[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 25, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5830-H5837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AWARDING A CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 1511) to award a congressional gold medal to Prime
Minister Tony Blair.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1511
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDING.
The Congress finds that Prime Minister Tony Blair of the
United Kingdom has clearly demonstrated, during a very trying
and historic time for our 2 countries, that he is a staunch
and steadfast ally of the United States of America.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.
(a) Presentation Authorized.--The Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
shall make appropriate arrangements for the presentation, on
behalf of the Congress, of a gold medal of appropriate
design, to Prime Minister Tony Blair, in recognition of his
outstanding and enduring contributions to maintaining the
security of all freedom-loving nations.
(b) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the presentation
referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury
(referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall strike a
gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions
to be determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.
The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of
the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2 under such
regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, at a price
sufficient to cover the cost thereof, including labor,
materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and
the cost of the gold medal.
SEC. 4. STATUS OF MEDALS.
(a) National Medals.--The medals struck pursuant to this
Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title
31, United States Code.
(b) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of
title 31, United States Code, all medals struck under this
Act shall be considered to be numismatic items.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS; PROCEEDS OF SALE.
(a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to
be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise
Fund such amounts as may be necessary to pay for the costs of
the medals struck pursuant to this Act.
(b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of
duplicate bronze medals authorized under section 3 shall be
deposited into the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. King) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
General Leave
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material
thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct privilege today to be able to move this
bill awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to British Prime Minister Tony
Blair. Throughout our history, there has probably been no country that
the United States has had a closer relationship with than Great
Britain. Certainly we share certain immutable, transcendent values.
Throughout our history we have stood together in a number of noble
causes, probably dramatically manifested during World War II when Prime
Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt stood together to defeat the
forces of fascism and Naziism. But there is probably no British Prime
Minister who has been there when America needs him more than Tony
Blair.
Certainly during the Clinton administration, it was Prime Minister
Blair who stood shoulder to shoulder with President Clinton in the war
in Kosovo against Serb aggression, against the dictator Milosevic. But
nothing more illustrated the unique relationship between the United
States and Britain and the immense courage and dedication of Tony Blair
than what happened after our Nation was attacked on September 11, 2001.
The first foreign leader to come to this country to express his regrets
while the smoke was still there, while the flames were still burning,
visited the World Trade Center, visited New York and came here to our
Nation's capital was British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
When President Bush addressed a joint session of Congress on
September 20, 2001, just 9 days after the brutal attack on the World
Trade Center, it was Prime Minister Blair who sat here in the gallery
expressing his solidarity with the United States. On that evening,
President Bush said, ``Once again we are joined together in a great
cause and we are so honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an
ocean to show his unity of purpose with America. Thank you for coming,
friend.''
Indeed, Tony Blair has been a friend of the United States but, just
as important as that, he has been a friend and supporter of democratic
values. He realizes the unique nature and relationship of the bonds
between the United States and Britain and indeed between the United
States and Europe. He has been a strong friend of the United States.
Certainly in the recent war against Iraq, it was Tony Blair who
resisted pressure both from the media, his own party and his own
parliament to stand up and be with the United States.
For all those reasons, and I am sure this debate will go on for a
while, probably longer than we anticipated it would today, I stand in
support of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the ranking
member of the subcommittee, who is the cosponsor of this resolution.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of this legislation that awards the
Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor Congress can award, to
Prime Minister Tony Blair. Past recipients include Presidents George
Washington and Harry Truman; heroic figures such as Charles Lindbergh,
Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa; and Prime Minister Winston Churchill,
who led England through the dark hours of World War II.
Mr. Speaker, just as Prime Minister Churchill stood with President
Roosevelt to defeat the Nazis, Prime Minister Blair has offered
steadfast support for the United States since the terror attacks of 9/
11. The American people will never forget that the Prime Minister
traveled across an ocean to be in the gallery of the House in a sign of
solidarity with our country as President Bush addressed our Nation
after the terrorist attacks.
More recently, prior to the war in Iraq, the Prime Minister and his
U.N. envoy, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, worked tirelessly to exhaust every
diplomatic channel to build consensus in the United Nations. It was
Prime Minister Blair who tried to bridge differences with our
traditional European allies up until the wee hours before the war
began. Additionally, Prime Minister Blair pushed our own administration
to use its political capital to fully engage in the Middle East peace
process.
While that effort continues to face very substantial obstacles, most
notably the unceasing suicide attacks against Israel citizens, the
Prime Minister deserves credit for putting Mideast Peace on the table
as does the Administration for its efforts to implement the ``road
map.''
While the Prime Minister has demonstrated considerable political
courage in recent months, his stand with our country should not be
surprising.
As a political leader in Britain the Prime Minister has spent this
life leading the Labour Party out of oblivion and into its current
dominant position in the Parliament.
At age 30 he was elected to Parliament. Later as a member of John
Smith's shadow cabinet he worked to transform Labour into a party tough
on crime and while still committed to its social causes.
[[Page H5831]]
After being elected Labour leader in 1994, Blair moved the party to
the political center and redrafted the party constitution in his image
of ``New Labour''--much life President Clinton successfully moved the
Democratic party to a position where it has won the popular vote in the
last three Presidential elections.
As leader of the Labor Party, the British people rewarded the Prime
Minister with a landslide victory in 1997, ending 18 years of
conservative rule. At 43, Blair became the youngest Prime Minister
since 1812. As Prime Minister, he has continued to change his country
for the better. He has taken on the right to hereditary positions in
the House of Lords, allowed the de-evolution of Scotland and Wales, and
implemented a massive investment program in the areas of health care
and education.
For the Prime Minister, education is the best economic policy and his
government has followed this commitment.
I have great admiration for the Prime Minister's commitment to
governing from the middle ground rather than trying to divide his
country by playing to extreme groups on either side of the political
spectrum.
Mr. Speaker, Congress could find no more deserving recipient of this
high honor than Prime Minister Blair. In fighting terrorism, standing
with the U.S. against Saddam and with the U.S. for Middle East peace,
he has truly shown what it means for Britain to be our staunchest ally.
A recent Washington Post article well characterized Prime Minister
Blair's current standing in the world. ``After the terrorist attacks of
September 11, he has found himself playing a pivotal role in reshaping
international relations and winning points for standing on principle,
even from some of his most vehement critics.''
I recognize that some of my colleagues had strong reservations about
the war in Iraq and I respect their opinions, but I urge that all
Members stand and support this award in recognition of Tony Blair the
man, as a leader of an inclusive political movement that has benefited
all Britons.
Mr. Speaker, the deaths of six more British soldiers in Iraq this
week remind us of the common sacrifice our troops are making serving
side by side around the world. This is just one more example of the
special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in recognition of the
man who has contributed so much to upholding this common bond.
I would like to note that this bill passed the Senate unanimously
with 78 cosponsors and that we have 290 Members of the House that have
cosponsored this important legislation. I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) and all who have
worked to pass and to get this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues
to support it.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. Let me at the outset commend the ranking member the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the tremendous assistance
she has given me on this as she has on so many other issues that come
before our subcommittee and also the work that she does for the State
of New York.
Mr. Speaker, one thing I should bring out is that on a personal
level, I had the privilege of working with Prime Minister Blair several
years ago on the Irish peace process. I saw firsthand at that time the
sense of vision that he had, the sense of daring he had and the courage
he had to do the right thing and the fact that he was the first British
Prime Minister in history to be able to bring a settlement, to bring an
agreement involving all the parties in the north of Ireland. To work
with the Republic of Ireland and also to work closely with the United
States is just one more demonstration of his courage and his ability to
stand up and do what is right.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the awarding of this gold medal
now. We have awarded gold medals to many people in our history since
1776, but on only one occasion have we ever awarded a Congressional
Medal of Honor to a sitting head of state: Nelson Mandela, when he was
80 years old and in his last months in office. I suppose it is possible
that these are the last months in office for Prime Minister Blair, but
that is not clear just at the moment.
At this moment he is fighting for his political future against
accusations that he misled the public about British intelligence
findings on Iraq. Mr. Blair's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, was
brought up before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the House of
Commons yesterday. He was asked, among other things, why Mr. Blair's
influential January dossier on Iraq's capabilities was so reliant on
the uncredited 12-year-old writings of an American graduate student.
Today Alastair Campbell, his doctor of spin, will be up there and he
will be answering accusations that it was he who inserted in a dossier
the astonishing information that Iraq not only possessed fully
developed, operational chemical and biological weapons but was capable
of delivering them within 45 minutes of a command order. Foreign
Secretary Straw said yesterday there were substantial errors. He said
that lessons have been learned, but he blamed the demands of the media.
That very media, of course, made sure that the false papers issued by
Prime Minister Blair's government deceived others around the world as
well as the Britons. The influential information and errors may have
even influenced Members of this body.
If this award to Mr. Blair is appropriate, it is either too late or
too soon. If the medal had been awarded when it was first introduced,
before these deceptions were discovered, it would have had smooth
sailing. If it were brought up later, perhaps Mr. Blair will have
cleared his name. At this moment, however, we are prejudging and
perhaps trying to influence the outcome of some very serious
investigations going on in Britain. We are trying to prop up Mr. Blair.
The White House has sent up another one of those rubber stamp bills. I
do not dispute that he needs propping up. His job rating at home is
minus 13 which means his disapproval exceeds his approval by 13 points.
What I dispute is whether the Congressional Medal of Honor should
become a prop in the strategy of the British Prime Minister to regain
his people's trust.
I ask the Members of this body to consider carefully whether they
wish to risk cheapening the Congressional Medal of Honor by awarding it
to an embattled politician. Let us not rush to judgment. Let us revisit
this resolution another day. Even Winston Churchill was not awarded a
Congressional Medal of Honor at any point in his tumultuous political
career, though there were times when it would have come in quite handy.
His medal was posthumous. With all due respect, Prime Minister Blair is
not Winston Churchill.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Without getting into all of the merits or demerits of the gentleman's
statement, I would note that if there is one person in the world who
does not care what his poll ratings are, it is Prime Minister Blair.
The fact that his disapproval numbers may be high is exactly one of the
reasons why he has demonstrated courage. He stands up for what is
right. He is not concerned about the naysayers. He is not concerned
about the tides of public opinion as they may be that day.
I would just again remind my colleagues that when the United States
was at its darkest moment on September 11, 2001, the one leader who
stood with us more than anyone else was Prime Minister Blair. He
continues to stand with us. He can be proud of his record and we can be
proud of our record if we do indeed award him this honor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs.
Miller).
(Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, since September 11 our Nation
has faced very trying times. For the first time in decades we have been
threatened on our very own soil. We
[[Page H5832]]
have seen American lives and the lives of others tragically lost. Proud
symbols of the American dream and our prosperity have also been lost.
{time} 1130
But thankfully the American spirit was not. We have seen heroes rise
from the dust where the World Trade Center towers once stood. American
willpower and determination have united a Nation precisely when
evildoers sought to divide us. We are resilient, proud, and since that
fateful day, determined as ever. One nation, the United Kingdom, has
stood proudly with us, shoulder to shoulder and shown solidarity and
support as we vowed to end terrorism worldwide. The United States has
no better friend than the United Kingdom and its leader, Prime Minister
Tony Blair. Since day one, he has been a steadfast supporter of America
in the war on terrorism and the ensuing campaigns in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
In recognition of his unconditional support of our Nation, I strongly
encourage my colleagues to join me in passing legislation to award Tony
Blair the Congressional Gold Medal. There are no words to express
America's deep-felt appreciation towards Mr. Blair; and while this
award esteems a well-deserved honor to Mr. Blair, it hardly scratches
the surface at how grateful we are for his support and the support of
his country. The Congressional Gold Medal has a long history of
recognizing military leaders, from its first recipient, George
Washington, to Mother Teresa, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and
current leaders like then-General Colin Powell and now Secretary of
State.
Prime Minister Blair has certainly demonstrated the bravery, the
dedication and conviction to join this elite group of awardees.
Moreover, he has shown himself to be a true friend; and for that I
commend him, and I look forward to voting ``yes'' on H.R. 1511.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I am genuinely moved by the breadth of spirit of my colleagues in the
great praise they are heaping on this man of the left who presides
proudly over a socialized health system and does so much else to show
that government has an important positive role in our life, and I
appreciate this kind of bipartisanship. Perhaps it will develop a
certain trans-Atlantic quality and some of what they so vigorously
praise in England might creep into their views about maybe doing
something for the American people along the lines of what Mr. Blair
does domestically for the British people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Hoeffel), who has been a leader in trying to formulate an
appropriate American approach to some important questions.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I am pleased to rise in support of this resolution today, awarding
the Congressional Gold Medal to a great leader of a great country who
is and has been a great ally of ours. But it is true that Prime
Minister Blair, as President Bush, both have a credibility problem
regarding weapons of mass destruction. And it is interesting to see how
England is dealing with this problem. They are dealing with it
forthrightly, openly. The Parliament has held hearings. Two members of
the British Cabinet who resigned in protest have testified. The Prime
Minister has subjected himself to questions and they are dealing with
this, I believe from a far, it seems to be a very open process, a very
forthright process; and the public in England will get the information
they need to make a judgment about whether their intelligence was on
the mark, whether the intelligence was given to their leaders based
upon what they thought the leaders might want to hear. Was the
intelligence misused by the British leadership? Was it inaccurate? And
I think they have dealt with it very forthrightly.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is not happening in this country. We
are not seeing the administration stepping forward to deal with the
growing credibility gap that has arisen because we cannot find the
weapons of mass destruction. We know that Saddam Hussein had weapons of
mass destruction and he used them in the past against his own people in
a very murderous way, no question about it; but we cannot find them
now. We may find them next week, and I hope we do because our
credibility is on the line; but we need a full accounting of how we
have dealt with this issue. We need to know where those weapons are. We
need to maintain safe custody of them. We need to dismantle them. If
they are buried in the desert or given to another country, we need to
know what is going on and make sure that they cannot be used by anybody
else in the future that has evil intent.
But we also need a full accounting of our intelligence operation.
What were our leaders told? I know what I was told, Mr. Speaker. I was
told publicly and privately by the leading senior advisors to the
President, with great certainty I was told that Saddam Hussein last
fall had weapons of mass destruction, at the very time it turns out
that the Defense Intelligence Agency was circulating a memo that there
was no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein then had weapons of mass
destruction.
That is not the public comments nor the private assurances that
Members of Congress or the American public were being given at the time
of the President's Rose Garden speech September 26, 2002, and several
other statements made. Was the President told what the intelligence
agencies thought he wanted to hear? Did the President demand just one
side of the story? We need an accounting of what has happened. Our
credibility is at stake. If we are ever again to embrace the notion of
preemptive use of military force which may be necessary in an age of
terror when we are dealing with an adversary who does not have a
country to defend or a capital city to defend, if we are ever going to
use a preemptive strategy again, we must know our intelligence is
accurate; otherwise, the doctrine of preemption is unusable.
If we are going to keep this country safe, we have to know what
happened. We have to know how well or how poorly our intelligence
operation functioned. We need an accounting. We are not getting it from
the international relations committee, which last week refused to call
for documents. We are not getting it on the floor with the intelligence
bill because amendments to have an investigation have been ruled out of
order. We have got a document dump at the intelligence committee. I am
going to go over and look at those documents, but I do not think that
is enough. We need to have an accounting. We need to know what
happened.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It is really interesting listening to how certain people on the other
side who are trying to turn this into a debate of weapons of mass
destruction are raising the issue of credibility when their statements
themselves seem to be at least lacking some credibility, to put it
mildly. I would just emphasize we are talking about what was known and
what was not known.
Let us go back to last September when Vice President Gore said based
at the time he was Vice President, he had absolutely no doubt that Iraq
had an advanced program of weapons of mass destruction and those
weapons were hidden throughout Iraq. That was Vice President Gore based
on his access to intelligence. Just last month, President Clinton said
he does not in any way fault President Bush on the issue of weapons of
mass destruction because that is exactly what he was told when he was
President of the United States. Just last Friday in the New York Times,
Kenneth Pollack who was probably leading spokesman in the Clinton
administration on the issue of Iraq said there was absolutely no doubt
among any of the intelligence agencies in the world nor in the United
States nor in the Clinton and Bush administrations that there were
indeed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
And it really is ironic that we have to look to a British foreign
minister to stand with our government and give the United States the
presumption of the doubt over Saddam Hussein when certain Members of
the opposition party do not show that same level of support that Prime
Minister Blair is showing, which I think is very significant; and it
also demonstrates more than ever why Americans have such a high opinion
of Prime Minister Blair.
I would also say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who was heaping
[[Page H5833]]
praise on the Republicans for trying to set up this trans-Atlantic
relationship with the British and was hoping that perhaps this may
manifest itself here on the floor, I would also remind the gentleman
and ask him if he supports the fact that Tony Blair is bringing the
Labor Party from the left to the right and is certainly being
criticized by those in the left in Britain. I wonder if he will also
share that in his party and move his party more toward the center.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I very much agree with many
of the specifics, but the gentleman misstates British politics when he
says he has moved them from left to the right. Blair would himself
repudiate that. What he has done is to move them from a position that
he thought was too far to the left to a more mainstream position, but
still very much on the left, still very much socialized medicine. So,
yes, I think that the direction that the Labor Party has moved in,
which is very much a reasonable and responsible position on the left,
is a good one; but to characterize that as having moved to the right, I
think Mr. Blair would give back his gold medal if the price of
accepting it was to become a rightist in the gentleman's mind.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say
that the same critics in Britain who are criticizing Tony Blair's
policy on the war would in fact be saying that he is moving his party
to the right. So really I was quoting the equivalent critics in the
British Parliament who are equivalent to those in this House. Those who
oppose Blair's policy on Iraq, very similar to those on the other side
who are opposing President Bush's policy on Iraq, are the same ones who
are saying that he is moving his party toward the right. So I was just
really quoting some of the ideological kinsmen of some of the opponents
here today.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman once again
misstates British politics because two of his sharpest critics were
people who were in his government supporting his moves on domestic
policy, supporting his repositioning towards New Labor. Two, Robin Cook
and Claire Short, they resigned from the government specifically over
Iraq. So the notion that criticism of his position on Iraq is also
criticism of his movement towards the New Labor position is simply
factually incorrect.
Mr. KING of New York. Reclaiming my time, it is very accurate. In
fact, anyone who knows Claire Short, and I have known her for over 20
years, can say she was in the far left of the Labor Party. She was in
the Blair cabinet very reluctantly, and she was one of those who was
critical not just of his war policy but also of his domestic policies.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. What about Robin Cook? Who was the
foreign minister and who resigned only over misuse of intelligence and
not over anything domestic.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, actually this
has turned into the House of Commons. This is great. But reclaiming my
time, I would say that the overwhelming, absolutely categorically
overwhelming majority of those in the Labor Party who are opposed to
Tony Blair resent also the fact that he is moving the party towards the
center.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would that also be true of the British
public, which was opposed to his going to the war?
Mr. KING of New York. Reclaiming my time, the beauty of Tony Blair is
unlike certain politicians he does not follow the polls. The fact is he
stands up for what is right. In the fullness of time he will be
vindicated.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I want to begin first by agreeing with the gentleman from New York
(Mr. King) that Tony Blair has been historically courageous in Northern
Ireland in helping to reconcile two sides that for 500 years have not
been able to see eye to eye, and he deserves enormous historic credit
for that. And on the issue of Iraq, but for Tony Blair, but for Tony
Blair's insistence, President Bush would have never gone to the United
Nations. It was he, Tony Blair, who made the precondition to his
support that the United States would go to the United Nations in order
to secure a vote, and for that he deserves enormous credit.
But at the same time in England, Great Britain, the Parliament right
now, there is an ongoing investigation of the information that was used
as to justification for the war in Iraq; and it is to the credit of the
Parliament, it is to the credit of Tony Blair, that he is accepting the
responsibility of the examination of the information which was used
with regard to the weapons of mass destruction that was produced by the
intelligence community in Great Britain and in the United States as a
rationale for the war. It is to the credit of Tony Blair that he is
accepting that examination.
In our country, just the opposite is the case. There are essentially
three options that the American people, the British people are now
presented with. One, that the intelligence was correct, that the
weapons of mass destruction existed, and that the weapons of mass
destruction are now in the hands of al Qaeda, Baathist separatist
activity groups, other terrorist groups, or in Syria. All of those
options are horrific and not a consequence that we thought would be a
result of this war.
Secondly, that the intelligence was plain wrong right from the
beginning. There was never any information and that they botched it
right from the beginning. That is horrible.
Or, third, that the intelligence was correct; but they were told, the
intelligence community, to change the information, to change the
information. They were told deliberately to alter it in order to argue
that there were weapons of mass destruction, that Vice President Cheney
did visit the CIA, did try to influence the intelligence community to
change the information, to leave out key documents. In Britain they are
now looking at that very issue. They are being told that the
information with regard to the uranium from Africa was not correct,
that the academic paper that was used rather than real intelligence was
wrong and should not have been relied upon. We need the same kind of
examination in our country.
There is now sufficient evidence that is being produced that there
has been a compromise of the total intelligence package that the
Congress should have had but, more importantly, that the American
people should have had as the basis of their judgment.
I voted for the resolution last October. I voted for it, and I
believe that the American people and this Congress deserve all of the
information. We need a blue ribbon commission to examine all of the
intelligence that was used. England is doing it right now. Tony Blair
is accepting that examination. We should have the courage in our own
country to give all of the information to the American public. The
intelligence in this country is right now not complete with regard to
what our government knew before we voted on the floor of this Congress.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the gentleman that there was another
option left out and that is the option that Vice President Gore spoke
about last September, that the weapons are there, the weapons are
hidden, and we will find them.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for
one question?
Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Can we anticipate a gold medal for Vice
President Gore too? Are you going to give a gold medal to Al Gore too,
anybody who helps you out?
Mr. KING of New York. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the ranking
member if he wants to introduce that legislation and obtain 290
signatures,
[[Page H5834]]
certainly we will give it consideration at that time. We are very open-
minded. We are very liberal on this side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, Members should speak for themselves about
being liberal on this side of the aisle.
Let me try to draw the debate back to what we had initially
anticipated, which was to honor Tony Blair with a Congressional Gold
Medal and discuss exactly why we were able to secure 290 co-sponsors
for this legislation. It is because Tony Blair represents all that is
good.
{time} 1145
It is because of that that the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown-
Waite), a distinguished member of our committee, introduced this
legislation and worked very hard, along with our friend, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) to gather 290 signatures, and
under the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the
chairman of the subcommittee, that we are here today. That means that
this House will go on record as supporting, with a strong bipartisan
vote, exactly what Tony Blair means to the process and what he means to
our country.
We have had a special relationship with Great Britain for so many
years, after we got the initial argument out of the way some 200 plus
years ago, and since that time have worked harmoniously with Great
Britain, no matter who was in charge over here, or who was in charge
over there. And here we have a situation where the Prime Minister of
the Labor Party is being supported by a Republican Congress and a
Republican President, because of what he brings to our relationship and
what he means to all of us.
I think all of us were thrilled when almost a week after the terrible
events of September 11, 2001, when President Bush spoke to the Nation
from this very spot and said, America has no truer friend than Great
Britain. And then, looking up to Tony Blair in the gallery right up
behind me, and said, ``Thank you for coming, friend,'' meaning not just
the Prime Minister, but all of his countrymen. That is the special
relationship that we enjoy through good times and bad with Great
Britain.
My family on my dad's side was from England, and I have a great deal
of respect for their traditions, and I certainly have a great deal of
respect for their current leadership.
So despite all of the arguments about weapons of mass destruction,
despite all of the differences that we displayed over Iraq, it was
Great Britain in the presence of Tony Blair who came to our defense. It
was Tony Blair who made a special trip over to the United States to
bring us condolences and talk about unification and working together
with Great Britain, and yes, it was Tony Blair who defied public
opinion, who did not stick his finger up in the wind and see which way
the wind was blowing, to say that he was going to do something right
and support the United States in our efforts against the brutal
dictator, Saddam Hussein.
For that and many, many other reasons, he deserves these accolades,
and he deserves this Congressional Gold Medal. I urge all of my
colleagues to support this meaningful tribute to a great world leader,
Tony Blair.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder
of my time.
Tony Blair is an embattled politician, as many people are. He will be
facing an election within some period of years from his right wing, and
he will be defending the positions that he holds. He is a strong
defender of a continuation of socialized medicine. He believes that
global warming should be addressed by international treaty. I support
the British position on allowing gay and lesbian people to serve in the
military. So there is a great deal about Tony Blair's record which
seems admirable, and I am glad to see my Republican colleagues setting
aside what might be some minor differences to them to intervene in a
British election by basically giving him this big boost. I am not sure
that their fellow conservatives in England are quite so happy.
I do want to say, though, that I differ with those who suggested that
somehow we should not have used this to debate the question of whether
or not Americans ought to know whether intelligence was misused or how
it was misused. I agree there would be better places to debate it.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has consistently done
everything possible to keep that debate off the floor. The intelligence
authorization will be coming up, and that would have been a good time
to debate it. Our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Tauscher), had an amendment that would have allowed a debate on whether
or not to have a select committee. We cannot have that debate today at
the regular ordered time because the Republican leadership ordered the
Committee on Rules to kill it.
So yes, I will agree; I saw this and said, let us use this as a
chance to at least have some debate on this issue, since the Republican
leadership will not allow it. In fact, what I most admire about Tony
Blair right now is that as the Prime Minister and the head of the House
of Commons, he has not even tried to use his control to shut off a
debate. Unlike the Republican administration and the Republican
leadership here, Tony Blair is allowing the British people and the
British political system to have a thorough debate about the extent to
which there was misuse of evidence on weapons of mass destruction, and
I envy the British. I do not just envy them the Gold Medal, I envy them
the fact that democracy is functioning in England today on this
critical question of whether and to what extent intelligence was
misused in a way that is not being allowed to happen in America.
Now, the gentleman from New York managing this bill referred to the
article by Kenneth Pollack. I will submit Mr. Pollack's article for the
Record, because he said I am sure there were weapons of mass
destruction, and he goes on in that article to be very critical of this
administration's misuse of the evidence. It is a very interesting
article, and I appreciate once again the gentleman citing it, because
he talks about very important questions about the misuse of
intelligence, the exaggeration, the manipulation. This is an
administration that argued, in part, that the weapons of mass
destruction were a major reason to go to war, and that a Rosanna Danna
Banana ``nevermind'' is not an appropriate response in a democracy.
That is what we are getting. We are getting from them bait and
switch: Let us go to war because of weapons of mass destruction, and
now it is because, well, he was a terrible man. Yes, he was a terrible
man. Terrible people are killing people in the Congo. Terrible people
run Liberia. Terrible people run Burma. If, in fact, we are going to
become the ones that go to the rescue of people misused and abused by
their government, there are a lot more that we can go to.
Weapons of mass destruction was the critical argument used to justify
a war, and it now appears that they were grossly exaggerated. The very
article by Kenneth Pollack that the gentleman from New York cited is in
fact harshly critical of this administration for its misuse of that.
So thanking Tony Blair because he came to the President's defense at
a tough time is a reasonable thing to do. Going to Tony Blair's defense
in a tough time for him, that is a reasonable thing to do. Certainly
politicians are not unused to helping each other out in tough times and
reciprocating.
But let us look at the contrast. I wish, in addition to the Gold
Medal for Tony Blair, we were doing something for the American people.
I would just propose to my friends on the other side, given your
admiration for Tony Blair, a simple proposition: Let us duplicate here
in the United States the procedures that are now being undertaken in
the British Parliament, let us give the American people the same
exposure to an open debate and investigation that the British people
are giving. Let us do something for the American people while we give
Tony Blair the Gold Medal, and thus show respect for democracy in our
own country.
(By Kenneth M. Pollack)
Washington.--Where are Iraq's weapons of mass destructions?
It's a good question, and unfortunately we don't yet have a
good answer. There is hope that the capture of Abid Hamid
Mahmoud al-Tikriti, Saddam Hussein's closet aide, will
provide the first solid
[[Page H5835]]
clues. In any event, the mystery will be solved in good time;
the search for Iraq's nonconvential weapons program has only
just begun.
In the meantime, accusations are mounting that the Bush
administration made up the whole Iraqi weapons threat to
justify an invasion. That is just not the case--America and
its allies had plenty of evidence before the war, and before
President Bush took office, indicating that Iraq was
retaining its illegal weapons programs.
As for allegations that some in the administration may have
used slanted intelligence claims in making their case against
Saddam Hussein, they seem to have merit and demand further
investigation. But if the truth was stretched, it seems to
have been done primarily to justify the timing of an
invasion, not the merits of one.
The fact that the sites we suspected of containing hidden
weapons before the war turned out to have nothing in them is
not very significant. American intelligence agencies never
claimed to know exactly where or how the Iraqis were hiding
what they had--not in 1995, not in 1999 and not six months
ago. It is very possible that the ``missing'' facilities,
weaponized agents, precursor materials and even stored
munitions all could still be hidden in places we never would
have thought to look. This is exactly why, before the war, so
few former weapons inspectors had confidence that a new round
of United Nations inspections would find the items they were
convinced Iraq was hiding.
At the heart of the mystery lies the fact that the Iraqis
do not seem to have deployed any stocks of munitions filled
with nonconventional weapons. Why did Saddam Hussein not hit
coalition troops with a barrage of chemical and biological
weapons rather than allow his regime to fall? Why did we not
find them in ammunition dumps, ready to be fired?
Actually, there are many possible explanations. Saddam
Hussein may have underestimated the likelihood of war and not
filled any chemical weapons before the invasion. He may have
been killed or gravely wounded in the ``decapitation'' strike
on the eve of the invasion and unable to give the orders. Or
he may have just been surprised by the extremely rapid pace
of the coalition's ground advance and the sudden collapse of
the Republican Guard divisions surrounding Baghdad. It is
also possible that Iraq did not have the capacity to make
the weapons, but given the prewar evidence, this is still
the least likely explanation.
The one potentially important discovery made so far by
American troops--two tractor-trailers found in April and May
that fit the descriptions of mobile germ-warfare labs given
by Iraqi defectors over the years--might well point to a
likely explanation for at least part of the mystery: Iraq may
have decided to keep only a chemical and biological warfare
production capability rather than large stockpiles of the
munitions themselves. This would square with the fact that
several dozen chemical warfare factories were rebuilt after
the first gulf war to produce civilian pharmaceuticals, but
were widely believed to be dual-use plants capable of quickly
being converted back to chemical warfare production.
In truth, this was always the most likely scenario.
Chemical and biological warfare munitions, especially the
crude varieties that Iraq developed during the Iran-Iraq War,
are dangerous to store and handle and they deteriorate
quickly. But they can be manufactured and put in warheads
relatively rapidly--meaning that there is little reason to
have thousands of filled rounds sitting around where they
might be found by international inspectors. It would have
been logical for Iraq to retain only some means of
production, which could be hidden with relative ease and then
used to churn out the munitions whenever Saddam Hussein gave
the word.
Still, no matter what the trailers turn out to be, the
failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in no ways
invalidates the prewar intelligence data indicating that Iraq
had the clandestine capacity to build them. There has long
been an extremely strong case--based on evidence that largely
predates the Bush administration--that Iraq maintained
programs in weapons of mass destruction. It was this
evidence, along with reports showing the clear failure of
United Nations efforts to impede Iraq's progress, that led
the Clinton administration to declare a policy of ``regime
change'' for Iraq in 1998.
In 1995, for example, United Nations inspectors found
Russian-made ballistic-missile gyroscopes at the bottom of
the Tigris River; Jordanian officials intercepted others
being smuggled into Iraq that same year. In July 1998,
international inspectors discovered an Iraqi document that
showed Baghdad had lied about the number of chemical bombs it
had dropped during the Iran-Iraq War, leaving some 6,000 such
weapons unaccounted for. Iraq simply refused to concede that
the document even existed.
These episodes, and others like them, explain why many
former Clinton administration officials, including myself (I
was on the staff of the National Security Council in the
90's), agreed with the Bush administration that a war would
likely be necessary to prevent Iraq from acquiring nuclear
and other weapons. We may not have agreed with the Bush
team's timing or tactics, but none of us doubted the
fundamental intelligence basis of its concerns about the
Iraqi threat.
As for the estimates the Bush administration presented
regarding Iraq's holdings of weapons-related materials, they
came from unchallenged evidence gathered by United Nations
inspectors (in many cases, from records of the companies that
sold the materials to Iraq in the first place). For instance,
Iraq admitted importing 200 to 250 tons of precursor agents
for VX nerve gas; it claimed to have destroyed these
chemicals but never proved that it had done so. Even Hans
Blix, the last head weapons inspector and a leading skeptic
of the need for an invasion, admitted that the Iraqis refused
to provide a credible accounting for these materials.
And it wasn't just the United States that was concerned
about Iraq's efforts. By 2002, British, Israeli and German
intelligence services had also concluded that Iraq was
probably far enough along in its nuclear weapons program that
it would be able to put together one or more bombs at some
point in the second half of this decade. The Germans were
actually the most fearful of all--in 2001 they leaked their
estimate that Iraq might be able to develop its first
workable nuclear device in 2004.
Nor was it just government agencies that were alarmed. In
the summer of 2002 I attended a meeting with more than a
dozen former weapons inspectors from half a dozen countries,
along with another dozen experts on Iraq's weapons programs.
Those present were asked whether they believed Iraq had a
clandestine centrifuge lab operating somewhere; everyone did.
Several even said they believed the Iraqis had a covert
calutron program going as well. (Centrifuge and calutron
operations allow a country to enrich uranium and produce the
fissile material for a nuclear bomb.)
At no point before the war did the French, the Russians,
the Chinese or any other country with an intelligence
operation capable of collecting information in Iraq say it
doubted that Baghdad was maintaining a clandestine weapons
capability. All that these countries ever disagreed with the
United States on was what to do about it.
Which raises the real crux of the slanted-intelligence
debate: the timing of the war. Why was it necessary to put
aside all of our other foreign policy priorities to go to war
with Iraq in the spring of 2003? It was always the hardest
part of the Bush administration's argument to square with the
evidence. And, distressingly, there seems to be more than a
little truth to claims that some members of the
administration skewed, exaggerated and even distorted raw
intelligence to coax the American people and reluctant
allies into going to war against Iraq this year.
Before the war, some administration officials clearly
tended to emphasize in public only the most dire aspects of
the intelligence agencies' predictions. For example, of
greatest importance were the estimates of how close Iraq was
to obtaining a nuclear weapon. The major Western intelligence
services essentially agreed that Iraq could acquire one or
more nuclear bombs within about four to six years. However,
all also indicated that it was possible Baghdad might be able
to do so in as few as one or two years if, and only if, it
were able to acquire fissile materials on the black market.
This latter prospect was not very likely. The Iraqis has
been trying to buy fissile material since the 1970's and had
never been able to do so. Nevertheless, some Bush
administration officials chose to stress that one-to-two-year
possibility rather than the more likely four-to-six year
scenario. Needless to say, if the public felt Iraq was still
several years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon rather
than just a matter of months, there probably would have been
much less support for war this spring.
Moreover, before the war I heard many complaints from
friends still in government that some Bush officials were
mounting a ruthless campaign over intelligence estimates. I
was told that when government analysts wrote cautious
assessments of Iraq's capabilities, they were grilled and
forced to go to unusual lengths to defend their judgments and
some were chastised for failing to come to more alarming
conclusions. None of this is illegal, but it was perceived as
an attempt to browbeat analysts into either changing their
estimates for shutting up and ceding the field to their more
hawkish colleagues.
More damning than the claims of my former colleagues has
been some of the investigative reporting done since the war.
Particularly troubling are reports that the administration
knew its contention that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from
Niger was based on forged documents. If true, it would be a
serious indictment of the administration's handling of the
war.
As important as this debate is, what may ultimately turn
out to be the biggest concern over the Iraqi weapons program
is the question of whose hands it is now in. If we do confirm
that those two trailers are mobile biological warfare labs,
we are faced with a tremendous problem. If the defectors'
reports about the rates at which such mobile labs were
supposedly constructed are correct, there are probably 22
more trailers still out there. Where are they? Syria? Iran?
Jordan? Still somewhere in Iraq? Or have they found their way
into the hands of those most covetous--Osama bin Laden and
his confederates?
Nor can we allow our consideration of weapons of mass
destruction and politicized intelligence to be a distraction
from the most important task at hand: rebuilding Iraq.
History may forgive the United States if we don't find the
arsenal we thought we
[[Page H5836]]
would. No one will forgive us if we botch the reconstruction
and leave Iraq a worse mess than we found it.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to celebrate the purpose of the
Medal, which is the great leadership of Tony Blair. The world needs
civilized leaders. The world is a scary place. There are a lot of
things going on, and all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for
good men to do nothing. Good men are not infallible. Mistakes can be
made. But good men acting on good judgment, doing the best they can
with what they have is what we are celebrating here today.
Tony Blair as Prime Minister has been a great friend to our country,
which has a special relationship, of course, with the United Kingdom,
of which we are very proud, and an especially strong relationship in
the area of intelligence. He has been a great friend with President
Clinton when he was President of our country, and with President Bush.
Who is currently the President of our country.
I think that friendship has gone through a lot of activity in the
past several years, and Tony Blair has been there standing strong. He
is a proud person to be associated with, in my view. I am pleased that
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown-Waite), the gentleman from New
York (Chairman King), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and
others have had the good sense to bring this forward at this time, and
I thank them for doing it, and I urge strong support.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As I said at the outset, it is a great honor for me personally to be
able to stand here and move this legislation today. I must say that I
am sure some of my Irish ancestors are appreciating the improbability
of this moment that I would be making such an impassioned defense for a
British Prime Minister.
The fact is, Tony Blair transcends national politics. He transcends
pettiness and partisanship, and that is what we have tried to do here.
Yes, obviously, there are differences between Members on this side of
the aisle and certain policies of Tony Blair. We are not talking about
his policies per se; we are talking about his courage, we are talking
about his unique sense of dedication to democratic values and the fact
that he is such a close ally of the United States, and that does
transcend whatever differences there may be, and that should also
transcend whatever differences we might have in recognizing the
greatness of an individual and realizing the uniqueness of a very
special relationship.
But, if I could just add in closing, because I know there is going to
be a record of this and we have gone over different debates, I would
just thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for introducing the full
column by Mr. Pollack. I would stand by that, and I would say that
anyone reading that, any balanced person reading that would see that as
an affirmation that weapons of mass destruction did indeed exist, and
also honest differences as far as nuclear weapons. It is all there. I
will allow the public to look at that, to read it, and come to their
judgment. It certainly went far beyond as far as being reasoned, as far
as being rational, some of the overheated rhetoric that has been coming
forth from others here. And that to me is the type of debate we should
be having, an intelligent debate.
Also, I would say there is a difference between a parliamentary
system and the system that we have. Indeed we fought a revolution in
1776 to establish our type of government.
But in conclusion, let us get back to the main point. Tony Blair is a
unique world leader, an outstanding world leader, a long and dear and
absolutely loyal friend of the United States. For that, Mr. Speaker, he
deserves this Gold Medal as much as any world leader ever has. I stand
with him. I would hope that the overwhelming majority of this Congress
would stand with him, stand with the United States Senate in
acknowledging the uniqueness and the unique loyalty and sense of
courage that Tony Blair has demonstrated.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
{time} 1200
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would be willing to stand with the
Senate on this if we could stand with them on the child tax credit. Can
we make some kind of deal here on standing with the Senate?
Mr. KING of New York. Reclaiming my time, I would say that when Tony
Blair is here, that if we can arrange a private meeting with the
ranking member from Massachusetts, I am sure he can impart unique
wisdom to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and that would really
mean that the Prime Minister has earned his gold medal.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
legislation for a number of reasons. First, to force the American
people to pay tens of thousands of dollars to give a gold medal to a
foreign leader is immoral and unconstitutional. I will continue in my
uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the
enumerated powers of the Constitution--a Constitution that each member
of Congress swore to uphold.
Second, though these gold medals are an unconstitutional
appropriation of American tax dollars, at least in the past we have
awarded them to great humanitarians and leaders like Mother Theresa,
President Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and others. These medals have
generally been proposed to recognize a life of service and leadership,
and not for political reasons--as evidenced by the overwhelming
bipartisan support for awarding President Reagan, a Republican, a gold
medal. That these awards have generally gone to these types of
otherwise deserving individuals is why I have many times offered to
contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other Members, to
finance these medals.
I sense that this current proposal is different, however. No one is
claiming that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has given a lifetime of
humanitarian service like Mother Theresa, or demonstrated the
historical leadership of a Ronald Reagan. No one suggests that British
Prime Minister, leading the avowedly socialist Labour Party, has
embraced American values such as freedom and limited governments and
imported those to Great Britain--as Margaret Thatcher had attempted
before him. No, Tony Blair is being proposed for his medal for one
reason: he provided political support when international allies were
sought in advance of America's attack on Iraq. Does this overtly
political justification for awarding this medal not cheapen both the
medal itself and the achievements of those who have been awarded it
previously?
I find it particularly odd that this Republican-controlled Congress
would nominate one such as Tony Blair to receive this award. His
political party is socialist: Britain under Blair has a system of
socialized medicine and government intervention in all aspects of the
commercial and personal lives of its citizens. Socialism is an enemy of
freedom and liberty--as the 20th century taught us so well. It is the
philosophical basis of a century of mass-murder and impoverishment.
In May, a British television poll found that Prime Minister Blair is
the most unpopular man in Great Britain. A brief look at his rules
leaves little question why this is so. He has eroded Britain's
constitutional base--recently abolishing the ancient position of Lord
Chancellor without any debate. He has overseen a massive expansion of
government with the creation of costly ``assemblies'' in Wales and
Scotland. He has also overseen changes in Britain's voting system that
many have claimed has opened the door to widespread voting fraud. In
short, he is no Margaret Thatcher and certainly no Winston Churchill.
Yet today Congress is voting to give him its highest honor.
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to be generous with the people's money.
I believe the politicization of this medal, as we are seeing here
today, really makes my own point on such matters: Congress should not
be spending the people's money for appropriations not authorized within
the enumerated powers of the Constitution. When it does so, it charts a
dangerous course away from the rule of law and away from liberty. I
urge a ``no'' vote on this unfortunate bill.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
1511, to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Tony Blair, Prime
Minister of Great Britain.
The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor Congress can bestow
to civilians and foreign leaders in recognition of their outstanding
and enduring contributions to the
[[Page H5837]]
United States. It is fitting that we consider Prime Minister Blair for
this award in the wake of a challenging and historic period for our two
nations.
Upon the terrorist attacks of September 11, Prime Minister Blair was
the first leader to rush to America's side to provide assistance. His
expression of solidarity assured us that we were not alone in the world
as a victim of terrorism, and that attacks on our soil were also as
assault on the sovereignty of Great Britain, which lost more of its own
citizens in the World Trade Center than any other foreign nation. In a
very difficult time for our country, Mr. Blair has courageously
demonstrated that the U.K. is our staunchest and most steadfast ally by
helping us lead the coalition of democratic nations in the defense of
our mutual security from terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction.
Together with Great Britain we have made progress toward dismantling
the global network of state sponsored terrorism. However, despite
considerable public opposition and political fallout in his own
country, Prime Minister Blair never wavered from his commitment to the
United States and the international coalition to determine whether the
existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq presented an imminent
threat to its neighbors and our troops based on the Middle East. Under
the Prime Minister's leadership, Great Britain contributed troops and
meaningful support for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.
As British troops fought shoulder to shoulder with American troops in
Iraq, Mr. Blair made it clear all along that the U.K. shared our values
and principles for the mission, particularly when he said, ``We go to
liberate not conquer . . . and the only flag which will be flown in
that ancient land is their own.''
Mr. Speaker, I applaud Prime Minister Tony Blair's extraordinary
leadership and his nation's enduring commitment to our mutual support
of liberty and democracy. I am proud to support H.R. 1511 to authorize
the President, on behalf of Congress, to award the Gold Medal to Prime
Minister Blair. I also wish to thank the people of Great Britain, the
members of the royal armed forces, and their families for their shared
commitment and many sacrifices for the preservation of democracy and
liberty in a world allied against terror.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is with great
disappointment that I cannot be present today to speak and vote in
favor of H.R. 1511, a bill to award Prime Minister Tony Blair the
Congressional Gold Medal. I introduced this legislation on March 31 and
have since been working with my colleagues to obtain the necessary 290
cosponsors for floor action. I would like to commend Chairman Oxley and
the Financial Services Committee, as well as Rep. Richard Baker and
Rep. Carolyn Maloney for their tireless efforts in getting this bill to
the floor today.
As we emerge successfully from Operation Iraqi Freedom, it is
important to remember that we did not fight this war alone. The brave
men and women of the British military have fought and died, side by
side, with our American soldiers. Just yesterday, 6 British soldiers
were killed in an attack north of Basra. Great Britain, under the
leadership of Tony Blair, has paid the ultimate sacrifice.
Prime Minister Blair has ignored political expediency and risked his
own career to stand up for what he knows is right. Operation Iraqi
Freedom has freed millions of Iraqis from the oppression of Saddam
Hussein's brutal dictatorship. The Operation has ousted a regime bent
on securing and then distributing weapons of mass destruction to those
who would use them against the United States, our friends, and the
people of Iraq. Despite attempts by many of our ``allies'' to thwart
this noble effort, Prime Minister Blair and Great Britain have remained
strong and active players in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I am deeply honored to play a role in awarding Prime Minister Tony
Blair the Congressional Gold Medal and I thank my colleagues in the
House of Representatives for joining me.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend British Prime
Minister Tony Blair.
I am proud to be a consponsor of this legislation to award Mr. Blair
with the Congressional Gold Medal. I would like to recognize Mr.
Blair's--and Britain's--longstanding staunch support of our nation's
democratic ideals.
Whether one supported or opposed the war in Iraq, it is true that
under Blair's leadership, Britain has provided extensive military
support in the war in Iraq. He has argued passionately and consistently
about the threats Saddam Hussein posed in the Persian Gulf and
ultimately to the Western world. Honoring Prime Minister Blair with the
Congressional Gold Medal would be a fitting tribute to him, the people
of Great Britain, and the thousands of British troops who fought
valiantly alongside American soldiers in Iraq. We now have a historic
opportunity to reaffirm our Nation's friendship with Great Britain, and
our mutual commitment to freedom and democracy.
I hope that the occasion of Mr. Blair being awarded the Congressional
Gold Medal will be an opportunity to invite Mr. Blair to address a
joint session of Congress. I have worked with my colleague Mr. Royce to
encourage our Congressional leaders to invite Mr. Blair to do so, and I
can think of no occasion more fitting. In light of Mr. Blair's enduring
friendship with the United States, I look forward to hearing his views
on the future of Iraq and the Middle East.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1511.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________