligence available, as it had been
suggested by the former administration, that Iraq was a threat, a
growing threat. The removal of Saddam Hussein and his evil regime from
power was a policy endorsed by both sides of the aisle for more than a
decade. This menace became even more of a concern when examined through
the lens of September 11. Saddam is gone. The world is better because
of it.
Mr. Speaker, we can argue the morality of war all day, but terrorists
do not possess the same concern, as we saw again today. They act, and
they act brutally. Iraq represents another front on the global war on
terrorism. Iraq also represented a dangerous threat to the region and
the world. This country witnessed the consequence of failing to act
strongly against terrorism on September 11, 2001.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the bipartisan comments of the
last speaker, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin)
for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the Resolution before us correctly points
out the atrocities that Saddam Hussein perpetuated against his own
people and the importance to Iraq's future to be free from the
oppression of Saddam Hussein. The Resolution properly commends the
members of the U.S. Armed Forces for their valiant service. They have
made tremendous sacrifices on behalf of their country and have served
longer deployments than expected. I extend my condolences to the family
members of U.S. soldiers and civilian personnel who have lost their
lives in Iraq, as well as to the many thousands of soldiers that were
wounded in Iraq. I also express my sorrow and regret for the deaths in
Iraq of Coalition forces and United Nations personnel, as well as for
the unknown number of Iraqi civilians and other noncombatants that
perished in the war. Congress and the Administration have a obligation
to provide our troops with all the resources necessary to carry out
their ongoing mission.
I am pleased that Iraqi Governing Council has adopted an interim
constitution, and that the Council, in cooperation with the
international community, is establishing war crimes tribunals in Iraq
to create a historical record of the war crimes and crimes against
humanity committed by Saddam Hussein and his regime. We must establish
an accurate and complete factual record of these crimes, so that we can
punish the offenders and deter future war crimes by government
officials against their own population.
My support for this resolution in no way signifies my views on other
issues beyond the scope of this resolution. This resolution does not
offer a complete and balanced chronology of events that led to the U.S.
invasion of Iraq. I am most disappointed that both before and after the
war in Iraq the United States consistently failed to broadly engage the
international community. The Administration is only belatedly seeking
international support for our reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
Because of these failures, Americans have paid a heavy price. It is
primarily American troops stationed in Iraq that face continuing
attacks. It is our taxpayers that are being asked to almost exclusively
pay the cost to rebuild Iraq, and these costs are mounting every day.
Iraq is already facing a difficult transition in establishing a
democracy that operates under the rule of law and protects minority
rights. The U.S. must show enough flexibility in working with our
allies to effectively help Iraq during this critical transition period,
so that other countries will pledge both troops and funds to alleviate
the burden on our American soldiers and taxpayers. Ultimately, the best
way that we can support our troops is to reach out more aggressively to
the international community, establish order and security in Iraq, and
transfer authority to the Iraqis in a responsible manner.
Although I support the Resolution, I regret that it was not in order
to consider a Motion to Recommit with instructions. The Motion to
Recommit would have allowed us to strengthen the resolution by urging
the President to: give our troops in Iraq all of the equipment
[[Page H1165]]
needed to keep them safe; provide the health care and benefits our
wounded servicemen and women earned when they come home as veterans;
recognize the key contributions made by our Reserve and Guard
components, many of which came from my Congressional district in
Maryland.
This Motion would have also asked the President to acknowledge that
there were serious deficiencies in United States pre-war intelligence
on Iraq, particularly in light of the failure to find any evidence of
WMD programs, and to take action to improve our intelligence community
so that United States troops are better protected and informed for
future conflicts.
Finally, the Motion would have asked the President to seek broader
international support for the reconstruction of Iraq, and to take steps
to correct the deficiencies of the U.S. Government to plan adequately
for the post-war occupation of Iraq.
We should have improved this Resolution to more accurately reflect
our ongoing objectives in our involvement in Iraq.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a member of the Committee on
Intelligence and ranking member on the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
of the House Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution asks that the House affirm that the
United States and the world is a safer place today with the removal of
Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq. Who can argue with
that? Saddam Hussein, a tyrant that is responsible for so many
thousands of deaths, a tyrant that has used weapons of mass destruction
in the past.
There was a famous frontiersman who said, Be sure you are right, then
go ahead. That was reported to be Davy Crockett. I think that is what
we are about a year later, after going to war against Saddam Hussein
and Iraq.
A colleague of ours mentioned earlier, this whole thing was about
judgment. Well, I would submit that it is also about responsibility, it
is also about accountability, and it is also about credibility. Why do
I say that? Because when we talk about the world being a safer place
today, I want us to remember that 55-some-odd families are without
their loved ones today that have been killed in Iraq carrying out this
war.
I saw into the eyes of Sergeant Rico's widow who asked me why. And I
told her that we were very proud of the sacrifice that had been made by
her husband and by her family. But she continued to ask me why. And
that is why I think it is about responsibility. Did we do the
responsible thing by attacking Iraq and Saddam Hussein when we knew
that he had nothing to do with 9-11? It is also about accountability. A
year later, we are finding out that he did not have weapons of mass
destruction. And, obviously, it is about credibility, because if we as
the last superpower are going to benefit from credibility, we have to
be patient, we have to understand what the threat is, and we have to
act responsibly. That is what I think this is about.
I am going to support this resolution, as I support the men and women
in uniform. But this whole issue is about those three words:
responsibility, accountability, and credibility.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a member of our committee and the
chairman of a subcommittee as well.
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 557,
and I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, our military and coalition forces, as well as our
intelligence community, are all working tirelessly to protect this
Nation 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.
A year ago, the United States led a military coalition to disarm
Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein's regime committed horrible atrocities;
and Saddam was a threat, a grave and increasing threat to his country,
his region, and to the world. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, marked the 16th
anniversary of Saddam's use of chemical weapons on the Kurdish citizens
of Iraq. Sixteen years ago, Mr. Speaker, as a result of this atrocity,
5,000 Kurdish Iraqis died. Saddam was indeed a terrorist in his own
nation. Thanks to our efforts, Saddam Hussein will never commit such
atrocities again.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, we are all safer without this tyrant
in power. Our decision to go to war in Iraq was based on our
intelligence about Saddam's threat to world security.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and
Counterintelligence, I know the substantial investment now being made
in our intelligence community to meet the demands of the global war on
terrorism. Our intelligence community is aggressively rebuilding its
capabilities that withered during the mid-1990s. Our clandestine
service dropped by 25 percent, and nearly one-third of our overseas
offices were closed. Our overall intelligence reporting fell by almost
50 percent during that period of time. Language skills were slow to
develop, limiting our ability to infiltrate rogue organizations or
intercept messages encrypted in tribal dialect and regional tongues. We
effectively lost our ability to see and hear in many of the world's
most dangerous places. Our intelligence community provided the best
information and analysis on Iraq that it could, given the reduced
collection, language shortfalls, and Iraq's active denial and deception
programs.
Every one from David Kay to the Director of Central Intelligence,
George Tenet, has stated that analysts did not and would not change
their judgment to meet policy objectives.
Some argue that judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence
Estimate on Iraq's Continuing Programs of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Programs were flawed. They point to the report's statement that ``Iraq
has chemical and biological weapons.'' However, this is only the first
six words of the second sentence in the declassified portion of the
report. The rest of the sentence reads, ``as well as missiles with
range in excess of U.N. restrictions and, if left unchecked, Iraq
probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.''
Critics also fail to mention judgments made by Dr. Kay and the Iraqi
Survey Group regarding their findings in Iraq: ``We judge that Iraq has
continued its weapons of mass destruction programs in defiance of U.N.
resolutions and restrictions.'' Quote: ``Although we assess that Saddam
does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any,
he remains intent on acquiring them.''
{time} 1700
Yes, chemical or biological weapons stockpiling have not been found,
but secret laboratories have. And, yes, Iraq appears not to have
reconstructed its nuclear program, but the Iraq survey group uncovered
documents that revealed Saddam's intent to make nuclear weapons.
Intelligence analysts seldom, if ever, are 100 percent perfect. This
is the nature of the business. Intelligence officers collect the dots
and analysts attempt to connect them. Given the reduced resources and
inadequate insight into Iraq, I say the picture we drew from a limited
amount of dots was pretty good.
And we were right to take action. Every day intelligence officers
make tough judgment calls and dangerous operations are conducted. We
must support them. We must support our troops in the ongoing efforts to
protect our Nation.
I support House Resolution 557 and strongly urge its adoption.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republican leadership in the House of
Representatives has taken an issue of bipartisan concern and turned it
into an occasion for partisan division.
On the 1-year anniversary of the beginning of Operation Iraqi
Freedom, the leadership introduced a bill that claims to honor our
troops--at the same time that our Armed Forces and veterans are being
shortchanged in the budget that is under consideration in this body.
I strongly oppose this resolution for two important reasons.
[[Page H1166]]
First, it fails to properly acknowledge and honor the American troops
who are serving, have died, or have been injured in this war.
And secondly, it is a blatant attempt to cover-up the fact that
American soldiers went to war in Iraq because Iraq allegedly had
weapons of mass destruction that threatened America. And yet no such
weapons have since been found in Iraq.
Our troops--National Guard and Reserve and regular forces alike--
deserve more than one line in a resolution on the first anniversary of
a war. Their service and their sacrifice deserve to be honored, and
more importantly they deserve the resources to help them succeed with
the greatest degree of safety possible.
Had Democrats been afforded the opportunity to modify this
resolution, we would have offered our sincere condolences to the
families of the more than 500 soldiers killed and thousands wounded in
Iraq, given our troops in Iraq the body armor and armored vehicles they
need to keep them safe, and continued to press for a true international
coalition to relieve the United States of its nearly unilateral burden
in Iraq.
I am a proud cosponsor of the Democratic Salute to Veterans and the
Armed Forces Act, a comprehensive package of benefits designed to honor
the contributions of those who have served America in the Armed Forces.
The legislation ensures that those who are serving today have
incentives to continue serving, those who served in previous conflicts
are properly honored, and those who choose to serve in the future are
coming into a system that is the best in the world.
As I said at the outset, I also oppose this resolution because it is
a blatant attempt by the Bush administration to distort the public's
understanding of why America went to war.
Americans did not die in Iraq to punish Saddam Hussein for his
reprehensible and vile actions, such as gassing the Kurds in 1988 or
flooding the Arab marshlands. Those actions clearly did not pose an
imminent threat to the security of the United States, especially not in
the year 2003. And yet those are the actions that this partisan House
resolution today speaks to. Americans would not have believed that
those actions warranted a military attack in Iraq last year.
President Bush warned Americans that Iraq posed an imminent threat to
the security of the United States that could only be deflected by a
unilateral military strike against Iraq. Today, the House seeks to bury
this crucial piece of history.
The President provided intelligence that has not been discredited to
justify the attack on Iraq. It must never be forgotten that American
soldiers attacked Iraq because the President said that it had weapons
of mass destruction that endangered our security.
The Republican leadership sponsored this resolution today hoping to
later attack Democrats who vote against it. But I for one will not join
them in their partisan charade that brings shame on the People's House.
My Democratic colleagues and I will continue to articulate our concerns
for America's armed forces, for America's veterans, and for America's
security.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Boswell), the ranking member on the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on Human Intelligence.
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman). I appreciate it.
And I want to say at the outset I rise to support the resolution.
When I look over there, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham),
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), and a whole bunch of
others, they are my heroes. But we have some on this side of the aisle
too. I think of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), I think
of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Boyd), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a lot of us
as well as a lot of my colleagues.
This is not a partisan thing. We support the troops. No question
about it. I was a little appalled this morning as I heard my dear
friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and his comments.
But I still support the troops.
Our troops in Iraq are to be commended for their courage and their
valor. I do say the same about the dedicated men and women of the
intelligence community. I visited with them in Iraq. It is truly
inspiring to see what they have accomplished. And the Iraqi people are
to be commended for their courage in the face of Saddam's cruelty.
But I agree with the remarks of my colleague, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), the proposed resolution ought to do more. It
is time the President set about fixing the problems in intelligence
that are already known to exist. This will do much more to secure the
peace in Iraq than just commending the troops and the Iraqi people
which, of course, is very important.
For example, the DCI has acknowledged that we did not have enough
human intelligence. In addition, the sources we did have too often gave
us bad information. There are also some indications that we may have
dismissed potential sources of information because they were not
telling us or we did not believe or did not want to believe that Iraq
had weapons of mass destruction.
Closed societies of Iraq are among the most difficult of intelligence
targets. No question about it. Terrorist groups are equally difficult
to penetrate. However, there are steps we can take to improve our
ability to recruit sources of information on these hard targets.
The intelligence community is developing new ways of deploying human
intelligence collectors. In urging the President to take steps now to
fix intelligence, we can encourage these efforts which will yield
benefits in Iraq today. The proposed resolution ought to do this. Why
not? We can. We should.
I do support the resolution.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the last speaker for his wonderful
remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Eshoo), the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National
Security.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank our very distinguished ranking
member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), for the time.
Mr. Speaker, we are just about a year to the day that America with
our very brave forces invaded Iraq. So it is coming up to the moment
where we commemorate those that serve, those that did serve and lost
their lives, through a resolution that is on the floor.
This resolution has good parts to it. Of course, we commend our
troops who are second to none. They are the best led, the best
equipped, and the best performing troops in the world, the best
military. But this resolution is not necessarily a celebration, nor
should it be. Because what it does not include are the sacrifices that
have been made: 558 American troops, 101 allied troops, and some 10,000
Iraqi citizens have died since this war began. They are not mentioned
in this resolution.
Where is our commitment in this resolution? It should be stated and
restated in more than one ``whereas'' about the 115,000 troops in Iraq
with all the protective gear that they should have. Nowhere in this
resolution do we affirm or reaffirm our commitment to our troops and
veterans.
Today the House Committee on the Budget cut over $1 billion. So there
is a bit of double speak to this. Nowhere in this resolution are the
people that serve in our intelligence community, some of the most
dangerous jobs that anyone could ever have, are they set apart and
thanked in this resolution relative to Iraq.
Turn on the TV sets. Iraq is not safe. There are more people that
have lost their lives today. There are more fires; there are more blow-
ups. So this is a very sobering resolution. And I think the good parts
of it should be underscored. But we have not been allowed to add to it
the things that I just stated that I think should be very much a part
of it.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), our able rookie.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I will support this resolution as an
expression of our Nation's gratitude and pride of our men and women in
uniform who were ordered to war in Iraq by their Commander in Chief.
Whether you are for or against the war, the fact is we are there now
and we need to support our troops.
These military servicemembers are working around the clock to make
Iraq a better place for the Iraqi people. Many of them have left their
young families behind to serve their country,
[[Page H1167]]
and they deserve our thanks here on the floor of Congress.
I recently returned from Iraq as part of a bipartisan group of
Members from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I
truly believe that good intelligence is the best way to prevent
terrorist attacks in our country, as well as Iraq. The members of our
intelligence community who are also working on the dangerous front
lines of this war deserve our gratitude. They serve in silence with
little thanks.
I was proud to join with my Republican colleagues and visit the Iraqi
police training academy and honor 23 Iraqi police officers killed in a
recent bombing. Even in the face of tragedy, the resolve of the Iraqi
people to take back their country and start governing themselves was
strong.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution should have simply expressed our support
for our Armed Forces working and living in harm's way. Regrettably,
however, the majority has handled this resolution in a manner intended
to divide us, not unite us.
Mr. Speaker, I share the view that the Middle East and the world are
better off without Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime; but success
must be our only exit strategy. When those goals are accomplished, we
can say with certainty that the world is a safer place. We owe our
military men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their
country in Iraq nothing less.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lofgren) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I join the authors of this
resolution in commending the Iraqi people for their courage in the face
of oppression and in praising the valiant service of the United States
and coalition forces in Iraq. We are as proud as we could possibly be
of our troops, their sacrifice and their service.
But to put forth this partisan resolution in this way is both an
affront to our troops and a disservice to our country, sowing division
where there should be unity.
This resolution is not necessarily objectionable because of what it
says, but because of what it omits. There is no reference, for example,
to the mid-course correction that is called for in terms of financial
accountability, contracting practices, securing international
cooperation, and repairing our relationship with long-standing allies
whose support is integral to our ultimate success.
The minority has been denied the opportunity to improve this bill, to
give our troops the body armor they need, for example, to achieve pay
equity for National Guard and Reserve personnel, to provide much needed
health care and benefits for our wounded servicemen and -women, and to
offer condolences to the families of those killed in Iraq.
This resolution rightly affirms our support for the Iraqi people as
they adopt an interim constitution that upholds the values of open
debate and democracy. How ironic that this very bill is structured to
shut down discussion and debate.
The rule rammed through by the majority is not only a closed rule,
making it impossible to offer a Democratic substitute, but it also
eliminates the right to offer a motion to recommit with instructions.
That takes to a new level the procedural abuses that have become almost
routine in this House.
At stake is the manner in which we, as members of the House, are
permitted to express our encouragement. We can support our troops
serving in Iraq, yet still debate how to extend support to them and
their families and to hasten the day when they can return. We can
support the Iraqi people, yet still debate how best to ensure the
development of a stable, democratic form of governance. To debate such
issues does not reflect a lack of patriotism. To the contrary, it's a
celebration of it.
We should be proud, Mr. Speaker, of the progress we have made in
Iraq. At the same time we should address the deficiencies in our prewar
intelligence and our post-war occupation plan.
No one disputes that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein
gone, but we are doing our troops and the American people a grave
disservice if we perpetuate the illusion that they are somehow ``safe''
or that our mission in Iraq is accomplished. Many difficult tasks still
lie ahead, and glossing over the serious questions that remain
unaddressed by this administration jeopardizes our mission to secure
and stabilize Iraq.
I urge the Republican leadership to honor the collaborative and
unifying approach that we are urging on the people of Iraq. This body
should support our troops and lead by example, and this resolution
falls short on both counts.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey), my classmate and colleague.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, exactly 1 year ago the first bombs blasted
in Baghdad and the United States christened a shameful new military
doctrine, the preemptive war, against a regime that for all its vicious
cruelty had not provoked the United States or our allies.
We were told by the President that Iraq posed an imminent threat to
our national security with a link to al Qaeda, which is fiction. And
our own weapons inspector concluded that weapons of mass destruction
did not exist. Where was our intelligence? What were we working on?
After September 11, countries throughout the world clamored to give
the United States support in the global fight against terrorism. But
after bombing Iraq without multinational support, the United States
lost the moral authority we once enjoyed around the rest of the world.
Today, 1 year later, Iraq remains mired in chaos. It is becoming a
breeding ground for terrorists, nowhere near ready to assume the
responsibility of a democracy.
For this we have sacrificed nearly 600 American lives with thousands
more wounded; 27 today have already been killed in Baghdad with
hundreds injured. If this Congress wants to support the troops, we
should work to equip every soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan with the
best equipment and supplies available, including hydration water
systems. We would ensure them the benefits they have been promised and
they deserve when they return home. But we do not talk about that in
this resolution.
Tomorrow I will introduce a resolution called Smart Security. Smart
Security is about prevention, not preemption. It sees war as a last
resort to be considered only after every diplomatic solution has been
exhausted.
{time} 1715
It calls for more robust multilateral institutions to prevent
terrorism, manages international conflicts and promotes global
stability, since smart security is tough, pragmatic, and patriotic. It
is smart and it would keep America safe and it supports our troops.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my extreme pleasure to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, if all we were doing here on the floor today on the
House was commending our troops for their valor, there would be no
debate. There would be no disagreement and there would be no
opposition. This resolution, however, says something more than that we
honor our troops.
What this resolution says is that we, the House of Representatives,
affirm that ``the United States and the world have been made safer with
the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq.''
There is not a Member of this body that mourns the fact that Saddam
Hussein and his regime have been removed from power. We all agree that
Saddam was a brutal thug. The problem is that America was told before
the war that we would be made safer by fighting to find and destroy
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. We now know that those weapons
either did not exist, in which case we fought a war based on flawed
intelligence, or that there really were weapons of mass destruction, in
which case they are now in the hands of Saddam's
[[Page H1168]]
Baathist henchmen or al Qaeda terrorists or some other party, and that
would put us in greater peril than we were before the war started.
Moreover, if we switch our TV from C-SPAN to CNN, we will see that
another bomb has gone off in Baghdad today, killing more than 25 and
wounding nearly 50 innocent people. We will see that two American
missionaries have been assassinated in Iraq. We will see reports of
more and more targeted assassinations of civilian employees of the
Coalition Authority, as well as continued attacks on our military
forces in Iraq.
Meanwhile, the real terrorist threat to America, al Qaeda, continues
to organize and plan future terrorist attacks against our country.
Osama bin Laden and some of his top lieutenants remain at large. Mullah
Omar, the head of the Taliban, remains at large.
What is happening on the House floor today is symptomatic of
everything that is wrong with the Bush administration and Republican
leaders in Washington. Instead of working together in a bipartisan
fashion to congratulate the troops for the wonderful job which they
did, they seek to divide this House by forcing us to vote on something
which, in fact, is not an accurate representation of what has happened
across this world.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), another able member of our
committee.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution commends the men and women of the United
States Armed Forces and the Coalition forces for their valiant service.
It is appropriate to do that. They have made huge sacrifices, their
families have. In many cases, the soldiers have made the ultimate
sacrifice in their response to the call of their country.
As a member of the committee that oversees the Intelligence
Community, let me also add my gratitude to the incredibly hardworking
men and women of the Intelligence Community whose role in Iraq is less
public but no less vital and in many cases is every bit as dangerous.
These dedicated public servants should have all the tools they need to
accomplish their mission. So rather than simply commending the Iraqi
people for their courage and their accomplishments, rather than simply
thanking these brave men and women in the U.S. armed services and
Intelligence Community with words, we should see that they have what
they need to do their jobs.
This resolution today, I believe, has different motivation than
simply to honor our troops. It really is more about the House of
Representatives patting themselves on the back than it is to honor our
troops.
It perpetuates a simplistic thinking that took us into the war with
unexamined intelligence, and clearly there were deficiencies in the
intelligence that took us up to and into that war. It perpetuates the
simplistic thinking that left our troops unprepared for the postwar
occupation, and it perpetuates a kind of divisive thinking. I mean,
what can be more divisive than a closed rule that allows no amendments,
no substitutes, really nothing to make this a better resolution?
It is not enough to say thanks in words to 550 families who have lost
someone in Iraq. They want more than thanks and words. Same for the
more than 3,000 families of the wounded. If we only give them what they
need, this resolution would be more meaningful: more armored Humvees,
more language speakers, more support.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who is also a subcommittee
chairman of the committee.
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 557,
recognizing American and coalition forces in Iraq and the liberation of
the Iraqi people.
The American people should know and believe that the President
brought the U.S. into this war to oust Saddam Hussein and bring freedom
in that part of the world with 34 coalition partners, and that was a
good decision. Many of us supported the President and voted to provide
emergency supplemental funding for military operations in Iraq. These
were the resources that financed the capture of additional Saddam
regime loyalists and Saddam himself and provided funding to protect our
troops.
As a matter of fact, the lion's share of the money went to the troops
and the other went to rebuilding the country, opening schools, opening
hospitals, putting electricity on line, opening businesses. The people
of Iraq love America because of their newfound freedom, their newfound
hope, and their newfound opportunities.
Many of us voted for the war resolution because we believed it was
the right thing to do, and many of us voted for the supplemental
funding because we believed it was the right thing to do.
We have heard all the claims that the intelligence community's
analysis was politicized and analytical judgments were made to advance
the administration's policy. The same judgment and analysis was given
to President Clinton who used that analysis to take limited action
against Saddam. The point is that both Presidents received the same
intelligence. The only difference is that President Bush took serious
and meaningful action against Saddam Hussein.
In my opinion, critics have not given the intelligence community a
fair shake, and it is obvious from some of those who do not even serve
on the committee come down here and criticize when they have not had
the benefit that many of us have had of serving on the committee. That
is unfortunate. They have failed to highlight those judgments on UAVs,
ballistic missiles, illicit procurement networks that have been found
and confirmed in Iraq. They have failed to highlight those judgments
about the presence in Iraq of terrorist elements associated with al
Qaeda.
It is fine to highlight real problems and propose real solutions to
fix them, but we have yet to hear that from the critics. Telling
analysts not to make tough judgments is not a viable solution.
Rebuilding our intelligence community and providing them with the
resources needed to fight the global war on terrorism seems more
appropriate.
I support our troops and our intelligence community, people who work
in dark places in the world but never get any credit for the work that
they do. The credit goes in some cases to politicians and government
officials, but those people in dark places who are doing the hard work
deserve the credit. No politician can take credit for capturing Saddam.
That credit goes to the intelligence community and the military, and
those of us that have supported them with our votes on this floor to
give them the money to do it. Also I think they deserve the credit, and
the critics need to really, I think, examine what they are saying.
Congratulations to those in the intelligence community and the
military community for liberating Iraq, freeing the people and giving
them hope and opportunity, and for that reason, I support I think a
very well-worded and -constructed resolution.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the last speaker that I
think this resolution should include words of praise for the members of
the intelligence community who take risks on our behalf in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I do not find myself
critical of the intelligence community. The criticism I and many others
have is of the political leadership which I think misused the
intelligence and made faulty decisions.
The gentleman talked about people who work in dark places. I did not
talk about the Vice President. I do not know how he got into this
debate.
The point about what we are saying is this. We now, without weapons
of mass destruction, without a tie to al Qaeda, have been told that the
rationale for this was essentially to extend democracy. I am in favor
of extending democracy; although extending it by military invasion is a
difficult policy. There are plenty of undemocratic, tyrannical
governments in the world, and I want to oppose them, but I am not
[[Page H1169]]
generally for invading them. But what troubles me is that in the name
of advancing democracy internationally, the majority is debasing it at
home.
No one can think, who understands the tenets of democracy, that this
procedure today comes close to it. There is no justification whatsoever
for this legislation to have been drawn up and then brought to us
without amendment. Will someone explain to me why this could not be
amendmentable? Were we too busy? That would not pass the laugh test.
The reason is that the majority is afraid that if amendments were
available, it would bring into discussion things they do not want to
talk about.
Of course, we support the troops. Voting for or against this
resolution is wholly uncorrelated to supporting the troops. A
resolution that simply congratulated the troops would have been passed
unanimously. What we have here, frankly, is an effort to use the troops
for political purposes. It is an effort to say that because Americans
are proud of our fighting people, we will put into a resolution some
phrase for them which contains a number of other politically more
controversial items; we will bring it forward in a way that does not
allow the democratic process to go forward.
I hope the Iraqis will not be watching this and think that this is
the way a democracy should work, that it should be up or down, that the
Constitution should not be amendable, resolutions should not be
amendable. We do not advance democracy by debasing it as we do in this
procedure.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today seeks to
rewrite history. It recognizes that on March 16, 1988, Iraq used
mustard gas and other nerve agents against the Kurds in Halabjah, Iraq,
killing an estimated 5,000 people. This is an atrocity that is used by
many, including members of the President's war cabinet, as
justification for invading Iraq.
Yet, if the gassing of the Kurds was a reason for war, why did these
same people in both the Reagan and the first Bush administrations work
to increase aid, cooperation, trade and intelligence-sharing with Iraq
after the gassing occurred? Before history is rewritten, it is
important to set the record straight about what did happen in this
tragic event.
Secretary of State Colin Powell was Ronald Reagan's National Security
Adviser from December 1987 to January 1989 and was the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs from 1989 to 1993.
Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy from 1989 to 1993.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was a director on the
National Security Council from 1989 to 1993.
Vice President Dick Cheney was the Republican whip in the House in
1988 and the Secretary of Defense from 1989 until 1993.
Why then, when they were in positions of tremendous influence, did
they not cry foul when this atrocious gassing happened? Briefly, here
is what they did after the Halabjah gassing happened.
In 1988, the Reagan Administration sent $1.1 billion in loan
guarantees to Iraq.
According to declassified State Department documents, the United
States shared intelligence data with Iraq before and after this mass
murder.
In early October 1989, President Bush signed a national security
directive to expand political and economic ties with Iraq, including $1
billion in new aid to Iraq.
On October 31, 1989, Secretary of State Baker personally intervened
with the Agriculture Department to get more money to go to Iraq.
On April 19, 1990, the National Security Council did the same thing.
{time} 1730
Following the end of the Gulf War, U.N. inspectors discovered that
front companies for every known site at which Iraq developed biological
and chemical weapons bought American computers with licenses approved
by the Reagan and Bush administrations.
Weapons of mass destruction did exist in Iraq, but that was 15 years
ago. We missed our chance to do something about it, and we cannot allow
history to be rewritten here today. This war was not about Halabja or
other human rights abuses. It was a preordained preemptive war of
choice based upon twisted intelligence and driven by an equally twisted
ideological agenda.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), for yielding me this time and
giving me the opportunity to be heard this afternoon.
I stand here representing the 11th Congressional District of Ohio. In
the Iraqi war, I lost two of my constituents. I read to my colleagues
now the statements of the father of one of those constituents, and this
is from an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
``The soldier's father feels betrayed. On March 17, the President
told the country intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. A week later, Private
Brandon Sloan, 19, was killed in Iraq. On Sunday, February 8, Brandon's
father heard the President hedge about Saddam Hussein: `We thought he
had weapons. He had the capacity to make a weapon.'
``The Reverend Tandy Sloan believes there is a key difference between
having no doubt a country possesses weapons of mass destruction and
having the ability to make them. A minister, he calls that difference
the eighth commandment: `Thou shalt not bear false witness.' It bothers
him deeply that the President apparently has no regrets for overstating
the danger for weapons of mass destruction that do not appear to exist.
Sloan says, `At least we admit we were wrong. I want the President to
say that mistakes were made that cost lives.'
``It has been almost a year since that Sunday night knock on the door
when military uniforms brought news that Brandon was missing. Days
later, Sloan learned that his son was dead. Months later a brigadier
general told him what happened to the 507th Company, made famous by
Jessica Lynch. `He basically told us the military goofed,' Sloan said.
`The President wanted a hard, fast hit,' the general said. Brandon's
unit, hauling trucks, water, tools and gear, couldn't move fast enough
to keep up with the other units, so they left it behind.
``Sloan said, `You let my son down. My son did not sign on to be left
behind.' ''
I stand here on behalf of the parents of private Brandon Sloan and
other young people killed across this country. Let us not politicize
whether or not we are safer without Saddam Hussein or not safer. Let us
celebrate the young people who lost their lives in this war and let us
move forward to make the United States a safer Nation.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the vice chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I do rise as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the Committee on International Relations, and I want
to commend the authors of the resolution. I think it is straightforward
and an accurate statement of the facts regarding Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address just a few aspects of the resolution,
particularly those relating to the WMD. As H. Res. 557 notes, the
brutal regime of Saddam Hussein not only trampled on the rights of the
Iraqi people but he repeatedly defied the U.N. Security Council and
ignored its obligations to the U.N. weapons inspectors. The resolution
correctly notes that in November 2002, the Security Council unanimously
agreed that Iraq ``remains in material breach of its obligations under
the relevant resolutions.''
Let me repeat that, because it is important. The U.N. Security
Council unanimously found that Iraq was unquestionably in material
breach of its international obligations. The Iraqi regime had
unquestionably interfered
[[Page H1170]]
with the IAEA inspectors and prevented the U.N. from effectively doing
its job.
Contrary to our greatest fear, and fortunately for our forces, Iraq
did not use weapons of mass destruction in the conflict with the U.S.
and allied forces. Members of this body are acutely aware of the fact
that no large WMD stockpiles have been found. This, of course, raises a
number of questions. We certainly should examine the quality of our
intelligence, and the appropriate oversight committees are doing just
that. It is important, however, to remind the body of exactly what we
have found that Saddam Hussein did possess.
We know, for example, that Saddam had, A, a concealed ballistic
missile production line that dramatically breached U.N. range and
payload restrictions; B, had covert programs to develop both new and
more effective liquid and solid rocket fuels, which would further
enhance the range and accuracy of Saddam's illegal missiles; C, had a
secret pipeline to purchase advanced missile components and technology
from North Korea; and had, D, two separate undeclared, unmanned aerial
vehicle production lines that senior Iraqi officials now admit were to
have been used for carrying biological weapons.
These items are critically important because missiles and UAVs are
the means to deliver any weapons of mass destruction. That is why the
U.N. prohibited Iraq from having these systems. There is no doubt that
these missiles and UAV programs existed, in clear violation of Iraq's
international obligations; and there is no doubt that they had WMD
application.
What else do we know that Saddam Hussein had? One, the Iraqi Survey
Group has found a network of labs and safe houses that contained
everything needed for chemical/biological weapons production. These
were undeclared facilities under the direct control of the Iraqi
intelligence and security services.
Two, at an Iraqi prison they found evidence of an undeclared
chemical/biological laboratory complex that seems to have been for
human testing.
Three, we have learned that Iraq maintained a WMD scientific
community and infrastructure that was organized in such a way that WMD
production could be quickly resumed.
Four, we learned from David Kay, the former head of the Iraqi Survey
Group, that Saddam and his son Uday were demanding to know from their
subordinates how long it would take Iraq to produce chemical weapons.
And, five, while the evidence on nuclear activity is less clear,
David Kay has testified that ``the testimony we have obtained from
Iraqi scientists should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still
wanted to obtain nuclear weapons.'' He did.
Mr. Speaker, none of this should be in the least bit surprising.
Throughout the 1990s, we knew Saddam Hussein was seeking to maintain an
arsenal of prohibited weapons. Over the years, he became a master of
deception, hiding many elements of his extensive WMD program. For
example, after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, we found that Iraq was much
further along on a nuclear weapons development program than anyone had
suspected, only months from a serious capability.
We do know in the 1990s Saddam himself admitted he possessed 30,000
liters of anthrax. Now, remember, just a teaspoon of anthrax paralyzed
the other body, the Senate, for months.
Saddam acknowledged a stockpile of 5,000 gallons of botulinum toxin
and 25 biologically filled Scud missiles. He admitted to these lethal
weapons after years of denying he had such weapons because his son-in-
law defected and provided incontrovertible evidence of their existence.
All intelligence services--U.S., British, French, Italian, German,
and others, agreed that Iraq had WMD. The U.N. concluded Iraq possessed
a hidden WMD arsenal. The IAEA warned that Saddam was not cooperating.
The WMD threat in the late 1990s was considered so compelling that, in
December 1998, President Clinton felt he had no choice but to launch
retaliatory airstrikes. The case for action was compelling in 1998, and
the case was every bit as compelling in 2003.
Certainly our intelligence could have been better; it should have
been better. It will never be as good as the consumers--the
policymakers--want it to be.
As we prepared for Operation Iraqi Freedom, there were gaps in our
knowledge. There were things that we just did not know. It would seem
that we just didn't have good access to Saddam Hussein's inner circle.
There is a reason we didn't have that access and the intelligence
information we would have wanted. Frankly, in the decade following the
collapse of the former Soviet Union, we didn't invest adequately in
human intelligence (HUMINT). The Intelligence Community sharply reduced
the number of case officers, and the number of recruited intelligence
assets is reported to have significantly declined.
This lack of HUMINT resources was compounded by self-imposed limits
on whom our intelligence officers could recruit. In the 1990s the CIA
established guidelines that made it extremely difficult to recruit the
unsavory characters--individuals who are exactly the sort who could
have provided useful intelligence. Any excuses aside, the ``Deutsch
Guidelines'', as they were known, discouraged the recruitment of spies
with criminal or human rights issues in their background. Yet these
were precisely the sort of people who could get close to Saddam
Hussein. In practical effect, our intelligence services were not
allowed to recruit them.
With the active and tenacious involvement of the Intelligence
Committee the Deutsch Guidelines were rescinded in the FY 2002
Intelligence Authorization Act, but there is little doubt that the
damage to our human collection capability has been substantial. Under
the guidance of the distinguished gentleman from Florida, the Chairman
of the HPSCI, this body has been supporting the rebuilding of our
HUMINT capability so that we aren't as likely to face future
intelligence gaps. It is, however, a matter that will require continued
priority, resources, and the close attention from the relevant
oversight committees.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 557 is a good resolution that reflects the basic
truth that the world is much better without Saddam Hussein governing
Iraq. This Member commends the authors of the resolution and urges its
support.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the committee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I, on this side of the aisle, I am also
saddened. I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton),
and the people I work with on the Subcommittee on Defense of the
Committee on Appropriations and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and I think that we should have worked this together. But
I tell my colleagues on the other side, I have been here 14 years, and
this is the worst partisan bickering I have seen from the Democrat
leadership since I have been here. And when my colleagues ask us to be
bipartisan, I think you need to look inward at what has happened on
this House floor recently.
They say the President overstated. But look at what Dr. Kay said.
Liberal Democrats will not tell you what Dr. Kay actually said that
Saddam Hussein and Iraq was even more dangerous from what we have found
out since we went in there than we thought prior to the war. More
dangerous. He said that any reasonable person, including any country,
would know that Saddam Hussein was working on weapons of mass
destruction; that he had them, used them against his own people, and
would feel that he still had weapons of mass destruction.
So when I hear from the left that the President overstated, it's not
so; and it makes me mad to point fingers like that. Evidence of weapons
of mass destruction going to Syria. Dr. Kay. Any reasonable person
would believe WMD.
Saddam Hussein ethically cleansed four times the number of people,
four times, than when my liberal friends supported President Clinton
going into Bosnia and Kosovo because of ethnic cleansing. Was there
chemical or biological or nuclear weapons there? No, but ethnic
cleansing.
And the liberal left, the most extreme case of bantering a secretary
that I watched in the Haiti discussion was miserable. Tell me there is
weapons of mass destruction in Haiti.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The Chair would remind all
Members when addressing other colleagues that it is appropriate to use
the term gentleman and gentlewoman, and not refer to the Member by a
first name.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I want to say first off that I am sure that is what the last
speaker intended. He is a good friend, a member
[[Page H1171]]
of our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and I am certain he
did not have me in mind when he was suggesting that there is excessive
partisanship about our intelligence budget.
I call myself a passionate bipartisan on intelligence and security
matters, and I take a back seat to no one for my efforts to try to work
out agreements on a bipartisan basis to fix our intelligence.
As I said earlier, in my view, the proposed resolution does some good
things, but it also should be calling for action to keep our troops and
other personnel serving in Iraq safe.
Just a few hours ago, Mr. Speaker, a devastating car bomb destroyed a
hotel in Baghdad. The casualty reports are still coming in, but at
least two dozen people have died. Better intelligence is essential to
protecting our troops in Iraq and ensuring that we ultimately succeed
there. It is the first line of defense in the war on terrorism.
There are good ideas from both sides of the aisle that should be
discussed and debated this year. What should we be doing? In my view,
let us try six things:
First, the President should direct intelligence agencies to scrub
weapons of mass destruction intelligence on all major targets and
release updates on areas of concern. Now.
Second, the President should direct intelligence agencies to improve
collection and vetting of information. Now.
Third, the President should require intelligence agencies to improve
the way they analyze intelligence and convey information to
policymakers. Now.
Fourth, the President should direct a review of the activities of
various DOD offices, particularly the Office of Special Plans, to see
whether they fed unreliable and unvetted intelligence to him, the Vice
President, or his senior national security team.
Fifth, the President should take immediate steps to strengthen and
reinvigorate international inspections.
And, finally, the President should consider longer term changes to
the leadership organization and business methods of the intelligence
community.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution should have been a call to action in
support of our troops, in addition to an expression of our heartfelt
gratitude.
We could have done much, much better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1745
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a former member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard plenty of questionable
statements today from Members about misrepresentation of intelligence
and alleged use of military force, without enough information to back
up that action. As a former member of the Committee on Intelligence, I
would remind Members about one particular incident and the, quote,
``depth of intelligence'' supporting that action.
Not long ago the United States, on the order of the Commander in
Chief launched a cruise missile attack against a pharmaceutical plant
in Sudan, destroying the facility and taking human life. At the time,
the action was justified by the President and his administration on the
grounds that the al-Shifa plant was involved in the production of
chemical weapons and had ties to Iraq and possibly al Qaeda which had
just bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa.
What was the administration's basis for making these claims? What was
the entire intelligence record that backed up this military action?
This represents the entire intelligence on the al-Shifa plant. Yes, the
entirety of the intelligence record connecting the al-Shifa plant to
chemical weapons production was this, a single soil sample collected by
a friend of a friend of a source. That is it.
The Intelligence Community did not know who actually owned the plant
or have any other clear and convincing evidence to connect al-Shifa to
weapons of mass destruction production; all it had was a bit of dirt
and many unanswered question.
Yes, the information gaps were emphatically stated in the
intelligence record of the day. None of these caveats were expressed by
the President or his administration, and I believe the President picked
this target himself. Now, I could name the President and the precise
day in August 1998 and the attacks, and what else was happening that
day; but rather than dwell on that, I would like to ask my colleagues
on the other side: Where was their outrage in 1998? The information
that this President used to inform his policy decision and act
militarily against Hussein was voluminous, consistent, and as sound as
it could be.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 45 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman) working as the ranking member on our committee to improve
our Intelligence Community and to build support for the Intelligence
Community in this House. It is important that we deal with a subject
like this on a bipartisan basis. I know the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman) is anxious and sincere in her call for action. I am too.
I believe we did have a call for action after 9/11, and I think that
call for action has led us to go forth as the United States of America
and to try to do the right thing on the war on terror. And I think from
time to time as we go through that war, it is fine for us to say to the
troops, well done, God bless you, and it is time to say to people
involved in places like Iraq, we know it is tough, thanks for hanging
in there, you have a better future ahead.
That is what this is about. I thank all Members for having that kind
of understanding and looking ahead. We have a lot to do; we have got to
get along and get it done.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman's time has
expired.
The Chair would advise the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) he has
31 minutes remaining, including 1 minute from the gentleman's previous
time rolled forward, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha)
controls 35 minutes because the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
reserved the remaining 5 minutes of his time for this debate.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.
I was fortunate to go to Iraq with a couple of my colleagues, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis) just a few weeks
ago, and was able to see firsthand what is going on.
I think there is consensus that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator
and he committed horrific crimes. But the question is whether we are
right in ending this regime. I say emphatically I think the Iraqi
people back this up, and we did the right thing there. There is still a
very difficult security situation there, and the bombings which
happened today underlie that.
But what are we to expect? When Saddam Hussein and his followers
fled, coalition forces and ordinary Iraqis had to start from scratch to
defend the place.
We had a taste of what went on over the past decade in particular. We
went to several palaces built during the Oil-For-Food Program. We were
told over 70 palaces were built during the 1990s when Saddam Hussein
was supposed to use all of the revenue from oil to pay for food and
medicines. Seventy palaces, with an estimated cost of over $2 billion,
were built while Saddam Hussein's people starved.
We also went into the basement of one of these palaces and saw Uday
Hussein's stash of personal belongings: booze, cigars, swords, guns,
paintings, all kinds of things, while the people went without medicine.
Saddam Hussein and his shallow circle of loyalists were able in part to
control Iraqis by depriving them.
We were the first CODEL able to go to the south in Basra, and we were
able to see what those people had during that time, particularly the
last decade. A lot of them simply were killed by neglect. No money was
put into the south. The buildings are falling down, the infrastructure
is horrible, and the
[[Page H1172]]
people were literally killed. We discovered remains of about 400,000
Iraqis. Over a million are believed to have been killed during that
time.
Mr. Speaker, the question here is did we do the right thing. I can
tell Members the Iraqi people know we did the right thing. Are we safer
today because Saddam Hussein is gone? Yes, emphatically. People all
over the world are safer because that madman is gone. I urge support of
the resolution.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to lay some groundwork for some comments I
will make later. I am concerned in the first place, as I said before,
that no one on this side was consulted about this resolution. I am
embarrassed, I am indignant that they did not consult me.
This looks like an innocuous resolution, but when it says it is safer
today than before Saddam Hussein was captured, I believe we are putting
on paper something that is not true. It is like some of the things that
were said, and I said, before this war started. I said there were
weapons of mass destruction. I said that Saddam Hussein was a danger to
the world. We do not go to war unless there is a core national security
interest, and now we are trying to justify why we went to war by some
of the things that are in this resolution.
There is no question that a number of people were killed. Thousands
of people were killed. There is no question that Saddam Hussein was a
despot. There is no question about a brutal regime. But in this one
list, they say that in 1988, 5,000 people were killed, Kurdish citizens
were killed. Well, we went to war in 1991. President Bush once said,
and he was one of the best foreign policy Presidents we have ever had,
he said, I am not going into Iraq because I do not want to occupy Iraq
because that would be a problem. He said that in his book, and he said,
I do not want to reconstruct Iraq.
We have spent $150 billion in Iraq today. We had testimony before our
committee right before the war started by the Under Secretary of
Defense who said it will not cost us a penny, the oil revenues from
Iraq will pay for this war. Well, $150 billion later we are still
paying for it. When Members say it is safer, it makes me nervous
because we are exaggerating, as we have during this whole thing. And I
blame myself as much as anyone else.
A constituent of mine said to me, he said, never in history have so
many been misled by so few, and he was talking to me. He was saying I
misled him. I believed there were weapons of mass destruction. I
believed there was an imminent danger, but it turns out that I was
wrong.
What we have to look at now is we need bipartisanship now to win long
term. This is a long-term problem. I have voted for every
appropriation, I have supported every President when it comes to
foreign policy, but this resolution, just because it says on paper it
is safer, does not mean it is safer throughout the world.
Today we had an incident where there was a bombing in Baghdad where
the bomb took out as wide as a street, 30 or 40 feet wide and 30 or 40
feet deep. We had the Spanish problem where they killed a couple
hundred people and wounded 2,000. So worldwide, and it says here the
world is safer. The world is not safer today than it was before they
captured Saddam Hussein.
I have a list of countries where they do not think it is safer. Those
countries, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, all of them believe
there is an increased terrorism threat in the world. The reason I am
saying this is we have to depend on those countries. We have to be
honest and upfront, and when we say it is safer today, we are not being
upfront. It is not safer. It may be down the road. This is not the
time, in my estimation, for us to make statements like that. There will
come a time if we persist, and I am going to be there the whole way,
but I am just concerned that we are making a statement which just
exacerbates the very problem that we have.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, really in one sense, it does not matter how
people vote on this resolution because it has no effect, but some
things need to be said about it.
Every Member here supports the troops. Every Member here applauds the
sacrifices the men and women of our Armed Forces have made. Every
Member here understands that America needs no one's permission to
defend this country from attack.
But when American leaders choose to wage a preemptive war against a
country that did not attack the United States, when those leaders
attempt to rally the American people to their support on the basis of
faulty information and bad intelligence, when that unilateral decision
costs more than 500 American lives, when it costs thousands of American
wounded, when it costs the lives of uncounted thousands of innocent
civilians, that decision does not, despite the claims of this
resolution, it does not leave us in a stronger and safer position, as
this resolution falsely suggests. In fact, it could be argued it does
just the opposite.
Are we really in a safer and stronger position when the world and our
allies know that we went to war unilaterally on the basis of wrong
intelligence? Are we really going to be in a stronger position to
persuade the world to follow us the next time we tell them it is
necessary to act; for example, in the case of an American conclusion
that North Korea has nuclear weapons?
Are we really in a safer and stronger position in persuading more
Americans to serve in the military when they see that we rushed to war
before 45,000 U.S. troops were supplied with the ceramic inserts that
they needed for their body armor, when they see their government did
not provide the shields that protect Humvees and their occupants from
roadbed explosions, or when they see that their government did not
supply our troops with the electronic jammers needed to protect those
troops against remotely detonated bombs and mines?
Are we really in a safer and stronger position when we are forced to
police Iraq largely on our own, with little help from our allies? Have
we really created a safer world when, by our actions, we have told the
Indians and Pakistanis, who have been close to nuclear war with each
other, that a doctrine of preemptive war is acceptable? Are we really
as safe and strong as we would be if we had not diverted to Iraq key
personnel and taken intelligence resources away from the crucial task
of finding Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan?
Last night, many of us sang the praises of John Hume, the great Irish
peacemaker. Hume said last night that there has been no war in history
that has not killed more innocent civilians than it has combatants.
Are we really safer and stronger in a world where thousands of young
Muslims now are being told to hate the United States because we waged a
war against a Muslim country that had not attacked the U.S., rather
than focusing like a laser on destroying the al Qaeda network which is
the justifiable target of our rage?
Many Members who vote for this resolution today will do so despite
the misstatements it contains, because it contains an expression of
support for our troops. Many who vote against it will also do so
because of the unwarranted assertions in this resolution that
needlessly detract from our focus on the sacrifices those troops have
made.
{time} 1800
Mr. Speaker, shame on the House leadership for drafting this
resolution in a way that needlessly divides us rather than unites us.
By not allowing meaningful alternatives to be debated and voted on,
they do not promote democracy; they mock it.
Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the Record after my statement a copy
of the resolution on which we should have been allowed to vote.
Resolution
Relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people and the
valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and
Coalition forces.
Whereas Saddam Hussein and his regime committed crimes
against humanity, systematically violating the human rights
of Iraqis and citizens of other countries;
Whereas Saddam Hussein's terror regime subjected the Iraqi
people to murder, torture, rape, and amputation;
Whereas on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein's regime had and
unleashed weapons of mass destruction against Kurdish
citizens, killing nearly 5,000 of them;
Whereas as many as 270 mass grave sites, containing the
remains of as many as 400,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's
regime, have been found in Iraq;
[[Page H1173]]
Whereas rape was used to intimidate the Iraqi population,
with victims often raped in front of their families;
Whereas the regime punished the Marsh Arabs by draining the
marshlands, which created hundreds of thousands of refugees
and caused an ecological catastrophe;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-
338), passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 360
to 38, made it United States policy to support efforts to
remove from power the regime headed by Saddam Hussein;
Whereas with the Iraqi regime failing to comply with 16
previously adopted United Nations Security Council
resolutions, the Security Council unanimously approved
Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, declaring that Iraq `has
been and remains in material breach of its obligations under
relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in
particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United
Nations inspectors'; and
Whereas on October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives
passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) and on March 19,
2003, the United States initiated military operations in
Iraq: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) acknowledges the belief on the part of some that the
United States and the world have been made safer with the
removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq
and the belief that a final judgment on the value of
activities in Iraq cannot be made until Iraq is stable and
secure;
(2) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face
of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by
Saddam Hussein's regime;
(3) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's
interim constitution;
(4) commends the members of the United States Armed Forces
and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its
gratitude for their valiant service; and
(5) urges the President--
(A) to take all steps necessary to ensure that all members
of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq receive the
best force protection equipment available, including
protective body armor and extra-armored wheeled vehicles
capable of providing better protection against explosive
devices;
(B) to ensure that all members of the Armed Forces who
suffer wounds or other injuries, or who incur illness, while
serving in Iraq receive complete, timely, and high-quality
health care to treat the short-term and long-term
consequences of such wounds, injuries, and illnesses;
(C) to recognize the key contributions made by members of
the reserve components of the Armed Forces, and their
families, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and, in consultation
with Congress, to address immediately the disparity that
exists for many Reserve and Guard personnel between the pay
they receive in civilian life and the military compensation
they receive when ordered to active duty;
(D) to acknowledge that there were serious deficiencies in
United States pre-war intelligence on Iraq, particularly in
light of the failure to find any evidence of significant
weapons of mass destruction programs, and to take steps now
to improve intelligence so that United States troops are
better protected and future United States national security
strategies are better informed;
(E) to request sufficient funding immediately to fully
support United States military operations in Iraq and the
surrounding region in order to ensure the safety and well-
being of United States troops deployed to Iraq and the
surrounding region;
(F) to obtain far-reaching international participation in
the securing, reconstruction, and political development of
Iraq so that the United States can reduce the number of its
troops in Iraq, and reduce the size of its financial
commitment to Iraq operations; and
(G) to take steps to correct the failure of the United
States Government to plan adequately for the post-war
occupation of Iraq, including the failure to integrate
internal United States Government studies and outside expert
opinions that predicted the onset of guerrilla activity and
described how to promote effective reconstruction,
democratization, and civil society development activities,
and the failure to apply those studies and opinions today in
order to improve current United States reconstruction efforts
in Iraq;
(6) expresses deep sorrow and regret for the deaths of more
than 550 and the wounding of more than 3,500 members of the
United States Armed Forces in Iraq and extends support to
their families; and
(7) expresses sorrow and regret for the deaths in Iraq of
United States civilians, Untied Nations personnel, unknown
numbers of Iraqi civilians, and other noncombatants.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I think there is a
little semantic difficulty on the words ``safe'' and ``safer.'' I would
not say that Iraq is safe. I would not say crossing Pennsylvania Avenue
in rush hour is safe. The question is, Is it safer with Mr. Saddam
Hussein in a cell? Or is it less safe with him in one of his palaces
plotting to amputate limbs from some of his people or to bury Kurds
alive like he has done?
The world is a safer place with him in a cell because Mohmmar Qaddafi
watched that and went to school on that. He decided to put his cards
down and give up his nuclear pretensions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in commending
the brave men and women who have liberated the Iraqi people. And I want
to express my heartfelt sympathies to those families who have lost
loved ones in battle. Did we do the right thing? I would say we did.
Hundreds of mass graves containing the remains of as many as 400,000
victims of Saddam Hussein have been found in Iraq. For those of my
colleagues who have not seen it, I would urge them to get a copy of
``Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves,'' published by USAID. Let me
quote from it:
``Rows of white bundles containing bones filled room after room.
Families filed by searching for signs of those who had disappeared,
some stolen during the night, others taken in daylight. Even small
children were not spared the butchery. Some graves hold a few dozen
bodies, their arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of
skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of
meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies.''
We have learned from survivors about Iraqi citizens being
indiscriminately detained, men, women, children, the elderly, the
blind, the aged, led to the edge of a swamp and executed one by one.
Why? Just to let everybody know who was in charge. We know that
Saddam's psychopath sons were as evil as their father. His eldest son
Uday boasted that when it was his time to rule Iraq he would be even
more brutal than Saddam. It was Uday who routinely had his thugs
deliver women to him so he could rape them. It was he who was said to
have fed a young woman to his attack dogs. It is he who reportedly
abducted and violently raped a newlywed. After she committed suicide,
he had her husband arrested and executed.
Now, because of the bravery and sacrifice of the men and women of our
Armed Forces, Saddam is behind bars, Uday and Qusay are roasting in
hell, and 25 million Iraqis are free.
Did we do the right thing? I think we did.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the learned
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in my office listening to the rhetoric. It
has been very interesting. People have been talking about how this
resolution divides us. I do not think it is the resolution. I think it
is the rhetoric. We are all in support of our troops, but those who
have been over there, as we were just a couple of weeks ago, know that
our troops know they are doing the right thing. They know that the
Iraqi people are happy that Saddam Hussein is gone. We talked to people
when I was over there that said they did not have 400,000 people in
mass graves, people that were tortured in the prison; but they believe
it was more like between 1 million and 1.3 million. Over 1 million
people were thrown into mass graves. That alone is reason enough to get
that guy out of there.
But let us talk about weapons of mass destruction. In the 1980s, the
Israelis attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq because they knew he was
going to build a nuclear weapon, and a nuclear weapon is a weapon of
mass destruction. He used, as we all know, chemical weapons to kill
thousands and thousands of Kurds, women and children, and he used those
same things in the Iran-Iraq war that went on for 7 years. So this guy
used weapons of mass destruction. He violated every single U.N.
resolution that came out of the United Nations. So why should we
believe that he would not have weapons of mass destruction, that he
would disarm himself when he violated every agreement that he made? And
he used weapons of mass destruction.
The President had every right to do what he did. Saddam Hussein was a
threat not only to the region but to the whole world. As far as working
with al Qaeda, you will never convince me that he was not working with
the international terrorist network, including al Qaeda. That guy
wanted to destroy our way of life and everything we believe in.
[[Page H1174]]
Some of my colleagues today have been down here on the floor
haranguing about how they feel about this. I want to quote some of my
Democratic colleagues and what they have said in the past. On December
17, 1998, regarding Iraqi women and children and how they should be
protected, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) said:
``I also say that we in this body, along with the Commander in Chief,
must have a definitive policy to protect the suffering women and
children and to make sure that democracy comes to the region.'' That is
a little different than the tone we are hearing today. My distinguished
colleague for whom I have high regard, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), said:
``Had the President not ordered the attack, many would have bitterly
criticized him for not having followed through with the tough words he
uttered just 1 month ago.'' And also my distinguished colleague from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) came to the floor to decry criticism of
President Clinton's motives for ordering air strikes on Iraq. He said:
``To my colleagues who have questioned the President's motives in the
midst of this crisis, shame on them. Shame on them for breaking the
longstanding tradition that leaves party politics at our Nation's
shores.'' What are we hearing today? Party politics. This is a
resolution congratulating our troops and talking about doing the right
thing in Iraq, and we ought to be working together instead of
criticizing each other for this. Then the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Wexler) echoed those sentiments at the same time when he said, ``For
one day we should have been patriots, not partisans. Politics should
have stopped at the water's edge.'' How about today? That is what the
Democrat colleagues of mine were saying just a few years ago.
And, of course, the distinguished minority leader, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), said on National Public Radio's ``Talk of
the Nation'' program, ``There is no question that everyone wants regime
change in Iraq. The question is change to what?'' And then on the
``O'Reilly Factor'' she said in 2002, ``I think Americans and those in
Congress are unified in wanting and joining the President in wanting a
regime change in Iraq.''
Then let me quote the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), who
said in 2002, ``We cannot simply hope that Saddam Hussein will be
deterred. He has shown himself to be an inveterate and dangerous
gambler.'' The gentleman from New York was not wrong. This is a good
resolution. We ought to all join together to pass it.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The President of the United States has said there is no connection
between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The director of intelligence has
said there is no connection. Secretary of State Colin Powell has said
there is no connection. You may think there is a connection. We are
revisiting history when we start to talk about all the things the
gentleman is talking about. We went to war because there were weapons
of mass destruction. We went to war because there was connection with
al Qaeda. We did not go to war because of this. Many of these incidents
happened when George Bush I was President and he said, ``I'm not going
to go into Iraq because I don't want to rebuild Iraq.'' The cost to
this Nation, the Under Secretary of Defense said, will be nothing. He
said, ``We'll pay for it with their oil.'' $150 billion later we are
still paying, and we will pay for a long time.
I am in this for the long haul, but when I see a partisan resolution
which was brought up without any input from me or any other Democrat,
and you call us partisan? This does not make any sense. Why did anybody
not come to us and say, change a few words, change some in the preamble
and we will have a resolution we can support.
I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. There is nobody that has
supported Presidents more than I have, but I just get upset when
something comes across this way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), a Korean War veteran.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most difficult periods of
time that I have had, because I do not get angry when the majority
drafts bills in order to embarrass Democrats. I think that goes with
the job. But I think it is really insulting and embarrassing when they
use the troops as a vehicle to embarrass us.
There is nobody on either side of the aisle that will challenge the
deep respect that we have for the men and women in our Armed Forces.
But when the majority drafts a bill and says this is a Republican bill,
you know that there is something crummy about it. You just have to look
and find out what it is.
So they start saying all of these things that we agree to; but then
they say, and it is a safer world as a result of Saddam Hussein being
captured. It would seem to me that the lives of Americans that are on
the line, their safety, that if there is anything that we as Democrats
and politicians could find as sacred, if we just wanted to commend them
and their families and their loved ones, that we would go out of our
way to make certain that we do not put anything in there that could be
described by political pundits as a poison pill. We should run it by
Democrats and Republicans and say, Is there anything at all offensive
in this because we do not want this to be controversial?
I am so glad I was not a fly on the wall when the Republican
leadership put this together because in my heart I do not truly believe
that they wanted to find some way to laud the troops, but they wanted
some way to try to find to embarrass Democrats. To use our military is
one of the cheapest things that I think you can do.
Let us talk about who these military people are that we are lauding.
This is one of those things I learned on Lennox Avenue when I was a
hoodlum. There are always some people talking about, Let's go to fight.
Let's settle this. Bring them on and we're not going to tolerate
anything except total victory. But when it comes time to get involved
in that fight, they are the same ones saying, ``You go ahead in the
fight, I'll hold your coat.''
There is a lot of talk about shared sacrifice, but I hope we take a
look and see who are the people who are volunteers, that is,
volunteering putting their lives on the line each and every day. I
remember in June of 1950 I was in Fort Lewis, Washington, and we were
alerted that the Second Infantry Division was going to go to Korea to
fight the North Koreans. Not one of us ever said, ``What is the fight
about? What is the war about?'' We only knew that we were warriors, we
were military people; and when that flag went up, we saluted it.
I go off and see the Reservists. I go off and see the National Guard
going to Iraq. Not one of them has asked the political question as to
why are we going over there. Yet I think that we have the political
responsibility when we endorse the wars to find out not only why are we
doing it but we have a political responsibility to be satisfied that it
is the right thing. If we differ about that, that is what America is
all about. That is what the Congress is all about. But you do not put
that controversy in a bill when these military people do not have the
options to discuss whether the war is right or wrong. They have the
responsibility to obey the Commander in Chief.
I have taken a little survey along with the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton) about who is fighting this war and these people that we
are commending. Believe me, they did not sign up to get rid of Saddam
Hussein. As evil as this guy may be, one day some of us may be asked
the question, Was it worth 550 American lives or 3,000 people that are
in our heart, some with and some without Purple Hearts? One day someone
would ask, where did they come from? Did they enlist to fight
terrorism, or did they enlist because there were no jobs available? Are
these minorities from the inner cities that are looking for a better
way of life but accept their responsibility as to why they enlisted? Do
they come from districts such as the gentleman from Missouri's
district, the rural areas where unemployment is rampant? And why do we
find there are more blacks, almost twice as many as the population, in
the Army and how does that compare where in my city 50 percent of the
African American men are unemployed?
[[Page H1175]]
{time} 1815
Do the Members not think that had something to do with the
enlistments? Do the Members not think they wanted to send a check home
to their mom because they could not get a job? Do the Members not think
they want the educational benefits to improve themselves, as I did as a
high school dropout?
And why do we have to commend them when we find out just today that
12 percent of the Nation's population is black but they represent 20
percent of those that were killed. Black deaths in the Iraq war exceeds
the rate of Vietnam. Go to Hispanics, we see the same thing. Go to
white Americans and we see the same thing.
So we do not need a political resolution to try to polarize this
Congress. We know we love and respect those people who salute that
flag. And to put in a political controversial clause to attempt to
embarrass us is just not going to work.
How low can you get when you use the military as a way to attempt to
embarrass your colleagues?
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I enjoyed listening to the last speaker tell us of his war exploits.
I never tire of hearing them, and I find them quite fascinating. But I
am bewildered. I do not quite understand why someone who wants to
praise the military does not understand that getting rid of Saddam
Hussein and trying to secure Iraq is a conquest by our military, an
achievement, and that is why they are first in the four things this
resolution does. And why he would want to detract from that
accomplishment, that military achievement, is something that I am
bewildered by.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for edification
since he is bewildered?
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the last time I yielded, I did not get my time
back.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Illinois
controls the time. If the gentleman yields back his time, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania may recognize the gentleman from New York, and then
we have got our time in order.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. HYDE. Very well, Mr. Speaker. I yield back my time and I will
listen again.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the chairman may be fascinated by my war
experiences. I did not talk about it. When he has time, I will give him
more time than he will ever want to hear about it.
What I am saying is this: We have an opportunity to laud our service
people. You know there is one issue on this floor, and that is whether
or not we were misled in getting involved in this. I do not care which
side one is on. We want to laud the servicemen. Why would you put
Saddam Hussein in this resolution? Why did you not leave him out so
that we could have unanimous consent that we laud the military? You
deliberately put Saddam Hussein in there to divide us and not to bring
us together.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in strong support of this resolution. One year ago this week,
freedom came to the good people of Iraq and the tyrant Saddam Hussein
fell. And it is impossible to speak of the one without the other. And
the contents of this resolution are therefore fitting and appropriate.
I rise to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, with my feet still
dusty from a trip to Iraq just 2 weeks ago. And while I was deeply
moved and overwhelmed by the valor of our troops during that journey, I
was equally moved by the gratitude and the affection that I experienced
from the people of Iraq. I really fell in love with the Iraqi people,
and I learned that the Iraqis that I met love the American people.
We traveled through a ravaged city of Basra, one-story sandstone
homes, and met at Coalition Provisional Headquarters. During our
meeting with top civil and religious leaders, I thought when it came to
my turn I would just ask them, What did they think of our decision to
remove Saddam Hussein? And what had been a cool if not distant
atmosphere in our discussion suddenly erupted in a flourish of passion
and candor. A local Muslim leader, whose dress and appearance gave him
an ancient air, said icily to me ``Saddam Hussein was a nightmare, and
the day that your people removed him from power was a day when a dark
curtain was lifted from the people of Iraq and the daylight was able to
shine in.''
Later we met with a large group of ordinary Iraqis eager to speak to
American officials. As we sat around the lunch table, there were
pointed opinions. These English-speaking Iraqis were so strong in their
views and sometimes criticisms of our reconstruction policies, I
thought for all the world I was back on the floor of Congress. But then
they began to speak of their gratitude toward the American people, of
the horror of living under Saddam Hussein, of 400,000 bodies of men and
women and boys and girls that had been found, and another 800,000 that
were missing. I saw them many times, Mr. Speaker, with tears in their
eyes say to me as an American official ``When you go home, tell the
people that you serve that we are grateful to the American people and
your allies for what you have done for us.'' And they were breathlessly
excited about democracy.
I will never forget the moment at a USAID class where I spoke to a
group of Iraqi women. They shared with me poems in English that they
had written about democracy, and almost with the enthusiasm of grade-
school children, their hands almost quivered as they spoke of the
future in which they believe.
I rise to honor in this resolution our Armed Forces, our allies, and
the good people of Iraq, all of whom deserve the resolution and support
of this Congress.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman
Hyde) for yielding me this time.
This resolution rightly highlights the vast crimes against humanity
committed by Saddam Hussein's regime. And as we have heard today, as
many as 270 mass graves have been found so far, containing the bodies
of 400,000 Iraqis. Four hundred thousand.
I remember photos my father, a U.S. serviceman, took when U.S. forces
overran the death camp in Dachau, Germany in the closing days of World
War II. People executed in pits, by the thousands. I never thought I
would see photos like those photos again.
In the days and weeks following Saddam's overthrow, we learned more
about another dictator's evil, and here is one account from the L.A.
Times: ``The executions took place two or three times on most days.
Each time between 100 and 150 blindfolded people, their hands and
sometimes feet bound, were led into pits about 10 feet deep. Gunmen
then fired into the pit, often for several minutes . . . A bulldozer
then pushed dirt over the bodies, sometimes burying or crushing people
who had survived the volley and were trying to climb out.'' Four
hundred thousand people.
In two trips to Iraq, I have had the chance to talk to tortured
Iraqis. Some ask, Why act in Iraq and not the other countries suffering
through human rights nightmares? I would respond that just because we
do not act in all cases of gross human rights abuses does not mean we
should not act in any cases. Moreover, in Iraq's case, our ability to
act effectively is greater because our vital national security
interests are on the line. Our interest in seeing a reformed Middle
East will keep us committed to building a free Iraq. So let us forget
that argument. It obscures the nightmare that was Saddam's Iraq and it
belittles our closing of his torture chambers.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We did not go to war in World War II because of Dachau. We went to
war because they attacked us, because our national security was in
danger. And we went to war in Iraq because there
[[Page H1176]]
were weapons of mass destruction, I thought. There were al Qaeda
connections, I thought. We did not go to war because these people were
killed.
George Bush one, the first George Bush, knew there were mass graves.
And he did not go into Iraq and he said, I do not want to rebuild Iraq;
I do not want to occupy Iraq. And one Under Secretary of Defense said
to our subcommittee it will not cost us a cent. It has cost us $150
billion to fight in Iraq and to rebuild Iraq.
So we are trying to revisit history. I mean, we cannot change it. We
went to war because we thought we were threatened. These things were
terrible things. We are glad to get rid of Saddam Hussein. That is not
the point. We cannot revisit and change history. So I feel very
strongly.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, like many senior Democrats, I supported
George Herbert Walker Bush in going into Iraq the first time. I also
served my country in World War II, and I know a little about the
military.
But I want to talk about this curious process that we are going
through today. I want to talk about this resolution. If we look, the
Committee on Rules has given us a closed rule. No Democratic amendments
are allowed. No real discussion is permitted. And it says so in the
report. If my colleagues do not believe me, they should get a copy of
it. No Democratic sponsors. Very little Democratic support or
consultation on this side with the Members.
If we want to have bipartisan support for what we are doing over
there, there is a way to do it. It may well be my Republican colleagues
do not know it. But a little consultation over here could be useful. I
think my colleagues on the Republican side should know what the problem
is. It is where we make an affirmation that the United States and the
world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his
regime. Have we really been made safer? Let us look at it. We have
committed the entirety of our military to serve over there. We have
nothing to meet a problem which might exist in Korea or somewhere else
where there are atom bombs and weapons of mass destruction now readily
available. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. Mr. Kay and
Mr. Blix both said none. The President said they are there. Now the
President has admitted they are not. And, of course, my Republican
colleagues now want to purge themselves of responsibility for what is
evidence of some kind of either disingenuous behavior or outright
dishonesty in committing us to a war on the theory that there were
weapons of mass destruction there.
Now we also have our Republican colleagues in the curious position
where they say that al Qaeda is operating there, and al Qaeda probably
is operating there, and we must ask again if we are safer because al
Qaeda operates there. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence at
any time previously, and the administration has to admit it, that al
Qaeda or any terrorist group was functioning out of Iraq. That is
something that has now been manufactured in the teeth of admissions by
the administration that that kind of situation does not obtain.
I do not want to say whether the administration has deceived the
American people intentionally or otherwise. That will be decided by
history, and we are going to have to let the Republicans and their
administration decide whether it was an exercise of supreme
incompetence or whether there was dishonesty or some curious mixture of
the above. I do not want to pollute this debate with that kind of
discussion.
But I do want to point out some things. We are not safer now with the
troops that we have all committed over there and the inability to
address problems that exist in Korea or elsewhere in the world where
people might stir up trouble, or in Iran, immediately next door, or,
for that matter, in Pakistan, or in other places where there are
dictators who are anxious and willing and able to make trouble. We are
not stronger in this country because we have committed, as my good
friend from Pennsylvania says, 150-some billion dollars. The number is
actually more like $186 billion over there.
{time} 1830
That is money that will not be available for schools and education
and health. It is money that is not going to be able to assist us to
deal with threats to the security of this Nation from other causes,
from the risks that exist in the other countries that do make trouble.
This is the defect of this process. If we want to deal with this
thing of our commitment in Iraq, I say to my Republican colleagues,
address it in a real bipartisan way. Let us consult. Let us work
together. Let us consult together so that we can pull together in the
interests of the United States. Because every man and woman in this
Chamber wants to bring those young people home safe, with dignity and
honor. Every person in this Chamber wants to see to it that we win over
there. And every American in this Chamber is committed to seeing to it
that we not only bring our people home safe, but to see to it that we
win, and that we now do correct the problems of having committed
ourselves to what was essentially a very unwise war on the basis of
unwise statements which had little or no basis in fact.
That is the way we should be addressing this issue. We should not be
bringing forward to the House something that looks like a pronouncement
from the Republican National Committee that has all of the
bipartisanship that one can find in such an undertaking. We should be
talking and working together about how we bring Americans together now
to address this question. Patriotic Americans are still entitled to
speak their thoughts. Patriotic Americans are still entitled to have
answers to why we are in this mess. And sensible, intelligent men and
women are entitled to ask why we are in this mess.
Mr. Speaker, history tells us what we are looking at. The British
went in in 1920 to Iraq. They left Iraq after a dozen years of warfare
over there. They had lost thousands of British troops' lives, hundreds
of millions of pounds, each one of those pounds was worth somewhere
between $50 and $100 U.S. dollars today, and they still were not able
to win, to get the peace that they wanted, to establish a world in that
area where things would go the way honest and decent human beings
wanted it.
Iraq is a country which is driven by racial and religious
differences. We have the Sunnis, the Shi'ias, we have the Kurds, the
Turkmens, the Catholics, the Christians, and the Chaldeans over there.
None of them like each other and all of them distrust each other
intensely.
We are losing today about one American every day, one American, dead;
but thousands of them maimed and killed in the most gruesome of ways.
We need to understand that we have to pull together. This is not the
mechanism for that.
These people over there and the United States are not more safe
because of this. We are not focusing on international problems which
threaten us. We are not able to spend the resources which we need
because we are spending them over there and cannot now spend them over
here on schools and education and health and other things that are
important to our people.
This is the wrong way to proceed. I say shame.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding
me this time.
What are our goals and how do we best achieve them? I would think our
goal in this war on terror is to have a safer and better place in
America and the rest of the world. I would suggest that we are moving
ahead in that direction.
Let me just read the resolution:
``Commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of
unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam
Hussein's regime.'' I do not think we should disagree with that.
``Commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim
constitution.'' I do not think anyone should disagree with that.
[[Page H1177]]
``Commends the members of the United States Armed Forces and
Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for
their valiant service.'' Certainly nobody would disagree with their
valiant service.
Is it a question that we are liberating Iraq? I thought the poll that
came out was very interesting, where 2,500 Iraqis were polled on their
opinion now, a year later, and I will read a couple. Some 57 percent
said that life was better now than under Saddam, against 19 percent who
said it was worse. Fifty-seven said it was better now and 19 percent
said it was worse. Overall, 70 percent said that life was good now.
Seventy percent said that life was good now, compared with 29 percent
who said it was bad.
Asked what political system they believed was needed in their
country, 86 percent said they wanted democracy. I met a little over a
month ago with 60 nations at the Pacific Interparliamentary meeting.
Those people are happy, in my mind, as I judge their conversations,
that the United States and Great Britain and the coalition forces are
doing something. They are sort of happy they are not paying for it, but
they are happy that somebody is aggressive in this war on terrorism.
I met a couple of weeks ago in Libya, and Qaddafi, there is no
question that Qaddafi did not want to end up the way that Saddam did. I
was one of eight Members in Libya, and now we have countries like Libya
saying, We are going to give up our nuclear weapons. We are going to
give up our weapons of mass destruction.
Did Saddam have those weapons? We know he had them. This summer we
found all of those airplanes buried under the sand. I think, I suspect,
that some place under the sand or someplace, there are still those
weapons. We know he had them; we do not know what he did with them. I
think the world is safer.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, like so many here in the House, I continue to
pray for all of the courageous men and women in the uniforms of our
Armed Forces, and especially the families who have lost a loved one and
have paid the ultimate price in Afghanistan and Iraq. But I wish, as
the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) referenced, that all of the
Members could have been with me in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, this past
Monday, along with the Secretary of Energy, to see the centrifuges and
the nuclear arsenal that was voluntarily given up by Moammar Qaddafi
from Libya, because there is no doubt, while we can all draw our own
conclusions, there is no doubt in my heart that that is a result of our
consistent and decisive offensive since September 11 around the world
against terror; because terrorism, as we see in Spain and in Baghdad
and the fear in London, is alive and well, and terrorism continues, and
we must pursue the terrorists and keep them on the defensive.
I believe our consistency and our resoluteness has paid off in
effective ways, such as Libya giving up their nuclear deterrent; the
Bush doctrine: You are either with us or you are against us. They have
to declare. Libya declared. We do not want to be against you; they are
voluntarily giving it up.
Now, we need to listen to some of the neutral parties. I know a lot
of the concern today is about process. I do not know, I was not here
when the Democrats were in the majority. Frankly, both parties are
guilty of shutting out the other side. But I know that I am concerned
about the signals that are being sent today out of this Chamber and in
this town about our commitment to Iraq. This is a bold, long-term
commitment.
Neutral observers like Thomas Friedman expressed concern in the last
48 hours about Spain, what is happening in Iraq, and whether the
terrorists are intimidating free people around the world. We need to
stand our ground in this war on terror. There is no doubt we had to do
what we did in Iraq and that good has come out of it.
Mr. Speaker, terrorism cannot be allowed to win the day. Peace
through strength works. Appeasement has never worked. And we are tested
again today, whether or not we will stick to our guns and finish what
we have started, even if it takes years and more money.
I want to secure our investments in the region. The people were poor
there, but the country was wealthy. I believe we have done the right
thing, and we have to be strong and tough and dig our heels in.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I believe that when the political
smoke of this great debate today clears, that this bill is going to
pass with a very substantial vote. I think it is going to be passed
with a substantial vote because every one of us in this Chamber wants
to keep the commitment that we made several years ago after September
11, that we are going to support our troops when they are in the field,
when they are at risk, when they are in harm's way.
This is just another statement, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Murtha) has repeatedly said today, we have spent a lot of money of
American taxpayer dollars to fund the operation, and we want to make
sure that our troops understand that we believe they are doing a good
job, and they are. We want to let them know that they are not in harm's
way in vain.
So I think the bill is going to pass with a nice vote. But do my
colleagues know something? I had a chance to be the sponsor of the bill
that appropriated $40 billion on September 14 of 2001. I had the
privilege of being the sponsor of the supplemental that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) talked about, that was sizable, to pay
for our troops in the field and what they needed by way of equipment.
But do my colleagues know something? Besides being a player to that
extent, I am not offended that I was not asked to write this bill. I am
very satisfied that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and his
committee wrote a very good bill. I am not offended that I was not
asked to be the sponsor. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is the
ideal sponsor, and those who did sponsor this bill.
So I think once the political smoke clears, this House is going to
stand up and is going to be counted and to tell our troops in the field
and to tell our troops who are recuperating in hospitals that we
support what they are doing, we believe in what they are doing, and
that we are here to do whatever has to be done to protect our country
and our countrymen from terrorist attacks and to provide support for
those who provide that kind of security for us.
I have a lot of other things I would like to say, but time is
limited. So, Mr. Speaker, I will insert the balance of my statement
into the Record at this point.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 557, which
honors the valor, courage, and professionalism with which our American
forces, and those of our coalition partners, have served in liberating
the people of Iraq.
We consider this resolution today on the first anniversary of the
initiation of military operations in Iraq. However, the difficult
decisions by Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq and the
President's ultimate directive to send troops into Iraq were the
culmination of more than 13 years of violence and terrorism directed at
the United States and our allies throughout the world.
Saddam Hussein's movement of troops into Kuwait in 1990 threatened
the freedom and security of the people of that nation who remain one of
our country's staunchest allies. We responded as a Nation and in
partnership with the free nations of the world in Operation Desert
Storm to throw Saddam's forces out of Kuwait. Subsequently, through a
series of United Nation's resolutions, we sought to monitor Saddam's
activities to prevent him from again threatening the sovereignty of
another ally.
Since then, as this resolution points out, Saddam Hussein and his
regime have committed repeated heinous crimes against humanity,
including the murder, torture, rape, and amputation of his own people.
This is the regime that unleashed weapons of mass destruction against
the Kurdish people, killing nearly 5,000. We have found more than 270
mass graves sites in Iraq, with the remains of more than 400,000
people. Saddam Hussein poisoned the water supply of his enemies, he
even punished the Marsh Arabs by draining their marshlands, which
created hundreds of thousands of refugees and created an ecological
catastrophe.
This Congress responded in 1998 by adopting the Iraq Liberation Act,
which made it U.S.
[[Page H1178]]
policy to support efforts to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from
power. President Clinton, however, after signing this act into law
never followed through.
Four years later, after little or no U.S. action to rid Iraq of
Saddam Hussein, the United Nation Security Council approved Resolution
1441 declaring that Iraq ``has been and remains in material breach of
its obligations'' under previously adopted Security Council
resolutions.
Clearly, the United States and President Bush did not start this war,
just as we did not start the global war on terrorism. We responded to a
series of attacks against the American people and our allies throughout
the world.
Recall that on February 26, 1993, six lives were lost in the first
bombing of the World Trade Center. Our response at the time was a
series of harsh words and empty rhetoric.
Three years later, on June 25, 1996, 19 U.S. service members lost
their lives in the bombing of Khobar Towers, outside a U.S. air base in
Saudi Arabia. The response again was harsh words, empty rhetoric, and
promises of a thorough investigation.
Two years after that, 259 died, including 11 Americans, in the
bombing of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The response again was
more harsh words and a cruise missile attack on a pharmaceutical
factory in Sudan.
Finally, feeling empowered by the continuing lack of a credible U.S.
response to past attacks, terrorists bombed the USS Cole while anchored
off Yemen, killing 17 U.S. sailors, and injuring countless others. The
U.S. response again was harsh words of outrage and the promise of a
full investigation.
The year 2001 arrived with a new President and a new set of world
challenges. However, just nine months into the Bush Administration, the
world changed forever on September 11, 2001. A hijacked airliner
crashes into the Pentagon killing 189. Two hijacked planes crash into
the World Trade Center, killing 2,801. And a hijacked plane crashes in
rural Pennsylvania, killing 44.
This time it was a different President with a different response.
President Bush announced that in response to these terrorist attacks on
our nation and our people we will respond by seeking out those who were
responsible and hold them accountable. We will respond by identifying
terrorist organizations and eliminate them at their roots.
Mr. Speaker, the terrorist attacks of September 11th were a direct
assault on our nation's freedom, and a test of our will to defend it.
The nations of the free world wondered if we would meet the challenge,
if this time our promises to strike back against the terrorists would
be followed by decisive action.
Just three days after September 11th, my Committee on Appropriations
and this Congress stepped forward to approve a $40 billion emergency
supplemental appropriations bill to fund recovery efforts in New York
City and at the Pentagon, and to take military action against the
perpetrators of those despicable attacks. That was the first concrete
signal to the world that this time, we as a nation were serious in
backing up the words of our President. Since that day Congress and the
America people have shown time and again that no matter how long it
takes or where it may lead, our commitment to win this war on terrorism
is unshakeable.
President Bush sent U.S. troops to Afghanistan to destroy and disrupt
al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's operations. Our forces routed
the Taliban, killed many terrorists, and eliminated al-Qaeda main base
of operations. They also liberated millions of men, women, and children
from a cruel regime, and gave them a chance to choose their own
government and enjoy the benefits of freedom. But our victory against
the Taliban was not the end of the war on terrorism.
When the United Nations determined that Saddam Hussein was not living
up to the Security Council resolutions, President Bush acted decisively
in sending troops to Iraq.
This resolution recognizes the remarkable swiftness and precision
with which our troops advanced across Iraq to remove from power the
Hussein regime. The effectiveness of our Armed Forces caught the enemy
by surprise. Even after the end of major combat operations in Iraq our
troops have continued their mission to stabilize and rebuild that
country. They have captured 45 of the 55 most wanted Iraqis, including
Saddam himself, ensuring that he will never return to power. With the
cooperation of Iraqi security forces, our troops have captured and
killed hundreds of terrorists who sought to restore the dictator to
power. The world has also seen the humanity and generosity of America,
as our troops, using funds appropriated by this Congress, help restore
water and electricity, provide basic health services, and bring
children back to school, free from intimidation and indoctrination.
There are those in this debate today who have said that we started
the war against terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. The truth of the
matter is that the war started in 1993 with the first bombing of the
World Trade Center, which was greeted with such a tepid response. Thank
God that on September 11, 2001 George Bush was President and he decided
that there was enough of this one-sided war against Americans and our
allies. There was enough of us being on the receiving end of cowardly
acts of terrorism, with the bad guys getting away with it. So yes, we
did engage in combat finally to fulfill our obligation to protect our
country and our people whether in their workplace, in their homes, or
in their schools.
Having spent considerable time with our troops here at home and
abroad, including those who have been injured in the line of duty, I
can tell you that they support President Bush and their mission. These
kids; and I say kids because many who are on the front lines are 18,
19, and 20 years old; are true patriots. Those who are injured are
determined to get well so they can get back to the fight to finish the
job they have begun. They all share a strong belief that what we are
doing is right, not just for the people of Iraq, but it is right for
the freedom loving people of the world.
The battle of Iraq was another critical advance in the War on
Terrorism. Today we are establishing a Muslim democracy at the heart of
the Middle East. Representatives from all three of Iraqi's major ethnic
groups came together on march 8 to sign an interim constitution. Iraq
now has an independent judiciary and will have free elections later
this year. Because of the leadership of our President, the courage and
determination of our troops,and the strong commitment the members of
this body made to the rebuilding of Iraq, that nation is making strong
progress towards freedom and prosperity.
As many of you know, my wife Beverly and I spend many hours visiting
wounded soldiers and Marines at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and
the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. In addition to
comforting them and helping give them strength for their recovery, I
always take the time to remind them that the American people are
grateful for their service and their sacrifice, and proud of their
achievements. Mr. Speaker, this resolution gives Members of this body
the opportunity to remind all of our men and women in uniform that we
are thankful for their service, and proud of their victory in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, it was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt who in this
very Chamber talked about the ``four essential human freedoms.'' He
said that they are, ``The freedom of speech--everywhere in the world.
The freedom of every person to worship God in his or her own way--
everywhere in the world. The freedom from want--everywhere in the
world. The freedom from fear--anywhere in the world.''
President Bush has led the world-wide effort to ensure the freedom
from fear, anywhere in the world, whether it be the United States,
Iraq, Afghanistan, or Spain. And he has called upon the world's most
powerful and best trained soldiers of peace to carry out that mission,
which they have done with valor, with courage, with pride, with
devotion, and with unmatched professionalism.
Mr. Speaker, with the adoption of this resolution today, we can
reiterate our support for their mission which is to ensure a world
where people can truly live free from fear.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, for more than 20 years, Saddam Hussein used tactics of
torture, brutality, and fear to terrorize the citizens of Iraq and
neighboring countries. Exactly 16 years ago this week, Saddam Hussein
unleashed weapons of mass destruction that killed 5,000 of his own
Kurdish citizens. He encouraged Iraqi officials to rape and torture
women. Men and women of Iraq were repressed, and they were isolated
from the rest of the world.
One year after the United States and coalition forces liberated Iraqi
citizens, the people of Iraq are embracing this opportunity to build a
new and free Iraq for their children.
Last October, I saw firsthand the remarkable activities that are
taking place on the ground in Iraq. There are now over 3,800 programs
that offer immediate assistance to improve the quality of life for all
Iraqi people. As reconstruction efforts continue to move forward, many
essential services like water, sanitation, electricity, and
telecommunication have been restored and even surpass prewar levels. In
fact, public health spending is now 26 times as great as it was under
Saddam's regime.
[[Page H1179]]
Today I met with a delegation of Iraqi leaders to talk about the
continuing advances in Iraq. This was a diverse delegation. It was men
and women, Shi'ias, Sunnis, tribal leaders, doctors, members of the
free press. They are dedicated to promoting and to teaching democracy
throughout south central Iraq. They shared their personal stories. They
talked about the Democracy Regional Center where a democracy discussion
was held for more than 1,500 Iraq people from different backgrounds,
and they are launching a radio station, and they are promoting
democracy to 10 million people through that part of the country. The
Iraqi people are embracing democracy with open arms.
Mr. Speaker, last week I held a roundtable discussion with a group of
remarkable women leaders from Iraq. One of the women in the group gave
me her wedding ring to keep as a reminder that we should not waiver
from our commitment to women.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, support the Iraqi
men and women who have done so much for us in that Nation. We should
help them.
{time} 1845
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, as I sit here and I listen to the debate, I
am almost in disbelief when I hear Members on the other side claiming
perhaps that the world is not as safe a place since Saddam Hussein was
removed.
But I do not hear anyone on the other side disputing the facts in the
resolution that Saddam Hussein committed crimes against humanity, that
he subjected the Iraqi people to murder and torture, and that he
unleashed weapons of mass destruction against his own people.
So I can only arrive at the conclusion that perhaps someone is
insinuating that the horrific terrorist bombings that have occurred in
Bali, in Riyadh, Madrid, Jerusalem since Saddam Hussein's ouster would
not have occurred if he were still in office. Now, that is just
preposterous. I know that no one would suggest such a thing.
President Bush was right when he said that we cannot distinguish
between the terrorists and the states that sponsor those terrorists.
Regimes like Saddam Hussein's still exist. Those brutal outlaw regimes
around the world who are there supporting the terrorist organizations
are our enemies just as the terrorists themselves.
Clearly, without Saddam Hussein, America is safer. The Middle East is
safer. Just ask the Israelis. Ask them if they feel that they are not
safer without the threat of Saddam and his Scuds aiming at Tel Aviv. Of
course they are safer. Of course the world is safer.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by thanking God that we have our
troops and our young men and women who are volunteering their lives,
risking their lives to go and take the battle to the front lines, to
take the battle to the terrorists so that perhaps we can avoid another
terrorist attack on our homeland.
Mr. Speaker, some people may flinch when they look in the eyes of the
terrorists, but with this President in this House with the American
people, that will never happen.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished whip.
(Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, today as we debate this resolution, I am more
convinced than ever that our country's leadership in removing Saddam
Hussein from power was both morally and strategically right. Saddam
Hussein left no choice but for us to act. He systematically violated 17
separate U.N. Security Council resolutions. The U.N. chose not to act.
He tried to conceal from the international community his desire to
produce weapons of mass destruction.
In November of 1999, our Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, said
that Saddam Hussein has chosen to spend his money on weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies. No doubt David Kay was correct
when he called Saddam a gathering threat during a recent congressional
hearing. If you do not believe Mr. Kay, maybe we should ask the
families of the thousands of Kurds Saddam gassed in 1988 or ask the
first U.N. weapons inspectors who prior to 1998 revealed the presence
of anthrax, mustard gas, VX nerve gas, chemical weapons casings, and
bombs filled with germ agents. These weapons remain unaccounted for
today.
Saddam Hussein's regime's support of numerous other terror
organizations is well documented. Iraq stoked terrorism and instigated
violence in Palestinian territories by paying the families of suicide
bombers $25,000 for attacking innocent civilians.
Iraq harbored the notorious Abu Nidal, whose terror organization
carried out more dozens of terrorist attacks in 20 countries that
killed and injured nearly 900 people including many Americans.
Iraq harbored Abu Abbas who was responsible for the Achille Lauro.
Iraq also incorporated the MEK terrorist organization into its own
military and security forces.
Since Saddam's fall, Libya voluntarily opened its weapons program to
inspectors. Pakistan is now taking overdue action to reign in its
nuclear proliferators. And very importantly, the emergence of a
pluralist and democratic Iraq is forcing the region to undertake
democratic and social reforms which will enhance stability throughout
the Middle East.
Iraq has a bright future. Not every day is a bright day, but every
day moves closer to constitutional government and democracy. On March
8, the governing council approved an interim constitution. Took us a
lot longer to do that in our country. A sovereign government will
assume authority for Iraq, we hope, later this year, later this summer
even.
There is plenty of work left to be done. But I think as we move this
resolution today, we appropriately commend those who led this fight,
the Iraqi people, for their incredible courage and optimism in the face
of unspeakable horrors, and the proud men and women who serve us in the
United States Armed Forces.
For the reasons I just mentioned, along with many other reasons, I
voted with the vast majority of my colleagues in 1998 in favor of the
Iraq Liberation Act, which made it the policy of the Untied States that
Saddam Hussein should be removed from power. And I commend the
President for his leadership in taking action on this policy.
And, Mr. Speaker, as a result of this action, there is no question
that the United States and the world are safer. Decisive coalition
action against this brutal dictator and his WMD programs has
demonstrated our resolve. To name a few specific examples: First, in
the weeks and months after the war, Colonel Gadhafi's regime in Libya
voluntarily opened up its weapons program to inspectors after
considering the cost of defying the United States and its partners in
the war on terrorism; second, Pakistan is now taking overdue action to
rein in its nuclear proliferators and, as a result, the network of
illicit WMD suppliers is becoming more clear; last, Mr. Speaker, and
this is very important, the emergence of a pluralist and democratic
Iraq is forcing regional autocrats to undertake much-needed democratic
and social reforms, which will lead to greater stability in a
tumultuous region.
For the first time in their lives, Iraqis will be guaranteed a free
and fair election process, a Bill of Rights, and an independent
judiciary; ideals which we here in America take for granted. All
Iraqis, most notably Iraqi women, now have freedoms and rights they
could have only dreamed of after a generation spent under Saddam's
reign of terror. And more than 200,000 Iraqis have been trained and
equipped by coalition forces to provide for the security, not the
repression, of the Iraqi people.
To be sure, there is plenty of work left to be done in Iraq. A
society of terror and repression does not transform into a free and
stable democracy overnight. But we must have faith in the Iraqi people.
Early in our own Nation's history, regional and racial schisms
threatened to tear the United States apart. Although the parallel is
not perfect, many of Iraq's challenges today resemble those of early
America as Iraq struggles to secure peaceful borders, build
institutions, and draft a working democratic constitution in the face
of great odds.
The United States and the new Iraqi government must be strong allies
in the war against terror, the effort to halt the proliferation of
WMDs, and the ongoing struggles to bring fundamental human rights to
all people. No other modern nation's people understand the need for
these efforts like the people of Iraq. The normalization of relations
with Iraq will provide us with opportunities to work closely
[[Page H1180]]
with our Iraqi friends. I urge my colleagues to meet and work with Rend
Rahim, the Representative to the United States from the Iraqi Governing
Council, and who under the new sovereign government will become Iraqi
Ambassador to the United States. Representative Rahim left Baghdad as a
young woman in the 1970s. In 1991 she founded the Iraq Foundation and
has become well-known as a passionate advocate for democracy in her
homeland. In her new role she will work tirelessly toward fostering and
maintaining the relationship between the United States and a free and
democratic Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, we must be prepared to stay the course in Iraq, to
overcome the terrorists and Ba'athists who fear democratic principles,
and to put forth the necessary resources to demonstrate to the Iraqis
and to the world that the United States will always remain committed to
a free and secure Iraq. I commend the President and our coalition
allies for their leadership in deposing Saddam Hussein, a brutal
dictator who procured and employed weapons of mass destruction,
repressed and tortured his people, and actively encouraged global
terrorists with financial rewards. I commend the Iraqi people for their
incredible courage and prevailing optimism in the face of horrors you
and I cannot imagine. And I commend the proud men and women of the
United States armed forces, who have proven once again that when called
upon in defense of freedom, their effectiveness is unmatched anywhere
in the world.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Farr) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I associate my remarks with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
I rise with concern and dismay on the Resolution before us.
First of all it resolves a sense of the House of Representatives. How
can you have a sense of the entire House when it only has Republican
authors?
How can it be a sense of the House with not a single Democrat as a
co-sponsor?
This Resolution seems to provide political cover for the President
for failing to secure support from our major Western allies in the War
on Terrorism in Iraq.
This Resolution ignores the fact that we had no post-conflict
reconstruction plan, before the first bombs dropped.
The Resolution glosses over the fact that our investigators, along
with the United Nations inspectors, have found no weapons of mass
destruction and were denied more time to complete their inspections,
which could have obviated the need to go to war.
This Resolution is brought up at a time when the President's poll
ratings are slipping.
The world is not safer and adoption of this politicized resolution
won't make it so.
Baghdad is suffering new deaths as we debate, our own home turf
suffers from its own brand of terrorism. Inner city communities are
losing lives in drive by shootings and Americans don't feel safer.
No, the world is not safer and to get Congress to say that it is, is
hypocrisy at its worst.
In an election year, Congress should work to bring us together--not
to play political gotcha.
I urge this body to reject this Resolution. We can do better. We can
truly support our troops without political excuses. We can commend the
Iraqi people for their courage without taking credit for their courage.
Write a Resolution without partisan politics and it will get a
unanimous vote, which is after all, what is needed to show support for
our troops--not a house divided for partisan purposes.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Tierney) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in salute to America's troops
and veterans, and urge my colleagues to honor their sacrifices not with
lofty political rhetoric but with concrete budgetary reality.
Sadly, we are denied that opportunity today. Instead, after waiting
weeks for a budget and voting primarily on uncontested matters,
receiving only this week a proposed budget that:
Fails to appropriately address the sad state of our economy;
Fails to propose policies that will create an environment for the
maintenance and creation of jobs;
Fails to clearly fund ongoing expenses related to the continuing
military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and fails to adequately fund
force protective measures as well as first responder needs for homeland
security;
Fails to fund the President's own promises with respect to education
mandates on local communities;
Fails to even begin to deal with the nation's health care crisis;
Proposes pilfering the Social Security surplus; and
Forces enormous further debt burden on every one of our children.
This Republican House leadership--I believe in cooperation with the
White House--now proposes to politicize foreign policy for their own
domestic political purposes.
It's a disgrace!
The self-promoted ``uniter not divider'' in the White House has at
every opportunity slammed any effort at bi-partnership--this resolution
is one more example. The White House has been complicit as House
Republicans manipulate and distort rules and customs to wring every
ounce of the democratic process out of the exercise of government here,
while professing to support democracy worldwide.
After shamelessly exploiting in TV advertisements the 9/11 tragedies
and depicting victims (whose families the President would not honor by
cooperating with the investigation into circumstances surrounding the
incident as well as intelligence and government action and inaction
leading up to and following 9/11) and first responders (who must
continue to labor on the front lines without adequate communications,
equipment, training, standards and support), this group of Republicans
now allows four hours to debate a resolution the sole purpose of which
is to create a dilemma for those who know the Administration's effort
with respect to Iraq and with respect to fighting terror to be woefully
inadequate.
The resolution is structured with the appearance of supporting our
troops, but is worded so that it could be argued--however wrong such an
argument would be--that Congress endorsed the way this Administration
has conducted itself with respect to Iraq.
In essence, yet another false choice for Members: Vote for it, so
disingenuous political operatives can claim the President is supported
even in his misleading acts and his diversion of efforts from the fight
against terrorists and his Administration's abject failures of planning
for post-Saddam Iraq, or Subject oneself to even more disingenuous
assertion by political hacks--for that is what they would be--who might
assert a vote against the resolution was a vote against support and
recognition for our troops.
It is politics at its most base and vile level, yet this White House
and this Republican majority promote it without hesitation.
Well, it will not work! The American people--even with an all-too-
slowly awakening media--is learning more each day that this President
and this Republican majority have very little in the way of meaningful
policy for America--and far too much politics aimed at benefiting their
careers and ideological extremists.
Whichever way people vote on this resolution, it will be clear to
America that the President's and the Republican majority's hypocritical
resolutions will not work any better than their tasteless
advertisements.
The American people deserve far better, and the Democrats stand ready
with a vision and a plan to deliver it: Democrats are working to
protect and defend America from those who plan attacks against our
families and communities. Democrats are prepared to use military force
to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests, and have
an unswerving commitment to ensure that America's armed forces remain
the best trained, best led, best equipped force for peace the world has
ever known.
Democrats applaud the troops who ousted Saddam in 20 days. We want to
support them on their still dangerous mission, and believe we should be
debating giving our troops the armor--body and vehicle--rifles, jammers
and other equipment they need.
It now appears that the President's rationale for war was flawed. CIA
Director George Tenet admitted that the intelligence agencies never
told the White House that Iraq posed an imminent threat. [Washington
Post 3/10/04] Former Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix stated that
the Bush Administration made up its mind that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction--and wasn't interested in evidence to the contrary. [AP, 3/
12/04] But the President and the rest of the Administration said Iraq
posed an ``urgent and unique threat,'' an ``immediate threat,'' a
``mortal threat,'' and an ``imminent threat'' to the people of the
United States. [President Bush, 11/20/02; Secretary Rumsfeld, 11/14/02;
Financial Times, 8/27/02; Press gaggle with Scott McClellan, 2/10/03]
Democrats want a full accounting of the events leading up to the war in
Iraq. Americans should be able to trust that what the President tells
them is true--especially when it comes to the life and death decisions
of war and peace.
Our troops were sent to Iraq without enough of the equipment they
depend on to do their jobs safely. Un-armored Humvees are falling
victim to road-side bombs and rocket propelled grenades. Thousands of
soldiers are
[[Page H1181]]
forced to fight without body armor--and the President still failed to
include enough funds in his budget to pay for operations in Iraq.
Americans shouldn't have to continue to bear most of the burden of
rebuilding Iraq alone. President Bush's dismissive treatment of our
allies has left the United States primarily responsible for the heavy
burden of stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq. A year after invading Iraq,
we are seeing the price of the President's distorted priorities.
American taxpayers are paying almost all the bills--a colossal $120
billion and rising. Most importantly, American soldiers are enduring
almost all the casualties: over 550 Americans killed and thousands more
wounded.
Democrats want to work with our international allies. Democrats want
to strengthen the capacity of America's intelligence gathering
operation, and forge stronger international coalitions, to increase our
ability to target and capture terrorists even before they act. Instead
of alienating our allies, Democrats want to work with them and with
international institutions so that we can prevent the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and keep them out of the hands of
terrorists.
Democrats support a foreign policy that reflects American priorities.
Democrats want to make America safer with a foreign policy that
reflects American priorities--promoting political and economic freedom
and human rights; cooperating with allies and friends; and respecting
international law and institutions.
Democrats want an honest accounting of the continued cost of the Iraq
war. Top defense officials, including Army Chief of Staff General Peter
Schoomaker, testified to Congress that the U.S. war efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan will run out of money in September, leaving the military
scrambling to cover as much as $19 billion in costs. [St. Petersburg
Times, 2/11/04] Democrats want a detailed plan for future spending, so
our troops are guaranteed to get the resources they need.
Homeland security must be a priority. Democrats want to make sure
that our firefighters and police officers get the tools they need to
keep us safe here at home. But the Bush Administration and the
Republicans' budgets fail to provide the funding we need to address our
security concerns. Democrats want to connect local, state, and federal
terrorist information systems to make sure that every cop on the beat
has the information they need to keep our families safe. We want to
provide firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel
with the equipment they need to communicate in a crisis. We want to
protect the long stretches of our border that are currently unwatched
and unprotected. And we want to help make sure states are prepared to
respond to a bioterrorist attack.
Part of winning the war on terror is taking care of those who helped
us fight it. On the battlefield, our troops pledge to leave no soldier
behind. Here at home, Democrats know that we must leave no veteran
behind. We must ensure their health care, their pensions, and their
survivor's benefits. But the Bush Administration wants to raise health
care costs for over 1 million veterans, increasing co-payments and
imposing new enrollment fees that will cost veterans $2 billion over
five years.
Unfortunately, in a disgraceful rebuke to democracy, the Republican
majority has stubbornly refused to offer Democrats any opportunity to
share our vision and plan with the American people--refusing an up-or-
down vote on the Democrats' plan to salute our troops not just with
lofty political rhetoric, but with concrete budgetary reality. What are
they afraid of? Why are the Republicans cowed by the prospect of a fair
debate?
My colleagues, just because the Republican majority refuses us a
democratic debate, you need not subject yourselves to the political
antics of this most demeaning political ploy. Vote no, yes or present .
. . whichever best allows you to share these comments and facts with
the American people.
What is important is that the American people know our troops are
supported, and that their sacrifices and those of their families are
appreciated and honored.
They will know (quickly if the press is alert and perceptive; over
time if left to their own diligent inquiries and pursuit of truth) that
at a time of great national challenge and need for unity, this White
House and their Republican majority once again sought to divide the
nation, not unite it, and did so for crass, short-sighted, selfish
benefit.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader.
(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member on the Committee on
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense for yielding. I thank him and
commend him for his extraordinary leadership and support of our troops.
When the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) speaks, we listen.
And that is why I will be joining him in opposition to this resolution
this evening.
Mr. Speaker, before I enter into my reasons why, I want to call to
the attention of our colleagues a section of the San Francisco
Chronicle that was published this Sunday: ``Portraits of Sacrifice.''
It has the face, the name, and the date of sacrifice of the 556 members
of the U.S. Armed Forces as of last Thursday who had lost their lives
in Iraq since the war began almost a year ago. Of course, sadly, since
last Thursday, indeed, since last Sunday, that number has grown.
Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record these names and dates of
sacrifice and home towns.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in a moment of silence to
honor the memory, the sacrifice, and the patriotism of these brave
American troops.
Mr. Speaker, every one of us who serves in this body supports our
troops. There is no question about that. We appreciate their valor,
their patriotism, again, the sacrifice that they are willing to make
for our country. When I have had the privilege of visiting them before
the initiation of hostilities with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha) last year in Qatar, Turkey, and Kuwait, we promised those
troops that they would have whatever they needed, that regardless of
what we were on the resolution of going into the war, once we went into
the war, once the President made that decision, we were one team, one
fight.
And that is why it is so sad that today with this resolution to
support the troops that we cannot be one team, one fight. Why was it so
difficult for the Republicans to reach across the aisle, say to our
troops that we could have come together as one team, one fight, in
support of our troops?
Mr. Speaker, it is sad to say that more than 415 of our troops have
died, over 415 of the 560-some have died since the President declared
in early May the end of major combat with a sign saying ``Mission
Accomplished'' behind him.
Perhaps some of those deaths could have been avoided if our troops
had the equipment and the actionable intelligence to protect them, the
force protection that they needed. But they did not.
I visited Iraq with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the
senior Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, and, similar to the
visit with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the troops
greeted him with great appreciation for his service to our country.
Again, we promised them the equipment that they needed. And it is
only recently, maybe just this week, that the troops have the Kevlar in
their lining, in their flak jackets that they need. It has taken that
long. And it would not have happened without the gentleman from
Pennsylvania's (Mr. Murtha) insistence when the $87 billion request
came to the floor, the second request for Iraq, that did not have the
request for that equipment in it.
We all agree that our military conducted itself with great
excellence. It performed its duties in a way that is worthy of
commendation. However, the civilian preparation was not so good. Do not
take my word for it. Take the word of General Zinni, who said the level
of sacrifice of our troops was not met with the level of preparation
for post-war Iraq.
Over 400 of our troops have died in the post-war phase.
This resolution that we have before us today is interesting in what
it lacks. It lacks the recognition of the challenge that we face in
Iraq. It is clearly an indication that the Republicans are in severe
denial about Iraq. They are in denial as to why we went into Iraq, they
are in denial as to what the conditions are that exist in Iraq right
now, and they are denying in this resolution what our troops and those
who have served in Iraq need.
There is such inconsistency this day that I must spend my time on
this floor to point it out. There is so much I want to say about this
resolution and about statements that have been made in this debate. But
what I want to focus on are some of the inconsistencies of the
Republicans. Because
[[Page H1182]]
while we have been debating here what would be the best resolution,
bringing us together, of course, we do not have that opportunity, while
the Republicans are proposing this resolution on the floor, they are
dishonoring the troops in the Committee on the Budget. They are
dishonoring the troops in the Committee on the Budget.
The Bush budget shortchanges American veterans. When he tells our
brave troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in the State of the Union
address that he will, quote, ``give you the resources you need,'' but
then does not budget for them, his credibility gap grows and so does my
colleagues'.
This budget refuses to end the disabled veterans tax. It does not end
the survivors' benefit tax. It proposes new increases in the cost of
veterans health care. This is what is going on on Capitol Hill today
while we have this meager resolution to support the troops on the
floor. It fails to provide meaningful investments in veterans' health
care. The list goes on and on.
And the severe blow was that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards),
the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Military Construction,
offered a resolution to add $1.3 billion for veterans' health. And that
was defeated along party lines. That would have been a way to honor our
troops. Yes, indeed, it would have.
{time} 1900
When I say that this resolution is in denial about why we went into
the war, of course it mentions nothing about weapons of mass
destruction, but it does mention that Saddam Hussein drained the Arab
marsh, causing an ecological disaster. Did my colleagues realize that
that was the reason that we went to war, the same folks who have rolled
back 30 years of bipartisan environmental progress are declaring a
cause of war, the draining of the marsh in Iraq? It was a terrible
environmental disaster.
Nobody spoke about it at the time, but there is another swamp that
must be drained and that is right here in Washington, DC, the swamp of
special interest money, the swamp that says special interest money
calls for giving tax cuts to people making over $1 million, not having
$1 million, making over $1 million a year, give them that tax cut but
do not provide for our troops and do not provide for our veterans. At
the same time, we are giving money to Halliburton, who is ripping off
the taxpayer while feeding the troops with overcharges.
Yes, there is a swamp that needs to be drained. It is right here in
Washington, DC, and that would not be an environmental disaster.
Mr. Speaker, we did have an opportunity and we requested of the
Committee on Rules that we be able to present a Democratic resolution.
In fact, we had hoped it would be a bipartisan resolution, and it drew
upon the expertise of so many; the leadership, the patriotism, the
intellect, the integrity of so many of our Members.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), of course, called for us immediately to offer
our condolences to the families of those who were killed in Iraq. That
would have been a valuable addition to this resolution. It insisted
that we give the troops the body armor, all of them, and the armored
vehicles they need to keep them safe. Some of that has come to fruition
because of the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Murtha) work. Much of
it is still not accomplished.
Under the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Harman) leadership, we
had in our resolution to immediately remedy the deficiencies in the
intelligence on which our troops rely. Force protection saves lives. As
a 10-year member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I
value that. It should be part of what we are advancing.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) insisted that we
honestly account for the cost of ongoing military operations in Iraq.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) insisted that we assemble
a true international coalition to accomplish our mission.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) demanded that we eliminate disparities in pay
between our active duty military and the National Guard and reservists.
We had that opportunity today, but you rejected it.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) again insisted that we provide
for the health care and benefits our wounded servicemen and -women
earned for when they come home.
Why could we not have come to the floor with a bipartisan resolution?
Why could we not have been one team, one fight? I do not understand it.
We all take our responsibility to provide for the common defense very,
very seriously. The clear and present danger facing our country is
terrorism. Our military and our Intelligence Community serve our
country well. They protect us with their lives. We must support them
with our actions, as well as our words.
Our military, we pledged to leave no soldier behind on the
battlefield. We must leave no soldier or any veteran behind in our
budget. Only then will we honor them in a manner worthy of their
sacrifice.
The material I referred to previously I will insert in the Record at
this point.
Name, Age, Branch, Hometown, State
Jay Thomas Aubin, 36, Marine Corps, Waterville, ME.
Ryan Anthony Beaupre, 30, Marine Corps, Bloomington, IL.
Therrel S. Childers, 30, Marine Corps, Harrison, MS.
Jose Gutierrez, 22, Marine Corps, Los Angeles, CA.
Brian Matthew Kennedy, 25, Marine Corps, Houston, TX.
Kendall Damon Waters-Bey, 29, Marine Corps, Baltimore, MD.
Thomas Mullen Adams, 27, Navy, La Mesa, CA.
Nicholas M. Hodson, 22, Marine Corps, Smithville, MO.
Eric James Orlowski, 25, Marine Corps, Buffalo, NY.
Christopher Scott Seifert, 27, Army, Morrisville, PA.
Brandon S. Tobler, 19, Army, Portland, OR.
Jamaal R. Addison, 22, Army, Roswell, GA.
Edward J. Anguiano, 24, Army, Brownsville, TX.
Michael E. Bitz, 31, Marine Corps, Oxnard, CA.
Brian Rory Buesing, 20, Marine Corps, Cedar Key, FL.
George E. Buggs, 31, Army, Barnwell, SC.
Tamario D. Burkett, 21, Marine Corps, Buffalo, NY.
Kemaphoom A. Chanawongse, 22, Marine Corps, Waterford, CT.
Donald J. Cline Jr., 21, Marine Corps, Sparks, NV.
Robert J. Dowdy, 38, Army, Cleveland, OH.
Ruben Estrella-Soto, 18, Army, El Paso, TX.
David K. Fribley, 26, Marine Corps, Cape Coral, FL.
Jose A. Garibay, 21, Marine Corps, Costa Mesa, CA.
Jonathan L. Gifford, 30, Marine Corps, Macon, IL.
Jorge A. Gonzalez, 20, Marine Corps, El Monte, CA.
Nolen R. Hutchings, 19, Marine Corps, Boiling Springs, SC.
Howard Johnson II, 21, Army, Mobile, AL.
Phillip A. Jordan, 42, Marine Corps, Brazoria, TX.
James M. Kiehl, 22, Army, Comfort, TX.
Johnny V. Mata, 35, Army, Amarillo, TX.
Patrick R. Nixon, 21, Marine Corps, Nashville, TN.
Lori Ann Piestewa, 23, Army, Tuba, AZ.
Frederick E. Pokorney Jr., 31, Marine Corps, Tonopah, NV.
Brendon C. Reiss, 23, Marine Corps, Casper, WY.
Randal Kent Rosacker, 21, Marine Corps, San Diego, CA.
Brandon U. Sloan, 19, Army, Warrensville Heights, OH.
Thomas J. Slocum, 22, Marine Corps, Thornton, CO.
Donald R. Walters, 33, Army, Kansas City, MO.
Michael J. Williams, 31, Marine Corps, Yuma, AZ.
Thomas A. Blair, 24, Marine Corps, Broken Arrow, OK.
Evan T. James, 20, Marine Corps, LaHarpe, IL.
Braedley S. Korthaus, 28, Marine Corps, Scott, IA.
Gregory P. Sanders, 19, Army, Hobart, IN.
Francisco A. Martinez Flores, 21, Marine Corps, Los
Angeles, CA.
Donald C. May Jr., 31, Marine Corps, Richmond, VA.
Patrick T. O'Day, 20, Marine Corps, Santa Rosa, CA.
Gregory Stone, 40, Air Force, Boise, ID.
Michael Vann Johnson Jr., 25, Navy, Little Rock, AR.
Kevin G. Nave, 36, Marine Corps, Union Lake, MI.
Joseph Menusa, 33, Marine Corps, San Jose, CA.
Jesus A. Suarez Del Solar, 20, Marine Corps, Escondido, CA.
Fernando Padilla-Ramirez, 26, Marine Corps, San Luis, AZ.
Robert M. Rodriguez, 21, Marine Corps, Queens, NY.
[[Page H1183]]
Roderic A. Solomon, 32, Army, Fayetteville, NC.
James W. Cawley, 41, Marine Corps, Roy, UT.
Michael E. Curtin, 23, Army, Howell, NJ.
Diego F. Rincon, 19, Army, Conyers, GA.
Michael Russell Creighton Weldon, 20, Army, Palm Bay, FL.
William W. White, 24, Marine Corps, Brooklyn, NY.
Eugene Williams, 24, Army, Highland, NY.
Aaron J. Contreras, 31, Marine Corps, Sherwood, OR.
Michael V. Lalush, 23, Marine Corps, Troutville, VA.
Brian D. McGinnis, 23, Marine Corps, St. George, DE.
William A. Jeffries, 39, Army, Evansville, IN.
Brandon J. Rowe, 20, Army, Roscoe, IL.
Jacob L. Butler, 24, Army, Wellsville, KS.
Joseph B. Maglione, 22, Marine Corps, Landsdale, PA.
James F. Adamouski, 29, Army, Springfield, VA.
Brian E. Anderson, 26, Marine Corps, Durham, NC.
Mathew G. Boule, 22, Army, Dracut, MS.
George A. Fernandez, 36, Army, El Paso, TX.
Christian D. Gurtner, 19, Marine Corps, Ohio City, OH.
Erik A. Halvorsen, 40, Army, Bennington, VT.
Scott Jamar, 32, Army, Granbury, TX.
Michael F. Pedersen, 26, Army, Flint, MI.
Eric A. Smith, 41, Army, n/a, CA.
Nathan D. White, 30, Navy, Mesa, AZ.
Chad E. Bales, 21, Marine Corps, Coahoma, TX.
Wilbert Davis, 40, Army, Hinesville, GA.
Mark A. Evnin, 21, Marine Corps, Burlington, VT.
Edward J. Korn, 31, Army, Savannah, GA.
Nino D. Livaudais, 23, Army, Ogden, UT.
Ryan P. Long, 21, Army, Seaford, DE.
Donald S. Oaks Jr., 20, Army, Erie, PA.
Randall S. Rehn, 36, Army, Longmont, CO.
Russell B. Rippetoe, 27, Army, Arvada, CO.
Todd J. Robbins, 33, Army, Pentwater, MI.
Tristan N. Aitken, 31, Army, State College, PA.
Wilfred D. Bellard, 20, Army, Lake Charles, LA.
Daniel Francis J. Cunningham, 33, Army, Lewiston, ME.
Travis A. Ford, 30, Marine Corps, Ogallala, NE.
Bernard G. Gooden, 22, Marine Corps, Mt. Vernon, NY.
Devon D. Jones, 19, Army, San Diego, CA.
Brian M. McPhillips, 25 Marine Corps, Pembroke, MA.
Duane R. Rios, 25, Marine Corps, Hammond, IN.
Benjamin W. Sammis, 29, Marine Corps, Rehobeth, MA.
Erik H. Silva, 22, Marine Corps, Chula Vista, CA.
Paul R. Smith, 33, Army, Tampa, FL.
Stevon A. Booker, 34, Army, Apollo, PA.
Larry K. Brown, 22, Army, Jackson, MS.
Edward Smith, 38, Marine Corps, Chicago, IL.
Gregory P. Huxley, Jr., 19, Army, Forestport, NY.
Kelley S. Prewitt, 24, Army, Birmingham, AL.
Andrew Julian Aviles, 18, Marine Corps, Palm Beach, FL.
Eric B. Das, 30, Air Force, Amarillo, TX.
Lincoln D. Hollinsaid, 27, Army, Malden, IL.
Jeffery J. Kaylor, 24, Army, Clifton, VA.
Jesus Martin Antonio Medellin, 21, Marine Corps, Fort
Worth, TX.
Anthony S. Miller, 19, Army, San Antonio, TX.
George A. Mitchell, 35, Army, Rawlings, MD.
William R. Watkins III, 37, Air Force Danville, VA.
Henry L. Brown, 22, Army, Natchez, MS.
Juuan Guadulupe Garza Jr., 20, Marine Corps, Temperance,
MI.
John W. Marshall, 50, Army, Los Angeles, CA.
Jason M. Meyer, 23, Army, Swartz Creek, MI.
Scott D. Sather, 29, Air Force, Clio, MI.
Robert A. Stever, 36, Army, Pendleton, OR.
Jeffrey E. Bohr Jr., 39, Marine Corps, Ossian, IA.
Terry W. Hemingway, 39, Army, Willingboro, NJ.
Riayan A. Tejeda, 26, Marine Corps, New York, NY.
Jesus A. Gonzalez, 22, Marine Corps, Indio, CA.
David E. Owens Jr., 20, Marine Corps, Winchester, VA.
Gil Mercado, 25, Army, Paterson, NJ.
John E. Brown, 21, Army, Troy, AL.
Thomas A. Foley III, 23, Army, Dresden, TN.
Armando A. Gonzalez, 25, Marine Corps, Hileah, FL.
Richard A. Goward, 32, Army, Midland, MI.
Joseph P. Mayek, 20, Army, Rock Springs, WY.
Jason David Mileo, 20, Marine Corps, Centreville, MD.
John T. Rivero, 23, Army, Tampa, FL.
Andrew T. Arnold, 30, Marine Corps, Spring, TX.
Roy R. Buckley, 24, Army, Merrillville, IN.
Robert W. Channell Jr., 36, Marine Corps, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Alan D. Lam, 19, Marine Corps, Snow Camp, NC.
Troy D. Jenkins, 25, Army, Ridgecrest, CA.
Osbaldo Orozco, 26, Army, Delano, CA.
Narson B. Sullivan, 21, Army, North Brunswick, NJ.
Joe J. Garza, 43, Army, Robtown, TX.
Jesse A. Givens, 34, Army, Springfiel, MO.
Sean C. Reynolds, 25, Army, East Lansing, MI.
Jason L. Deibler, 20, Army, Coeburn, VA.
Marlin T. Rockhold, 23, Army, Hamilton, OH.
Cedric E. Bruns, 22, Marine Corps, Vancouver, WA.
Richard P. Carl, 26, Army, King Hill, ID.
Hans N. Gukeisen, 31, Army, Lead, SD.
Brian K. Van Dusen, 39, Army, Columbus, OH.
Matthew R. Smith, 20, Marine Corps, Anderson, IN.
Jakub Henryk Kowalik, 21, Marine Corps, Schaumburg, IL.
Jose Franci Gonzalez Rodriguez, 19, Marine Corps, Norwalk,
CA.
Patrick Lee Griffin Jr., 31, Air Force, Elgin, SC.
Nicholas Brian Kleiboeker, 19, Marine Corps, Irvington, IL.
David T. Nutt, 22, Army, Blackshear, GA.
William L. Payne, 46, Army, Otsego, MI.
Douglas J. Marencoreyes, 28, Marine Corps, Chino, CA.
Rasheed Sahib, 22, Army, Brooklyn, NY.
Dominic R. Baragona, 42, Army, Niles, OH.
Andrew D. LaMont, 31, Marine Corps, Eureka, CA.
Jason W. Moore, 21, Marine Corps, San Marcos, CA.
Timothy L. Ryan, 30, Marine Corps, Aurora, IL.
Kirk A. Straseskie, 23, Marine Corps, Beaver Dam, WI.
Aaron D. White, 27, Marine Corps, Shawnee, OK.
Nathaniel A. Caldwell, 27, Army, Omaha, NE.
David Evans Jr., 18, Army, Buffalo, NY.
Keman L. Mitchell, 24, Army, Hillard, FL.
Kenneth A. Nalley, 19, Army, Hamburg, IA.
Brett J. Petriken, 30, Army, Flint, MI.
Mathew E. Schram, 36, Army, Sister Bay, WI.
Jeremiah D. Smith, 25, Army, Odessa, MO.
Thomas F. Broomhead, 34, Army, Cannon City, CO.
Michael B. Quinn, 37, Army, Tampa, FL.
Kenneth R. Bradley, 39, Army, Utica, MS.
Jose A. Perez III, 22, Army, San Diego, TX.
Michael T. Gleason, 25, Army, Warren, PA.
Kyle A. Griffin, 20, Army, Emerson, NJ.
Zachariah W. Long, 20, Army, Milton, PA.
Jonathan W. Lambert, 28, Marine Corps, Newsite, MS.
Atanacio Haromarin, 27, Army, Baldwin Park, CA.
Branden F. Oberleitner, 20, Army, Worthington, OH.
Doyle W. Bollinger, 21, Navy, Poteau, OK.
Travis L. Burkhardt, 26, Army, Edina, MO.
David Sisung, 21, Navy, Phoenix, AZ.
Jesse M. Halling, 19, Army, Indianapolis, IN.
Michael E. Dooley, 23, Army, Pulaski, VA.
Gavin L. Neighbor, 20, Army, Somerset, OH.
John K. Klinesmith Jr., 25, Army, Stockbridge, GA.
Andrew R. Pokorny, 30, Army, Naperville, IL.
Ryan R. Cox, 19, Marine Corps, Derby, KS.
Shawn D. Pahnke, 25, Army, Shelbyville, IN.
Joseph D. Suell, 24, Army, Lufkin, TX.
Robert L. Frantz, 19, Army, San Antonio, TX.
Michael L. Tosto, 24, Army, Apex, NC.
Michael R. Deuel, 21, Army, Nemo, SD.
William T. Latham, 29, Army, Kingman, AZ.
John T. Nakamura, 21, Army, Santa Fe Springs, CA.
Orenthial J. Smith, 21, Army, Allendale, SC.
Cedric L. Lennon, 32, Army, West Blocton, AL.
Andrew F. Chris, 25, Army, San Diego, CA.
Gregory E. MacDonald, 29, Marine Corps, Washington, DC.
Kevin C. Ott, 27, Army, Columbus, OH.
Gladimir Philippe, 37, Army, Linden, NJ.
Corey A. Hubbell, 20, Army, Urbana, IL.
Joshua McIntosh, 22, Navy, Kingman, AZ.
Richard P. Orengo, 32, Army, Toa Alta, PR.
Tomas Sotelo Jr., 20, Army, Houston, TX.
Timothy M. Conneway, 22, Army, Enterprise, AL.
Christopher D. Coffin, 51, Army, Bethlehem, PA.
Travis J. Bradachnall, 21, Marine Corps, Multnomah County,
OR.
Edward J. Herrgott, 20, Army, Shakopee, MN.
Corey L. Small, 20, Army, East Berlin, PA.
David B. Parson, 30, Army, Kannapolis, NC.
Jeffrey M. Wershow, 22, Army, Gainesville, FL.
Chad L. Keith, 21, Army, Batesville, IN.
Barry Sanford Sr., 46, Army, Aurora, CO.
Craig A. Boling, 38, Army, Elkhart, IN.
Robert L. McKinley, 23, Army, Kokomo, IN.
Dan H. Gabrielson, 39, Army, Spooner, WI.
Roger D. Rowe, 54, Army, Bon Aqua, TN.
Jason A. Tetrault, 20, Marine Corps, Moreno Valley, CA.
Melissa Valles, 26, Army, Eagle Pass, TX.
Christian C. Schulz, 20, Army, Colleyville, TX.
Joshua M. Neusche, 20, Army, Montreal, MO.
[[Page H1184]]
Paul J. Cassidy, 36, Army, Laingsburg, MI.
Michael T. Crockett, 27, Army, Soperton, GA.
Cory R. Geurin, 18, Marine Corps, Santee, CA.
Jaror C. Puello-Coronado, 36, Army, Pocono Summit, PA.
Ramon Reyes Torres, 29, Army, Caguas, PR.
David J. Moreno, 26, Navy, Gering, NV.
Mason Douglas Whetstone, 30, Army, Jacksonville, FL.
Joel L. Bertoldie, 20, Army, Independence, MO.
Jonathan D. Rozier, 25, Army, Katy, TX.
Justin W. Garvey, 23, Army, Townsend, MA.
Jason D. Jordan, 24, Army, Elba, AL.
David A. Scott, 51, Air Force, Union, OH.
Christopher R. Willoughby, 29, Army, Phenix, AL.
Mark A. Bibby, 25, Army, Watha, NC.
Jon P. Fettig, 30, Army, Dickinson, ND.
Joshua T. Byers, 29, Army, Sparks, NV.
Brett T. Christian, 27, Army, North Royalton, OH.
Evan Asa Ashcraft, 24, Army, West Hills, CA.
Raheen Tyson Heighter, 22, Army, Bay Shore, NY.
Hector R. Perez, 40, Army, Corpus Christi, TX.
Juan M. Serrano, 31, Army, Manati, PR.
Jonathan P. Barnes, 21, Army, Anderson, MO.
Jonathan M. Cheatham, 19, Army, Camden, AR.
Daniel K. Methvin, 22, Army, Belton, TX.
Wilfredo Perez Jr., 24, Army, Norwalk, CT.
Heath A. McMillin, 29, Army, Canandaigua, NY.
Nathaniel Hart Jr., 29, Army, Valdosta, GA.
William J. Maher, 35, Army, Yardley, PA.
Leif E. Nott, 24, Army, Cheyenne, WY.
Michael J. Deutsch, 21, Army, Dubuque, IA.
James I. Lambert III, 22, Army, Raleigh, NC.
Justin W. Hebert, 20, Army, Arlington, WA.
Farao K. Letufuga, 20, Army, Pago Pago, AS.
David L. Loyd, 44, Army, Jackson, TN.
Zeferino E. Colunga, 20, Army, Bellville, TX.
Kyle C. Gilbert, 20, Army, Brattleboro,VT.
Brian R. Hellerman, 35, Army, Freeport, MN.
Leonard D. Simmons, 33, Army, New Bern, NC.
Duane E. Longstreth, 19, Army, Tacoma, WA.
Matthew D. Bush, 20, Army, East Alton, IL.
Brandon Ramsey, 21, Army, Calumet City, IL.
Levi B. Kinchen, 21, Army, Tickfaw, LA.
Floyd G. Knighten Jr., 55, Army, Olla, LA.
David S. Perry, 36, Army, Bakersfield, CA.
Timothy R. Brown, 21, Army, Conway, PA.
Richard S. Eaton Jr., 37, Army, Guilford, CT.
Daniel R. Parker, 18, Army, Lake Elsinore, CA.
Taft V. Williams, 29, Army, New Orleans, LA.
Steven W. White, 29, Army, Lawton, OK.
Eric R. Hull, 23, Army, Uniontown, PA.
David M. Kirchhoff, 31, Army, Cedar Rapids, IA.
Craig S. Ivory, 26, Army, Port Matilda, PA.
Bobby C. Franklin, 38, Army, Mineral Bluff, GA.
Kenneth W. Harris Jr., 23, Army, Charlotte, TN.
Michael S. Adams, 20, Army, Spartanburg, SC.
Kylan A. Jones-Huffman, 31, Navy, Aptos, CA.
Vorn J. Mack, 19, Army, Orangeburg, SC.
Stephen M. Scott, 21, Army, Lawton, OK.
Ronald D. Allen Jr., 22, Army, Mitchell, IN.
Pablo Manzano, 19, Army, Heber, CA.
Darryl T. Dent, 21, Army, Washington, DC.
Gregory A. Belanger, 24, Army, Narragansett, RI.
Rafael L. Navea, 34, Army, Pittsburgh, PA.
Anthony L. Sherman, 43, Army, Pottstown, PA.
Mark A. Lawton, 41, Army, Hayden, CO.
Sean K. Cataudella, 28, Army, Tucson, AZ.
Charles T. Caldwell, 38, Army, North Providence, RI.
Joseph Camara, 40, Army, New Bedford, MA.
Cameron B. Sarno, 43, Army, Waipahu, HI.
Christopher A. Sisson, 20, Army, Oak Park, IL.
Bruce E. Brown, 32, Air Force, Coatopa, AL.
Jarrett B. Thompson, 27, Army, Dover, DE.
Ryan G. Carlock, 25, Army, Macomb, IL.
Joseph E. Robsky Jr., 31, Army, Elizaville, NY.
Henry Ybarra III, 32, Army, Austin, TX.
William M. Bennett, 35, Army, Seymour, TN.
Kevin N. Morehead, 33, Army, Little Rock, AR.
Trevor A. Blumberg, 22, Army, Canton, MI.
Kevin C. Kimmerly, 31, Army, North Creek, NY.
Alyssa R. Peterson, 27, Army, Flagstaff, AZ.
Richard Arraiga, 20, Army, Ganado, Tx.
Brian R. Faunce, 28, Army, Philadelphia, PA.
Anthony O. Thompson, 26, Army, Orangeburg, SC.
James C. Wright, 27, Army, Morgan, TX.
Lunsford B. Brown II, 27, Army, Creedmore, NC.
David T. Friedrich, 26, Army, Hammond, NY.
Frederick L. Miller, Jr., 27, Army, Hagerstown, In.
Paul J. Sturino, 21, Army, Rice Lake, WI.
Michael Andrade, 28, Army, Bristol, RI.
Robert L. Lucero, 34, Army, Casper, WY.
Robert E. Rooney, 43, Army, Nashua, NH.
Kyle G. Thomas, 23, Army, Topeka, KS.
Andrew Joseph Baddick, 26, Army, Jim Thorpe, PA.
Christopher E. Cutchall, 30, Army, McConnellsburg, PA.
Darrin K. Potter, 24, Army, Louisville, KY.
Dustin K. McGaugh, 20, Army, Derby, KS.
James D. Blankenbecler, 40, Army, Alexandria, VA.
Analaura Esparza Gutierrez, 21, Army, Houston, TX.
Simeon Hunte, 23, Army, Essex, NJ.
Tamarra J. Ramos, 24, Army, Quakertown, PA.
Charles M. Sims, 18, Army, Miami, FL.
James H. Pirtle, 27, Army, La Mesa, NM.
Spencer T. Karol, 20, Army, Woodruff, AZ.
Kerry D. Scott, 21, Army, Mount Vernon, WA.
Richard Torres, 25, Army, Clarksville, TN.
Joseph C. Norquist, 26, Army, Oakland, CA.
Sean A. Silva, 23, Army, Roseville, CA.
Christopher W. Swisher, 26, Army, Lincoln, NE.
James E. Powell, 26, Army, Radcliff, KY.
Jose Casanova, 23, Army, El Monte, CA.
Benjamin L. Freeman, 19, Army, Valdosta, GA.
Douglas J. Weismantle, 28, Army, Pittsburgh, PA.
Donald L. Wheeler, 22, Army, Concord, MI.
Stephen E. Wyatt, 19, Army, Kilgore, TX.
Kim S. Orlando, 43, Army, Nashville, TN.
Joseph P. Bellavia, 28, Army, Wakefield, MA.
Michael L. Williams, 46, Army, Buffalo, NY.
David R. Bernstein, 24, Army, Phoenixville, PA.
Sean R. Grilley, 24, Army, San Bernardino, CA.
John D. Hart, 20, Army, Bedford, MA.
Paul J. Johnson, 29, Army, Calumet, MI.
Paul J. Bueche, 19, Army, Daphne, AL.
John P. Johnson, 24, Army, Houston, TX.
Jason M. Ward, 25, Army, Tulsa, OK.
John R. Teal, 31, Army, Mechanicsville, VA.
Artimus D. Brassfield, 22, Army, Flint, MI.
Michael S. Hancock, 29, Army, Yreka, CA.
Jose L. Mora, 26, Army, Bell Gardens, CA.
Steven Acosta, 19, Army, Calexico, CA.
Rachel K. Bosveld, 19, Army, Waupun, WI.
Joseph R. Guerrera, 20, Army, Dunn, NC.
Jamie L. Huggins, 26, Army, Hume, MO.
Aubrey D. Bell, 33, Army, Tuskegee, AL.
Charles H. Buehring, 40, Army, Fayetteville, NC.
Jonathan I. Falaniko, 20, Army, Pago Pago, AS.
Algernon Adams, 36, Army, Aiken, SC.
Michael Paul Barrera, 26, Army, Von Ormy, TX.
Isaac Campoy, 21, Army, Douglas, AZ.
Todd J. Bryant, 23, Army, Riverside, CA.
Linda C. Jimenez, 39, Army, Brooklyn, NY.
Benjamin J. Colgan, 30, Army, Kent, WA.
Joshua C. Hurley, 24, Army, Clifton Forge, VA.
Maurice J. Johnson, 21, Army, Levittown, PA.
Daniel A. Bader, 28, Army, Colorado Springs, CO.
Ernest G. Bucklew, 33, Army, Enon Valley, PA.
Steven D. Conover, 21, Army, Wilmington, OH.
Anthony D. Dagostino, 20, Army, Waterbury, CT.
Darius T. Jennings, 22, Army, Cordova, SC.
Karina S. Lau, 20, Army, Livingston, CA.
Keelan L. Moss, 23, Army, Houston, TX.
Brian H. Penisten, 28, Army, Fort Wayne, IN.
Ross A. Pennanen, 36, Army, Shawnee, OK.
Joel Perez, 25, Army, Rio Grande, PR.
Brian D. Slavenas, 30, Army, Genoa, IL.
Bruce A. Smith, 41, Army, West Liberty, IA.
Frances M. Vega, 20, Army, Fort Buchanan, PR.
Paul A. Velazquez, 29, Army, San Diego, CA.
Joe N. Wilson, 30, Army, Crystal Springs, MS.
Rayshawn S. Johnson, 20, Army, Brooklyn, NY.
Robert T. Benson, 20, Army, Spokane, WA.
Francisco Martinez, 28, Army, Humacao, PR.
Jose A. Rivera, 34, Army, Bayamon, PR.
James A. Chance III, 25, Army, Kokomo, MO.
Paul F. Fisher, 39, Army, Cedar Rapids, IA.
James R. Wolf, 21, Army, Scottsbluff, NE.
Cornell W. Gilmore I, 45, Army, Baltimore, MD.
Kyran E. Kennedy, 43, Army, Boston, MA.
Morgan D. Kennon, 23, Army, Memphis, TN.
Paul M. Neff II, 30, Army, Fort Mill, SC.
Scott C. Rose, 30, Army, Fayetteville, NC.
Benedict J. Smith, 29, Army, Monroe City, MO.
Sharon T. Swartworth, 43, Army, n/a, VA.
Gary L. Collins, 32, Army, Hardin, TX.
Kurt R. Frosheiser, 22, Army, Des Moines, IA.
Mark D. Vasquez, 35, Army, Port Huron, MI.
[[Page H1185]]
Nicholas A. Tomko, 24, Army, Pittsburgh, PA.
Genaro Acosta, 26, Army, Fair Oaks, CA.
Marlon P. Jackson, 25, Army, Jersey City, NJ.
Nathan J. Bailey, 46, Army, Nashville, TN.
Robert A. Wise, 21, Army, Tallahassee, FL.
Joseph Minucci II, 23, Army, Richeyville, PA.
Irving Medina, 22, Army, Middletown, NY.
Michael D. Acklin II, 25, Army, Louisville, KY.
Ryan T. Baker, 24, Army, Brown Mills, NJ.
Kelly Bolor, 37, Army, Whittier, CA.
Jeremiah J. Digiovanni, 21, Army, Tylertown, MS.
William D. Dusenbery, 30, Army, Fairview Heights, IL.
Sheldon R. Hawk Eagle, 21, Army, Grand Forks, ND.
Jacob S. Fletcher, 28, Army, Bay Shore, NY.
Richard W. Hafer, 21, Army, Cross Lanes, WV.
Warren S. Hansen, 36, Army, Clintonville, WI.
Timothy L. Hayslett, 26, Army, Newville, PA.
Damian L. Heidelberg, 21, Army, Batesville, MS.
Erik C. Kesterson, 29, Army, Independence, OR.
Pierre E. Piche, 29, Army, Starksboro, VT.
John W. Russell, 26, Army, Portland, TX.
Scott A. Saboe, 33, Army, Willow Lake, SD.
John R. Sullivan, 26, Army, Countryside, IL.
Eugene A. Uhl III, 21, Army, Amherst, WI.
Joey D. Whitener, 19, Army, Nebo, NC.
Jeremy L. Wolfe, 27, Army, Menomenie, WI.
Alexander S. Coulter, 35, Army, Bristol, TN.
Nathan S. Dalley, 27, Army, Kaysville, UT.
Dale A. Panchot, 26, Army, Northome, MN.
James A. Shull, 32, Army, Kamiah, ID.
Joseph L. Lister, 22, Army, Pleasanton, KS.
Scott M. Tyrrell, 21, Army, Sterling, IL.
George A. Wood, 33, Army, New York, NY.
Gary B. Coleman, 24, Army, Pikeville, KY.
Damian S. Bushart, 22, Army, Waterford, MI.
Robert D. Roberts, 21, Army, Winter Park, FL.
Eddie E. Menyweather, 35, Army, Los Angeles, CA.
Christopher G. Nason, 39, Army, Los Angeles, CA.
Rel A. Ravago IV, 21, Army, Glendale, CA.
Darrell L. Smith, 28, Army, Otwell, IN.
Jerry L. Wilson, 45, Army, Thomson, GA.
David J. Goldberg, 20, Army, Layton, UT.
Thomas J. Sweet II, 23, Army, Bismarck, ND.
Ariel Rico, 25, Army, El Paso, TX.
Stephen A. Bertolino, 40, Army, Orange, CA.
Aaron J. Sissel, 22, Army, Tipton, IA.
Uday Singh, 21, Army, Lake Forest, IL.
Clarence E. Boone, 50, Army, Fort Worth, TX.
Raphael S. Davis, 24, Army, Tutwiler, MS.
Ryan C. Young, 21, Army, Corona, CA.
Arron R. Clark, 20, Army, Chico, CA.
Ray J. Hutchinson, 20, Army, League City, TX.
Joseph M. Blickenstaff, 23, Army, Corvallis, OR.
Steven H. Bridges, 33, Army, Tracy, CA.
Christopher J. Rivera Wesley, 26, Army, Portland, OR.
Jason G. Wright, 19, Army, Luzerne, MI.
Todd M. Bates, 20, Army, Bellaire, OH.
Richard A. Burdick, 24, Army, National City, CA.
Jerrick M. Petty, 25, Army, Idaho Falls, ID.
Aaron T. Reese, 31, Army, Reynoldsburg, OH.
Marshall L. Edgerton, 27, Army, Rocky Face, GA.
Jarrod W. Black, 26, Army, Peru, IN.
Jeffrey F. Braun, 19, Army, Stafford, CT.
Rian C. Ferguson, 22, Army, Taylors, SC.
Kimberly A. Voelz, 27, Army, Carlisle, PA.
Kenneth C. Souslin, 21, Army, Mansfield, OH.
Nathan W. Nakis, 19, Army, Corvallis, OR.
Christopher J. Holland, 26, Army, Brunswick, GA.
Glenn R. Allison, 24, Army, Pittsfield, MA.
Charles E. Bush, Jr., 43, Army, Buffalo, NY.
Stuart W. Moore, 21, Army, Livingston, TX.
Edward M. Saltz, 27, Army, Bigfork, MO.
Benjamin W. Biskie, 27, Army, Vermilion, OH.
Eric F. Cooke, 43, Army, Scottsdale, AZ.
Christopher F. Soelzer, 26, Army, Sturgis, SD.
Christopher J. Splinter, 43, Army, Platteville, WI.
Michael E. Yashinski, 24, Army, Monument, CO.
Thomas W. Christensen, 42, Army, Atlantic Mine, MI.
Stephen C. Hattamer, 43, Army, Gwinn, MI.
Charles G. Haight, 23, Army, Jacksonville, AL.
Michael G. Mihalakis, 18, Army, San Jose, CA.
Michael J. Sutter, 26, Army, Tinley Park, IL.
Ernesto M. Blanco, 28, Army, San Antonio, TX.
Rey D. Cuervo, 24, Army, Laguna Vista, TX.
Curt E. Jordan Jr., 25, Army, Green Acres, WA.
Justin W. Pollard, 21, Army, Foothill Ranch, CA.
Dennis A. Corral, 33, Army, Kearney, NE.
Solomon C. Bangayan, 24, Army, Jay, VT.
Kimberly N. Hampton, 27, Army, Easley, SC.
Eric T. Paliwoda, 28, Army, Goodyear, AZ.
Marc S. Seiden, 26, Army, Brigantine, NJ.
Luke P. Frist, 20, Army, West Lafayette, IN.
Jesse D. Mizener, 24, Army, Auburn, CA.
Craig Davis, 37, Army, Opelousas, LA.
Michael A. Diraimondo, 22, Army, Simi Valley, CA.
Christopher A. Golby, 26, Army, Johnstown, PA.
Gregory B. Hicks, Army, Duff, TN.
Nathaniel H. Johnson, 22, Army, Augusta, GA.
Philip A. Johnson, Jr., 31, Army, Mobile, AL.
Ian D. Manuel, 23, Army, Jacksonville, FL.
Jeffery C. Walker, 33, Army, Havre de Grace, MD.
Aaron A. Weaver, 32, Army, Inverness, FL.
Ricky L. Crockett, 37, Army, Broxton, GA.
Keicia M. Hines, 27, Army, Citrus Heights, CA.
Roland L. Castro, 26, Army, San Antonio, TX.
Cody J. Orr, 21, Army, Ruskin, FL.
Larry E. Polley Jr., 20, Army, Center, TX.
Edmond L. Randle, 26, Army, Miami, FL.
Kelly Hornbeck, 36, Army, Fort Worth, TX.
Gabriel T. Palacios, 22, Army, Lynn, MA.
James D. Parker, 20, Army, Bryan, TX.
Michael T. Blaise, 29, Army, Macon, MO.
Brian D. Hazelgrove, 29, Army, Fort Rucker, AL.
Jason K. Chappell, 22, Army, Hemet, CA.
Ervin Dervishi, 21, Army, Fort Worth, TX.
Kenneth W. Hendrickson, 41, Army, Bismarck, ND.
Randy S. Rosenberg, 23, Army, Berlin, NH.
Keith L. Smette, 25, Army, Fargo, ND.
William R. Sturges Jr., 24, Army, Spring Church, PA.
Adam G. Mooney, 28, Army, Cambridge, MD.
Matthew J. August, 28, Army, North Kingston, RI.
James T. Hoffman, 41, Army, Whitesburg, KY.
Luke S. James, 24, Army, Hooker, OK.
Lester O. Kinney, 27, Army, Zanesville, OH.
Travis A. Moothart, 23, Army, Brownsville, OR.
Cory R. Mracek, 26, Army, Hay Springs, NE.
Patrick Dorff, 32, Army, Buffalo, MN.
Sean G. Landrus, 31, Army, Thompson, OH.
Luis A. Moreno, 19, Army, New York, NY.
Juan C. Cabralbanuelos, 25, Army, Emporia, KS.
Holly J. McGeogh, 19, Army, Taylor, MI.
Eliu A. Miersandoval, 27, Army, San Clemente, CA.
Armando Soriano, 20, Army, Houston, TX.
Roger C. Turner Jr., 37, Army, Parkersburg, WV.
Seth J. Dvorin, 24, Army, East Brunswick, NJ.
Joshua L. Knowles, 23, Army, Sheffield, IA.
Richard P. Ramey, 27, Army, Canton, OH.
Thomas D. Robbins, 27, Army, Schenectady, NY.
Elijah Tai Wah Wong, 42, Army, Mesa, AZ.
Christopher Bunda, 29, Army, Bremerton, WA.
Jude C. Mariano, 39, Air Force, Vallejo, CA.
William C. Ramirez, 19, Army, Portland, OR.
Patrick S. Tainsh, 33, Army, Oceanside, CA.
Eric U. Ramirez, 31, Army, San Diego, CA.
Bryan N. Spry, 19, Army, Chestertown, MD.
Nichole M. Frye, 19, Army, Lena, WI.
Michael M. Merila, 23, Army, Sierra Vista, AZ.
Christopher M. Taylor, 25, Army, Daphne, AL.
Jeffrey C. Graham, 24, Army, Elizabethtown, KY.
Roger G. Ling, 20, Army, Douglaston, NY.
Henry A. Bacon, 45, Army, Wagram, NC.
Matthew C. Laskowski, 32, Army, Phoenix, AZ.
Stephen M. Wells, 29, Army, Egremont, MA.
Michael R. Woodliff, 22, Army, Port Charlotte, FL.
Michael J. Gray, 24, Navy, Richmond, VA.
Gussie M. Jones, 41, Army, El Paso, TX.
Matthew G. Milczark, 18, Marine Corps, Kettle River, MN.
Edward W. Brabazon, 20, Philadelphia, PA.
Richard S. Gottfried, 42, Lake Ozark, MO.
Bert Edward Hoyer, 23, Ellsworth, WI.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I just have to remind the distinguished minority leader that, in
fact, every troop who is in country now and every civil servant has
body armor in the fight, in the fight. Every frontline troop moving up
to Baghdad had body armor, and I would say further to the gentlewoman
that the Humvees, the jeeps that we have, have never been manufactured
with body armor until very recently to meet the new challenge of the
IEDs, and we are armoring them in rapid fashion, and many Members on
her side voted against the supplemental appropriation that provided
both body armor and armor for the Humvees.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman, Chairman of the
[[Page H1186]]
Committee on Armed Services, is respected by all of us here. I thank
him for his service to our country.
Would the gentleman inform the Members of this body when all of the
troops had the body armor? As of when?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, it was a frontline troop that moved into the
major assault, going up through, leaving Kuwait, last year starting on
this anniversary, moving up through Iraq.
Ms. PELOSI. Starting this anniversary?
Mr. HUNTER. Every frontline troop. That meant every troop that was in
the front line had both types of body armor; that is, the old type of
body armor and the new.
Ms. PELOSI. As of when? As of when?
Mr. HUNTER. Every one. When they moved across the line, every
frontline troop had it. Then what we did was we gave body armor over
the last several months not only to the troops that were the frontline
troops but every single troop.
Ms. PELOSI. As of when? As of when?
Mr. HUNTER. Every frontline troop had it when they moved across the
line.
Ms. PELOSI. But when did every troop have it? As of when?
Mr. HUNTER. When they moved across the line from Kuwait.
Ms. PELOSI. The gentleman knows that they only had it as a matter of
weeks, and they would not have had it without the gentleman from
Pennsylvania's (Mr. Murtha) help.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The Chair would observe the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, after this partisan debate, I want to open my
remarks by saying I agree with Bill Clinton who in December of 1988
said, ``There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and
deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace
of that region and the security of the world.'' I could not have put it
better myself.
Unfortunately, too many in the minority, faced with the harsh
realities of the war on terror, have not even tried to say it at all.
Too many seem to be in denial. Too many seem to prefer to ignore the
war on terror or choose to see it as ``far less of a military operation
and far more of a law enforcement operation.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental debate before us today. Are
we at war or are we not? Should the United States appease international
terrorists and pretend that they are a law enforcement problem or fight
them as the military threat that they are? Let us consider the records
of these competing positions.
First, the appeasement approach. Through the 1990s, the United States
and our allies were victimized by progressively deadlier and more
audacious terrorist attacks, and in accordance with the international
law enforcement strategies, our leaders did nothing. They passed U.N.
resolutions and they issued subpoenas and indictments. They wrung their
hands about root causes, and they tried to reduce the problem of
international terror to a dorm-room dialectic.
Meanwhile, as we listened to double-talk about constructive
engagement and cross-culture dialogues, they gutted the national
security and intelligence infrastructure of this Nation. They slashed
our military budget and surrendered national interests to the higher
authority of international institutions. And on September 11, 2001, on
September 11, 2001, we witnessed the tragic and the inevitable
consequences of the international law enforcement approach.
By contrast, America's foreign policy since 9/11 has been to wage war
on the terrorists before they wage war on us. In Afghanistan, in Iraq,
in the Philippines, in southeast Asia, everywhere in the world a
terrorist sticks his head out of a cave, there will we fight, fight the
terrorists, their networks, their allies, their financiers and, most
importantly, their state sponsors.
Enter Saddam. One year ago, Iraq was still enslaved, still ruled by
an unstable psychopath who started two regional wars, two regional wars
in just a decade, who possessed and used weapons of mass destruction
against his own people when he gassed the Kurds in 1988, who funded
international terrorism and provided terrorists a safe haven; a mass
murderer, sitting atop a nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons
program, a ticking bomb, a ticking time bomb, a nuclear 9/11 waiting to
happen.
So we violated the principle tenet of the international law
enforcement approach. We acted, and in less than a year, since Iraq's
liberation, a preliminary constitution, the most progressive of its
kind in the region, has been signed by its leaders. Elections will soon
be scheduled and the human right, the human right of self-determination
will be exercised by the Iraqi people.
Had we not acted, as our opponents wished, Iraq would still be
enslaved. Terrorists would still enjoy a strategic ally and a safe
haven and a financier in Baghdad, and we would still be fighting the
war on terror with U.N. resolutions and losing; but instead, Iraq is
free, America is safer, and the world has changed for the better.
Now, terrorists have no safe harbors in Afghanistan and Iraq nor
potential partners in Saddam Hussein or Moammar Qaddafi's weapons of
mass destruction programs. States once conflicted about terrorism, like
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and others are now vital allies in the war,
providing us with invaluable intelligence and assistance. And for all
these reasons, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the courageous policies that
set it in motion have won the most significant battle yet in the war on
terror, and yet appeasers who endorsed the law enforcement approach,
who did nothing to deter terrorism in the 1990s, had the audacity to
call the Bush doctrine and Operation Iraqi Freedom reckless.
Well, what would you have us do? Wait until Saddam proved that he had
nuclear weapons by detonating one in New York City? Wait like we waited
for al Qaeda to prove that they really meant business on September 11,
2001? A war raged and many people did not know it. A war raged for 8
years and our national policy on Iraq was regime change, which had
overwhelming bipartisan support and yet nothing was done. Six dead in
the World Trade Center bombing, 19 dead at Khobar Towers, 224 dead in
the African Embassy bombings, 17 sailors dead on the USS Cole, 3,000
dead on 9/11. And you speak to us about recklessness?
People are dying and the course of human history hangs by a thread,
and that thread, Mr. Speaker, is the moral courage of this Nation.
In the name of justice, vote yes on this resolution to affirm the
liberation of Iraq as a victory for all humanity over barbarism. In the
name of decency, vote yes to salute our brave and compassionate troops,
and in the name of freedom, vote yes to reaffirm that the citizens of
these United States of America will never abandon the cause of human
liberty, no matter how terrifying its enemies or tempting the
platitudes of appeasement.
Support the resolution and make our voices heard. No retreat, no
surrender, and no apologies. Victory, Mr. Speaker, only victory.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous
consent to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to associate myself
with the words of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and
salute the troops and emphasize that the world is not yet safe.
Mr. Speaker, every one of us in the House of Representatives supports
our troops. We are proud of their services for this Nation. However,
this is a complex issue. The War in Iraq has become costly and
contentious. The American people are concerned for the future of Iraq,
and for our own future. They deserve to hear that the House of
Representatives is engaging in a thoughtful discussion of the progress
and challenges before us in Iraq.
Unfortunately, on the one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq,
instead of looking objectively at the situation in Iraq and discussing
how we got there and how we could have
[[Page H1187]]
done things better, we are spending hours on the Floor just discussing
a partisan resolution that is just an opportunity for the leadership to
wave the flag and pat each other on the back. The American people and
our troops deserve a more thoughtful process.
The Republicans put out a resolution, with no input from the many
Members on our side with decades of experience on issues of diplomacy
and foreign policy. The resolution is deeply-flawed in its
incompleteness. It jumps out at me that there is no mention of the
words ``democracy'' or ``women'' or even ``freedom''. What are we
fighting for? What do we want out of this struggle? It used to be about
Weapons of Mass Destruction, but now we are hearing that there probably
have not been any banned weapons in Iraq in over a decade. It used to
be about 9/11; now even the President has admitted that there is no
connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Now it is about
``liberating'' the people of Iraq. That is what we lost almost 600 of
our sons and daughters for, and almost $200 billion--while thousands of
Iraqis and losing the respect and admiration of the world community.
But if liberation was the goal, why does the Republican resolution not
mention the principles we are fighting for, and the tremendous costs we
have incurred fighting for them?
Obviously, I feel the discussion this week should be taking a much
different course.
In a time when we are trying to encourage democracy in Iraq and
Afghanistan, we should not be hindering democracy in our own Congress.
I had three amendments that would have enhanced the underlying
resolution, drawing attention to some of the successes that have come
from the toils of our troops and the Iraqi Governing Council, and
pointed to directions where progress is needed.
The first amendment simply would have encouraged the Iraqi Governing
Council to enhance the role of women in the governing process. During
the transition from a brutal dictatorship to a true representative
democracy, it is critical that women are not left out of the mix. Great
strides are being made to provide opportunities for Iraqi women to take
leadership positions. That should be encouraged and reinforced. Instead
the subject is not mentioned in H. Res. 557. I believe the omission was
probably just an oversight that could have been easily corrected with a
quick amendment. Instead we are missing an opportunity because the
Republican leadership is not allowing amendments to their resolution.
Similarly, I was surprised to notice that the word ``democracy'' is
nowhere to be found in the underlying resolution. Isn't it the
principles of freedom and democracy that our soldiers are fighting for?
My second amendment would have added a sense of Congress that the Iraqi
Governing Council should continue on the path toward making Iraq a free
and just democracy.
My third amendment may have been more controversial, but I believe it
would have made the most important contribution. Our soldiers are now
risking their lives fighting for a cause that has been called into
question by our own experts and those from around the world. I didn't
vote to send our troops to War, but I understand that many who did
thought they were doing it to prevent a chemical, biological, or
nuclear weapon from being launched at the U.S. from one of Saddam
Hussein's alleged stockpiles of such WMDs. Now we are learning from Dr.
David Kay and others, that such stockpiles were probably not there when
War broke out. Other Members and some people in the American public
supported the War because they were told Iraq somehow helped cause 9/
11. Now, the President had told us that there is no reason to think
there was such a connection.
I agree that Saddam Hussein was a horrible man. A decade ago, he was
also dangerous to our allies in the region. But a decade of sanctions,
precision strikes by our brave pilots, and patrols of the no fly zone--
left him basically impotent. We need to find out why this
administration was telling us otherwise. It is the duty of Congress to
exercise our oversight of the executive branch, to immediately launch
full Congressional hearings to determine how our intelligence failed,
or how intelligence might have been misused or abused in the run-up to
war. We owe it to our soldiers and our future soldiers to prevent
future lapses.
Some may argue that ``Intelligence is never perfect.'' Misjudging the
size of a stockpile is, or thinking the missiles with anthrax are in
Baghdad when actually they are in Tikrit--that is an ``imperfection''
in intelligence. However, when our President, Secretary of Defense,
Director of the NSC, and Secretary of State are warning us of imminent
threats and mushroom clouds--when the U.N. weapons inspectors are on
the ground getting unprecedented access and can even bring senior Iraqi
scientists to the U.S. for questioning--When we go to war and kill tens
of thousands of Iraqis, and lose almost 600 of our own sons and
daughters, and billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars, and lose the
respect of the world community--that is not ``imperfection'' that is
just a fundamental breakdown of our system.
We cannot base our foreign policy on such flawed intelligence in the
future. It is up to Congress to find out what went wrong and start to
fix the problem. My amendment would have started the process by calling
for immediate hearings and a report to be produced by the end of the
year.
But, we could not even debate that possibility on the Floor. It does
not make sense. It is undemocratic. I would have liked to support the
underlying resolution, but its failure to be forthright, to admit the
need for more progress on the war on terrorism and the need for further
investigation of our nation's representation that Iraq had at the time
of the war, Weapons of Mass Destruction leaves me little choice but to
vote no on partisanship.
I did not think we needed to go to War last year, while U.N.
inspectors were making unprecedented progress in demonstrating that
Saddam Hussein had no WMDs. We could have waited, and focused on
terrorists like Al Queda and Osama bin Laden instead of broadening our
scope and getting distracted by Iraq. Now we have compromised our
military, compromised our budget, compromised our world standing, and
embarked on a mission that could leave us in more danger than we were
before.
As we look at the tragedy last week in Madrid, and then today with
the bombing of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, we see that there is
much work left to be done to make the world safer. It does not make
sense to embark on that mission only drawing on half of our
government's expertise. We need to work in a bipartisan fashion and in
support of our troops and for real peace in Iraq and around the world.
It would have been a symbolic first step to work together on today's
resolution.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Davis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I went to Austin with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) after the President was elected but
before he was inaugurated, and I sat at his table, and I said to him,
Mr. President, you do not have to worry about missile defense, you have
got to worry about terrorism and you have got to worry about nuclear
proliferation.
Then I came back, we went to committee, and under the leadership of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) we moved $1.4 billion out of
missile defense and put it into counterterrorism on September 11, 2001.
We could not finish our markup that day because of what happened. One
of the planes went down in my district. That was the start of the war
against terrorism because those passengers in that plane took a stand.
They got up and fought that plane to the ground. The plane was probably
coming towards the Capitol of the United States.
The reason that I am so upset about this resolution, not only because
they did not consult any of us, but because the terrorists worked with
a calendar and we work with a clock. This is going to be a long war. We
have been discredited worldwide with our intelligence.
I told the story before. When Dean Acheson, former Secretary of State
at the time, went to meet with President de Gaulle to show him the
evidence of the Cuban missiles in Cuba, and he offered to show him
photographs, he said, I do not need to see the photographs, I will take
the word of the President of the United States.
We have been discredited because our intelligence was faulty. I
believed there was weapons of mass destruction. I believed that there
was an al Qaeda connection. None of this has turned out to be true.
A constituent of mine said in pointing to me, he said, Never in
history have so many been misled by so few. I said, You mean me? He
said, I mean you, Mr. Murtha. He said to me, Before I voted on the
resolution and before we went to war, he told me, I have confidence in
your vote; I have confidence we should go to war and put our soldiers
in harm's way because I know you have the inside and you know the
truth.
Well, let me tell my colleagues, the preamble to this paper is what
makes me so upset. We are trying to justify what we did. Look, no
question about Saddam Hussein being a bad guy, but that is not why we
went to war. If we
[[Page H1188]]
took the preamble and we put that as a resolution, there would not have
been a resolution. When they ask me if you would have voted for this
resolution if you know what you know, I said there would not have been
a resolution because the resolution would not have come up because
there was no threat to our national course, national security.
{time} 1915
This is going to be a long war, and I am going to be right there. I
am going to be voting for something that means something. I am going to
be voting for the money, for the troops, for all the things they need.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and I stand shoulder to
shoulder. Only 16 people voted against our defense bill. I do not think
that many voted against the authorization bill of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
So we are for the defense of this country, but we should not mislead
the people. I have said over and over again, do not be overly
optimistic. This is going to be a long haul. And if we are overly
optimistic and we tell the American public and the international
community and they lose faiths in us, we cannot win this war on
terrorism. We have to have the support of the American public, which
has dropped dramatically. And if you tell them the cost, it drops below
50 percent. Internationally they do not support us because they do not
believe many of the things that we say now, and we have to have them if
we are going to win this war on terrorism.
So I would ask the Members to be careful with the charges that they
are making in this resolution. And I would hope the Members understand
that all of us support the troops. All of us want to do everything we
can; and when it comes to the money, we will be there. So I would ask
all the Members to vote for the recommital motion and let us make a
slight change in this resolution so that we can pass it overwhelmingly.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding me this time.
First of all, I want to say that I have the utmost respect for the
gentleman from Pennsylvania. He has been a leader in this Congress for
a long, long time; and I have seen him in action in the Middle East and
other places. He has the utmost concern for our men in uniform and
respect for them and compassion for them.
However, I have to take some difference in his conclusion; and I just
want to say that when we made that decision to move into, first of all,
Iraq, we all made decisions based on the information we had before us,
information that a previous President had, information that we had in
the Senate, information that we all looked at. It was the best
information that we could bring before us. I do not think anybody in
this Chamber or in this town tried to deceive anybody on that
information. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with him and say we
tried to make the best decisions for our men and women in this country
with the information that we had.
We still do not know where weapons of mass destruction are: if they
are buried, if they are in a lab someplace, or where they are. But we
know that the enemy at that time had the potential to make those
weapons; and for all we knew, they had those weapons.
So I rise today in support of this resolution, and I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. This resolution is
quite straightforward. My constituents back home would call it plain
talk. It is common sense. It commends the Iraqi people for adopting an
interim constitution. It commends our military for their brave efforts
in liberating Iraq. And it affirms to the world that the world is a
better place without Saddam Hussein in power. That is what it does.
It is hard to imagine that anyone in this Chamber could be against
it; yet some are. Politicians sometimes behave in strange ways in
election years. We all know that. And there are those who have vowed to
change our national leadership no matter what it takes. But the ``no
matter what it takes'' approach causes folks to do some foolish things,
to cast some foolish votes.
How can anyone vote against a resolution that commends our troops as
they fight a just war overseas? How can anyone defend a dictator who
used rape rooms as a matter of state policy? How can anyone forget the
400,000 victims in mass graves that had already been found in Iraq,
brutally murdered by the Hussein regime?
There has been a lot said in the press and even on this floor about
the victory of the Spanish Socialists in last Sunday's election in
Spain. Clearly, the Spanish people have a right to elect their own
government. But I hope that the terrorists do not draw the wrong
conclusion about that election. Europe should have learned a painful
lesson in the 1930s and should never return to a peace-through-
appeasement strategy. Our country, the United States of America, must
never adopt a policy of appeasement. We must never let terrorists take
encouragement from anything that we do on the battlefield or in this
Chamber.
We all must say with one voice that we were right to rid the world of
the murdering thug Saddam Hussein; that our troops did the right thing
to bring Uday and Qusay and all of Saddam's brutal henchmen to justice;
and that the long march to democracy that has started finally both in
Baghdad and Kabul is both inexorable and inevitable.
Today, with this resolution, we start the public trial of Saddam
Hussein. Let us never forget the pain that he caused countless Iraqis,
his neighbors, and even his so-called friends. Let us never forget the
threats that he posed to America and America's allies or his willful
disregard of the 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions. And
let us never say that this war was in any way unjust or illegitimate.
Every brave man and woman who sacrificed their lives, their limbs, or
their blood and sweat and tears to fight the Hussein regime did so for
a righteous and just cause. This is not like Vietnam. Vietnam is over.
This war we fight now is a war against terrorists. It is a war against
those who have attacked and killed Americans abroad and on our own
soil. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist of the worst kind.
Some of my colleagues might be looking for the shades of gray in this
debate, but I simply do not see the gray. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin
Laden are cut from the same cloth. They are both brutal killers. They
both hate America with every ounce of their being. And because we are
free, we want all people on Earth to be free. And they both must be
brought to justice. We have Hussein, and we will get bin Laden.
Take a stand against terrorism. Take a stand for our troops. And vote
for this important resolution.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, Halabja is alluded to in the resolution
before us. Because Halabja is where Saddam slaughtered some 5,000 Iraqi
Kurds with chemical weapons. The resolution appears to suggest that
this despicable act--this crime against humanity--provides some
justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
But the tragedy of Halabja occurred in March of 1988. And we did
nothing then. Because Saddam was our ally. And many of those currently
serving in the Bush Administration were key figures in that alliance.
They were fully aware of what happened in Halabja.
Our Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, was a special envoy to
Saddam. The Vice President, Dick Cheney, was Secretary of Defense for
the first President Bush. The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, served
as both National Security Advisor and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
The history of our relationship with Saddam is important so that we
do not repeat the errors of the 80s and 90s in today's war on terror.
Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, Iraq was removed from the terrorist
list. Full diplomatic relations were restored. Billions of dollars in
loan guarantees were provided to Saddam. The sale of dual-use
technology for weapons of mass destruction was approved--no wonder,
after the first Gulf War, that we found that Iraq had an advanced
nuclear weapons program. We gave them the tools to build it. We let
other countries supply U.S. military equipment. We even shared highly
sensitive satellite intelligence with Saddam's army. And even though we
knew Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iran, the U.S. prevented
the United Nations from condemning Iraq.
According to a Congressional Research Service report, which I will
insert into the Record, not only did we support Saddam, but
[[Page H1189]]
when the Congress tried to impose sanctions on Iraq for the use of
chemical weapons, the Reagan and Bush Administrations blocked those
efforts.
I fear now we are forging similar unholy alliances in our war on
terror. In Uzbekistan we are supporting a tyrant who, according to our
own State Department, heads an oppressive regime that has more than
5,000 political prisoners. In Turkmenistan, we are allied with another
Stalinist thug, by the name of Turkmenbashi, who has created a
personality cult that rivals Saddam's. He's renamed January after
himself, and the month of April after his mother.
So let us remember the lessons of Halabja. If we are going to speak
of democracy and liberty, let us practice it. If we are going to talk
about human rights, let us defend them. If we are sincere about the war
on terror, let us not ally ourselves with those illegitimate heads of
state who terrorize their own people. Let us keep what credibility we
have left.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my support for H. Res.
557.
As I have done since the beginning of this war, I continue to focus
my attention on the fine men and women of the Armed Forces that have
fought so valiantly in Iraq. In particular I am pleased to recognize
the contributions of the National Guard and Reserve.
The citizen soldiers of the Guard and Reserve left behind their
families and careers to serve their country. We must continue to
recognize those family members and employers who have also sacrificed
over the last year while their loved ones served in harm's way
thousands of miles away.
Today, three units from the Connecticut National Guard continue to
serve in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, while one unit has
returned and yet another prepares to deploy. I had the unique
opportunity to meet with many of these fine soldiers in theater during
my October trip to Iraq last year. Their morale and conviction for the
mission remain as strong today as it was when they deployed.
We must remember that work here in Congress remains to insure that
both active duty soldiers and our Guard and Reserve units continue to
get the support they need. We must continue to see an increase in the
flow of up-armored HMMWVs and up-armor kits and body armor to theater.
We must also make sure the troops know that the American people support
their efforts in securing a world free from the threat of terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I was not able to make the roll call vote for H. Res.
557, but had I been in attendance I ask that the Record reflect that I
would have voted ``yea,'' joining with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle in commending the members of the United States Armed Forces
and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq. I am grateful for their
valiant service.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I believe the
resolution before us only tells part of the story about our efforts in
Iraq. I will vote for this resolution because of my thanks to our brave
service personnel for their efforts and my hope for the creation of a
free and democratic Iraq, but I am deeply disappointed in the partisan
way that such an important resolution is being used to further divide
our country.
This resolution portrays the case that we went to Iraq solely based
on the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime. Americans were told that
Saddam Hussein presented a clear and immediate danger to the safety of
the United States, and our soldiers were told they were going to Iraq
to protect our country from a direct attack on our soil. We now know
that justification to be false, and I believe it is a disservice to our
soldiers who are risking their lives and our citizens if we do not
honestly address the failures in the use of intelligence.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who oppressed and murdered his
people. It is good that he is gone. The Iraqi people now have the
opportunity to create something they have never had: a free and stable
country. That is a goal that I fully support.
I am proud of our military personnel for performing above and beyond
the call of duty. They have demonstrated that they are the best
fighting force in the world, and we should show our gratitude for the
professionalism and skill with which they have carried out their
mission.
But that is not the whole story. This resolution fails to recognize
the great sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families,
or offer condolences to the over 540 families who have made the
ultimate sacrifice. This resolution offers no recognition of the
dedication shown by our citizen soldiers who have been asked to serve
in far greater and more dangerous capacity than many of them ever
imagined. We cannot afford to forget these sacrifices.
If we truly wish to honor our soldiers. I ask my colleagues to work
together in a bipartisan way to provide not just words, but actions. We
need to provide the proper support so that they may safely carry out
their mission, and we need to recognize that our responsibility to our
soldiers does not end when they take off the uniform. We need to
recognize that caring for the veterans of this country and the veterans
of this war is part of the cost of defending our Nation.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I support our courageous men and women in
uniform who are bearing the burden of this military action in Iraq. I
am deeply grateful for their patriotism, and their sacrifice.
Unfortunately, this resolution does not simply support our troops--it
is an endorsement of this President's policy of unilateral, preemptive
military action, and it makes the dubious assertion that the world
today is safer than it was before the Iraq war began.
Considering that the President's budget does not request a single
dollar for the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan or
provide the health care and benefits that our wounded servicemen and
women deserve when they come home, I find it deeply ironic that the
leadership of this House is so eager to offer a resolution praising our
troops but empty of material support.
I would have happily supported an honest and fair resolution
expressing support for our troops, but that is not what we are being
asked to vote on today. The fact is President Bush and the Republican
majority have not provided our troops in Iraq the body armor and
armored vehicles they need to be as safe as they can be. The
Administration has not explained its faulty ``intelligence'' to justify
the decision to go to war or its failure to plan adequately for the
post-war occupation of Iraq. The President clearly has not provided the
Congress with an accurate accounting for the costs of the ongoing
military operations in Iraq.
This resolution makes no mention of the more than 550 American
service men and women who have been killed, another 2,500 Americans
wounded, many grievously, or the thousands of Iraqis who have died
during this conflict. Nor does this resolution mention the more than
200 people killed just last week in Madrid, and those who have been
killed in numerous other terrorist attacks since the war began. It is
hypocritical and disingenuous for the sponsors of this resolution to
claim that the world is a safer place while ignoring the fact that
terrorist operations in response to our occupation of Iraq are
occurring with alarming frequency.
Mr. Speaker, like all of my colleagues, I am happy that Saddam
Hussein no longer has the power to abuse and slaughter his own people--
but unlike the claim made in this resolution, I do not believe that the
world is a safer, less dangerous place than it was twelve months ago.
Nor do I believe that we have provided our troops everything that they
need to do their job properly.
The resolution that we are voting on today is really just a reminder
of what the Bush Administration would like us to forget from the past
year--the hidden costs, the faulty intelligence, the failure to find
weapons of mass destruction, the false claims of links between al-Qaeda
and Saddam Hussein, and the rising number of dead and wounded--and I
cannot support it.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as it should be, military
service is being held in high esteem. What strikes me when I visit our
military bases and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, is the age of those
who have answered the call to duty throughout America's history. In
this war, as in those of our past, we send our young. They are the best
of the best. Their motto might well be, in the words of Alexander Pope,
``Act well your part, therein all honor lies.''
Spc. Jeffrey Wershow, a National Guardsman from Gainesville, Florida,
is a shining example of Pope's words. He was a patriotic young man with
passion and heart who left this world too early. His dreams included
law school and public service. Spc. Wershow wanted to change the world,
and he did.
I stand 100 percent behind our troops. All those who deserve our
appreciation, our respect, and our compassion. The brave men and women
in uniform who have volunteered to defend our country are in my
thoughts, and in my prayers. I pledge to work to ensure that they have
all the resources necessary to help them accomplish their mission
quickly and safely so that they can return home to their families.
I want to salute the 566 U.S. troops killed in the year that troops
have been in Iraq. Our Nation is humbled by their allegiance, service
and sacrifice. I pray that their families will find comfort and peace.
To date, 3,254 U.S. troops have been physically wounded. I wish them a
speedy recovery and happiness as they return to their family and
friends. An untold number of troops will not bear physical scars from
this war, but will struggle with their time in Iraq when they return
home. I pledge that I will not forget their service and will stand with
them when they come home to America. Thousands of Iraqi civilian
casualties have been reported. I want the Iraqi people to know that my
heart goes out to them during this difficult period.
[[Page H1190]]
May God bless our troops and may God continue to bless America.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 557,
``relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people and the valiant
service of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces.'' First
and foremost, I believe that it is important to take this time to honor
the men and women of our armed forces who have sacrificed under
difficult and dangerous conditions to make our military efforts
successful in Iraq. It is also important to recognize the sacrifices of
the families of our troops, friends, and those who employ the members
of our Guard and Reserve forces deployed overseas. Our appreciation
goes out to these individuals for their support during these
challenging times.
Last October I had the opportunity to visit with our military men and
women in Iraq and survey the operations of the U.S. reconstruction
mission to Iraq. I have never been more proud to be an American than
when I witnessed our troops fulfilling their mission in difficult and
dangerous circumstances. While we still have a long way to go in Iraq,
I saw many signs of progress in helping meet the basic needs of the
Iraqi people.
From Wisconsin alone there are over 1,460 members of the Air and Army
National Guard who are serving on active duty. This includes military
units activated from the Third Congressional District, which I
represent. Wisconsin's 229th Army National Guard Engineer Company from
Prairie Du Chien and Platteville, and 652nd Army Reserves Engineer
Company from Ellsworth are currently serving in Iraq.
We welcomed the members of Wisconsin's 829th Army National Guard
Engineer Detachment from Richland Center back home recently. We also
welcomed back members of Wisconsin's 1158th Army National Guard
Transportation Detachment from Black River Falls and Tomah, serving in
Fort Irwin, CA. In addition, the 128th Infantry Battalion headquartered
in Eau Claire was recently alerted for possible mobilization. The
people of western Wisconsin are proud of their service and the service
of all men and women of our armed forces during this important time in
our Nation's history. I also want to recognize the incredible work of
the people at Fort McCoy and Volk Field in western Wisconsin. They are
working countless hours to get our troops ready.
As the day pass, we must not forget those who have died in the
mission to liberate the people of Iraq. Over 540 American soldiers have
died while serving in Iraq. 2LT Jeremy Wolfe, MAJ Christopher Splinter,
and PFC Bert Hoyer from the Third District in Wisconsin, each paid the
ultimate sacrifice to give the people of Iraq the greatest gift of
all--their freedom. These young men exemplify all that is good and
decent about America. Their loss is tragic; their sacrifices should not
be forgotten.
I do, however, have reservations about certain language in this
resolution, in particular, the references to the world being safer with
the removal of Saddam Hussein. That subject is highly debatable. While
I agree that the Iraqi people are better off free from the tyrannical
rule of Saddam Hussein, the most critical threat to international
security is still at large and still very active. To this day, it is al
Qaeda, who remains the number one security threat and we must combat
that international threat with an international coalition.
It is al Qaeda that was directly responsible for the attacks on
September 11 and it is al Qaeda that is reconstituting itself as a
truly global terrorist threat. As we know now, Saddam Hussein's regime,
as ruthless as it was, did not possess an imminent threat against its
own neighbors, let alone against the United States. We still need a
thorough investigation of our intelligence failures so future
miscalculations, that change world opinion against us, are not
repeated.
As our military effort continues, I, and other Members of Congress
will work to ensure that our service men and women have all the
resources necessary to fulfill this continuing mission. My thoughts and
prayers are with those serving our country, as well as their families.
America is firmly behind our troops and we are all hoping to see them
home safe, secure and soon.
May God continue to bless these United States of America.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 577.
Under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people lived in
poverty and fear. During his 30-year reign of tyranny, he massacred
tens of thousands of his own people, some murdered for their religion,
some for their ethnicity.
On March 19, 2003, the United States and its Coalition partners
launched the first air strikes of Operation Iraqi Freedom. On the
evening of April 9, 2003, Iraqis danced and waved their country's flag
in central Baghdad as U.S. forces toppled a huge statue of Saddam
Hussein. In a matter of weeks, Hussein's decades-old regime was
dismantled and 25 million Iraqis were liberated from one of the world's
most brutal tyrannies.
Operation Iraqi Freedom was a military success, courageously executed
by American men and women in uniform. It was an operation of
unparalleled precision and speed, and was carried out in a way that
prevented widespread destruction of Iraq's infrastructure, lengthy
street-by-street fighting or a humanitarian crises. Food and medical
aid flowed into Iraq immediately after the troops, and there was no
``adventurism'' by Iraq's neighbors or other destabilizing action in
the region.
Coalition successes include delivering some 3.3 million metric tons
of food to Iraq; all 240 hospitals in Iraq and more than 1,200 clinics
are open with more then 90 percent of Iraq's 4.3 million children under
the age of 5 have been vaccinated against diseases including polio,
tetanus, diphtheria, measles and tuberculosis; two-thirds of potable
water production in Iraq has been restored, treating nearly 800 million
liters a day, benefiting 3.5 million people; electric power generation
has surpassed 4,400 megawatts of electricity in contrast to only 300
megawatts prior to the war; average crude oil production has reached
2.5 million barrels per day and since June 2003 oil sales have
generated more than $5 billion in revenue for Iraqi reconstruction.
One year later, Iraqis are engaged in the enormous challenge of
rebuilding their country after decades of neglect, and are working with
the Coalition toward the creation of a secure, stable, sovereign and
peaceful Iraq. To date, in nearly all major cities and most towns and
villages, Iraqi municipal councils have been forced, and for the first
time in more than a generation the Iraqi judiciary is fully
independent. More than 600 Iraqi judges preside over more than 500
courts that operate independently from the Iraqi Governing Council and
from the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Mr. Speaker, U.S. forces are handing the torch to the Iraqi people as
they take control of their own resources, form an army, build an
effective police force and develop a fair justice system. Thousands of
Iraqis now provide security for their fellow citizens, and Iraqi
security forces now account for more than half of all forces in Iraq.
Every day more and more Iraqis who know that a free Iraq will change
the world are stepping forward to ensure a more prosperous and free
Iraq. And Iraqis who once fearfully followed a fluid and unwritten law
now have the assurance of a fair and reliable bill of rights that
ensures equality for all.
Some skeptics continue to suggest that military action in Iraq was
wrong, that preemption is never the answer and that Iraqis would have
been better off left to the will of Saddam Hussein. Today, however,
Iraq has been freed from the grips of fear, a liberated people are
cultivating their resources and exploring their free lands, and the
world is also a safer place because of Saddam's removal.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 557.
A year ago this week a remarkably successful military campaign began
against Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship. As we honor the brave men
and women of our Armed Forces who waged this battle and the Iraqi
people who strive to establish a free and open society, we reflect on
the tremendous sacrifice they have made and on the hard work that
remains to be done.
We knew ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and introducing democracy
to Iraq was not going to be easy. During four trips to Iraq since
April, I have seen the strength and courage of our forces as they
worked alongside Iraqis rebuilding schools by day, and risking their
lives patrolling those same streets by night.
At the 1-year anniversary of military action, we extend our heartfelt
thanks to the men and women of our military who continue to sacrifice
in Iraq. We also honor the Iraqi people who, by signing an interim
constitution, have taken a bold step in the pursuit of freedom.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, while I am a staunch and unwavering supporter
of our Nation's troops, I must rise in opposition to this resolution.
One year ago, the United States invaded Iraq, a unilateralist strike
approved by Congress because President Bush told us that Saddam Hussein
had weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them.
The Bush administration, in fact, assured the country that we faced
imminent danger.
Today, we know that President Bush and his advisors made dozens--
perhaps hundreds--of misleading statements about the threat posed by
Iraq. Yet H. Res. 557 makes no reference to weapons of mass
destruction, the leading justification for our supposed `'preventive''
strike at Saddam Hussein, other than to mention the use of such weapons
some 16 years ago.
This is an attempt by the Republican Party to rewrite history and
avoid accountability for their false claims about the nature of the
Iraqi threat. Nobody from the Democratic side of the aisle was allowed
to provide input on the resolution.
[[Page H1191]]
Let us remember: CIA Director George Tenet has admitted that U.S.
intelligence never told the White House that Iraq posed an imminent
threat; former Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix has stated that
President Bush disregarded any evidence suggesting that Iraq lacked
weapons of mass destruction; even David Kay, the Bush administration's
hand-picked head of the U.S. post-war weapons inspection effort, has
stated that the Iraq war ``was not worth it'' and recognized that
weapons of mass destruction `'don't exist.''
But instead of taking responsibility for its repeated deception,
Republicans now want to avoid any accountability for this misguided war
by claiming to honor our troops.
More than 550 Americans have been killed in the Iraq war and
occupation, and thousands more wounded, yet the Bush administration and
the Republican congressional leadership refuse to admit that they were
wrong.
I call for a full accounting of the events leading up to the war in
Iraq. Until then, the American people cannot fully trust what their
President tells them--especially when it comes to life and death
decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of our armed forces, but stand
opposed to this resolution.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of
the United States forces in Iraq. I also salute the troops from 34
other nations who have also fought to liberate Iraq from the clutches
of tyranny and despotism.
Our armed forces have performed with the utmost skill and bravery.
They deserve our gratitude and support. They have not only been
warriors in the heat of the battle and in the fog of war, they have
also served as change agents, transforming upheaval into pace.
However, both time and the facts have proven that we were led into
war with the weapons of mass distortion. We have since learned that our
reasons for sending our troops to Iraq were based on faulty
intelligence.
Assumptions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were incorrect.
President Bush admits that the United States has no evidence linking
Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, despite the Administration's timing
conflating al-Qaeda-led terrorism and Saddam's regime.
Plans for rebuilding Iraq were woefully inadequate, and cost estimate
absurdly low. Rather than catalyzing Mideast peace, the region is again
awash in violence.
The Administration's arrogant dismissal of our allies' concerns has
made it all the more difficult to win their financial and military
support for post-war efforts.
One part of winning the war against terror is proving to the world
that America stands with freedom, champions the weak and aids the
righteous. We are failing in that effort.
The Administration has boasted that America, as well as the world, is
now safer because of the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Twenty-five
million Iraqis will attest to this. While the threat of Saddam Hussein
may be gone, al-Qaeda is still a clear and present danger. As recent
news headlines attest, the people of Spain are reeling from the
dastardly acts of this hydra-headed monster.
The war in Iraq and the intensified conflict in the Middle East has
increased anger at the United States, and people throughout the world
have lost faith in America's foreign policies.
America's foreign policies should be driven by human rights, justice
and equality--values that would decrease the threat to terrorism--and
not by corporate interests.
I agree with this resolution on two points: the Iraqi people have
been courageous and Saddam Hussein was a brutal and dangerous dictator.
A year ago, my constituents demanded answers to their many questions.
How much would a war with Iraq and subsequent occupation cost
taxpayers? How would this be paid for when the federal government is
running large deficits? Will it be worth it? How long will we be there?
All of these questions about Iraq remain unanswered.
I told them that there were no guarantees that we could replace the
current regime with a viable alternative that would bring stability and
peace to the region.
I hoped my grim predictions were wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I would never turn my back on our troops and our
commitments. Our Nation is at war. We do know that the sons and
daughters of all our many communities are engaged in the dangerous and
unpredictable duties that are carried by the Armed Forces in a time of
war. Our military, including overburdened national reservists, are
stretched thin and remain vulnerable to deadly attacks.
Mr. Speaker, Iraq was neither an immediate or imminent threat to the
security of the American people. Iraq's structural integrity did depend
on fear, violence, illicit oil revenue and the illegitimate authority
of one man and the party he led.
But was that enough to justify the more than 565 lost lives of
American soldiers and more than 2000 wounded that will have to return
to their communities where jobs are not available?
Post-war chaos and disorder in Iraq has proven to be just as
destructive to human life as the actual war.
I believe this resolution fails to point out that following the
devastation of World War II, the United States showed tremendous
leadership in the world as we created international institutions and a
framework of international law to prevent war and to sustain and
maintain peace.
We were the leaders in promoting a world where conflicts could be
resolved peacefully and cooperatively. While never perfect, this system
of international institutions has been remarkably effective.
I and many others around the world are shocked and dismayed by the
unilateral, confrontational approach that the Bush Administration has
taken in the world arena.
We must recognize the consequences in the world community of our
rejection of Kyoto, of the International Criminal Court, of the treaty
to ban land mines, and our own withdrawal from the ABM treaty.
We must be mindful about how our criticism of the UN and NATO are
heard throughout the world community.
We have to recognize that after 9-11, the world came together in
solidarity with our loss, working with us to find the perpetrators, to
break up Al Qaeda and to arrest its leaders.
It should have been abundantly clear that fighting terrorism and
protecting American security would require friends and allies;
cooperation, not confrontation.
Yet, the Adminatration instead engaged in a singled-minded drive to
achieve its Iraqi objectives at a deadly cost instead of developing a
policy to deal with Iraq by working with our allies, by working with
the world community.
Even if the Administration gets what they want this time, what is the
long term damage to our international relationships? How will it impact
our efforts to stop terrorism and protect the security of the American
people?
I am worried. The people that I represent are very anxious. My
colleague from Maine earlier circulated a dear colleague about this
resolution. I would like to emphasize the points he highlighted in his
Dear Colleague:
The Republican leadership has scheduled four hours of
debate today on H. Res. 577, regarding this resolution.
This amount of debate time allocated to this non-binding
resolution is equal to the amount the Republican leadership
allowed on the 2003 tax bill (one hour) and the Medicare bill
(three hours) combined.
Mr. Speaker, I believe all of Congress and all of America stand by
our troops, but we think it is absolutely incumbent upon this
Administration to answer our questions instead of debating a resolution
with sound and fury while signifying nothing.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
H. Res. 557. This resolution to mark the one year anniversary of the
United States led military invasion of Iraq is a partisan measure. The
brave men and women who continue to serve our Nation and fight for
democracy in Iraq deserve bipartisan cooperation and an alternative
resolution to the divisive proposal introduced today.
Back home in the fifth district of Missouri I have visited with
families of service men and women to hear their concerns about the
needs of our troops. Their message is clear: ``We want them home. In
the meantime, we want them safe.'' The Administration's budget proposes
$1.2 billion less than the amount requested by Veterans Affairs
Secretary Anthony Principi which the Veterans of Foreign Wars terms a
``disgraceful'' level of funding for veterans' healthcare. We must also
provide active service members with the equipment, training and
resources they need to protect our freedom and fight the war on
terrorism.
On the one year anniversary of our involvement in Iraq, we praise the
efforts and sacrifices of those who put their lives on the line for us
every day. Let our future actions on their behalf reflect that. This
resolution does not.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Res. 577. This
resolution claims to support our troops, yet it fails to even mention
the over 550 American service men and women who have died in this
conflict.
It also fails to even mention the weapons of mass destruction what
were supposedly the justification for this war with its terrible cost
in lives, dollars, and security.
And its claims that this war has made the world safer. In fact, the
war in Iraq and the Doctrine of Preemption have made the world a more
dangerous place. This is a terrible resolution. And it is a trap.
This resolution completely distorts and ignores the basis for this
war.
In the fall of 2002, the Bush Administration told us that Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction posed a grave and gathering danger to the
United States and that we therefore supposedly had to go to war.
This resolution does not even mention this.
[[Page H1192]]
Now, the Administration's own chief weapons inspector, David Kay, has
said that there are no large stockpiles of chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons. He said, ``We were almost all wrong.'' Why isn't this
cited in the resolution before us? Leaving out the weapons of mass
destruction argument represents yet another lie of omission.
In fact, the truth is, not everyone was wrong.
Mohammed El-Baradei and Dr. Hans Blix, the U.N. inspectors, raised
real doubts about the Administration's rush to war.
And 72 members of Congress voted for my amendment to the use of force
resolution that would have rejected the unnecessary rush to war and
instead strengthened our commitment to the United Nations inspections
process.
Last March, before the first shots in the war were fired, I
introduced a resolution disavowing the Doctrine of Preemption because I
believed that preemptive first strikes in the absence of a proven
imminent threat go against both American values and American interests.
We had choices. We had options. We did not have to go to war.
Now we are on the verge of commemorating a year of war led by a
President who is proud to claim his record as a war president. In that
year over 550 American service men and women have died and over 3000
have been wounded, along with literally untold numbers of Iraqi
civilians.
This Republican resolution blatantly and shamefully disregards this
fact.
Some of us remember them today and their families. We also hope and
pray for the safe and swift return of all our armed forces who are
still in harm's way. As the daughter of a retired military officer, I
know what we owe to these men and women.
We owe them and their families economic security. And we owe them our
best efforts to create a safer world.
Now I tried to offer an amendment to this misleading resolution that
said two things.
First of all, my amendment expressed our deep sorrow and regret for
all those who have been killed in this war and extending our support to
their families in this moment of terrible loss.
As I said, the resolution as written, never mentions the more than
550 Americans who have died. How insulting and insensitive.
Second, my amendment addressed the new world order--or disorder--that
has been created by this war.
It stated: The war in Iraq and the Doctrine of Preemption on which it
is based have undermined long-standing alliances; weakened the
effectiveness of the United Nations; cost hundreds of American and
unknown numbers of Iraqi lives and billions of dollars; and have made
the world a more dangerous rather than a safer place.
We are not voting on this amendment today because the Rules Committee
did not allow my amendment honoring the sacrifice of our troops or
offering the truth about the war.
Once again, true debate is being stifled. What a shame and a
disgrace!
Once again, this Administration and the Republican leadership are
attempting to deceive the American people.
We must call them on it and vote against this resolution which does
not mention those who have been killed.
It does not mention the weapons of mass destruction that supposedly
were the justification for the war itself.
And it does not accurately portray the fact that this war and the
Doctrine of Preemption on which it is based have made the world a more
dangerous, rather than a safer place.
Is that the world that we want to turn over to our children?
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res.
557, commemorating the 1 year anniversary of the liberation of the
Iraqi people.
In the past year, our soldiers, sailors, and airmen have performed
magnificently, first liberating an oppressed country and now
stabilizing peace and security. We could not be more proud of their
efforts and dedication, and we thank them and their families for their
commitment and sacrifices.
Solid progress has been made in the past year in reconstituting an
Iraqi civil society and public infrastructure--after nearly 30 years of
oppression under Saddam Hussein.
One sector I want to highlight is the work being done in improving
the education system for Iraq's children. This is a critical step in
giving them a viable, independent future, and it is necessary in order
to secure Iraq's place in the world as a prosperous and peaceful
country.
More children are attending school--currently 5.5 million are in
school. All universities and technical schools have been re-opened. The
curriculum now focuses on teaching reading, writing, and math--not
instilling fear of the government.
As far as the Iraqi people have come in the last year, we know there
is still more work to be done. Our troops and Iraqis still face threats
from terrorists who have no future in a peaceful and prosperous Iraq.
Some during this debate have questioned the wisdom of our decision in
liberating Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein as a threat to the
international community. Some have focused on what has gone wrong,
rather than on what has gone right. The recent terrorist attack in
Spain should drive home the point of why we must take the fight to the
terrorists--rather than waiting to fight with them here on our soil.
This is not a clash of cultures, peoples of religions--this is about
fanatic fundamentalists who despise their peaceful fellow countrymen
and believers.
The new central front on the war on terror is Iraq. In order to
defeat the fundamentalists, who love death and destruction more than
they love life, we must stay the course in Iraq and in other parts of
the globe where we and our allies work to defeat terrorism.
The war on terrorism is a global effort; it is a long-term effort.
Terrorists have many agendas and capabilities. Their supporters hide in
dark shadows and are elusive. But the one thing they have in common is
the desire to change our way of life.
America is strong in its resolve in fighting terrorism. We will
succeed, and we will continue to be patient, deliberate, and consistent
in defending our citizens and interests.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, it has been one year since the brave men and
women serving in the U.S. Armed Forces were ordered into Iraq. On a
daily basis, these brave servicemembers are displaying tremendous
patriotism and courage. They and their families have made enormous
sacrifices, many even the ultimate sacrifice, to serve our Nation.
I continue to strongly support our troops serving us in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and around the world. My own district has seen the loss of
four fallen heroes who gave their lives in defense of our Nation: Jorge
Casanova, Atanacio Haro Marin, Francisco Martinez Flores, and Kelly
Bolor. Many more from my district have been injured. One of my
constituents, Eugene Serrano, was part of the unit that captured Saddam
Hussein.
Last month, I hosted a ceremony in my district to honor these fallen
heroes and all of our Nation's veterans--those who have lost their
lives, those who have put their lives on the line, and those who
continue to risk their lives in order to defend our Nation.
We should honor our troops and our veterans. However, I cannot
support the particular resolution before us today.
I oppose this resolution not because of what it says, but because of
what it does not say. It fails to express sorrow and condolences to the
families of the more than 550 servicemembers that have died in Iraq,
over 415 of whom were killed after President Bush declared an end to
major combat in Iraq. It also lacks mention of the more than 3,500 who
have been wounded in Iraq.
Honoring our troops should go beyond mere words commending their
service. We should also eliminate disparities in pay between our active
duty military and the National Guard and reservists. Some reservist
families in my district are struggling to make ends meet while their
loved ones are serving our Nation abroad.
We should also provide the health care and benefits our wounded
service men and women earned when they come home. I've had the
privilege of visiting Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, DC, where
many of the wounded troops are receiving care upon returning from Iraq.
Some of these soldiers, many of who have little financial resources,
are facing substantial medical bills for injuries sustained during war.
We should also take steps to ensure that the families of fallen
soldiers have access to resources to cope with the loss of their loved
one. This includes adequate funds for bereavement costs and translators
for military personnel who visit families of fallen heroes whose first
language is not English. When military personnel arrived at the home of
one of the fallen service members from my district, his parents, like
all parents in the same situation, feared the worst. Unfortunately, the
parents were unable to fully understand why the uniformed military
members were visiting them because they did not speak English. They
feared for their son's condition. Language and cultural differences
should be acknowledged and addressed, especially when families are
hearing news that they have lost a loved one.
Finally, this resolution ignores the important steps that must be
taken to lay the foundation for a stable and secure Iraq. We should
immediately remedy the deficiencies in the intelligence on which our
troops rely and assemble a true international coalition so that the
United States does not have to consume all of the costs and nearly all
of the casualties. Doing so will help secure the region and bring our
troops safely home.
Today, we had an opportunity to truly honor our troops with words and
action. Unfortunately, this resolution accomplishes nothing more than
dividing us at a time when we should be united.
[[Page H1193]]
I continue to support our troops. I want to extend sincere gratitude
to them and their families for their extraordinary sacrifices.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
concerns about the process by which H. Res. 557 has been considered in
the House.
Once again, a small group in the House--the majority party on the
Rules Committee--has prevented a full and fair debate. Last night, I
submitted an amendment to the Committee for consideration. The first
part of my amendment would have struck the language in the resolution
claiming that the Iraq war has made the world safer, replacing it with
language about the deplorable and brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. The
second part would have added a fifth clause to the resolution,
commending the members of the Reserve and National Guard and their
families for their dedication and sacrifice, given the extraordinary
number of such members called to active duty and their length of
deployment in Iraq. Unfortunately, not only was my amendment not made
in order, but no amendments at all were made in order. In fact, the
minority does not even have the right to recommit this resolution with
instructions.
Let me be clear that there is no doubt that the world is better off
without Saddam Hussein and his horrible regime. But to put forth a
resolution stating that the world is safer because of the U.S. invasion
into Iraq, while claiming it ``should be'' bipartisan, is purely
partisan politics. I am shocked at the audacity of the Republican
leadership to force an up or down vote on a resolution with a clause
justifying the war in Iraq, bundled with provisions that every member
of this House supports--commending the Iraqis for their courage,
commending the adoption of an interim constitution, and supporting U.S.
and Coalition forces for their bravery. My amendment would have truly
made this resolution something members on both sides of the aisle could
support.
I also share the concerns of many of my colleagues that this
resolution does not acknowledge many of the questions surrounding the
justification that the Administration used for going to war in Iraq.
First, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Second, CIA
Director Tenet has stated that he never said the threat coming from
Iraq was imminent, a claim that President Bush repeatedly made to the
American people. Third, the Administration's alleged ties between Al
Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime have yet to be proven. In my view,
these discrepancies are the reason why the Republican leadership has
decided to take up this resolution. I think that they believe if they
can get the House to agree that the world is safer because of the U.S.
invasion into Iraq, the war is justified. But I disagree wholeheartedly
with this flawed logic.
We should be spending our time talking about how to make our country
and world safer. We should be talking about the security of our
borders, of cargo, of our critical infrastructure. We should be talking
about truly supporting our troops by making sure they are taken care of
when they return to the U.S.--ensuring that they don't have to wait for
six months to get an appointment at the VA; ensuring that the veterans
who fought before them get the benefits they were promised; ensuring
that their loved ones will be taken care of when they pass on. We
should be talking about how to help the Reservists and members of the
National Guard who have been called to serve longer then they ever
envisioned, whose families need help paying the bills while the
soldiers are gone.
I have been moved by the bravery of the troops that have been
deployed from my district in New Mexico. They include the 52nd Engineer
Combat Battalion's Charlie Battery, the New Mexico National Guard's
1115th Transportation Company, a group of soldiers from the New Mexico
National Guard 3631st Maintenance Company, thousands of reservists, and
countless active duty. I will continue working in Congress to help
their families while they are gone and to help them with the transition
when they return.
Let's pass a resolution commending the bravery of our troops and
coalition forces, thanking their families, commending the Iraqis for
their courage in the face of a brutal regime and war, commending the
adoption of an interim constitution in Iraq--but let's allow for a full
debate and do it in a way that does not divide us. A resolution on the
one-year anniversary of the beginning of the war should not be used for
political purposes. Our armed forces, including the Reservists and
National Guard members I sought to commend, as well as the Iraqi
people, deserve better.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 557. I do so
obviously not because I oppose praising our armed forces, but because
our policy in the Persian Gulf is seriously flawed and an effort to
commend our forces should not be used to rubber-stamp a policy of
folly. To do so is disingenuous. Though this resolution may yield
political benefits to those who are offering it, it will prove to be
historically inaccurate. Justifying pre-emption is not the answer to
avoiding appeasement.
Very few wars are necessary. Very few wars are good and just,
including this one. In reality, most wars are costly beyond measure in
life and limb and economic hardship, including this one. There have
been 566 deaths, 10,000 casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars
for a ``victory'' that remains elusive. Rather than bragging of victory
we should recognize that the war that rages on has intensified and
spread, leaving our allies and our own people less safe.
Denying that we are interested in oil and that occupying an Islamic
country is not an affront to the sensitivities of most Arabs and
Muslims is foolhardy. Reasserting U.N. Security Council resolutions as
the justification for war further emphasizes our sacrifice of
sovereignty and Congress's reneging on its Constitutional
responsibility on war.
This resolution seems to forget that for too long we were staunch
military and economic allies of Saddam Hussein. This in itself only
demonstrates the folly of our policy of foreign meddling over many
decades from the days of the U.S. installing the Shah of Iran to the
current world-wide spread of hostilities and hatred, our unnecessary
intervention abroad shows so clearly how unintended consequences come
back to haunt generation after generation.
Someday our leaders ought to ask why Switzerland, Sweden, Canada,
Mexico and many other nations are not potential targets of an attack by
Islamic extremists.
Falsely claiming that al-Qaeda was aligned with Saddam Hussein and
using this as a rallying cry to war has now resulted in al-Qaeda
actually having a strong presence and influence in Iraq. Falsely
claiming that Iraq had a supply of weapons of mass destruction has
resulted in a dramatic loss of U.S. credibility, as anti-Americanism
spreads around the world. As a result of this, al-Qaeda recruitment
sadly has been dramatically boosted.
That Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator was never in question, so
reaffirming it here is unnecessary. What we must keep in mind, however,
is that Saddam Hussein was attacking his own people and making war on
Iran when he was essentially an ally of the United States--to the point
where the U.S. Government assisted him in his war on Iran. This support
is made all the more clear when viewing recently-declassified State
Department cables in the days after Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Iraq as
a U.S. envoy in 1983. Here are two such examples:
(1) United States Embassy in the United Kingdom Cable from Charles H.
Price II to the Department of State. ``Rumsfeld One-on-One Meeting with
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister,'' December 21, 1983.
Presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld and Tariq Aziz meet for
two and one-half hours and agree that ``the U.S. and Iraq
shared many common interests,'' including peace in the
Persian Gulf, the desire to diminish the influence of Iran
and Syria, and support for reintegrating Egypt, isolated
since its unilateral peace with Israel, into the Arab world.
Rumsfeld comments on Iraq's oil exports, suggests alternative
pipeline facilities, and discusses opposition to
international terrorism and support for a fair Arab-Israeli
peace. He and Aziz discuss the Iran-Iraq war ``in detail.''
Rumsfeld says that the administration wants an end to the
war, and offers ``our willingness to do more.'' He mentions
chemical weapons, possible escalation of fighting in the
Gulf, and human rights as impediments to the U.S.
government's desire to do more to help Iraq, then shifts the
conversation to U.S. opposition to Syria's role in Lebanon.
(2) Department of State, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Near
Eastern and South Asian Affairs Action Memorandum from Richard W.
Murphy to Lawrence S. Eagleburger. ``EXIM [Export-Import] Bank
Financing for Iraq'' [Includes Letter From Lawrence S. Eagleburger to
William Draper, Dated December 24, 1983], December 22, 1983.
Pursuant to the Reagan administration's policy of
increasing support for Iraq, the State Department advises
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence
Eagleburger to urge the U.S. Export-Import
[[Page H1194]]
Bank to provide Iraq with financial credits. Eagleburger
signs a letter to Eximbank saying that since Saddam Hussein
had complied with U.S. requests, and announced the end of all
aid to the principal terrorist group of concern to the U.S.,
and expelled its leader (Abu Nidal), ``The terrorism issue,
therefore, should no longer be an impediment to EXIM
financing for U.S. sales to Iraq.'' The financing is to
signal U.S. belief in Iraq's future economic viability,
secure a foothold in the potentially large Iraqi market, and
``go far to show our support for Iraq in a practical, neutral
context.''
This resolution praises the new constitution for Iraq, written by
U.S. experts and appointees. No one stops to consider the folly of the
U.S. and the West believing they can write a constitution for a country
with a completely different political and social history than ours. The
constitution that the occupying forces have come up with is unworkable
and absurd. It also will saddle the Iraqi people with an enormous and
socialist-oriented government. In this, we are doing the Iraqi people
no favor.
Article 14 of the new constitution grants the Iraqi people the
``right'' to ``security, education, health care, and social security,''
and affirms that `` the Iraqi state . . . shall strive to provide
prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.'' This sounds
more like the constitution of the old USSR than that of a free and
market-oriented society.
Further, this constitution declares that Iraqi citizens ``shall not
be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms'' except by special
license--denying the right of self defense to the Iraqi people just as
their security situation continues to deteriorate. The Iraqi
constitution also sets up a quota system for the Iraqi electoral
system, stating that women should ``constitute no less than one-quarter
of the members of the National Assembly.'' Is this kind of social
engineering in Iraq on very left-liberal lines really appropriate? Are
we doing the Iraqi people any favors with this approach?
We all praise our troops and support them. Had this bill merely done
that I would have been an enthusiastic supporter. But in politicizing
the issue rather than simply praising the armed forces, I regret that I
cannot support it. Challenging one's patriotism for not supporting this
resolution and our policy in the Persian Gulf, however, is not
appropriate.
We should all be cautious in endorsing and financing a policy that
unfortunately expands the war rather than ending it. That, sadly, is
what this legislation does.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our troops and
the work of our armed forces in Iraq. About a year ago, our troops
embarked on a mission to liberate the people of Iraq and end the threat
posed by Saddam Hussein.
Looking back on the year, it is important that we remind ourselves of
the nature of the threat against the United States, the Middle East,
and the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein was nothing short of evil. He
threatened his neighbors through war and invasion. He threatened his
people through rape, torture, and intimidation. He threatened the
United States through years of nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons development. Thanks to the brave efforts of the American armed
forces and our Coalition allies, we are now safer. Terrorists still
prowl the earth but one of their protectors and one who wanted to add
WMD to terrorism is finished.
The mission has not been easy. These are attacks by terrorist and
Baathist forces who remain determined to undermine the United States,
the war on terror, and democracy in Iraq. Our troops, however, are
equally determined to root out and destroy these forces. Despite news
reports and a constant barrage of negative commentary on our mission's
success, American military personnel have routed the main Iraqi forces,
rounded up countless rebels, and restored much of Iraq's long neglected
infrastructure.
I had the opportunity and honor to visit our troops in Iraq in
January. I visited with a number of troops from my district and the
State of Indiana. Among these troops and among troops in general, I saw
no signs of the low spirits that some media reports say are plaguing
troops. The troops I met complained about the food, sand fleas and
weather conditions, but felt their service is worthwhile.
None of Iraq's rehabilitation and reconstruction would have been
possible without the hard work of American and Allied troops, including
the thousands of National Guardsmen and Reservists who put their
civilian lives on hold to serve their country. Our military relies
increasingly on National Guard and Reserve units to supplement regular
army deployments, and the liberation of Iraq was no exception. During
this war, members of the 1-293rd Army National Guard Infantry unit and
the 122nd Air National Guard Fighter Wing from the Third District of
Indiana served our nation and kept us secure.
I rise support of this resolution because I think the worst thing
would be for our troops to think there isn't support for them or their
mission in the United States. This resolution sends a message to our
troops that we support them. The U.S. mission was and remains
justified. Our troops were and remain the key to this mission's
success. I will continue to support the American troops in the field
and those who have returned from their duty.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
resolution. We ought to be honoring those who gave their lives, their
limbs and sacrificed their futures for our country. So far, 565 service
members have lost their lives, more than 3,000 have been wounded--many
losing limbs--and now we are seeing American civilians becoming
targets.
Instead, we are here today making hollow political pronouncements
that the war was right and just and that somehow our Nation and our
world are more secure. Unfortunately, the opposite appears to be true.
Americans are less safe and the world is more dangerous--precisely
because of the Bush policy in Iraq.
On this anniversary of the war we ought to include in this resolution
the names of the heroes who gave their lives. We ought to be honoring
and commending these brave Americans for what they have given and
sacrificed along with the troops who continue to serve valiantly. But,
the Bush administration doesn't want to talk about--or expose--the 565
Americans who've been killed and the 3,254 wounded.
The omission of this remembrance demonstrates that President Bush and
his Administration are good at taking credit, but terrible at accepting
responsibility.
We've seen in the past few weeks the President cloaking himself in
September 11th. He's put images of ground zero in his campaign ads. I
wouldn't be surprised if he didn't go so far as to give his acceptance
speech for the Republican presidential nomination at that very site as
the entire Republican Party politicizes September 11th at their
upcoming convention.
Yet, President Bush won't attend any funerals or memorial services
for soldiers killed in action in Iraq.
In fact, he's prohibited access to Dover Air Force Base to the media
altogether. The Department of Defense has broken a long tradition by
prohibiting arrival ceremonies because the images of these casualties
are an embarrassment to President Bush.
The President knows that American troops were sent to Iraq ill
prepared and without enough equipment to keep them safe. Soldiers face
daily threats there. They don't have sufficient body armor or armored
vehicles as rocket propelled grenades and roadside bombs take lives and
limbs.
The President knows the troops wouldn't be there in the first place
if he hadn't misled the American people. We now know--far too late--
that the intelligence community never told the President or senior
administration officials that Iraq posed an imminent threat or that it
had weapons of mass destruction. Yet, President Bush continually
referred to Iraq as an ``urgent,'' ``mortal'' and ``immediate'' threat
in making his case for war.
The President knows his mind was already made up to go to war. Today,
he should know the world is not a safer place as a result, especially
for our troops. I will not support a resolution that falsely makes any
such claim.
While senior defense officials have told Congress that we will run
out of money and need another $19 billion in September, the President's
Budget does not include a single penny of this spending. He simply
refuses to give the American public the plain facts.
America and our security would benefit from a new approach to foreign
policy. Imagine a President who embraces global cooperation, respects
international law and institutions and promotes political and economic
freedom and human rights around the globe. Imagine America exercising
responsible leadership that reflects our priorities and capable of
partnerships that make our world safer.
This would be a fitting tribute to those who gave their lives in
Iraq. We should work for what these servicemen and women believed they
could achieve: a more secure future for America and stronger, more
peaceful world. That's the resolution I wish we were here considering
today instead of this overblown rhetoric attempting to justify a failed
Presidential agenda.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our men and
women in uniform. I cannot however, in full confidence, rise in support
of statements that the world is a safer place for the removal of Saddam
Hussein from power. The human and financial costs of war are colossal.
This action has been no exception. With the details of the tragic
bombing of a hotel in Baghdad still developing as we debate this
resolution, we are once again reminded of the horrors of war--and the
long road ahead. Based on today's events, and the recent bombing in
Spain, how can the authors of this resolution say that we are safer?
No one has borne the costs of this military action more than our
soldiers and their families. No one understands these sacrifices
[[Page H1195]]
greater than the spouses and children of soldiers who spend month after
month, deployment after deployment, in far away lands. No one
understands sacrifices greater than the soldiers themselves who
volunteer their time, but must sometimes pay with their health, their
jobs, or even their lives.
All of us in this Congress want to honor these men and women in
uniform. I am sure that we all want to minimize their hardships and
that of their families. A bipartisan piece of legislation that I
recently introduced, H.R. 3779, the Safeguarding Schoolchildren of
Deployed Soldiers Act, would seek to bring us one step closer to this
goal. At a time when Reservists and members of the National Guard are
being used at unprecedented levels, many of them are experiencing new
problems when they leave home.
According to the Department of Defense, there are currently 1.2
million children with military parents in the United States. This
number is only slightly less than the total number of adults currently
serving in the Armed Forces.
I learned firsthand how deployments can cause significant upheaval in
a child's life when the brother of a deployed soldier recently
contacted my office. He explained that his niece had moved to live with
her mother while her father was away fighting in Iraq. As a result, she
was prevented from attending her normal high school because she no
longer resided within the school district.
The Safeguarding Schoolchildren of Deployed Soldiers Act would ensure
some measure of continuity for children who change residence as a
result of their parent's military service by allowing them to continue
to receive an education at their schools, even if they are temporarily
residing outside the school district.
While I will vote yes on today's resolution, Mr. Speaker, make no
mistake that it is a vote of support for our troops and their families;
troops such as Sgt. Christopher Kreiger from the 105th Military Police
Company, who was informed this week that his unit's tour of duty has
been extended indefinitely. It is my hope that he will come home
quickly and safely to see his one-year-old daughter for the first time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, on this very day 8 months ago, Prime
Minister Tony Blair stood in this chamber and addressed a joint session
of Congress. He said, ``The spread of freedom is the best security for
the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack.
``And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we
have to unify around an idea. And that idea is liberty.
``We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion
to make it universal. Abraham Lincoln said, `Those that deny freedom to
others deserve it not for themselves.' ''
Mr. Speaker, for over 2 decades Saddam Hussein denied freedom and
liberty to the Iraqi people. He killed Kurds because of their
ethnicity. He killed Shiites because of their religion. He killed
Sunnis for their political views. And he even killed Egyptians,
Kuwaitis, and Iranians because their lives meant nothing to him or his
evil regime.
Today, Saddam's regime is no more. Overthrown in May and pulled from
a spider hole in December, Saddam is now in jail.
America and its great military--made up of men and women from all
branches of our Armed Forces including our resilient National Guard and
reserves--recognized that our security and freedom was under direct
threat from Saddam Hussein.
With the strength of an international coalition, America took
decisive action and set out on a clear mission: to defend America.
Nearly one year later we are seeing the fruits of our work take hold.
Operation Iraqi Freedom has delivered hope and optimism to the well-
educated people of Iraq. Today, 25 million Iraqis are free from the
grip of Saddam's oppressive regime.
Our operation and responsibility in Iraq, however, did not end with a
quick and decisive military victory. Finishing the fight and removing
Saddam did not mean we finished the job.
We pledged to see a new Iraq government grow into a model for
democracy and freedom in the Middle East. We must stay until the job is
done because America's security still depends upon it.
Terrorism cannot be defeated unless we bring civility to Iraq. With
assistance from our coalition, the Iraqi people have taken the first
steps toward controlling their own destiny. Schools, medical clinics
and hospitals have been reopened. An army and more effective police
force have been rebuilt. A fair judicial system has been constituted.
And a foundation has been laid for democratic elections.
An interim constitution has been signed. Every Iraqi--no matter their
gender, religion or ethnic origin--today has the guarantee of basic
freedoms, rights and protections under law.
I wish every member of this House could have taken the trip I took to
Iraq last year. Led by Chairman Jerry Lewis, we traveled from Baghdad
to Mosul to Al Hillah to witness the incredible work of our brave young
men and women in uniform. We thanked them for their service to our
country and let them know how grateful America was for job they were
doing protecting our freedom and bringing democracy to Iraq.
To see our mission up-close and through the lens of our soldiers gave
me great hope that one day Iraq will be a country of great promise and
able to demonstrate strong leadership in the region.
On the first anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom let us honor
every service man and woman who is making our country safer and more
secure. And let us remember all those who have sacrificed and fallen
while defending our freedom. We mourn the loss of very American soldier
and pray for the early recovery of our wounded.
Today, America's courage remains firm and steadfast. Yet, we know
that dangerous days still lie ahead. Terrorists who have previously
sought weapons of mass destruction from Saddam ``like ants to honey''
continue to plot against America. The terrorists will not rest. When
they're not attacking, terrorists are planning or strategizing about
where and when to attack next. And remember, we were attacked without
provocation on September 11, 2001.
For freedom and democracy to prevail over violence and terrorism, we
must continue to take the fight to the terrorist before they again
bring terrorism to our shores.
Mr. Speaker, let us commend the members of the United States Armed
Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq by passing this
resolution.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution,
although I do not approve of the manner in which it is being debated.
The fact that the House is not permitted even to consider amendments
means that our debate will be incomplete because the resolution covers
only some of the issues that are relevant to understanding where we are
one year after the beginning of military action by coalition troops in
Iraq.
On this one-year anniversary, there is no question but that the House
should commend the Iraqi people ``for their courage in the face of
unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam
Hussein's regime.''
The resolution also very appropriately commends the Iraqi people on
the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution, a key step toward what all
Americans hope will be the Iraqi people's creation of a new, free, and
democratic Iraq.
And there is no question but that the members of the U.S. Armed
Forces and the Coalition forces should be commended for serving in
Iraq. For me, this is the most important clause in this resolution.
We may not all agree on whether going to war a year ago was the right
course for the U.S. to take--indeed, I was not persuaded that it was,
and so I voted against the war resolution in 2002. But we can all agree
that our brave men and women in uniform deserve our support, our
respect, our gratitude for their service--and in the cases of over 550
servicemen and women, their giving what Lincoln rightly called the last
full measure of devotion by sacrificing their lives.
But I must qualify my support for one clause in this resolution--the
clause that asserts ``the United States and the world have been made
safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in
Iraq.''
I believe that Saddam out of power is infinitely better than Saddam
in power. Saddam can no longer terrorize his people and his neighbors
in the region. The Iraqi people are now able to move into an era of
freedom--an incredible step forward for a country that has been
brutalized for so long.
And it's true that the U.S. and the world are now living free of fear
from Saddam's possible use of weapons of mass destruction or his
possible assistance to terrorists.
But, while the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime has liberated
the Iraqis and freed us from some worries, I think there are still some
things to fear.
I still fear the consequences of the Bush Administration's ``you're
either with us or you're against us'' approach. This approach rushed
the diplomatic process at the United Nations and dismissed a strategy
of ``coercive inspections.'' This same approach caused Pentagon leaders
to exaggerate intelligence claims and mangle the planning for the post-
war occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. And by going in without broader
support and without an adequate post-war plan, the Administration made
long-term success in Iraq much more difficult to achieve.
So I'm afraid we're stuck with a heavy burden for years to come. I'm
afraid that America won't be safer if it continues to have to focus so
much of our attention and resources on our mission in Iraq. I'm afraid
America won't be safer if we continue to spend so much in Iraq--$120
billion and rising--because it will mean we have that much less money
to
[[Page H1196]]
spend on ways to keep us safe from the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, from terrorists in other areas of the world, or from
potential threats right here at home. That would be troublesome enough
if we were paying for it ourselves, through taxes--it is even more
worrisome that the Administration is insisting on putting the burden on
our children, who will have to repay with interest the massive amounts
we are borrowing to cover the budget deficit.
I'm afraid that unless we return to a foreign policy that reflects
American priorities--putting a priority on promoting political and
economic freedom and human rights; more closely cooperating with allies
and friends; and more truly respecting international law and
institutions--we risk fueling the very terror that we ultimately hope
to prevent.
I don't believe that the answer to these fears is to cut and run by
prematurely pulling our troops out of Iraq. On the contrary, I believe
we have to work that much harder to work with the international
community to win the peace and to assist the Iraqi people to establish
a new, free, and democratic Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to take this moment to reflect
on this one-year anniversary. We can look back at the last year with
pride at the service and sacrifices of our troops and with admiration
for the Iraqi people, who are working hard to find their way in this
new post-Saddam world. And we can look back at this last year to learn
lessons from what we did right. But we also need to understand our
mistakes and what we did wrong in Iraq so that we can move forward with
a better understanding and greater confidence in our mission in the
months and perhaps years to come.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H. Res. 557,
which is intended to praise the efforts of the United States to
liberate the people of Iraq, and to commend the efforts of our valiant
soldiers who are serving in Iraq. Let me state at the outset, I support
our troops and their families who cling to hopes and prayers that our
soldiers will not succumb to harm's way and will be home soon.
I must offer some sobering words regarding this resolution. I believe
that although well intended, the resolution is untimely. It does not
contain any input from Democratic members; it does not honor the over
550 soldiers who have died; or the over 11,000 who have been wounded.
There is no mention of the fact that no Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) were found. I have concluded that the world is not safer today.
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and dictator. A
revisiting of the facts leads me to conclude once again though, that
Americans and members of Congress were misled by the Administration.
The administration acted on flawed CIA intelligence, alleged that Iraq
had WMD, and was prepared to use them. The U.N. inspection teams did
not uncover any weapons. Their search for WMD was prematurely aborted.
Over 550 soldiers have been killed. Over 11,000 soldiers have been
wounded. Here at home, the families of our military serving in Iraq,
including reservists, are suffering financially and emotionally. They
know that this mission was ill-conceived. Another problem is that our
troop deployment is thin. Some of them have committed suicide. The
administration and the Defense Department have our troops mired in
a military holding action. The situation is compounded by the fact that
there is no clear exit strategy.
As we tout our efforts to promote democracy, it is still clear that
we are attempting to export our version of democracy, as opposed to
encouraging a form of democracy that will best suit the citizens of
Iraq. Iraq has a long history of sectarian strife amongst Shiites,
Sunnis and ethnic Kurds. As Americans, we are attempting to export our
ideals of democracy. The fact of the matter is, we are still a young
democracy. We still have not mastered the process. As Iraqis prepare
for the adoption of new constitution, they will still be confronted
with the realities of internal sectarian strife that could well
undermine our vision and their hopes for democratic rule.
Regarding the premise that the world is safer now than when Saddam
was in power, the rhetoric fails to square with reality. Al Qaeda,
which was purported to be operating in Iraq pre-invasion, was not.
Clearly, there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
The facts are clear, terrorist activity by Al Qaeda has escalated. We
need only look at the bombings in Indonesia, Turkey and most recently
in Spain. Does this mean we should cease our efforts against terrorism?
Absolutely not! It does mean that we should be much more circumspect in
the way we go about fighting terrorism. We must build coalitions to
assist us.
Finally, let me say our allies around the world continue to chafe at
the bully of the world persona that is attached to the United States.
We are seeing an increasing erosion of confidence throughout Europe
regarding the foreign policies being promoted by this administration.
The best way we can honor our troops is to provide them with the
equipment they need to be effective. We must provide a clear exit
strategy.
It is indeed unfortunate that we are considering and debating this
resolution which does not adequately honor our troops. I urge the
leadership to withdraw this resolution, It is important for Republicans
to include our Democratic leaders in the crafting of a new resolution.
The new resolution should honor soldiers who have been killed and
wounded. It should also contain language that addresses a plan to bring
our troops home.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on March 20, 2003, we were
debating a similar resolution--then to express support for the
President and the U.S. military (H. Con. Res. 104). I said on that
occasion: ``I want to make it clear that our young men and women, who
are putting their lives on the line in Iraq, have my unequivocal
support. I will do everything in my power as a member of Congress to
see to it that they have everything they need to win this war and
return home safe and sound to their families. We can only hope and pray
that this war will end quickly, and a minimum number of American,
British, and Iraqi civilian and military lives are lost, destroyed or
maimed for the rest of their lives.''
Unfortunately, my worst fears have come true. Our troops, and the few
other nations whose troops are involved, are not home. Families and
many good Americans are volunteering to raise money to buy for our
soldiers the kind of protective vests they need to be as safe as
possible in the middle of a war. Many Americans and thousands of Iraqi
fighters, but mostly innocent Iraqi civilians, have died and been
wounded. The wounded will spend a life-time of disability and
suffering. They will spend the rest of their lives knowing that they
will never be able to accomplish the highest and best of what God had
intended for their lives.
I said a year ago, ``While the troops have 100 percent of my support,
when appropriate, I will continue to articulate the grave concerns I
have about the policies that sent them there.'' Today I am keeping the
promise relative to the President's policies in Iraq.
This Congress did not vote to go to war in Iraq because Saddam
Hussein was a bad guy. Everybody knew he was a bad guy. There are lots
of bad guys in the world, and we are not even trying to remove them.
Unfortunately, the fundamental lesson that President Bush has taught
our children with his pre-emptive war strategy is that ``the end
justifies the means.''
We were told we had to go to war because Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction. Americans would not have supported going to war just
because Saddam was a bad guy. One year later, we have found no weapons
of mass destruction, and have little evidence that we will ever find
them. Why? Because, mostly likely, U.N. inspections had contained his
ability to make or use weapons of mass destruction.
President Bush has destroyed the unity, support and moral authority
that the world gave to the United States after September 11. The latest
evidence of that erosion of support was the Spanish election on March
14.
I said on March 20, 2003, ``There is no convincing evidence that Iraq
was involved or connected to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the events of
September 11, 2001--despite President Bush's many failed attempts to
morph the two, in order to convince the American people that there is
such a connection.'' The attempt to weld 9/11, Iraq and the war on
terror continues as we speak. The truth is we have virtually abandoned
the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan. The truth is, Al Qaeda was
not in Iraq a year ago, but they are today. As a result, the world has
not been made safer, as the resolution suggests, but has become more
unsafe and unstable.
I said on March 20, 2003, ``Most Americans think that when our young
men and women are risking their lives on the battlefield that
Democrats, Republicans and Independents in this House would come
together in a non-partisan manner to support our troops--because
everyone does support them. . . . But the Republican extremists in the
House have no shame and no limits. They will politicize the blood of
our soldiers if they think they can gain a political advantage. They
have never met an issue they were unwilling to `wedge'.'' This
resolution is a continuation of that same strategy in an election year.
I said one year ago, ``Many Democrats, myself included, separate
support for the troops from support for the President's policy. But the
Republicans deliberately joined the two so they could make it a
political wedge issue. Therefore, if you vote `for' the resolution it
appears that you support the President's policy. But if you vote
`against' the resolution, the Republicans intend to paint you as
against our troops and unpatriotic in future elections. In other words,
the Republicans have deliberately tried to set a `Catch 22' trap.''
Well, I support our troops, but I continue to oppose the President's
policy in Iraq. I will
[[Page H1197]]
vote ``no'' on this resolution because the world has not been made
safer because of the removal of Saddam Hussein. If you doubt me, ask
the families of the over 200 people in Spain who lost loved ones in the
recent explosions on the train there, and the hundreds who were
wounded.
I filed a Federal lawsuit to try to stop the President from going to
war in Iraq without a declaration of war from Congress. I believe the
President's actions in Iraq were unconstitutional and in violation of
international law.
The Bush policy of ignoring the United Nations and the lack of decent
respect for the opinion of mankind; the U.S.-led preemptive policy has
weakened the United Nations, weakened the structures of ``collective
security,'' weakened the rule of international law and has not made the
world safer, but more dangerous and unstable.
Again I repeat what I said on March 20, 2003: As the wealthiest and
only superpower in the world, the U.S. has the most economic and
military interests in the world. The United Nations, collective
security, and the rule of international law have well-served those U.S.
interests. Weakening any of them increases the threat to U.S. interests
at home and abroad.
So today, even as I give our young men and women in Iraq my
unconditional support, I also renew my dedication to strengthening the
United Nations, collective security, and the rule of international law.
They help guarantee peace and security in the world and, when fully
utilized, make it less likely that American service men and women may
have to be sent to possibly make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of
our country in the future.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a few comments about
the resolution we are considering today in recognition of the one-year
anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The resolution before us on
the floor has significant shortcomings that I want to point out for the
Record.
On March 19, 2003, offensive U.S. military actions were initiated
against Iraq. Just two days later, on March 21, 2003, the House of
Representatives approved a resolution which expressed ``the unequivocal
support and appreciation of the Nation for our troops and their
families.''
Only 8 minutes before passing this feel good resolution, however, the
House of Representatives passed a budget, which I voted against, that
included a $28 billion cut over 10 years to veterans health care,
disability compensation and pensions. While the Republican Party is
able to eloquently express their support and admiration for our men and
women in uniform via non-binding congratulatory resolutions, their
follow through is non-existent.
Here we are a year later, and this ``unequivocal support'' has not
been translated into substantive action. Congress must deliver on this
promise of support by providing our troops with the equipment and
training they need. And, Congress must deliver on this promise by
providing our nation's veterans with the health care and services
they've earned and deserve.
Words in a non-binding resolution will not provide a single soldier
with the body armor necessary to protect his or her life nor will they
ensure a single veteran can see a doctor in a timely manner or receive
the disability compensation they've earned. Our soldiers and veterans
need action, not words.
Unfortunately, the actions of the President and his allies in
Congress have repeatedly short-changed our men and women in uniform and
the veterans who have served our nation honorably.
Thousands of troops in Iraq remain in danger because the Pentagon
leadership has failed to secure an adequate supply of body armor.
Thousands of troops remain in danger because of inadequate supplies of
armored Humvees and devices to disable roadside bombs.
According to a recent article in USA Today, U.S. military officers
are having to dip into their own unit's funds in order to get this
critical protective equipment because ``bureaucratic delays'' in
Washington, DC, have short-changed troops.
I saw the dangers confronting U.S. troops first-hand during my recent
trip to Iraq. I cannot understand why the President and the civilian
leadership at the Pentagon would put our troops in harms' way without
adequate protective equipment despite preparing for war with Iraq for 2
years prior to the actual invasion and despite $400 billion in annual
Pentagon spending.
Yet, the resolution on the floor today will do nothing to solve this
problem.
Further, our citizen-soldiers in the National Guard and Reserve
continue to be subject to second-class treatment. When I recently
visited Fort Hood, Texas, I discovered that the 2nd Battalion, 162nd
Infantry of the Oregon National Guard was sent to train without the
basics: fuel, ammunition, toilet paper, field radios and other
essentials, and they were housed in moldy, crumbling barracks.
Media reports have documented that over 1,000 wounded Army National
Guard and Army Reserve soldiers, evacuated from Iraq to Fort Stewart,
Georgia, and Fort Knox, Kentucky, were housed in sub-standard concrete
barracks with no air conditioning, indoor toilets or running water,
while they were forced to wait weeks and sometimes months for medical
care.
Yet, the resolution on the floor today will do nothing to solve these
problems.
Next week, the House Republicans will present their budget on the
House floor. Like last year's budget, this year's budget will fail to
fully meet the needs of our troops and veterans.
The budget resolution, as currently drafted, underfunds veterans
programs by $1.3 billion below the level requested by the Republican
Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.
The budget fails to repeal the age-62 penalty for military widows
under the Survivor Benefit Plan. Yet, stand-alone legislation on this
issue has 291 cosponsors, including 120 Republicans.
The budget fails to fully fund repeal of the disabled veterans tax
immediately for all veterans despite the fact that stand-alone
legislation to repeal the tax, H.R. 303, has 377 cosponsors, including
185 Republican cosponsors.
The budget fails to fund an expansion of the military health care
program TRICARE to cover uninsured members of the National Guard and
Reserve.
The budget fails to provide wage support for National Guard and
Reserve members who are forced to leave civilian jobs with higher pay.
These families are forced to do more with less.
The budget fails to provide additional compensation for soldiers who
are forced to stay in the U.S. military through stop-loss orders
despite having plans to retire or otherwise leave the service after
fulfilling their time commitment under their enlistment contract. I
have drafted legislation to provide a monthly bonus of $500 for
soldiers subject to stop-loss orders, orders that amount to an
involuntary draft.
The budget fails to fund an extension of imminent danger pay and
family separation pay for troops in Iraq past the end of this year when
even Pentagon officials admit that U.S. troops will be in Iraq for the
next several years.
And, the budget cuts funding for military construction and quality-
of-life improvements for U.S. troops by $1 billion from the levels
approved before the Iraq war.
The resolution on the floor today will do nothing to address these
challenges.
Finally, the resolution on the floor today fails to acknowledge the
deaths of more than 550 American troops or the more than 3,000 wounded
American soldiers.
The resolution fails to acknowledge the deaths and injuries suffered
by American and Iraqi civilians, United Nations personnel, and soldiers
from allied countries.
The resolution fails to adequately acknowledge the service and
sacrifice of tens of thousands of National Guard and Reserve soldiers
and their families.
However, I intend to support this resolution. There is no doubt that
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. He oppressed and killed his own
people. He invaded his neighbors, and he used chemical weapons. The
Iraqi people and the world are better off without him.
But, the fact that I am glad he's out of power and in U.S. custody
does not mean I agree that the Iraq war was necessary. The war was not
necessary. It was elective. I voted against the authorization for war.
It was obvious even at the time of the vote, which occurred months
before the war actually started, that the Administration had hyped,
manipulated, and misrepresented the intelligence regarding the threat
posed by Iraq and that the Administration had not planned adequately
for post-war Iraq. The Administration's rosy scenario for post-war Iraq
has not come to pass. Instead, the U.S. is bogged down in a costly--
both in terms of dollars and lives--and lengthy occupation of Iraq.
I believe that America and the world would have been better served if
the Administration had not become distracted by Iraq. Saddam was safely
contained and defanged by sanctions supported by a broad international
coalition. The sanctions prevented Iraq from redeveloping chemical or
biological weapons, and made it impossible for Hussein to achieve his
ultimate goal of developing nuclear weapons.
The Administration should have kept its focus on the single gravest
threat to our society--al Qaeda. It was al Qaeda, after all, who
attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, not Iraq. It was al Qaeda who
bombed U.S. embassies in Africa. It was al Qaeda who bombed a U.S.
warship in the Persian Gulf. And it is al Qqeda that continues to plan
and carry out attacks against Americans and our allies around the
world. The Administration should not have shifted intelligence and
military resources away from the documented threat--al Qaeda--in order
to invade and occupy Iraq.
[[Page H1198]]
However, I will support this resolution because it is merely
hortatory. The resolution does not set national policy. It is not
legally binding on anyone or anything. It commends the Iraqi people for
their courage in the face of the brutal Hussein regime and commends
their adoption of an interim constitution. It also commends the members
of the U.S. military for their valiant service. I am voting for the
resolution because I want to express my support for the nascent
democracy in Iraq and for our soldiers.
I would urge the House Republican leadership to spend less time on
resolutions like this, which offer merely words, and more time pushing
through legislation that would actually provide our soldiers and
veterans with the equipment, training and benefits they need and
deserve.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the valiant service from our
men and women in our Armed Services. That's why I am disappointed that
the House leadership decided to present this toothless resolution
rather than provide real assistance for our troops.
They say this resolution is meant to thank the American military men
and women serving in Iraq. But if they truly wanted to honor these
soldiers--this same leadership should have supported my amendment last
year that would have given every American soldier serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan a $1,500 bonus. But it failed with 210 Republicans voting
against it.
The President is traveling across the country to mark the war's
anniversary and thank our troops. Yet his budget cuts Veterans health
benefits--just like last year. Some thanks!
I support this resolution. But let's be clear: this resolution won't
save any lives; it won't provide adequate body armor and armored
humvees to our troops any quicker; it doesn't repair the damage done to
our reputation in the international community, it won't bring our
troops home any sooner and it won't heal a single wound or restore a
single American life lost in Iraq.
The resolution also fails to answer some key questions:
Why did this Administration mislead the American people 237 times in
their statements about the so-called immediate threat from Iraq? As Mr.
Murtha of Pennsylvania stated, ``never have so few, misled so many.''
Why did this Administration say that reconstruction would only cost
Americans $1.7 billion and that other countries and Iraqi oil would
cover the rest? Instead American taxpayers have paid billions of
dollars in rebuilding Iraq--and the tab is likely to increase in the
next year.
To date, we have spent more than $150 billion in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, more than 560 soldiers have died in Iraq and another
5,300 have been injured. We owe it to them, to their families and to
all Americans to level with them and given them the straight answers on
why we went into Iraq and how long it will take to get the job done.
Like all Americans, I am proud of our Americans soldiers in Iraq who
are serving their country with dedication and courage. But I am not
proud of those in the Administration that may have misled our great
Nation into war.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Mr. Hyde and Mr. DeLay,
the authors of House Resolution 557, for crafting legislation that
truly exemplifies naked political strategy.
This vapid proposal of phony patriotism does nothing to address the
urgent concerns that are permeating the world stage.
Instead of seeking real solutions to the problems our troops are
confronting; instead of taking the time to exercise judicious oversight
to remedy the hardships that are being faced--we are instead spending a
significant amount of our time indulging ourselves with legislation
that ultimately does not help anyone.
And we are doing this today as Baghdad burns. How typical.
550 American service men and women have been killed in Iraq. No
weapons of mass destruction have been found. Our Nation's reputation
has been damaged to such an extent that former allies now have
populations consumed with anti-American fervor.
Instead of affirming that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy--which we all
know--shouldn't we be spending our time trying to decipher why the
central arguments for a pre-emptive war appear to have been based on
inaccurate intelligence?
Shouldn't we be examining reports regarding how Iraqi exile Ahmad
Chalabi fed misinformation about Weapons of Mass Destruction to the
United States government and investigate why the Pentagon is still
paying him $340,000 a month?
Instead of proclaiming that the world is safer shouldn't we be
analyzing the terrorist attacks in Spain that occurred last week?
And while each and every single Member of Congress is awed and
thankful for the bravery and valor of our men and women in the Armed
Services, shouldn't we be discussing what we can do to help alleviate
the daily deaths and bloodshed that they face?
And shouldn't we, at some stage, focus our attention on Afghanistan
as well?
Wouldn't real action by Congress honor our military more than this?
Wouldn't real action be more patriotic?
Surely the leadership in the House of Representatives can focus on
more important work than a celebratory resolution?
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our troops and in
support of those who lost loved ones in the violence in Baghdad that we
all witnessed today.
On a day that should have shown the unity of our government, we have
seen the parties divided. The Republican resolution has left out
Democratic input.
It has left out our condolences to the families of those killed in
Iraq.
It has left out feelings that our troops must be equipped with body
armor and armored vehicles.
And it has left out steps to correct the intelligence failures in the
run-up to the war.
Even though the Republican resolution leaves out so much, I'm
supporting it to show my support for our troops.
After one year in Iraq our troops are still suffering.
Our soldiers were sent to Iraq without enough of the equipment they
depend on to do their jobs safely and without a plan to bring them
home.
564 Americans and 100 other coalition troops have been killed.
Americans deserve to know what happened in the events leading up to the
war in Iraq.
We demand accountability. We are tired of the President and the
Administration obstructing the 9/11 commission.
We must be able to trust that what the President tells them is true
and we shouldn't have to bear the burden of rebuilding Iraq alone.
American taxpayers are paying almost all the bills, $120 billion and
rising.
We deserve a detailed plan for future spending, so our troops are
guaranteed to get the resources they need.
Part of winning the war on terror is taking care of those who helped
us fight it.
We must ensure our veterans health care, their pensions, and their
survivor's benefits.
But the Administration wants to raise health care costs for over 1
million veterans, increasing co-payments and imposing new enrollment
fees that will cost veterans $2 billion over 5 years.
Just this past month the VA said it will cut 540 positions from the
Veterans Benefits Administration. How can the Administration reduce the
veteran benefit backlog when it cuts the resources needed to help our
veterans?
I keep thinking about the young men in my district that we recently
lost.
There was Corporal Jorge Gonzales. His parents, Mario and Rosa are
from Rialto and they still grieve.
And then there was Corporal Sean Grilley of San Bernardino who was
killed while he was enforcing a curfew.
These brave men and their families deserve truthful accountability so
our soldiers are protected, our veterans are taken care of and our
troops can come home as soon as possible.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution. Our troops
should not be a pawn in a political power play. This resolution is not
a simple statement of support for the incredibly valiant work of our
men and women in Iraq. It is a cynical, political tool to further the
agenda of the Bush Administration during this election year.
This resolution was pushed through the House of Representatives
without input from a single Democrat. I wanted to vote for a resolution
that truly recognizes the sacrifice of our troops and the importance of
living up to our commitments to them, but the Republican leadership
would not allow a vote on any other measure but their own. I refuse to
bow to the politization of the grave matter of our young people at war,
and for this reason I voted against the resolution.
Let me be clear: our troops deserve our qualified support as they
serve our Nation in such dangerous circumstances. But that support must
be more than empty words, it must be in promises kept.
I would have voted today for a resolution that reiterated our
commitment to providing our troops with the body armor and armored
vehicles they need to keep them safe, to immediately address the
intelligence deficiencies that continue to put our troops in further
danger, and to insist on a clearly articulated strategy for post-war
occupation and exit of Iraq.
This alternative resolution I supported included provisions to
eliminate the disparities in pay between our active duty military and
the National Guard and reservists, and provide the health care and
benefits our wounded veterans need when they come home. But the
Republican majority never allowed for a vote on this fair-minded
alternative.
[[Page H1199]]
Last week I sat in the Budget Committee and watched in shock as the
Republican members of the Committee voted on party lines to reject a
``Support Our Troops'' amendment that would have raised funding levels
for the military by $2.5 billion. This money would have been spent on
family separation pay, imminent danger pay, education funding for
military school children, and TRICARE military health coverage for
reservists, and military housing programs. How can we look our troops
in the eye and tell them Congress rejected actual funding that would
help them and their families through this difficult time, but instead
passed a relatively meaningless resolution of our support? This is
unconscionable.
I also strongly object to the clause in today's resolution claiming
that the ``world is safer'' as a result of the Iraq war. Mr. Speaker, I
disagree. Iraq is still in chaos. American soldiers, international
diplomats, and Iraqi civilians are being killed every day. And the
Administration is still a long way from pacifying Iraq or setting up a
stable government. The Administration made claims that Iraq was a base
of International terrorism and that turned out to be false.
Our troops deserve better than more empty words from Congress. On the
one-year anniversary of the start to this misguided war, they deserve
to be supported with sound policy, real dollars, and the commitment to
bring them home safely.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this is a deceitful resolution not for
what it says, but for what it does not say. It is unfortunate that our
Republican colleagues would once again use an issue that unites all
Americans--support for our troops--into a naked political stunt that
attempts to rewrite history in a divisive manner. The American people
should understand that the Republican leadership in this House has
prevented any Member of Congress from offering any change to this
resolution.
The main defect of this resolution is that it tells only a small part
of the story about Iraq. In an obvious attempt to change the subject,
the resolution contains absolutely no mention of the primary
justification President Bush gave for going to war in Iraq--the alleged
existence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Instead, the
resolution attempts to justify the decision for war on humanitarian
grounds alone. It cites, among other things, Saddam Hussein's use of
chemical weapons against Iraq's Kurdish citizens in 1988.
No one needs to tell me about Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses
against the Kurds. In 1988, at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, I traveled
to the Iraq-Turkish border as a staffer on the U.S. Senate Foreign
relations Committee with my colleague Peter Galbraith. At that time,
thousands of Kurds were fleeing across the border to seek refuge in
Turkey. We interviewed hundreds of those refugees and documented Iraq's
use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish people. Our report formed
the basis for legislation to impose economic sanctions against Iraq for
its use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. The bill passed the
United States Senate; but the Reagan Administration, which included
many of the key officials now in the Bush administration, opposed and
helped block that sanctions legislation from passing. I challenge
anyone to explain to me how you can oppose economic sanctions in 1988
in response to Iraq's use of chemical weapons against civilians and
then today turn around and say that those same actions are the reason
the United States went to war in 2003.
Moreover, if Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against his own
people was the reason for military action, we should have finished the
job during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Iraq has not used chemical
weapons since 1988, since the time my colleague Peter Galbraith and I
went to the Iraq-Turkish border at the end of the Iran-Iraq war. But 3
years later in 1991, not only did we not remove Hussein in Baghdad, but
at the end of the war the United States looked the other way for many
days while Saddam Hussein turned his guns on the Shias in the south and
the Kurds in the north. This history exposes the hypocrisy of this
attempt to rewrite history in order to change the argument for going to
war in Iraq in 2003.
The fact is that the Bush Administration told the American people
that we had to go to war because Saddam Hussein currently possessed
stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat
to the United States. When the U.N. inspectors asked for additional
time to determine whether Iraq possessed stockpiles of such weapons,
the Administration rejected the request and went to war. We now know
that--based on the report of Chief U.S. weapons inspector, David Kay,
that to date no stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons
have been found in Iraq. This resolution says nothing about the serious
blow to U.S. credibility and security around the world caused by the
Administration's misuse and abuse of intelligence information.
The Republican leadership would like to equate support for our troops
in Iraq with support for the President's decision to go to war in Iraq.
But my constituents and the American people deserve better than the
false choice presented by this resolution. I will not play the game of
having to support the President's views on Iraq in order to express
support our troops. I continue to stand behind our troops and am
grateful for their valiant service. I recently returned from a trip to
Iraq where I had the honor of meeting with many of the men and women in
our Armed Forces. I expressed to them the gratitude of the American
people for their sacrifice and for their service to our country. It is
a disservice to our troops that the Republican leadership here would
exploit them to attempt to gain partisan political advantage.
I have crafted an alternative resolution that presents the part of
the story that the Republican leadership would like the American people
to forget. This substitute resolution does not change a single word of
the underlying resolution. However, it presents a fuller picture of the
real story behind the decision to go to war in Iraq. Every one of the
``Whereas'' clauses in this alternative resolution is factually
accurate and incontrovertible. Why does the Republican leadership want
to hide from these facts? Why does it want to prevent the American
people from knowing the full story? Why will it not allow this
substitute to be voted on? Mr. Speaker, I submit this alternative
resolution for the Record.
Substitute Resolution Proposed by Representative Chris Van Hollen
Relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people, and the
valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and
Coalition forces and the failure to find stockpiles of
weapons of mass destruction.
Whereas Saddam Hussein and his regime committed crimes
against humanity, systematically violating the human rights
of Iraqis and citizens of other countries;
Whereas Saddam Hussein's terror regime subjected the Iraqi
people to murder, torture, rape, and amputation;
Whereas on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein's regime had and
unleashed weapons of mass destruction against Kurdish
citizens, killing nearly 5,000 of them;
Whereas in September 1988, the United States Senate
unanimously passed legislation (S. 2763) to impose economic
sanctions against the regime of Saddam Hussein for the use of
chemical weapons against its Kurdish citizens, but the bill
failed after the Reagan Administration opposed the
legislation and threatened a veto;
Whereas as many as 270 mass grave sites, containing the
remains of as many as 400,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's
regime, have been found in Iraq;
Whereas rape was used to intimidate the Iraqi population,
with victims often raped in front of their families;
Whereas the regime punished the Marsh Arabs by draining the
marshlands, which created hundreds of thousands of refugees
and caused an ecological catastrophe;
Whereas in 1991, explaining the Bush Administration
decision not to advance on Baghdad, then Secretary of Defense
Dick Cheney stated, ``Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear
what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government
you would put in place of the one that's currently there now.
Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish
regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that
tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much
credibility is that government going to have if it's set up
by the United States military when it's there? How long does
the United States military have to stay to protect the people
that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once
we leave?'';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-
338), passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 360
to 38, made it United States policy to support efforts to
remove from power the regime headed by Saddam Hussein;
Whereas on September 8, 2002, Secretary of State Powell
said, ``There is no doubt that he [Hussein] has chemical
weapons stocks.'';
Whereas on September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney said,
``We do know, with absolute certainty, that he [Hussein] is
using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he
needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear
weapon.'';
Whereas on September 8, 2002, Secretary Powell said, ``With
respect to biological weapons, we are confident that he has
some stocks of those weapons, and he is probably continuing
to try to develop more.'';
Whereas on October 2, 2002, President Bush said, ``The
Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.'';
Whereas on October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives
passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) and on March 19,
2003, the United States initiated military operations in
Iraq;
Whereas with the Iraqi regime failing to comply with 16
previously adopted United Nations Security Council
resolutions, the Security Council unanimously approved
Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, declaring the Iraq ``has
been and remains in material breach of its obligations under
relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in
particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United
Nations inspectors''
Whereas on January 28, 2003, President Bush said, ``The
British government has
[[Page H1200]]
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources
tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength
aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.'';
Whereas on February 5, 2003, Secretary Powell said, ``Our
conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of
between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is
enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. Even the low
end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause
mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of
territory, an area nearly 5 times the size of Manhattan. . .
.'';
Whereas on March 7, 2003, IAEA Director General Mohamed
ElBaradei reported to the United Nations Security Council
that: There is ``no indication of nuclear activities . . .
nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities
at any inspected sites . . . There is no indication that Iraq
has attempted to import uranium since 1990.'';
Whereas on March 7, 2003, IAEA Director General Mohamed
ElBaradei concluded that the documents purporting to show a
uranium purchase in Niger provided to the IAEA by the United
States were unsubstantiated and likely forged. He told the
United Nations Security Council that ``Based on thorough
analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of
outside experts, that these documents, which formed the basis
for reports of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and
Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded
that these specific allegations are unfounded.'';
Whereas according to UNMOVIC'S 13th Quarterly Report,
between November 27, 2002 and March 18, 2003, the 731
inspections conducted by UNMOVIC did not reveal any
``evidence of continuation or resumption of programs of
weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of
proscribed items.'';
Whereas in March 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors
requested additional time to determine whether Iraq possessed
stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas the Bush Administration rejected the United Nations
request for additional time, to complete the mission;
Whereas on March 16, 2003, Vice President Cheney said, ``.
. . we know he [Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to
trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in
fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.'';
Whereas on March 16, 2003, President Bush said, ``The
dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a
threat to the security of free nations.'';
Whereas on March 25, 2003, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
said, ``The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction will be removed.'';
Whereas on October 2, 2003, Chief Weapons Inspector David
Kay said, ``Information found to date suggests that Iraq's
large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW
munitions was reduced--if not entirely destroyed--during
Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN
sanctions and UN inspections . . . Our efforts to collect and
exploit intelligence on Iraq's chemical weapons program have
thus far yielded little reliable information on post-1991 CW
stocks and CW agent production. . . .'';
Whereas on October 2, 2003, David Kay said, ``. . . to date
we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook
significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons
or produce fissile material.'';
Whereas to date, despite an extensive search by the United
Nations and the United States no chemical, biological,
nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction have been
found: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) affirms that the United States and the world have been
made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime
from power in Iraq; however, the main question for the
American people is not whether the United States is better
off without Saddam Hussein, but whether the United States is
better off for having gone to war in Iraq to remove Saddam
Hussein;
(2) finds that, despite the removal of Saddam Hussein from
power, it is premature to conclude that going to war in Iraq
has made the United States safer; indeed, the weight of the
evidence to date suggests that President Bush's approach to
Iraq has not made the United States safer;
(3) affirms the findings of former Chief U.S. Weapons
Inspector David Kay, that no weapons of mass destruction have
been found in Iraq;
(4) affirms that no evidence has been found to support the
statements made by president Bush, Vice President Cheney,
Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
between September 8, 2002 and the present that are cited in
the ``Whereas'' clause above;
(5) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face
of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by
Saddam Hussein's regime;
(6) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's
interim constitution;
(7) commends the members of the United States Armed Forces
and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its
gratitude for their valiant service; and
(8) extends condolences to the families of the American
forces who have been killed in Iraq.
Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise because we have reached the 1-
year anniversary of the war in Iraq. One year ago, we invaded Iraq
because the President said Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to
the United States. A ``mortal threat,'' he said.
We were told Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We
were told the international community would be involved, providing
troops and financial assistance. We were told the troops would get
whatever they needed to get the job done.
So on March 19, 2003, we invaded Iraq. And here we are, 1 year later.
Let's examine the facts:
CIA Director George Tenet said intelligence agencies never told the
White House that Iraq posed an imminent threat. No weapons of mass
destruction have been found.
American taxpayers are paying almost all the bills--$120 billion and
still rising. Most importantly, American soldiers are enduring almost
all the casualties--more than 560 Americans killed and thousands more
wounded.
Our troops did not get the equipment they needed to do their jobs
safely--the President failed to include enough funds in his budget to
pay for the war in Iraq. Moreover, there is no money in the President's
own proposed budget for 2005 to pay for the war in Iraq. He apparently
chooses to keep Congress and the American people in the dark about how
much we will need to spend.
Let me tell you what's going on today with this resolution. It is an
attempt to rewrite history. And if any of us vote against it, we will
be attacked for not ``supporting the troops.''
This resolution is intellectually dishonest. It selects facts that
portray the President and his decision to invade Iraq in a positive
light, while conveniently ignoring other facts that do not support the
President. It tells only of what we already knew--that Saddam Hussein
was an evil tyrant. No one disputes that. It tells us of the atrocities
he inflicted on his people--no one disputes that. It tells us that the
American people applaud the Iraqi people for adopting an interim
constitution--and no one denies that. And it affirms our country's
unending support for our troops.
All of these accomplishments are worthy of our commendation, and I
support them.
But this resolution ignores other facts--that we went into this war
with faulty intelligence and sent our soldiers in without adequate body
armor. It ignores that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and
that Saddam did not pose an ``imminent threat'' to the U.S. It doesn't
tell us that the administration continues to veil the true cost of this
war--and it does not say that these costs will be borne by our children
because this administration refuses to pay for them today. Instead,
this administration gives tax cuts to the people who make over $1
million--and does not provide adequate resources for the veterans and
their families.
It does not even acknowledge the deaths and injuries suffered by the
men and women in uniform.
So I cannot in good conscience support such a deceptive resolution.
It simply does not tell the whole truth.
Make no mistake--I support our troops, and I will do everything I can
to help them get what they need. It is not their fault they were sent
to Iraq--they are doing their sworn duty for this country. I will do
everything I can to fight for their safe return and for an end to this
sham of a war.
The authors of this resolution might think it will provide them
political cover, but I am here to tell you that the American people are
wise and will not be fooled. They understand that domestic priorities
are being sacrificed to fund a war it turns out we didn't have to
fight. They understand that landing on an aircraft carrier and floating
a banner declaring ``mission accomplished'' does not make it so. They
understand that the Republicans refused to allow anyone to offer
amendments to the language of this resolution.
After last week's explosion in Madrid, Spain, and today's bombing in
Baghdad, I cannot in good conscience state today that the United States
and the world has been made safer than it was before we went to war
with Iraq.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, as the war in Iraq continues, our military
personnel, veterans and their families face a myriad of hardships. Our
troops in Iraq have lacked adequate body armor and armored vehicles to
keep them safe. Their families have to scrape by because of the pay
disparity between serving in the military and in civilian life. When
the troops return home, they do not have the health care and benefits
they have earned through their service to our country.
Republicans proposed a resolution to supposedly honor our troops. But
it does not truly acknowledge the real hardships our troops and their
families face. It merely ``commends the members of the United States
Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its
gratitude for their valiant service.''
Republicans also say in their resolution we are safer now that Saddam
Hussein has been removed from power. But we cannot claim the
[[Page H1201]]
mission is accomplished. We must continue to fight the battle against
terrorism to ensure safety and stability in Iraq. And we must be honest
about the true task ahead of us, or risk America's credibility with our
international partners diminishing further.
Ironically enough, on the same day Republicans claim to honor our
troops, they approved a budget proposal for the next year that would
slash funding for military pay, health care, education and training for
military personnel, veterans and their families. It also fails to
extend imminent danger pay and family separation pay for troops in Iraq
past December 31 of this year.
I supported an alternative resolution that would appropriately honor
the military personnel and veterans who have served our country so
courageously. It praises the work our troops are doing and urges the
President to provide protective gear for our troops, ensure quality
health care to treat both short- and long-term injuries among our
troops, and correct pay disparities among civilian and military pay for
guards and reservists.
We need to stand behind our courageous men and women in uniform who
are bearing the burden of this military action in Iraq. Supporting our
troops and giving them the tools they need to carry out their mission
in Iraq is the only way to truly honor their service, courage and
sacrifice.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, the Governor of my State recently went
on a trip to Iraq. When she returned, she announced that the
President's Iraq policy should not be the subject of political
discussion. That suggestion is as problematic as it is unrealistic.
Foreign policy and defense policy are always legitimate topics of
political debate. That's how we do things in a democracy. The voting
public has every right to a full and open airing of different points of
view--especially when the lives of our service members and the treasury
of our Nation are being committed.
Now, with this resolution it seems the Republicans want it both ways.
They tell us Iraq policy is out of bounds for political discussion, and
at the same time they present us with this resolution. This document
amplifying the administration's spin is nothing less than an election-
year endorsement of the President's Iraq policy. It will no doubt be
denied that it has anything to do with politics. In fact it's blatantly
political. It's transparently political. It's in-your-face political.
Our troops deserve better than this cursory salute swaddled in
suffocating layers of political celebration. They've earned our
gratitude for their patriotism, courage and spirit of sacrifice. More
to the point, they deserve a solid commitment to their well being and
the well being of their families. But that is something the majority
refuses to do. Last week in the House Budget Committee, Mr. Edwards and
others proposed some simple measures along these lines: TRICARE for
reservists; a boost in imminent danger pay; improved military housing;
higher pay for senior enlisted personnel; increased family separation
allowance; and more funding for family support centers.
All of this is to be offset by a very modest rollback in the tax
bonanza we granted to people making a million dollars a year and more.
The majority's response? Forget about the troops--our allegiance is to
people making a million or more. I don't have any statistics, but I
suspect there aren't too many millionaires serving in Iraq or en route.
So let's not pretend this resolution has nothing to do with politics.
It's about the politics of deception underlying this war. It's about
the politics of delusion that we can remake the world in our own image.
It's about the politics of desperation flowing from the realization
that we're becoming stuck in a no-exit quagmire.
As for the troops, they're getting thin rations from the majority in
this House. Saying you support the troops is easy. The issue here isn't
whether anyone in this House supports the troops. We all do. The issue
is whether we can fashion a policy worthy of their valor, dedication
and sacrifice.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 561, the resolution is considered read
for amendment and the previous question is ordered on the resolution
and preamble.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on House Joint Resolution 87. Votes on motions to suspend
the rules postponed earlier today will be taken tomorrow.
Recorded Vote
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 327,
noes 93, answered ``present'' 7, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 64]
AYES--327
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--93
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Doyle
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Kanjorski
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Solis
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
[[Page H1202]]
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Wexler
Woolsey
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--7
Carson (IN)
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Johnson, E. B.
Lantos
Meehan
Waxman
NOT VOTING--7
Hoeffel
Kucinich
Sherwood
Simmons
Smith (WA)
Tauzin
Weldon (PA)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1950
Mr. RUSH and Mr. JEFFERSON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Mr. HILL changed his vote from ``present'' to ``aye.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on the vote on House Resolution 557,
I spoke on the floor in opposition to H. Res. 557 and by mistake voted
``yes'' on the floor. I seek the record to be clear that I intended to
vote ``no.''
____________________
