Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) Strategic Partnership between the U.S. and the Marshall Islands

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 364) to recognize more than 5 decades of strategic partnership between the United States and the people of the Marshall Islands in the pursuit of international peace and security, and for other purposes.

   The Clerk read as follows:

    H. Con. Res. 364

   Whereas on November 20, 2003, Congress, recognizing our Nation's historical responsibilities over the Former Trust Territory of the Marshall Islands and its successful transition from Trust Territory status to full independence in free association with the United States beginning in 1986, approved the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act, which was signed into law by President Bush on December 17, 2003, becoming Public Law Number 108-188;

   Whereas the Compact of Free Association, as amended by Public Law 108-188, embodies and extends the close political, economic, and social partnership, as well as the strategic mutual security alliance, between the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the United States under the terms of the bilateral association between our nations;

   Whereas this partnership for peace and alliance for the security of our nations and the world began in 1944, when the heroic armed forces of the United States and its allies, with the courageous assistance of the people of the Marshall Islands at the risk of their own safety, liberated the Marshall Islands from Japanese military occupation;

   Whereas the friendship and cooperation between the United States and the people of the Marshall Islands that began during World War II continued during the next 4 decades, during which the United States exercised powers of government in the Marshall Islands under a Trusteeship Agreement with the United Nations;

   Whereas during the Marshall Islands trusteeship era the aim of the United States was to promote international peace and security through its nuclear weapons testing program which was viewed as a critical element to the success of United States global leadership during the Cold War;

   Whereas the United States testing program conducted in the Marshall Islands and the strategy of nuclear deterrence sustained by the United States and its allies, was carried out in the hope that understanding its destructive power would be the strategy for which we could arm the world with reasons for peace among nations;

   Whereas from 1946 to 1958 the United States detonated 67 atmospheric nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands, representing nearly 80 percent of all the atmospheric tests ever conducted by the United States, and enabling atmospheric tests in the continental United States to be terminated and relocated at the greatest possible distance from large cities and densely populated areas;

   Whereas on March 1, 1954, the hydrogen weapons test code-named Bravo yielded explosive power approximately 1,000 times greater than the weapon used in the 1945 wartime nuclear attack on Hiroshima, Japan;

   Whereas the Bravo test created a mushroom cloud 25 miles in diameter, and produced a crater 6,000 feet in diameter, vaporizing 6 islands at the Bikini Atoll;

   Whereas the Bravo test and the 12 year nuclear testing program has been the defining experience of the modern era for the people of the Marshall Islands, and these momentous events created a common bond between the people of the Marshall Islands and the United States military and civilian personnel who shared hardships and suffering with the people of the Marshall Islands during the testing program, as well as the United States citizens in areas affected by the mainland testing programs and weapons production industry;

   Whereas the people of the Marshall Islands, having learned first hand the dangers of nuclear weapons, freely chose in United Nations observed acts of self-determination in 1982 to enter into the Compact of Free Association in order to become a sovereign nation allied more closely with the United Sates than any other nation under any other alliance;

   Whereas from the time of choosing self-determination, the Marshall Islands worked closely with Congress and the executive branch to bring about a strong understanding of the unique relationship between their islands and the other United States insular areas;

   Whereas the United States nuclear testing program put the people of these remote islands on the front line in the Cold War struggle to preserve international peace, promote nuclear disarmament, support nuclear nonproliferation, and provide facilities critical to the development by the United States of a deployable missile defense system to reduce the risks of nuclear missile attacks; and

   Whereas as a member state in the United Nations, the world body that once had oversight of United States stewardship of the trusteeship for the people of the Marshall Islands and their island homelands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands has an unmatched record of working in conjunction with the leadership of the United States in the pursuit of international peace and security, the rights and well-being of the peoples of the world, and in the War on Terrorism: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress recognizes as an historic achievement of friendship more than 5 decades of strategic partnership between the United States and the people of the Marshall Islands in pursuit of international peace and security, and recognizes with solemn regard for the cost of preserving peace, the importance of the nuclear weapon test code-named Bravo at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands on March 1, 1954.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

   GENERAL LEAVE

   Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material

[Page: H1136]

on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Florida?

   There was no objection.

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

   Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on Resources, for introducing this timely resolution which commemorates the more than five decades of friendship and strategic solidarity that the United States has shared with the people of the Marshall Islands.

   March 1 marked the 50th anniversary of the Bravo test, the largest of the 67 atmospheric nuclear tests that the United States conducted in the Marshall Islands. Those massive detonations, which represented significant sacrifices by the Marshallese people, were critical to the credibility and reliability of our nuclear deterrent during the Cold War. They are perhaps the most vivid, visual examples of a strategic partnership that stretches back to the Pacific campaign of the Second World War.

   Most recently, the United States reaffirmed and extended aspects of its unique relationship with the Republic of the Marshall Islands in the amended Compact of Free Association, which the Congress considered and approved last year. That agreement continues and deepens our strategic cooperation, both by reaffirming our mutual defense obligations and by significantly extending United States access to our missile defense testing facility at Kwajalein Atoll.

   As we commemorate the anniversary of the Bravo test, it is fitting to recall the mutual sacrifice that our peoples have shared during the last half century and to committing ourselves to maintaining our special friendship in the decades ahead.

   I urge passage of this resolution.

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

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

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I first would like to commend the authors of this resolution, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). We are grateful for their leadership on matters related to the Pacific.

   This resolution recognizes the 50th anniversary of the Bravo nuclear weapon test which occurred in March 1954. It reaffirms the strong relationship between the United States and the people of the Marshall Islands. The timing of this resolution is particularly appropriate as Congress last year approved legislation renewing the Compact of Free Association. This compact is the guiding document for our relations with the Marshall Islands and with Micronesia.

   Mr. Speaker, the beginnings of our Nation's close relationship with the people of the Marshall Islands are etched in history. In 1944, we joined with the Marshallese people to liberate the people from Japanese military rule.

   At the end of the Second World War, the United States began a decades-long trustee relationship with the Marshall Islands, culminating in Marshallese independence in 1982.

[Time: 12:45]

   During the trusteeship period, the United States conducted 67 atmospheric nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands, the largest of which was Bravo, which occurred in March 1954, a half a century ago. This test yielded approximately 1,000 times greater explosive power than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Our nuclear testing program did enormous, long-term damage to the health of the Marshallese and the environment of the islands. Yet rather than turning away from the United States, the people of the Marshall Islands sought a close political, strategic, and social relationship with our Nation. As we speak, Mr. Speaker, Marshallese soldiers are serving with our troops in Iraq.

   The Compact of Free Association amendments recently enacted into law will further solidify U.S.-Marshallese ties by ensuring that the U.S. contributes to the economic and educational development of the Marshallese people for the next 2 decades and that we continue to operate the Kwajalein test facility on the islands.

   So as we remember the 50th anniversary of the Bravo test, we also celebrate 6 decades of friendship and amity between the American and Marshallese people. I urge all my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 364.

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

   Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

   Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 364, which I introduced recently to formally recognize a political, social, and strategic relationship that is very unique to the history of the United States. The House Committee on Resources has witnessed this relationship over the years and has a unique understanding of the issues that affect the insular areas, having oversight over all of the former United Nations trust territories.

   Today we consider this legislation in light of both the strong history between the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the United States as well as the common ties that will keep our nations closely connected for decades to come. For over 50 years, the United States has enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship with the citizens of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan proposed a new status for the trust territories of the Pacific through negotiated Compacts of Free Association. After having status as a United Nations trust territory for many years, in 1986 these islands chose to become sovereign states. Starting in 1986 when Congress passed the Compact Act, we made the agreement to strive to continue to maintain both economic and political stability in this region, including working to advance economic self-reliance in these islands. Congress also strongly endorsed the continuation of this relationship when we passed H.J. Res. 63, the new Compact of Free Association, by a strong bipartisan vote last year with the help of the House Committee on International Relations and numerous other House committees.

   About 2 weeks ago, the citizens of the Marshall Islands, as well as many others, recognized a moment in time that was significant in American history and was a part of the daily lives of Marshallese citizens from 1946 to 1958. During this period, the United States was performing nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands that would prove primary to the success of our country during the Cold War. The contributions of the Marshall Islanders during these years further helped bring a positive and peaceful end to the Cold War that saw true democracies established across the globe.

   In particular, H. Con. Res. 364 points to the significance of the nuclear weapons test that was code-named Bravo and its role in the half-century relationship that still exists between our countries. On March 1, 1954, the United States tested this weapon at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. It was the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated by our country. Its explosive power was nearly 1,000 times greater than the weapon used in 1945 in our attack on Hiroshima, Japan. This event and the success that came from our nuclear testing program will forever link the United States in history with the Marshall Islands. But the Marshallese continue to show their support for our country, as seen in 80 of their citizens serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. Our common pursuit of peace through working closely together through political, diplomatic, and strategic ties continues to this day.

   I was fortunate to have recently been able to travel to the Marshall Islands with Department of Interior Secretary Gale Norton, as well as other members of the House Committee on Resources. The openness and kindness with which we were received will not be forgotten, as we were able to talk to some of the survivors of these nuclear tests and comprehend better the level of understanding that remains between the Marshallese and our government to this day. In fact, two Bikini citizens are here with us today to see this legislation move to the House floor: the Mayor of Bikini, Mr. Eldon Note, and Senator Juda from Bikini as well.

[Page: H1137]

   This bond should not be understated. I hope that other Members of this body will also show their recognition of this alliance in supporting H. Con. Res. 364 today. We continue to work with the Marshallese in both a socioeconomic and national defense standpoint. Be it the new schools being built with Compact of Free Association moneys or the critical work being done at the Ronald Reagan ballistic missile defense test site, our mutual ties founded in democracy and freedom can, with this legislation, be properly acknowledged.

   I would like to thank the House Committee on International Relations for their help in bringing this legislation to the floor of the House in such an expeditious manner and look forward to the strong bipartisan support of this concurrent resolution by my colleagues.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

   Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, over 7,000 miles due west from our Nation's Capitol at a location roughly 2,700 miles southwest from the Hawaiian Islands and 2,000 miles southwest from Guam lies a nation of more than 50,000 people. The Republic of the Marshall Islands comprises 30 atolls and 1,152 islands, an area that in total land mass represents roughly the equivalent in size of Washington, D.C. but straddles an area of about 770,000 square miles of the western Pacific Ocean.

   Today the people of the Marshall Islands, their culture, their history, their special relationship with the United States, which this resolution seeks to appropriately recognize, is largely unknown and overlooked by most Americans. Their special relationship with the United States is embodied in a Compact of Free Association and the unique partnership the compact establishes between our two nations.

   Last year, we as a Congress renewed this compact with the Marshalls for another 20 years, and we take this opportunity today to recognize the beginning of a new era in our strategic partnership. I am proud to have taken part in the compact's renewal and in the work on this legislation as a Member of this House. As our colleagues from Hawaii stated last year when the compact legislation was brought to this floor, this may be an issue of little note for many of the Members of the House. It would be easy, he said, to say that the compact represents an area of forgotten people, of the never noticed, perhaps lost in the vastness of the world's largest ocean, a people, a culture, an area that was undiscovered by the Western World until the Spaniards arrived in 1529 seeking a western route for trade. Over the centuries, their culture has flourished and the world has now taken notice.

   The United States' relationship with the Marshallese began 5 decades ago during World War II. Allied forces, led by the U.S. Navy and Marines, drove the Japanese Imperial forces from their islands. Following the war, U.S. naval bases were established on the atolls of Kwajalein and Majuro. In 1946, Bikini Atoll was the site for Operation Crossroads, the first postwar atomic weapons tests. Fifty years ago this month, the United States detonated the historic Bravo shot, a 15-megaton hydrogen bomb 1,000 times more powerful than the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. For 12 years, the United States detonated more than 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshalls during the development of our Nation's strategic arsenal. The testing in the Marshalls left a legacy that we continue to address to this day. We recognize the important contributions of the Marshalls in our national security programs, and we know that the Free World owes a debt of gratitude to them for their role in the development of our national strategic deterrent. I am hopeful that we will soon address all these issues that the testing era brought for the benefit of our strategic partnership and special relationship.

   In January, I was fortunate to have participated in a congressional delegation led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). I was very grateful that he decided to visit the Marshalls as well as other Pacific islands. While in Majuro, we met with President Kessai Note and elected officials from other islands, as well as with the Nuclear Claims Tribunal. This visit was important given the recent renewal of the compact, the anniversary of the Bravo blast, and the security issues facing our world today.

   The people of the Marshall Islands have made tremendous sacrifices and contributions on behalf of the United States in the pursuit of peace and freedom around the world. Today, the Marshall Islands are among the United States' greatest friends and most reliable allies. I want to recognize and congratulate the Marshalls' Ambassador to the United States for his efforts in strengthening the relationship between our governments, the Honorable Banny de Brum. I also again want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and the Secretary of Interior, Mrs. Norton, for their leadership in recognizing the value of the strategic partnership with this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I urge its unanimous adoption by this House.

   Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

   Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I appreciate the chairman of the Committee on Resources for bringing this forward. I had the good fortune to travel to the Marshall Islands a couple of months ago on the CODEL with the Secretary of the Interior and some of my colleagues. We were able to meet with President Note and the elected leaders of many of the surrounding atolls. It was our good fortune to go to Kwajalein, to be able to watch what we are doing there at the Ronald Reagan test site, to see how important our relationship is with the Marshall Islands.

   The U.S. nuclear testing program put the people of these remote islands in the front line of the Cold War. For many, many years testing went on. From 1946 to 1958, the U.S. detonated 67 atmospheric nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands. Most Americans have no idea the contribution that the people of the Marshall Islands have made to our peace and our security. Hopefully, this resolution will go some distance in expressing our gratitude and our appreciation for that relationship. We have an obligation to the people of the atolls that were affected by these tests that we are still carrying through. I was pleased to support the Compact of Free Association, or the extension of it. This is a good start. It represents a good foundation for a continued strong relationship. We ought to appreciate strongly the Marshall Islands for their support for our position in the United Nations. No nation on this Earth, I think, supports us more, more frequently and is with us more than the Republic of the Marshall Islands. For that we should be grateful.

   Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this resolution, and I am glad to speak on this topic.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 364, a resolution to recognize the decades of strategic partnership between the United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

   In 1947, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) became one of six entities in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands established by the United Nations with the United States as the Trustee. This began a decades long relationship between the United States and RMI that has proven to be resilient and enduring.

   In particular, I'd like to highlight the United States nuclear testing program in RMI which began in 1946. Over the years, the United States detonated 67 nuclear weapons on the islands of Bikini and Enewetak. These tests comprise 80 percent of all atmospheric tests conducted by the United States and allowed a majority of all tests to be conducted as far from densely populated areas as possible. This testing includes the detonation of Bravo, the most powerful hydrogen bomb ever tested by the United States, on Bikini Atoll. Radiation from the test forced the evacuation of Marshallese and U.S. Military personnel on Rongelap, Rongerik, Utirik and Ailinginae.

   Over the years, the Marshallese have faced very serious consequences as a result of the nuclear testing. The health and property effects have proved to be extensive and in many cases, immeasurable. The United States has recognized this and set up a fund to compensate those affected by the testing. However, the consequences of this testing, especially the health of the Marshallese people, continue to be impacted.

   Mr. Speaker, I am sure that our countries will continue to work on this issue and find a resolution. I also have no doubt that the relationship between our governments will continue to be productive and mutually beneficial.

[Page: H1138]

Last year, this body worked on reauthorizing the Compacts of Free Association, an agreement between the United States and RMI, to continue our defense and economic alliance that has benefited both countries for 17 years. As a result of this work, the United States and RMI will continue this alliance for another 15 years.

   I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing our relationship with RMI and commend their dedication to international peace and security.

   Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in grateful support of this resolution, which I am proud to have cosponsored.

   This resolution is about three things. First, re-acknowledgement of that region of our world in which the present and future of our Nation and so many others lie: the Pacific and Asia. Second, recognition of a proud people and culture whose future lies now not only in their home islands, but in our own country. Third, responsibility for our actions which, like the consequences of those actions, will extend down through the generations.

   On re-acknowledgement, as a product of the Pacific, I confess to a Pacific-centric view of our world. But can anyone doubt that our own future is inextricably tied to that of the Pacific? And as we look to the Pacific, we cannot overlook its island nations, whose strategic value and loyalty to democratic principles are unquestioned.

   Foremost among these nations is the Republic of the Marshall Islands, with a proud history and culture dating back thousands of years. We celebrate in this resolution the mutually beneficial relationship we have enjoyed for more than half a century.

   We also celebrate its people, who at home are striving to build a modern and sustainable island nation. And the emigration of many to new lands and new opportunities, especially in our country, are strengthening communities beyond their homeland.

   My own state has especially benefited, with a Marshallese community of some 5000 strong poised for a major breakthrough into the mainstream of political, economic and social participation in Hawaii's affairs.

   And, of course, we cannot forget that the Marshallese and their counterpart Pacific nations today have their sons and daughters serving with our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and lying grievously wounded defending our joint freedoms in military hospitals.

   And lastly, this is a resolution of remembrance, of the dire consequences to a whole people and their aina, or land, of 66 nuclear tests, virtually all open air, from 1946 through 1958, including, 50 years ago, BRAVO, the world's first hydrogen bomb. Few of us, even today, can imagine the force and devastation released by just one such device, much less 66.

   I have my own recollection, as a boy of just six, sitting on my grandparents' porch on the Island of Kauai, on a dark night, watching the entire sky light up from a single explosion 2,300 miles away. But the Marshallese lived through it, and they are still living through it, and will live through it for generations to come.

   These stories are being told elsewhere, by Beverly Keever, in a February 25, 2004 article in the ``Honolulu Weekly,'' and by James Matayoshi, Mayor of Rongselap, in recent remarks on BRAVO day. I append these for the Record and commend them to your attention.

   But today, we simply remember what happened and recommit ourselves to remedy that which must be remedied.

   Mr. Speaker, there are lots of people to be thanked for this resolution. Chair Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall, for their commitment, Chair Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for bringing this to the floor, and Chair Leach and Ranking Member Faleomavaega for their advocacy. But mostly, we thank the people of the Marshall Islands, for their friendship and support. We will not forget.

   Mr. Speaker, I submit the following articles for insertion into the RECORD in connection with H. Con. Res. 364.

• [End Insert]

   Suffering, Secrecy, Exile: Bravo 50 Years Later

(By Beverly Deepe Keever)

[From Honolulu Weekly, Feb. 25, 2004]

   Almira Ainri was 10 years old when she was catapulted into the atomic age.

   In June of 1946, as the U.S. Navy readied the first atomic bomb in peacetime--just the fourth in history--Ainri and about 100 other inhabitants of Rongelap Atoll, in the Marshall Islands, were sent south by ship to Lae Atoll, where it was thought they would be safe from the effects of the explosion 100 miles away, at Bikini Atoll.

   Eight years later, in 1954, Ainri and other Rongelapese weren't as lucky.

   Fifty years ago this week, on Bikini Atoll, the U.S. detonated the Bravo shot, a 15-megaton hydrogen bomb 1,000 times more powerful than the bomb it dropped on Hiroshima.

   The most powerful bomb in U.S. nuclear history, Bravo had a radioactive cloud that plumed over 7,000 square miles, an area about the size of New Jersey. A hundred or so miles downwind, near-lethal fallout powdered at least 236 inhabitants of the Rongelap and Utrik atolls, contaminating their ancestral homelands. The Bravo-dusted islanders entered history as unique examples of the effects of radioactive fallout on humans.

   Ainri, who now lives in Honolulu, is one of 118 survivors of the Bravo shot. For her and other islanders, the bomb's detonation set off a chain reaction of events over the last half century. They became unwitting subjects in secret U.S. research on the effects of nuclear fallout and ultimately were forced to leave their idyllic homeland, which remains uninhabitable to this day due to radioactivity.

   Archeological finds on Bikini Atoll suggest that the first Micronesians likely arrived in the Marshall Islands between 2,500 and 4,000 years ago. Germany annexed the islands in 1885. Japan captured them in 1914. Allied forces captured and occupied them in World War II; the war's end left them in U.S. hands. The U.S. began nuclear testing there the next year.

   The Marshall Islands were declared a Trust Territory by the United Nations in 1947, with the U.S. as the administrator, an arrangement that did not end until 1991. The following treatment of the irradiated islanders raises doubts about the behavior of the U.S. government:

   U.S. officials failed to evacuate Ainri and other islanders before the Bravo shot and then delayed their removal for more than 50 hours after the fallout.

   On March 7, 1954, six days after the Bravo shot, Project 4.1, ``Study of Response of Human Beings Exposed to Significant Beta and Gamma Radiation due to Fallout from High Yield Weapons,'' established a secret U.S. medical program to monitor and evaluate islanders exposed to radiation, turning them into experimental human subjects without their consent.

   Ainri and other islanders were allowed to return to their irradiated homeland in 1957. It was later deemed unsafe for human habitation.

   Marshall Islanders were injected with or fed radioactive tracers without their consent, contrary to medical recommendations made by U.S. medical officers six weeks after the Bravo shot that the islanders should receive no more exposure to radioactivity in their lifetimes.

   The research projects arising from Bravo were begun just seven years after war crimes tribunals convicted German medical officers for their horrific experiments with concentration camp inmates during World War II. Those tribunals led to the Nuremberg Code, an international standard for experiments involving human subjects, which stipulated that the voluntary consent of the subject ``is absolutely essential.'' The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission established similar standards, requiring the consent of human subjects and the expectation that an experiment would benefit the subject, but they had little distribution or effect in the U.S. bureaucracy.

   Did U.S. bureaucratic bungling and operational obstacles cause the mistreatment of the islanders or, as so many islanders and others say, did U.S. officials make the islanders guinea pigs to study the effects of radioactivity?

   LIKE NEEDLES OVER MY WHOLE BODY

   At about 6 a.m. on March 1, 1954, Almira Ainri was awakened by the brightness and noise of an inferno as hot as the core of the sun. Ainri was 18 then, married, and pregnant with her first child.

   The island shook, she recalled. The air was gray. Snowlike particles fell from the sky.

   A day later, U.S. soldiers with Geiger counters arrived and found people of Rongelap weak and vomiting. Fifty hours and more after Bravo's detonation, the 236 inhabitants on or near Rongelap and Utrik atolls were evacuated to the military clinic at Kwajalein Atoll. There, they were scrubbed every day with special soaps. The pressure of the water on Ainri's blistered skin felt ``like needles over my whole body,'' she said--``like I was burning.''

   After the blast, Ainri gave birth to a son, Robert. His thyroid glands were so damaged that he became dwarfed. The glands were later removed, consigning him to a lifelong regimen of medication. Ainri got pregnant again and gave birth, she said, to ``a bunch of grapes, that had to be pulled out of me.'' Twice more Ainri got pregnant, she said, and gave birth to children who appeared normal but died several days later. Another son, Alex, survived, but again with damaged thyroid glands. Ainri herself has thyroid problems; two new growths recently appeared there.

   The suffering of Ainri and her family is hardly unique. Within a decade of the Bravo shot, more than 90 percent of the children who were under 12 years old at the time of the explosion developed thyroid tumors. Today, Marshall Islanders have one of the world's highest rates of abnormalities of the thyroid, which often result in cases of retardation, cretinism and stunted development.

   For these and other conditions that the U.S. government presumes were caused by its nuclear weapons testing, the U.S. pays compensation. Those with leukemia or cancer of the esophagus, stomach, small intestine, pancreas or bone are awarded $125,000. Islanders with severe growth retardation due to thyroid damage get $100,000.

   By the end of 2002, a U.S. trust fund had paid about $79 million to 1,808 islanders, but because the trust fund could not cover all its obligations, 46 percent of affected islanders

[Page: H1139]

died before they were fully paid for their injuries.

   Rongelap Atoll comprises 61 islets with a combined land mass of about three square miles and a lagoon of 388 square miles. Because it is still too radioactive for humans, its former residents are scattered. In Honolulu, Ainri lives in a home where her pandanus floor mats mingle with a caller-I.D. phone and a television set.

   Under a 1996, $45-million agreement with the U.S., projects are underway to prepare for the return of Rongelapese to the five southernmost, least-contaminated islets of the atoll. A glisteningly white church has been refurbished, complete with striking lapis trim. An airstrip, desalinization plant, field station, power plant and docks have been constructed or installed. Phase 2 calls for the construction of 50 four-bedroom homes, a dispensary and a hospital, school building, residences for doctors and teachers, a library, a town hall and a municipal building. All that is missing is a date when the resettlement will occur.

   THE THREE SURPRISES

   Corporal Don Whitaker hardly could have imagined the worldwide surprise his letter home would create. Writing to his hometown newspaper, in Cincinnati, in March 1954, Whitaker told of seeing distraught Marshall Islanders arrive at a navy clinic on Kwajalein after the Bravo shot. It was one of three surprises that shocked the world, and members of President Eisenhower's administration.

   The first surprise was the magnitude of the Bravo bomb's blast. Its 15-megaton yield was more than twice what U.S. officials had expected. Set off from Bikini Atoll, it vaporized three of the atoll's 23 islets. The test was expected, however.

   Whitaker's letter was the next surprise. In it, he revealed the evacuation of islanders that U.S. officials had tried to keep secret. Published March 9, eight days after the blast, Whitaker's letter prompted the Atomic Energy Commission to issue a press release the next day, masking the magnitude of the Bravo shot and its radioactive effects with a bland announcement. But Bravo was hardly the ``routine atomic test'' the release described, and the phrase ``some radioactivity'' did not come close to describing the islanders' dosage, which was the equivalent of the amount received by Japanese citizens less than two miles from Ground Zero at Hiroshima, lawyer-historian Jonathan M. Weisgall writes.

   Twenty-eight years later, the U.S. Defense Nuclear Agency would call the Bravo shot ``the worst single incident of fallout exposures in all the U.S. atmospheric testing program.''

   The third surprise came just days after the AEC had assured the public that the irradiated islanders were fine. A Japanese tuna trawler, the No. 5 Fukuryu Maru (``Lucky Dragon''), was 112 miles east of Bikini Atoll at the time of the Bravo explosion, well outside the danger zone announced by U.S. officials. Yet Bravo's staggering detonation powdered the boat's 23 crew members with what is known in Japan as shi no hai--``ashes of death.'' When the Fukuryu Maru reached its home port of Yaizu, about 120 miles south of Tokyo, on March 14, the crew was suffering from a radiation sickness that stunned the world.

   The crewmen's sickness and the subsequent panic over radioactive tuna in the U.S. and Japanese fish markets led to an international furor. The Japanese government and people dubbed it ``a second Hiroshima'' and it nearly led to severing diplomatic relations. A U.S. government doctor dispatched to Japan blamed the Japanese press for exaggerating the condition of the fishermen, who, he predicted, would recover completely in about a month.

   Six months later, Aikichi Kuboyama, the 40-year-old radio operator of the Fukuryu Maru, died. He was ``probably the world's first hydrogen-bomb casualty,'' said The New York Times.

   It was this triple-play of surprises--Bravo's tremendous force, Whitaker's letter and the plight of the Fukuryu Maru--that chinked the U.S. government's usual policy of secrecy. Instead, the word fallout entered the world's lexicon. For the first time, people in Japan and Russia, London and Bonn, New York and Milwaukee, were aware of a danger that could not be smelled, seen, felt or heard.

   THE SUN RISING IN THE WEST

   The Bravo shot was the first U.S. hydrogen device that could be delivered by airplane. It was designed to catch up with the Soviets who, in August 1953, had exploded their first hydrogen bomb deliverable by aircraft.

   The Bravo shot was so dangerous that it could not be detonated in the continental United States. Nor could it be set off at Enewetak Atoll, where the U.S. conducted nuclear blast tests from 1948 to 1958, for fear it would wipe out the extensive U.S. equipment and installations there. So it was tested at Bikini Atoll.

   Even before the Bravo shot, experts knew that the radioactive dust of atmospheric nuclear weapons explosions was invisibly and unknowingly powdering the continental United States and touching others worldwide. The U.S. government's failure to move the Rongelap and Utrik Islanders in advance of the Bravo shot is painfully ironic because Almira Ainri and other Rongelapese had been moved before the first peacetime atomic test, in 1946--and Bravo was 1,000 times more powerful. Yet the islanders were not moved in 1954 because of ``the high cost and logistic problems ..... in supporting such an operation,'' according to U.S. medical officers.

   Six hours before Bravo, U.S. officials knew that the winds had shifted, putting Rongelap and Utrik Islanders in the path of fallout, but they proceeded with the detonation anyway. That knowledge, coupled with the lag of several days after the detonation before islanders were evacuated, led to speculation that the U.S. deliberately used the islanders as guinea pigs.

   A month after the Bravo shot, Atomic Energy Commission chair Lewis Strauss told reporters that allegations that the evacuation of the Marshall Islanders had been deliberately delayed were ``utterly false, irresponsible and gravely unjust to the men engaged in this patriotic service.'' He also said that he had just visited the islanders at the Kwajalein clinic and they ``appeared to me to be well and happy.''

   Bravo was detonated at 6 a.m. Within four hours, the 28 U.S. weathermen on Rongerik Atoll, in the Marshall Islands, saw a mist from the blast. Seven hours later, the needle of their radiation-measuring instrument went off the scale. They were evacuated the next day.

   Clouds of snowlike particles moved over Alinginae, Rongelap, Utrik and Ailuk atolls. The clouds deposited radioactive fallout on the people below and irradiated them with doses of ``cloud shine,'' radiation produced by the blast itself, which Rongelapese described as being like ``the sun rising in the west.''

   About two-thirds of the Rongelapese were nauseated for two days, according to a U.S. medical officer who examined them a week after Bravo. Roughly one in ten were vomiting and had diarrhea. Some had itching, burning skin that turned into black-pigmented areas and lesions, some of which became ulcerated and infected. Hair fell out. Blood counts fell.

   The Bravo-dusted islanders disappeared from the news for the next year, because of the AEC's clampdown on information. But if they were not making news, they were making medical history.

   GUINEA PIGS

   Within days of the Bravo shot, irradiated islanders were unwittingly swept into a top-secret effort to research the effects of radioactive fallout on humans. ``Never before in history had an isolated human population been subjected to high but sub-lethal amounts of radioactivity without the physical and psychological complexities associated with nuclear explosion,'' said scientist Neal O. Hines. Islanders would not learn the true nature of the experiment for 40 years, until 1994, when President Clinton ordered thousands of documents declassified in the wake of a national scandal involving human radiation experiments.

   Four months before the Bravo shot, a then-secret U.S. document listed research Project 4.1 among 48 tests to be conducted during and after the explosion. ``(D)ue to possible adverse publicity reaction, you will specifically instruct all personnel in this project to be particularly careful not to discuss the purposes of this project and its background or its findings with any except those who have a specific `need to know,' '' the document said.

   The purpose of Project 4.1 was to study the effects of fallout radiation on human beings.

   Three days after Bravo, Project 4.1 began to unfold in Washington, D.C., where top medical officials decided that the victims of its hazardous debris would be appropriate research subjects. A week after the blast, 25 officials of the AEC's medical program arrived at Kwajalein Atoll. Six weeks after the blast, Project 4.1 workers recommended a lifelong study of the affected islanders. After thyroid nodules began to appear on Rongelapese and Utrik islanders in 1963, they were studied every year.

   They began to complain that they were being treated like guinea pigs rather than sick humans needing treatment. A doctor who evaluated them annually came close to agreeing when he wrote, 38 years after Bravo, ``In retrospect, it was unfortunate that the AEC, because it was a research organization, did not include support of basic health care of populations under study.''

   RETURN TO RONGELAP

   In 1957, U.S. officials assured Rongelapese that their homeland was safe and returned them there. Upon their return, U.S. medical officers shifted the emphasis of their study to what researchers who studied the documents released in the 1990s described as ``the formation of an integrated long-term human environmental research program to document the bioaccumulation of fallout and the human effects of this exposure.'' In sum, U.S. officials knew they were placing the Rongelapese in a radioactive environment, even though the islanders had already sustained more than a lifetime's worth of radiation.

   A 1982 U.S. Department of Energy report indicated that some inhabited areas of Rongelap were as contaminated as the parts forbidden to humans. It was the first report prepared for the Rongelapese in their own language and it shocked them. ``All we needed to see was the center fold-out and our worst fears were confirmed!'' Marshall Islands Senator Jeton Anjain told the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in 1991.

   Rongelap, their principal island of residence since their 1957 return, had been assigned a level ``3'' of contamination, meaning it was unsafe for human habitation.

[Page: H1140]

   In 1984, Rongelapese representatives asked the U.S. to evacuate them. The U.S. refused.

   The next year, the Rongelapese left anyway. ``It was by no means an easy decision, for our people knew that it might mean they and their children would never again know life on their ancestral homeland of the last 4,000 years,'' Anjain told the U.S. Senate committee.

   ``But the safety of our children and the unborn was more important.''

   After living on radioactive Rongelap for 28 years, 70 islanders were moved by Greenpeace to Majetto Island, 100 miles away. Confirming their fears, a 1988 study authorized by the U.S. government and subsequent official testimony recommended that part of Rongelap Atoll be considered ``forbidden'' territory and that the remaining part would be safe only if inhabitants ate imported food for the next 30 to 50 years.

   THE ONLY THING I COULD THINK OF WAS NAZI GERMANY

   Residents of Rongelap and Enewetak atolls were also used in human radiation experiments involving radioactive tracers of tritiated water and chromium-51 injections, Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Phillip Muller told the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs in 1996.

   The U.S. Department of Energy withheld critical information about the adverse effects of U.S. weapons tests from the U.S. Congress and Marshallese officials, Muller said, and medical research without the consent of Marshallese subjects continued.

   Marshallese Senator Tony de Brum told the committee that U.S. doctors 50 years ago pulled healthy as well as unhealthy teeth of islanders without their consent, for use in cesium, strontium or plutonium studies. Even in the mid-1990s, islanders were unsure whether they were being cared for or studied by U.S. medical personnel, de Brum said.

   In 1999, Muller's allegations of human radiation experiments were confirmed by the Department of Energy, the successor agency of the Atomic Energy Commission. Declassified documents showed that U.S. officials included the irradiated islanders under the umbrella of its extensive biological program. Its worst known cases included x-raying the male organs of Oregon and Washington state prisoners, feeding radioactive fallout materials to university students, giving small doses of radioactive iron to pregnant women and feeding Quaker Oats laced with radioactive traces of iron and calcium to supposedly mentally retarded boys in a Massachusetts state home. Upon first learning about these kinds of experiments in 1993, Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary said, ``The only thing I could think of was Nazi Germany.''

   WHO WILL PAY?

   Under the U.N. Trusteeship, the U.S. government was to prepare the people of the Marshall Islands for self-government. In 1986, President Reagan signed the Compact of Free Association after its ratification by the Marshall Islands government and Congress. Its provisions expired in 2001. New provisions for the compact were agreed upon earlier this year, but they are silent on U.S. funding that has since become inadequate to cover the spiraling claims of those harmed by U.S. nuclear weapons testing, including Bravo's fallout.

   There may be a ray of hope for the Marshallese, however. The compacts say that nuclear testing damages to persons or property discovered after the original 1986 agreement can be covered in a new request to the U.S. Congress with documentation that circumstances have changed.

   One changed circumstance is that the U.S. government did not disclose to the Marshallese government the yield of 44 of the 66 U.S. nuclear weapons tests detonated in its republic until 1993. The next year, a comprehensive list of 1,054 U.S. nuclear weapons tests worldwide and their yields was made public by the Department of Energy. It shows that the yield of 82 tests in the U.S.-administered Bikini, Enewetak and Johnston Atolls and Pacific waters from 1946 to 1962 was at least 128,704 kilotons. That's the equivalent of 8,580 Hiroshima-sized bombs, or 1.47 such bombs per day for 16 years.

   A second changed circumstance is that the personal-injury and property claims arising from nuclear weapons testing have exceeded the capacity of the $150 million trust fund established to pay them.

   The people of Enewetak and Bikini have been awarded just over $1 billion for property damages, radiological cleanup, loss of use and hardship and suffering, but as of the end of 2002, less than one percent of that money could be paid. And class-action damage claims for the people of Rongelap and Utrik are still pending.

   About 5,000 claims seeking a combined $5.75 billion for radiation-related damages arising from U.S. weapons testing in the Pacific have been pressed. The U.S. has paid $759 million.

   In 2000, invoking the ``changed circumstances'' provision of the compact, the Marshallese government asked the U.S. Congress for more funds and services to meet health costs and property damages. (Its petition can be viewed online at www.rmiembassyus.org--click ``nuclear'' and then ``petition.'')

   In November 2001, the Marshallese government's petition was resubmitted to a new U.S. Congress and President Bush. As of early this month, the U.S. has yet to take any action.

--

   Remarks of Mayor James Matayoshi, Bravo Day, March 1, 2004

   Today I stand before you as mayor of Rongelap, but more importantly, I stand before you as a son of Rangelap--a true son of the ``survivors''. You are here because you have determined that today, as we commemorate the terrible and terrifying event of March 1, 1954, it is important that you come. We are grateful to you for being here.

   We are especially proud to welcome our friends from the World Councils of Churches, our friends from Japan, Europe, and America. We know of friends here from as far away as New Zealand and Puerto Rico. We thank you all. We welcome you all.

   Some of you are from the islands which have born this tragedy for 50 years and more....... Some of you represent organizations and communities of people who feel strong ties to those of us who survived Bravo. Some of you represent governments and important organizations from throughout our world. Many of you have come to show solidarity with us today when we take a solemn pause to memorialize events of the past....... Events which forever changed our lives, and by the fact that you are here, your lives as well.

   Throughout this day, and as you interact with each other during these commemorative services, you will undoubtedly hear various accounts of events surrounding Bravo. From this long list of stories and anecdotes, you will witness the horror of the bomb, hear the multitude of reasons why this or that happened, and draw your own conclusions as to what to believe. Of course, you will hear from the apologists who will try as they always do to explain away our suffering and sorrow as byproducts of the cold war. The ``accident'' theorists will tell you about sudden shifts of wind and stronger yields than expected. Others will write of us as allies just bearing their share of the burdens of the cold war.

   Local witnesses will tell you personal versions of what they saw and felt from the eyes and the understanding of human beings and not scientists or soldiers or politicians. They will tell you of how as children they ran and cried, then played in the milky dust that fell on them. They will tell you of confusion, of fear, of thinking that the world had ended.

   Leaders will tell you how they tried to do all they could do to deal with the matter. Representatives of governments will try to assure you that all that could be done to bring the matter to closure have been done. They will tell you that Washington no longer sees these islands on their radar screen and therefore our quest for fairness and justice is all in vain.

   I wonder if they will tell you about project 4.1: The Study of Humans Exposed to Radiation. We began learning more about this program when previously classified documents pertaining to the testing program were released to us in 1994 under the Clinton administration. Among the thousands of documents declassified we discovered this frightening program plan. Drawn in 1953 for the planned 1954 Castle Nuclear Test Series, Project 4.1 contemplated the study of exposed human beings months before Bravo.

   Throughout the years our people have had misgivings about the annual medical examinations they were subjected to by scientists from the United States. Our discovery of these descriptions of project 4.1 have reinforced our conviction that we were being studied, not treated by the scientists who examined us. If project 4.1 was conceived, planned and funded prior to March 1, 1954, where were the study subjects supposed to come from?

   We have pictures showing ``subjects'' of the 4.1 study as early as March 16, 1954. Could this project have been put in place in a matter of 2 weeks without requisite technical and logistical planning? American doctors have testified that they were treating our injuries and that the studies were an integral part of the treatment. Yet it was general knowledge from the beginning that they would not treat conditions which they considered unrelated to the tests and would refer such patients to the Trust Territory medical authorities.

   We have documents pertaining to studies where certain radioactive materials were given to subjects both ``exposed'' and ``unexposed.'' This resulted in previously unexposed subjects being exposed for the purpose of comparison and exposed persons getting even more radiation than they had been getting from the bomb. If project 4.1 was not a study why were there ``control groups''?

   Many documents pertaining to the tests have yet to be released. Others, like the photographs in the Office of the District Administrator here in Majuro were removed and set on fire by agents of the United States Government. Several other fires involving medical records of Marshallese exposed to radiation have been reported through the years.

   Sufficient information regarding weather conditions surrounding Bravo has been gathered to convince us that there was no unexpected change in weather that caused radioactive fallout to reach inhabited areas. The generals and scientists in charge of the testing chose to ignore weather studies and forecasts which predicted unsafe conditions for the testing.

   On earlier occasions, people were moved for safety reasons for prior tests with much smaller expected yield. For Bravo, there was no such precautionary relocation. People were left where they were, unaware that

[Page: H1141]

they were in harm's way, totally at the mercy of the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated by man.

   For all these years under American guidance, we have learned principles of democracy and human rights under which all men aspire to live. Yet, when we seek to be treated with honor and dignity, we are denied the means to assure that fairness and justice is guaranteed to all. The United States continues to be less than forthcoming in its handling of information and dissemination of facts pertaining to the testing program.

   Here we are, 50 years after Bravo, and the people forcibly removed from their homes for the atomic tests, with the exception of Utrik, have yet to return home. The question of exposure as it affects other atolls of the Marshalls has yet to be fully addressed. Many claims are still being prepared. Adjudicated claims have not been paid in full as agreed upon by the United States. Medical and monitoring programs, promised by those who exposed us, have been severely curtailed or abandoned. Making ``non-exposed'' Marshallese responsible for the medical needs of ``exposed'' Marshallese is not a just solution. America must own up to the problems it created.

   Bravo is not over. The people of Kwajalein, who sacrificed their home and society for America's nuclear ambitions, still live in squalid conditions on Ebeye, unable to live in peace and comfort in their own homeland. They have been subjected to many of the same treatments the islands of the tests suffered: displacement, loss of traditional skills, social disruption, and the contamination of their lands and seas.

   We became dependent on the U.S. because the U.S. claimed the power to govern us. We did not ask for it, but when it happened we came to understand the choices we had. After decades of living with the good and the bad under American rule, we decided that the greater good would be to cast our lot with the U.S. under the compact of free association.

   Today we are America's allies in the war on terrorism. We are America's allies in the development of the missile systems. We are allies in the U.N. and vote with you when all your other allies abandon the U.S. on issues of great importance. We do that of our own free will, without the exercise of extra ordinary U.S. powers under the compact.

   For all these reasons, I can say we appreciate and understand America. We understand what Fourth of July means to Americans. We understand what Ford Theater and December 7, 1941 mean to America. We understand what November 22, 1963 means to America. We understand what September 11 will always mean to America.

   What we are here today to ask is that America understand us as well as we understand it. For our people, for the Marshall Islands, March 1, 1954 is the defining moment in world history.

   That is the Fourth of July, the assasination of President Lincoln and Kennedy, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 all wrapped into one.

   That is the day the world stood still and also changed forever. That is the day we went from being an occupied nation to becoming a dependent nation. That is the day we went from being survivors of the World War to victims of the Cold War.

   March 1, 1954, is the day that defines a legacy that would not end when the testing ended. This on-going legacy is recognized under Section 177 of the Compact of Free Association. The ``full and final settlement'' under Section 177 is not limited to the number of dollars deposited in the nuclear claims trust fund. The full and final settlement includes the on-going political and legal process recognized under the Section 177 agreement as the path to reach truth and justice. That includes the Article IX changed circumstances process as a matter left to be resolved by the U.S. Congress. It also includes the adjudication of additional claims under law by the Nuclear Claims Tribunal.

   So what we ask today on this 50th anniversary is not just that we remember the past. We ask that the U.S. remember its commitments. We ask Americans to understand us as well as we understand them. We think they do. We think the U.S. is a great Nation that can do the right thing.

   It is too simple to say that the wrongs done to us were justified by the good that the U.S. has done for the Marshall Islands and the world. There must also be justice for our people.

   We believe it is significant that former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh independently concluded the Nuclear Claims Tribunal operated by the U.S. judicial standards. And we are pleased that Senator DOMENICI announced during hearings on the compact renewal that the U.S. Senate will hold hearings on the nuclear testing legacy.

   At a time when the U.S. is spending billions to study nuclear clean up at mainland weapons production sites, and hundreds of billions to make the world a safer place, the U.S. has a legal and moral obligation to finally resolve the legacy of nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands. A democratic ally on all fronts in the current war that asks for nothing except just compensation for judicially determined claims.

   That is all we ask. We respect and trust the United States to do what is right when it has the facts. Now is a moment in history when the facts can come out. The truth can be told. Our story needs to be told and the American people need to hear it.

   So today, I tell you my friends--Bravo lives on. The terrible disruption it wreaked upon the lives of the people of Rongelap and the Marshall Islands still haunts us. But we shall not let that dampen our hopes or our determination to seek justice wherever we shall find it. We have survived the greatest weapon of war man has ever devised. We will survive whatever is before us and we shall not rest until our quest for justice is found. That is our promise. That is our goal. With your help, and the help of free people everywhere, with the blessing of God, we shall prevail.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in my capacity as the ranking Democrat of the Committee on Resources to support H. Con. Res. 364; recognizing more than five decades of strategic partnership between the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the United States.

   Historically, the Committee on Resources held oversight jurisdiction of the former Trust Territory of the Marshall Islands when the United States first took responsibility for the islands and her people shortly after World War II as part of a United Nations trusteeship agreement.

   Though we prevailed in war, our country was still healing from the pain and suffering associated with battle. Yet we were mindful that the security of our Nation, and that of the world, depended on our understanding of the destructive nature of our nuclear arsenal.

   It is within this context that the people of the Marshall Islands made a sacrifice that is unimaginable for us Americans. On islands where their ancestry could be traced back thousands of years; where their culture flourished, and where they lived in relative peace; the people having been convinced it was ``for the good of mankind'' voluntarily left their homes.

   On military ships we loaded their canoes and personal belongings and moved them hundreds of miles away to other islands, safe from nuclear fallout.

   Our nuclear testing program commenced and lasted for twelve years, between 1946 and 1958. Within that time, we detonated 67 nuclear devices. One of the 67, detonated on March 1, 1954, in the Bikini Atoll, was the largest ever explosion to occur. Code-named BRAVO, the hydrogen bomb was 1,000 times greater than the weapon used against Japan in 1945.

   Shifting winds in the Marshall Islands caused those that were placed out of harm's way to be exposed to nuclear fallout. We have continuing responsibilities for their care and rehabilitation. We continue to work with the Marshall Islands government to resolve issues of healthcare, environmental remediation, and eventual resettlement of atolls still contaminated by nuclear fallout.

   After the U.S. nuclear testing program, we continued to assist the trust territory in their political, economic, and social development, consistent with the United Nations trusteeship agreement.

   In the mid-1980's, in an act of self-determination, the Marshall Islands chose to become a sovereign nation in free association with the United States. This political partnership fulfilled the U.N. trusteeship agreement and built upon the relationship established during the trust territory period. It continues to this day.

   In November of last year, Congress continued our Nation's relationship with the Marshall Islands by approving amendments to our existing Compact relationship. The term of the amended Compacts is for the next 20 years. However, given our history, I imagine that our political partnership will outlive such timeline.

   We may never fully understand the personal hardships our nuclear testing program caused to the people of the Marshall Islands, and more specifically those directly affected communities from the atolls of Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap, and Utrok.

   And we should always remember the sacrifices made by the good people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands to strengthen our Nation and make the world more secure.

   I thank Chairman POMBO for working with me to recognize the U.S. relationship with the Marshall Islands and to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the BRAVO test with this resolution. I also thank the Committee on International Relations for expediting this resolution so that it could be considered by the House.

   I urge all my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 364.

   Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 364 which recognizes more than 5 decades of strategic partnership between the United States and the people of the Marshall Islands in the pursuit of international peace and security.

   During World War II, the Marshall Islands were a strategic battleground. In 1944 and as a result of the heroic efforts of U.S. Armed Forces as well as the courageous assistance of the people of the Marshall Islands, the islands were successfully liberated from Japan's oppressive regime and a new cooperative partnership between the United States and the Marshalls was forged.

   By 1947, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) became one of six entities in the

[Page: H1142]

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) established by the United Nations and administered by the United States. This alliance obligated the United States to foster the development of self-governance and promote economic, social, and educational advancement of the people of the RMI.

   However, on March 1, 1954, at 6:45 a.m., at the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, the United States detonated the Bravo shot, a 15 megaton hydrogen bomb 1,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Acknowledged as the greatest nuclear explosion ever detonated, the Bravo test vaporized 6 islands and created a mushroom cloud 25 miles in diameter.

   While U.S. servicemen on Rongerik Atoll were evacuated within hours of the blast, Marshallese residents of Utirik and Rongelap were left behind for at least a day, resulting in their exposure to significant radiation. At the time of their removal, the people of these atolls were already suffering burns and loss of hair.

   Also returned prematurely to their atolls, the people of Rongelap and Utirik received additional exposure causing many to believe that they were used to study the effects of radiation on human beings. Recently declassified information contains strong

   indications that human experimentation using the people of the exposed atolls was indeed part of the nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands.

   These tests exposed the people of the Marshalls to severe health problems and genetic anomalies for generations to come. Yet the United States has not made good on its promise to compensate citizens of the Marshall Islands for loss or damage to property and person resulting from the nuclear testing program which the Government of the United States conducted in the Marshall Islands between June 30, 1946 and August 18, 1958.

   From 1946 to 1958, the United States detonated 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands, representing nearly 80 percent of all atmospheric tests ever conducted by the United States. If one were to calculate the net yield of these tests, it would be equivalent to the detonation of 1.7 Hiroshima bombs every day for 12 years.

   Conducted in peacetime, the effects of the U.S. nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands continues to be devastating and funds provided by the United States under the Compact of Free Association are grossly inadequate to provide for health care, environmental monitoring, personal injury claims, or land and property damage. I believe the survivors of U.S. atomic tests conducted in the Marshall Islands deserve just compensation and I am pleased that at a minimum H. Con. Res. 364 recognizes the historic contribution the people of the Marshall Islands have made in the cold-war struggle to preserve international peace and promote nuclear disarmament.

   Today, the RMI provides use of its islands for the United States to develop a deployable missile defense system to reduce the risks of nuclear missile attacks and this is just another example of the RMI's unmatched record of working in conjunction with the leadership of the United States in pursuit of international peace and security. I commend the people of the Marshalls for their commitment to the rights and well-being of the peoples of the world and I recognize with solemn regard the sacrifices they have made so that you and I and future generations may live in peace.

   I commend Chairman RICHARD POMBO of the House Resources Committee for introducing this legislation of which I am an original cosponsor. I thank my good friend for his leadership and for recently leading a congressional delegation to the Pacific Territories where we met with island leaders, including those from the Marshall Islands. Chairman POMBO invited Secretary Gale Norton to accompany us on this visit and I commend both the Secretary and the chairman for traveling to the Pacific Territories to see firsthand the difficulties we are facing in the region.

   As the ranking member of the House International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, I also want to thank Chairman JIM LEACH of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific for sponsoring this legislation and for working with Chairman POMBO and me to move this legislation to the International Relations Committee for mark-up. I also thank Chairman HENRY HYDE and Ranking Member TOM LANTOS of the International Relations Committee for their support.

   Finally, on behalf of the people of American Samoa, I again recognize with solemn regard the sacrifices our Pacific Island cousins have made in pursuit of international peace and I am hopeful that one day the U.S. Congress will declare March 1 as a national day of remembrance for the survivors of U.S. nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

   Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 364.

   The question was taken.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of those present have voted in the affirmative.

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

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

END

2A)

2B)

2C)

3A)

3B)

3C)

4A) Liberation of the Iraqi People and Valiant Service of the U.S. Forces and Coalition Forces - On the Rule

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 561 and ask for its immediate consideration.

   The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

   H. Res. 561

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 557) relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people and the valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces. The resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption without intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations or their designee; and (2) one motion to recommit which may not contain instructions.

    SEC. 2. During consideration of House Resolution 557 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.

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

   Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago, our brave servicemen and -women began a military operation that brought freedom for tens of millions, toppled one of the most despicable regimes in the history of the world, and strengthened the national security for the American people.

   Operation Iraqi Freedom was, and continues to be, a military success of the highest order. Within 4 weeks from the start of operations on March 19 of last year, the U.S. military had won unqualified victory. Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime could no longer terrorize the Iraqi people who were finally free to act, do and say as they pleased for the first time in decades.

   Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Saddam Hussein endangered world security. He posed a threat to his people, his region and the international community. Trusting the intentions of a man who started two wars, gassed his own people, and supported international terrorism would have been grossly irresponsible.

   As weapons inspector David Kay has said, we know Saddam Hussein wanted weapons of mass destruction, we know he was attempting to resuscitate his illicit programs, and we know with certainty who he viewed his greatest enemy to be.

   In a world where Iran can buy its way to a nuclear program with assistance from Pakistan's top nuclear scientist, combined with Saddam's access to illicit oil revenue, the fact that weapons of mass destruction have not yet been found in Iraq is hardly proof that Saddam Hussein did not want to severely hurt our country. Moreover, American national security has been solidified by the military action that was undertaken last year.

   Mr. Speaker, does anyone really believe that Iran would be cooperating with international nuclear inspectors today if we had not launched this military operation? Does anyone really believe that North Korea would be engaged in six-party talks over the future of their nuclear program if the United States had not deposed Saddam Hussein? Does anyone really believe that Muammar Qaddafi, as recalcitrant in his defiance to the international community as ever a dictator has been, would have willingly come to the United States and Britain and declared that he wanted to end his illicit weapons programs had the American military not marched into Baghdad?

   Mr. Speaker, Operation Iraqi Freedom sent an unmistakable signal to the rest of the world's tyrannical leaders: Either play by the rules or face the consequences.

   Now, the events of September 11 taught us that we cannot allow threats to arrive on our shores before we combat them. If other Nations wish to keep their head in the sand about the dangers of proliferation and terrorism, that is their prerogative, but we cannot and could not afford to take that chance.

   To those who complain of the cost of war and its aftermath, I simply will note that estimates of the cost of containing Saddam and his successors, as some have argued we should have done, are upwards of six times the dollar amount we have spent on war and reconstruction thus far, and significantly higher in terms of human lives lost.

   Because of the heroic action of our military, the Iraqi threat has been mitigated efficiently and a new dawn has begun for the people of Iraq.

   Earlier this month, Iraqi leaders signed the transitional administrative law into effect. It establishes an Iraqi law, a bill of fundamental human rights and paves the way for Iraqi democracy.

   Perhaps more important than the signing of the law itself, was the agreement of Suni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders to sign the document. While differences amongst them remain, and the road ahead will be difficult, it is clear they are acting with the best interests of the new Iraq and its people firmly in mind.

   I should say our colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is going to, in her remarks today, tell a

[Page: H1123]

very moving story about the fact that these very, very disparate groups have been able to come together sharing this pursued goal.

   The Iraqi people themselves are clearly enjoying their newfound freedoms under the transitional government. Poll results released just yesterday demonstrate that not only do a significant majority of Iraqis feel they are much better off than they were under Saddam Hussein's reign, but the extremely high level of participation in the poll demonstrates their desire to exercise their right to speak their minds, something that was unthinkable under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

[Time: 10:30]

   Such progress has only been possible because of the tireless commitment of our Armed Forces and those of the 34 nations assisting us to provide security on the ground in Iraq.

   It is dangerous territory; and the forces of evil, whether they be Ba'athist remnants or infiltrated al-Qaeda sympathizers, are a constant threat. In the past year, we have lost over 550 of our best and brightest Americans, with another 3,190 wounded. That number, as it is in any conflict, is too high. Without question, we owe the soldiers we have lost, the soldiers who remain, and their families, an enormous debt of gratitude. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this resolution marking this first anniversary is designed to do. If there is any solace, it is knowing that because of their actions, America and the world are safer places today with Saddam Hussein's regime dismantled.

   Because of our military, the people of Iraq have a bright future, where Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd alike can dream of being treated equally, of electing their representatives, of owning a prosperous business, and being free to say, worship, and read what they want.

   Mr. Speaker, it would be all too easy for the United States to leave Iraq now and let the Iraqi people fend for themselves. Avoiding conflict is the path of least resistance and is always politically expedient. But unlike previous conflict, terrorism cannot be contained. It has no boundaries. It has no rules. One day it strikes Baghdad, the next Madrid. The only recipe for success in this war is our resolve to defeat threats where we see them and promote democracy where we can.

   Mr. Speaker, true success in the war on terror is taking place right now on the ground in Baghdad and Kabul. By supporting, securing, and strengthening the democratic governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, we are promoting greater equality within those countries as well as providing forums for those who feel disaffected to air they grievances without picking up arms. As open and transparent governments spread throughout the world, the precursor ingredients for terrorism, anger, and fanaticism will dissipate. That will be the continuing legacy of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

   Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule and the underlying resolution, which not only affirms the actions that the United States undertook a year ago, but provides every Member of this body the opportunity to reaffirm their own personal commitment to winning the war against terrorism, our commitment to democracy in Iraq, and, most important, to our troops in the field.

   Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that this resolution will enjoy strong bipartisan support. That is our goal. I also hope, Mr. Speaker, that as soon as we pass this resolution that we will immediately have it translated in Arabic so that Saddam Hussein can read it in his cell and be reminded constantly of what we and the victims are regularly reminded of. Thanks to our military, Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein does have time to read that.

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

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

   Mr. Speaker, I say to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, my very good friend, that I thank him for yielding me this time, and had it been intended that this would be a bipartisan resolution, then Members in the minority would have been included in drafting this resolution.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I truly wish that I could support this rule. National security is a bipartisan, or actually a nonpartisan, issue. And when we commend the troops, all of us, all of us have a stake. Every congressional district has a stake in commending the troops.

   As a matter of fact, small town and rural America have furnished 46 percent and 43 percent of the deaths in Afghanistan and in Iraq. So all of us, whether we are from small towns or large cities, have a stake in a resolution commending the troops, and we should have been consulted about it. I am sorry for that.

   Now, more than that, while we commend the troops, I would also have, had I been consulted, recommended that we do our best to protect our troops by including more body armor and extra up-armored Humvees, of which we still do not have enough in Iraq. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I received from the United States Army a letter indicating that there are unfunded requirements for the extra up-armored Humvees and the body armor, which is so necessary.

   I would also have recommended that we have complete, timely, and high-quality health care to treat the wounds and injuries for those who have served, and to recognize those who pay the sacrifice, whether it be in wounds, injuries, or, sadly, deaths.

   I would also have recognized the contributions of and the sacrifices of the families of our servicemen and -women, particularly in the Guard and Reserve. I would have recognized the efforts to improve our intelligence gaps that our troops need and so that they be better protected in the future. And I would have recognized and recommended the sufficient up-front funding for our military operations so we can ensure the safety and well-being of our troops.

   Mr. Speaker, I would also have included the fact that there should have been better planning for the postwar period. I sent two letters to the President, one on September 4, 2002, and another 2 days before the attack on Iraq, both of which I include in the RECORD.

   Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us should have been at least brought to the table and all of us had an opportunity to write this resolution. I am so proud of our troops, whether they be from Missouri or Maine or wherever they are from. This is the best military our country has ever seen. And I think every Member of Congress, both sides of the aisle, should have had the opportunity to say thank you, we are proud of you, and God bless you.

   Mr. Speaker, here follows the letters to which I referred earlier in my comments:

   HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

   COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

   Washington, DC, September 4, 2002.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Thank you for inviting me to the briefing this morning. I share your concern about the continuing threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I would like to offer my assistance as the administration considers how to deal with this threat.

   Before Congress can authorize any military action that might be part of the administration's plan, we must have answers to more questions than were able to be raised at today's meeting. Our constitutional duty requires us to ensure that all implications of such action are considered in advance. The case has not yet been fully made as to what the threat is, why military force is an appropriate way of addressing the threat, and why action must occur now. In short, Congress and the American people must be clear on your strategic vision before we can authorize a specific course of action. I believe, like Clausewitz, that in strategy there is an ``imperative ..... not to take the first step without considering the last.''

   Your strategy for dealing with Iraq must address the fundamental questions of the threat, the method of acting, and the timing. Furthermore, any strategy to eliminate Iraqi WMD must also address several component issues, each of which raises critical questions.

   1. How to manage Iraq's transition to a stable post-Saddam regime

   As I mentioned to you this morning, this is a crucial question for administration strategy to answer in advance of any military action. I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it.

   As Sun-Tzu said in the classic strategic treatise, The Art of War, ``To win victory is

[Page: H1124]

easy; to preserve its fruits, difficult.'' Military planners and political leaders alike new this in World War II. Planning for the occupation of Germany and Japan--two economically viable, technologically sophisticated nations--took place well in advance of the end of the war. The extreme difficulty of occupying Iraq with its history of autocratic rule, its balkanized ethnic tensions, and its isolated economic system argues both for careful consideration of the benefits and risks of undertaking military action and for detailed advanced occupation planning if such military action is approved.

   Specifically, your strategy must consider the form of a replacement regime and take seriously the possibility that this regime might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to civil unrest and even anarchy. The effort must be to craft a stable regime that will be geopolitically preferable to Saddam and will incorporate the disparate interests of all groups within Iraq--Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd. We must also plan now for what to do with members of the Baath party that continue to support Saddam and with the scientists and engineers who have expertise born of the Iraqi WMD program.

   All these efforts require careful planning and long-term commitment of manpower and resources. The American people must be clear about the amount of money and the number of soldiers that will have to be devoted to this effort for many years to come.

   2. How to ensure the action in Iraq does not undermine international support for the broader war on terrorism

   In planning for military operations in Iraq, we cannot ignore the lack of international support to date. Pre-emptive action against Iraq is currently vocally opposed by many of our allies and friends throughout the world and particularly in the Middle East.

   When we are seen as acting against the concerns of large numbers of our friends, it calls into question the ``humble'' approach to international relations you espoused during the presidential campaign. More than that, it has several potentially damaging long-term consequences. First, it risks losing the large number of partners needed to prosecute the global war on terrorism. To ferret terrorists groups out of their many hiding places, we must have broad allied support. Second, it risks seriously damaging U.S. moral legitimacy, potentially providing states like India and Pakistan with a preemptive option that could drive long-standing conflicts beyond containable bounds.

   Finally and perhaps most dangerously, actions without broad Arab support may inflame the sources of terrorism, causing unrest and anger throughout the Muslim world. This dynamic will be worse if Iraq attacks Israel--perhaps with weapons of mass destruction--and draws them into the conflict. Iran, which has the potential to seize a reformist path, may well move away from the United States in the face of attacks that could next be taken against them. Together, these dynamics will make achieving peace in the Middle East more difficult and may well provide the rationale for more terrorist attacks against Americans.

   These concerns do not make military action in Iraq untenable. They do, however, highlight the depth and importance of the issues to be addressed before we strike. We need to ensure that in taking out Saddam, we don't win the battle and lose the war.

   3. How to ensure that the United States can execute this operation successfully as well as its other military missions

   As you are well aware, Mr. President, the consideration of military action against Iraq comes at a time when U.S. forces are actively engaged throughout the world in a range of missions. Given the operational pressures these forces currently face, we must ask what the risks and trade-offs will be of defeating Iraq, particularly if Iraqi forces mass in Baghdad for urban operations. How many casualties must the American people be prepared to take in a worst-case scenario? What will the impact of sustained operations be on so-called high-demand, low-density assets? What military operations might we have to forego because of continued demands in Iraq? Will we still be prepared for the range of other threats that might emerge throughout the world? With little allied support and contributions, will we still be able to maintain military spending on transformational technologies and on sound quality of life for our forces if we are bearing a huge wartime cost alone? What will be the impact on the domestic economy of these resources drains and of the long-term costs of reconstructing Iraq? These questions must be answered before any military action commences so that the American people understand the risks and the sacrifices involved.

   I ask these questions only to highlight the complexity of the undertaking and the need for Congress, the American people, and our friends around the world to understand exactly what is at stake and why we must act now. Only such a comprehensive strategic approach will ensure that we commit U.S. troops consciously and with full knowledge of the range of challenges we face--both in the initial campaign and in the long aftermath to follow. Even a strategy that has military action as its centerpiece will require great diplomatic efforts to ensure its success. I look forward to hearing the administration's answers and to working with you to find the best course of action.

   Sincerely,

   Ike Skelton,
Ranking Democrat.

--

   HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

   COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

   Washington, DC, March 18, 2003.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: This is a critical week for our nation and for the world. As you prepare to make the most difficult decision of sending our troops into combat, the thoughts and prayers of all Americans are with you. My colleagues here in Congress have many different views on the wisdom of action in Iraq and the severity of its consequences. But we are united in our support for all the men and women who serve this nation.

   There is no doubt that our forces will be victorious in any conflict, but there is great potential for a ragged ending to a war as we deal with the aftermath. I appreciate the efforts that members of your administration have made to keep me informed about plans for the administration and reconstruction of Iraq following military conflict. Your team has thought about many of the things that will need to be done.

   Secretary Rumsfeld frequently talks about the list he keeps of things that could go wrong in an Iraq war. I have kept my own list--of things that could go wrong after the war is over. This list below is indicative of this broader list. My hope is that this will be helpful to members of your administration as you continue to plan for all possibilities. These are not complete scenarios but rather a series of possible problems that could occur in some combination.

   INTERNAL DIVISIONS AND EXTERNAL INFLUENCES IN IRAQ

   Without access to Iraq through Turkey, U.S. troops are not present in northern Iraq in large numbers. Turkey enters northern Iraq to establish a buffer zone and fighting breaks out between the Turks and Kurds. A significant U.S. military force is needed to separate the groups, complicating the governmental transition and international support.

   An uprising in Kirkuk leaves the Kurds in control of areas of the city and surrounding area. This triggers a large Turkish invasion to protect the Turkmen minority and to prevent Kurdish control of oil resources. Again this would require U.S. military resources with all the attending effects.

   In the event that Turkey crosses into Iraq, Iran may do the same, ostensibly to stem the refugee flows from southern Iraq and to protect Shi'a interests. Shi'a populations in the south rebel and undertake attacks against Sunnis. U.S. troops must step in to protect the Sunnis and restore peace. These tensions resurface during attempts to build a federal and representative government.

   Urban fighting in the south brings Shi'a into conflict with Sunnis. The resulting devastation causes a refugee crisis as Shi'a make for the Iranian border. The results of Saddam's policy of forced Arabization of areas like Kirkuk yield dangerous consequences. Groups like the Kurds flow back into these areas seeking to reclaim their former homes and land, sparking conflict with Iraqi Arabs.

   Attempts to fashion a federal government in Baghdad prove difficult. Iran is able to establish proxies for its influence among the Shi'a representatives. Once in Iraq, infighting breaks out among members of the former Iraqi opposition in exile. The United States is unable to transition the administration of Iraq effectively and has to remain in place, with significant military backing.

   The war involves lengthy urban combat, particularly in Baghdad. Most infrastructure is destroyed resulting in massive humanitarian problems. The emphasis on humanitarian aid distracts from efforts to establish a new government. Once established the government faces massive political pressure from the sustained humanitarian crisis.

   WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

   Saddam uses biological and chemical weapons against advancing U.S. troops, but also inflicts substantial civilian casualties. Efforts to stabilize cities and to establish a government are complicated by the need to deal with the large number of dead and to decontaminate affected areas.

   Saddam uses biological and chemical weapons directly against civilian populations or against another Arab country and seeks to affix blame for civilian suffering to the United States. Over the period of occupation, this resentment complicates U.S. efforts to maintain support for reconstruction efforts.

   U.S. troops are unable to quickly find all of Saddam's capabilities, requiring a long, labor-intensive search and anxiety as to when the task is complete.

   Regional leaders, for money or to gain influence, retain caches of WMD and transfer some to terrorist groups.

   Saddam attacks Israel with missiles containing weapons of mass destruction. Israel retaliates. Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia and Jordan, come under intense political pressure to withdraw their support from the U.S. war effort. U.S. forces are forced to reposition operational centers into Iraq and Kuwait, complicating reconstruction and transition efforts.

   OIL RESOURCES

   Saddam sabotages a significant number of wells before his defeat. Current estimates indicate he may already have wired up to 1,500 of these wells. The damage takes years to contain at great economic and environmental cost and removes a major source of reconstruction funding.

[Page: H1125]

   Internal groups, such as the Kurds, seize oil-rich land before American troops reach the area, causing internal clashes over these resources. Militant Shi'as seize other wells in the South.

   INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT

   The United States takes immediate control of Iraq's administration and of reconstruction. The United Nations can't agree on how involved to get given the divisions among the Security Council about the need for conflict. The lack of UN involvement in the administration makes the European Union and others less likely to give. This situation delays reconstruction and puts more of the cost on the United States and a smaller number of partners.

   U.S. reconstruction efforts that give U.S. corporations a great role at the expense of multilateral organizations and other participation--as was detailed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal--spur resentment and again limit the willingness of others to participate.

   AMERICAN COMMITMENT

   Stabilization and reconstruction prove more difficult than expected. U.S. troop requirements approach 200,000--the figure General Shinseki has mentioned--for a sustained period. This puts pressure on troop rotations, reservists, their families, and employers and requires a dramatic increase in end-strength.

   Required funding reaches the figure suggested by a recent Council on Foreign Relations assessment--$20 billion annually for several years. During a period of economic difficulty, the American public calls for greater burdensharing.

   It is my hope that none of these eventualities comes to pass. But as you and all military leaders know, good planning requires considering the range of possibilities. It also requires advance preparation of the American people. You have regularly outlined the reasons for why the United States must disarm Iraq. I urge you to do the same in explaining why we must stay with Iraq for the long haul, even with the economic and military burdens this will entail.

   As always, I am willing to help in any way I can to make this case to my colleagues and the American people.

   Sincerely,

   Ike Skelton,
Ranking Democrat.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I want to engage my colleague from Missouri in a colloquy.

   There is no Member of this House who is more highly regarded in the area of national security than our friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I am privileged to be a native of the Show Me State, and he has done us all very proud.

   I know at the end of the day he will want to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, because this resolution does exactly, exactly what my friend just stated in his closing remarks: recognizing our troops.

   Now, we had no intention of offending anyone in drafting the resolution. In fact, we thought it was so noncontroversial that it would be an appropriate thing to move it forward.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I would have thought it a mere courtesy of saying, Would the gentleman from Missouri like to read this over and add or make recommendations? I would love to have been there in order to support the gentleman from California.

   Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I completely understand that he would like to have had input; and that is one of the reasons we, in fact, did provide an opportunity, which is unusual, in consideration of this rule, for a motion to recommit for Members of the minority, if in fact that was the case.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), my very good friend and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and the House of the Committee on Rules.

   Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this rule and urge my colleagues to join me in approving this resolution.

   H. Res. 561 will allow the House to work its will on the underlying resolution. It is an appropriate procedure, given the nature of H. Res. 557, which is a simple resolution. H. Res. 557 was introduced to recognize the Iraqi people's suffering under Saddam Hussein, the significant advancements being made in Iraq since last March, and the courage of U.S. and Coalition Forces as they strive to bring order and stability to the country.

   The media is accurate in its reports of the difficulties that still face U.S. and Coalition Forces in Iraq. But there are also positive events taking place every day that deserve recognition and are largely ignored by the media. Probably the greatest accomplishment is that the Iraqis are returning to their lives and are enjoying freedoms that never could have existed under Saddam Hussein. Under his regime, the Iraqi lived in terror on a daily basis. Now, the people of Iraq have an opportunity to shape their history as they choose. The Iraqi people recently took their first step in shaping their future with the recent signing of the Iraqi interim constitution into law.

   Other notable advancements in Iraq over the last year include the rise in oil production to roughly pre-March 2003 levels, the circulation of the new Iraqi currency, and the repair of critical infrastructure and roads. Additionally, the electricity supply has become more stable, and many Iraqi hospitals are up and running.

   The number of Iraqis that have joined the Iraqi police force, border patrols, and army has also increased, allowing Iraqi citizens to participate in protection of their very own infrastructure.

   Iraq is still a dangerous place, not only for Iraqi citizens but also for U.S. and Coalition Forces. I commend the U.S. and Coalition Forces for their dedication, sacrifice, and service in Iraq; and I salute them for helping to make our world a safer place.

   The task of rebuilding Iraq will be no easy feat, and it will certainly take time. However, I am encouraged by the positive events of the last year, and I believe it is in the U.S.'s interest and the world's to persevere and create a stable and democratic Iraq.

   Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed to debate the underlying legislation.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 1/2 minutes.

   Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule because it works against the values and principles for which American citizens are risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan on this very day.

   We are fighting for democracy abroad, but we will not allow democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives of the United States. The fact of the matter is, if this had not been a political document, every Member of this House would follow the line, ``Commends the members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition Forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.'' But that is not all that is in this resolution.

   This is not about stopping consideration of the underlying resolution. It is a pleasure to take the time to pay tribute to the men and women who distinguish themselves daily in selfless service to this Nation. I do this, as do all Members on both sides of the aisle, at every available occasion. But there are other important matters that are not addressed in this resolution. And the fact that we were not included in its drafting allows them to be pronounced during the course of opposing this rule as well as in general debate.

   We have not, for example, recognized the efforts of our National Guardsmen and Reserves, who have left friends and families and civilian jobs to serve in Iraq. But this completely closed rule does not give all Members of the House of Representatives the opportunity to commemorate the outstanding service of all those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

   Once this institution was considered one of the world's greatest deliberative bodies, and its Members were statespersons rather than professional self-promoters. Once Members of Congress were brimming with ideas befitting a proud democracy. But no more, Mr. Speaker. To all of my colleagues who showed up last night at the Committee on Rules with amendments that they thought could strengthen this resolution, I apologize to you for the majority's disdain for your contributions.

   Actually, I had an amendment to this resolution that urged the President to provide Congress a straightforward and honest assessment of our past and future commitments in Iraq, as well as recognizing the selfless acts of the men and women in our service, who we all love and adore and applaud for their courage on a daily basis.

[Time: 10:45]

   These are some of the many questions for which we are all seeking answers from the administration. Even

[Page: H1126]

more, there are questions to which Congress has a constitutional responsibility and obligation to raise and demand answers.

   Mr. Speaker, I asked myself last night as the Committee on Rules Republicans passed yet another closed rule, and 11 have been closed, 1 has been open this year, which stifles debate and shuts off meaningful contributions from all of the Members of this Chamber, I asked myself, What is the problem? The problem is that the majority has introduced this resolution for political reasons. C-SPAN will broadcast today's speeches and Fox News will run stories professing the patriotism of those on the other side of the aisle. Thus, the Republican majority hopes to disguise the neglect and misdirection they have shown in governing by not making this a bipartisan effort.

   The Republicans have not established a record which helps all Americans, and are relying on photos ops and waving the American flag to get themselves reelected. It would be much more patriotic to address the perennially underfunded veterans affairs health care system. By the Bush administration's own estimate, their policies will exclude approximately 500,000 veterans from the VA health care system by 2005. This is shameful. President Bush also proposed an increase in pay fees and copayments in an effort to shift the burden onto the backs of veterans and drive an additional 1 million veterans from the system. It is shameful.

   Our troops should be taken care of when we send them into battle, and be given the respect they have earned when we bring them home. America's veterans fight and fought for our freedoms, they should not have to fight for their benefits.

   As the Republicans continue to protect the wealthy and act like show horses in front of the cameras, Democrats are working for the men and women in uniform and our veterans today as well as in the future. We will continue to applaud them.

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

   It is true that the United States of America has had a bipartisan foreign policy. This resolution is not about foreign policy. This resolution is not about foreign policy, this is a resolution that is simply designed to congratulate our troops. I do not understand why there is any controversy on it. As I said earlier and as I said in the Committee on Rules last night, we are sorry if anyone was offended over the fact that Members of the minority were not offered a chance to have input. I said to a number of my colleagues, that is one of the reasons that we have in fact made in order a motion to recommit that will allow the minority at the end of the bill an opportunity to cast a vote on that.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) who has done a phenomenal job of focusing on the rights of women. She chairs our Republican Conference and the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process Reform for the Committee on Rules.

   Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I stand before Members to strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution for freedom and democracy in Iraq.

   Life under Hussein's ruthless regime was unlike anything we have ever experienced. His cronies, in order to get information out of men, would rape their wives and their sisters and mothers. Women in Iraq frequently lost their husbands to ``the law,'' never knowing what happened to them, where they went or why they were arrested. These same women, forbidden to go to work to support their families, were left to starvation.

   The Iraqi women under Saddam Hussein's regime were someone's mothers, wives, and sisters, and they suffered tremendously. I led a women's delegation to Iraq and heard these atrocities firsthand from the women who now are free. They no longer dread the strong arm of Saddam Hussein's injustice. Coalition forces are now protecting the newly acquired rights of all Iraqis. I learned of the story of these two women who were protesting.

   Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago they would have been executed for protesting. They were protesting to get the rights of women included in the Iraqi constitution. One of these women was waving her husband's death certificate saying, we have not waited all these years to be denied freedoms. A reporter, an Islamic reporter, went up to ask, Are you Sunni or Shiite? These women said, We may be one of each, but it is none of your business, we are Iraqis now.

   That is what this is all about. This is what freedom stands for. This is what it means to two women, one who lost her husband and had no way of knowing what happened to him. This is what we are celebrating today. This is what has been accomplished by our Armed Forces, by the will of this administration.

   Saddam Hussein, the ruthless murderer, is now in jail. He will be tried by his own people in his own country, and he will get his just rewards, and these two women, despite the fear and dread and horror of their past, will live in freedom. We should be very happy today.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) who has fought aggressively for open rules on the Committee on Rules.

   Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the undemocratic, completely closed rule, and in opposition to House Resolution 557.

   Mr. Speaker, like all of my colleagues, I have tremendous respect for the men and women of our Armed Forces who are bearing the burden of this military action in Iraq. My support and my commitment to them and their families are unwavering. I will work to ensure that they remain the best trained, the best led, and the best equipped military force in the world. I am grateful and humbled by their courage, endurance and sacrifice, and I honor them not just today but every day, and I only wish this House was considering today a truly bipartisan resolution that properly honored our troops.

   Unfortunately, once again this House is claiming to honor our troops without devoting the necessary resources for their safety or for their support. House Resolution 557 will do nothing to ensure that every one of our military personnel, including our National Guard and reservists serving on the front lines in Iraq will be fully equipped with the latest body armor. Instead, many families of our troops are buying and shipping that protection overseas to their loved ones, out of their own pockets with no hope for reimbursement. This is unacceptable, and we should fix it.

   This resolution will do nothing to close the pay gap for our reservists and National Guard members who have been called away from their civilian jobs to serve in Iraq. Their families are struggling, going into debt as a result of their patriotic service. Yet the leadership of this House, unlike the other body, resists funding commonsense solutions to the problems caused by these overlong activations. This is unacceptable, and we should fix it.

   This resolution contributes nothing towards fully funding our military construction needs so that all our military personnel have decent housing and facilities in which to live, train, and work. This is unacceptable, and we should fix it.

   Mr. Speaker, I support our troops. I want to help the suffering people of Iraq live and prosper in a safe and secure nation. I want them to have the opportunity to choose their own government, one where every Iraqi may worship as he or she chooses, and every man, woman and child can live out their lives. But 1 year and $120 billion later, we face continuing hostilities in Iraq, with no end in sight.

   This resolution fails to mention that the war in Iraq was justified by this administration on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because just like the experts tried to tell us for months before the war, we now know there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

   I do not believe we needed to send over 150,000 American troops to Iraq to confirm that fact. Mr. Speaker, 566 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have died, and over 3,200 more have been wounded. Thousands of Iraqi men, women and children have perished, and scores of other civilians and nationals have been killed since we entered Iraq. There is no mention, no remembrance for them in this resolution.

[Page: H1127]

   Today the American taxpayer is still paying for almost all of the cost of Iraq without the least idea of how much the war has cost to date or how much it will cost in the future. In fact, the operations in Iraq are not even included in the President's budget. We still do not have a truly independent commission to provide a full accounting of the events leading up to the war and the nature of the intelligence of policymaking that led the Bush administration to go to war.

   Mr. Speaker, 1 year later the United States is more isolated than ever in the world. Terrorist networks are proliferating, including new networks in Iraq and Europe. And our troops abroad and our first responders at home are overstretched, underfunded, and overburdened.

   I am glad Saddam Hussein no longer has the power to torment the Iraqi people, but unlike the claim made in this resolution, I do not believe that the world is a safer, less dangerous place than it was 12 months ago.

   This resolution is more about what the Republican leadership wants us to forget about the past year: the costs, the bloated contracts, no weapons, no ties to al Qaeda, the flawed intelligence, the wounded and the dead.

   I urge all my colleagues to remember and vote against this undemocratic rule and vote against this bill.

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

   Mr. Speaker, I would like to simply say that again, we did not have a goal of offending Members on this. This is not about foreign policy, this is about commending our troops.

   Mr. Speaker, this resolution is 2 1/2 pages long, okay. I am going to share with our colleagues the resolved clause.

   Resolved, That the House of Representatives

   (1) affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq;

   (2) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime;

   (3) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; and

   (4) commends the members of the U.S. Armed Forces and coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.

   That is what this resolution is all about.

   Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), the very distinguished Chair of the Republican Study Committee.

   Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   September 11, 2001, is a day that should be etched in the mind of every American, because that is the day that terrorists chose to attack America and that threat is still here. The primary function of our Federal Government is to protect our citizens and we are doing our best to see that happens.

   It is now 1 year since the coalition forces entered Iraq to free those people from Saddam Hussein's rule of terror. Freedom is flourishing and the Iraqi people know they are better off. However, terrorists are still doing everything they can to interrupt that and see that does not happen. The Iraqi people are in control of their destiny for the first time, and we are here today to encourage them in that effort, and we are here today to say thank you to our troops, all those men and women who have served in the past in this effort and who are serving now over there, giving of themselves and giving their lives so they can protect these freedoms that we all enjoy. We know the world is safer today without Saddam Hussein.

   We must never forget 9/11 and that we are fighting over there so we do not have to fight the terrorists here at home. And no matter what the terrorists try to do, they need to be reminded that these colors do not run.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

   Mr. Speaker, I would say to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, if this is not about foreign policy, then how is it that the chairman of the jurisdictional foreign policy committee brought it to the Committee on Rules? If it is not about foreign policy, why is the language for the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 referenced in this resolution? If it is not about foreign policy, why is the mention of the 16 previously adopted United Nations Security Council resolutions in this matter? If it is not about foreign policy, why is the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002 referenced in this resolution? The other side of the aisle is trying to defend the indefensible.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, who may be able to tell us why it is not about foreign policy.

[Time: 11:00]

   Mr. LANTOS. I want to thank my friend for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote it down. I deeply regret that this resolution was not handled in a bipartisan manner. The Democratic side was not consulted on this resolution, and the Republican leadership bypassed its consideration before the Committee on International Relations. It is simply unacceptable that not a single amendment was made in order, no substitute is allowed; and there is no other way we on our side can offer improvements to this resolution.

   Mr. Speaker, the country is at war. The men and women who serve are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The men and women who are wounded are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, the men and women who die are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The families grieving are Democrats and Republicans and independents. Many of us have tried very hard for a long time to work towards a bipartisan foreign policy decades ago and certainly since September 11. The manner in which this resolution was crafted and the way in which it is being considered under this rule is a slap in the face of all those who have tried to conduct a bipartisan foreign policy in the national interest. You on your side have neither a monopoly on wisdom nor a monopoly on patriotism. You should have come to the Democrats to craft a resolution honoring our troops, which would have passed this body unanimously. You have created divisiveness at a time when we need cohesion and unity. You have created divisiveness for no reason except illusory partisan advantage. This is a flawed resolution, flawed in its presentation, flawed in its procedure, flawed in its partisanship. This is not a Republican tax bill to be handled only by Republicans. This is a bill of national importance. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans have a right to have an input, to say how much we admire the courage and patriotism of our troops. You have failed, and you have failed miserably.

   I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule and to come forward with a reasonable resolution supported across the political spectrum in this body.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that my friend from California is one of the greatest patriots in this institution. I hold him in the highest regard. I believe very strongly in the need for us to pursue a bipartisan foreign policy. Let me just say that, again, we had no intention of offending anyone in the crafting of this resolution, and it should be a nonpartisan resolution itself. At the end of the day because we found that controversy came forward in the Committee on Rules last night beyond the request that was made by Chairman Hyde, we did in fact offer a motion to recommit for members of the minority.

   But I do believe again that this resolution is designed to do nothing more than commend the troops and the people of Iraq. That is what it is designed to do. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy. This here marks the first anniversary of this very, very successful effort. I think that what we are trying to do here is, in a bipartisan way, acknowledges that.

   Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), an able member of the Committee on Rules.

   Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I think it is appropriate on the 1-year anniversary of the liberation of Iraq

[Page: H1128]

that we focus on that monumental and extraordinary event on the floor of this House today. The resolution before us congratulates the valiant men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the Coalition for having liberated the people of Iraq, and it states that because of that heroic effort by the Armed Forces of the Coalition and principally the United States, the world is safer today. The world is safer, Mr. Speaker.

   Each time a dangerous madman is removed from power anywhere in the world, the entire world is safer because there is one less madman kidnapping power in a country and holding the entire people of that country hostage and linking with terrorist groups throughout the world. Saddam Hussein was not the only dangerous enemy of freedom and peace in the world; but he was a dangerous enemy of freedom and peace in the world, and the entire world is safer because Saddam Hussein is gone from power and facing justice. I would ask the people of Iraq if they feel safer after having seen the regime deposed or if they do not feel safer.

   The entire world is safer and especially, I believe, Mr. Speaker, the people of Iraq are safer. Just like we can ask the people of Albania if they feel safer because Hoxha is no longer in power or in Romania because Ceausescu is no longer in power or in Russia because Stalin is no longer in power. I think that we should ask all those peoples if they believe that they are safer or not safer because their former totalitarian despots are no longer in power. Or ask the people in Cambodia if they feel safer because Pol Pot is no longer in power.

   Each time a madman is removed from power, not only the people that that madman had kidnapped and was torturing and oppressing are safer, the entire world is safer. Or is it that when we talk about Iraq, Iraq is not on planet Earth? The entire world is safer, but especially the people of Iraq are safer and the American Armed Forces are the primary liberators of that people. They deserve the commendation and the admiration of the entire world and most especially of this House. That is why I thank the authors for having brought it forward at this important occasion, the 1-year anniversary of the liberation of Iraq.

   ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The Chair will remind Members to refrain from trafficking the well while another Member is speaking.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my distinguished friend from Florida that I do not believe that the families of the people of Spain or Morocco or Turkey where bombs have gone off feel safer. So maybe they are in this world.

   Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 1/2 minutes to my good friend from California (Ms. Harman), the distinguished ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with whom I work regularly.

   Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this time and commend him for his service in this Congress and particularly his excellent service on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

   Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to consider a resolution on the eve of the Iraq war anniversary. I agree that the world has much to be glad about with the fall of Saddam Hussein and the end of his despotic regime. And I certainly hope that the Iraqi people will create a transparent, democratic form of government for the first time in their history, a chance that they have now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. I for one, and I believe this entire Congress, will stand by them and must stand by them and support them as they make this transition. We must stay the course.

   But there is more to this subject on the first anniversary of the Iraq war than H. Res. 557 acknowledges. Much more. On the anniversary of our military action in Iraq, we need to be talking about more. That is why many of us wanted an open rule and certainly an open process so that we could contribute to the language contained in this resolution.

   As ranking member of one of the key committees with jurisdiction over this subject, that is, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I would have welcomed the opportunity to share some of my ideas to fashion a great resolution which I believe would have passed this body unanimously. I consider myself a passionate bipartisan on questions of defense, national security, and intelligence; and I think that my ideas, if I had had a chance to communicate them, would have been accepted.

   For example, I am one of many Members here who has visited Walter Reed to see the wounded from Iraq. These are very courageous kids. Thousands have been wounded. I would have liked us to acknowledge them and their courage.

   I visited the families in my district who have lost family members in Iraq. I would have liked to acknowledge those losses and those families.

   I have visited Iraq twice. Some have been there more. In addition to acknowledging our troops, I would have liked to acknowledge the intelligence community personnel who take such risks on our behalf and the civilians working selflessly there.

   I worked in 1999 and 2000 as a member of the National Commission on Terrorism chaired by Jerry Bremer, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer. I might have liked to acknowledge him and his selfless service in Iraq.

   Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me, and I will address this along with other Intelligence Committee members later in the debate, that I would have liked to acknowledge the important role that intelligence products play in force protection now in Iraq and why those products need to be better. In my view, Mr. Speaker, and I think many would share this, good intelligence is a force protection issue.

   And so it seems to me on the first anniversary of our action in Iraq that we should acknowledge the need for better intelligence products and the need for this administration to fix right now, not next year but right now, the way we source and analyze intelligence. That is a suggestion I also would have made on a bipartisan basis if I had been permitted to participate.

   In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that as we commemorate the first anniversary of the action in Iraq, we need actions and not just words.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who also had an amendment that would have strengthened this matter had it been permitted by the Committee on Rules.

   Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time and for his strong leadership on each and every committee on which he has served.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and this resolution. This resolution really is an affront and an insult to our troops. I tried to offer an amendment to this very deceptive resolution. My amendment just basically expressed deep sorrow and real support for all of those who have been killed in this war and we extended support for their families in my amendment.

   As the daughter of a career military officer, Mr. Speaker, I know how important this is and what this means. This resolution as it is written never even mentions the over 550 Americans who have died. How insulting and insensitive. It does not even mention the Iraqi civilians and all of our international friends who have died in this war. My amendment also stated that the war in Iraq has undermined our alliances, it has cost hundreds of Americans and unknown numbers of Iraqi lives and billions of dollars, and it has made the world a more dangerous place rather than a safer place. The evidence speaks for itself on that. We are not voting on my amendment today because once again the Republican-controlled Committee on Rules did not allow any amendments, not only my amendment but zero, none, they did not allow. Once again true debate is being stifled. What a shame and disgrace. As an officer of the Congressional Black Caucus, we continue to stand in full support of our troops, in support of our veterans and their health benefits, and in support of their economic security. This resolution does none of this. None of this.

   I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. I urge them to vote ``no'' on this resolution. Remember, this is part of a pattern of deception which we have

[Page: H1129]

seen from day one. We are talking about not only the intelligence information that was not there but really a whole host of deceptive measures that have come before this body that we have voted on. I hope we vote ``no'' on this resolution. It is wrong. It is terrible.

[Time: 11:15]

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Brentwood, Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a very able new Member of this body.

   Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule because I think it is a fair rule for a worthy resolution. And like a lot of my constituents, I have spent time reflecting on what September 11 and the war in Iraq has meant to our country, how terrorism affects our lives, and what all of this means in the context of our world community, and I have come to the conclusion that as complicated as our world is and as tangled as the diplomacy surrounding our economic and military ties with the rest of the world become, I know that there are certain basic truths. And one of the great basic truths is the constant struggle between good and evil. And there are times in our history when the struggle is very clear, and today we are at one of those moments of such clarity. The lines are drawn, and we know who is aligned on each side.

   America leads a fight that we did not seek against a movement founded on distorted religious views and failed nations. This resolution marks a victory for good, and it is so very important that when good triumphs and advances that we celebrate that victory.

   This resolution honors our men and women in uniform. They have made the world a safer place for our children, and there are fewer greater gifts than that. And today we are welcoming the Iraqi people into the community of free nations. The resolution says to the world that America was willing to take on this fight to dedicate the fruits of her labor to free a horribly, horribly oppressed people a world away. Iraqi success in rebuilding and being free is our greatest weapon against terrorism. Terrorism seeks to destroy. Freedom builds. And that is why we are in Afghanistan and why we are in Iraq.

   Mr. Speaker, I thank our troops, I thank our families, and the communities that have supported them. And may God bless America.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is going to be a motion for an adjournment vote here, and I just wanted to, before we proceed with that, inquire how many speakers the gentleman has remaining for the debate as we prepare to go into this.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Three and possibly four, Mr. Speaker.

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

END

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 557, RELATING TO THE LIBERATION OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE AND THE VALIANT SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AND COALITION FORCES -- (House of Representatives - March 17, 2004)

[Page: H1122]

---

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 561 and ask for its immediate consideration.

   The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

   H. Res. 561

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 557) relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people and the valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces. The resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption without intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations or their designee; and (2) one motion to recommit which may not contain instructions.

    SEC. 2. During consideration of House Resolution 557 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.

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

   Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago, our brave servicemen and -women began a military operation that brought freedom for tens of millions, toppled one of the most despicable regimes in the history of the world, and strengthened the national security for the American people.

   Operation Iraqi Freedom was, and continues to be, a military success of the highest order. Within 4 weeks from the start of operations on March 19 of last year, the U.S. military had won unqualified victory. Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime could no longer terrorize the Iraqi people who were finally free to act, do and say as they pleased for the first time in decades.

   Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Saddam Hussein endangered world security. He posed a threat to his people, his region and the international community. Trusting the intentions of a man who started two wars, gassed his own people, and supported international terrorism would have been grossly irresponsible.

   As weapons inspector David Kay has said, we know Saddam Hussein wanted weapons of mass destruction, we know he was attempting to resuscitate his illicit programs, and we know with certainty who he viewed his greatest enemy to be.

   In a world where Iran can buy its way to a nuclear program with assistance from Pakistan's top nuclear scientist, combined with Saddam's access to illicit oil revenue, the fact that weapons of mass destruction have not yet been found in Iraq is hardly proof that Saddam Hussein did not want to severely hurt our country. Moreover, American national security has been solidified by the military action that was undertaken last year.

   Mr. Speaker, does anyone really believe that Iran would be cooperating with international nuclear inspectors today if we had not launched this military operation? Does anyone really believe that North Korea would be engaged in six-party talks over the future of their nuclear program if the United States had not deposed Saddam Hussein? Does anyone really believe that Muammar Qaddafi, as recalcitrant in his defiance to the international community as ever a dictator has been, would have willingly come to the United States and Britain and declared that he wanted to end his illicit weapons programs had the American military not marched into Baghdad?

   Mr. Speaker, Operation Iraqi Freedom sent an unmistakable signal to the rest of the world's tyrannical leaders: Either play by the rules or face the consequences.

   Now, the events of September 11 taught us that we cannot allow threats to arrive on our shores before we combat them. If other Nations wish to keep their head in the sand about the dangers of proliferation and terrorism, that is their prerogative, but we cannot and could not afford to take that chance.

   To those who complain of the cost of war and its aftermath, I simply will note that estimates of the cost of containing Saddam and his successors, as some have argued we should have done, are upwards of six times the dollar amount we have spent on war and reconstruction thus far, and significantly higher in terms of human lives lost.

   Because of the heroic action of our military, the Iraqi threat has been mitigated efficiently and a new dawn has begun for the people of Iraq.

   Earlier this month, Iraqi leaders signed the transitional administrative law into effect. It establishes an Iraqi law, a bill of fundamental human rights and paves the way for Iraqi democracy.

   Perhaps more important than the signing of the law itself, was the agreement of Suni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders to sign the document. While differences amongst them remain, and the road ahead will be difficult, it is clear they are acting with the best interests of the new Iraq and its people firmly in mind.

   I should say our colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is going to, in her remarks today, tell a

[Page: H1123]

very moving story about the fact that these very, very disparate groups have been able to come together sharing this pursued goal.

   The Iraqi people themselves are clearly enjoying their newfound freedoms under the transitional government. Poll results released just yesterday demonstrate that not only do a significant majority of Iraqis feel they are much better off than they were under Saddam Hussein's reign, but the extremely high level of participation in the poll demonstrates their desire to exercise their right to speak their minds, something that was unthinkable under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

[Time: 10:30]

   Such progress has only been possible because of the tireless commitment of our Armed Forces and those of the 34 nations assisting us to provide security on the ground in Iraq.

   It is dangerous territory; and the forces of evil, whether they be Ba'athist remnants or infiltrated al-Qaeda sympathizers, are a constant threat. In the past year, we have lost over 550 of our best and brightest Americans, with another 3,190 wounded. That number, as it is in any conflict, is too high. Without question, we owe the soldiers we have lost, the soldiers who remain, and their families, an enormous debt of gratitude. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this resolution marking this first anniversary is designed to do. If there is any solace, it is knowing that because of their actions, America and the world are safer places today with Saddam Hussein's regime dismantled.

   Because of our military, the people of Iraq have a bright future, where Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd alike can dream of being treated equally, of electing their representatives, of owning a prosperous business, and being free to say, worship, and read what they want.

   Mr. Speaker, it would be all too easy for the United States to leave Iraq now and let the Iraqi people fend for themselves. Avoiding conflict is the path of least resistance and is always politically expedient. But unlike previous conflict, terrorism cannot be contained. It has no boundaries. It has no rules. One day it strikes Baghdad, the next Madrid. The only recipe for success in this war is our resolve to defeat threats where we see them and promote democracy where we can.

   Mr. Speaker, true success in the war on terror is taking place right now on the ground in Baghdad and Kabul. By supporting, securing, and strengthening the democratic governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, we are promoting greater equality within those countries as well as providing forums for those who feel disaffected to air they grievances without picking up arms. As open and transparent governments spread throughout the world, the precursor ingredients for terrorism, anger, and fanaticism will dissipate. That will be the continuing legacy of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

   Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule and the underlying resolution, which not only affirms the actions that the United States undertook a year ago, but provides every Member of this body the opportunity to reaffirm their own personal commitment to winning the war against terrorism, our commitment to democracy in Iraq, and, most important, to our troops in the field.

   Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that this resolution will enjoy strong bipartisan support. That is our goal. I also hope, Mr. Speaker, that as soon as we pass this resolution that we will immediately have it translated in Arabic so that Saddam Hussein can read it in his cell and be reminded constantly of what we and the victims are regularly reminded of. Thanks to our military, Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein does have time to read that.

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

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

   Mr. Speaker, I say to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, my very good friend, that I thank him for yielding me this time, and had it been intended that this would be a bipartisan resolution, then Members in the minority would have been included in drafting this resolution.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I truly wish that I could support this rule. National security is a bipartisan, or actually a nonpartisan, issue. And when we commend the troops, all of us, all of us have a stake. Every congressional district has a stake in commending the troops.

   As a matter of fact, small town and rural America have furnished 46 percent and 43 percent of the deaths in Afghanistan and in Iraq. So all of us, whether we are from small towns or large cities, have a stake in a resolution commending the troops, and we should have been consulted about it. I am sorry for that.

   Now, more than that, while we commend the troops, I would also have, had I been consulted, recommended that we do our best to protect our troops by including more body armor and extra up-armored Humvees, of which we still do not have enough in Iraq. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I received from the United States Army a letter indicating that there are unfunded requirements for the extra up-armored Humvees and the body armor, which is so necessary.

   I would also have recommended that we have complete, timely, and high-quality health care to treat the wounds and injuries for those who have served, and to recognize those who pay the sacrifice, whether it be in wounds, injuries, or, sadly, deaths.

   I would also have recognized the contributions of and the sacrifices of the families of our servicemen and -women, particularly in the Guard and Reserve. I would have recognized the efforts to improve our intelligence gaps that our troops need and so that they be better protected in the future. And I would have recognized and recommended the sufficient up-front funding for our military operations so we can ensure the safety and well-being of our troops.

   Mr. Speaker, I would also have included the fact that there should have been better planning for the postwar period. I sent two letters to the President, one on September 4, 2002, and another 2 days before the attack on Iraq, both of which I include in the RECORD.

   Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us should have been at least brought to the table and all of us had an opportunity to write this resolution. I am so proud of our troops, whether they be from Missouri or Maine or wherever they are from. This is the best military our country has ever seen. And I think every Member of Congress, both sides of the aisle, should have had the opportunity to say thank you, we are proud of you, and God bless you.

   Mr. Speaker, here follows the letters to which I referred earlier in my comments:

   HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

   COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

   Washington, DC, September 4, 2002.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Thank you for inviting me to the briefing this morning. I share your concern about the continuing threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I would like to offer my assistance as the administration considers how to deal with this threat.

   Before Congress can authorize any military action that might be part of the administration's plan, we must have answers to more questions than were able to be raised at today's meeting. Our constitutional duty requires us to ensure that all implications of such action are considered in advance. The case has not yet been fully made as to what the threat is, why military force is an appropriate way of addressing the threat, and why action must occur now. In short, Congress and the American people must be clear on your strategic vision before we can authorize a specific course of action. I believe, like Clausewitz, that in strategy there is an ``imperative ..... not to take the first step without considering the last.''

   Your strategy for dealing with Iraq must address the fundamental questions of the threat, the method of acting, and the timing. Furthermore, any strategy to eliminate Iraqi WMD must also address several component issues, each of which raises critical questions.

   1. How to manage Iraq's transition to a stable post-Saddam regime

   As I mentioned to you this morning, this is a crucial question for administration strategy to answer in advance of any military action. I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it.

   As Sun-Tzu said in the classic strategic treatise, The Art of War, ``To win victory is

[Page: H1124]

easy; to preserve its fruits, difficult.'' Military planners and political leaders alike new this in World War II. Planning for the occupation of Germany and Japan--two economically viable, technologically sophisticated nations--took place well in advance of the end of the war. The extreme difficulty of occupying Iraq with its history of autocratic rule, its balkanized ethnic tensions, and its isolated economic system argues both for careful consideration of the benefits and risks of undertaking military action and for detailed advanced occupation planning if such military action is approved.

   Specifically, your strategy must consider the form of a replacement regime and take seriously the possibility that this regime might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to civil unrest and even anarchy. The effort must be to craft a stable regime that will be geopolitically preferable to Saddam and will incorporate the disparate interests of all groups within Iraq--Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd. We must also plan now for what to do with members of the Baath party that continue to support Saddam and with the scientists and engineers who have expertise born of the Iraqi WMD program.

   All these efforts require careful planning and long-term commitment of manpower and resources. The American people must be clear about the amount of money and the number of soldiers that will have to be devoted to this effort for many years to come.

   2. How to ensure the action in Iraq does not undermine international support for the broader war on terrorism

   In planning for military operations in Iraq, we cannot ignore the lack of international support to date. Pre-emptive action against Iraq is currently vocally opposed by many of our allies and friends throughout the world and particularly in the Middle East.

   When we are seen as acting against the concerns of large numbers of our friends, it calls into question the ``humble'' approach to international relations you espoused during the presidential campaign. More than that, it has several potentially damaging long-term consequences. First, it risks losing the large number of partners needed to prosecute the global war on terrorism. To ferret terrorists groups out of their many hiding places, we must have broad allied support. Second, it risks seriously damaging U.S. moral legitimacy, potentially providing states like India and Pakistan with a preemptive option that could drive long-standing conflicts beyond containable bounds.

   Finally and perhaps most dangerously, actions without broad Arab support may inflame the sources of terrorism, causing unrest and anger throughout the Muslim world. This dynamic will be worse if Iraq attacks Israel--perhaps with weapons of mass destruction--and draws them into the conflict. Iran, which has the potential to seize a reformist path, may well move away from the United States in the face of attacks that could next be taken against them. Together, these dynamics will make achieving peace in the Middle East more difficult and may well provide the rationale for more terrorist attacks against Americans.

   These concerns do not make military action in Iraq untenable. They do, however, highlight the depth and importance of the issues to be addressed before we strike. We need to ensure that in taking out Saddam, we don't win the battle and lose the war.

   3. How to ensure that the United States can execute this operation successfully as well as its other military missions

   As you are well aware, Mr. President, the consideration of military action against Iraq comes at a time when U.S. forces are actively engaged throughout the world in a range of missions. Given the operational pressures these forces currently face, we must ask what the risks and trade-offs will be of defeating Iraq, particularly if Iraqi forces mass in Baghdad for urban operations. How many casualties must the American people be prepared to take in a worst-case scenario? What will the impact of sustained operations be on so-called high-demand, low-density assets? What military operations might we have to forego because of continued demands in Iraq? Will we still be prepared for the range of other threats that might emerge throughout the world? With little allied support and contributions, will we still be able to maintain military spending on transformational technologies and on sound quality of life for our forces if we are bearing a huge wartime cost alone? What will be the impact on the domestic economy of these resources drains and of the long-term costs of reconstructing Iraq? These questions must be answered before any military action commences so that the American people understand the risks and the sacrifices involved.

   I ask these questions only to highlight the complexity of the undertaking and the need for Congress, the American people, and our friends around the world to understand exactly what is at stake and why we must act now. Only such a comprehensive strategic approach will ensure that we commit U.S. troops consciously and with full knowledge of the range of challenges we face--both in the initial campaign and in the long aftermath to follow. Even a strategy that has military action as its centerpiece will require great diplomatic efforts to ensure its success. I look forward to hearing the administration's answers and to working with you to find the best course of action.

   Sincerely,

   Ike Skelton,
Ranking Democrat.

--

   HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

   COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

   Washington, DC, March 18, 2003.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: This is a critical week for our nation and for the world. As you prepare to make the most difficult decision of sending our troops into combat, the thoughts and prayers of all Americans are with you. My colleagues here in Congress have many different views on the wisdom of action in Iraq and the severity of its consequences. But we are united in our support for all the men and women who serve this nation.

   There is no doubt that our forces will be victorious in any conflict, but there is great potential for a ragged ending to a war as we deal with the aftermath. I appreciate the efforts that members of your administration have made to keep me informed about plans for the administration and reconstruction of Iraq following military conflict. Your team has thought about many of the things that will need to be done.

   Secretary Rumsfeld frequently talks about the list he keeps of things that could go wrong in an Iraq war. I have kept my own list--of things that could go wrong after the war is over. This list below is indicative of this broader list. My hope is that this will be helpful to members of your administration as you continue to plan for all possibilities. These are not complete scenarios but rather a series of possible problems that could occur in some combination.

   INTERNAL DIVISIONS AND EXTERNAL INFLUENCES IN IRAQ

   Without access to Iraq through Turkey, U.S. troops are not present in northern Iraq in large numbers. Turkey enters northern Iraq to establish a buffer zone and fighting breaks out between the Turks and Kurds. A significant U.S. military force is needed to separate the groups, complicating the governmental transition and international support.

   An uprising in Kirkuk leaves the Kurds in control of areas of the city and surrounding area. This triggers a large Turkish invasion to protect the Turkmen minority and to prevent Kurdish control of oil resources. Again this would require U.S. military resources with all the attending effects.

   In the event that Turkey crosses into Iraq, Iran may do the same, ostensibly to stem the refugee flows from southern Iraq and to protect Shi'a interests. Shi'a populations in the south rebel and undertake attacks against Sunnis. U.S. troops must step in to protect the Sunnis and restore peace. These tensions resurface during attempts to build a federal and representative government.

   Urban fighting in the south brings Shi'a into conflict with Sunnis. The resulting devastation causes a refugee crisis as Shi'a make for the Iranian border. The results of Saddam's policy of forced Arabization of areas like Kirkuk yield dangerous consequences. Groups like the Kurds flow back into these areas seeking to reclaim their former homes and land, sparking conflict with Iraqi Arabs.

   Attempts to fashion a federal government in Baghdad prove difficult. Iran is able to establish proxies for its influence among the Shi'a representatives. Once in Iraq, infighting breaks out among members of the former Iraqi opposition in exile. The United States is unable to transition the administration of Iraq effectively and has to remain in place, with significant military backing.

   The war involves lengthy urban combat, particularly in Baghdad. Most infrastructure is destroyed resulting in massive humanitarian problems. The emphasis on humanitarian aid distracts from efforts to establish a new government. Once established the government faces massive political pressure from the sustained humanitarian crisis.

   WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

   Saddam uses biological and chemical weapons against advancing U.S. troops, but also inflicts substantial civilian casualties. Efforts to stabilize cities and to establish a government are complicated by the need to deal with the large number of dead and to decontaminate affected areas.

   Saddam uses biological and chemical weapons directly against civilian populations or against another Arab country and seeks to affix blame for civilian suffering to the United States. Over the period of occupation, this resentment complicates U.S. efforts to maintain support for reconstruction efforts.

   U.S. troops are unable to quickly find all of Saddam's capabilities, requiring a long, labor-intensive search and anxiety as to when the task is complete.

   Regional leaders, for money or to gain influence, retain caches of WMD and transfer some to terrorist groups.

   Saddam attacks Israel with missiles containing weapons of mass destruction. Israel retaliates. Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia and Jordan, come under intense political pressure to withdraw their support from the U.S. war effort. U.S. forces are forced to reposition operational centers into Iraq and Kuwait, complicating reconstruction and transition efforts.

   OIL RESOURCES

   Saddam sabotages a significant number of wells before his defeat. Current estimates indicate he may already have wired up to 1,500 of these wells. The damage takes years to contain at great economic and environmental cost and removes a major source of reconstruction funding.

[Page: H1125]

   Internal groups, such as the Kurds, seize oil-rich land before American troops reach the area, causing internal clashes over these resources. Militant Shi'as seize other wells in the South.

   INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT

   The United States takes immediate control of Iraq's administration and of reconstruction. The United Nations can't agree on how involved to get given the divisions among the Security Council about the need for conflict. The lack of UN involvement in the administration makes the European Union and others less likely to give. This situation delays reconstruction and puts more of the cost on the United States and a smaller number of partners.

   U.S. reconstruction efforts that give U.S. corporations a great role at the expense of multilateral organizations and other participation--as was detailed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal--spur resentment and again limit the willingness of others to participate.

   AMERICAN COMMITMENT

   Stabilization and reconstruction prove more difficult than expected. U.S. troop requirements approach 200,000--the figure General Shinseki has mentioned--for a sustained period. This puts pressure on troop rotations, reservists, their families, and employers and requires a dramatic increase in end-strength.

   Required funding reaches the figure suggested by a recent Council on Foreign Relations assessment--$20 billion annually for several years. During a period of economic difficulty, the American public calls for greater burdensharing.

   It is my hope that none of these eventualities comes to pass. But as you and all military leaders know, good planning requires considering the range of possibilities. It also requires advance preparation of the American people. You have regularly outlined the reasons for why the United States must disarm Iraq. I urge you to do the same in explaining why we must stay with Iraq for the long haul, even with the economic and military burdens this will entail.

   As always, I am willing to help in any way I can to make this case to my colleagues and the American people.

   Sincerely,

   Ike Skelton,
Ranking Democrat.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I want to engage my colleague from Missouri in a colloquy.

   There is no Member of this House who is more highly regarded in the area of national security than our friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I am privileged to be a native of the Show Me State, and he has done us all very proud.

   I know at the end of the day he will want to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, because this resolution does exactly, exactly what my friend just stated in his closing remarks: recognizing our troops.

   Now, we had no intention of offending anyone in drafting the resolution. In fact, we thought it was so noncontroversial that it would be an appropriate thing to move it forward.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I would have thought it a mere courtesy of saying, Would the gentleman from Missouri like to read this over and add or make recommendations? I would love to have been there in order to support the gentleman from California.

   Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I completely understand that he would like to have had input; and that is one of the reasons we, in fact, did provide an opportunity, which is unusual, in consideration of this rule, for a motion to recommit for Members of the minority, if in fact that was the case.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), my very good friend and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and the House of the Committee on Rules.

   Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this rule and urge my colleagues to join me in approving this resolution.

   H. Res. 561 will allow the House to work its will on the underlying resolution. It is an appropriate procedure, given the nature of H. Res. 557, which is a simple resolution. H. Res. 557 was introduced to recognize the Iraqi people's suffering under Saddam Hussein, the significant advancements being made in Iraq since last March, and the courage of U.S. and Coalition Forces as they strive to bring order and stability to the country.

   The media is accurate in its reports of the difficulties that still face U.S. and Coalition Forces in Iraq. But there are also positive events taking place every day that deserve recognition and are largely ignored by the media. Probably the greatest accomplishment is that the Iraqis are returning to their lives and are enjoying freedoms that never could have existed under Saddam Hussein. Under his regime, the Iraqi lived in terror on a daily basis. Now, the people of Iraq have an opportunity to shape their history as they choose. The Iraqi people recently took their first step in shaping their future with the recent signing of the Iraqi interim constitution into law.

   Other notable advancements in Iraq over the last year include the rise in oil production to roughly pre-March 2003 levels, the circulation of the new Iraqi currency, and the repair of critical infrastructure and roads. Additionally, the electricity supply has become more stable, and many Iraqi hospitals are up and running.

   The number of Iraqis that have joined the Iraqi police force, border patrols, and army has also increased, allowing Iraqi citizens to participate in protection of their very own infrastructure.

   Iraq is still a dangerous place, not only for Iraqi citizens but also for U.S. and Coalition Forces. I commend the U.S. and Coalition Forces for their dedication, sacrifice, and service in Iraq; and I salute them for helping to make our world a safer place.

   The task of rebuilding Iraq will be no easy feat, and it will certainly take time. However, I am encouraged by the positive events of the last year, and I believe it is in the U.S.'s interest and the world's to persevere and create a stable and democratic Iraq.

   Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed to debate the underlying legislation.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 1/2 minutes.

   Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule because it works against the values and principles for which American citizens are risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan on this very day.

   We are fighting for democracy abroad, but we will not allow democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives of the United States. The fact of the matter is, if this had not been a political document, every Member of this House would follow the line, ``Commends the members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition Forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.'' But that is not all that is in this resolution.

   This is not about stopping consideration of the underlying resolution. It is a pleasure to take the time to pay tribute to the men and women who distinguish themselves daily in selfless service to this Nation. I do this, as do all Members on both sides of the aisle, at every available occasion. But there are other important matters that are not addressed in this resolution. And the fact that we were not included in its drafting allows them to be pronounced during the course of opposing this rule as well as in general debate.

   We have not, for example, recognized the efforts of our National Guardsmen and Reserves, who have left friends and families and civilian jobs to serve in Iraq. But this completely closed rule does not give all Members of the House of Representatives the opportunity to commemorate the outstanding service of all those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

   Once this institution was considered one of the world's greatest deliberative bodies, and its Members were statespersons rather than professional self-promoters. Once Members of Congress were brimming with ideas befitting a proud democracy. But no more, Mr. Speaker. To all of my colleagues who showed up last night at the Committee on Rules with amendments that they thought could strengthen this resolution, I apologize to you for the majority's disdain for your contributions.

   Actually, I had an amendment to this resolution that urged the President to provide Congress a straightforward and honest assessment of our past and future commitments in Iraq, as well as recognizing the selfless acts of the men and women in our service, who we all love and adore and applaud for their courage on a daily basis.

[Time: 10:45]

   These are some of the many questions for which we are all seeking answers from the administration. Even

[Page: H1126]

more, there are questions to which Congress has a constitutional responsibility and obligation to raise and demand answers.

   Mr. Speaker, I asked myself last night as the Committee on Rules Republicans passed yet another closed rule, and 11 have been closed, 1 has been open this year, which stifles debate and shuts off meaningful contributions from all of the Members of this Chamber, I asked myself, What is the problem? The problem is that the majority has introduced this resolution for political reasons. C-SPAN will broadcast today's speeches and Fox News will run stories professing the patriotism of those on the other side of the aisle. Thus, the Republican majority hopes to disguise the neglect and misdirection they have shown in governing by not making this a bipartisan effort.

   The Republicans have not established a record which helps all Americans, and are relying on photos ops and waving the American flag to get themselves reelected. It would be much more patriotic to address the perennially underfunded veterans affairs health care system. By the Bush administration's own estimate, their policies will exclude approximately 500,000 veterans from the VA health care system by 2005. This is shameful. President Bush also proposed an increase in pay fees and copayments in an effort to shift the burden onto the backs of veterans and drive an additional 1 million veterans from the system. It is shameful.

   Our troops should be taken care of when we send them into battle, and be given the respect they have earned when we bring them home. America's veterans fight and fought for our freedoms, they should not have to fight for their benefits.

   As the Republicans continue to protect the wealthy and act like show horses in front of the cameras, Democrats are working for the men and women in uniform and our veterans today as well as in the future. We will continue to applaud them.

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

   It is true that the United States of America has had a bipartisan foreign policy. This resolution is not about foreign policy. This resolution is not about foreign policy, this is a resolution that is simply designed to congratulate our troops. I do not understand why there is any controversy on it. As I said earlier and as I said in the Committee on Rules last night, we are sorry if anyone was offended over the fact that Members of the minority were not offered a chance to have input. I said to a number of my colleagues, that is one of the reasons that we have in fact made in order a motion to recommit that will allow the minority at the end of the bill an opportunity to cast a vote on that.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) who has done a phenomenal job of focusing on the rights of women. She chairs our Republican Conference and the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process Reform for the Committee on Rules.

   Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I stand before Members to strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution for freedom and democracy in Iraq.

   Life under Hussein's ruthless regime was unlike anything we have ever experienced. His cronies, in order to get information out of men, would rape their wives and their sisters and mothers. Women in Iraq frequently lost their husbands to ``the law,'' never knowing what happened to them, where they went or why they were arrested. These same women, forbidden to go to work to support their families, were left to starvation.

   The Iraqi women under Saddam Hussein's regime were someone's mothers, wives, and sisters, and they suffered tremendously. I led a women's delegation to Iraq and heard these atrocities firsthand from the women who now are free. They no longer dread the strong arm of Saddam Hussein's injustice. Coalition forces are now protecting the newly acquired rights of all Iraqis. I learned of the story of these two women who were protesting.

   Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago they would have been executed for protesting. They were protesting to get the rights of women included in the Iraqi constitution. One of these women was waving her husband's death certificate saying, we have not waited all these years to be denied freedoms. A reporter, an Islamic reporter, went up to ask, Are you Sunni or Shiite? These women said, We may be one of each, but it is none of your business, we are Iraqis now.

   That is what this is all about. This is what freedom stands for. This is what it means to two women, one who lost her husband and had no way of knowing what happened to him. This is what we are celebrating today. This is what has been accomplished by our Armed Forces, by the will of this administration.

   Saddam Hussein, the ruthless murderer, is now in jail. He will be tried by his own people in his own country, and he will get his just rewards, and these two women, despite the fear and dread and horror of their past, will live in freedom. We should be very happy today.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) who has fought aggressively for open rules on the Committee on Rules.

   Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the undemocratic, completely closed rule, and in opposition to House Resolution 557.

   Mr. Speaker, like all of my colleagues, I have tremendous respect for the men and women of our Armed Forces who are bearing the burden of this military action in Iraq. My support and my commitment to them and their families are unwavering. I will work to ensure that they remain the best trained, the best led, and the best equipped military force in the world. I am grateful and humbled by their courage, endurance and sacrifice, and I honor them not just today but every day, and I only wish this House was considering today a truly bipartisan resolution that properly honored our troops.

   Unfortunately, once again this House is claiming to honor our troops without devoting the necessary resources for their safety or for their support. House Resolution 557 will do nothing to ensure that every one of our military personnel, including our National Guard and reservists serving on the front lines in Iraq will be fully equipped with the latest body armor. Instead, many families of our troops are buying and shipping that protection overseas to their loved ones, out of their own pockets with no hope for reimbursement. This is unacceptable, and we should fix it.

   This resolution will do nothing to close the pay gap for our reservists and National Guard members who have been called away from their civilian jobs to serve in Iraq. Their families are struggling, going into debt as a result of their patriotic service. Yet the leadership of this House, unlike the other body, resists funding commonsense solutions to the problems caused by these overlong activations. This is unacceptable, and we should fix it.

   This resolution contributes nothing towards fully funding our military construction needs so that all our military personnel have decent housing and facilities in which to live, train, and work. This is unacceptable, and we should fix it.

   Mr. Speaker, I support our troops. I want to help the suffering people of Iraq live and prosper in a safe and secure nation. I want them to have the opportunity to choose their own government, one where every Iraqi may worship as he or she chooses, and every man, woman and child can live out their lives. But 1 year and $120 billion later, we face continuing hostilities in Iraq, with no end in sight.

   This resolution fails to mention that the war in Iraq was justified by this administration on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because just like the experts tried to tell us for months before the war, we now know there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

   I do not believe we needed to send over 150,000 American troops to Iraq to confirm that fact. Mr. Speaker, 566 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have died, and over 3,200 more have been wounded. Thousands of Iraqi men, women and children have perished, and scores of other civilians and nationals have been killed since we entered Iraq. There is no mention, no remembrance for them in this resolution.

[Page: H1127]

   Today the American taxpayer is still paying for almost all of the cost of Iraq without the least idea of how much the war has cost to date or how much it will cost in the future. In fact, the operations in Iraq are not even included in the President's budget. We still do not have a truly independent commission to provide a full accounting of the events leading up to the war and the nature of the intelligence of policymaking that led the Bush administration to go to war.

   Mr. Speaker, 1 year later the United States is more isolated than ever in the world. Terrorist networks are proliferating, including new networks in Iraq and Europe. And our troops abroad and our first responders at home are overstretched, underfunded, and overburdened.

   I am glad Saddam Hussein no longer has the power to torment the Iraqi people, but unlike the claim made in this resolution, I do not believe that the world is a safer, less dangerous place than it was 12 months ago.

   This resolution is more about what the Republican leadership wants us to forget about the past year: the costs, the bloated contracts, no weapons, no ties to al Qaeda, the flawed intelligence, the wounded and the dead.

   I urge all my colleagues to remember and vote against this undemocratic rule and vote against this bill.

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

   Mr. Speaker, I would like to simply say that again, we did not have a goal of offending Members on this. This is not about foreign policy, this is about commending our troops.

   Mr. Speaker, this resolution is 2 1/2 pages long, okay. I am going to share with our colleagues the resolved clause.

   Resolved, That the House of Representatives

   (1) affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq;

   (2) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime;

   (3) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; and

   (4) commends the members of the U.S. Armed Forces and coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.

   That is what this resolution is all about.

   Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), the very distinguished Chair of the Republican Study Committee.

   Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   September 11, 2001, is a day that should be etched in the mind of every American, because that is the day that terrorists chose to attack America and that threat is still here. The primary function of our Federal Government is to protect our citizens and we are doing our best to see that happens.

   It is now 1 year since the coalition forces entered Iraq to free those people from Saddam Hussein's rule of terror. Freedom is flourishing and the Iraqi people know they are better off. However, terrorists are still doing everything they can to interrupt that and see that does not happen. The Iraqi people are in control of their destiny for the first time, and we are here today to encourage them in that effort, and we are here today to say thank you to our troops, all those men and women who have served in the past in this effort and who are serving now over there, giving of themselves and giving their lives so they can protect these freedoms that we all enjoy. We know the world is safer today without Saddam Hussein.

   We must never forget 9/11 and that we are fighting over there so we do not have to fight the terrorists here at home. And no matter what the terrorists try to do, they need to be reminded that these colors do not run.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

   Mr. Speaker, I would say to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, if this is not about foreign policy, then how is it that the chairman of the jurisdictional foreign policy committee brought it to the Committee on Rules? If it is not about foreign policy, why is the language for the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 referenced in this resolution? If it is not about foreign policy, why is the mention of the 16 previously adopted United Nations Security Council resolutions in this matter? If it is not about foreign policy, why is the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002 referenced in this resolution? The other side of the aisle is trying to defend the indefensible.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, who may be able to tell us why it is not about foreign policy.

[Time: 11:00]

   Mr. LANTOS. I want to thank my friend for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote it down. I deeply regret that this resolution was not handled in a bipartisan manner. The Democratic side was not consulted on this resolution, and the Republican leadership bypassed its consideration before the Committee on International Relations. It is simply unacceptable that not a single amendment was made in order, no substitute is allowed; and there is no other way we on our side can offer improvements to this resolution.

   Mr. Speaker, the country is at war. The men and women who serve are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The men and women who are wounded are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, the men and women who die are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The families grieving are Democrats and Republicans and independents. Many of us have tried very hard for a long time to work towards a bipartisan foreign policy decades ago and certainly since September 11. The manner in which this resolution was crafted and the way in which it is being considered under this rule is a slap in the face of all those who have tried to conduct a bipartisan foreign policy in the national interest. You on your side have neither a monopoly on wisdom nor a monopoly on patriotism. You should have come to the Democrats to craft a resolution honoring our troops, which would have passed this body unanimously. You have created divisiveness at a time when we need cohesion and unity. You have created divisiveness for no reason except illusory partisan advantage. This is a flawed resolution, flawed in its presentation, flawed in its procedure, flawed in its partisanship. This is not a Republican tax bill to be handled only by Republicans. This is a bill of national importance. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans have a right to have an input, to say how much we admire the courage and patriotism of our troops. You have failed, and you have failed miserably.

   I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule and to come forward with a reasonable resolution supported across the political spectrum in this body.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that my friend from California is one of the greatest patriots in this institution. I hold him in the highest regard. I believe very strongly in the need for us to pursue a bipartisan foreign policy. Let me just say that, again, we had no intention of offending anyone in the crafting of this resolution, and it should be a nonpartisan resolution itself. At the end of the day because we found that controversy came forward in the Committee on Rules last night beyond the request that was made by Chairman Hyde, we did in fact offer a motion to recommit for members of the minority.

   But I do believe again that this resolution is designed to do nothing more than commend the troops and the people of Iraq. That is what it is designed to do. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy. This here marks the first anniversary of this very, very successful effort. I think that what we are trying to do here is, in a bipartisan way, acknowledges that.

   Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), an able member of the Committee on Rules.

   Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I think it is appropriate on the 1-year anniversary of the liberation of Iraq

[Page: H1128]

that we focus on that monumental and extraordinary event on the floor of this House today. The resolution before us congratulates the valiant men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the Coalition for having liberated the people of Iraq, and it states that because of that heroic effort by the Armed Forces of the Coalition and principally the United States, the world is safer today. The world is safer, Mr. Speaker.

   Each time a dangerous madman is removed from power anywhere in the world, the entire world is safer because there is one less madman kidnapping power in a country and holding the entire people of that country hostage and linking with terrorist groups throughout the world. Saddam Hussein was not the only dangerous enemy of freedom and peace in the world; but he was a dangerous enemy of freedom and peace in the world, and the entire world is safer because Saddam Hussein is gone from power and facing justice. I would ask the people of Iraq if they feel safer after having seen the regime deposed or if they do not feel safer.

   The entire world is safer and especially, I believe, Mr. Speaker, the people of Iraq are safer. Just like we can ask the people of Albania if they feel safer because Hoxha is no longer in power or in Romania because Ceausescu is no longer in power or in Russia because Stalin is no longer in power. I think that we should ask all those peoples if they believe that they are safer or not safer because their former totalitarian despots are no longer in power. Or ask the people in Cambodia if they feel safer because Pol Pot is no longer in power.

   Each time a madman is removed from power, not only the people that that madman had kidnapped and was torturing and oppressing are safer, the entire world is safer. Or is it that when we talk about Iraq, Iraq is not on planet Earth? The entire world is safer, but especially the people of Iraq are safer and the American Armed Forces are the primary liberators of that people. They deserve the commendation and the admiration of the entire world and most especially of this House. That is why I thank the authors for having brought it forward at this important occasion, the 1-year anniversary of the liberation of Iraq.

   ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The Chair will remind Members to refrain from trafficking the well while another Member is speaking.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my distinguished friend from Florida that I do not believe that the families of the people of Spain or Morocco or Turkey where bombs have gone off feel safer. So maybe they are in this world.

   Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 1/2 minutes to my good friend from California (Ms. Harman), the distinguished ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with whom I work regularly.

   Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this time and commend him for his service in this Congress and particularly his excellent service on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

   Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to consider a resolution on the eve of the Iraq war anniversary. I agree that the world has much to be glad about with the fall of Saddam Hussein and the end of his despotic regime. And I certainly hope that the Iraqi people will create a transparent, democratic form of government for the first time in their history, a chance that they have now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. I for one, and I believe this entire Congress, will stand by them and must stand by them and support them as they make this transition. We must stay the course.

   But there is more to this subject on the first anniversary of the Iraq war than H. Res. 557 acknowledges. Much more. On the anniversary of our military action in Iraq, we need to be talking about more. That is why many of us wanted an open rule and certainly an open process so that we could contribute to the language contained in this resolution.

   As ranking member of one of the key committees with jurisdiction over this subject, that is, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I would have welcomed the opportunity to share some of my ideas to fashion a great resolution which I believe would have passed this body unanimously. I consider myself a passionate bipartisan on questions of defense, national security, and intelligence; and I think that my ideas, if I had had a chance to communicate them, would have been accepted.

   For example, I am one of many Members here who has visited Walter Reed to see the wounded from Iraq. These are very courageous kids. Thousands have been wounded. I would have liked us to acknowledge them and their courage.

   I visited the families in my district who have lost family members in Iraq. I would have liked to acknowledge those losses and those families.

   I have visited Iraq twice. Some have been there more. In addition to acknowledging our troops, I would have liked to acknowledge the intelligence community personnel who take such risks on our behalf and the civilians working selflessly there.

   I worked in 1999 and 2000 as a member of the National Commission on Terrorism chaired by Jerry Bremer, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer. I might have liked to acknowledge him and his selfless service in Iraq.

   Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me, and I will address this along with other Intelligence Committee members later in the debate, that I would have liked to acknowledge the important role that intelligence products play in force protection now in Iraq and why those products need to be better. In my view, Mr. Speaker, and I think many would share this, good intelligence is a force protection issue.

   And so it seems to me on the first anniversary of our action in Iraq that we should acknowledge the need for better intelligence products and the need for this administration to fix right now, not next year but right now, the way we source and analyze intelligence. That is a suggestion I also would have made on a bipartisan basis if I had been permitted to participate.

   In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that as we commemorate the first anniversary of the action in Iraq, we need actions and not just words.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who also had an amendment that would have strengthened this matter had it been permitted by the Committee on Rules.

   Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time and for his strong leadership on each and every committee on which he has served.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and this resolution. This resolution really is an affront and an insult to our troops. I tried to offer an amendment to this very deceptive resolution. My amendment just basically expressed deep sorrow and real support for all of those who have been killed in this war and we extended support for their families in my amendment.

   As the daughter of a career military officer, Mr. Speaker, I know how important this is and what this means. This resolution as it is written never even mentions the over 550 Americans who have died. How insulting and insensitive. It does not even mention the Iraqi civilians and all of our international friends who have died in this war. My amendment also stated that the war in Iraq has undermined our alliances, it has cost hundreds of Americans and unknown numbers of Iraqi lives and billions of dollars, and it has made the world a more dangerous place rather than a safer place. The evidence speaks for itself on that. We are not voting on my amendment today because once again the Republican-controlled Committee on Rules did not allow any amendments, not only my amendment but zero, none, they did not allow. Once again true debate is being stifled. What a shame and disgrace. As an officer of the Congressional Black Caucus, we continue to stand in full support of our troops, in support of our veterans and their health benefits, and in support of their economic security. This resolution does none of this. None of this.

   I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. I urge them to vote ``no'' on this resolution. Remember, this is part of a pattern of deception which we have

[Page: H1129]

seen from day one. We are talking about not only the intelligence information that was not there but really a whole host of deceptive measures that have come before this body that we have voted on. I hope we vote ``no'' on this resolution. It is wrong. It is terrible.

[Time: 11:15]

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Brentwood, Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a very able new Member of this body.

   Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule because I think it is a fair rule for a worthy resolution. And like a lot of my constituents, I have spent time reflecting on what September 11 and the war in Iraq has meant to our country, how terrorism affects our lives, and what all of this means in the context of our world community, and I have come to the conclusion that as complicated as our world is and as tangled as the diplomacy surrounding our economic and military ties with the rest of the world become, I know that there are certain basic truths. And one of the great basic truths is the constant struggle between good and evil. And there are times in our history when the struggle is very clear, and today we are at one of those moments of such clarity. The lines are drawn, and we know who is aligned on each side.

   America leads a fight that we did not seek against a movement founded on distorted religious views and failed nations. This resolution marks a victory for good, and it is so very important that when good triumphs and advances that we celebrate that victory.

   This resolution honors our men and women in uniform. They have made the world a safer place for our children, and there are fewer greater gifts than that. And today we are welcoming the Iraqi people into the community of free nations. The resolution says to the world that America was willing to take on this fight to dedicate the fruits of her labor to free a horribly, horribly oppressed people a world away. Iraqi success in rebuilding and being free is our greatest weapon against terrorism. Terrorism seeks to destroy. Freedom builds. And that is why we are in Afghanistan and why we are in Iraq.

   Mr. Speaker, I thank our troops, I thank our families, and the communities that have supported them. And may God bless America.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is going to be a motion for an adjournment vote here, and I just wanted to, before we proceed with that, inquire how many speakers the gentleman has remaining for the debate as we prepare to go into this.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Three and possibly four, Mr. Speaker.

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

END

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 557, RELATING TO THE LIBERATION OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE AND THE VALIANT SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AND COALITION FORCES -- (House of Representatives - March 17, 2004)

[Page: H1130]

---

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Lemoyne, Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a very able Member.

   Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the rule and the resolution.

   Obviously, much has happened in Iraq since the war began a year ago. The military occupation of Iraq was amazingly swift and efficient, taking only a few weeks. Since then much has been accomplished, and I would like to point out just a few things that I think are noteworthy.

   More than 200,000 Iraqis are now involved with security operations. U.S. troops have been reduced by 20,000. Most importantly, an interim constitution has been approved, including a bill of rights. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and I have formed an Iraqi Women's Caucus, and we are pleased to see that Iraqi women will be given an active role in new government, after experiencing years of brutal oppression, with at least 25 percent representation. More than 17,000 reconstruction projects have been completed. The 240 hospitals are open, and I think something else worthy of note, health care spending has been increased 26 times higher than under Saddam. Ninety percent of the children are now immunized. Electricity and water are being rapidly restored and improved. Oil production has increased dramatically. Schools and universities are operating following a massive infusion of school supplies. Private enterprise is increasing dramatically. Seventy percent of Iraqis now say that things are going well, and they see a brighter future.

   I just came from a meeting downstairs where we met with seven Iraqis who are over here as part of a delegation. One of those gentlemen saw three of his brothers executed and his father executed; their heads were chopped off. They talked about people who had been buried alive. I guess it is one thing to stand here and to debate and to talk; it is another to meet with people who have really experienced the pain and the suffering that was imposed by Saddam Hussein and to understand the gratitude that these people have for the military operation that has been going on in Iraq.

   Reconstruction has certainly been difficult. There have been bumps in the road, as has been true throughout history. Reconstruction is much further along right now than it was for Germany and Japan following World War II, and I think we need to not lose track of these accomplishments.

   There should be no disagreement, I believe, in this body that American troops are doing a remarkable job and deserve our total support. Also, I feel that there should be no disagreement, that we must see this conflict through to a successful resolution. It is important that we present a unified front in this body. I think recent events in Spain will indicate the danger of being fractionated, of sending mixed messages to terrorists. So I am hopeful that we can demonstrate a unified position.

   As a young captain told me on a recent visit to Iraq in Afghanistan, it is better to fight terrorists here than in the United States. I agree wholeheartedly. Support the resolution and the rule.

[Time: 11:45]

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, who has absolutely no peer in the House of Representatives in being in support of the troops in Iraq and the armed services before and during and after Iraq.

   Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I am indignant, I am insulted, and I am embarrassed that no one came to me and asked me about this resolution. Nobody said, Do you have any input? Nobody has supported this war. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and I put a bill on this floor that only 16 people voted against. And I am embarrassed that my colleague would come up with a partisan resolution saying whatever was said without any consultation to the Democrats, particularly me, who has voted so strongly for the defense of this country.

   I go home and people criticize me for my position on the war. One fellow said to me, Never in history have so many been misled by so few. And, unfortunately, he was talking about me. He believed that I had misled him. I believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I believed there was imminent danger to this country. And the reason we go to war is because there is a core danger to our national security. We do not go to war because they drained the swamps in Iraq.

   I do not think anybody needs to question the Congress who supports the troops in Iraq or anyplace else. We voted continuously and overwhelmingly for the troops. We have tried to make sure they had what they needed, even though there were mistakes made in the original deployment.

   There were many shortages that we saw. And we made sure when we went over there, a number of us went over there, we found those shortages, reported them to the Department of Defense; and we started to rectify those shortages.

   We know there were changes that before our subcommittee an Under Secretary of Defense came forward and said this war will cost nothing. This war will be paid for by the oil revenues of the Iraqis. We know that in the last war our allies came up with $60 billion. We know that this time we have come up with $150 billion to pay for this war from the United States. We are paying much of the expense of the allies in this war.

   This is not the time to divide the country. We are talking about we have got the lowest level of support internationally than we have ever had. All the polls indicate that overseas we are discredited. We are discredited because they do not believe what we say.

   It is hard to comprehend. I read not long ago where Dean Acheson went to France and he went to France to talk about the Cuban missile crisis. And when he went to France, he said, I have got proof. He talked to President de Gaulle, and President de Gaulle was not one of our best supporters. He said, I have got photos here which will show you that we have missiles in Cuba. This was during the missile crisis. President de Gaulle said, I do not need to see those photos. I will take the word of the President of the United States.

   Now, that is the problem we face. We need to come together. I hope that this resolution will be withdrawn and that we will change a few words in it that would make it unified for the whole country.

   For instance, is it safer today in Spain? Is it safer in the Middle East? These are the things that I worry about. Just by putting something on paper you cannot say it is safe. It is just like the President, I am sure he thought the war was over when he said the war is over. I am sure when he made the announcement he thought the war was over, but that does not make it over. And putting it on paper does not mean that we are out of this with this conflict.

   We need the support of allies. We need the support, the solid support of this Congress. This is a long-term fight. I had members of the State Department over before with me in my office and they were telling me about the transition. This is going to be a very, very difficult transition. I do not say it was a shotgun wedding, but I would say we put together something where it is going to be very difficult to get the Iraqi people to agree when you have the divisions that you have in Iraq.

   So we are going to need everybody's support, not only in Congress; but we are going to need the people of the world's support because it is such a difficult issue for us to face.

   I am in it for the long run. Any money that they need, any equipment

[Page: H1131]

they need, anything they need, I am going to be there in front, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and I, and all the rest of the committee and all the rest of the Members of Congress. Because everybody wants to support the troops. But you put it on paper, it does not mean that the troops are safer.

   Now, I had two young women come to my office. Both of them had lost their husbands. One had two children, one had one child. I have lost six from my district. And they are from a very poor family. And they came in and they went to Walter Reed and they took gifts out to the wounded at Walter Reed.

   Many of us have been out there. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has been out there; the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) has been out there. All of us have been out to Walter Reed. And this one young woman, 22 years old with a child said, You know, I got married, I got pregnant. Then my husband was deployed and I had a baby. He was killed and I had a baby. She said, I should not have to live my whole life in one year.

   We support the troops. All of us support the troops. But we cannot get up here and divide the Nation at this time. This should be a bipartisan resolution. And I would hope we will be able to work that out so that everyone can vote for a resolution that shows this great country is united.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the very distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules and, more importantly, the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

   Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman yielding me the time.

   Mr. Speaker, I think this debate is about the rule, and that is what we are going to be talking about in order to have more chances to articulate the sentiments as were just expressed so articulately by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

   And I have the highest feelings of praise also for Mr. Murtha and his very strong record on behalf of our defense forces, our troops. He knows the subject, and he attends to them very well. And I am sorry that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) is aggrieved by the procedure today.

   I need to tell you that I was not consulted either. This is a leadership resolution that is simply designed after 1 year of fighting the war on terror, the chapter in Iraq of the book on the war on terrorism for 1 year and all the extraordinary success and work that has happened over there. It is entirely appropriate to commend our troops who are working so hard and the members of the Coalition. That is the main thrust of this resolution.

   Now, I admit it also says that we are commending and acknowledging and recognizing the courage and the accomplishment of the Iraqi people to go through very difficult days. And it is entirely appropriate to do that. It is no mean thing to come up with an interim constitution in the operational climate that those folks are operating.

   And I think it is entirely appropriate for the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, the people's House, to say we sympathize with them, we understand what they have been through. And we are very grateful that they have got the patience to go forward with it and the commitment to do this hard work.

   This is a democracy-building exercise in an area where democracy has had many false starts and very little success. This is good news. It is entirely appropriate for us at the end of the year to celebrate the good news.

   There has been some concern, as we saw last night in the Committee on Rules, about whether or not we should be declaring that we are better off without Saddam. And the language that was used was that the world is safer without him. We did not say the world is safe. We are in the middle of a war on terror. And everybody needs to know that.

   And we need the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and all his good works and everybody's good works in this body to support the war on terror because the war on terror will not be won without commitment. We know how these people work, and we have to be smart enough to resist the temptations, the wedges they drive, the propaganda they put out, apply our capabilities and get the job done. It will take all of us.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

   Mr. Speaker, the last speaker, who is my good friend and the chairperson of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the ranking member of the Committee on Rules on which he and I serve, just made the comment that he was not consulted. I say to my good friend that he is an original cosponsor of the legislation: the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

   Now, that said, my good friend had the privilege that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) did not have, and that was even to be original co-sponsors even if they were not consulted.

   Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question because I feel this totally closed rule is just plain wrong. There is not one single opportunity for any Member of the House to offer an amendment to this resolution, not even on the motion to recommit.

   Oddly enough, when the current House Republican leadership was in the minority, a motion to recommit without instructions was one of the things they complained most about. Now, here they are doing the very thing they said was so wrong and offensive at that time. Where will the sanctimony end?

   The war in Iraq is one of the most serious issues facing our Nation today. Anything that speaks to this matter on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives should be done, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) said, in a way that allows all responsible viewpoints to be considered. That is what democracy is all about.

   This rule simply gags that process. Ironic, do you not think, when we are exporting democracy to Iraq.

   Mr. Speaker, this is not about stopping consideration of the underlying resolution. I am not aware of one single Member of this body who does not support and praise the incredibly brave men and women who are in harm's way in Iraq.

[Time: 12:00]

   I believe we can all agree wholeheartedly on supporting our soldiers, but there are other important matters that are not addressed in this resolution, issues that many in this House want to include in this resolution.

   Therefore, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the motion to recommit to contain instructions.

   Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the RECORD immediately prior to the vote on the previous question a description of the motion to recommit that will be offered if the previous question is defeated and the rule is amended to allow instructions.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?

   There was no objection.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

   Mr. Speaker, let me just say that my friend, the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, looked at that resolution and was so proud of it that he immediately joined as a cosponsor, as I believe everyone in this House should.

   Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, obviously everyone in this House should be in support of a resolution which affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq; that commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted upon them by Saddam Hussein's regime; that commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution and commends the Members of the U.S. Armed Forces and coalition forces for liberating Iraq; and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service. That is what we are doing here today. Everyone should be in support of it.

   The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

   Previous Question for H. Res. 561 Rule for H. Res. 557--Iraq Resolution

   Amendment in nature of substitute:

   Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:

   Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 557) relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people and the valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces. The resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption without intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations; and (2) one motion to recommit.

   SEC. 2. During consideration of House Resolution 557 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.

    Motion To Recommit With Instructions

    M. __XXXXXXXXXXX moves to recommit the resolution H. Res. 557 to the Committee on International Relations with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendments:

    Page 2, line 2, strike ``affirms'' and insert ``acknowledges the belief''.

    Page 2, line 4, strike the semicolon and insert ``, and the belief that a final judgment on the value of activities in Iraq cannot be made until Iraq is stable and secure;''.

    Page 3, line 5, strike ``and''.

    Page 3, line 9, strike the period and insert a semicolon.

    Page 3, after line 9, insert the following:

    (5) urges the President--

    (A) to take all steps necessary to ensure that all members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq receive the best force protection equipment available, including protective body armor and extra-armored wheeled vehicles capable of providing better protection against explosive devices;

    (B) to ensure that all members of the Armed Forces who suffer wounds or other injuries, or who incur illness, while serving in Iraq receive complete, timely, and high-quality health care to treat the short-term and long-term consequences of such wounds, injuries, and illnesses;

    (C) to recognize the key contributions made by members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces, and their families, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and, in consultation with Congress, to address immediately the disparity that exists for many Reserve and Guard personnel between the pay they receive in civilian life and the military compensation they receive when ordered to active duty;

    (D) to acknowledge that there were serious deficiencies in United States pre-war intelligence on Iraq, particularly in light of the failure to find any evidence of significant weapons of mass destruction stockpiles, and to take steps now to improve intelligence so that United States troops are better protected and future United States national security strategies are better informed;

    (E) to request sufficient funding immediately to fully support United States military operations in Iraq and the surrounding region in order to ensure the safety and well-being of United States troops deployed to Iraq and the surrounding region;

    (F) to obtain far-reaching international participation in the securing, reconstruction, and political development of Iraq, including the protection of women's and children's rights; and

    (G) to take steps to correct the failure of the United States Government to plan adequately for the post-war occupation of Iraq, including the failure to integrate internal United States Government studies and outside expert opinions that predicted the onset of guerrilla activity and described how to promote effective reconstruction, democratization, and civil society development activities, and the failure to apply those studies and opinions today in order to improve current United States reconstruction efforts in Iraq;

    (6) expresses deep sorrow and regret for the deaths of more than 550 and the wounding of more than 3,500 members of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq and extends support to their families; and

    (7) expresses sorrow and regret for the deaths in Iraq of United States civilians, United Nations personnel, unknown numbers of Iraqi civilians, and other noncombatants.

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

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.

   The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

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

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of adoption of the resolution.

   The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, nays 197, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 62]

YEAS--217

   Aderholt

   Akin

   Bachus

   Baker

   Ballenger

   Barrett (SC)

   Bartlett (MD)

   Bass

   Beauprez

   Biggert

   Bilirakis

   Bishop (UT)

   Blackburn

   Blunt

   Boehlert

   Boehner

   Bonilla

   Bonner

   Bono

   Boozman

   Bradley (NH)

   Brady (TX)

   Brown (SC)

   Brown-Waite, Ginny

   Burgess

   Burns

   Burr

   Burton (IN)

   Buyer

   Calvert

   Camp

   Cannon

   Cantor

   Capito

   Carter

   Castle

   Chabot

   Chocola

   Coble

   Cole

   Collins

   Cox

   Crane

   Crenshaw

   Cubin

   Culberson

   Cunningham

   Davis, Jo Ann

   Davis, Tom

   Deal (GA)

   DeLay

   DeMint

   Diaz-Balart, L.

   Diaz-Balart, M.

   Doolittle

   Dreier

   Duncan

   Dunn

   Ehlers

   Emerson

   English

   Everett

   Feeney

   Ferguson

   Flake

   Foley

   Forbes

   Fossella

   Franks (AZ)

   Frelinghuysen

   Gallegly

   Garrett (NJ)

   Gerlach

   Gilchrest

   Gillmor

   Gingrey

   Goode

   Goodlatte

   Goss

   Granger

   Graves

   Green (WI)

   Greenwood

   Gutknecht

   Hall

   Harris

   Hart

   Hastings (WA)

   Hayes

   Hayworth

   Hefley

   Hensarling

   Herger

   Hobson

   Hoekstra

   Hostettler

   Houghton

   Hulshof

   Hunter

   Hyde

   Isakson

   Issa

   Istook

   Jenkins

   Johnson (CT)

   Johnson (IL)

   Johnson, Sam

   Jones (NC)

   Keller

   Kelly

   Kennedy (MN)

   King (IA)

   King (NY)

   Kingston

   Kline

   Knollenberg

   Kolbe

   LaHood

   Latham

   LaTourette

   Lewis (CA)

   Lewis (KY)

   Linder

   LoBiondo

   Lucas (OK)

   Manzullo

   McCotter

   McCrery

   McHugh

   McInnis

   McKeon

   Mica

   Miller (FL)

   Miller (MI)

   Miller, Gary

   Moran (KS)

   Murphy

   Musgrave

   Myrick

   Nethercutt

   Neugebauer

   Ney

   Northup

   Norwood

   Nunes

   Nussle

   Osborne

   Ose

   Otter

   Oxley

   Paul

   Pearce

   Pence

   Peterson (PA)

   Petri

   Pickering

   Pitts

   Platts

   Pombo

   Porter

   Portman

   Pryce (OH)

   Putnam

   Quinn

   Radanovich

   Ramstad

   Regula

   Rehberg

   Renzi

   Reynolds

   Rogers (AL)

   Rogers (KY)

   Rogers (MI)

   Rohrabacher

   Ros-Lehtinen

   Royce

   Ryan (WI)

   Ryun (KS)

   Saxton

   Schrock

   Sensenbrenner

   Sessions

   Shadegg

   Shaw

   Shays

   Sherwood

   Shimkus

   Shuster

   Simmons

   Simpson

   Smith (MI)

   Smith (NJ)

   Smith (TX)

   Stearns

   Sullivan

   Sweeney

   Tancredo

   Taylor (NC)

   Terry

   Thomas

   Thornberry

   Tiberi

   Toomey

   Upton

   Vitter

   Walden (OR)

   Walsh

   Wamp

   Weldon (FL)

   Weller

   Whitfield

   Wicker

   Wilson (NM)

   Wilson (SC)

   Wolf

   Young (AK)

   Young (FL)

NAYS--197

   Abercrombie

   Ackerman

   Alexander

   Allen

   Andrews

   Baca

   Baird

   Baldwin

   Ballance

   Becerra

   Bell

   Berkley

   Berman

   Berry

   Bishop (GA)

   Bishop (NY)

   Blumenauer

   Boswell

   Boucher

   Boyd

   Brady (PA)

   Brown (OH)

   Brown, Corrine

   Capps

   Capuano

   Cardin

   Cardoza

   Carson (IN)

   Carson (OK)

   Case

   Chandler

   Clay

   Clyburn

   Conyers

   Cooper

   Costello

   Cramer

   Crowley

   Cummings

   Davis (AL)

   Davis (CA)

   Davis (FL)

   Davis (IL)

   Davis (TN)

   DeFazio

   DeGette

   Delahunt

   DeLauro

   Deutsch

   Dicks

   Dingell

   Doggett

   Dooley (CA)

   Doyle

   Edwards

   Emanuel

   Engel

   Eshoo

   Etheridge

   Evans

   Farr

   Fattah

   Filner

   Ford

   Frank (MA)

   Frost

   Gephardt

   Gonzalez

   Gordon

   Green (TX)

   Grijalva

   Gutierrez

   Harman

   Hastings (FL)

   Hill

   Hinchey

   Hinojosa

   Holden

   Holt

   Honda

   Hooley (OR)

   Hoyer

   Inslee

   Jackson (IL)

   Jackson-Lee (TX)

   Jefferson

   John

   Johnson, E. B.

   Jones (OH)

   Kanjorski

   Kaptur

   Kennedy (RI)

   Kildee

   Kilpatrick

   Kind

   Kleczka

   Lampson

   Langevin

   Lantos

   Larsen (WA)

   Larson (CT)

   Lee

   Levin

   Lewis (GA)

   Lipinski

   Lofgren

   Lowey

   Lucas (KY)

   Majette

   Markey

   Marshall

   Matheson

   Matsui

   McCarthy (MO)

   McCarthy (NY)

   McCollum

   McDermott

   McGovern

   McIntyre

   McNulty

   Meehan

   Meek (FL)

   Meeks (NY)

   Menendez

   Michaud

   Millender-McDonald

   Miller (NC)

   Miller, George

   Mollohan

   Moore

   Moran (VA)

   Murtha

   Nadler

   Napolitano

   Neal (MA)

   Oberstar

   Obey

   Olver

   Ortiz

   Owens

   Pallone

   Pascrell

   Pastor

   Payne

   Pelosi

   Peterson (MN)

   Pomeroy

   Price (NC)

   Rahall

   Rangel

   Reyes

   Rodriguez

   Ross

   Rothman

   Roybal-Allard

   Ruppersberger

   Sabo

   Sanchez, Linda T.

   Sanders

   Sandlin

   Schakowsky

   Schiff

   Scott (GA)

   Scott (VA)

   Serrano

   Sherman

   Skelton

   Slaughter

   Snyder

   Solis

   Spratt

   Stark

   Stenholm

   Strickland

   Stupak

   Tanner

   Tauscher

   Taylor (MS)

   Thompson (CA)

   Thompson (MS)

[Page: H1133]

   Tierney

   Towns

   Turner (TX)

   Udall (CO)

   Udall (NM)

   Van Hollen

   Velazquez

   Visclosky

   Waters

   Watson

   Watt

   Waxman

   Weiner

   Wexler

   Woolsey

   Wu

   Wynn

NOT VOTING--19

   Barton (TX)

   Bereuter

   Gibbons

   Hoeffel

   Israel

   Kirk

   Kucinich

   Leach

   Lynch

   Maloney

   Rush

   Ryan (OH)

   Sanchez, Loretta

   Smith (WA)

   Souder

   Tauzin

   Tiahrt

   Turner (OH)

   Weldon (PA)

   ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass) (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

[Time: 12:20]

   Ms. WOOLSEY changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

   So the previous question was ordered.

   The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

   Stated for:

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a personal explanation of the reason I missed rollcall vote No. 62, On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 557. At the time the vote was called, I was seated at a House Armed Services Committee hearing and had just completed a question to which one of the witnesses was offering a long response.

   I respectfully request that it be entered into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that if present, I would have voted: Rollcall vote No. 62, on Ordering the Previous Question--``yea.''

   Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 62 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

   Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 62 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

• [End Insert]

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.

   The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

   RECORDED VOTE

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

   A recorded vote was ordered.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.

   The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, noes 195, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 63]

AYES--228

   Aderholt

   Akin

   Alexander

   Bachus

   Baker

   Ballenger

   Barrett (SC)

   Bartlett (MD)

   Barton (TX)

   Bass

   Beauprez

   Bereuter

   Biggert

   Bilirakis

   Bishop (UT)

   Blackburn

   Blunt

   Boehlert

   Boehner

   Bonilla

   Bonner

   Bono

   Boozman

   Bradley (NH)

   Brady (TX)

   Brown (SC)

   Brown-Waite, Ginny

   Burgess

   Burns

   Burr

   Burton (IN)

   Buyer

   Calvert

   Camp

   Cannon

   Cantor

   Capito

   Carter

   Castle

   Chabot

   Chocola

   Coble

   Cole

   Collins

   Cox

   Crane

   Crenshaw

   Cubin

   Culberson

   Cunningham

   Davis (TN)

   Davis, Jo Ann

   Davis, Tom

   Deal (GA)

   DeLay

   DeMint

   Diaz-Balart, L.

   Diaz-Balart, M.

   Doolittle

   Dreier

   Duncan

   Dunn

   Ehlers

   Emerson

   English

   Everett

   Feeney

   Ferguson

   Flake

   Foley

   Forbes

   Fossella

   Franks (AZ)

   Frelinghuysen

   Gallegly

   Garrett (NJ)

   Gerlach

   Gibbons

   Gilchrest

   Gillmor

   Gingrey

   Goode

   Goodlatte

   Goss

   Granger

   Graves

   Green (WI)

   Greenwood

   Gutknecht

   Hall

   Harris

   Hart

   Hastings (WA)

   Hayes

   Hayworth

   Hefley

   Hensarling

   Herger

   Hobson

   Hoekstra

   Hostettler

   Houghton

   Hulshof

   Hunter

   Hyde

   Isakson

   Issa

   Istook

   Jenkins

   Johnson (CT)

   Johnson (IL)

   Johnson, Sam

   Jones (NC)

   Keller

   Kelly

   Kennedy (MN)

   King (IA)

   King (NY)

   Kingston

   Kirk

   Kline

   Knollenberg

   Kolbe

   LaHood

   Latham

   LaTourette

   Leach

   Lewis (CA)

   Lewis (KY)

   Linder

   LoBiondo

   Lucas (OK)

   Manzullo

   McCotter

   McCrery

   McHugh

   McInnis

   McKeon

   Mica

   Miller (FL)

   Miller (MI)

   Miller, Gary

   Moran (KS)

   Murphy

   Musgrave

   Myrick

   Nethercutt

   Neugebauer

   Ney

   Northup

   Norwood

   Nunes

   Nussle

   Osborne

   Ose

   Otter

   Oxley

   Paul

   Pearce

   Pence

   Peterson (PA)

   Petri

   Pickering

   Pitts

   Platts

   Pombo

   Porter

   Portman

   Pryce (OH)

   Putnam

   Quinn

   Radanovich

   Ramstad

   Regula

   Rehberg

   Renzi

   Reynolds

   Rogers (AL)

   Rogers (KY)

   Rogers (MI)

   Rohrabacher

   Ros-Lehtinen

   Royce

   Ryan (WI)

   Ryun (KS)

   Saxton

   Schrock

   Sensenbrenner

   Sessions

   Shadegg

   Shaw

   Shays

   Sherwood

   Shimkus

   Shuster

   Simmons

   Simpson

   Smith (MI)

   Smith (NJ)

   Smith (TX)

   Souder

   Stearns

   Sullivan

   Sweeney

   Tancredo

   Taylor (NC)

   Terry

   Thomas

   Thornberry

   Tiahrt

   Tiberi

   Toomey

   Turner (OH)

   Upton

   Vitter

   Walden (OR)

   Walsh

   Wamp

   Weldon (FL)

   Weldon (PA)

   Weller

   Whitfield

   Wicker

   Wilson (NM)

   Wilson (SC)

   Wolf

   Young (AK)

   Young (FL)

NOES--195

   Abercrombie

   Ackerman

   Allen

   Andrews

   Baca

   Baird

   Baldwin

   Ballance

   Becerra

   Bell

   Berkley

   Berman

   Berry

   Bishop (GA)

   Bishop (NY)

   Blumenauer

   Boswell

   Boucher

   Boyd

   Brady (PA)

   Brown (OH)

   Brown, Corrine

   Capps

   Capuano

   Cardin

   Cardoza

   Carson (IN)

   Carson (OK)

   Case

   Chandler

   Clay

   Clyburn

   Conyers

   Cooper

   Costello

   Cramer

   Crowley

   Cummings

   Davis (AL)

   Davis (CA)

   Davis (FL)

   Davis (IL)

   DeFazio

   DeGette

   Delahunt

   DeLauro

   Deutsch

   Dicks

   Dingell

   Doggett

   Dooley (CA)

   Doyle

   Edwards

   Emanuel

   Engel

   Eshoo

   Etheridge

   Evans

   Farr

   Fattah

   Filner

   Ford

   Frank (MA)

   Frost

   Gephardt

   Gonzalez

   Gordon

   Green (TX)

   Grijalva

   Gutierrez

   Harman

   Hastings (FL)

   Hill

   Hinchey

   Hinojosa

   Holden

   Holt

   Honda

   Hooley (OR)

   Hoyer

   Inslee

   Jackson (IL)

   Jackson-Lee (TX)

   Jefferson

   John

   Johnson, E. B.

   Jones (OH)

   Kanjorski

   Kennedy (RI)

   Kildee

   Kilpatrick

   Kind

   Kleczka

   Lampson

   Langevin

   Lantos

   Larsen (WA)

   Larson (CT)

   Lee

   Levin

   Lewis (GA)

   Lipinski

   Lofgren

   Lucas (KY)

   Lynch

   Majette

   Markey

   Marshall

   Matheson

   Matsui

   McCarthy (MO)

   McCarthy (NY)

   McCollum

   McDermott

   McGovern

   McIntyre

   McNulty

   Meehan

   Meek (FL)

   Meeks (NY)

   Menendez

   Michaud

   Millender-McDonald

   Miller (NC)

   Miller, George

   Mollohan

   Moore

   Moran (VA)

   Murtha

   Nadler

   Napolitano

   Neal (MA)

   Oberstar

   Obey

   Olver

   Ortiz

   Owens

   Pallone

   Pascrell

   Pastor

   Payne

   Pelosi

   Peterson (MN)

   Pomeroy

   Price (NC)

   Rahall

   Rangel

   Reyes

   Rodriguez

   Ross

   Rothman

   Roybal-Allard

   Ruppersberger

   Sabo

   Sanchez, Linda T.

   Sanchez, Loretta

   Sanders

   Sandlin

   Schakowsky

   Schiff

   Scott (GA)

   Scott (VA)

   Serrano

   Sherman

   Skelton

   Slaughter

   Snyder

   Solis

   Spratt

   Stark

   Stenholm

   Strickland

   Stupak

   Tanner

   Tauscher

   Taylor (MS)

   Thompson (CA)

   Thompson (MS)

   Tierney

   Towns

   Turner (TX)

   Udall (CO)

   Udall (NM)

   Van Hollen

   Velazquez

   Visclosky

   Waters

   Watson

   Watt

   Waxman

   Weiner

   Wexler

   Woolsey

   Wu

   Wynn

NOT VOTING--10

   Hoeffel

   Israel

   Kaptur

   Kucinich

   Lowey

   Maloney

   Rush

   Ryan (OH)

   Smith (WA)

   Tauzin

[Time: 12:31]

   So the resolution was agreed to.

   The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

   A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

END

4B) Liberation of the Iraqi People and Valiant Service of the U.S. Forces and Coalition Forces - On the Resolution

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 561, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 557) relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people and the valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces, and ask for its immediate consideration.

   The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

   The text of House Resolution 557 is as follows:

    H. Res. 557

   Whereas Saddam Hussein and his regime committed crimes against humanity, systematically violating the human rights of Iraqis and citizens of other countries;

   Whereas Saddam Hussein's terror regime subjected the Iraqi people to murder, torture, rape, and amputation;

   Whereas on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein's regime had and unleashed weapons of mass destruction against Kurdish citizens, killing nearly 5,000 of them;

   Whereas as many as 270 mass grave sites, containing the remains of as many as 400,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's regime, have been found in Iraq;

   Whereas rape was used to intimidate the Iraqi population, with victims often raped in front of their families;

   Whereas the regime punished the Marsh Arabs by draining the marshlands, which created hundreds of thousands of refugees and caused an ecological catastrophe;

   Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338), passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 360 to 38, made it United States policy to support efforts to remove from power the regime headed by Saddam Hussein;

   Whereas with the Iraqi regime failing to comply with 16 previously adopted United Nations Security Council resolutions, the Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, declaring that Iraq ``has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors''; and

   Whereas on October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) and on March 19, 2003, the United States initiated military operations in Iraq: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

    (1) affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq;

    (2) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime;

    (3) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; and

    (4) commends the members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 561, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 2 hours.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

   GENERAL LEAVE

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

   There was no objection.

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

   Mr. Speaker, this is an important moment in our history. We are in the middle of a war the like of which has not been seen in recorded history. Everybody is a combatant, and the enemy works by night and works through cowardice. We do not see them. It is not like when Hitler marched through Europe with the blitzkrieg, where you could see the enemy. The enemy extends from New York City to Madrid to Indonesia. And if ever there was a time for this country, the United States of America, to be unified, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) said earlier, it is now.

   Now, there are two aspects to this issue that we have here today. One is the procedure by which we got here, and that is controversial and has evoked some harsh words. And the other aspect, the one that I choose to dwell on, is the substance of the resolution.

   The resolution, it seems to me, is simple, straightforward and one that everybody can support. It does four things. It congratulates the Iraqi people on withstanding the torture, the brutality, and the oppression that Saddam Hussein has visited on that country for so long.

   It affirms that the United States and the world has been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime. And I understand there are some who doubt that and wish to contest that. I would suggest to them that they look at Libya and they consider that Libya has given up its pretenses to have weapons of mass destruction, its capacity to develop nuclear weapons, and is rejoining the community of nations without a shot being fired. And anyone who doubts that that is not a direct result of our intervention in Iraq, seems to me, is not a very good logician nor a student of history.

   The other two things the resolution does is commend the Iraqi people on the adoption of an interim constitution. This, Mr. Speaker, is a miracle. You have Sunnis, you have Shiites, you have Kurds who have been at each other's throats for a long, long time. You have them coming together in a period of 9 weeks reaching a constitutional document. Not perfect, but a giant leap forward from where they were. This is an immense contribution towards democratizing the volatile Middle East, and they deserve recognition.

   And, of course, this resolution commends the United States Armed Forces and the Coalition for their valor and their courage in the war in the Middle East.

   Now, those things, it seems to me, everybody can support. And regardless of our disagreements on process, regardless of our concerns about how we got here, I would ask, in the spirit of, dare I say, patriotism, sticking up for our country, never mind our ruffled feelings, justified or not, let us stand as one with our military people who are fighting this war, this strange, weird, deadly war, where all of us should be Americans, not Republicans and not Democrats.

[Time: 14:15]

   Mr. Speaker, the vote in Spain was a great victory for al Qaeda, but it was simply a battle, it was not the war. The war will be a long, long war; and the voices of appeasement are being heard in Europe, but there are other voices, some from the past, voices like Churchill, voices like de Gaulle and voices like Roosevelt that caution resistance, resistance to tyranny. I would ask that Members read the resolution. It is very simple, very straightforward; read it and then put your bruised feelings aside and support it.

   If we want to go into bruised feelings, both sides have ample cause, we certainly do, being called, and I say this in sorrow not anger, crooks and liars and having it suggested that the war was started by the President. Those kinds of ideas are not conducive to getting together and embracing each other in the unity that must prevail if we are to win. We do not dare lose this war. What can we do to help win it? I ask Members that, and I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to give it heartfelt thought and support this resolution.

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

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

   Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are considering today is deeply flawed. The way it was handled was meant to be divisive, and it has achieved that goal. None of us in this House knows if next January we will have a KERRY administration or a Bush administration, but we do know that whoever is in the White House must ensure the success of U.S. policy in Europe. Success in time of war requires cohesion and unity. We do not need a divisive, partisan resolution. This may be the way to prepare a Republican tax bill, but it is not the way to prepare a foreign policy resolution to win broad bipartisan support.

   Mr. Speaker, the conflict in Iraq should not be a partisan issue. The soldiers who are fighting in Iraq are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The soldiers who are wounded and killed in Iraq are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The families who grieve for their sons and daughters who died in Iraq are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The citizens of this country who are paying for this war are Democrats and Republicans and Independents.

   Mr. Speaker, it is totally unacceptable that not a single amendment to this resolution was made in order. This was a Republican resolution, drafted with partisan intent by the Republican leadership. Many of us in this House who have been committed to and who have worked for a bipartisan foreign policy for decades know that this is a slap in our face.

   A resolution that commends our troops ought to receive the unanimous support of this body, but this resolution has been written specifically to prevent that result.

   Mr. Speaker, war is a time for shared sacrifice, a time when we are all united in a common struggle. This is not shared sacrifice. Some Americans are being killed, some are being wounded, some are asked to leave their families and risk their lives far from home; and some at the very top of the income scale are being asked to accept massive tax cuts.

   Mr. Speaker, this resolution commends the troops, but it does not acknowledge the supreme sacrifice of many who are fighting. This resolution makes no reference to the more than 550 service men and women who have died in Iraq. It makes no reference to the thousands more who have been wounded. It offers no condolences to the families of those who have been killed. It makes no reference to the sacrifices of the families whose members are away from them serving in Iraq for many months or over a year. It makes no reference to the many civilian and humanitarian workers who risk their lives daily. It makes no reference to the contribution of our allies who have thousands of troops in Iraq, and it makes no mention of the death and casualties they have suffered. And it makes no reference to the Iraqi civilians who have lost their lives and suffered injuries, including dozens who were killed today.

   Mr. Speaker, there are other serious omissions in this resolution. We should spend our time today debating substantive legislation to fix these problems. The American people have not sent us here just to be an ``amen'' chorus for this administration. There are serious problems, and we should be debating serious solutions.

   There is no mention in this resolution of the flawed intelligence that was the basis of the administration's argument for going to war in the first place. We should be debating the establishment of a truly independent commission to examine the shortcomings of U.S. intelligence and the way it was used.

   The members of this commission must not be appointed solely by the President, and the commission should make its findings known before Election Day. Only a truly independent investigation, and an investigation that the American people perceive to be independent, can bridge the credibility

[Page: H1144]

gap in our intelligence both here at home and abroad.

   The failure of this Congress to deal with the problems facing our intelligence agencies will ultimately harm our national security, the war against terrorism, and our fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

   Mr. Speaker, we are commending our troops but we are not taking action that we can and should take to make their lives and to make the lives of their loved ones easier. The sacrifices being made by our National Guard and reservists in Iraq and elsewhere are extraordinary. Many National Guard and Reserve families have suffered serious financial losses because of the pay gap between their military pay when they are called up and their private sector pay. With longer rotations, Guard and Reserve families are facing dramatically increased financial burdens while their loved ones risk their lives far away from home. One of the consequences is a serious problem with reenlistments in the Reserves and the National Guard.

   My legislation, H.R. 1345, legislation that I introduced 1 year ago this week, would fill that pay gap. My bill would ensure that government and private sector employees can continue to defend our country without being forced to worry about their families facing financial disaster.

   Words of support for our troops ring hollow when substantive legislation to improve their conditions is sandbagged by the leadership on the other side.

   Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that this resolution in its present form is brought before the House today. This should be a time for bipartisan unity and cohesion, not a time for partisanship. This should be a time for us to deal substantively with serious problems we face in Iraq and in our foreign policy. This should be a time for us to take serious action to help our service men and women. All of us join in commending our brave men and women of our Armed Forces.

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

   Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a leading member of the Committee on International Relations.

   Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Let us review and remember the history of Saddam Hussein, a history of torture, murder and massive abuse of human rights. Saddam was not only an aggressor against his neighbors, but he murdered his own people. This is an outrage against all humanity.

   Under Saddam Hussein, torture was widely used. Rape was a standard practice to intimidate and punish families, an outrage against women and all humanity. Murder was common. Truckloads of bodies took away victims. Ethnic cleansing was practiced with precision and effective organization, again an outrage against humanity.

   The mass graves he created could barely hide the devastation of Saddam Hussein. Let us remember that Saddam Hussein was known in his own neighborhood, the Middle East, as The Butcher of Baghdad. Back in 1998, Saddam Hussein made a poison cocktail for the town of Halabja, using a combination of nerve agents, mustard gas and conventional munitions to kill 5,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, again an outrage against humanity.

   And from 1983 to 1988, he went on an ethnic cleansing rampage against Iraqi Kurds, killing nearly 30,000 and wiping out 60 individual villages.

   If you were not marked for death, Saddam Hussein was a master at torture and these were his favorite tools of torture, electric shock, drip acid on victims' skin, gouging out eyes, pulling out fingernails, suspending individuals from rotating ceiling fans, and for those who spoke ill of Saddam Hussein, they ripped out those victims' tongues. This is all an outrage against humanity.

   There are over 400,000 unidentified bodies being unearthed in Iraq which call out for justice. I have a photo of a woman searching the remains of a mass grave for a loved one. Tell me this is not a just cause for freeing Iraq from Saddam Hussein.

   Mr. Speaker, this Congress, this President, and our American military men and women had the leadership, the courage, and made the sacrifice to liberate Iraq from the mad, mad man, Saddam Hussein. It was the right step to take for all humanity.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.

   Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I will support this resolution. I will support it as an expression of our Nation's gratitude and pride in our men and women in uniform who have performed with brilliance and valor in Operation Iraqi Freedom. To date, 565 Americans have given the ultimate measure of devotion to our country in Iraq, including a young soldier from my district, Jason C. Ford who was killed just a few days ago by a roadside bomb, 2 weeks after arriving in Iraq.

   We mourn the loss of Jason and all other fallen patriots, and extend our most profound sympathies to their loved ones. We also pray for the full recovery of the more than 3,200 servicemen and -women who have been wounded there.

[Time: 14:30]

   And to the approximately 110,000 Americans still in Iraq, we must offer this pledge: we will do everything within our power to ensure your success and safe return home.

   Mr. Speaker, this resolution should have simply expressed the support of this House for our Armed Forces now in harm's way. Regrettably, however, the majority has handled this resolution in a manner which inevitably led to division. Our troops and the American people expect and deserve better. On a matter of the highest national importance, the majority has undermined the democratic process in this House, treated those who hold different views with disdain, and created a bludgeon where it should have built a bridge. This is the same approach that has guided the current administration's foreign policy and which has undermined our Nation's credibility and driven many allies away from us. This is a time to bring together, to consult, to be unanimous.

   Mr. Speaker, I share the view that the Middle East and the world are better off with Hussein in custody and his Baathist regime on the run. But our mission in Iraq has not been accomplished. Even as we speak here, a car bomb has rocked Baghdad and killed more than 20 people. This comes on the heels of attacks on our troops, civilians and even innocent worshipers. Success must be our only exit strategy. And only when our objectives are accomplished can we say with certainty and conviction that the world has been made safer. As today's events in Baghdad and last week's horrific attacks in Spain make clear, this war has not been won. Yet. But we send an unequivocal message to those who perpetrate such madness: we will not retreat from our objective to eliminate the source of terrorism and those who perpetrate it. The legacy of the men and women who have committed the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq demands that we do no less. It should also demand that we do so united, united by common resolve and not divided by efforts to achieve political advantage.

   Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

   Mr. Speaker, the debate on Iraq today I think confuses the American people. After all, one side focuses solely on parliamentary procedure or when they do on substance they focus solely on the tough times and the challenges that we face, which are very real. But its message all too often is devoid of any mention of progress. Sometimes it even suggests that we are not better off, we are not safer since Saddam's capture. However, the other side, Mr. Speaker, the side that I am on, talks openly of our soldiers' historic victories, how just 1 year after the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam is in a dark cell, Osama is in a dark cave, and General Qaddafi is learning to play better with others.

   The good news for the American public is that soon they will not have to rely on the media or the politics from either side of the aisle as the troop rotations take place. The public will get to hear from the soldiers themselves, our hometown heroes. And the story that they are going to hear is moving, it is amazing, it is historic. On the sobering side, the public will hear of

[Page: H1145]

mass graves discovered and death cells shut down. On the thrilling side, they will hear about some of the things I saw myself when I was in Iraq just a few months ago. The public will hear of schools and universities that are open and operating, clinics and hospitals that are open and serving, and democratically elected governing councils that are open and governing. They will hear that well over 100,000 Iraqis now serve in the military and the police and that water projects and economic development are well under way. In Mosul when I was there, I saw a sign on the wall of the headquarters of the 101st which read: ``We are in a race to win over the Iraqi people. What have you done to contribute to victory today?'' The answer from our magnificent troops is clear, a lot, an unbelievable amount. And Lord willing, the public is going to hear more each and every day about just what these fantastic brave men have done.

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

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from Florida, let me remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that national unity and cohesion are not matters of parliamentary procedure. They are at the core of uniting the United States and the American people at a time of war.

   Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), a distinguished member of the committee.

   Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, while I strongly support the brave American soldiers risking their lives to defend security and freedom, I rise in opposition to this politically motivated resolution because it is a farce and anyone who says otherwise is too blinded by politics to see the truth. The truth is Iraq was not an imminent threat to America. There were no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons; and there was no link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The only mushroom cloud resulting from the war in Iraq is that represented by the Bush administration's barrage of deception and lies. While President Bush considers himself a war President, he is actually a self-made President of war. The President created the pretext for the war in Iraq. He planned for it before September 11, and he misused and fabricated intelligence to sell it to the American people. Instead of debating this empty resolution of praise for President Bush, Congress should investigate the President's unconscionable misuse of power and manipulation of the truth.

   Despite this second declaration of ``mission accomplished'' in Iraq, history will tell the true story as it did in Vietnam. The mission is far from being accomplished, and President Bush will be judged harshly for the tragic events of the past year.

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, as a political refugee from a brutal, sadistic regime, I know of the terrible crimes that dictators commit against their own people. Yet after talking to survivors of Saddam Hussein's regime and speaking with the teams who uncovered Iraq's mass graves, I was left speechless in the face of such atrocities. The Iraqi dictatorship indiscriminately slaughtered Iraqis but the women were among the most vulnerable. The notorious Fedayeen beheaded women in public, dumping their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. According to the September 2001 report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur, at least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001, in just 1 year. The regime used widespread rape to extract confessions from detainees and would intimidate members of the opposition by sending them videotapes of the rapes of their female relatives. At times, family members were forced to watch those tapes.

   However, Saddam Hussein's legacy of terror knew no boundaries. Even small children were not spared the butchery as evident from the tiny skeletons found in mass graves throughout Iraq. In 1998, the evidence of the Iraqi regime's threatening behavior continued to mount and we as Members of the United States Congress in a unified manner overwhelmingly approved the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, calling for the regime of Saddam Hussein to be removed from power and replaced with a democratic government. By 2003 after 6 more years of Saddam's oppression, the death toll had reached frightening proportions. The U.S. could not watch idly and do nothing. As a Nation which stands for freedom, democracy and human rights, we were compelled to act. Today as a result of the President's resolve in Iraq and the courageous dedicated service of our troops, the Iraqi people are free.

   As Iraq's new female minister of Municipalities and Public Works said last week to us: ``On April 9, 2003, Iraqis were offered the opportunity to begin to dream their future.'' To determine if going to war in Iraq and liberating the Iraqi people was the right decision, just ask Dr. Khuzai, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council and National Council on Women. After being prisoners in their own country for 35 years, she told us: ``For the Iraqi women, the morale is so high that you can't understand it unless you go and see. All the Iraqis are very grateful to Mr. Bush and to the U.S. for liberating us from the dictatorship regime. We will be grateful forever.''

   Today, the United States is helping Iraqi women reintegrate themselves into Iraqi society and, indeed, the outside world. Toward this end, the administration has embarked on the Iraqi Women's Democracy Initiative to train Iraqi women in the skills and practices of democratic public life. It has also established the U.S.-Iraqi Women's Network, helping to mobilize the private sector.

   This is just the beginning. We will have a better, safer world for the Iraqi people, especially for the Iraqi women, and for all.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the distinguished chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an important member of the Committee on International Relations.

   (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleagues now talk about human rights and brutality, and there is no question about that; but there is human rights and brutality in many parts of the world, and that has not caused American troops to intervene in those countries. One year after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it is time to focus on the truth. Yet this resolution leaves out the administration's most important justification for the war in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction. This administration systematically misled the American public and Congress into believing that there were weapons of mass destruction and that we were under an imminent threat. According to the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace recent report, the administration systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction by presenting the case as solid instead of expressing the uncertainty that existed in the intelligence assessments, and making the threat seem dire rather than minor by misrepresenting the inspector's findings.

   In fact, a report by the minority staff of the Committee on Government Reform found the administration made over 200 misleading public statements on the Iraqi threat.

   The truth is that this administration will not have the American people know what really happened with the intelligence until after the November elections, a year from today. Most importantly, this Republican Iraq resolution, crafted with no input from Democrats, makes no mention of the over 565 American men and women who gave their lives in Iraq to date and over 3,500 others who are wounded. I say we should honor those who gave their lives, not ignore them. This resolution should commemorate that ultimate sacrifice.

   In the wake of the recent attacks in Spain, it is shameful that Republicans are acting as dividers, not uniters. It is shameful that the Republicans without input from Democrats on a crucial resolution that could express our collective sentiment as we did after September 11 seek partisan gain out of what should be a national embrace.

[Page: H1146]

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

   (Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Ms. HARRIS. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 557, which reaffirms the morality and justice of Operation Iraqi Freedom. One year ago, our brave men and women in uniform began to liberate a proud and resilient nation from an unspeakable 30-year nightmare. They also delivered a clear message to terrorists and tyrants alike: the United States will not tolerate a regime that pursues tools of mass murder and destruction. Operation Iraqi Freedom reversed more than a decade of failed diplomacy which exacted a devastating price. Because the world permitted Saddam Hussein to violate 16 U.N. resolutions with impunity, the terrorists became convinced of our weakness. Meanwhile, Saddam continued to murder, torture, mutilate and rape men, women and children by the millions. After routing Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait in 1991, we urged the Iraqi people to rise up and rebel against this brutal dictator. Then, because United Nations and international opinion required us to leave Saddam in power, we betrayed them.

   During the Pryce delegation's mission to Iraq last fall, we listened to the victims and witnesses describe the horrors of this wicked regime. Incredibly, however, the faces of the Iraqis with whom we met reflected a new hope, born from the blood, sacrifice, heroism, and successes of our troops. Even as they endure the attacks of the enemies of freedom, they know that by working together, we will win the twilight struggle for their future.

[Time: 14:45]

   In the heart of the Middle East, we are replacing the oppression and despair that breeds terrorists with the freedom and hope that defeats them. Mr. Speaker, this stunning transformation is the very essence of the war on terror and let us not permit the rhetoric of an election year to obscure this fundamental truth.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia of the Committee on International Relations.

   (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is extraordinary, not for what it says but for what it deliberately refuses to admit. The President took us to war. An immediate nuclear threat was the bait. This resolution is the switch.

   In the aftermath of the war, we found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and with shifting justifications coming from the President and memorialized here in this Republican-crafted resolution, I cannot help but feel, as my constituents do, that we were sold a bill of goods. Not surprisingly, today's feel-good pep-rally resolution does not speak to these issues. What it does provide is the background music for justification revisionists.

   But since we have not discovered the promised stockpiles of weapons, we have a big problem. Not that our failure to find the weapons is not a big problem or that al Qaeda forces sneaking into Iraq is not a big problem or that nation building a place the size of California is not a big problem. The real problem is an utter lack of White House credibility. It is gone. Having not just cried wolf, but rabid wolf, this administration has lost its credibility with the Congress, with the American people, with the people of Europe, even with the people of ``New Europe,'' and with the international community.

   And the credibility gap extends to the plans for what we would do after the war. We won the war. The Secretary of War makes good war. And for the peace we were assured, the American people were assured that there was a plan. In fact, there was. It was crafted by the State Department. It spoke to all of the issues and problems that we have come up with until today, and it was scrapped by the Secretary of Defense. So how are the American people supposed to believe that the current plan to hand over power to the Iraqis on June 30, ready or not, come hell or high water, will actually work when all the expertise the United States Government could muster in advance has been summarily dismissed? I have concluded that the administration's plans to get us into the war was bait and switch, and the plan to get us out looks like cut and run.

   Finally, I am deeply concerned that the war against Iraq has undermined our stated Bush national security doctrine on preemption. Surely we face a new and different world in the wake of September 11 and we must think differently about how to win the war on terror, but preemption as a valid and legal doctrine for self-defense depends on imminence, an imminent threat to our national security. What we have discovered in Iraq is that there was no imminent threat and that our intelligence about Saddam's weapons was far from the mark. The administration has destroyed its credibility with the world community, and if by our actions we have transformed preemptive war into preventative war, then despite what today's resolution says, we have not made the world a safe place but a more dangerous place in the long run.

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

   I would just like to comment on the use of the word ``imminent.'' I wonder when the aircraft smashed into the World Trade Center, what was imminent. That morning? The day before? See, when we are dealing with suicide bombers, ``imminence'' is a rather difficult term to apply to circumstances. Sometimes by the time one finds out it is imminent, they are dead.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

   Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this important resolution. It has been almost a year now since our brave men and women in uniform liberated the Iraqi people from the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. In doing so, our Armed Forces brought individual freedom to a people who have for decades only known persecution. Now they are proving just as impressive at rebuilding the country.

   Mr. Speaker, several of the previous speakers have said that the Bush administration falsely claimed that the threat posed by Iraq was imminent. The threat was not imminent. The administration made no such claim. The threat was it needed to be dealt with before the issue became imminent. Saddam's regime continued to try to kill our American and British air crews patrolling the no fly zone, people like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), who flew those missions as a naval reservist. The United States could not keep a potential invasion force on station near Iraq indefinitely, nor would we want our soldiers to have to fight at the height of the summer.

   With the ousting of Hussein from power, we have discovered the true horror and atrocities of this regime. As we look at the unearthed mass graves and reflect on the countless human rights abuses, how can we possibly question the legitimacy of this decision? The world is a safer place with the liberation of Iraq, particularly for the 25 million Iraqis who no longer have to live in fear of a brutal tyrant.

   We entered Iraq to free its people and plant the seeds of a democratic government, and that is precisely what we are doing. If a few years ago, one would have told someone, anyone, that in the year 2004 the Iraqi people would be creating a constitution founded on democratic principles, I daresay that no one, no one, would have objected. Consequently, that is just what our decision has done.

   I commend the diligence of our Armed Forces in the reconstruction effort, and I am pleased with the rapid progress that is being made. The road is certainly not an easy one, but I remain confident in the ability of the Iraqi people, with the cooperation of the coalition, to rebuild their country and to create a secure and stable sovereign nation.

   I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), a distinguished member of the committee.

[Page: H1147]

   Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me this time.

   We all in this institution support our troops. We marvel at and applaud their bravery and their courage. It is not, Mr. Speaker, what is in this resolution. It is what is not in it. I suggest to my Republican colleagues that they meet with families of the men and women who are serving in Iraq, something many of us in this institution have done. They will learn how badly this administration has supplied our troops.

   There is no mention of the lack of body armor in this resolution and how the Bush administration has failed to outfit our troops. There is no mention in this resolution about the lack of safe drinking water for our troops, something that this administration has failed to supply. There is no mention in this resolution of cuts in prescription drug benefits to veterans that this administration has forced on those who have lived up to their obligation for our country. There is no mention in this resolution of the $1.2 billion underfunded for the Veterans Administration in the President's budget. There is no mention in this resolution of 558 courageous young men and women who have died in Iraq. There is no mention of the 2,788 soldiers and sailors who were wounded since President Bush dressed in his flight suit and declared, ``mission accomplished.'' There is no mention in this resolution of weapons of mass destruction. There is no mention in this resolution of the Bush administration's deceit in leading us to this war.

   Mr. Speaker, the best way to honor our troops is to supply the troops adequately, to protect the troops and make sure they are safe, and to fulfill the promises to our veterans. Something the Bush administration has failed to do. Something my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle have failed to address.

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

   I was fascinated by the remarks of the last gentleman. We have been checking records of people who have strong views on this subject, and I find the gentleman has voted 11 times to cut the intelligence budget. That is pretty consistent, and I give him an A for consistency. He also voted against the supplemental to provide the wherewithal for the troops to be fully equipped. And so, as I say, the gentleman talks a very robust military, but he does not quite follow up with supporting funding for our intelligence.

   Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

   Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the $87 billion, first of all, I voted to equip the troops in Iraq in the first vote. When the Bush administration failed with enough money in that budget to provide safe drinking water, to provide body armor, when the administration failed to do it, they had plenty of money to do it; yet it took them months and months and months to make our troops safe. That is why so many in this body said do not give the Pentagon more money, do not give Halliburton more money, do not give more money to the company that is paying Vice President Cheney $3,000 a week while he is Vice President of the United States.

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said what is not in our resolution. I will tell the Members what is not in. The 11 votes he voted to cut funds for intelligence, his vote against the supplemental. And so to talk out of one side of his mouth for a vigorous military and that they should be supplied, and then to deny them the wherewithal to do it, it seems to me is standing on two stools. It is a great way to get a political hernia.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

   Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution, first to praise the efforts of our men and women in the military who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much on behalf of this country. I also want to take a minute to recognize the courage and resilience of the Iraqi women.

   Under Saddam Hussein, Iraqi women lived in fear. They endured years of great beatings, torture, under a farce of a legal system under which they had no rights. Does no one remember the pictures of the Kurdish people, dead, holding their babies in their arms, trying to shield them from the horror of a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq? Only Baathists were awarded the right to have medical care. Families were torn apart on trumped-up charges. Divorce was grounds for having their children taken away. Imagine a mother watching her child die because of her political beliefs. Imagine watching a husband leave for work one day, never to come back. Imagine walking down the street and having their children ripped from their hands.

   The persecution of women under Saddam Hussein was brutal and systematic and left deep and damaging psychological wounds. Women were afraid to walk down the streets. Girls were afraid to go to school. With the source of that oppression now removed great challenges lie ahead. Some estimate, for example, that over 70 percent of the Iraqi women are illiterate. They could not go to school.

   Somehow this battered and oppressed nation has to educate a new generation of Iraqi children. And in the face of that tough task, there is optimism in Iraq. For the first time in generations, they see an opportunity where only once they had terror. Where once there was depravity, there is excitement and hope in these women for the future. I have met with these women. I have talked with these women.

   The optimism is due to the United States' intervention and the selfless service of our men and women in uniform. In our Armed Forces stationed in Iraq, women stand alongside with men there and they serve as a model for the Iraqi women who aspire to that kind of equality on their own in their own country.

   The new Constitution of Iraq calls for almost a 25 percent representation of women. The Iraqi women themselves have asked for 40 percent. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression. I commend the women of Iraq for overcoming that unspeakable adversity. I hope that everyone will back this bill.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Human Rights.

   (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we send troops into battle without body armor. Shame. Those troops come back deprived of the veterans benefits we promised. Shame. And now we deliberately divide the homefront for political advantage. Shame.

   Make no mistake about it. This resolution was designed by political consultants to generate the largest possible Democratic ``no'' vote which can then be the subject of political ads saying one of our Nation's great political parties does not support our troops. Shame.

   The world is better because Saddam is gone. But a fair resolution would acknowledge that we are worse off because 566 of our troops are now deceased and 3,254 were wounded. And we are less safe because our military is exhausted and overextended. Our international credibility has been mangled beyond belief. So the real threats to our security, North Korea and Iran, are able to make progress on their nuclear weapons programs. We are not safer now than we were a year ago because those who would develop nuclear weapons and smuggle them into our cities have had a year further to progress.

[Time: 15:00]

   And one party devotes a day of floor time to dividing our Nation during our war on terrorism. Shame. Just as that political party brought forward money for our troops in a supplemental and linked it to a giant welfare program for Halliburton and forced us to vote on it as a package. Now it attacks our patriotism when we said ``no'' to Halliburton, because they would not let us say ``yes'' to our troops and ``no'' to Halliburton at the same time. Shame.

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the learned gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

   Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

[Page: H1148]

   After listening to some of this debate, and I am sure it will get worse during the day as we deal with this politically, from a policy point of view, I would just like to take a minute and review what really we are talking about here. We are talking about a resolution that I cannot imagine any American, frankly, could not support. I mean we are simply saying that we affirm that the United States has made the world safer by the removal of Saddam Hussein. Well, I believe that pretty strongly.

   We are commending the Iraqi people for their courage and going through all they have gone through. We are commending the Iraqi people because they actually have an interim Constitution and a Bill of Rights. That ought to have been on the front page of some paper somewhere. And we are commending our troops. What is there to be against, against that? All of it is true.

   Do we want something else added to it? Well, I do too. And my colleagues will vote no because they did not get it exactly like they wanted it. I would like for this resolution to have commended the Commander in Chief of the United States. I would like for us to say to President Bush, thank God we have a man who has come along with enough backbone to stand up to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction around the world and is willing to stand up to the terrorists. Thank goodness we do that.

   My colleagues spend all of their time talking about weapons of mass destruction. What this President has said to us about weapons of mass destruction is precisely what the previous administration said to us also. The difference is, we have a 9/11. And the difference is, we had a President that was willing and ready to act as we should have acted.

   Just think about it a minute. We knew he had weapons of mass destruction. We knew he had the ability to make weapons of mass destruction, did we not? We knew he used weapons of mass destruction. When I voted yes for the President, I thought he had weapons of mass destruction, but I was not by myself. Israeli Intelligence thought so; British Intelligence, German Intelligence, French Intelligence, the U.N., even Saddam Hussein thought he had weapons of mass destruction. Get off of that.

   We are doing the right thing to protect this world, and we are doing the right thing to protect our security here at home.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), a distinguished member of the committee.

   Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but praise for our warriors in Iraq, but I oppose the President's Iraq war.

   If this was a resolution praising our warriors instead of using them as a pretext for applauding the President's after-the-fact arguments for going to war, I would vote for it. If this was a resolution proposing ways in which Congress and the President will raise our soldiers' pay, improve their housing at home and abroad, ensure quality health care for their families and survivors, I would vote for it. If this was a resolution guaranteeing the greater benefits, job training, educational and employment opportunities for returning veterans, I would vote for it. If this was a resolution demanding that the President develop a real foreign policy agenda instead of a doctrine of preemption and preventative war, I would vote for it. If this was a resolution calling on the President and the Intelligence Community to come clean on why no weapons of mass destruction have been found, I would vote for it. If this was a resolution condemning the no-bid contracts by which private military companies like Halliburton have enriched themselves and whose contributions have fattened the President's campaign war chest, I would vote for it.

   But since this resolution is none of the above, I am compelled to vote against it. Since this resolution is steeped in hypocrisy and self-congratulatory bravado while refusing to address the false pretenses upon which the Iraqi war was launched, I am compelled to vote against it.

   Again, this is poli-tricks, again, as this resolution was crafted to divide this Nation, not bring this Nation together. No, none of us had an opportunity on this side to contribute anything to this resolution, if, in fact, they want to have any kind of unity.

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for authoring this very important resolution.

   Mr. Speaker, much of the dark and unseemly world of Saddam Hussein is only now coming to light, and it is significantly worse than many of us had thought. The fact that as many as 400,000 victims were systematically brutalized and raped and tortured to death ranks the Hussein dictatorship as one of the worst in modern history. Had the United States and coalition forces not gone in to liberate Iraq, there is no doubt whatsoever that the killing fields would have continued unabated and that tens of thousands Iraquis or more would have met a terrible fate.

   Mr. Speaker, on the issue of chemical weapons, we know that chemical weapons used by the Iraqis are not mere conjecture. Hussein used weapons of mass destruction and used them with impunity both in the Iran-Iraq war and he used them against the Kurds. We know for a fact, according to Human Rights Watch and many other organizations and the U.S. Department of State, that upwards of 5,000 Kurdish people died a horrific death from those chemical attacks. There have also been, as my colleagues know, a staggering number of disappearances, believed to range between 250,000 to 290,000.

   Mr. Speaker, the Armed Forces of the United States and our coalition partners have conducted themselves in Iraq with incredible valor, professionalism, and commitment. Our forces and those of our allies are peacemakers. We often talk about peacekeepers, soldiers who go in when the situation, while volatile, presents the opportunity to ensure that the combatants can be separated. Our men and women went into Iraq and they ``made'' the peace. They are peacemakers in a place in the world where peace was an oxymoron.

   The recently adopted interim Iraqui constitution, Mr. Speaker, will more likely get further worked once the new assembly is up and running next year, is historic; a constitution which articulates basic fundamental human rights and the rule of law in the Middle East. After Israel, which has an excellent constitution, we now have Iraq. And I think there is a great opportunity for democracy to break out and the rule to be respected and that also mitigates the danger of Iraq which now is a peacemaker itself to its friends and allies in the region.

   Finally, just let me say, a previous speaker talked about shame when it comes to our veterans and our men and women who are returning home. I chair the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. We have seen, since the Bush Presidency began, and it continues the trend line of the late 1990s, more than a 30 percent increase in health care funding and we will increase it again this year, and we will do so significantly.

   President Bush has signed no less than 16 separate bills to enhance, to expand veterans benefits. The Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 was signed on December 16. There were seven titles to it, filled with very important provisions to enhance veterans benefits. The Veterans Education and Benefits Act contains a 46 percent increase in the GI Bill, 46 percent increase in college funding. I know, because I authored it. I was the prime sponsor of the bill. With no fanfare whatsoever, this President signed that legislation and 15 other bills into law.

   Mr. Speaker, I would hope that these trying to use veterans issues as a political football would cease on this floor today. We are trying, in a bipartisan way, to meet the obligations and the needs of our veterans. I stand committed to that. This party, and I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, to do so as well, we should all be pro-veteran, and we are matching our words and our rhetoric with funding and with responsive and responsible laws.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a

[Page: H1149]

distinguished member of the committee.

   Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this resolution, but I am going to do it with a heavy heart. I am going to do it with a heavy heart because this is obviously a politicized resolution. It is a resolution that was designed to make Democrats look bad. It is a resolution which Democrats had no input in whatsoever. It is a resolution that really smacks, I think, of hypocrisy, because when we look at the self-righteousness on the other side, when we had a resolution on the House floor several years ago when Bill Clinton was President to support our troops in Kosovo, almost everyone on the other side voted no.

   I am going to vote for this because I support our troops. I am glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and I am glad that there is an Iraqi Constitution, and that is essentially what this resolution says. I believe that whether one believed that the war in Iraq was justified or unjustified, the fact that we are there now and we cannot cut and run because if we did, Iraq would surely be a terrorist state now if it was not one before, we really cannot cut and run.

   But I think my friends on the other side of the aisle really ought to build a consensus. Democrats should have had input into this resolution. Democrats should have been allowed to amend this resolution. If we truly want bipartisanship, then we really need to stand together.

   I am troubled that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. I am troubled that it seems that our intelligence was not exactly up to snuff. I am troubled that the American people were not told the entire truth. But I think we have to come together to support our troops.

   Mr. Speaker, I want to say again to my friends on the other side of the aisle, we support our troops whether they are in Iraq, Kosovo, or anywhere around the world, and we have to stand together and say it, not play partisan political games.

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

   Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 557. Americans should be proud that we are again confronting an evil threat to the Western world. We have done that before and we will do it again. We should be proud of our soldiers and we should be proud of our President.

   The last administration did nothing. What we are doing now is making up for what was not done 10 years ago. Ten years ago, we let Afghanistan be turned into a terrorist base. Ten years ago, we let Saddam Hussein continue his dictatorship and yes, the administration before the last, George Bush's father, deserves some of the blame for this; but for the 8 years of the Clinton administration, Saddam Hussein was murdering his people and aligning himself with the terrorists of the world. Yet we did nothing.

   Now, I remember voting for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. It passed this House by 360 to 38. Now, today, we hear oh, the President of the United States did not justify going into Iraq. Well, many of the people making that point voted for the Iraq Liberation Act in which section 3 of the Iraq Liberation Act authorizes the President of the United States to remove Saddam Hussein by force. Yet this President is taking care of business, while the last administration did nothing. Finally, we have a President who is taking care of business, protecting our national security. And what do we get? What do we hear? Nitpicking and back-biting from day one.

   Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to support this resolution because it indicates that America is standing proud again. We have a President that is providing leadership. We are courageous and we are going to change the course of history. By getting rid of Saddam Hussein, we are going to create a democratic Iraq and we are going to stick it out there. Nobody is going to force us to cut and run; no amount of nitpicking or back-biting will hurt our resolve. We are going to create an alternative for moderate Muslims throughout the world, and that will change history. It will take the power away from the radical Islam. We are taking care of business now. Let us support our troops and our President.

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, and 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for purposes of control.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a valued member of our committee.

   Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first let me just say I rise in total opposition to this resolution. This is another resolution to deceive the American people. This resolution completely distorts and ignores the basis for this war and its costs.

[Time: 15:15]

   This resolution never even mentions the more than, now, unfortunately, 560 Americans and countless others who have died in this war. This is really insulting, and it is insensitive.

   It also leaves out any mention of weapons of mass destruction, which was the rationale for this war. And it claims the war made the world a safer place. That ignores reality.

   We had choices. We had options. We did not have to go to war. In the last year, for example, 72 Members of this House voted for my amendment to the Bush administration's war resolution that would have rejected the unnecessary rush to war and instead strengthened our commitment to the United Nations inspections process.

   Now we have a resolution today that celebrates this war but ignores its cost, its cost to our soldiers, to our credibility, to our children's future. This pattern of deception and distortion must end.

   I tried to offer an amendment to this misleading resolution yesterday. It just expressed our deep sorrow for all those who have been killed in this war and pointed out the terrible toll this war has taken on our own security. The Committee on Rules did not even allow my amendment honoring the sacrifice of our troops or offering the truth about the war. Once, again, the debate is being stifled.

   What has happened to democracy in this body? Once again, this administration and the Republican leadership are attempting to trick the American people. And they are neglecting the very soldiers they claim to honor, the men and women who need health care, proper equipment, and veterans benefits, whose families need economic security. We must call them out on this and vote against this resolution.

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

   Mr. Speaker, this is the opportunity for Members of the Committee on Armed Services to talk about our piece of this important resolution, and that is, I think, the most gratifying part of this resolution, which I think we can all join together on and that is commending our great troops who have been carrying out this effort in Iraq.

   Mr. Speaker, from the time when they spearheaded this drive up from Kuwait up through the choke points in Nasarea with the Marines out to the east and the Army, the 101st Airborne and the 3rd Infantry Division further to the west and worked up to those choke points at some places where RPGs were coming like volleys of high-tech arrows at those convoys of Humvees and trucks and tanks, to where they got up and went past the bridges before they could be blown, took the positions in the dams before the electronics could be executed to blow those places, and launched one of the most rapid-moving attacks in the history of warfare, with great heroism and great accomplishment, from those days to today when our troops are in this AO, this area of operation, not as much as attackers but in this case defenders of the new freedom of the Iraqi people, and hooking up pipelines and sanitary systems and getting children to school and opening up medical clinics, our people in uniform have performed heroically.

   The most important message we can send from the United States House of Representatives is, you did a great job, America's people in uniform. You did a wonderful job for our country. And what you are doing has great value and

[Page: H1150]

will enure to our freedom over the coming decades as well as the freedom of the world.

   So, Mr. Speaker, we stand together and even united in commending our troops. I am glad that my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), is here as my partner on this committee to also commend the troops for the great job that they have done.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a valued member of our committee.

   Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, if the Republican leadership wanted to work on a bipartisan expression of support, we would have been able to get some place today. They could at least have had an opportunity for Congress to step back and examine what we have learned.

   We were prepared to win the war in Iraq. It was never an issue. A major concern is that we were not adequately prepared to win the peace, either in terms of equipping or staffing the occupation of Iraq nor preparing the American public for the full scope of the cost and consequences.

   Giving too much money to the wrong people to do the wrong things in Iraq is a legitimate object of debate, and I hope that we will some day have it. But, in the meantime, the most important unanswered question is whether the massive investment of the troops, the money, and the attention was best spent rushing to Iraq rather than concentrating on continuing the global struggle against al Qaeda and the other forces of terror.

   By delaying for over a year and a half the concerted efforts in searching out bin Laden, it has allowed al Qaeda and other terrorists to gain strength, to metastasize, making bin Laden almost irrelevant other than as a symbol of our policy failure. Our unwillingness or inability to launch a concentrated effort to mobilize global support when we had the entire world united on our side is a sad by-product of this administration's policies.

   We are long on celebration; we are short on analysis. We are long on talking; we are short on accomplishment. Congress's job is to know what is going on, define the policy, to fund the right things, and provide oversight. That is our job, and we are falling far short of the mark.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), my colleague and a distinguished member of the committee.

   Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago this Friday, the President ordered the men and women of our Armed Forces into Iraq. They performed magnificently and have continued to do so despite an ongoing guerilla campaign, difficult conditions, and a shortage of protective gear such as Kevlar vests and armored Humvees.

   As we celebrate their courage and skill, we must also reflect on their sacrifice. As of today, 565 American troops have been killed in this war including United States Army Specialist Rel Allen Ravago, IV, one of my constituents.

   I will support this resolution because it includes language honoring our troops, but I am very concerned over what the resolution excludes and deeply disappointed that it was not crafted in a bipartisan manner.

   Our troops in Iraq are not representatives of one political party or the other, and those who seek to exploit their daring and sacrifice for partisan gain would do well to remember that.

   This resolution fails to address a number of serious issues that have arisen as a result of the war. Although the resolution before us makes no mention of it, this Nation went to war over intelligence that Saddam Hussein had both an existing arsenal of biological and chemical weapons and an ongoing nuclear weapons program. A year has passed, and we have yet to find evidence that this was correct.

   Clearly, we must look at the totality of the circumstances that led to such a colossal intelligence failure. This failure cannot be minimized or, in the case of this resolution, ignored all together. To do so does no honor to our troops who have been lost and further imperils our future.

   The planning for the post-war period of this operation was also deficient and based on a number of unsupported assumptions. Over the past decade and a half, our forces have been engaged more and more in post-conflict operations. Clearly we need to organize ourselves better to meet the challenges posed by post-conflict reconstruction.

   In the coming days, I will offer a House companion to a bill introduced in the Senate by Senators LUGAR and BIDEN that does just that, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), my good friend and distinguished colleague.

   Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, for more than 200 years the men and women of the United States military have, through their valiant actions, earned a well-deserved reputation for courage, honor, and sacrifice in defense of liberty. The brave Americans now fighting and dying in Iraq are heirs to a legacy that flows from Lexington and Concord through Normandy, straight up to the present day. They should be very proud of what they have accomplished in Iraq, and they deserve our firm support as they continue to face danger there.

   I am sure that my colleagues who support H. Res. 557 are sincere in their desire to salute our troops. However, I feel they have committed a grave error by confusing the valor and the sacrifice of our troops with the misguided and misleading policy that sent them to Iraq in the first place.

   Members of Congress voted in good faith for a resolution on the use of force believing that Iraq was capable of unleashing deadly weapons of mass destruction. We were told that the threat was imminent and could directly impact our Nation's security. Certainly the people of Iraq had suffered from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, but this was not the primary reason given for the preemptive strike by the United States.

• [Begin Insert]

   It is good that Congress is on record listing the many atrocities of Saddam Hussein's regime. Saddam was a brutal dictator. That is not debatable. What is debatable is whether our actions in Iraq have improved the security of the United States and our allies. I therefore question the resolution's assertion that ``the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq.'' In fact, our laser beam focus on Iraq, with no proven connections to 9/11, has allowed al Qaeda to regroup and again unleash its destructive capabilities on one of our closest allies. Moreover, I believe our involvement in Iraq is a major contributing factor to America's declining image around the world, which Margaret Tutwiler, the administration's head official in charge of public diplomacy, admitted ``will take us many years of hard, focused work'' to restore.

   When the President announced on May 1 of last year that major combat operations in Iraq had ceased, I expected a quick draw-down of American troops and a significant increase of United Nations peacekeepers. Tragically, our Nation has lost more American men and women in Iraq after the President's declaration that major hostilities had ended. The total now stands in excess of 565 and is climbing.

   This resolution is disingenuous. In its place should be a straightforward resolution of commendation for those who fought valiantly and risked their lives to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime. And condolences to those whose lives were snatched from them in this most unjustified conflict.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), our last speaker.

   Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today we are asked to commemorate a preemptive war. President Bush told the world there was no doubt Iraq was concealing weapons of mass destruction, but this Republican resolution instead reinterprets history.

   It would have the American people believe that President Bush took our Nation to war because in 1988 Saddam gassed the Kurds while President Reagan appeased the Iraqi regime or because Saddam punished the Marsh Arabs by draining the marshlands while the first Bush administration watched.

   This resolution memorializes the horrors of a dictator to justify the flawed premise for preemptive war, but it fails to acknowledge the 565 American patriots who sacrificed their lives. This resolution exploits the sacrifices of our troops, the suffering of the Iraqi people, all for partisan gamesmanship.

   Our Nation is at war. Our troops, their families, and the American people deserve honesty from this House and from the White House.

[Page: H1151]

   We all support our troops. We all want a safer world. And the American people deserve the truth.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I designate each of the following three Members to control 1/2 hour of time allotted to me under the rule: 1/2 hour for the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), 1/2 hour for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), and 1/2 hour for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

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

   Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the greatest asset our Nation has known, those heroes, and they are heroes, that we call on every time when we need courage and effectiveness on the battlefield, the incredible American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that reflect the best attributes of those who have served before them; and they are a wonderful reflection of America across our country. So we thank them and we honor them.

   Like many Members, I have had the privilege of traveling to Iraq twice, this last time with our minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) from the Committee on Armed Services.

   And what was clear is that our men and women are doing an extraordinary job in the most trying of circumstances. They are superbly trained, superbly led, and are just the finest force in the world. We owe them a great debt of gratitude.

   We also owe the same to more than 550 families of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice to our Nation in Iraq. But what was also clear in my trips, there was no effective or realistic planning done for the aftermath of the military invasion of Iraq. We did a superb job on the battlefield; but since that time, sadly, as I warned the President in two letters, September 4, 2002, and then one a couple of days before the actual invasion, I feared the outcome and I warned the administration in these letters about what the potential consequences might be of getting the post-war wrong.

[Time: 15:30]

   Sadly now, we are seeing those consequences come home to roost, and some of the issues that I raised in those letters are sadly coming to pass today.

   While the Iraqis now have an interim constitution and we should congratulate them for that, it is no clearer now than it was back in November, when the timetable for transformation was laid out, who will take over on June 30. Now it looks like there will be no status of forces agreement negotiated before that time. Let me tell my colleagues, a status of forces agreement is very important because it can establish limitations. It could establish rules of engagement that make it more difficult for our forces to protect themselves.

   Perhaps most dangerously we see more signs of ethnic and religious strife, raising the possibility of a civil war in Iraq. I truly hope that does not happen, but the tensions are growing, and there are insurgents and foreign fighters who have fanned those flames. Today's most deadly and tragic bombing of the hotel in Baghdad seems to be the only recent sign of this. We need to do a better job in planning. Everything we have worked to achieve in Iraq will be undermined if we do not figure out who we are turning sovereignty over to on June 30 and how to manage the transition in a way that avoids civil war.

   These are dangerous times. This is not an easy day for our troops or for the leadership in our country, and that is why I raise these issues, Mr. Speaker. The security of the Iraqi people, the security of our troops, the stability in the region, and even our own national security depends on doing this right.

   I will support this resolution because I support the men and women who are sacrificing daily, and I support those families who are fighting the insurgency in making Iraq secure, but I urge the administration to do the hard planning, to figure out quickly what will happen after June 30 to hold off a potential civil war, and we cannot have that.

   We must not let last year's military victory become a long-term defeat because of more failures due to the tough planning ahead. June 30 is a date that must be taken very seriously by our country. We must make sure there is a stable Iraqi transition, and that it works; because if it does not work, if there is civil war, all of the sacrifices of those young men and women in uniform, whether wounded or killed, and the families that have grieved and shared their burdens with them, will have been in vain. We really, really cannot afford to have that.

   So let us praise the troops. And every American should be proud of them as I am.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his thoughtful statement, and I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

   (Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I rise in support of this resolution, support of our troops and particularly pay my great admiration to the 124th Infantry, Bravo Company, that just returned safely to Palm Beach County, Florida.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 557 and to offer my gratitude to all the men and women who have worked, and who continue to work, so hard to serve their country in Iraq. In particular, I'd like to extend my respect and admiration to Captain Joseph Lyon and the reservists of the 1st Battalion, 124th Infantry, Bravo Company, who have returned home safely to West Palm Beach from service in Iraq.

   The contributions of these brave soldiers can be seen every day in the numerous improvements in the Iraqi economy and society. With the aid of the Coalition forces, the transfer of power to the people of Iraq is progressing smoothly. Iraqi forces are gradually relieving and will completely replace coalition forces in all aspects of the reconstruction.

   I am thankful to all who have helped the Iraqi people establish a stable and peaceful country. By doing so, we defend our people from the danger of Iraq returning to being a haven for terrorists. Today, Iraq is a safer place and is on the road to establishing their own democracy to serve as an example in the heart of the Middle East.

   I urge all my colleagues to support H. Res. 557.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, who spends more time with the troops than he does with us.

   Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.

   Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of traveling to Iraq twice in the last few months to visit our troops and to thank them for the job they are doing, as well as to see firsthand the progress that is being made by both the Iraqis and the international coalition in providing security and growing stability to the Nation.

   I was amazed to see and hear some of the very real and significant success stories that our forces are accomplishing. When one travels by air, for example, over Iraq, it is easy to realize that 65 percent of the Iraqi people live off the land. Many are accomplished farmers, but others are being aided by the efforts of the American soldiers and by American generosity.

   In Iraq, the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture once ran a 400-acre farm not far from where Saddam Hussein was captured. It was called Saddam Farm, and it produced a harvest that benefited only Saddam Hussein and his family. Today, the Army is helping Iraqis establish the nation's very first cooperative farm on that 400 acres. Iraqi farming families are also being helped by the generosity of the American citizens who have donated some $20,000 worth of seeds, and the Army has distributed them.

   Throughout my travels in Iraq, I have found Iraqi children with smiles on their faces. It is remarkable to think that they are living in freedom for the first time. They know it and they like it. Like many children throughout the world, Iraqis enjoy the sport of soccer, and I have seen Iraqi children kicking soccer balls on the playing fields and vacant lots and empty streets. American troops have undertaken projects to give soccer balls to some of the poorer Iraqi children who may not be able to obtain for themselves. For example, the 501st Forward Support Battalion undertook one

[Page: H1152]

project and gave away 150 soccer balls to kids in Baghdad. The 101st Airborne also distributed soccer balls in the north.

   Perhaps the greatest and most noteworthy accomplishment that I have seen in Iraq, however, is the increase in the level of security and stability for the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, there are still those that want to see a free Iraq fail, but for our troops, many changes in the Iraqi lifestyle have been evident. In many other areas, security and stability are succeeding because of the efforts of the international coalition forces and the Iraqis themselves.

   Iraq's security forces have grown tremendously in the last year since they were first created. The Iraqi Department of Border Enforcement now employs 80,000 Iraqis and 9,000 border enforcement agents, as well as to monitor the nation's 3600-kilometer border. More than 11,000 experienced policemen now patrol Iraq, and another several thousand Iraqi policemen will join their ranks by the end of this year.

   There is still much to be done in Iraq, but the fact of the matter is that there are many success stories, many more than one reads in the morning newspaper or sees on daily television reports, and certainly many more than I have time to outline here.

   The successes I spoke of and the countless others not only are helping Iraq to become more stable, but they are helping Iraqis to provide for that security and stability. Ultimately, the sooner Iraq is run and secured by Iraqis, the sooner our great troops will come home.

   I am proud to stand here today and commend the Iraqi people for their courage and to say again thank you to our troops for a great job well done.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman, formerly from Missouri, now from California (Ms. Waters).

   Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Missouri for recognizing that Missouri, too, is the State of my birth, and I am delighted to be on the floor today with him because he has provided wonderful leadership for our caucus.

   Mr. Speaker, I came today to the floor to shame the Republicans and the President for politicizing this tragic war in Iraq. God bless our soldiers. They do not deserve to be made pawns in political gamesmanship. There are many Members who love and support our soldiers but refuse to be blackmailed into supporting this preemptive strike doctrine of this administration and to be used by this President. Just as President Bush is attempting to use the New York 9/11 scene as a backdrop in his political advertisement, this resolution is being used to paint the picture that this President is a tough leader, fighting terrorism and winning.

   Mr. Speaker, this President is not winning. Our country and the world is not more secure. Tragically, over 564 soldiers have died since the war began last year, and thousands more have been injured. The administration has spent $157 billion so far in this war, and even the allies who have supported him are being retaliated against.

   If my friends on the opposite side of the aisle were sincere about gathering us all together in a resolution to say to our soldiers thank you for your sacrifices, they would have done what was asked of them by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) today: Pull this one-sided resolution off the floor, get Democrats involved, let us join hands and support our soldiers.

   This is the most divisive administration that this country has ever had, polarizing us, putting us at each others' throats. It is a shame, and I do not mind saying it on this floor today. You need to withdraw it.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

   Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank our great chairman for yielding me the time. And, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues in this Chamber have any doubt about the necessity of our war against the sadistic and despotic regime of Saddam Hussein, I urge them to look at this photo that I took with Iraqi girls during a congressional trip that some of my colleagues and I went on last December.

   If my colleagues take a close look at this picture, they will see bright, sunny faces of happy girls who look like they could live in my district or any of their districts around this country, but the sad reality is that a little over a year ago, these young girls were living under the ugly regime of a murderous dictator who would not hesitate to take their lives or the lives of their friends and family. In fact, from 1983 to 1988 Saddam Hussein wiped out 60 villages and murdered more than 30,000 Iraqi citizens with weapons of mass destruction. Human rights organizations continually received reports from women who said that rape was routinely used by Iraqi officials as weapons of torture, intimidation, and blackmail.

   Mr. Speaker, I do not know what would have happened to these girls if the United States had not acted against Saddam Hussein's ruthless Baathist regime, but I do know this much. Since the liberation of Iraq, more than 5.5 million children went back to school this year; 2,300 schools which fell into disarray under Saddam's regime have been rehabilitated. School children have books, shoulder bags, notebooks, pencils, papers and desks to use for their studies; but, most importantly, they are now living free from Saddam's repressive regime, and they never have to worry again about being harmed by their tyrannical government, thanks to the strong leadership of President Bush and the heroic efforts of our men and women of the armed services.

   I cannot say enough about our troops who risk life and limb every day to bring freedom to these girls and to the other people of Iraq. I urge strong support of this resolution endorsing our troops.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.

   Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and it is unfortunate that this resolution has become so political because I think clearly all of us should have been able to sit down and come up with a resolution that would be united and that would send a clear voice to all of the world how much we support our troops.

   We are going to have 4 hours of debate, and there are so many important things we should be discussing, like the fact that we failed to provide our troops with critical protection and equipment that they need, from interceptive body armor to anti-jamming devices, to armored humvees.

   Yesterday, I met with Brian Hart, the father of Private First Class John Hart who was killed in Iraq last October when the unarmored humvee that he was patrolling in was ambushed and sprayed with bullets. Just days before his death, Pfc. Hart called his father and told him how unsafe he felt riding around in humvees that lacked bulletproof shielding or reinforced doors.

   The story of John Hart is all too familiar. A couple of months ago, the Defense Department stated that 29 American troops had been killed and 290 wounded on attacks on humvees. Now I hear they are not even tracking those numbers anymore, but I do know that of the 18 soldiers killed in Iraq from Massachusetts, 6 died in unarmored humvees or trucks.

   Look at this chart. Almost 80 percent of the 12,500 humvees deployed in Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom lack reinforced windows and doors. The evidence here is overwhelming that we have not gotten what our troops need fast enough.

[Time: 15:45]

   And what bothers me is that the Army did not even begin to address this shortage until August 2003, 3 months after President Bush announced the end of the war in Iraq. The Secretary of the Army says that they will get this done by August; but as of today no new orders have been placed, leaving our troops, many of them, in this vulnerable position, in unarmed vehicles. August just is not good enough.

• [Begin Insert]

   For too long, the Army has dragged its feet because it failed to consider quick, effective alternatives to uparmoring Humvees like installing add-on armor kits.

   If we purchased more add-on kits and reached out to other vendors, we can get these Humvees armored now.

   Recently, 25,000 Marines deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and took with them 3,000

[Page: H1153]

trucks and Humvees, all of which have been armored with protective plating. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Hagee, understood that installing temporary add-on kits provides a quick, easy alternative to uparmoring Humvees in depots at home. So Gen. Hagee purchased $9 million worth of add-on armor kits to outfit Humvees before he sent his Marines back into the battlefield.

   I have introduced a resolution urging the Defense Department to use whatever means possible to armor these Humvees as quickly as they can.

   If we truly want to support our Armed Forces, this would provide them with the critical protection and equipment they deserve!

• [End Insert]

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to let my colleagues know that all Humvees are manufactured unarmored. They are basically big Jeeps, and this Congress has been rushing to armor Humvees in the wake of the new threat known as the IED, the remotely detonated device. We put some $400 million in the last supplemental to pay for that armor.

   I just would say to my colleagues, it would have been great if they could have voted with us on that one because that is the funding supplemental that paid for the arming of the Humvees.

   Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

   Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why I could not vote for it. We were supposed to have this money appropriated. We have troops over there in unarmed vehicles. It is inexcusable.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the idea that you do not armor vehicles because it is not done already at the factory makes no logic to me.

   I would urge the gentleman to work with me to continue to armor them, because we are shipping steel in there now.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

   Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, just as an introduction, it seems to me that, to a certain degree, the other party doeth protest too much.

   The first thing I have been hearing about is complaints about intelligence information. Yet it was the other party, the Democrat Party, that under the Church Commission dismantled our human intelligence and has consistently done that. Over the 8 years Clinton was in office, they voted to cut the human intelligence budget 30 percent and now want to complain about the fact that our intelligence information is not that good.

   This is also a party that cut the defense budget close to half and wonders why there is not some equipment sometimes. They cannot have it both ways.

   But I would like to focus, rather, about what was and what is now. What was, we saw. We saw the late-night knock of the secret police. We saw the torture chambers when I was in Iraq that used to exist. We saw the women that had been raped as a form of political coercion. We saw women that were not educated.

   Those things have changed. Because what is now is a society that is moving into a new century, a place where women can be educated, where no longer torture and murder and amputation are used as a tool to intimidate, and where we saw on the streets of Iraq people starting to emerge into a free civilization. There are all kinds of new businesses being formed.

   These are words from a brave Iraqi Parliamentarian, probably risking his life, talking about the new constitution. Some, he says, may say that the Bill of Rights is copied from the West. My answer: these rights and values are not exclusively the property of the West. They are universal and should be respected and implemented everywhere. We have put up a high standard so that the people of the future may always try to reach.

   I think that is a statement of our success. Americans have always succeeded when we invest in those tremendously important principles of our own founding, the belief that people are valuable. And we continue to attest to that by our presence in Iraq, by our brave soldiers there. They believe people are important, as opposed to the terrorists that say they are mere pawns.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

   Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, this resolution claims to honor our troops, but it is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to run a political campaign on taxpayers' time.

   We have the best military in the world. I am honored to represent the men and women of Travis Air Force Base in Congress, and I will always be grateful to all of our men and women in uniform for their patriotism, courage, sacrifice, and devotion to our great Nation. As Members of Congress, we must support them in word and deed.

   I have been to Iraq and the Persian Gulf twice in the past year to talk to our troops serving there and learned firsthand what they need to get the job done and return home safely. Forty thousand American troops were sent to Iraq without bulletproof vests, and many more still do not have reinforced Humvees to protect them from daily roadside bombs. But this resolution does nothing to get this critical lifesaving equipment to our troops.

   I am very disappointed this resolution does not offer condolences to the families of the 564 Americans killed in Iraq thus far, nor mention the 2,500 wounded in action.

   It is also hard to believe that these congressional leaders would consider a resolution that categorically reaffirms that the United States and the world are made safe by the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party from power just days after the Spanish people buried more than 200 of their citizens in the worst act of terror in European history, and on a day, today, when a bomb blast killed dozens in Iraq.

   Instead of patting ourselves on the back, it is time to ask whether this administration's approach to the war on terror and the war on Iraq have made us safer. Two and one-half years after the September 11 attacks, al Qaeda is more dangerous than ever. The war in Iraq removed a dictator, but has created a new front on the war on terror that did not exist before and has pinned down a large amount of our troops in the Middle East for years to come.

   Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support our troops with action, not shameless political ploys, and do the same.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

   Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, all too often the voices whining about what they find wrong with our planning, our troops, or our military tend to drown out their great successes. But when I went to Iraq, I found our troops were proud that they had liberated 24 million Iraqi people in just 3 weeks.

   The untold story of Operation Iraqi Freedom were the stories describing the logistics warriors who not only accomplished extraordinary things but who were often also put in harm's way to support the phenomenal contributions of our combat troops. Sometimes we just assume that food is going to get there and our ammunition is going to get there, but let me tell you some of the truly amazing logistics work that occurred during this conflict.

   The main supply line stretched 350 miles; and on any given time, there were 2,500 logistics and support vehicles on the road. There were 2.5 million gallons of gas per day delivered effectively to fly our aircraft. We built the longest pipeline the Army has ever built, 220 miles long. There were 66,000 pipe sections hand laid to construct that critical system, and it is still in service today serving the Iraqi people. We delivered 1.5 million liters of water a day successfully and effectively. A third of a million meals were served per day. Two million tons of spare parts and equipment were moved effectively every day.

   In particular, the tremendous effort of the Army's Quartermaster Corps, the home of which is in Fort Lee, Virginia, are reflected by these totals from the war: 186 million gallons of fuel, enough to fill the tanks of 40,000 cars; they served 53 million meals, enough to feed the entire population of New York State with three meals a day; provided 330 million gallons of water, enough for a daily shower for the half million residents of Las Vegas; and delivered nearly 8 million pieces of mail.

[Page: H1154]

   With so much success and such an enormous effort, it should not be hard to find additional improvements to be made. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fitting today that we stand up and pass this resolution to honor their great work.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Guam (Mr. Bordallo).

   Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me this time, and I rise today in support of our service men and women who need much more than the words we speak here today to help them in Iraq.

   As the fires from the most recent terrorist attack today in Baghdad burn against the night sky, I am moved to remember Army Specialist Christopher Jude Rivera Wesley, who died in Iraq, the first Chamorro casualty of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

   I also want to take time to pay tribute to Army Specialist Hilario Bermanis of the 82nd Airborne Division. He joined the Army from the Federated States of Micronesia, and after losing both legs and his left hand fighting in Iraq, he has now become an American citizen. I visited him at Walter Reed Medical Hospital. One day he might even become a Senator, like Max Cleland, who also sacrificed for his country a generation before him.

   In my mind, this resolution affirms that we are yet to do everything that we can for our troops. We need the best technology to defend our troops and care for the wounded, the best diplomacy to make sure they do not stay a day longer than they have to, and the courage of our convictions to finish the job.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 3/4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

   Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, thanks to the leadership of President George W. Bush, the valor of the American military and the courage of our coalition partners, 1 year ago this week the liberation of Iraq started marking the beginning of the end of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.

   My gratitude for this historic success is as a Member of Congress. I had the opportunity to go with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and visit our troops in Iraq. Additionally, I am grateful as a veteran myself. I retired last July after 31 years of service with the Army National Guard, and I am so proud of what our active Guard and Reserve forces have done. But additionally, I am proud and grateful as a parent. I have three sons who are in the military of the United States, and one of my sons began his deployment in Iraq this week. We are very proud in the Wilson family of our contribution and the success of the American military.

   Some today have incorrectly accused the administration of saying Iraq was in imminent threat. In reality, the case for the war with Iraq was made precisely because Iraq was not yet an imminent threat. After the hard lesson of September 11, we can no longer wait until our enemies grow stronger and more deadly before we take decisive action to prevent future tragedies.

   Saddam Hussein posed a unique danger to the people of the United States and the world. He ignored 17 United Nations resolutions for over a decade, harbored and supported terrorists, and had used biological and chemical weapons on his own people, had a history of violent aggression against his neighboring countries, and attempted to assassinate a President of the United States.

   Today, Saddam Hussein's regime of terror has ended and the world is a safer place for it; yet we know the war of terrorism is not over. We need to remain vigilant to protect America's families by promoting this resolution today, and I urge its support. In conclusion, God bless our troops. We will never forget September 11.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

   Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, this resolution, never opened for committee discussion and now closed to amendments, is perhaps a consistent way to mark the anniversary of an unnecessary war that was built on misleading statements, dangerous disregard for the facts, and dangerous policies.

   To a person, we believe that our military men and women have done a remarkable job in very difficult conditions, conditions like traveling in tactical vehicles that do not have steel armor, leaving them dangerously vulnerable to grenades, small arms, and roadside bombs. Soldiers in Iraq are hanging flack vests and even plywood on their Humvees in desperate attempts at protection, army officials are quoted as saying, and the casualties mount week by week.

   Republicans who choose to slime the records of opponents of this resolution would be better to turn the mirror on themselves. Many of us will be supporting a Democratic budget resolution that will back up our rhetoric with the resources needed to provide equipment, compensation, military housing, child tax credits for military families, and other necessities that are missing in the Republican budget proposal. Let us put our money where our mouth is.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 3/4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), who provides all those quality-of-life issues to our uniformed services.

   Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today to support House Resolution 557.

   Under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people lived in poverty and fear. During his 30-year reign of tyranny, he massacred tens of thousands of his own people, some murdered for their religion and some for their ethnicity.

   On March 19, 2003, the United States and its coalition partners launched the first air strikes of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 3 weeks, Iraqis in Baghdad danced and waved their country's flag as U.S. forces toppled a statue of Saddam Hussein, signaling the end of Saddam's brutal tyranny.

[Time: 16:00]

   Operation Iraqi Freedom was a military success, courageously executed by American men and women in uniform. It was an operation of unparalleled precision and speed, and was carried out in a way that prevented widespread destruction of Iraqi's infrastructure, lengthy street-by-street fighting or a humanitarian crisis. Food and medical aid flowed into Iraq immediately after the troops and there was no ``adventurism'' by Iraq's neighbors or other destabilizing action in the region.

   One year later, Iraqis are engaged in the enormous challenge of rebuilding their country after decades of neglect, and are working with the coalition toward the creation of a secure, stable, sovereign and peaceful Iraq. To date, in nearly all major cities and most towns and villages, Iraqi municipal councils have been formed, and for the first time in more than a generation the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent. More than 600 Iraqi judges preside over more than 500 courts that operate independently from the Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition Provisional Authority.

   Mr. Speaker, U.S. forces are handing the torch to the Iraqi people as they take control, form an army, build an effective police force, and develop a fair justice system.

   Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution. I have a lot of other good stuff to say, but my time has expired.

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

   (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

   Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise first and foremost to thank the men and women of the Armed Forces serving bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan and literally all over the world. I supported the resolution to authorize the war, and in the supplemental request I continue to support those troops and their work, but I must express my continued concerns about the safety of the troops and the haphazard way the administration has proceeded in Iraq.

   Mr. Speaker, we have no end game in sight. Our exit strategy is murky, and our efforts to help this fledgling democracy seem to be going nowhere. When this war began last year, it became clear our troops do not have the

[Page: H1155]

life-saving body armor and vehicle armor they needed. Even with the passage of the Iraq supplemental last November, there are still too many soldiers at risk, and we are experiencing increasing reports of street fire, mines and ambushes aimed at our troops. It is unconscionable that they continue to lack the protective gear they need.

   On yesterday's evening news, Houston's CBS affiliate KHOU reported there are still a number of Humvees in Iraq without bulletproof armor, and I will include for the RECORD the news report. In fact, there are Humvees on the streets of Houston that have more safety features than the ones being used by our troops, according to the report. These vehicles are intended to transport soldiers and defend them in the war zone, and the last thing we should hear is soldiers' complaints that their family's sedans are safer than the military's soft-sided Humvees.

   A year ago today, we started a war to remove an evil man from power; but in doing so, the lives of our troops are unnecessarily jeopardized by sending them into harm's way without proper armor and underequipped vehicles. Our troops are doing a dangerous job, and I hope the administration will correct these problems.

[From KHOU.com, Mar. 17, 2004]

   Up Close: Military Leadership Little Soft on Vehicle Protection

(By Dave Fehling)

   As we approach the 1-year anniversary of the war in Iraq, we're learning more about an additional risk to our troops overseas. Thin-skinned vehicles not designed for combat are currently being driven by hundreds of soldiers in Iraq right now. And several service men have been killed, including one from League City. 11 News looks at the shortage of armor and the rush to fix what some call a deadly miscalculation.

   Last October, 20-year-old paratrooper John Hart phoned his parents from Iraq and whispered words that shook them. He felt exposed in his softsided humvee, the same kind in which friends already had been killed or wounded in ambushes. The vehicle offered less protection than the family sedan.

   ``We were thinking about how best to address it,'' says John's father, Brian Hart, ``when we got news the following week that John had been killed in an ambush.''

   John Hart was shot to death in his unarmored humvee, along with Lieutenant David Bernstein, fifth in his class at West Point.

   Diane Elliott lives in fear that her husband is also an easy target in his unarmored humvee. ``A bullet came through the humvee and through the back of his seat,'' she says. ``He said there was a bullet hole, just barely missed his head.''

   That was the second time Army reserve Captain Roger Elliott escaped death in a canvas covered humvee in Baghdad.

   The first time he got hit by a homemade bomb. ``They said it hit the humvee, rolled off and hit the ground, and it blew a big hole in the ground,'' says Elliot. ``Here's the humvee, and screws and nails and everything flying, just goes right through it.''

   Captain Elliott's Purple Heart arrived in an ammo box, along with his wife's wedding anniversary gifts.

   Bullets, nails and shrapnel go right through the vast majority of humvees in Iraq because they were designed to transport soldiers, not to protect them.

   A factory near Cincinnati is the only plant in the world that produces armored humvees. ``This is what we end up with. Fully armored doors, armored perimeter, turret,'' says a factory worker. ``Underbody capable of defeating a landmine.''

   And windows that stop bullets. It's the kind of protection soldiers are asking for, and dying for.

   ``It's maddening,'' says Brian Hart. ``It's absolutely maddening.''

   Maddening for John Hart's father, for Roger Elliot's wife. ``How could you not know you need armored humvees when you're going into a war?'' asks Diane Elliott.

   And maddening for the parents of Texas National Guardsman Nathan Feenstra who says their son was sent to Iraq with old soft sided humvees, and without new bullet proof vests that have saved an untold number of lives since the war began. ``Basically, they're saying they've done all they can for now, `It's too late for your unit, but we are preparing for the next group going into Iraq,' '' says John Feenstra. ``I said that's not good enough.''

   The Feenstras write letters to military leadership, and pray their son comes home alive.

   Brian Hart is pressing congress to press the Army to speed up production. The plan in Ohio is boosting output. But some lawmakers are outraged. And the republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee called the shortage of armored humvees ``unacceptable.''

   The Army Vice Chief of Staff told Congress in September more armored humvees weren't sent to Iraq because ``To be honest, we just didn't expect this level of violence.''

   Back in May there were only about 235 armored humvees in Iraq. The army now wants more than 3,000. But it's expected to take until summer of 2005 before the Army gets all the beefed up humvees it wants.

   To Brian Hart who made a promise to his son and to the soldiers who brought home his son's body, that's not good enough.

   The army says it's rushed all available armored humvees to Iraq, and is sending 6,000 kits to toughen up standard humvees. It's also speeding up production of new armored vehicles.

   Meanwhile many soldiers are improvising, using steel plates, rubber mats and sandbags to harden their humvees against attacks.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

   (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, the measure before us contains many consentaneous American thoughts: Recognition that Saddam was a despot of tyrannical proportions; support for a process of democratic self-governance in Iraq; and, profoundly, appreciation for the sacrifice and commitment of Americans serving in our armed forces in these very troubling, indeed dangerous, times.

   But as widely accepted as these notions are, care must be taken in this debate to underscore what this resolution is not. It cannot be read either as a Gulf of Tonkin-like resolution giving the Executive a blank check for future actions or considered an indication of Congressional approval of executive action to date.

   Many in Congress, perhaps a majority, would be willing to vote for a more expansive resolution, but such is not before us today. Nonetheless, the subject matter of this resolution necessitates a review of what has transpired since the Congress, without my support, authorized military intervention in Iraq a year and a half ago.

   All of us recognize that Iraq is a judgmental quagmire. Thoughtful Americans are conflicted. The President has a case for the actions he has taken. But I feel obliged to make clear why I continue not to find it compelling and indicate, in as constructive a way as I am able, the problems that a lengthy occupation may yield and present a theoretical framework and the case for timely disengagement.

   Perspective is difficult to apply to current events or for that matter life itself. But it is important to attempt to frame the discussion of the war in which we are engaged in relation to our history, to the development of knowledge (particularly science), and to our relations with other countries.

   First our history. In the broadest sense the political history of America has encompassed four great debates. The first was the question of whether a country could be established based on the rights of man. The second was about definitions: whether the concept of ``man'' included individuals who were neither male nor pale. It took over a century, a civil war and suffrage and civil rights movements to bring full meaning to the universal language of the Declaration of Independence. With courage and sacrifice Americans finally came together to embrace the democratic notion that consent of the governed lacked legitimacy unless all individuals of all backgrounds had rights of citizenship.

   The third debate is about opportunity, whether individual rights can be protected if every citizen doesn't have a fair crack at the American dream. There are many on-going elements of the opportunity debate, which in the 20th century was symbolized by the New Deal initiatives of Franklin Roosevelt and the counter-weight of the Reagan revolution. But I would like to emphasize an aspect of this debate which gets little attention because it is taken for granted, and that is the role of public education. All young Americans not only have access to public education, they are required by law to attend public schools or comparable alternatives. As society becomes more complicated, educational opportunity becomes increasingly central to advancing social opportunity. And as we look at the narrow schooling provided by madrasses abroad it becomes apparent that how and what others teach has relevance to the security of Americans at home.

   The fourth debate is symbolized by Hiroshima and Nagasaki and revolves around the question of whether any right can be valid if it is not underpinned by a right to peace.

   In these debates the role of foreign policy is critical, and even when we've looked inward it has been with an eye to establishing a shining city-state on a hill, a beacon for all.

   The greatest legislated act in American and perhaps human history is the Declaration of Independence. The universality of its principles constitutes the cornerstone of historic American idealism in foreign as well as domestic policy.

   As architect of the Declaration, Jefferson--while never a member of Congress--was our greatest legislator. And as the architect of the Louisiana Purchase, he stands as our greatest

[Page: H1156]

diplomat-president. The precept implicit in the Declaration and the Louisiana Purchase is the notion of individual rights and collective decision-making by a people entrusted with the capacity to make sovereign decisions.

   Jefferson was the philosophical godson of John Locke, who borrowed from Thomas Hobbes the 17th century paradigm of a state of Nature where, according to Hobbes, life was nasty, brutish and short.

   Hobbes had a pessimistic view of human nature. Self-centered man could not escape from the jungle of human relations. Locke, on the other hand, was an optimist. He also assumed that man was self-centered, but, unlike Hobbes, he believed that individuals were rational enough to recognize the necessity of accommodating the self-interest of others. Civil society--the condition where rules would govern disputes and third-party arbitration would exist--was thus possible as well as necessary.

   Whether or not the theoretical constructs that political philosophers relied on three centuries ago have relevance to real life on the planet, then or now, the progress of science has made man's efforts to protect the rights of individuals and society more difficult today. In one of the most profound social observations of the 20th century, Einstein noted that splitting the atom changed everything save our mode of thinking.

   Physics has brought us nuclear energy and perhaps a way to help live a modern life without reliance on fossil fuels. Biology has brought us the capacity to extend the life of man by several and perhaps many decades. But just as splitting the atom has a dark side--nuclear weapons--splitting genes has ominous implications, too--the ability to manufacture diseases for which there may be no antidote. Hence the obvious: at no time in human history is there a greater obligation for people in public life to appeal to the higher rather than lower angels of our nature.

   This is particularly the case as the world has smallened and friction between peoples has increased in economics, politics and, most profoundly, religion.

   Perhaps the most thoughtful speech ever given in Iowa was delivered four decades ago by the Oxford historian, Arnold Toynbee. A decade earlier, Winston Churchill chose a small Midwestern college in Fulton, Missouri, to warn of the dangers of Soviet expansionism; an ``Iron Curtain,'' he said, had descended on Eastern Europe. Toynbee picked Grinnell College to chastise Marxists for shallowly looking at history through the lens of economic determinism and Americans for assuming, in part because of the civil rights movement then underway, that the most contentious issues in the world related to race. Toynbee argued that at this stage in history conflict would more likely erupt because of religious differentiations than economic or racial ones. As we look at the Middle East, at Northern Ireland, at the Balkans, at the divisions between Pakistan and India, Toynbee's observation appears to be vindicated.

   Expanding on Toynbee, Samuel Huntington of Harvard has propounded a theory of international relations over the past several decades that suggests that the next great wars are less likely to represent battles between countries than clashes between various civilizations.

   Given Toynbee's predictions and Huntington's civilization-clash paradigm, it is appropriate to return to Jefferson, who at the public level strove assiduously to protect individual freedom of religion and at the private level believed that what mattered most was not nuanced differences between religions or denominations, but the moral threads common to all creeds. In terms of guides to individual behavior, it is impressive, for instance, that the Ten Commandments underpin Islam as well as Judaism and Christianity. And the Confucian doctrine of ``shu,'' which asserts that moral behavior should be premised on not doing unto others what one would not have done to oneself, is an inverted kind of Golden Rule.

   Despite the fact that history is rife with examples where religious differentiations have caused and intensified conflicts, there is no credible substitute for the constructive role of faith-based convictions. Conflict may be envisioned, but it can be constrained if individuals are taught the most esoteric of precepts: loving, or at least not hating, one's neighbor.

   Ironically, genocide, which is disproportionately a 20th century phenomenon, is about weapons of lesser lethality: machetes, bullets, poisonous gas.

   But if mankind can't prevent killing up close, the question must be pondered whether there can be any optimism that the world can avoid a cataclysmic exchange from afar of weapons of mass destruction, which would make the greatest crime of mankind to date, genocide, the second-to-last crime in human history. It is simply a short stop from genocide--the killing one at a time of millions--to ``global-cide''--the end in a single stroke of all life on the planet.

   In recognition of the 20th century's experience with Holocaust and other brutal genocides, from Cambodia to Rwanda, we have no choice except to change our mode of thinking. Man's instinct to hate must be curbed and social wisdom applied to the new challenges science has thrown at man.

   In this context, I want to stress a second challenge of science that has nothing to do with war and arms making but is clearly the largest foreign policy issue of our day. It is the problem of disease. In Iraq more than 500 Americans and perhaps as many as 20,000 Iraqis have been killed in the past year. But over the last two decades 20 million people have died of AIDS and 40 million are infected with HIV. In Africa, Southeast Asia, and Southern Russia, AIDS has hurdled well beyond the groups considered most vulnerable in the U.S. In many countries children are infected through mothers at birth and in several countries a 15-year-old girl is far more likely to have the disease than a 15-year-old boy. We simply must expand resources to stop this disease abroad before it stops our families at home.

   Not that everything in the world is dark or unraveling. Promising political breakthroughs are occurring between India and Pakistan; in the civil war in Sri Lanka; in Libya, where Muammar Khaddafi may be giving up a quest for nuclear weapons; and even with North Korea, as six-party talks unfold. Several of these bits of good international news are developing without a central U.S. role; several will require our leadership. My only advice to the Executive is to meet every positive step of others with at least two steps of our own. Progressive change from suspect leaders cannot be sustained if peoples of various societies are not convinced that America prefers extending carrots to applying bullying tactics. We simply can't wait for tomorrow to respond to good omens today. This is especially true of a country like Libya where backsliding is so easy. It may be

   more difficult with the hermit country--North Korea--simply because paranoia and anti-Americanism run so irrationally deep in the people as well as the government. But constructive steps, especially of a humanitarian dimension, can be taken.

   Iowa also has brought some good news to the world. In January I attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and a Conference on the Prevention of Genocide in Stockholm, Sweden. In conversations with Europeans the depth of anti-American sentiment becomes quickly evident. But when asked what state I represent, I was impressed with the sincerity of the positive responses when I indicated I was from Iowa. Everyone knew of Iowa because of the caucuses. In Iowa the caucus process seems a bit mysterious. In other states it is very mysterious, and in Europe it is a full blown mystery. But people in Europe were deeply impressed that individuals seeking the most important political position in the world had to come to the homes and schools and offices of private citizens who, with real care, reviewed their credentials and platforms.

   For many years I have had reservations about the caucus system because the ballot is not secret and because participation is not as large as in a traditional primary. But I feel obligated to reconsider and, as a Republican, must tip my hat to the Iowa Democrats for the thoughtfulness with which they advanced American democracy and spotlighted our values for the world. Abroad, people followed but did not necessarily identify with the individual candidates, but everyone was impressed with the process and the care with which citizens carried out their duties.

   It is instructive to put the current tension in transatlantic relations in historical perspective. With regard to the profoundest issue--war and peace--attitudes on each side of the ocean have come full circle over the five centuries of interaction.

   The U.S. was founded by immigrants seeking refuge from religious persecution and a spate of seemingly senseless wars among European countries and principalities. The new Americans sought to distance themselves from the violence and religious intolerance of the Continent. It was with the greatest reluctance that in 1917 a pioneer country, which had been convulsed with the magnitude of a westward moving Manifest Destiny, determined that blocking a Kaiser's ambitions called for intervention in European affairs.

   In the wake of a war trumpeted to end all wars, America retreated into political isolation in the 1920's. After inspiring its creation, we refused to join the League of Nations; and after expanding trade in industrial and agricultural products, we succumbed to economic protectionism in the 1930's. Only a direct attack on our territory caused us to enter World War II.

   Today, it is Europe which is looking inward, pre-occupied with its manifest destiny, political integration made feasible by a growing economic union. Increasingly secular Europeans desire to separate themselves from an America that appears to them to be too unilateralist and quick to go to war, too fundamentalist and

[Page: H1157]

thus blind to tolerance, and too simplistic to realize that conflicts with religious overtones are the most traumatic to manage.

   When speaking to constituents of the rationale for and against the Iraq War, I have over the past couple of years referenced a set of books that held particular currency in the 1960's: the Alexandria Quartet by Lawrence Durrell. Each of the four books describes the same set of events in inter-war Egypt from the perspective of a different character. While the events are the same, the stories that unfold are profoundly different, causing the reader to recognize that one person's perspective is at best a snapshot of reality. A clear picture cannot be pieced together without looking through the lens of a multiplicity of eyes and experiences.

   The Moslem experience gives substantially less weight than the Western experience to the two cataclysmic wars of the 20th century. Despite Lawrence's involvement in Arabia and the battles between Allied forces and Rommel's tanks, the engagements in the Middle East and North Africa were skirmishes compared with the struggles in Europe and the Far East. Not only do Moslems see the 20th century differently from Westerners, but Europeans and Americans have drawn different strategic parallels in the application of common experience to current challenges in the Middle East.

   In the immediate aftermath of the First World War, historians and political strategists in Europe rightly concluded that the European alliance system had been too rigid and the assassination of a relatively minor figure, an archduke, should not have precipitated a war of such devastating consequences. Hence European leaders in the 1930's falsely concluded that historical wisdom necessitated initial accommodation with Hitler's adventurism. Too little flexibility caused one war; too little spine led to Munich. In the current context, President Bush sees himself as Churchill rather than Chamberlain, but Europeans see 9/11 as more analogous to the shots fired at Archduke Ferdinand than as a cause for a doctrine of preemption or war with Iraq, a war that could too easily spring into a clash of civilizations. Second guessing is always conjectural because history gives few second chances. Unlike football, downs aren't repeated.

   Accordingly, the challenge today on both sides of the Atlantic is to put debate about going to war behind and work together to figure out how we proceed from here. A lot of polite observations have been made that European leaders seem less angry about American decisions related to Iraq this year compared to the differences expressed during the pre-war buildup. This may appear that way on the surface, but my sense is that European judgment, if anything, is more solidified and definitive today. Europeans may have become resigned that events have unfolded without their concurrence. By the same token, frustration that their advice has been discounted has caused anti-American anger to metastasize into anti-American smugness. Europeans believe that their skepticism has been vindicated by events. The stark good-versus-evil clarity that Washington policy

   makers seek appears to Europeans to be un-nuanced, unsophisticated, and unappreciative of differing judgments.

   Americans countenance criticism of our President and his policies by fellow Americans, but we are not so tolerant of foreign dissent. The assumption in Washington is that Continental leaders deliberately sought to undercut U.S. leadership in the world community and that, in particular, the refusal of the French and Germans to support the President's position in the Security Council and NATO has made matters more dangerous for our troops and reconciliation more difficult in the current post-war setting.

   On our side of the Atlantic, the sense exists that French and German political judgment has not only been at variance with American ideas but that a concerted effort was made on the Continent to triangulate the terrorist challenge and take advantage of America's dilemma. By distancing themselves from Washington, Paris and Bonn are seen to be encouraging the re-direction of Moslem discord. Whereas the rhetoric of Osama Bin Laden and other extremists was initially anti-Western, it is now more exclusively anti-U.S. The opportunity to transplant America's commercial as well as political position in parts of the world consumed with anti-Americanism appears not to have been lost on the European political-industrial elite.

   With all of the attention given to the new transatlantic tensions, the implications of the Iraq war on Russia have received short shrift. But the new European antagonism to America has not gone unnoticed in Moscow. The cleavage between Washington and Europe and the preoccupation of America with the Middle East clearly give Putin a freer hand to advance a less democratic and more nationalistic set of policies at home. This is one reason why it is so important that America and NATO demonstrate then can work together in such areas as Afghanistan, where strategic common ground exists.

   Likewise, the priority we have given to Iraq as well as North Korea, two charter members of the so-called ``Axis of Evil,'' means that we have been implicitly forced to subordinate trade and human rights issues with China. China's support, or at least not opposition, in international strategic affairs, has become so central to Administration policy makers that Beijing has been able to downgrade U.S. concerns about the historic shifts taking place in trade terms. A Chinese trade surplus with the U.S. that now exceeds $10 billion a month and an undervalued currency pegged to the dollar that makes flexible trade adjustments impossible are simply not being given the attention they deserve.

   Economics and politics have seldom been more intertwined. Yet underappreciated is the prospect that a protectionist backlash of 1930's dimensions could develop if our political policies fail and our government loses respect in the world. Analogously, a political backlash could sweep the country if Washington doesn't develop institutional reforms to protect the political system from vulnerabilities to single-issue and special-interest constituencies. At a time when our foreign policy appears too attentive to ideological forces and too prone to rely on proxy empowered corporations to advance the national interest, Congress has an obligation to aggressively provide oversight of the contracting as well as intelligence judgments advanced by the Executive. Just as committees to review a new intelligence inadequacies are in order, so is a new committee to oversee government contracting related to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The professionalism and integrity of government decision-making about issues of war and peace must be above reproach. The country can afford neither ideological posturing nor war profiteering.

   As for the dilemma of the moment, policy makers have been caught philosophically short. As mistaken as the overestimation of Saddam's WMD capacities was, the greater judgmental error may relate to the political pressure applied to the intelligence community on the issue of Iraqi complicity in the plane strikes on 9/11. Initially, the CIA straightforwardly noted that there was no credible evidence of Iraqi involvement. Then, under obvious pressure, it changed its stance and in presentation after presentation to Congress ominously suggested they had an ``evolving'' view of the role of Iraq, despite, to date, producing nothing of a definitive nature to show why the community changed its initial representation. Hence, the decision to go to war was against the backdrop of public opinion polls showing 60 percent of the American people believed significant Iraqi involvement existed in the 9/11 attack.

   Compounding this lack of forthrightness, where the intelligence community knew the situation but refused publicly to differ with the political decision makers, was a judgment showing doubtful understanding of Moslem attitudes. The notion that American forces would be welcomed in Iraq as a liberating force with the well-intentioned option to reshape over time Iraqi political institutions was a mistake of profound proportions. Now, given the anarchy that has mushroomed in the country, Washington is swept by occupation analogies of World War II. Japan and Germany, it is noted, were occupied for more than five years after hostilities ceased. Hence, many are suggesting, we must be prepared to stay at least this long in Iraq.

   I have seldom been more apprehensive about an historical analogy. Japan and Germany were the instigators of war; their citizens understood this. Iraqis don't see it this way. They see the U.S. as the aggressor. Images form Al-Jazeera portray a country under siege. In the Moslem world Iraq looks more like a police-cordoned West Bank than a great and ancient society on the move to a better life. Outsiders are viewed as unwanted intruders acting out of great power self-interest, unrespectful of the culture and values of the country being occupied. The irony that it is Shi'a clerics, not American statesmen, who are pushing for democratic elections at this time is not lost on the Iraqis or the Moslem world.

   More profoundly, I am amazed that pundits haven't caught on to the possibility that the only thing worse than being wrong in our intelligence assessments of Iraqi WMD would have been if we had been right and thereby taken the risk of precipitating a retaliatory BW attack against Israel or possibly an American city. Biological weapons in the control of petty potentates is mad science in the hands of mad men. To go to war against a country with BW weapons, especially if the initiator has no knowledge where they are, is to hazard more than a clash of civilizations; it is to instigate a potential challenge to the maintenance of civilization itself.

   In any regard, if a WMD rationale for intervention can't be established, we must not allow the democracy case to founder. To authorize an additional $80 billion for Iraq and

[Page: H1158]

not be able to find the means to conduct timely elections is preposterous.

   Legitimacy is critical for all countries. There may be times and circumstances in which the U.S. national interest requires action without a U.N. sanction. But the U.N. is ignored at great risk, especially when the international community is at odds with a nation state's policies. The U.N.'s help, for instance, could be significant at this point in facilitating elections and helping legitimize new governing structures. If a commitment to a time frame for democratic elections isn't soon forthcoming, the Administration may see an escalation of violence in Iraq led by the Shi'a in the South, thus adding to the traumas precipitated by Saddam's old henchmen and foreign trouble makers in the Sunni triangle to the north, where disorder is so prevalent today.

   The judgment call Washington must make is whether to employ something closer to a ``get in/get out'' strategy or one of prolonged occupation. Each approach caries risk, with the likelihood of a certain amount of disorder developing whenever the American presence is reduced. Whether that disorder becomes less deep with time or whether time allows anarchist forces to organize more vigorously and lay claim to a legitimizing nationalist mantle is conjectural.

   In the realm of policy timing can often be as important as substance. Just as Senator Dirksen once noted that a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there and pretty soon you're talking about real money, in foreign affairs a week here and a week there can soon add up to a policy dilemma.

   The difficulty of timing was underscored this week when some in Washington charged the newly elected Spanish Government with ``appeasement'' for its announced intention to withdraw its forces from Iraq in the wake of last week's bombings in Madrid unless the U.N. role in Iraq is broadened. The language of appeasement may appropriately describe the lack of resolve of Western leaders when they refused to stand up to Hitler's growing power in the 1930s, but it may not be as fair to apply such a term to Spanish policy today. Indeed, doing so may carry irresponsible implications because fear of its connotations may make disengagement more difficult if the country or forces of an occupying power are ever under attack. For instance, if ``appeasement'' is considered the dominant potential issue, U.S. policy makers relinquish their sovereign discretion and instead could give terrorists the determinative say when we will disengage from Iraq. A few radicals could with relative ease launch a steady dose of terrorist attacks on our civilian and armed services personnel and ``force'' us to stay or then be in a position to argue when we eventually leave that they forced us out. That is why it is so critical that we lay out a basis for withdrawal that has nothing to do with the terrorist behavior of Iraqi radicals and everything to do with the establishment of a freely elected leadership.

   On the issue of the timing of the hand-over of civil authority I give less judgmental weight in the Iraqi circumstance to historical analogies to the post-war occupation of Japan and Germany and more to a personal anecdote about the manner the Vietnam war came to be concluded. Early in my career in Congress, I was invited to the Library of Congress to join a small group of historians to listen to a lecture by Henry Kissinger about the negotiations that led to the end of that war. The night before the lecture, I perused one of Secretary Kissinger's autobiographic tomes and came across a paragraph that so startled me that I asked him about it in the seminar that followed the lecture. Kissinger wrote that in December 1968, shortly after Richard Nixon had asked him to be his National Security Council director, he met with the President-elect to discuss the direction of the new administration's foreign policy. They determined together, he noted, that their policy would be to get out of Vietnam. So I asked him why they didn't just proceed to do that. Kissinger looked at me for a moment and then uttered words I will never forget. ``Young man,'' he said, ``we meant with honor.'' I then asked him if ``honor'' required escalation. ``Absolutely,'' he responded.

   In governance, judgment to be good must be timely. The course of history and attitudes toward America would be very different today if the Nixon administration had acted forthrightly on its own judgment. In Iraq, where we are fast becoming a magnet of instability rather than a force of stability, we must not hesitate. If the issue is democracy, let's hold elections with dispatch and use the democratic transition as the rationalization for deep troop reductions.

   If we maintain a heavy presence much longer our president could find himself in a dilemma of the kind Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon came to know too well. There are circumstances in life where the small can humble the powerful. This has the makings of one. Despite the overwhelming nature of our military victory and the courageous commitment and sacrifice of our armed forces, policies can fail if the timing of disengagement is wrong.

   This is why clarity of purpose and flexibility of response are so crucial. And why the neo-con mantra--``we must see this through''--deserves review. Hasty withdrawal is problemsome; orderly, philosophically cogent decisions to wind down the military dimension of our presence in Iraq should, however, be our highest national interest

   priority. Democratic elections are the key. They can be held in relatively short order (at least by year's end; preferably earlier) if there is a will and commitment to do so. But the longer we heed the advice of those who want to hold onto power in Iraq, the harder it will be to avert increased terrorism here and abroad.

   Here I would like to return to what in most contexts must be considered a rather esoteric paradigm: the Hobbesian notion of a state of nature. Terrorism is a military or, more precisely, militant tool of anarchy. It is the desire of terrorists to make Iraqi society a social jungle, a state of nature where anarchy rather than law rules. Legitimacy of government in this setting can perhaps be precipitated but it cannot be imposed from the outside. Outside pressure is less convincing when it appears to be presented by a singular authority--i.e., the United States. One of the reasons so many countries prefer a strong U.N. role is that such a role not only provides greater legitimization of intervention but greater legitimization of processes leading to a new government. U.S. slighting of the U.N. undercuts governmental legitimizing efforts and causes the entirety of the Moslem world to become more antagonistic to our country.

   For our part, we have gotten caught in a web of events we can influence but not control. In the end, legitimacy of any new government in Iraq will depend on consent of the governed. The only wise U.S. policy is to steamroll ahead with a constitutional framework of democratic elections with a pre-announced strategy of large-scale troop withdrawals commencing somewhat before or just after elections are held.

   In conclusion, let me suggest a corollary to Lord Acton's maxim that power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. The Leach corollary is that military power tempts and excessive power tends to tempt excessively. America's enormous military strength is critical at this stage in history. But while we are obligated to recognize that its maintenance is imperative, we must also realize that its utilization may not fit, and may indeed be counter-productive, in certain strategic settings. We have to use more than just our own eyes and rely on more that just our own expertise if in turbulent times we are to manage prudently the affairs of state.

   Analogies between all wars exist, but comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are frail. What must be understood is not that Iraq could be as bad as Vietnam; rather, that it could be far worse. Vietnam, after all, involved no WMD issues; and while the North was predominantly Buddhist and the South Catholic, there were no implications of a world-wide religious struggle; nor of a conflict that might last many decades, if not centuries. The issue at the time was Communism and fear that if Vietnam fell, neighboring governments would topple like dominoes. In retrospect, the real domino lesson of Vietnam was about political decision-making. Once the patriotic flag was raised, stands taken, words uttered, one doubtful decision precipitated another, and the pride of politicians did not allow a change of course until the people demanded common sense reconsideration.

   In this context, there is an aspect of this resolution that deserves reflective review. It is true, as the resolution asserts, that Iraq and the world are better off without Saddam Hussein ensconced in power. But it is not necessarily true that our country and the world are safer if the overthrow of one thug leads to the creation of millions of rebels with a cause.

   It would be a mistake of historical proportions if respectful relations not only between America and the Moslem world but between America and its traditional allies were to rupture. We are obligated to see that they don't.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 3/4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a very distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services.

   Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 557 expressing the views of the House on the liberation of Iraq. Frankly, I find myself amazed that this resolution is the topic of such an extended and spirited debate.

   Who can seriously dispute H.R. 557's main points? The world is safer with Saddam Hussein in prison as opposed to being in power. If anyone questions that, let them ask the citizens of the two Muslim countries he invaded, the Kurds whom he gassed or the Shiites whom he butchered by the thousands. The Iraqi people should be commended for their courage in overcoming 35 years of oppression and they should be

[Page: H1159]

recognized for adopting an interim constitution and moving forward toward a democracy, similar to the same situation faced in our own Civil War.

   Certainly the United States military and our allies in the coalition deserve to be recognized for their heroic service and their valor on the battlefield and their continuing struggle in Iraq.

   The American people and our allies ought to also take pride in what we have done to improve the lives of the average Iraqi. Since the end of the war, 4.2 million children and 700,000 pregnant mothers have been vaccinated. Over 30 million vaccine doses have been procured and 22 million actually delivered to Iraq. By the end of 2004, 90 percent of Iraqi children will have been vaccinated against polio, tuberculosis, and measles; 600 primary health clinics have been reequipped to provide health care, dozens of schools opened, colleges kept operational and the sanitation extended.

   Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what America and Americans have done in Iraq. I hope and trust that pride is shared by Members of this House and every American.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

   (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, a number of Members have said this resolution is simply about commending the troops and the people of Iraq. If that were truly the case, this measure would enjoy unanimous support. On the contrary, in what it says and what it fails to say, it attempts to speak to the handling of the war. It glosses over the serious intelligence failures and serious misstatements by the Bush administration concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

   It papers over the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the war as well as the initial failure to actively seek international support and continued lack of it. It ignores the equipment shortages that need to be addressed to protect our troops. It fails to make any mention of the 565 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq, or the thousands who have been wounded, or the sacrifices of their families.

   The resolution before the House today does not bring credit to this institution. It tries a well-used tactic to divide and conquer. Instead, it is a case of dividing and losing: dividing this House when it is a subject that needs unity and losing further credibility for the Republican House that does not even try to act on a bipartisan basis.

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

   Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleagues if I am reading the same resolution they are, this resolution and I quote, commends the Members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service to our country. That is not a political statement, that is a commendation, and it should be from all of us, Democrats and Republicans.

   I do not read politics into that, and nobody else should.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 3/4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

   Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I represent Fort Benning, the home of the Infantry in Columbus, Georgia, and I rise in support of the resolution to pay tribute to those Americans serving in uniform who have brought liberty to 24 million Iraqi citizens. It is their courage, commitment, and endurance that made possible the unprecedented success that we have witnessed halfway across the world.

   While soldiers are hunting down leaders of Saddam's regime, Americans and Iraqis are working together to construct hospitals and schools and establish a new Iraqi government. As a physician, I know what it takes to provide health care for a large number of patients. That is why it amazes me to learn 52 clinics have been renovated and over 600 have been reequipped to provide primary health care.

   Mr. Speaker, I call attention to this chart which shows that more than 22 million doses of vaccines have been delivered to 4.2 million Iraqi children and 700,000 pregnant women. In fact, by the end of 2004, over 90 percent of Iraqi children under the age of 5 will be immunized against diseases such as polio, tuberculosis, and measles.

   In February alone, 800 tons of high-protein meals were delivered to malnourished children. Sadly, those who oppose us are not idle. I do not know how long the war on terrorism will last, but I know America is right and our military and humanitarian efforts must continue until this evil is eradicated not only in the Middle East but in the entire world.

   While we hope our allies will not abandon us when we face inevitable hardships, if necessary, we have the courage and the commitment to stand alone.

   Mr. Speaker, my prayers remain with the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines deployed around the world, and with their families who wait for them at home with love and patience. I wholeheartedly support this timely resolution.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

   (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, in October 2002, I voted to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, and I would again. I think it was the right decision for this country.

   I agree with the resolution statement that the world is safer with the removal of this leader from Baghdad; I believe it is. And the succession of changes that we have seen in Syria, Libya, and Iran are evidence of that.

   I went to Iraq in January and saw young people serving this country in uniform and the leadership that they showed us, and I was so proud of them. They have never let us down.

   I think today with this resolution we are letting them down. Leadership is about unifying people; it is about healing wounds; it is about bringing people together. There are many patriotic Members of this body who in good faith believe the world is not safer because Saddam Hussein is gone. I respectfully disagree with them, but we should have been able to come together today on the first anniversary of the initiation of hostilities and focus on the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and the guardsmen, and we should have been able to focus on what we agree on; and what we agree on is we respect their service, we mourn the loss of our dead, we are ready to heal those who have come home wounded, and then we are ready to debate the foreign policy of this country as to how we should go forward. We have let our troops down by this resolution, and it is a shame.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 3/4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

   Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, no one can ever forget the horrific attacks on our Nation of 9/11. Our lives changed that day; the world changed that day; and America looked for answers and we looked for justice. And we looked, most importantly, for leadership.

   I think the terrorists, recognizing the very limp response that America had made to terrorist activities during the 1990s, probably thought we would make a lot of noise, we would be out here rattling our sabers, and then go back to our comfortable lifestyles and that we would not respond in any meaningful way.

   Well, these cowards, these terrorists who prey on the weak and innocent, seriously underestimated the will of the American people, and they certainly did not understand the political resolve of our great President George W. Bush, our President who understands that his constitutional responsibilities are to protect the homeland, to protect Americans.

   And so we went to Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. We went into Iraq where we liberated the Iraqi people from the oppression of Saddam Hussein.

   Mr. Speaker, recently I had the opportunity to travel to Libya where we met with Moammar Qaddafi, and as we all know, he has opened up the borders to Libya to let the Atomic Energy Commission come in and voluntarily dismantle his nuclear program. Apparently he watched Saddam Hussein get drug out of a rat hole and thought this regime change is not all it is cracked up to be. Clearly the Bush doctrine is working.

   Mr. Speaker, we recognize the brave Americans who have lost their lives fighting for freedom, fighting the war

[Page: H1160]

on terror. We recognize that battle is not over yet. Every one of them is a hero, every American who puts on the uniform is a hero, and we thank our partners in the coalition as well. God bless them all, God bless our Commander in Chief, and God bless America.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

   (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I support commending our troops, but I believe the war with Iraq did not make the United States safer. We know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and no connection to al Qaeda which poses the real threat to the safety of the American people.

   We know that the war in Iraq diverted resources from the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, which is staging a resurgence in Afghanistan today. We know that the war in Iraq alienated our allies whose help and intelligence we need to fight the real threat, the Islamic terrorists. We know that the war against Iraq makes it much harder to take action, perhaps military action, if necessary, to deal with the very real potential threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

   After the administration misled this House, misled the American people, and misled the world about the nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, who will believe us if we need to act against the real nuclear threat from Iran?

[Time: 16:15]

   I believe this war made us less safe because it dealt with a phantom threat, not the real threat. It diverted resources from the real threat. This resolution is good in commending our troops, but untruthful in saying the war against Iraq made us safer. Therefore, I cannot vote for it.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield 1 3/4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), a member of our committee.

   Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of House Resolution 557. The U.S. investments in the war on terror and in Iraq are proving worthwhile and are making the world safer. As of February 2004, 44 of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders are dead or in custody. The Iraqi people have created and signed an interim constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms, rights and protections to all Iraqis previously unrealized in Iraq.

   I visited Iraq in October and saw firsthand that Iraqis are much better off than they were under the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. Children are able to go to school without being taught government propaganda. Small businesses are able to open. Iraqi citizens have access to health care formerly denied to them, and once neglected infrastructure is being rebuilt. No one who argues against this resolution can deny that Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the United States and an enemy of the Iraqi people. The war on terror has encouraged nations to protect their national security, track down and arrest known and suspected terrorists, and to make ovations to the international community in order to create a more peaceful and stable environment.

   Last fall, the United States stopped a ship carrying nuclear components bound for Libya. Recently, Libya voluntarily turned over equipment from its nuclear weapons program to the United States. Had Libya kept these materials, they had the ingredients to create nuclear weapon capabilities. The 50,000 pounds of machine parts to enrich uranium is just a small portion of the material and information that they have turned over. Qaddafi himself has cited the fall of Saddam Hussein as a reason for Libya abandoning its nuclear weapons of mass destruction program. Can anyone have imagined a nuclear power as Libya?

   Libya's decision is an example of the administration's tough line against states that sponsor terrorism and have unconventional weapons programs. United States investments in Iraq are proving themselves effective. Iraq is a safer nation, as is the United States. I commend our Armed Forces of the United States and the coalition forces.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

   Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. First and foremost, let us all begin by thanking and saluting each and every American soldier, more than 500 of whom have died, thousands who have been injured, and several hundred thousand who are on active duty today, for their service and continued service doing what they are commanded to do every day. But under the shield of commending our troops, the sponsors of this measure are trying to run through what I believe is a resolution that does really nothing to, one, equip our soldiers with the body armor they still need and the extra protection for the armored vehicles that they use in Iraq, does nothing to restore veterans benefits that President Bush's budget proposes to cut for health care for our veterans, does nothing to bring in meaningful assistance from our so-called coalition partners or the international community to help patrol the streets of Iraq and rebuild the nation and the billions of dollars it will cost. And this resolution does nothing to lay out the exit strategy this Nation will need to tell our troops when they will be able to come home and when we will be able to stop spending the billions of dollars every day abroad.

   Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution which can commend our troops, and should; but it does nothing to move the ball forward.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would just take a minute to remind my colleague that every single soldier in Iraq has body armor as does every single civilian worker in Iraq and that the gentleman who just spoke voted against the very supplemental that sent that body armor to Iraq.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), who has spent so much time with the troops and is home to the 82nd Airborne, the All-American Division.

   Mr. HAYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I do represent Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, the epicenter of the universe. I rise with great pride and admiration to support this resolution because of those troops.

   The tragic events in Spain last week and in Iraq today remind us that terrorism is an ongoing threat to people around the world. However, today we live in a world that was different just 1 year ago. The Iraqi people were living under a tyrant, a brutal dictator who gassed his own people. The U.S. military victory in Iraq was unprecedented in military history. Our brave men and women in uniform liberated 24 million Iraqi people in just 3 weeks. Because of the actions and sacrifices of our troops, the regime of Saddam Hussein has been deposed and Iraq is on the path to becoming a free and prosperous nation.

   The U.S. military victory in Iraq was truly unprecedented. On March 19, 2003, offensive operations began with air strikes against Iraqi leadership positions. Operation Iraqi Freedom was executed with a combination of precision, speed, and force that stunned our enemy. Soldiers and Marines, many from my home State of North Carolina, charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile territory in one of the fastest military advances in the history of warfare. I am proud of those soldiers at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base and other posts around this wonderful country. The Hussein regime fell on April 9. By April 15 after only 27 days of offensive operations, coalition forces were in relative control of all major Iraqi cities.

   I would like to highlight some of those military victories. Coalition forces carried out hundreds of raids and thousands of patrols seizing caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition that can no longer be used against our troops or innocent civilians. As of February, 44 of the 55 most wanted Iraqi leaders are dead or in custody.

   In addition to bringing down Saddam's regime with great skill, courage and speed, we can also be proud that our military conducted operations with minimal collateral damage to the country's infrastructure. No neighboring countries were hit with Scud missiles, as was the case in the first Gulf War.

   Mr. Speaker, when I was in Iraq, Command Sergeant Major Gainey gave me the following quote: ``You have never lived until you have almost died. For those of us that have been deployed or fought for it, freedom has a

[Page: H1161]

special flavor the protected will never know.''

   God bless our troops and protect them.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, I represent Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base and I rise in strong support of this resolution. The tragic events in Spain last week and in Iraq today remind us that terrorism is an ongoing threat to people around the world. However, today we live in a world that was different just one year ago. The Iraqi people were living under a tyrant, a brutal dictator who gassed his own people. The U.S. military victory in Iraq was unprecedented in military history. Our brave men and women in uniform liberated 24 million Iraqi people in just three weeks. Because of the actions and sacrifices of our troops, the regime of Saddam Hussein has been deposed and Iraq is on the path to becoming a free and prosperous nation.

   The U.S. military victory in Iraq was truly unprecedented. On March 19, 2003, offensive operations began with air strikes against Iraq leadership positions. Operation Iraqi Freedom was executed with a combination of precision, speed and force that stunned our enemy.

   Soldiers and Marines, many from my home State of North Carolina, charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile territory in one of the fastest military advances in the history of warfare. I am particularly proud of the soldiers, airmen, special operations forces and others from Ft. Bragg and Pope Air Force base in my district in North Carolina. The Hussein regime fell on April 9, 2003 and by April 15 after only 27 days of offensive operations, coalition forces were in relative control of all major Iraqi cities, including Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk and Tikrit. Iraqi political and military leadership had collapsed.

   I would like to highlight some of our military victories. Coalition forces carried out hundreds of raids and thousands of patrols, seizing caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition that can no longer be used against our troops or innocent civilians. As of February 2004, 44 of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders are dead or in custody, as well as thousands of other Baath Party loyalists and terrorists.

   In addition to bringing down Saddam's regime with great skill, courage and speed, we can also be proud that our military conducted operations with minimal collateral damage to the country's infrastructure. No neighboring countries were hit with Scud missiles as was the case in the first Gulf War. There were virtually no instances of civilian casualties, nor were there large masses of fleeing refugees. Bridges were captured intact and rail lines protected. Dams were taken whole and villages were not flooded. Oil fields were protected and we denied Saddam's regime the opportunity to ignite widespread oil field fires. Of 250 wells in the key sections of the Rumaila oil field, only nine were detonated, causing just seven fires.

   Operation Iraqi Freedom will go down in military annals as a truly unprecedented offensive. The Saddam Hussein regime was not a government of benevolence; it was a reign of terror. The U.S. men and women in uniform have deposed of that terror with their remarkable achievements.

   Mr. Speaker, I have been to Iraq twice: the first time right after major combat operations ceased and we witnessed a country just beginning to consider life in the post Saddam era. The second time I visited was just this past month. Along with Leader PELOSI and Ranking Member SKELTON, we saw incredible progress being made. Command Sergeant Major Joe Gainey, one of the outstanding soldiers with whom we met, shared with me his favorite quote. I would like to share it with you:

You have never lived .....
Until you have almost died.
For those of us that have been deployed or fought for it,
Freedom has a special flavor .....
The protected will never know.

   Our military success is about that freedom.

   Mr. Speaker, I extend my heartfelt thanks and admiration to our men and women in uniform for their service and success. May God protect and bless them as they secure freedom for Iraq and protect freedom for America.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

   (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. LANGEVIN. I would like to thank the ranking member for his leadership.

   Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues on the House Committee on Armed Services, I have been pleased to provide our troops with the support and the equipment that they need to succeed in their mission, and I have had the privilege of traveling to Iraq to meet with some of them personally. I am so proud of the job that they are doing. God bless them. Iraq's transition to democracy and the ongoing war on terrorism will pose new challenges for our men and women in uniform, but they may take comfort in the knowledge that this Congress stands behind them.

   Yet despite the fact that every Member of this Chamber supports our troops, this resolution was prepared with no input from Democrats. Just as the administration has adopted a ``go it alone'' strategy on numerous foreign policy initiatives, the House leadership has done the exact same thing when drafting legislation. This resolution could have and should have been prepared with bipartisan input. I am disappointed that inappropriate tactics have overshadowed the unanimity we share in support of our Armed Forces.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a most distinguished member of the committee.

   Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, as we speak here today, progress is being made in Iraq. As chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, I have visited Iraq and witnessed firsthand their accomplishments. With our help, they have surpassed prewar electrical generation levels and are on track to be generating at almost 140 percent over their prewar level by June. Water facilities are currently operating at 65 percent of prewar levels and are improving. Current projects include the rehabilitation of 15 water treatment facilities and a canal to Basra. These projects will benefit millions of Iraqis and provide for a future of water reliability.

   But make no mistake, we did not go into Iraq to improve water infrastructure or increase electrical power capabilities. One year ago, this country, along with our allies, made the decision to topple a tyrannical regime, liberate a people, and help build a democracy in the heart of a terrorist breeding ground. However, the gift of freedom and democracy is being built on the basic level of services and quality of life which they are building today. We must stand by the Iraqi people in their long and challenging journey toward democracy because their freedom contributes to our security and the security of the world.

   God bless America and God bless our troops.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member on the Committee on Government Reform.

   Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   As we near the 1-year anniversary of the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, now is an appropriate time to examine how we got into the war in Iraq in the first place. The resolution before us contains many ``whereas'' clauses about how brutally Saddam Hussein treated his own people. I agree with those clauses. But let us not fool ourselves about the reason the American people were told that we needed to launch a preemptive war against Iraq. Over and over again, President Bush and his senior advisers told us that we needed to go to war to protect America from weapons of mass destruction.

   Several months ago I asked my staff to prepare a comprehensive analysis of the statements made by the top administration officials most responsible for making the case for war. Yesterday, I released the results of this work in a report entitled ``Iraq on the Record.'' Members can find the report, and a searchable database of administration statements, at www.reform.house.gov/min. What we found was that the President, the Vice President, and other top administration officials repeatedly and systematically misled the public about the threats posed by Iraq. They made claims that Iraq posed an urgent threat; they exaggerated Iraq's nuclear capabilities; statements that overstated Iraq's chemical and biological weapons; and statements that misrepresented Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda. We judge whether a statement was misleading based on what intelligence officials knew at the time the statement was made, not what we know now.

   If Congress really wanted to show respect for the troops, it would enact legislation calling for an independent commission, a real independent commission to examine how the President and his top advisers made hundreds of misleading statements to the American public.

   The resolution before us is reminiscent of these statements. Vice President Cheney said: ``We do know with

[Page: H1162]

absolute certainty that he, Saddam Hussein, is using his procurement system to acquire the weapons he needs to build a nuclear weapon,'' when this resolution says the same thing so unequivocally, quote, ``the world has been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein.'' I hope that is true, but we do not know it yet. Ask the hundreds who have died since Saddam Hussein was captured.

   The purpose of this resolution is an attempt by the Republican leadership to divide us, not to unite us behind our troops. They are using the sacrifice of the lives of our young men and women for their own political gain. I will not vote for this resolution or against it. I will vote ``present'' as an act of disdain for those who want to play politics with the lives of Americans and the credibility of this great Nation as the world's leader.

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

   Let me just make a point to the gentleman who just spoke, that every Member in this House received a personal invitation from me for classified briefings dealing directly with our intelligence agencies with the opportunity to ask any question they wanted to ask so that when they made the vote on whether or not we should go into Iraq, they could make an informed vote. I presume that the gentleman accepted that opportunity and made an informed vote based on his own understanding of what the situation was. Let me just reiterate that every person in uniform in Iraq has full body armor, as does every civil servant.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

   Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the point of difference today appears to me to be the question of are we safer. I could not disagree more with my colleague from California on this issue.

[Time: 16:30]

   It is not a question of truth or falsity or even of credibility. It is a question of judgment, a judgment that we collectively exercised as a body when we undertook our responsibility under the Constitution to authorize the use of force in Iraq. There were some things that were very important to me when I made that decision, which are reinforced here today. We knew that Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and against his neighbors. We knew that he had tested unarmed aerial vehicles with sprayers. We knew that he had another unarmed aerial vehicle program with smaller drones that they were building and testing at long ranges. And we knew that that unarmed aerial vehicle program sought to purchase route mapping software over the United States of America.

   Mr. Speaker, September 11 we watched 3,000 people die in a morning. That would be a footnote in American history compared to someone determined to use disease to kill Americans. This is a question of judgment, and we did the right thing to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

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

   National security is not only a bipartisan effort, it is truly a nonpartisan effort. On the Committee on Armed Services, under the chairmanship of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), we do our very best to be bipartisan in nature. And, frankly, it concerns me a great deal that no Democrat was even asked to make a recommendation on what might or might not be in this resolution. I would have included several items including reference to the families. I would have included reference to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. I would have included a wish that the transition on June 30 be done correctly. And I would include that there should be increased international participation.

   But I was not given that opportunity. Young men and young women from Democratic homes and from Republican homes and from Independent homes have paid the ultimate sacrifice. And I think it is incumbent upon everyone that offers such a serious resolution as this to give everybody an opportunity to make recommendations and to help write it.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

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

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I would relinquish to the next group that has jurisdiction for the next hour.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

   This is a picture that Mr. Stavenas of our staff took of a reenlistment ceremony at Saddam Hussein's spider hole in Iraq. It symbolizes the willingness of our military, our soldiers, our people in uniform, to come back under very difficult circumstances and reenlist and continue to fight this wonderful fight for the United States and for freedom. And our soldiers have done a great job for us, and this resolution is commending those soldiers. All those people who wore the uniform of the United States supported our country at a time of need and are continuing to undertake the biggest deployment right now, redeployment, since World War II.

   Let us all stand behind them, Republicans and Democrats, cast off the partisan positions that have been taken today on the House floor, and let them know that we support them.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

   Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 557 and claim the time set aside for us under the rule, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Speaker, our President, having exhausted all other options, made the decision to take action against Saddam Hussein and the threat posed by his evil tyranny. During that course, the debate about that, this House was presented with an overwhelming body of evidence detailing the brutal inhumanity of Saddam Hussein and his regime, the suffering of the Iraqi people under his repressive dictatorship, the threat that Saddam presented to his neighbors and to the world, and indeed the piles of bodies in neighboring countries he left behind. Today, now that Saddam has been removed from power and the mass graves, the secret laboratories, the vast military stockpiles, missile capacities that he had, have all been exposed to the world, the world is a safer place. Certainly the Iraqi people, all Iraqi people, have a new hope for a better future today than they did just a year ago. Just a year ago. What a remarkable accomplishment by our troops and the coalition.

   Yet we continue to hear claims from some that the liberation of Iraq, no matter how worthy the result, no matter how necessary to improving U.S. national security, was somehow a flawed endeavor. Yes, it was hard, but they claim it was a flawed endeavor because the intelligence that the United States had prior to the war was not perfect.

   Some apparently feel that either the Intelligence Community was pressured by the administration into stating that Iraq was a threat or the Intelligence Community did not really believe Iraq was a threat but the administration misused the intelligence provided to it. The truth is neither of those are correct. But that has not deterred some conspiratorially critics from contorting themselves, trying to make both arguments simultaneously.

   Looking back about a year and a half ago, while the Intelligence Community was focused heavily on Iraq, the President stated that Saddam was ``a grave and growing threat.'' And he was right. Today we have the benefit of hindsight, of a presence on the ground in Iraq, and of the thousands of hours of studying all there is to study on the prewar intelligence picture of Iraq, and we have barely begun to get that job finished.

   Taking advantage of all these benefits, I would like to share my assessment so far, and I would note that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House, and I know of the Senate also, is underway in coming forward with a formal review of all this, which I hope we will be able to share with our colleagues before too long. That is our plan.

   The intelligence picture of Iraq, of the threat Iraq posed to its neighbors and to the United States, including the assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, was entirely consistent over a period of almost a decade. The assessment is consistent in the finished intelligence and the daily current intelligence pieces from the mid-1990s onward. It is consistent in the classified records that have been provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on

[Page: H1163]

Intelligence over the past year. So I have to conclude on that basis alone, if the intelligence adjustments regarding Iraq were the result of political pressure or manipulation, any such machinations must have occurred in the middle of the 1990s. But I do not believe that that is the case. Therefore, if the intelligence picture is unchanging, was there a change in the substance or tone used by this administration to describe that threat? We do not need to go to the Intelligence Community or to any classified records to answer that question. We just need to compare public statements that have been made, and they are available to the world.

   In 2003 President Bush said this: ``Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies who would use them without the least hesitation.''

   In 1998 then President Bill Clinton said: ``In the next century,'' which is now, ``the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now, a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists ..... who traveled the world ..... if we fail to respond today, Saddam ..... will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity.''

   And again in 1998, then President Bill Clinton said: ``There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world ..... His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.'' President Clinton, 1998.

   Fast forward, 2003, President Bush: ``Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike ..... Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.''

   Actually, there is not a lot of difference in the leadership that was taking place in this country on the question of the threat that Saddam Hussein and his regime and weapons of mass destruction that might be at his disposal were to the rest of us. It is pretty clear that that was a consistent view.

   So, were the intelligence assessments perfect? No. In fact, comparing the intelligence assessment to what has been found in Iraq today, it is clear there were insufficiencies in our intelligence capabilities and they are of concern to us, and on a bipartisan basis we are looking into that. What was the cause of these insufficiencies? Perhaps Iraq, under Saddam, was a difficult target. It was sort of a denied area. There was a ruthless security apparatus there that made information gathering inside the country extremely difficult, very dangerous. We also know that Iraq instituted a truly massive denial and deception program designed to mislead anyone attempting to learn about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and related programs. Virtually everybody who tried found out that he was involved in denial and deception. So these factors made intelligence collection a little difficult, but it is the tough job that intelligence is there for.

   So, what else? I found that cuts in intelligence resources, personnel, and political support in the mid-1990s made many aspects of the intelligence mission in Iraq even more impossible than what we are up against.

   Where were these cuts most severe? In the case of Iraq, it turns out it was the decline in our intelligence capabilities that hurt the most. Human intelligence is where we get more than pictures, more than fragments. We get insight into the plans and intentions of our target. What is going on in the minds of the troublemakers? And without good human intelligence, HUMINT, as we call it, it is very difficult indeed to get an accurate picture of what an adversary is up to.

   Yet from 1991 to 1998, a time of cutbacks for military and intelligence resources across the board, our human intelligence capabilities suffered dramatically. The number of officers collecting information shrank by about a quarter; the number of operating locations overseas dropped by about a third; reporting sources declined by almost 40 percent; and the number of intelligence reports produced were cut in half or thereabouts.

   So we add on top of that the politically correct ``nice spies'' guidelines that were posed in 1995, the risk aversion problem, and we begin to see why information in Iraq was so hard to come by. Good information about plans and intentions, the eyes and ears, just were not sufficient.

   So despite these severe limitations, I think the scorecard shows that the United States Intelligence Community provided the best assessment it could. And referring Members to the Director of Central Intelligence's recent speech at Georgetown, the assessments were not as far wrong as some critics of the war would have us believe.

   In the final analysis, I think it is important that we get it right. Saddam was a threat. The United Nations believed he was a threat. The vast majority of the Western nations, even those outside of the U.S.-led coalition, believed he was a threat. The U.S. Intelligence Community assessed consistently that Saddam was a threat. The previous administration told the American people that Saddam was a threat. And it has been the official policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq since 1998 across two administrations. The difference between 1998 and 2003 is that President Bush took the bold action necessary to address a grave threat where others before him did not. The world is a safer place for it.

[Time: 16:45]

   Freedom is not free. The purpose of this resolution is to recognize the hardships that the men and women who are doing the dangerous, risky work of protecting our freedoms, the people in our military services, the people in the coalition, the people who are taking risks. After a year, we are here to say, you are doing great work, keep it up, we are so grateful.

   We are also including some applause for the people of Iraq who have gone through miserable times and now have some hope, and they have completed the remarkable achievement of a temporary constitution already. This is the sign of a spirited people who are looking for a better life.

   This resolution simply says that and commends that. I believe we can all agree that these are the times that we can get together and say, well done, more to do, let us get on with it.

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

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) is recognized for 30 minutes.

   Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

   Mr. Speaker, I came here to talk about how we can improve this resolution, but I would like to say to the able gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss), the chairman of our committee, that some of the things he just said in his opening remarks might deserve amplification. It is true that during the 1990s, overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress approved cuts in funding for intelligence. So strong was this bipartisan position that often no one called for a recorded vote; Intelligence budgets were approved on a simple voice vote. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is correct that overseas intelligence operations were canceled and that the core of our overseas intelligence operations declined by about 25 percent. But what he failed to mention is that those cuts were ordered by the 41st President, President Bush. They were supported by more than 95 percent of Republicans in Congress, including the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss).

   What I am here to say today, however, is that this resolution could be improved if it called for steps now on a bipartisan basis to fix what are obvious intelligence problems. In addition to commending our troops, we should be calling for action to make them safer.

   Had I been consulted on this resolution, I would have suggested adding a clause calling on the President to acknowledge the obvious problems with our intelligence and to take steps to fix those problems now. Had I been consulted, I would have insisted on adding language applauding the brave and

[Page: H1164]

dedicated cadre of people serving in Iraq and around the world as intelligence officers. They work in the shadows with little thanks and recognition.

   Mr. Speaker, the terrorists are clearly not waiting for us to fix our intelligence, witness today's tragic bombing in Iraq and last week's bigger tragedy in Madrid. The insurgents in Iraq are not waiting for us to fix our intelligence. Ask the young men and women at Walter Reed Hospital.

   The North Koreans and Iranians are not waiting for us to fix our intelligence. Their nuclear weapons programs are far more advanced than Iraq's ever were. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of our committee, acknowledged this morning, the world is not safe just because we removed a brutal dictator. We all know this. It will not be safer until we fix our intelligence.

   After deep study on the Select Committee on Intelligence, it is clear to me that our senior leaders remain in a deep state of denial. There are no discernible signs from the President or the Vice President acknowledging the obvious flaws in our intelligence systems and committing our country to fix the problems now. Force protection in Iraq depends on accurate, timely, and actionable intelligence to counter terrorism and insurgency. We must do better.

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

   Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), and chairman of one of our critical subcommittees.

   Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 557, recognizing the liberation of the Iraqi people and the valiant services of American and coalition forces.

   In the years since the United States led a coalition of willing States to disarm Saddam Hussein, we have arrested a dictator that killed hundreds of thousands, possibly as many as 1 million people, during his reign. We have returned children to school and given the Iraqi people a new destiny.

   I have been to Iraq several times. It continues to be a dangerous place. Iraq is also a complicated place. There has been a considerable amount of debate and attention to what we knew before we went to war and how well our intelligence is measuring up with the realities on the ground in Iraq.

   I would like to take this time to clarify the record on a number of charges that have been levied against both the administration and our intelligence community.

   A number of Members who voted for the Iraq war resolution claim they did so because they were fooled by the President who overstated the threat from Iraq. In fact, some suggest that the administration knew Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and went to war regardless of the facts. These critics do not understand the difference between intelligence and policy formation.

   The President considered the intelligence in Iraq and calculated the risk of engaging in a conflict with Iraq and decided war was just. He took action, and we are all safer as a result. Some argue that the President portrayed Iraq as an ``imminent threat,'' that the administration misled the American public by overstating the threat posed by Iraq. This is what he said in January 2003, 2 months before the war: ``Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy and it is not an option.''

   In fact, this President's statements on Iraq are not all that different from the previous President and his administration's remarks when they discussed the threat posed by Iraq: ``If we fail to respond today, Hussein and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity.'' And: ``What if he fails to comply and we fail to act? Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal.''

   These were President Clinton's words in August of 1998.

   Another quote: ``And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted in the chemical weapons activity in Sudan. We had information linking bin Laden to the Sudanese regime and the Al Shifa plant.'' These words were written by former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

   Another quote: ``Sometimes the United States has to act alone or at least has to act first. Sometimes we cannot let other countries have a veto on our foreign policy.'' That was a quote from President Clinton during his election campaign.

   President Bush used the best intelligence available, as it had been suggested by the former administration, that Iraq was a threat, a growing threat. The removal of Saddam Hussein and his evil regime from power was a policy endorsed by both sides of the aisle for more than a decade. This menace became even more of a concern when examined through the lens of September 11. Saddam is gone. The world is better because of it.

   Mr. Speaker, we can argue the morality of war all day, but terrorists do not possess the same concern, as we saw again today. They act, and they act brutally. Iraq represents another front on the global war on terrorism. Iraq also represented a dangerous threat to the region and the world. This country witnessed the consequence of failing to act strongly against terrorism on September 11, 2001.

   Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the bipartisan comments of the last speaker, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for a unanimous consent request.

   (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the Resolution before us correctly points out the atrocities that Saddam Hussein perpetuated against his own people and the importance to Iraq's future to be free from the oppression of Saddam Hussein. The Resolution properly commends the members of the U.S. Armed Forces for their valiant service. They have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf of their country and have served longer deployments than expected. I extend my condolences to the family members of U.S. soldiers and civilian personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq, as well as to the many thousands of soldiers that were wounded in Iraq. I also express my sorrow and regret for the deaths in Iraq of Coalition forces and United Nations personnel, as well as for the unknown number of Iraqi civilians and other noncombatants that perished in the war. Congress and the Administration have a obligation to provide our troops with all the resources necessary to carry out their ongoing mission.

   I am pleased that Iraqi Governing Council has adopted an interim constitution, and that the Council, in cooperation with the international community, is establishing war crimes tribunals in Iraq to create a historical record of the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Saddam Hussein and his regime. We must establish an accurate and complete factual record of these crimes, so that we can punish the offenders and deter future war crimes by government officials against their own population.

   My support for this resolution in no way signifies my views on other issues beyond the scope of this resolution. This resolution does not offer a complete and balanced chronology of events that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I am most disappointed that both before and after the war in Iraq the United States consistently failed to broadly engage the international community. The Administration is only belatedly seeking international support for our reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

   Because of these failures, Americans have paid a heavy price. It is primarily American troops stationed in Iraq that face continuing attacks. It is our taxpayers that are being asked to almost exclusively pay the cost to rebuild Iraq, and these costs are mounting every day. Iraq is already facing a difficult transition in establishing a democracy that operates under the rule of law and protects minority rights. The U.S. must show enough flexibility in working with our allies to effectively help Iraq during this critical transition period, so that other countries will pledge both troops and funds to alleviate the burden on our American soldiers and taxpayers. Ultimately, the best way that we can support our troops is to reach out more aggressively to the international community, establish order and security in Iraq, and transfer authority to the Iraqis in a responsible manner.

   Although I support the Resolution, I regret that it was not in order to consider a Motion to Recommit with instructions. The Motion to Recommit would have allowed us to strengthen the resolution by urging the President to: give our troops in Iraq all of the equipment

[Page: H1165]

needed to keep them safe; provide the health care and benefits our wounded servicemen and women earned when they come home as veterans; recognize the key contributions made by our Reserve and Guard components, many of which came from my Congressional district in Maryland.

   This Motion would have also asked the President to acknowledge that there were serious deficiencies in United States pre-war intelligence on Iraq, particularly in light of the failure to find any evidence of WMD programs, and to take action to improve our intelligence community so that United States troops are better protected and informed for future conflicts.

   Finally, the Motion would have asked the President to seek broader international support for the reconstruction of Iraq, and to take steps to correct the deficiencies of the U.S. Government to plan adequately for the post-war occupation of Iraq.

   We should have improved this Resolution to more accurately reflect our ongoing objectives in our involvement in Iraq.

• [End Insert]

   Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a member of the Committee on Intelligence and ranking member on the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the House Committee on Armed Services.

   Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, this resolution asks that the House affirm that the United States and the world is a safer place today with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq. Who can argue with that? Saddam Hussein, a tyrant that is responsible for so many thousands of deaths, a tyrant that has used weapons of mass destruction in the past.

   There was a famous frontiersman who said, Be sure you are right, then go ahead. That was reported to be Davy Crockett. I think that is what we are about a year later, after going to war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

   A colleague of ours mentioned earlier, this whole thing was about judgment. Well, I would submit that it is also about responsibility, it is also about accountability, and it is also about credibility. Why do I say that? Because when we talk about the world being a safer place today, I want us to remember that 55-some-odd families are without their loved ones today that have been killed in Iraq carrying out this war.

   I saw into the eyes of Sergeant Rico's widow who asked me why. And I told her that we were very proud of the sacrifice that had been made by her husband and by her family. But she continued to ask me why. And that is why I think it is about responsibility. Did we do the responsible thing by attacking Iraq and Saddam Hussein when we knew that he had nothing to do with 9-11? It is also about accountability. A year later, we are finding out that he did not have weapons of mass destruction. And, obviously, it is about credibility, because if we as the last superpower are going to benefit from credibility, we have to be patient, we have to understand what the threat is, and we have to act responsibly. That is what I think this is about.

   I am going to support this resolution, as I support the men and women in uniform. But this whole issue is about those three words: responsibility, accountability, and credibility.

   Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a member of our committee and the chairman of a subcommittee as well.

   (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 557, and I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, our military and coalition forces, as well as our intelligence community, are all working tirelessly to protect this Nation 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.

   A year ago, the United States led a military coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein's regime committed horrible atrocities; and Saddam was a threat, a grave and increasing threat to his country, his region, and to the world. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, marked the 16th anniversary of Saddam's use of chemical weapons on the Kurdish citizens of Iraq. Sixteen years ago, Mr. Speaker, as a result of this atrocity, 5,000 Kurdish Iraqis died. Saddam was indeed a terrorist in his own nation. Thanks to our efforts, Saddam Hussein will never commit such atrocities again.

   There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, we are all safer without this tyrant in power. Our decision to go to war in Iraq was based on our intelligence about Saddam's threat to world security.

   As chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, I know the substantial investment now being made in our intelligence community to meet the demands of the global war on terrorism. Our intelligence community is aggressively rebuilding its capabilities that withered during the mid-1990s. Our clandestine service dropped by 25 percent, and nearly one-third of our overseas offices were closed. Our overall intelligence reporting fell by almost 50 percent during that period of time. Language skills were slow to develop, limiting our ability to infiltrate rogue organizations or intercept messages encrypted in tribal dialect and regional tongues. We effectively lost our ability to see and hear in many of the world's most dangerous places. Our intelligence community provided the best information and analysis on Iraq that it could, given the reduced collection, language shortfalls, and Iraq's active denial and deception programs.

   Every one from David Kay to the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, has stated that analysts did not and would not change their judgment to meet policy objectives.

   Some argue that judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Continuing Programs of Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs were flawed. They point to the report's statement that ``Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.'' However, this is only the first six words of the second sentence in the declassified portion of the report. The rest of the sentence reads, ``as well as missiles with range in excess of U.N. restrictions and, if left unchecked, Iraq probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.''

   Critics also fail to mention judgments made by Dr. Kay and the Iraqi Survey Group regarding their findings in Iraq: ``We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions.'' Quote: ``Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them.''

[Time: 17:00]

   Yes, chemical or biological weapons stockpiling have not been found, but secret laboratories have. And, yes, Iraq appears not to have reconstructed its nuclear program, but the Iraq survey group uncovered documents that revealed Saddam's intent to make nuclear weapons.

   Intelligence analysts seldom, if ever, are 100 percent perfect. This is the nature of the business. Intelligence officers collect the dots and analysts attempt to connect them. Given the reduced resources and inadequate insight into Iraq, I say the picture we drew from a limited amount of dots was pretty good.

   And we were right to take action. Every day intelligence officers make tough judgment calls and dangerous operations are conducted. We must support them. We must support our troops in the ongoing efforts to protect our Nation.

   I support House Resolution 557 and strongly urge its adoption.

   Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for a unanimous consent request.

   (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has taken an issue of bipartisan concern and turned it into an occasion for partisan division.

   On the 1-year anniversary of the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the leadership introduced a bill that claims to honor our troops--at the same time that our Armed Forces and veterans are being shortchanged in the budget that is under consideration in this body.

   I strongly oppose this resolution for two important reasons.

[Page: H1166]

   First, it fails to properly acknowledge and honor the American troops who are serving, have died, or have been injured in this war.

   And secondly, it is a blatant attempt to cover-up the fact that American soldiers went to war in Iraq because Iraq allegedly had weapons of mass destruction that threatened America. And yet no such weapons have since been found in Iraq.

   Our troops--National Guard and Reserve and regular forces alike--deserve more than one line in a resolution on the first anniversary of a war. Their service and their sacrifice deserve to be honored, and more importantly they deserve the resources to help them succeed with the greatest degree of safety possible.

   Had Democrats been afforded the opportunity to modify this resolution, we would have offered our sincere condolences to the families of the more than 500 soldiers killed and thousands wounded in Iraq, given our troops in Iraq the body armor and armored vehicles they need to keep them safe, and continued to press for a true international coalition to relieve the United States of its nearly unilateral burden in Iraq.

   I am a proud cosponsor of the Democratic Salute to Veterans and the Armed Forces Act, a comprehensive package of benefits designed to honor the contributions of those who have served America in the Armed Forces. The legislation ensures that those who are serving today have incentives to continue serving, those who served in previous conflicts are properly honored, and those who choose to serve in the future are coming into a system that is the best in the world.

   As I said at the outset, I also oppose this resolution because it is a blatant attempt by the Bush administration to distort the public's understanding of why America went to war.

   Americans did not die in Iraq to punish Saddam Hussein for his reprehensible and vile actions, such as gassing the Kurds in 1988 or flooding the Arab marshlands. Those actions clearly did not pose an imminent threat to the security of the United States, especially not in the year 2003. And yet those are the actions that this partisan House resolution today speaks to. Americans would not have believed that those actions warranted a military attack in Iraq last year.

   President Bush warned Americans that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States that could only be deflected by a unilateral military strike against Iraq. Today, t