Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) Belarus Democracy Act of 2003
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. BIDEN):

   S. 700. A bill to provide for the promotion of democracy, human rights, and rule of law in the Republic of Belarus and for the consolidation and strengthening of Belarus sovereignty and independence; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

   Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have closely monitored developments in the Republic of Belarus and informed my Senate colleagues of disturbing trends in that nation. I have met with members of this fledgling democratic opposition who, at great personal risk, dare to speak out against the repressive regime led by Alexander Lukashenka. I have met with the courageous wives whose husbands disappeared because they stood up to the regime and would not be silent. Against the backdrop of this climate of fear, the powers of the state have been brought to bear against independent journalists, trade unionists, and other voices of dissent.

   Increasingly, Belarus has been driven into self-imposed isolation under Lukashenka devoid of legitimate leadership or accountability. A little over a year ago I addressed the Senate to voice concern over reported arms deals between the regime and rouge states, including Iraq. It appears that such sales have taken on greater importance as the Belarusian economy spirals downward.

   While some might be tempted to dismiss Belarus as an anomaly, the stakes are too high and the costs too great to ignore. Accordingly, today, I am introducing the Belarus Democracy Act of 2003, which is designed to help put an end to repression and human rights violations in Belarus and to promote Belarus' entry into a democratic Euro-Atlantic community of nations.

   As a participating State in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, Belarus has accepted a series of norms in the areas of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. As Europe's last dictator, Lukashenka continues to brashly trample the fundamental rights of his own people and their culture.

   As I alluded to earlier, independent media, non-governmental organizations, trade unions and the democratic opposition have had to operate under extremely difficult conditions, often facing serious mistreatment and an orchestrated campaign of harassment. Despite the repressions there are courageous individuals who support democracy have not been silenced. Two weeks ago, for example, Alexander Yarashuk, the leader of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions, called on Lukashenka to immediately cease backing Saddam. Moreover, just last week, on March 12, thousands gathered peacefully in a central Minsk square to protest deteriorating economic and social conditions in Belarus. Four of the rally's organizers--Andrei Sannikov, Ludmila Gryaznova, Dmitry Bondarenko and Leonid Malakhov--were given 15 day jail sentences for ``participation in unauthorized mass actions.''

   Despite calls for change within Belarus, and considerable prodding from the international community, Lukashenka has shown no desire to deviate from his path of authoritarianism and personal profit at the expense of his own people. A few months ago, Lukashenka, who effectively controls the Belarusisn parliament, signed into law a new, repressive religion law. Local elections held earlier this month followed the pattern of Belarus' 2000 parliamentary and 2001 presidential elections--they were a joke. Control of election commissions, denials of registration for opposition candidates, ``early voting'' and outright falsifications were the norm.

   The Belarus Democracy Act of 2003 would authorize additional assistance for democracy-building activities such as support for NGOs, independent media, including radio and television broadcasting to Belarus, and international exchanges. It also encourages free and fair parliamentary elections, which have been notably absent in Belarus. This bill would also deny high-ranking officials of the Lukashenka regime entry into the United States. Additionally, strategic exports to the Belarusian Government would be prohibited, as well as U.S. Government financing except for humanitarian goods and agricultural or medical products. The U.S. executive directors of the international financial institutions would be encouraged to vote against financial assistance to the Government of Belarus except for loans and assistance for humanitarian needs. The bill would also require reports from the President concerning the sale of delivery of weapons or weapons-related technologies from Belarus to rouge states, including Iraq and North Korea.

   I am very pleased that the Ranking Member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator BIDEN, is an original cosponsor of this measure. His support will ensure that we proceed on a bipartisan basis as we work to ensure the timely adoption and implementation of this legislation.

   The goal of the Belarus Democracy Act is to assist Belarus in becoming a genuine European state, in which respect for human rights and democracy is the norm and in which the long-suffering Belarusian people are able to overcome the legacy of dictatorship--past and present. Adoption and implementation of the Belarus Democracy Act will offer a ray of hope that the current period of political, economic and social stagnation will indeed end. The people of Belarus deserve a chance for a brighter future free of repression and fear.

[Page: S4379]

   I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Belarus Democracy Act be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   S. 700

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

   SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Belarus Democracy Act of 2003''.

   SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:

    (1) The United States supports the promotion of democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law in the Republic of Belarus consistent with its commitments as a participating state of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

    (2) The United States has a vital interest in the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Belarus and its integration into the European community of democracies.

    (3) The last parliamentary election in Belarus deemed to be free and fair by the international community was conducted in 1995 from which emerged the 13th Supreme Soviet whose democratically and constitutionally derived authorities and powers have been usurped by the authoritarian regime of Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenka.

    (4) In November 1996, Lukashenka orchestrated an illegal and unconstitutional referendum that enabled him to impose a new constitution, abolish the duly-elected parliament, the 13th Supreme Soviet, install a largely powerless National Assembly, and extend his term of office to 2001.

    (5) In May 1999, democratic forces in Belarus challenged Lukashenka's unconstitutional extension of his presidential term by staging alternative presidential elections which were met with repression.

    (6) Democratic forces in Belarus have organized peaceful demonstrations against the Lukashenka regime in cities and towns throughout Belarus which led to beatings, mass arrests, and extended incarcerations.

    (7) Victor Gonchar, Anatoly Krasovsky, and Yuri Zakharenka, who have been leaders and supporters of the democratic forces in Belarus, and Dmitry Zavadsky, a journalist known for his critical reporting in Belarus, have disappeared and are presumed dead.

    (8) Former Belarus Government officials have come forward with credible allegations and evidence that top officials of the Lukashenka regime were involved in the disappearances.

    (9) The Lukashenka regime systematically harasses and represses the independent media and independent trade unions, imprisons independent journalists, and actively suppresses freedom of speech and expression.

    (10) The Lukashenka regime harasses the autocephalic Belarusian Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Jewish community, the Hindu Lights of Kalyasa community, evangelical Protestant churches (such as Baptist and Pentecostal groups), and other minority religious groups.

    (11) The Law on Religious Freedom and Religious Organizations, passed by the National Assembly and signed by Lukashenka on October 31, 2002, establishes one of the most repressive legal regimes in the OSCE region, severely limiting religious freedom and placing excessively burdensome government controls on religious practice.

    (12) The United States, the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Parliamentary Assembly, and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly have not recognized the National Assembly.

    (13) The parliamentary elections of October 15, 2000, conducted in the absence of a democratic election law, were illegitimate, unconstitutional, and plagued by violent human rights abuses committed by the Lukashenka regime, and have been determined by the OSCE to be nondemocratic.

    (14) The presidential election of September 9, 2001, was determined by the OSCE and other observers to be fundamentally unfair, to have failed to meet OSCE commitments for democratic elections formulated in the 1990 Copenhagen Document, and to have featured significant and abusive misconduct by the Lukashenka regime, including--

    (A) the harassment, arrest, and imprisonment of opposition members;

    (B) the denial of equal and fair access by opposition candidates to state-controlled media;

    (C) the seizure of equipment and property of independent nongovernmental organizations and press organizations, and the harassment of their staff and management;

    (D) voting and vote counting procedures that were not transparent; and

    (E) a campaign of intimidation directed against opposition activists, domestic election observation organizations, and opposition and independent media, and a libelous media campaign against international observers.

   SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN BELARUS.

    (a) PURPOSES OF ASSISTANCE.--Assistance under this section shall be available for the following purposes:

    (1) To assist the people of the Republic of Belarus in regaining their freedom and to enable them to join the European community of democracies.

    (2) To encourage free and fair presidential, parliamentary, and local elections in Belarus, conducted in a manner consistent with internationally accepted standards and under the supervision of internationally recognized observers.

    (3) To assist in restoring and strengthening institutions of democratic governance in Belarus.

    (b) AUTHORIZATION FOR ASSISTANCE.--To carry out the purposes set forth in subsection (a), the President is authorized to furnish assistance and other support for the activities described in subsection (c), to be provided primarily for indigenous groups in Belarus that are committed to the support of democratic processes in Belarus.

    (c) ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED.--Activities that may be supported by assistance under subsection (b) include--

    (1) the observation of elections and the promotion of free and fair electoral processes;

    (2) the development of democratic political parties;

    (3) radio and television broadcasting to and within Belarus;

    (4) the development of nongovernmental organizations promoting democracy and supporting human rights;

    (5) the development of independent media working within Belarus and from locations outside Belarus, and supported by nonstate-controlled printing facilities;

    (6) international exchanges and advanced professional training programs for leaders and members of the democratic forces in matters central to the development of civil society; and

    (7) other activities consistent with the purposes of this Act.

    (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--

    (1) IN GENERAL.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the President to carry out this section $40,000,000 for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.

    (2) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations under paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until expended.

   SEC. 4. RADIO BROADCASTING TO BELARUS.

    (a) PURPOSE.--It is the purpose of this section to authorize increased support for United States Government and surrogate radio broadcasting to the Republic of Belarus that will facilitate the unhindered dissemination of information in Belarus.

    (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--In addition to such sums as are otherwise authorized to be appropriated, there is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each fiscal year for Voice of America and RFE/RL, Incorporated for radio broadcasting to the people of Belarus in languages spoken in Belarus.

    (c) REPORT ON RADIO BROADCASTING TO AND IN BELARUS.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on how funds appropriated and allocated pursuant to the authorizations of appropriations under subsection (b) and section 3(d) will be used to provide AM and FM broadcasting that covers the territory of Belarus and delivers independent and uncensored programming.

   SEC. 5. SANCTIONS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF BELARUS.

    (a) APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS.--The sanctions described in subsections (c) and (d), and any sanction imposed under subsection (e) or (f), shall apply with respect to the Republic of Belarus until the President determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the Government of Belarus has made significant progress in meeting the conditions described in subsection (b).

    (b) CONDITIONS.--The conditions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

    (1) The release of individuals in Belarus who have been jailed based on political or religious beliefs.

    (2) The withdrawal of politically motivated legal charges against all opposition figures and independent journalists in Belarus.

    (3) A full accounting of the disappearances of opposition leaders and journalists in Belarus, including Victor Gonchar, Anatoly Krasovsky, Yuri Zakharenka, and Dmitry Zavadsky, and the prosecution of the individuals who are responsible for their disappearances.

    (4) The cessation of all forms of harassment and repression against the independent media, independent trade unions, nongovernmental organizations, religious organizations (including their leadership and members), and the political opposition in Belarus.

    (5) The implementation of free and fair presidential and parliamentary elections in Belarus consistent with Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) standards on democratic elections and in cooperation with relevant OSCE institutions.

    (c) PROHIBITION ON STRATEGIC EXPORTS TO BELARUS.--

    (1) PROHIBITION.--No computers, computer software, goods, or technology intended to manufacture or service computers, or any other related goods or technology, may be exported to Belarus for use by the Government of Belarus, or by its military, police, prison system, or national security agencies. The prohibition in the preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to the export of goods or technology for democracy-building or humanitarian purposes.

    (2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the issuance of licenses to ensure the safety of civil aviation and safe operation of commercial passenger

[Page: S4380]

    (d) PROHIBITION ON LOANS AND INVESTMENT.--

    (1) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FINANCING.--No loan, credit guarantee, insurance, financing, or other similar financial assistance may be extended by any agency of the United States Government (including the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation) to the Government of Belarus, except with respect to the provision of humanitarian goods and agricultural or medical products.

    (2) TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY.--No funds available to the Trade and Development Agency may be available for activities of the Agency in or for Belarus.

    (e) DENIAL OF ENTRY INTO UNITED STATES OF CERTAIN BELARUS OFFICIALS.--

    (1) DENIAL OF ENTRY.--It is the sense of Congress that, in addition to the sanctions provided for in subsections (c) and (d), the President should use the authority under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)) to deny the entry into the United States of any alien who--

    (A) holds a position in the senior leadership of the Government of Belarus; or

    (B) is a spouse, minor child, or agent of a person described in subparagraph (A).

    (2) SENIOR LEADERSHIP OF THE GOVERNMENT OF BELARUS DEFINED.--In this subsection, the term ``senior leadership of the Government of Belarus'' includes--

    (A) the President, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, government ministers, Chairmen of State Committees, and members of the Presidential Administration of Belarus;

    (B) any official of the Government of Belarus who is personally and substantially involved in the suppression of freedom in Belarus, including judges and prosecutors; and

    (C) any other individual determined by the Secretary of State (or the Secretary's designee) to be personally and substantially involved in the formulation or execution of the policies of the Lukashenka regime in Belarus that are in contradiction of internationally recognized human rights standards.

    (f) MULTILATERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.--It is the sense of Congress that, in addition to the sanctions provided for in subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary of the Treasury should instruct the United States Executive Director of each international financial institution to which the United States is a member to use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose any extension by those institutions of any financial assistance (including any technical assistance or grant) of any kind to the Government of Belarus, except for loans and assistance that serve humanitarian needs.

    (g) WAIVER.--The President may waive the application of any sanction described in this section with respect to Belarus if the President determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that it is important to the national interests of the United States to do so.

   SEC. 6. MULTILATERAL COOPERATION.

    It is the sense of Congress that the President should continue to seek to coordinate with other countries, particularly European countries, a comprehensive, multilateral strategy to further the purposes of this Act, including, as appropriate, encouraging other countries to take measures with respect to the Republic of Belarus that are similar to measures provided for in this Act.

   SEC. 7. ANNUAL REPORTS.

    (a) REPORTS.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that describes, with respect to the preceding 12-month period, the following:

    (1) The sale or delivery of weapons or weapons-related technologies from the Republic of Belarus to any country, the government of which the Secretary of State has determined, for purposes of section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)), has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.

    (2) An identification of each country described in paragraph (1) and a detailed description of the weapons or weapons-related technologies involved in the sale.

    (3) An identification of the goods, services, credits, or other consideration received by Belarus in exchange for the weapons or weapons-related technologies.

    (4) The personal assets and wealth of Aleksandr Lukashenka and other senior leadership of the Government of Belarus.

    (b) FORM.--A report transmitted pursuant to subsection (a) shall be in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.

   SEC. 8. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

    Congress hereby--

    (1) expresses its support to those in the Republic of Belarus seeking--

    (A) to promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law and to consolidate the independence and sovereignty of Belarus; and

    (B) to promote the integration of Belarus into the European community of democracies;

    (2) expresses its grave concern about the disappearances of Victor Gonchar, Anatoly Krasovsky, Yuri Zakharenka, and Dmitry Zavadsky;

    (3) calls upon the Lukashenka regime in Belarus to cease its persecution of political opponents or independent journalists and to release those individuals who have been imprisoned for opposing his regime or for exercising their right to freedom of speech;

    (4) calls upon the Lukashenka regime to end the pattern of clear, gross, and uncorrected violations of relevant human dimension commitments of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and to respect the basic freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, association, language, culture, and religion or belief;

    (5) calls upon the Government of the Russian Federation to use its influence to encourage democratic development in Belarus so that Belarus can become a democratic, prosperous, sovereign, and independent state that is integrated into Europe;

    (6) calls upon the Government of Belarus to resolve the continuing constitutional and political crisis in Belarus through--

    (A) free, fair, and transparent presidential and parliamentary elections in Belarus, as called for by the OSCE;

    (B) respect for human rights in Belarus;

    (C) an end to the current climate of fear in Belarus;

    (D) meaningful access by the opposition to state media in Belarus;

    (E) modification of the electoral code of Belarus in keeping with OSCE commitments;

    (F) engagement in genuine talks with the opposition in Belarus; and

    (G) modifications of the constitution of Belarus to allow for genuine authority for the parliament; and

    (7) commends the democratic opposition in Belarus for their commitment to freedom, their courage in the face of the repression of the Lukashenka regime, and the emergence of a pluralist civil society in Belarus--the foundation for the development of democratic political structures.

   SEC. 9. DEFINITION.

    In this Act, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--

    (1) the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives; and

    (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

   By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY):

2A) U.S. Policy with Respect to Missile Defense
H.R. 1453. A bill to declare the policy of the United States with respect to design and deployment of a missile defense system capable of defending the national territory of the United States against ballistic missile attack; referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

H.R. 1454. A bill to establish the policy of the United States with respect to deployment of missile defense systems capable of defending allies of the United States against ballistic missile attack; to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

2B) Rush to Exempt DoD from Environmental Laws

   Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of our march to war with Iraq, too little attention has been placed on the rush to exempt the Department of Defense from most of America's major environmental laws.

   This is more than just another misguided assault on the environment by the Bush administration. It is a significant missed opportunity for the military.

   Our defense -related activities are the source of the Nation's largest pollution and Superfund sites. From the radioactive legacy at Hanford, Washington, to the toxic residue of our chemical testing and manufacturing around American University here in Washington, D.C., every State, district and territory struggles with this problem.

   More exemptions are not going to help. A lack of controls created this toxic legacy across America in the first place. These exemptions will actually cost us money. Much of the tens of billions of dollars that will be necessary to clean up after our military activity is a result of delay and lack of commitment. States will be forced to step in where the Federal Government has walked away.

   Failure to invest in technologies of cleanup will put lives at risk. Land mines, unexploded ordnance kill people at home and abroad.

   Even the sprawl that vexes communities around the country hits at the military. Isolated areas that were once perfect for testing weapons and training soldiers are now victims of our headlong rush for urban development. Sprawl is one of the greatest challenges to military readiness as civilian uses encroach upon and around military bases and ranges.

   For too long, Congress has been missing in action in this critical area. It should not just reject the Bush administration's ill-conceived but cleverly-timed effort. Now is the time for Congress to help the military fulfill its environmental obligations.

   As the finest fighting force in the world, our military achieves astounding results. All they need are direct orders and adequate resources. Why not put them to work to enhance and protect the environment, rather than create more environmental threats in the future while we ignore the challenges of today?

   Since I came to Congress I have been working on this problem, fighting to at least inventory the areas that are blighted by unexploded ordnance, to put somebody in charge and incrementally increase funding for cleanup and research.

   As a gusher of money flows to defense , just half the budget for the ill-conceived national missile defense program could revolutionize military cleanup. Instead of a rate of spending that will now take centuries, maybe millennia, we could finish the job in a few decades.

   In the long term, investing in cleanup can actually save substantial sums of money. As technologies are developed and economies of scale are achieved in environmental cleanup, there will be a wide range of civilian contractors willing, able and eager to expand their business.

   Additional money for research will do far more than merely hasten cleanup and lower costs. It will have a profound implication not just for soldiers but for children and farmers who are killed and maimed every day as a result of unexploded ordnance and land mines. And this just does not happen overseas. They have been able to document over 60 American victims, including children, who have been victims here in this country.

   At a time when we are deeply concerned about our economy, these investments will provide tens of thousands of family-wage jobs. Accelerated cleanup will speed the return of some of America's most interesting, scenic and valuable properties to productive uses and, in some cases, to the tax rolls.

   It is not just a fear of job loss that keeps between a quarter and a third of domestic bases that are surplus to our needs in operation. Many communities feel that they will lose not just the economic security and the jobs but they will be left with a white elephant that is polluted, surrounded by barbed wire and a cyclone fence.

   The Fort Ord base in California is an example. It contains some of the world's most spectacular landscape, but after 13 years since closure and over $500 million, the land still has not been fully restored to productive use.

   Twenty years ago, a bipartisan coalition of ``cheap hawks'' made some significant reforms in military weapons procurement. Today, the ``hawks'' who care about the environment, the budget and military readiness should embrace bold, environmental military action.

   Congress should firmly reject the anti-environmental, unnecessary initiatives of the administration and, instead, give the money and instructions to the Department of Defense so they can clean up after themselves. It will boost the economy, save taxpayer money and enhance the environment. It will improve military readiness at home while it enhances the safety of soldiers and civilians around the world.

3A) Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act
H.R. 1413. A bill to provide benefits for certain individuals with injuries resulting from administration of a smallpox vaccine, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

3B) Response to WMD Terrorist Incidents
H.R. 1449. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish a program to provide assistance to enhance the ability of first responders to respond to incidents of terrorism, including incidents involving weapons of mass destruction , and to improve security of infrastructure, and for other purposes including emergency preparedness; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security (Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

3C) Compensation for Smallpox Injuries
S. 719. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the payment of compensation for certain individuals with injuries resulting from the administration of smallpox countermeasures; referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

3D) Use of Chemical Weapons
USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS -- (House of Representatives - March 27, 2003)

[Page: H2448]  GPO's PDF
---

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor with an issue that I feel the Members of this House should think about.

   The BBC carried a story on March 27 saying that there was proof of biological weapons found. They found protection suits, gas masks; and officials argued that these precautions were not to counter the threat of coalition attacks, as the Iraqis would know that the United Kingdom and U.S. forces in the gulf do not possess chemical and biological weapons .

   Mr. Hoon, who is the Secretary in the British Government, conceded that the discovery of the suits was obviously not conclusive proof that Iraqi forces were set to use chemical or biological weapons , but he added, ``It's clearly indicative of an intention, otherwise why equip his own forces to deal with a threat which he knows we do not have?''

   I just received an e-mail message from one of my friends in the British House of Lords who said to me there was a news story on the BBC this morning about the U.S. administration saying they may be prepared to use nonlethal chemical weapons in Iraq in an urban situation where it would be preferable to stun people rather than kill them. Now I do not know how we put those two stories together. We think the Iraqis are getting ready to do something; but the BBC, the very same, carries the story which we will never find in an American newspaper or on American television that we are talking about using chemical weapons .

   My correspondent went on to say this would be illegal; they are very nasty substances and can kill children. They would be effective against military forces equipped with even rudimentary gas masks. I am sure my colleagues will be speaking out against such a thing. However, it might help them to know that I am hoping to ask our government what action they would take in such a situation.

[Time: 14:30]

   ``My party will certainly call for the U.K. troops to cease work with American forces if they use illegal chemical weapons , even nonlethal ones. If it happens during the Easter recess, we would call for a recall of Parliament to debate it.''

   Mr. Speaker, I bring this to the floor because the media in this country has done a terrible job reporting the war. They give us one side, they are all embedded inside our military, and they get whatever they are supposed to put out about what is going on. They are not looking broadly across the horizon at what is happening.

   The Washington Post carried a story today that the American people are so dissatisfied with the American press that the number one hit on the Internet is Al Jazeera, a Qatar television station that provides another point of view. Americans are trying to find out what the truth is.

   Mr. Speaker, I do not know, I cannot make head nor tail out of this. I looked

[Page: H2449]  GPO's PDF

   If we are going to start a war in which we are going after a country and we say they have weapons of mass destruction , we know it, but we have not found any, and now the story comes out that we are getting ready to use them. Remember what happened in Moscow when the Chechnyan rebels took over that theater with all those people in there, and the Russian Army used a nonlethal chemical weapon to stun the people, and they had several hundred die? The question is, are we prepared to use those on civilians in Iraq or how do we keep it only on the military and not on the civilians? When gas is spread, it goes around, and people breathe it.

   The United States Congress should be made aware of this. I do not go to the secret briefings because I want to be able to talk out here about what I hear in the general public. I do not think that they will tell Members in a secret briefing whether they will use it, but Congress should demand from the people in the war department and the White House as to whether or not they intend to use any kind of nonlethal chemical weapons . Are they talking about tear gas? What are they talking about? We do not want to be a part of doing the very thing that we accuse the Iraqis of.

4A) Troops in Iraq Should Receive Medical Screenings
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, with our country's troops now entering into active combat in Iraq, I want to bring to your attention and to the attention of my fellow Representatives an issue made even more timely by the events of the past twenty-four hours.

On March 13th, I sent to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld a letter which I am including in the RECORD with this statement. I encouraged the Secretary to assure that all troops entering the Iraqi area receive medical examinations before and after deployment. The Kansas City Star recently carried an informative article, also included here, summarizing a law enacted by Congress in 1997 that requires such physical and mental screening of our troops, due to the many unexplained illnesses that followed service in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Our fighting men and women serving in the Middle East face a genuine, immediate threat of biological and chemical weapons . We owe them no lesser level of service and dedication than they are providing in defense of our country. I hope all members of Congress will join with me in ensuring that the commitments made to the members of our Armed Forces in 1997 are kept in 2003 and afterward.

Hon. DONALD RUMSFELD,

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I am writing to express my concern regarding a recent article I read in the Kansas City Star March 5, 2003, entitled: ``Troops are not receiving medical screenings required by 1997 law.'' I have enclosed the article for your review.

The article asserts that troops entering the Iraqi area are not receiving medical examinations before and after deployment. As you know, Congress mandated in 1997 that all troops receive such tests to help in identifying future ailments such as Gulf War syndrome which has been extremely difficult to document and treat following the 1991 Gulf War.

I strongly urge the Department of Defense follow the 1997 mandate and if the DOD needs help fulfilling this mandate to accept the Veterans Administration's offer of help to collect and maintain medical information on all troops entering southwest Asia.

I look forward to your response on this important matter.

Very truly yours,

WASHINGTON.--Troops heading for the Iraqi theater are not getting health screenings, especially blood sampling, mandated by a law Congress enacted in 1997.

The law, which grew out of concern about unexplained illnesses that followed the 1991 gulf war, required that troops receive mental and medical examinations before and after deployment overseas. The tests are intended to provide clues in case the phenomenon known as gulf war syndrome should recur.

Instead, the Pentagon requires only a brief, one-page questionnaire asking for general health-related information. A top Pentagon health official said blood tests would not be especially useful.

About 300,000 American personnel are now at jumping-off points near Iraq or on their way. Many consider U.S. troops much more likely than in the 1991 war to face biological and chemical weapons .

``The majority of the troops have already deployed ...... and therefore we're not going to have a good picture of their health,'' said Steve Robinson, a gulf war veteran and executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center.

``Once again, if soldiers are exposed, we do not have baseline (medical) data required to document their status. You're looking at gulf war illness 2.''

The Pentagon insists that it has followed the law.

``If the intent was to make sure we had better documentation--yes, we are in compliance,'' said Michael Kilpatrick, a physician who is deputy director of deployment health support at the Pentagon.

Veterans affairs activists, health care expects and congressional watchdogs are unconvinced.

The law, signed by then-President Bill Clinton, was enacted in response to a chorus of health complaints from gulf war veterans. Many reported a variety of ailments, including headaches, memory loss, rashes, equilibrium problems and loss of motor skills.

The causes were unknown, despite numerous medical studies. Some veterans pointed to the release of chemical or biological agents when Iraqi stockpiles were bombed, the military's hurried vaccinations against those agents, desert diseases and parasites or pollution from burning oil wells.

The syndrome has caused a bitter battle between veterans and the Pentagon, which has refused to recognize it, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has had to decide whether claims for medical compensation are valid.

Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a former veterans affairs activist, called the Pentagon's program troubling.

``What's the message we're sending to our troops around the world today and those prepared to fight in Iraq?'' he asked. ``The message seems to be, `Do your duty to country, but your country won't fulfill its duty to you if you're lucky enough to return home.' ''

Kerry, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, has asked the General Accounting Office to investigate whether Defense has met its requirements.

In addition, leaders of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs have asked for a detailed account of Pentagon efforts to track medical data on battlefield troops.

Last month, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi wrote to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and said the VA wanted to work closely with the Pentagon to collect ``health and exposure data'' on those deployed in southwest Asia.

``Much of the controversy over the health problems of the veterans who fought in the 1991 war with Iraq could have been avoided had more extensive surveillance data been collected,'' Principi wrote.

Mark Brown, a VA toxicologist who has been investigating gulf war illnesses, said Principi's letter was intended to put the VA ``on the public record'' about its concerns.

The Pentagon's approach, he said, ``certainly wasn't adequate in the first gulf war. Have they learned their lesson and done better? Maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised.''

The law requires the Secretary of Defense to ``establish a system to assess the medical condition of members of the armed forces,'' including reserves, deployed outside the United States for combat, peacekeeping missions or humanitarian operations.

Kilpatrick said the Pentagon's program was ``an evolving process'' and part of a concept called ``Force Health Protection'' that was put in place during the Kosovo conflict in 1996.

Some health officials with the Defense Department appear not to have known what Congress required.

Some gulf war medical researchers proposed a study to the Pentagon a year ago that would track some troops in post-Sept. 11 military operations. The proposed study unknowingly mirrored the elements of the law, and a medical official wrote back, ``This sound like something we need to investigate further as something we could like to support.''

The project involved studying the Rhode Island National Guard. David Haines, an immunologist affiliated with George Washington University, said he discovered a month ago that the Department of Defense was supposed to be doing the blood sampling that he and his colleagues had proposed to do on a small scale.

``We will do the right thing and step back if DOD is doing great things, but we don't believe DOD has anything like that in place,'' he said.

According to Kilpatrick, a brief questionnaire is basically the military's response to the congressional mandate because it has other steps already in place.

In the questionnaire troops are asked how they would rate their health, from excellent to poor. They are also asked whether they have any medical or dental problems, whether they have any health concerns, whether they wear glasses and whether they have concerns about possible ``exposures or events during this deployment.''

Anyone answering ``yes'' to certain questions will be referred for further examination. Rick Weidman of the lobbying group Vietnam Veterans of America, calls the questionnaire ``absolutely useless from an epidemiological point of view.''

``There's nothing about susceptibility to skin rashes or any of the derivative diseases that are due to some of these kinds of exposures,'' he said, ``and there is no psychological exam. Nothing.''

According to Kilpatrick, troops are asked whether they have sought mental health counseling within the past two years, but the military has to rely on personnel being truthful.

``If people say, `My mental status is fine,' we are not stopping to engage in a three-hour survey to assess people's mental status,'' Kilpatrick said. ``If we are preparing to deploy 20,000 troops, it's physically impossible.''

A key element of the 1998 law is the taking of blood samples to establish a medical baseline and help identify possible subsequent exposures to toxic materials. The absence of

[Page: E554]  GPO's PDF

Blood is always taken for HIV testing, Kilpatrick said, and those samples are in storage. But fresh samples will be taken only if the serum on file is more than a year old, he said.

He disputed the idea that additional sampling would be helpful because the biological markers of many toxic agents disappear from the bloodstream within hours or days of exposure.

Also, Kilpatrick said, troops are physically evaluated every five years, except for pilots, who are tested more frequently. Medical histories were more valuable to researchers than ``hands-on'' physical exams, he said.

But gulf war medical researchers said the Pentagon's plan is a missed opportunity, especially considering the threat of weapons of mass destruction .

``We can run into the same thing all over again,'' said Lea Steele, a Kansas Institute of Health epidemiologist who has studied gulf war veterans. ``One of the difficulties of the gulf war was we didn't have any evidence prior to the war. It was hard to link illnesses.

``Now that we're becoming a second time deeply involved in Iraq ..... there is no established protocol that would be very valuable. Some people say Saddam Hussein has less to lose now. He may be more likely to use these things.''

4B) Operation Iraqi Freedom

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

   Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, before we begin, let me yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the distinguished former district attorney from Boston, to finish his statement.

   Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend for yielding. I thank the gentleman for his spirit of collegiality.

   Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to conclude with was this observation, and I direct it to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: if we are unable to work out in the course of our consideration of the supplemental budget full funding for all veterans services, then it is time for the veterans in this country to take action. Many of us have read in our history books that there was a march on Washington in the early 1930s. It is time for the veterans organizations and for the American people to march again.

   Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we want to talk a little bit about the situation in Iraq tonight and a number of other subjects.

   Mr. Speaker, I am joined by the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), a businessman and new freshman. The gentleman is on his way to take his daughter to dinner, and, as a father of two daughters, that takes high priority. So let me yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez.)

   Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is a pleasure to be with the gentleman tonight on the floor.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with my colleagues to commend the tremendous progress being made by our troops in Iraq. However, I am disgusted with recent media reports proclaiming setbacks and delays of our troops in battle.

   Mr. Speaker, such editorializing of the news represents a severe disconnect with reality. At this very moment we are within minutes of Operation Iraqi Freedom being just 1 week old. One week, Mr. Speaker. In one week, we have flown over 7,000 combat sorties, we have delivered 600 Tomahawk missiles with surgical precision such as never before seen in battle, we have moved numerous ground troops to within 50 miles of Baghdad, and we have killed or captured thousands of Iraqi soldiers. We have adapted, we have overcome, and, Mr. Speaker, we will prevail.

   But in the din of news reports and live briefings, the fog of battle for Americans can be information overload. We learn a lot about what is happening today. But for the next couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker, I would like

[Page: H2389]

   In 1979, Saddam Hussein took control of the Iraqi Government. The next year he launched a costly 8-year war with Iran that was both inconclusive and violent.

   In 1988, after his unsuccessful foray into Iran, he took on a less formidable enemy, the Kurdish people of Northern Iraq, his own people. Using chemical weapons and poison gas, he destroyed 1,000 to 2,000 of their villages. The death toll from that holocaust may have been as high as 182,000 people.

   In 1990, he once again crossed international boundaries and invaded tiny Kuwait. During that exercise his soldiers carried out orders to kill any civilian who did so little as violate curfew.

   In 1991, his continued aggression against Kuwait brought about the attention of the United States and the United Nations and his swift defeat during Operation Desert Storm.

   In the 12 years since Desert Storm, Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has passed 17 different resolutions outlining conditions under which Saddam can stay in power. He has violated them all.

   We now have further evidence that Saddam and his band of loyalist thugs have no respect for human life, common decency, nor even the international rules of engagement. The heinous treatment of our soldiers and the abuse of even his own citizens once again is absolutely despicable.

   Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I hope the world takes note of another truth of this conflict. As Hitler was supported by the Nazi loyalists, so, too, is Saddam supported by his Baath Party fanatics.

[Time: 20:45]

   My colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), stood on this floor on February 25 and outlined the atrocities of the regime in terrible, gruesome detail. He described mutilated babies, crippled children, adults without limbs, dipped in acid, torture beyond the imagination of civilized people, all at the hands of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath party.

   Referring to these and the regime's other crimes against humanity, our President, our Commander in Chief said, ``If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.'' Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. That is why Operation Iraqi Freedom is about regime change, not just about Saddam. All those that promote terror, manufacture it, and export it must be squelched before liberation can come to the Iraqi people and peace to the rest of the world.

   Mr. Speaker, the bullets are flying; and our troops are in harm's way. As we continue to be briefed on their daily progress, as we see the sacrifices being made in the field by our soldiers and back home by their families, let us keep this in proper perspective. Let us remember why we are there: to end a regime of terror and liberate a people who have never known freedom.

   Godspeed to our troops and God bless America.

   Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado; and I want to commend him on words well said. I appreciate everything that he is doing to help free the people of Iraq as a new Member of Congress.

   Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a number of things. I want to read a letter from an Iraqi woman. I want to read a letter from Charlie Daniels. I wanted to talk about a French company that has nearly a $1 billion catering contract to the U.S. Marine Corps, and I want to talk about Iraqi violations of the Geneva Convention.

   First, let me read a rather spirited letter from Charlie Daniels. We know Charlie Daniels is the songwriter who wrote The Devil Went Down to Georgia, among other things. He is great playing the fiddle, and he is a great American. So this is Charlie Daniels' letter, open letter to the Hollywood bunch. I am going to read directly from the letter.

   Okay, let's say just for a moment you bunch of pampered, overpaid, unrealistic children had your way and the USA did not go into Iraq.

   Let's say that you really get your way and we destroy all of our nuclear weapons, stick daisies in our gun barrels and sit around with some white wine and cheese and pat ourselves on the back, so proud of what we have done for world peace.

   Let's say that we cut the military budget to just enough to keep the National Guard on hand to help out with floods and fires.

   Let's say that we close down our military bases all over the world and bring our troops home, increase foreign aid, and drop all trade sanctions against everybody.

   I suppose that in your fantasy world, this would create a utopian world where everybody would live in peace. After all, the great monster, the United States of America, the cause of all of the world's trouble, would have disbanded its horrible military and certainly all of the other countries of the world would follow suit.

   After all, they only arm themselves to defend their country from the mean USA.

   Why, you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical, idiotic spoiled mugwumps. Get your head out of the sand and smell the Trade Towers burning.

   Do you think that a trip to Iraq by Sean Penn did anything but encourage a wanton murderer to think that the people of the USA didn't have the nerve or guts to fight him?

   Barbara Streisand's fanatical and hateful rantings about George Bush makes about as much sense as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a railing.

   You people need to get out of Hollywood once in a while and get into the real world. You'd be surprised at the hostility you would find out here.

   Stop in at a truck stop and tell an overworked long-distance trucker that you don't think Saddam Hussein is doing anything wrong.

   Tell a farmer with a couple of sons in the United States military that you think the United States has no right to defend itself.

   Go down to Baxley, Georgia, and hold an antiwar rally and see what the folks down there think about you.

   You people are some of the most disgusting examples of a waste of protoplasm I've ever had the displeasure to hear about.

   Sean Penn, you are a traitor to the United States of America. You gave aid and comfort to the enemy. How many American lives will your little fact-finding trip to Iraq cost? You encourage Saddam Hussein to think that we didn't have the stomach for war.

   You people protect one of the most evil men on the face of this earth and you won't lift a finger to save the life of an unborn baby. Freedom of choice, you say?

   ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire). The gentleman should address his remarks to the Chair.

   Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am reading a letter from Charlie Daniels which I think I am certainly allowed under the rules to do. Not that I would ever argue with the distinguished parliamentarian, particularly the one on your right, but I believe I can read a letter.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman can read his letter provided it is otherwise in order.

   Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the Speaker. I am still in quotes, Mr. Speaker, and probably it is very appropriate for the Speaker to point out that I am reading a letter, open letter to Hollywood written by Mr. Charlie Daniels, one of America's most popular entertainers. I am going to continue with that, back to the quoted letter.

   Well, I'm going to exercise some freedom of choice of my own.

   If I see any of your names on a marquee, I'm going to boycott the movie. I will completely stop going to the movies if I have to. In most cases, it certainly wouldn't be much of a loss.

   You scoff at our military whose boots you are not even worthy to shine.

   They go to battle and risk their lives so ingrates like you can live in luxury.

   The day of reckoning is coming when you will be faced with the undeniable truth that the war against Saddam Hussein is the war on terrorism.

   America is in imminent danger.

   You're either for her or against her. There is no middle ground.

   I think we all know where you stand.

   What do you think?

   God bless America.

   Unquote, Charlie Daniels.

   Mr. Speaker, my colleagues can get this off the website. However, due to technological ethics, I am unable to give out that website number, but if somebody would call my office, I would be glad to give it to them.

   Mr. Speaker, here is a guy who is one of the American-dream-type success stories, came up the hard way. I believe Charlie Daniels went to the University of Chicago, so he is not exactly just this country boy from back home on the farm that Hollywood would scoff at. But this is a guy who has really made it pretty big in the entertainment world, knows the Hollywood bunch because he calls them up front and he writes a letter like that to give us an idea of what he thinks.

   Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to read another letter by a woman named

[Page: H2390]

   As an Iraqi woman who wages peace and has fought in war, I am compelled to support a U.S.-led action to remove Saddam Hussein. After 26 years of resistance against Saddam, I have come to the conclusion that only forces from outside Iraq can bring an end to the nightmare of his rule.

   The stories of Saddam Hussein's brutality are all true. Ethnic cleansing, summary imprisonment and execution, torture and rape are all part of the nightmare. I know this from personal experience.

   My father founded an Iraqi peace movement, a crime for which he was murdered. At the time I was 14 years old. I was arrested by the regime merely because I joined the Iraqi Women's League. I was not the only young girl arrested for such a trivial offense.

   Later, I joined the Kurdish resistance, even though I was, in their eyes, a mere woman and a Christian. I traveled in disguise to Baghdad and around the country to organize opposition to Saddam. When I was injured in one of his chemical bombardments against hundreds of Kurdish villages in 1987 and 1988, I was forced to flee to a refugee camp in southern Turkey where I stayed until I finally reached freedom in the United States in 1997. I continue to suffer to this day from lung, nerve and eye damage caused by these weapons.

   No one in Iraq is immune from Saddam's brutality, not even the closest members of his own family. He even executed two of his own sons-in-law in 1996.

   A commonly used form of torture is to bring a detainee's female relative, preferably his wife, daughter or mother, and gang rape her in front of him.

   Members of the Iraqi opposition in exile receive videotape of tapes of their female relatives in Iraq being raped. Women who criticize or merely offend Saddam are accused of being prostitutes and regularly beheaded in public.

   His son, Uday, often leads these beheadings. They occur in Baghdad as well as in smaller villages throughout Iraq. The heads of the executed women are hung on the doors of their houses for all to see.

   I am saddened when I see people who sincerely care for the fate of the Iraqi people resist the American-led effort to remove Saddam and restore hope for the Iraqis. We cannot do it alone.

   Iraqis had their closest brush with freedom in 1992 during Operation Desert Storm. I regret, as do most Iraqis, that the United States and its allies allowed Saddam to squash this resistance and remain in power. Those who care about peace and justice for the Iraqis should not make the same mistake again.

   Saddam will never leave power willingly. He will never give up his weapons and allow the Iraqi people to live in freedom.

   That is the end of the letter, Mr. Speaker, but I want to restate one more time that this was written by an Iraqi woman who was raised in Iraq, who was part of the peace movement, who has come to the conclusion that only a U.S.-led action will remove Saddam Hussein, and that is the only way that the world will be rid of him.

   I think that is so important, Mr. Speaker, because there are a lot of well-meaning people who are against the United States action. There are a lot who are not so well-meaning. A lot of people just have a gripe with George Bush, and they find the war a convenient vehicle to air their opinion. There are a lot of people who do not like the United States of America and, again, they find the war a convenient excuse to air their opinion on that. But then there are a lot of people who are absolutely sincere: peace first, peace only, negotiations.

   Yet what this Iraqi woman is saying, who has been there and has been injured by Saddam Hussein, is we cannot do it alone, we have to have a U.S.-led coalition.

   Today, Mr. Speaker, in Basra, we did find out that there was an uprising and at this point it has not continued, but I think that it will, and I think in the days and weeks ahead we are going to see more and more Iraqi citizens coming out of their hiding places and facing Saddam Hussein and joining the resistance against him.

   Now, I have been joined by our friend from Miami, Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart). I want to yield some time to him.

   I have a couple of other topics I want to talk about surrounding Iraq. One of them has to do with a French company that has a lucrative contract with the Department of Defense feeding 55 garrisons throughout America. I also want to talk about the House Resolution that we passed today urging Iraq to comply with the Geneva Convention. But the gentleman has been a very active freshman Member of Congress and has a lot of issues he has been working on, too. So I yield to him to jump in on this or switch topics or whatever pleases him.

[Time: 21:00]

   Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I was listening to the gentleman's words today, and I was moved by the gentleman's statements and by the strength and veracity of that letter from that young woman who suffered the intense oppression of that brutal, crazy dictator, that dictator that is oppressing the people of Iraq.

   What she says is so true: the Iraqi people have been suffering for a long, long time. They have suffered through what we really cannot even imagine, the most horrendous humiliations, tortures, murders, assassinations. That man who has killed about 1.5 million people, has gassed his own people, and other nations; who has no concern for life or for any basic principles or freedoms, and who the world was negotiating with for about 12 years.

   Think about that. We all believe in negotiations. We all believe in diplomacy. I believe that we should try to negotiate; and when we have a dictator, a crazy, insane man who has committed mass genocide and murder, that we should try to negotiate, for 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 10 years, 12 years? When is enough failed negotiations enough? When is enough failure enough?

   I believe that the United Nations has a role to play. Yes, I believe we should get the United Nations resolutions to express the sentiment of the world once, twice, three times, ten times. But 17 times? How many resolutions must he ignore and continue his oppression, his assassination, and more dangerous to us, his trying to obtain nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction?

   How many times should we say, or is there a time when we should say, enough? What does it take? What does it take for the world to react?

   Thank God, fortunately, we have a President who stated after the attacks, those horrendous attacks that occurred on 9-11 against our people, our innocent people, he stated very clearly that those that harbor terrorism were terrorists, and that there was going to be a price to pay.

   Then he tried to warn, and he did warn, Saddam Hussein. He went to the United Nations and got one last chance for Saddam Hussein from the United Nations. But there is a time, unfortunately, when one must act. That time has come. Now our brave men and women are doing what the President said he was going to do, what he was going to ask them to do if Saddam Hussein did not disarm. He was going to disarm them with our brave men and women.

   They are doing an incredible job, an incredible job. This is the time to support our troops. This is the time to not vacillate in that support for our troops.

   I know there are those who say, well, we support our troops, but we wish they were not there. They are there. They are performing a vital job. We have to support them wholeheartedly, not with caveats, not with reservations. We have to support them. We have to support them, and they have to do what it takes to get the job done.

   It is up to us, who are living and enjoying the freedoms that those thousands of men and women in uniform for generations have fought to give us. We should utilize those freedoms to show appreciation, to show respect, to show admiration, and to say, job well done. We are with you. We are going to be with you to the end.

   They are going to succeed because the vast majority of the American people supports them; because the vast majority of the American people supports our President, our Commander in Chief, in his efforts. We are so grateful.

   I actually was walking through, and I heard what the gentleman was saying on the floor. I had to come by and thank the gentleman, thank the gentleman for those words, and thank him for reminding us what is at stake. When the gentleman read that letter from that young woman, I think it brought it home. It brought it home to roost. What is at stake here is so precious. It is liberty, it is life, it is everything that we care for, everything that we believe in.

[Page: H2391]

   Yes, unfortunately, it is expensive. It is expensive. It has been expensive for generations. But those who have to protect those lives, those freedoms are the American people. Once again, our troops are doing it with the honor, with the valor, with the talent that they have always done it. I want to thank them for what they are doing.

   I want to thank you, sir, for once again bringing that to light. That is why I had to come by here. I saw the gentleman on TV, and I had to come by to thank him for these words of solidarity to our troops, to the Commander in Chief; and to remind everybody why it is that we are in this battle; and that we are going to win this battle because it is so important, because so much is at stake. Yes, we are on the right side.

   Mr. KINGSTON. I want to thank the gentleman for those words, Mr. Speaker.

   It is interesting, today we had a great moment where

   all Members, Democrat and Republican, came together on the issue of Iraq complying with the Geneva Convention, which of course they are not doing. Each day there is a new revelation.

   There was a very tender moment today as we in Congress saw the pictures of the prisoners, the American POWs, that Iraq had filmed. As the gentleman knows, it was very gruesome. First, the cameras panned on some dead soldiers, soldiers who at least three of them had a shot right in their forehead; young men, strong men, men in uniform, men with their dog tags around their necks and the blood that was on their chests, in some cases. It was a very sobering, very gut-wrenching scene to see.

   Then, apparently in the same room, but it was not clear, were the live prisoners. Iraqi TV or whoever the reporters were were interviewing them and asking them a lot of questions. There seemed to be some pushing and shoving in the room. It seemed that there were a lot of people. We could tell by the look in these American prisoners' eyes that they did not know if they were going to be alive the next minute, or make it through the night, or what was going to happen to them. It seemed like utter confusion.

   What struck me, among other things, is that even in Somalia, and we all have read or seen ``Blackhawk Down,'' which I think was a great depiction of that battle. When they had the captive helicopter operator, he was still allowed to get the International Red Cross to come in. Yet in Iraq they do not even let the Red Cross in to see our prisoners.

   Today, on a bipartisan basis, we debated, and we will vote on it tomorrow, House Concurrent Resolution 118, which I had, I guess I am not going to say the honor, which would be the usual word, but I offered it, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

   I represent the Third Infantry in Hinesville, Georgia, and he represents Fort Bliss in Texas, where the members of 507th Maintenance Division were from, supporting the Third Infantry.

   Just to see the House come together and say, you know, this is absolutely not right, and we are going to put the folks from Iraq on notice that they will be tried as war criminals as soon as possible. If that means waiting until the war is over, fine; but if we can get them out of there before then, they will be tried as war criminals. We made that statement to them, number one.

   Number two, we assured our troops that we are watching and we are with them in thought and in spirit, and we are going to do everything that we can to get them out of there alive.

   Number three, we sent a signal to the international community, the French, the Germans, the Chinese, the Russians, those who were so quick to denounce the United States of America and this action. Well, there are 164 countries that have signed the Geneva Conventions going back to 1949. Let these countries now step forward and denounce Iraq, who incidentally is a signer of the Geneva Conventions; and let the world community find something that they can agree on in the form of these seven soldiers who are captured as we speak tonight.

   Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it is interesting, the gentleman mentioned some of these countries that were so quick to criticize the United States, criticize the United States for enforcing the resolutions that they unanimously supported, by the way.

   Yet, we now see some of them, and I do not know why they have acted the way they have, but I can just throw some facts on the table. We now see that the Government of Russia has sold to the Iraqi Government some very high-tech military equipment.

   Mr. KINGSTON. That Russian equipment sold to Iraq, Mr. Speaker, that is radar-jamming or missile-jamming technology. Is that not the case?

   Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART. It is highly sophisticated night vision equipment, equipment to avoid radar, missiles, and also to confuse GPS devices that are obviously a big part of a military arsenal.

   Yet a lot of these things are things that were not permissible under the sanctions that those same governments supported. So on one side, they are saying, well, Iraq is a violator of all sorts of rights. They are trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction. They have supported all these resolutions in the past. On the other side of their mouths, they are selling them high-tech equipment, military equipment.

   That regime that they have condemned for the human rights abuses, for the rape of the women, for the assassinations, they are selling that regime high-tech military equipment, much of it banned by the United Nations. Those countries voted to ban that equipment to the Iraqi regime.

   We saw that the wonderful, talented men and women of the U.S. Air Force shot down missiles. Some were destined to land in populated areas of Kuwait. Those are missiles that supposedly they do not have, that Iraq does

   not have. What more proof do we need?

   I ask a question, I ask a rhetorical question, How many violations does it take for these countries to realize that there is a problem? Of course, what we realize now is that it is not that they do not realize that they are violations. It is that they have been assisting this regime and selling them high-tech equipment that has been banned, that is unlawful, according to the United Nations resolutions. They have been assisting this regime in their oppression, in their assassinations.

   I think we are going to find a lot of that. I am not telling the gentleman that is the reason why some of these countries oppose the United States' effort to free the people of Iraq, just like the United States military freed the people of France twice.

   By the way, the people of France, thank God, they had the right to be free. A lot of brave young American GIs died to free the people of France. I am glad that France is free. The people of Iraq are no less human beings than the people of France. They have the right to be free, as well.

   Mr. KINGSTON. It is interesting that the gentleman mentions that, because there is a degree of racism, I think, on the part of the peace activists of the world. The reason why I say racism is because would these people support a Saddam Hussein if he were in Paris? Would they do it if he were in Germany? No. They would denounce him quickly. But as long as he is in the Middle East, well, they have been fighting for years. Or if he is in, say, South Asia or something, well, they have been fighting for years; or if he is in Africa.

   How many times have we heard, they have been fighting for years, we cannot bring peace in the Middle East, like the people in the Middle East do not deserve peace; but the folks in Europe, that is the high standard to live by. To me it is just a double standard. I can only summarize it with racism.

   The gentleman mentioned Russia selling sophisticated, high-tech equipment to Iraq. We already are seeing in Congress that we have the supplemental budget coming, and it is going to be to fund the military operation as well as the humanitarian operation.

   As a result of the humanitarian operation, I am already seeing a gold rush. I am seeing companies actually start lobbying for contracts. That bothers me a lot when we have one missing in action today, seven captured, and eight casualties American and 18 British. Yet what really bothers me is some of these countries are not American countries and they are not English countries and they are not Australian; they are not coalition countries.

[Page: H2392]

   I have one example, though, of a company. USAID, which is a foreign aid branch, it does a lot of good things, but it is going to let some humanitarian contracts go, and French and German companies will be eligible to compete for it. That bothers me a lot, that they will be able to profit from this war.

   Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART. I could not agree with the gentleman more, if the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker. This is a two-fold problem. There is, first, the opposition to this effort to free the Iraqi people and to free the world from this very dangerous dictator, free the world from a dictator who is trying to get or obtain nuclear weapons, and who already has other weapons of mass destruction.

[Time: 21:15]

   We are trying to free the Iraqi people while at the same time free the world from this incredible threat.

   So we have to remember these countries that we are objecting to that, that even though unanimously, just a few months before, they said, hey, look, we are going to give this dictator one last chance, he has to disarm, but it is worse than that because not only are they objecting to the freeing of the Iraqi people, are they objecting to ridding of the world of this dictator who is trying to get nuclear weapons, who has ties with terrorist organizations and, by the way, including terrorist organizations that have assassinated Americans, but what is even more offensive is that at the same time they are selling this dictator high-tech equipment that he can use to further exploit, hurt, oppress, kill, murder his people and others because of his ties with terrorism.

   One would hope that humanity has gone above and beyond that, and yet there are those that would like to profit even while selling high-tech equipment that they know they should not be selling because they have said it repeatedly in U.N. resolutions. So they know it, it is not by mistake, and yet they are doing so to earn a buck, to earn a buck?

   Mr. KINGSTON. There is another example. Another company called Sedxho, S-E-D-X-H-O, it is a French company. It is a publicly-owned French company, but they have $1 billion worth of food service contracts with the United States Department of Defense. Recently, they signed an $881 million contract to feed the U.S. Marines in 55 different garrisons. We are working on a letter to the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, to say he needs to renegotiate this, he needs to cancel it, he needs to look into it. But can my colleague imagine, here is a French company, and France, I do not remember one division in the country of France in terms of their stance against America in the last 3 to 6 months. I do not remember anybody moderating.

   In America we had division. We had a pro-war and an anti-war group, and the world knew that. But, in France, it seems like they were all united against the United States and against this war.

   Apparently, that is not a problem to Sedxho, because they are a French company. And yet here are the Marines, the brave and the honorable Marines who are the ones who discovered this hospital today, allegedly a hospital, and yet 55 different garrisons in the United States of America, when an 18-year-old Marine sits down for lunch, a French company is making a profit from that. That is unbelievable, and I call on the Department of Defense to cancel that contract.

   Listen, there are reasons sometimes we have to buy from an enemy. There are reasons that somebody has something unique, but we are talking catering. I am sure there are good companies in Florida and Georgia and all over America that can do the catering service for the U.S. Marine corps, but a French company, it is unbelievable.

   Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. If the gentleman would yield, I think we are going to find a lot of that. I think we are going to find a lot of companies that are profiting from selling goods to the United States, including to the United States Armed Forces and armed services, as the gentleman just pointed out, who, by the way, are probably also making a hefty profit selling products to Iraq, even though there are sanctions there and probably even some high-tech equipment to the tyranny in Iraq.

   I think it kind of explains some of the ferocity of the argument, some of the aggressiveness of some of those that were objecting to the United States' noble stance to help free an oppressed people and also help rid the world of these weapons of mass destruction and the possible obtaining of nuclear weapons to this dictator. I think we are going to see a lot of that.

   The thing that surprised me, and it does not surprise me anymore because we are starting to see why, and my colleague just mentioned it, we are starting to see why but, surprisingly, the ferocity of the argument and how France, for example, not only do they object to any resolution that was not of their liking in the U.N. recently and they said so, but, also, they went lobbying. They actually were talking to every nation possible to try to stop this movement to free the people of Iraq and to free the world from this dictator who has caused so much grief.

   I think we are starting to see why, but it is sad, it is sad that it looks like one of the main reasons or at least one of the reasons may be because they are making a buck off of this dictator.

   Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, also, are they not making a buck or profit, things like that, but they have had a lucrative oil contract in Iraq they did not want to disturb. That it is clear France is not after some noble or high ground about peace, but it simply boils down to profit.

   If the gentleman would like to make any closing comments, I need to actually make an engagement.

   Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman from Georgia. Again, I had to come to the floor today once I was hearing what he was talking about. I had to come here and thank the gentleman, thank him for standing up for our troops, thank him for supporting our troops, thank him for supporting the President of the United States, Commander in Chief in such a difficult time. Our troops are going to prevail because of their honor, their integrity, their decency and because they are the best people, best troops and the best human beings that this world has ever seen, and they are well led, and their cause is just.

   I wanted to thank the gentleman again for his words. They were humbling, and they were touching, and I wanted to come here and thank him tonight for his words.

   Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everything the gentleman is doing.

4C) Supporting Our Armed Forces

   Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today with great honor and pride to pay tribute to the men and women of our Armed Forces, tens of thousands of whom are deployed right now in the Middle East in military action against Iraq. I encourage all my colleagues in the Senate, and in the Congress, that we take a few moments out of each and every one of our days we are engaged in this conflict to come to the floor and speak to our constituents, speak to the American people, and speak to the servicemen and servicewomen who are so valiantly out there defending our freedoms and this great country that we believe in. We are going to take a few moments here today to talk about how important are these men and women in service to our country. We would like to encourage, again, all Members of Congress to come to the floor and spend a few minutes out of their day or out of their week to talk about the incredible lives of these individuals who are there on our behalf, defending our freedom.

   Over the course of the last week, since hostilities began in earnest on March 19, our troops have made tremendous progress toward the objectives of their mission. At the same time, we have seen a few setbacks, but these do not detract from what has been accomplished. For that, we have no one to thank but the courageous, hard-working men and women of the American service arm and the coalition of Armed Forces.

   We hear a great deal about the technology behind this war--missiles, aircraft, telecommunications devices, weaponry, and other equipment of battle. But we should all remember that even the best equipment and the best technology is of little value without the best soldiers and commanders to make it useful.

   Today we have over 230,000 troops representing air, sea, and land forces in the theater, with our allies in the coalition contributing an additional 45,000. These young men and women are serving in a wide variety of capacities but with a unifying mission--to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, and to destroy his weapons of mass destruction which threaten our globe. They are separated from their families and their friends, placing themselves in great personal danger in order to provide for a safer, more secure world for all of us.

   I myself have a young man from my staff who is serving in the Middle East.

[Page: S4423]

   We are all deeply grateful for the sacrifices our service men and women are making and the risks they are taking on all of our behalf. Those sacrifices and those risks will not be forgotten.

   In addition, I remind my colleagues that a large number of these troops come from the National Guard and the Reserve, nearly 217,000 at our last count. Over 2,000 of these guardsmen and reservists come from my home State of Arkansas. One of those soldiers is Major Stephen Wilson, of Rogers, AK.

   Major Wilson, who is 38 years old, is the operations officer for an Apache attack helicopter unit, the 2nd Squadron, 6th Cavalry of the 11th Aviation Regiment. We have all seen in recent days the difficult odds our attack helicopter crews work under. They are vulnerable to small arms fire from the ground, not to mention difficult weather conditions that we have all been seeing on the television. In spite of these difficulties, Major Wilson and his colleagues persevere in an extremely challenging but extremely necessary mission.

   He is a proud representative of our State and our Nation, and we are extremely proud of him for his service to this country.

   If there were a way to thank each and every soldier by name, I would do it. I would take the necessary time to make sure that each of them knows how important they are in this conflict and in our resolve. Since it is not possible for me to recognize who is serving today, allow me at least to give a sense of where these units come from all across our great State of Arkansas: Little Rock, North Little Rock, Fort Smith, Van Buren, Siloam Springs, West Memphis, Ozark, Charleston, Marked Tree, Fayetteville, Pine Bluff--and the list could go on.

   Furthermore, these units are comprised of individuals from all over the State, meaning that we have soldiers serving from virtually every community in our great State of Arkansas. It is a reminder that even from thousands of miles away, Arkansans have a very serious stake in this war.

   On behalf of the people of Arkansas, I wish to say we are proud of all of our troops, and we look forward to welcoming them back home soon and safely.

   It is also true that as of today we have suffered casualties, and we should not turn away from this fact. It is believed that up to 14 of our troops from both the U.S. and our broader coalition are missing or captured by enemy forces. Our prayers are that they will be returned to their units safely and timely.

   We also had a number of our troops wounded in battle, and we wish them the best in a speedy, full recovery from all of their injuries.

   Most tragically of all, over 40 troops from the U.S. and from Great Britain have been killed in action or in accidents. We extend our deepest sympathies to their families, their friends, their loved ones, and we vow that we will honor their service and their memories by finishing this great task in which they have given their lives. Those lives will not have been lost in vain.

   In the days and weeks to come, we will no doubt discover that others of our troops will have been captured, wounded, or cut down, but we must remain firm in our resolve that Operation Iraqi Freedom will continue to move forward.

   My own father, who passed away last October, was a veteran of the Korean war, and he taught me always to respect the great commitment made by our troops in fighting to protect our freedoms. He taught me better to understand the mind of a soldier when he shared with me the stories and experiences he had on the front lines of Korea. And also, sitting at the foot of the chair of my grandfather, who served in World War I--both of my grandfathers did--I listened to stories of his travels on trains from Helena, AR, west to Little Rock, to catch another train to boot camp, and then on to France.

   To better understand the minds of the men and women who serve us in the armed services, each of us must take the time to reflect on the personal stories of the family members, the

   neighbors, the friends, the staff, all of those who are so critically involved in this conflict in which we now find ourselves.

   I again encourage all of my colleagues to take those few moments out of their day, out of their week, to think about what these generous souls are giving on our behalf to be there, to defend so many of the freedoms we in this great country take for granted, to remember them and their families in our thoughts and prayers.

   Our troops of today's generation deserve the same respect for the work they do as when we look back at many of our family members who have served in previous wars.

   As I reflect today with my colleagues in the Senate, there is no one I think of more at this moment than one of my colleagues here in the Senate, who I would like to share my time with, someone who has a son overseas in the Middle East.

   I have to say, as a mother of twin boys who are now in the first grade, it is amazing to imagine how quickly our children grow up. The questions that I get at night from my children--Where they are going? What they are doing? What is our country involved in? Where will they be in 10 or 15 years from now?--it is so important for each of us to reflect on this as we lift up the service men and women who are there valiantly now defending our freedoms.

   They and their families will be in our hearts and in our minds and in our prayers in the coming weeks. We wish them Godspeed, God's safety, and a timely return home to this country and this land that we all love so much.

   I thank you, Mr. President. And I want to again tell my colleague, Senator Johnson, how much I appreciate him and his family for the incredible contribution they make with his son serving in the Middle East right now. It is an unbelievable gift, and we are all truly indebted.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

   Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am honored to have an opportunity to take part in this tribute to our American troops this evening here on the floor of the Senate.

   I express a special commendation to my colleague and good friend, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, for her comments and for her leadership in helping to put together this tribute, as well as my South Dakota colleague, Senator Daschle, for all his support of our troops and his suggestion that we go ahead with a regular tribute and acknowledgement of the contributions our American military personnel are making.

   This is a matter of particular personal importance to me with my own oldest son Brooks serving in the 101st Airborne in Iraq today. But there are thousands of others from South Dakota--Reserve, National Guard, Active Duty, Ellsworth Air Force Base in our case in South Dakota--and around the Nation who each are making profound contributions to the security and freedom of this country and for stability in that troubled part of the world.

   We owe so much to each and every one of them, not only to honor the men and women who put on our Nation's uniform and jeopardize their lives by doing so but their families who suffer mightily from the sacrifices that are made, and from the prospect of death, injury, captivity--all that to which our military personnel subject themselves.

   In our own family's case, we recognize this is a voluntary military in this day and age. Our son Brooks chose to enter the military. It was not my encouragement, particularly. It was his choice. All the credit goes to him. And that young man, with so many others, has served in four conflicts in the last 5 years: Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, now Afghanistan. And we in South Dakota, and many around the country, do what we can to demonstrate our pride and support. In South Dakota, we have revived an old World War I tradition of wearing the blue star if we have a family member in the war. We have banners on our front door and at my offices around the State and here in Washington with that same blue star. We recognize that as the tradition goes, some of those blue stars will eventually become gold stars, and that is the symbol worn by parents who have lost a loved one.

[Page: S4424]

   We keep a map of Iraq in our family kitchen, as I am sure, in some similar way, the hundreds of thousands of other parents do all across this country, trying to keep track, as best we can, where our son is, as others keep track of where their sons and daughters are, their husbands and wives.

   The communication, of course, at this time is just spotty. Initially, we were able to get a couple e-mails. A short time ago, I received a note from our son Brooks on the back of a beef stew box, a piece of cardboard. They had no paper anywhere, and they had to make do as they could. We will keep this forever.

   We sent, obviously, notes and cards to them. There are organizations that have encouraged this to go on, and I am sure that builds morale, as these troops suffer through incredible circumstances, both militarily as well as just the sandstorms and all that goes with living out in a desert and in a troubled place.

   One of the things Barbara and I recognize, that all the other parents share in a way that is more profound than could possibly be the case unless you have had a loved one in a circumstance like this, is that every glance at the television, every glance toward the radio could convey to you at any moment some catastrophic news. There are many who follow the conflict, have an interest in it, but the families recognize more so than anyone the very real nature of what is happening.

   These are not video games. There is a tendency sometimes in the media to talk about collateral damage and casualties, and you see numbers on the maps and colored diagrams going in one direction or another. But the families recognize that each one of those represents real people and real hopes and the love of real families. We in this body understand the sacrifices that need to be made. But it goes almost beyond understanding how much we owe to these men and women and all that they do.

   This past week, Barbara and I were listening at our home to some reports, and there was a report of casualties and deaths in our son's division. I went to tell Barbara about it, and it was almost impossible for me to even speak. She had been following the news herself and knew that in this instance it involved a different brigade than where our son was; our son had left Kuwait for Iraq the day before. We breathed a sigh of relief as parents will when their own son or daughter has escaped harm, but we recognized more than ever because of our circumstances that while our son in that case was safe, the losses were very real. Someone else's son, someone else's husband was injured, was killed, somewhere else families are devastated.

   We will win this war. We have the greatest military in the world. The world will be a better place when we are victorious. But it is important for us to take stock of the men and women who make this possible. It is important for us to express our honor for what they do and who they are. It is important for us to share our prayers that this conflict is a short and decisive conflict with the fewest losses of life possible on either side.

   We as a people owe more to these men and women than words can possibly convey. It is my hope that as we follow this conflict and pray that it is a short one, we in the Senate will do all we can, obviously, to express our honor and our praise for these people, but also that we will go beyond that to take the steps necessary so when they come home, they will come home to a country where there is opportunity, where schools for their children are good, where the environment is clean, the economy is growing, where there are jobs available that are challenging and meaningful to them, and that so long as they remain in the military, their pay, their housing, their quality of life is what it deserves to be.

   Every night when we go home and live in relative comfort, I hope we keep in mind these hundreds of thousands of our troops, who this very night, many of them, are sleeping in a hole in the sand 2 or 3 feet deep to protect themselves from shrapnel during the course of the evening, blowing sand, horrible weather, fear of snipers, bombs, biological, chemical warfare that could arise at any moment, and appreciate the quality of these troops and how we as a free people could not possibly sustain our freedoms were it not for the willingness of these troops, these men and women, to voluntarily step into this kind of circumstance and fight this war.

   I yield to our leader, Senator Daschle. Again, I

   acknowledge my gratitude to him for helping to organize this tribute to our American troops.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.

   Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am sure everyone can appreciate the difficulty that our Senator from South Dakota has experienced in coming to the floor to talk, as he has with pride and enormous appreciation, of the commitment made by a member of his own family.

   On a regular basis, we want to come to the Chamber with our Republican colleagues and call attention to all those who, like Brooks Johnson, are now serving in the Persian Gulf. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for agreeing to help organize today's colloquy and reiterate my deep gratitude to my dear friend and colleague, Senator Johnson. We thought it would be appropriate today, as we begin this practice, to call the Senate's attention to the fact that Senator Johnson is the only Member of this Congress who has a child serving in Iraq.

   As he has noted, Brooks, his son, is a staff sergeant with the Army's 101st Airborne Division. He is 31 years old. I know him, and I can see why his parents are as proud of him as they are. He is remarkable. He has turned down offers to attend recruiter's school because he said he wants to be close to the men he leads.

   He is 6¬1", 215 pounds, almost all shoulders and biceps. He loves the rough-and-tumble of the outdoors. But he also enjoys gourmet cooking and Broadway musicals. He is a very thoughtful man, an eloquent speaker. He loves to read the classics. When he was serving in Afghanistan, he was reading the history of the Peloponnesian wars.

   He has known since he was a very young man that he wanted to serve and protect our country. He missed his own high school graduation because he was attending Marine Corps Reserves basic training at Parris Island. He went to college at the University of South Dakota, and during college, Brooks served first in the Marine Corps Reserve, then the Army Reserve, then the Army National Guard.

   The reason he served in so many branches is that he was looking for a unit that was close to college. He wanted to be able to learn and to serve at the same time. When he decided to make a life of the military, he chose the Army. He has now been on active duty for 8 years.

   This is Staff Sergeant Johnson's fourth war in 5 years. He served in Bosnia. He served in Kosovo. He arrived in Afghanistan in December of 2001, 2 months after the terrorist attack on America. He served in Afghanistan for 6 months.

   Like so many family members who have loved ones in this war, TIM and Barb aren't exactly sure where Brooks is detailed, but they do know his division has been moved into Iraq.

   The other day, TIM came to the floor and he shared something with me. I hope he doesn't mind if I share it with our colleagues. Brooks sent him a postcard, but this isn't a normal postcard. This is a postcard carved out of the box of an MRE, one of these portable meals that they take with them. I have eaten them myself. They are a box about like this. Well, Brooks carved out one side of an MRE, brown, cardboard box. On one side of that postcard box he wrote a message to his parents. On the other side was the address to his parents and his return address. Up in the right-hand corner, instead of a postage stamp, it said ``free.'' There are a lot of connotations to the word ``free'' on that postcard.

   So we think of Brooks and the freedom he fights for, the freedom he has, and all the things that we cherish as Americans, recognizing that Brooks Johnson learned those values from two extraordinary parents.

   A quarter of a million Americans and several thousand South Dakotans today serve in the Persian Gulf. We are in awe of their courage. Their dedication. Their sacrifice. We are grateful to every one of them and their families.

[Page: S4425]

   I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, it seems only yesterday that Senator Johnson and I were sharing stories about our sons, the athletes. They both were back here with their parents in the East while we were in the Congress. They were little boys then. Then they got to where they were in high school, and they were bigger boys, but they were boys. So it is hard to imagine now our two boys are grown up. They are adults.

   Barbara and TIM's son, though, is really grown up. This young man is fighting in the deserts, in the sands of Iraq so that we can continue to enjoy our freedoms in America.

   I had to call TIM at home this past Sunday to talk about some of the issues we were working on legislatively. I hated to call TIM because I am sure he and Barbara at this stage do not like to get phone calls on Sunday afternoons, during nonworking hours. I am sure TIM and Barbara every night pray for their boy and probably a few times during the day.

   All of us should recognize that we, too, can join in a prayer for the Johnson's son Brooks. We need to do that because you see, what is going on in Iraq is more than just numbers. We hear numbers such as 250,000 people over there, and we hear talk about skirmishes that have taken place. I pray that Brooks Johnson will return home safely to his parents, TIM and Barbara.

   I received a message yesterday, as we are notified as Senators, when something happens to someone from our States. Yesterday I received a message about a young man from Tonopah, NV. It used to be a big booming town where heavyweight prize fights were held, and at the turn of the last century it was a great mining community. Now it is a relatively--not relatively, it is a small place.

   A man by the name of Frederick Pokorney came there. His parents moved around a lot. He wanted to finish high school. He was a sophomore. He was able to stay with the sheriff. Wade Lieseke took in this young man. It was great for Tonopah High School because he was large--6 foot 7, very athletic; he was a linebacker, a center for the basketball team. He was a great young man, quiet and kept to himself.

   To make a long story short, he went into the military. He was in the military for 11 years. He was just made a second lieutenant. He was one of the seven who was taken down in an ambush and killed.

   People who serve in the Iraqi conflict are in harm's way--every one of them. My heart goes out to Senator Johnson. Through TIM JOHNSON, we all recognize the ultimate sacrifice that young men and women are making in Iraq. He represents, in effect, the Congress. He is the only Member I am aware of who has a family member serving in that conflict.

   I congratulate TIM and Barbara for raising such a wonderful son. As I said, Brooks sets a great example for other young men and women in this country. I again say I hope that we all celebrate with the Johnsons when he returns home.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

   Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his words. We came to Congress together with TIM JOHNSON many years ago and feel a special kinship and friendship with TIM and Barbara and the family.

   I was fortunate enough to be walking past the Chamber and saw Senator TIM JOHNSON speaking and stopped to hear the words he had to say about his son. I thought he showed remarkable composure when he talked about his son who is currently with the Army in Iraq in the midst of this battle. Obviously, he has a great deal of pride and, of course, a great deal of concern, natural concern of any parent.

   And then to hear Senator Daschle's special tribute to Brooks Johnson told us a little more about this young man, an extraordinary young man who has done so many things in his short life of 31 years and has tried over and over to continue to serve his country.

   What a great reminder of the men and women who are serving their country overseas today. I am glad this Senate went on record today with an incredible vote of 100 to 0 to increase combat pay and the family separation allowance of those who are serving. That is something that should be done, and I am glad we said it today and said it decisively, and I hope we move quickly to change the law to help those families.

   I also wish to say before I yield to my great friend and colleague from West Virginia, that I thank the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, who has brought us to the floor now several times to talk about our men and women in uniform. It is important we continue on a daily basis to remind America that this Senate, as well as the Congress, is very sensitive to the fact that what is happening on the screens of the television just a few feet away involves real lives and real Americans and that our commitment is to them.

   The vote in the Senate just last week, 99 to 0 in support of those men and women in uniform, I think shows the current state of affairs in America transcends our political differences. We may disagree on foreign policy, we may disagree on what led up to this war, but when the first shot was fired, 99 Senators, everyone voting stood up and said: At this point, make no mistake; we are standing behind our men and women in uniform.

   I have been surprised and disappointed by some of the comments I have received in my office from a few people, some by e-mail and some by telephone, who have taken exception to that vote. They said: We thought you voted against the use-of-force resolution, and now what are you doing, hedging your bet by saying you support the men and women in uniform?

   What I have said to them and I say on the floor of the Senate is: You better draw a clear and bright line between the debate on foreign policy and whether or not we stand up for these young men and women who have volunteered to serve their country to risk their lives in battle.

   I lived through the Vietnam war and remember it as one of the most formative experiences in my life and one of the saddest chapters in American history, the fact that many people channeled their hatred for the war toward the men and women in uniform. That was unfair. It was unfortunate. It should never be repeated.

   Political leaders make decisions about foreign policy, committing our troops in various parts of the world, and those men and women who are sworn to serve the leaders and our Nation meet their call of duty, and we should never forget they did

   not make the foreign policy decision. They are serving their Nation as we asked them to serve. We should never ever compromise our commitment to them. That is why I think the resolution we have adopted, the vote today when it comes to combat pay and the tribute on the floor, is a reminder that we stand as one, shoulder to shoulder in unity, with these men and women in uniform.

   In the congressional family of 100 Senators and 435 Members of the House, it turns out we have, to my knowledge, only one son, and that is TIM JOHNSON's son, Brooks, who is in our Senate congressional family serving our Nation.

   We are going to be mindful of him. I ask TIM every day: Have you heard anything from Brooks? We will be mindful of him, as we are mindful of people from my town of Springfield, IL, or my State of Illinois who may be in harm's way. It is part of an expanding American family that we come together in times of fear and in times of crisis.

   To those who oppose the war, to those who favor peace, please draw that clear bright line: We should never take it out on the men and women in uniform, no matter how much we may disagree with the policy. And I think most Americans who feel that way, even those with misgivings with the events that led up to this war, feel this commitment should be singular.

[Page: S4426]

   I mentioned Senator Byrd. Today there is a front-page story in the Washington Post about a family in West Virginia--and I imagine he will bring our attention to that in his remarks which follow. It, too, tells the story of a young woman, in this case, who made an extraordinary sacrifice and is in an usual, unpredictable situation perhaps being captured in Iraq.

   I take the floor today to thank Senator Lincoln and Senator Johnson. I urge my colleagues, if you can, spare a few moments each day to come and tell a story of those you know who are serving this war and serving this Nation so well.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

   Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, just an hour or so ago, barely 50 feet out this door, many remaining members of the Delaware Army and National Guard were gathered. Coincidentally, it was a day that had long been scheduled for them to be on the Hill. National Guard associations from all over the country have converged on Washington, DC.

   In the last several weeks, many of their colleagues in the Army and National Guard have since deployed to the Middle East, to the area around Iraq, and some to Iraq. On Sunday night, at a National Guard headquarters hangar in Wilmington, DE, at the airport we said goodbye to almost 100 of the members of the 166th Military Airlift Command as they set off to join their colleagues and their aircraft on the other side of the world. They are the maintainers of the C-130s which are part of the air bridge from the United States to Iraq.

   It starts here with a very large C-5 aircraft and includes the C-17s, and at the end of the delivery system, the end of the air bridge, the C-130s, the smaller sort of rangers. The maintainers, the members of the 166th who have gone to join their colleagues, are the folks who make sure the landing gear works, the radio works, the hydraulic works, the avionics systems work. Without them we would not have C-130s that function, and without C-130s we would not have the kind of air bridge that we need to be successful in this war.

   I was privileged to be there to salute them and send them on their way, as were our former Governor, former commander in chief of the Delaware National Guard, MIKE CASTLE, our Congressman, and our Governor, our current commander in chief of the Delaware National Guard, Ruth Ann Minner. I was privileged to be their commander in chief for much of the last decade when I served as Governor of Delaware.

   As we said goodbye to the men and women of the 166th, we also had important words for the families of those who stayed behind, the wives and the husbands, the children, the parents of those whose loved ones are climbing on to that C-5 and getting prepared to fly thousands of miles from home. In some cases--and I say this as one who deployed on several occasions as a naval flight officer in the Navy back during the Vietnam war--the deployment is tougher not on the one being deployed but on the ones who stay behind. To those families we owe a lot because they have shared their loved ones with us, and in many cases they put their families in difficult straits at a tough time.

   We voted today on several amendments to the budget resolution which are designed to lighten the load a little bit for those who are being deployed, particularly those who are being put into a hazardous place to perform their duties. I am grateful for that and would express on behalf of not just the families of the 166th whose loved ones deployed this Sunday but on behalf all the members of the Delaware National Guard who are now serving in this war, thank you on their behalf and on behalf of their families for thinking of them, for remembering them along with the other Guard and Reserve men and women who are being called to active duty around this country.

   During the time I served on active duty in Southeast Asia, we would from time to time receive a Reserve air crew that came in usually from the west coast, but flying their P-3 aircraft for 3 years hunting for Red October, tracking Soviet nuclear submarines, but also flying low-level missions along the coast of Vietnam and Cambodia.

   In those days, back in the early 1970s, when we had a tough and dangerous job to do, we would never turn it over to a reserve air crew. The Active-Duty crews would take care of that, and we would be careful to send the Reserve air crews on a job where they could not get in trouble or could not get hurt. That was 30-some years ago. Today it is such a different world. We have guards men and women, activated, deployed, reservists called to active duty who are serving alongside full-time soldiers, sailors, and airmen. They are doing the very same jobs, dangerous jobs, tough dirty jobs in some cases, and to them we owe an enormous debt of gratitude.

   A closing word to my friend Senator TIM JOHNSON of South Dakota whose son is over in Iraq, and I am sure a matter of great concern to him and to Barbara, his wife, a concern that is shared by literally tens of thousands of families across this country. I say a special prayer for Brooks and for the Johnson family, and remember them and all who have been deployed and serve our Nation at this tough and challenging time.

   I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. COLLINS). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.