[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 137 (Wednesday, October 1, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9096-H9104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SECURING THE PEACE IN IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to open an
important discussion before the Congress on the topic of securing the
peace in Iraq.
I am going to be brief in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, because we
have some colleagues here who want to participate in this debate and
who have other obligations. But let me simply start by saying that I
believe it is absolutely essential for this Nation, now that we have
deposed Saddam Hussein, to rebuild that country and to secure for them
the peace. And what I mean by that is that it is simply not adequate in
this world we live in today to get rid of a dictator like Saddam
Hussein and then walk away. Tragically, America has done that all too
often in its foreign policy, with disastrous consequences.
There will be discussion on the floor here tonight in the course of
this debate of how we did that after World War I. We not only walked
away, but we demanded reparations. The result was the rise of an
atrocious dictatorship in Germany and another world war.
I want to point to another example just briefly here at the outset of
this
[[Page H9097]]
debate. When we helped the people of Afghanistan fight off the Russian
invaders, the Soviet invaders in their country, we did the right thing.
But sadly, tragically, when that effort ended, and the Soviet Union
retreated from Afghanistan and turned it back over to the people of
Afghanistan, we simply walked away and we did not help them rebuild
their nation. We did not help them set up an economy. The result was
absolutely disastrous. It was the Taliban regime that we have now
deposed.
I know firsthand the situation in Afghanistan today. I was there a
year ago August. I know firsthand the situation in Iraq, because I
spent 3 days inside Iraq just this last August, and I learned a great
deal. I went to several different parts of the country. And it is
absolutely critical that we not just depose Saddam Hussein but that we
help the people of Iraq to structure a functioning government. That
will pay dividends for years to come.
{time} 1845
I want to not only talk in this hour about the importance of having
deposed Saddam Hussein and now securing the peace by aiding the people
of Iraq, but why it is a bad idea to demand that this be repaid out of
oil proceeds or to demand that this be a loan from the American
Government.
There may be times when we need to make loans. I think right now the
aid that the President has asked for should be given as a grant,
because I think it is critical for us to demonstrate not just to the
people of Iraq, but to all of the people of the Middle East, indeed the
Muslim world, that when the United States injects itself as we did in
Iraq and deposes a terrible leader like Saddam Hussein, the United
States then follows through with its commitment and keeps its word.
Mr. Speaker, with that as kind of an introduction, I yield to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock).
Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I recently joined 10 other Members of
Congress to visit our troops and those working to restore peace to
Iraq. What I saw there was absolutely amazing. There are many good and
positive changes occurring in Iraq almost daily. The most remarkable
and appreciated fact is the fact that Saddam Hussein is no longer in
power. He clearly made the Iraqi people live in horrible fear.
Five miles from the historic city of Babylon we visited one of the 59
mass graves which has been discovered, which contained the remains of
3,000 Iraqis. To date, 2,100 have been identified and returned to their
families for burial. There are still 900 unclaimed bodies in clear view
of where we stood which await identification and a proper burial by
their families.
There are a total of 300,000 missing Iraqis. With each new discovery
of another mass grave, that number shrinks, bringing closure to many
families.
The bright spot in this bleak description are the men and women in
our military who not only liberated Iraq, but work every single day to
bring peace and prosperity to this deserving country. Our men and women
have repaired the power system so now light and air conditioning abound
throughout Iraq. The sanitation and water systems that were in total
disarray just 3 months ago are becoming more and more operational each
and every day. Our men and women in uniform are reopening schools so
all Iraqi children can attend school. Our troops have rebuilt and
reopened the police academy in Baghdad so the Iraqis can be trained to
provide for their own safety and their own security.
Everyone in America should be proud of what our troops are doing
there. They are the best, and there are none better anywhere in the
world. They do their jobs in intense heat under the most difficult
circumstances, and they do it because it is the right thing to do; and
they will tell you that as well. Every Iraqi we talked to thanked us
and told us to thank President Bush when we saw him next. To a person,
they all begged us not to leave their country too early. That is their
greatest fear, the fear that we will cut and run.
This $87 billion supplemental is a tremendous investment in our
future security. It will sustain our military forces in the war on
terrorism and invest in the future of Iraq and, consequently, the
future stability of the entire Middle East. The stakes are too high for
us to fail.
Remember, only $20.3 billion of the supplemental spending request is
for Iraq. It seems that the 10 Democratic Presidential nominees have
either failed to look at the details of the President's proposal, or
they are purposely misleading the American people into thinking all $87
billion is for the reconstruction in Iraq. Only $20.3 billion is for
Iraq. The rest is to support our military in the war on terrorism.
The Vice President has said that in no way, shape or form will funds
provided by the United States be used to pay foreign debts from the
Saddam Hussein era in Iraq. The Iraqi Governing Council has asked the
World Bank to assist in developing a proper accounting of their foreign
debt. It is estimated to be about $120 billion. The Governing Council
feels strongly that governments that knowingly lend money to a sadistic
dictator such as Saddam Hussein to buy weapons and oppress his people
do not deserve to have that money paid back.
There are key members of the Iraqi Governing Council who propose to
repudiate all foreign debt from that era since that money was used to
buy weapons and oppress the Iraqi people, and we should strongly
support that policy.
We must continue to encourage the development of functioning local
institutions in Iraq, not dependency on foreign administrators. This
will take time and persistence. To transfer power before governmental
institutions have properly developed would be reckless and dangerous.
What matters most in developing states such as Iraq is leaders and law,
not aid. The Iraqi Governing Council is committed to developing a
constitution that creates a secular, democratic, strong federal
government which embodies principles of equality for all Iraqis. They
have already passed some of the most progressive laws in the Middle
East in terms of encouraging foreign investment, allowing for dual
citizenship, and establishing income and corporate tax structures, but
it is too early to turn over control completely to the Iraqis.
In the short term, we must continue to increase the level of
involvement of the Iraqi people in three key areas: security, control
of money raised by oil revenues, and empowering them to represent
themselves in world forums, such as OPEC and the United Nations. We
will retain control of the funding that is provided in the
supplemental. We have made unprecedented progress, and we must continue
to be patient and stay the course.
There are many examples of our success to date. Approximately 5,000
small businesses have opened in Iraq since May 1, and an Iraqi central
bank has been established. This took 3 years in postwar Germany. Almost
all major hospitals and universities have been reopened, and hundreds
of secondary schools will start school this fall.
An Iraqi Governing Council has been formed and appointed a cabinet of
ministers. This took 14 months in postwar Germany. A 56,000 person
security force has been armed and trained, and is contributing to Iraqi
security. This took 14 months in postwar Germany.
There is still a tremendous security challenge, but more troops are
not the answer. The Iraqis are eager to be responsible for their own
security. Once the coalition trains Iraqis to be responsible for the
governance and security of their own country, then we will be able to
leave.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Marshall) on a fantastic op-ed piece that he wrote, which ran in
today's Washington Post. The gentleman emphasized that the version of
events that we see each day on the news is distorted and heavily skewed
towards destruction and death and not the birth of a new nation that is
taking place.
I want to quote from Jim's op-ed. ``We not only need Iraqi tips and
intelligence, we need Iraqis fighting by our side and eventually
assuming full responsibility for their internal security.'' He says,
``Many in Washington view the contest for the Presidency and control of
Congress as a sum-zero game without external costs and benefits.
Politicians and activists from both parties reflexively embellish news
that is bad for the opposition, but to do that with regard to Iraq
harms our troops and our efforts. Concerning Iraq, this normal
political tripe can impose a heavy external cost.''
[[Page H9098]]
I agree with the gentleman from Georgia and commend him for his
vision and candor. American journalists in Iraq have freely admitted
that their editors are not interested in printing good news from Iraq,
but only reporting on death and destruction. Those editors are doing a
tremendous disservice not only to their readers, but to every American
serving in Iraq, to the Iraqi people and to our country. We must tell
the story of the successes as well as the setbacks.
There is still a long way to go in Iraq, but there are thousands of
dedicated, intelligent and educated Iraqis eager to assume leadership
roles and be responsible for the future of their country. They
desperately need our help.
Our credibility, our security and the security of the Middle East are
tightly linked to their success. We must stay the course and provide
the support needed. The return on our investment is stability,
democracy and partnership. The failure of our efforts is too
frightening to contemplate.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the President's
requests for additional funding for Iraq. It is absolutely essential.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful
comments and I appreciate the gentleman participating in this
discussion tonight. I know that the gentleman has family obligations,
but his attendance here speaks to how important he thinks this topic
is.
I also thank the gentleman for pointing out that only $20.3 billion,
not the entire $87 billion, is dedicated to reconstructing Iraq. And I
also think it is important that we listen to his comments about the
Interim Governing Council and the fact that they are making progress,
but this money is going to be spent by Americans right now, and I think
to assert that although Americans are spending this money, the Iraqis
ought to repay it seems unfair.
I also commend the gentleman about Iraqi involvement and
responsibility. At the end of the day, this is an Iraqi responsibility
and ultimately we have to get those people involved in recreating their
nation, and I very much appreciate the gentleman's comments. I also
appreciate him pointing out that this is a bipartisan discussion; and
our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) has written
and spoken on this topic, and I think he will join us in this
discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I went to Iraq this August and spent time there.
Interesting in this debate, people who have been to Iraq and seen what
is on the ground tend to support the President's position. Those who
are critical tend to be those who have not been there.
Ambassador Bremer, I think, laid the groundwork by these remarks in a
hearing just last month. He said the $20.3 billion in grants to Iraq
the President is seeking as part of this $57 billion supplemental speed
the grandeur of vision equal to the one which created the free world at
the end of World War II. What he is referring to is the Marshall Plan,
and I think for Americans to understand this discussion, they need to
understand this aid, put in perspective.
As I mentioned earlier, at the end of World War I, we walked away.
Indeed, we demanded reparations. We did not help Europe rebuild. That
resulted in Hitler and another world war following that. But following
World War II, we changed our policy rather dramatically, and we
understood that rebuilding Europe was critically important. That was
the Marshall Plan.
This second graph shows in current dollars that the Marshall Plan was
dramatically more expensive than we are talking about in the
President's request here. I think it is vitally important for the
people of America to understand that if we are being asked to put up
this money to rebuild Iraq, how does that compare to our prior
experiences.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for doing this
special order, and maybe we can have a dialogue.
The gentleman, myself, along with a couple of our other colleagues
had the opportunity to spend 3 days in Iraq in August. I had an
opportunity to go back in September to complement that trip and see
some things we were not able to see in August; and in coming back,
there are some things we agreed on.
Number one, we agreed on the quality of our troops. We have very,
very talented young men and women who fought a war in Iraq and now are
providing the security zone to allow this country to restructure
itself.
Mr. SHADEGG. Not just their quality, their enthusiasm. They are
committed to this task. They can see in the faces of the Iraqi people
that they are trying to help every day what it is doing for that
country and for their people.
Quite frankly, I think if every Member of Congress were to go to
Iraq, and for that matter, I urge the administration to take business
leaders, take average Americans over there, let them see when we help
the Iraqis by fixing a well that is no longer working or by opening a
school that is no longer functioning, and we will discuss education
later in this Special Order, when we do that, the faces of those people
light up. And these are people embracing the concept of freedom and
democracy for the first time.
When we look into the eyes of our troops and soldiers, they know we
are enabling these people to be free for the first time and to
understand prosperity for the first time. I could not agree more with
the gentleman's comments.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, the media is portraying a very different
story regarding what is going on in Iraq than what we saw. There is no
doubt that Iraq is still a dangerous place. At least it was in August,
it was in September, and it probably still is today. But as we flew
over the city of Baghdad there were cars, buses and trucks on the
streets. There was commerce. Much of the city of Baghdad was
functioning.
We met with a couple of divisional military commanders who talked
about the thousands of projects that they had going on, rebuilding
schools, cleaning irrigation ditches, working on clinics, and they
talked about the progress that they were making. We met with a number
of talented people.
The second trip I had over there I met with Peter McPherson, who is
the president of Michigan State. He is now back at Michigan State. He
was kind of the shadow finance minister. I asked him, what about the
plans? You guys did not have a plan for reconstruction.
He said, What do you mean we did not have a plan? Did you see our
currency collapse? No.
He said there was a debate about whether Iraq should keep this
currency that had Saddam Hussein's picture on it. He said, we made a
conscious decision, we planned to keep that currency because we did not
want the currency to collapse, we did not want a run on the banks.
Commerce continued in Iraq after the war.
{time} 1900
The plan is in place. They now have a tax code, 15 percent top rate.
They have a tariff structure, and they also now have one of the most
progressive foreign investment laws in the Middle East. They have
thought through all those things. Now they are working with the Iraqi
Governing Council to implement it.
Another individual from Michigan who was kind of their shadow health
care minister, he said, ``What do you mean, no plan? Did you see a
breakout of malaria? Did you see a breakout of cholera or diarrheal
diseases after the war? That is very typical after you have had a
military conflict.
``Those things did not happen. We had plans in place to try to
prevent that, and we were successful in preventing those things from
happening. We kept the clinics open. We kept the hospitals open. The
doctors kept coming to work. We were able to treat the people. There
were plans in place. We have got talented people who have run major
universities, major businesses, major sectors of this country who are
now helping put Iraq together.''
Does that mean everything has worked perfectly? Absolutely not. But
these folks have a plan, they are implementing the plan and as they get
new information they are adjusting it.
Mr. SHADEGG. I could not agree with the gentleman more. Certainly I
think it is helpful to hear those kinds of comments. And understand
when I said at the outset of this special order
[[Page H9099]]
that we want to discuss securing the peace, maybe that confuses people,
but for the average American what I mean is, we are in a war, a war on
terrorism; and the battleground of that war is a war to win the hearts
and minds right now, first and foremost, of the Iraqi people.
We cannot win their hearts and minds if, for example, they do not
have electricity to cool or air-condition their homes and it is 140
degrees out. We cannot win their hearts and minds and tell them we have
a better system for them if, for example, they cannot get gasoline to
run their cars.
There has been some complaining about the President wanting to send
refined fuels into Iraq. Why do we need to do that? They do not have
gasoline to run their automobiles to conduct their business lives. We
saw that great progress has been made, but the aid the President is
seeking now is so that more progress can be made. I commend the
gentleman for his thoughts.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Let me add one thing. I do have another commitment. A
lot of our colleagues are here tonight. That is great to see.
Mr. SHADEGG. I am thrilled to see so many of them here. I have got to
get them all on.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. We talked about the horrors of Saddam. I will give you
one of the ones that I have not seen published anywhere, but that I
heard on my last trip.
I had the opportunity to go through the Ministry of Health. Then I
had the opportunity to go through a hospital. We have heard about the
mass graves, the slaughter of the Kurds and all of these types of
folks. The one anecdote that somebody asked if I had heard about, they
said, have you heard about our cornea transplant policy in Iraq? I
said, no. He said, all the cornea transplants were done on Monday and
Thursday. Executions were done Sunday night and Wednesday night.
Just one other example and these are stories that come from the
Iraqis.
These folks are thankful that this man is gone. They are thankful
that we are there, and they want us to stay because they trust us a
whole lot more than they trust the U.N. We put together a good
coalition in a very difficult situation, and as demonstrated by our
colleagues here tonight, there are a whole lot of folks who have a lot
more to add to this because we are going out and we are getting a
complete picture by having this many Members participating in the
debate, but also spending the time over in Iraq and everybody picking
up their own little gems of information to give us a complete picture.
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman. Without further ado, because we
do have so many Members who want to participate, let me yield to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I appreciate so much the opportunity to
be here tonight. I want to thank the gentleman for his efforts because
he cares about the people of Iraq. He cares about the people of
America, because that is what we are talking about, the security of the
people of the United States.
We are in a war against terrorism. It began, not of our own making,
on September 11, 2001. We are responding to a very vicious enemy, being
the terrorists who have determined that the targets of their attack are
the people of the United States. And so I thank you for doing this.
I additionally want to point out that the people who are here
tonight, this is the largest outpouring I have ever seen of people who
are genuinely concerned about our country, about the war on terrorism.
I also want to point out that I particularly appreciate your pointing
out the situation of how we assisted in the redevelopment of Germany
after World War II. That is exactly what we are doing right now.
The reason that we redeveloped Germany was not to show any
appreciation of the war that they brought upon the world during World
War II, but it was to redevelop Germany so it would not be a breeding
ground for Communists because that is where we were. We were getting
ready, as we all knew, to go into the Cold War. And we were able to
redevelop Germany, and then we were able to defeat the Communists.
The exact same principle is at hand here. We are trying to redevelop
Iraq so that we can avoid Iraq continuing, it already has been, now we
need to stop it, as a breeding ground, a country that supported or
harbored terrorists, because we are in a war against terrorism. We
defeated communism. We can defeat terrorism thanks to the efforts of
the people who are here tonight.
It is really very heartwarming that the opportunity I had, I returned
2 weeks ago from the visit to Iraq. This was a trip put together, a
congressional delegation, by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton),
the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, and one of the
very fine persons with us was the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Marshall).
I want to congratulate him on his courage. He has been very outspoken
in what he saw in Iraq. He saw the progress that the American forces
and the coalition forces from all over the world, from 32 countries
that are serving in Iraq.
In fact, in today's Washington Post, I would like to commend him, and
he will be appearing apparently in a few minutes, on an op-ed which
appeared in today's Washington Post. He had an excellent op-ed in the
Atlanta Constitution. I just want to read one part. I do not mean to
preempt his ability to speak this evening, but the gentleman from
Georgia indicated, ``I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve
for myself the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and
optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that
the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality.''
Mr. Speaker, the text of the op-ed is as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 1, 2003]
Don't Play Politics on Iraq
(By Jim Marshall)
My first trip to a combat zone occurred in 1969. I was a
21-year-old staff sergeant, naive as hell, a freshly trained
Army Ranger who had left Princeton University to volunteer
for ground combat in Vietnam. I vividly recall feeling way
out of step with my Ivy League colleagues.
Well, that same out-of-step feeling is back. But this time
it's about Iraq and involves some of my professional
colleagues, political leaders and activists who carelessly
using words, and phrases such as ``quagmire,'' ``our failure
in Iraq,'' ``this is just another Vietnam,'' or the ``Bush
administration has no plan.''
I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself
the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and
optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no
doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality.
Our news coverage disproportionately dwells on the deaths,
mistakes and setbacks suffered by coalition forces. Some will
attribute this to a grand left-wing conspiracy, but a more
plausible explanation is simply the tendency of our new media
to focus on bad news. It sells. Few Americans think local
news coverage fairly captures the essence of daily life and
progress in their hometowns. Coverage from Iraq is no
different.
Falsely bleak Iraq news circulating in the United States is
a serious problem for coalition forces because it discourages
Iraqi cooperation, the key to our ultimate success or
failure, a daily determinant of life or death for American
soldiers. As one example, coalition forces are now
discovering nearly 50 percent of the improvised explosive
devices through tips. Guess how they discover the rest.
We not only need Iraqi tips and intelligence, we need
Iraqis fighting by our side and eventually assuming full
responsibility for their internal security. But Iraqis have
not forgotten the 1991 Gulf War. America encouraged the
Shiites to rebel, then abandoned them to be slaughtered. I
visited one of the mass graves, mute testimony to the
wisdom of being cautious about relying on American
politicians to live up to their commitments.
For Iraqis, news of America's resolve is critical to any
decision to cooperate with coalition forces, a decision that
can lead to death. Newspaper start-up ventures and sales of
satellite dishes absolutely exploded following the collapse
of Saddam Hussein's regime. With this on top of the Internet,
Iraqis do get the picture from America--literally.
Many in Washington view the contest for the presidency and
control of Congress as a zero-sum game without external costs
or benefits. Politicians and activists in each party
reflexively celebrate, spread and embellish news that is bad
for the opposition. But to do that now with regard to Iraq
harms our troops and our effort. Concerning Iraq, this normal
political tripe can impose a heavy external cost.
It is too soon to determine whether Iraqis will step
forward to secure their own freedom. For now, responsible
Democrats should carefully avoid using the language of
failure. It is false. It endangers our troops and our effort.
It can be unforgivably self-fulfilling.
Democratic candidates for the presidency should repeatedly
hammer home their support, if elected, for helping the Iraqi
people
[[Page H9100]]
secure their own freedom. It is fine for each to contend that
he or she is a better choice for securing victory in Iraq.
But in making this argument, care should be taken not to
dwell on perceived failures of the current team or plan.
Americans, with help from commentators and others, will
decide this for themselves.
Instead of being negative about Iraq, Democratic
presidential candidates should emphasize the positive aspects
of their own plans for Iraq. Save the negative attacks for
the issues of jobs and the economy. Iraqis are far less
likely to support the coalition effort if they think America
might withdraw following the 2004 election.
Finally, no better signal of our commitment to this effort
could currently be provided than for Congress to quickly
approve, with little dissent or dithering, the president's
request for an additional $87 billion for Iraq and
Afghanistan. Of course no one wants to spend such a sum. But
it is well worth it if it leads to a stable, secular
representative government in Iraq, something that could
immeasurably improve our future national security.
I minored in journalism at Washington & Lee University, and I served
as a reporter for the Post and Courier in Charleston, South Carolina.
What I have seen in Iraq is really sad, and that is that the level of
news reporting has been of the police blotter, and that is that in lieu
of covering what is going on in a community, a country, a State or a
capital, what has occurred is that the reporters have gone to the
police station, gotten the very negative reporting of incidents of
violence, level of violence, and then reported that as the news. That
is inappropriate. I would hope that they would cover the positive.
I brought some indications, I feel like show and tell tonight, but I
brought several items that I want to show that I believe indicate the
progress.
First of all, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) has been so good
in bringing to our attention earlier today on the floor of Congress
that the schools have reopened today, October 1, 2003, in Iraq. This is
very significant. Many of the schools were closed, particularly in
communities that did not support Saddam Hussein. Thanks to the work,
the civil action projects of the American military, the schools have
reopened.
By American standards, we would be appalled. These are one-room
schoolhouses that have been repainted; we are not talking about elegant
schoolhouses, but they reopened today. When they did reopen, the
teachers and the students were given tablets so they could write on
them what they learned and what they were having the ability to learn.
For the first time, they were in classrooms where they were not given
propaganda. The propaganda in subliminal messages on the mathematics
were how evil the Western world is, how evil the American people were.
Now they know that there is an open society in the United States and in
the Western democracies, and it is one that can be positive for the
people of Iraq.
I am excited. Today is a big day for the people of Iraq. Over 1.5
million students have received the new textbooks and the new book bags
to carry and go to school.
Another indication of progress is the money itself of Iraq. Those of
us in South Carolina are very proud that George Wolfe, who is the
general counsel of the U.S. Department of Treasury, is serving with the
Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq in one of Saddam's palaces.
What they are doing is that on October 15, 2 weeks from today, they
will be turning in the money which is currently in Iraq and they will
be, first of all, deleting the dictator Saddam Hussein's picture, and
the new money will be issued.
It will be dinars. It will be from what we have learned from prior
experience, and that is, it will not be currency manipulation; the
people will receive dinar per dinar. It will be of the new money. It is
being done at 150 locations in a very large country, 26 million people
throughout the country to turn in the money, and Saddam Hussein will be
gone in terms of the money. That is very important.
A final point in my show and tell tonight, it was very exciting for
me to be with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller)
to visit the reopening of the Kisik Oil Refinery. This is very
significant. It is in the northern part of the country. The person who
really coordinated this is General David Petraeus of the 101st Airborne
Division.
They had the opportunity, again just 2 weeks ago, of reopening this
refinery. It had closed 4 years ago; under the dictatorship of Saddam
Hussein, the refinery had closed. But it was reopened. Now we have
production of gasoline and kerosene which will be used by the people of
northern Iraq, it will be traded to the country of Syria. Syria was so
confident of all things, and that had not been identified as one of the
countries that has been favorable to us, but Syria actually provided,
by way of barter, electricity several weeks ago, anticipating the
opening of the refinery so that this electricity could be forwarded
into northern Iraq, which is already democratically operating and
operating fully, and it will be sent to Baghdad.
And so we saw firsthand tremendous progress. I want the American
people to know the progress that has been made, how much we appreciate
the sacrifices of the Armed Forces that are serving there, the
competence of their leadership and themselves; and for the family
members who have young people serving in Iraq, the equipment that is
there, the technology to protect our troops. And I say that as a parent
of three people in the military, as a retiree 2 months ago yesterday of
31 years in the Army National Guard.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for his leadership
as we bring this. It should not be, but it seems to be new news to the
people of the United States.
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for his comments in support of
this effort. I know that he believes deeply, as I do, that we have an
obligation, having thrown out Saddam, as was needed to be done, a
terrible dictator, to now help the Iraqi people. I think his
illustrations of what we have done have helped.
Quite frankly, when I do these special orders, I like to have them be
a discussion between several people, back and forth. Stunningly, we
have so many people here tonight that it is almost not possible to
follow that form.
One of our colleagues is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). He
is here, and I know he feels passionately that we need to rebuild Iraq,
that the President is going in the right direction and that it is
indeed a mandate in history, that this has lifelong consequences for
our war against terror.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be
brief because I know there are several people who have been to Iraq.
I believe my physician colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess), may get up in a little while and talk about the medical
situation over there, which was really abominable under Saddam Hussein.
I just want to state that I support the President's request to make
this grant to Iraq. It is the right thing to do from a military
strategy, it is the right thing to do from a political strategy and I
am very, very pleased that this is going to be a bipartisan special
order.
I just want to make one comment. I was so glad that you put this
poster up here, because this $100 billion that we spent rebuilding
Europe after World War II was somewhat in our own interests in that
Europe was in such disarray that Communist forces were beginning to
take over.
{time} 1915
And those funds that were spent helped stabilize Europe, helped the
democracies in Europe to emerge, and we essentially got a tremendous
dividend from this investment in that there was a tremendous decade of
peace and free trade, and ultimately in the end our economy benefitted
from that.
And the situation here today is very similar. We have a unique
opportunity to create a Western, U.S.-friendly, democratic beachhead in
the middle of what has been a very problematic area in the Middle East
that could have tremendous positive implications in decades and decades
to come. And if we fail, the results could be absolutely horrible, not
only in terms of dollars spent but as well in human lives. So I think
the President's approach is right. All the military leaders say that
this is desperately needed. All of the Members, and they are going to
be speaking
[[Page H9101]]
more tonight like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), say it is
very much needed. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, in the dialogue format, I just want to make
one point. The gentleman points out the consequences in human lives,
and I think he has spoken eloquently upon that topic. I just want to
throw it back to him. I think he has made the point very clear that if
we back away from Iraq right now, all those people in the country who
are helping us right now, their lives will not be worth a penny, and I
would like the gentleman to make a quick comment on that.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that at the House
Republican conference last week, and it is a point that I do not think
has been emphasized enough. If we fail, what is likely to happen? One
of the scenarios is that another brutal, vicious, murderous
dictatorship regime could come back. The worst case scenario, of
course, is that Saddam himself could crawl out from under a rock and
regain the reins of power. And we all know what he did in Basra after
the first Gulf War. He executed 10,000 people. I think the bloodshed
this time around would be much worse. So we really need to follow
through on this, and we really need to make sure it is a success.
I think the President's proposal is very much the right thing to do,
and I think all of us in the House and in the Senate should be backing
him. This is money, I believe, that will be very well-spent in the
long-term. This war on terror, I believe very strongly, it could end up
resembling the Cold War. It may take decades or generations, and this
is a very critical moment for us. If we succeed, it could have huge
positive implications for the future. If we fail, it could be
disastrous. And I yield back.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
One of the most eloquent spokesman who has gotten a lot of national
coverage for his courage in speaking out, who makes this discussion
tonight bipartisan and who makes this debate bipartisan, though there
will be many, many Democrats who will vote with the President next week
when we take up this legislation, is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Marshall). I yield to him on this topic.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I
guess I would say that had I had a little bit more notice and
appreciated the attempt to have a bipartisan effort here, I could have
had plenty of Democrats on this side. There is no question about it.
What we are going to find is that on the Democratic side, also on the
Republican side, and I do not know how publicly on the gentleman's
side, but certainly on the Democratic side, there will be questions
concerning exactly how the money is planned to be spent. Is this
appropriate? Is that appropriate? And there may be some who say this is
inappropriate and that is inappropriate. But, in general, I think what
we will find, and to a person this is what I have heard, Democrats are
certainly in support of this effort to help the Iraqi people create a
secular, representative government.
I do not want to take too much time because there are a number of
people, and that might have caused a problem with my bringing a whole
bunch of Democrats; so I do not want to steal the gentleman's thunder
here. Let me say this. I appreciate the comments about my op-ed in the
Post this morning.
Mr. SHADEGG. Two of our colleagues have already commented on it.
Mr. MARSHALL. And those who are viewing, if they wanted to get a more
complete version of how I analyze our current situation, that would be
a good place to go, and I would encourage people to do that.
I was a recon platoon sergeant in Vietnam. Vietnam is similar to the
Iraqi situation and very dissimilar in other respects. In Vietnam,
Russia and China were supporting the insurgency. So we had North
Vietnam, Russia, and China. It made it very difficult for us to stamp
the insurgency out, an insurgency that had been there for decades, was
very well-organized. Iraq is very different from that. We do not have
an external government with an awful lot of oomph, as China and Russia
did at that time, and a great deal of commitment, as China and Russia
had at that time, backing this insurgency. The insurgency is not
something that is well-developed, but it could become so.
Here is the similarity: My job was to go out, find, engage the enemy.
It was hard as heck to do. Iraqis, Iraqi troops, have a comparative
advantage over any alien force, including Americans, that we simply
cannot match. They speak the language. They read the street signs. They
understand the culture. They can sort out friend from foe. Having their
cooperation is critical to this endeavor. And, in part, I think one can
understand why it is critical to the endeavor, because what we are
trying to do is establish a representative government for the Iraqi
people. One can force a dictatorship on folks, but one cannot force
them to have a democracy. One cannot force people to be free. They have
got to take it for themselves.
I think, as a country, we need to recognize that, that we have
tremendous capabilities militarily, but there are some things that we
just simply cannot do, and we cannot force freedom on people. They need
to be coming forward and take it for themselves.
What does that involve? It involves Iraqis taking help from us. At
least at this point they cannot do it on their own. They have got to
step forward and be willing to cooperate with Americans. That involves
taking risk. It is a tremendous benefit to us, and I think everybody
here knows that. Right now, we are discovering about 50 percent of what
they are calling IEDs now, improvised explosive devices. When I was in
Nam, it was booby traps. We are discovering about 50 percent of those
things, a little less than 50 percent, because people give us tips.
They tell us where they are. Guess how we discover the rest of them? It
is when our soldiers get hit by them, pretty much. More cooperation
makes it safer for our soldiers. We find out where the ambushes are,
where the booby traps are. We identify who the bad guys are. We are
able to get them before they get us. But, very importantly, cooperation
leads to people stepping forward, Iraqis stepping forward, taking up
arms and going after the guerillas enthusiastically themselves. Simply
having a police force, simply having an army, I do not care how many
thousands of people, is not going to do it. They are going to have to
be enthusiastic.
If I am an Iraqi, after 1991 when we encouraged the Shiites to rebel,
then we withdrew and they were slaughtered, and some of my colleagues
have been to the mass graves, as I have been, I am not going to step
forward if I do not think the United States is committed.
So I encourage all of us to speak words of commitment, speak
positively about the future of Iraq. We can differ on how we are going
to get there, what is the best plan, when to bring in, how to bring in
international folks, whether we can entice international folks, how we
made mistakes in the past; but all of us should be talking about that.
And, in addition, I think it is a good idea to go ahead and approve the
President's request. It is a clear signal to Iraqis that we are
committed. That is a big number, $20 billion for reconstruction.
The troops in Iraq told me repeatedly money is ammo, and what they
meant by that was not that they did not have enough bullets or shells.
What they meant by that is money enables them to do these
reconstruction projects. These reconstruction projects build
relationships and commitments with the Iraqis, lead to intelligence,
lead to assistance, and ultimately lead to the commitment that we need
from them if we are going to be successful here.
I have already spoken too long. The gentleman can tell I am
passionate about this. I appreciate the gentleman's giving me an
opportunity to speak, and I can tell my colleagues we would have tons
of Democrats up here doing the same thing if we had just a little bit
more notice.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman points out this is
not partisan. This is largely a divide on who has been there and who
has not been there, but I want to compliment the gentleman on one
particular point, and that is I have been saying now for lo these many
weeks that this has been on the discussion table, America, that the
$20.3 billion for so-called reconstruction is as important to our
military's success as the $60-some billion
[[Page H9102]]
for the military side, but the gentleman said it so eloquently. The
real reason is, as the gentleman explained, and it certainly comes from
his background having been in Vietnam. People, and that is if the Iraqi
people are on our side, if they believe in us, if they want to help us,
they are a resource that is absolutely invaluable. It is a resource
that is worth ten times, in my opinion, $20 billion, if they come
forward and say, ``There is an improvised explosive device right over
here, and you need to go get it and get it out of there before it kills
an American.''
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, in fact,
what would be better is if they just take care of it themselves.
Mr. SHADEGG. Absolutely.
Mr. MARSHALL. They do not come to us and say, ``There it is. Would
you take care of it?'' They go take care of it themselves. Ultimately,
they have to be responsible for the security of their country. We do
not need to be doing that. We will be able to tell in the next 6 months
or a year or something like that, I cannot put a time frame on it,
whether or not we are actually going to be able to entice them to come
forward, and by gosh, we ought not to shrink from that effort right
now, not after what we have spent, not given the opportunity that we
have got as a country to make an immeasurable improvement in our future
security.
Mr. SHADEGG. And this reconstruction aid is a way for us to
illustrate that we are on their side, and for them to come to realize
we are on their side, and for them to decide they need to be on our
side and not on the side of the terrorists who want to destroy that
country and bring Saddam back or some other regime that would be anti-
American and be in line with the rest of the countries in that part of
the world where terrorism is brewing against it.
So I think the gentleman's comments are eloquent, and I thank him for
his participation and for all of his remarks on the topic.
I now yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). I think he
feels passionately about this issue as well.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona for
arranging this special order and for all of those who have spoken. The
most important part about this tonight, I think, is to hear from so
many who have been there, and given what we hear in the news, I think
that is particularly important because just watching the news channels,
we simply do not get a good picture of what is going on there. We get a
much better feel from those who have just returned. So I have
appreciated this opportunity to hear that.
And I appreciated the concern that was raised before that not only do
we make sure that we do not impose more debt on the Iraqi people, but
that we ensure that the other debt that is held already is forgiven. It
is extremely important. When we look, estimates vary anywhere from $60
billion to $150 billion and some more as far as outstanding debt. A lot
of it is held by countries that are friendly with us and are on our
side here, most of them, in fact. And I would hope that the
administration, and I know they will, would exert all the pressure they
can on these countries to make sure that we are not the only ones who
are leaving Iraq debt-free and with an opportunity to grow and
progress, that they have a responsibility to do so as well. I think if
we want the support of Americans in this endeavor, we have to make sure
that our partners around the world participate in this regard as well.
I would also encourage the administration to do what it can to
exercise with us in Congress, and I think we need to remind our
colleagues continually here to exercise fiscal restraint domestically.
The primary function of the Federal Government, we all know, is
national security. That is our first and primary function. This is
important, what we are doing here. And we need, because of the
situation we are in with a large deficit and a big debt, to make sure
that we husband our resources properly and spend them where we need to
and where the Federal Government has priority, and that is in our
national defense. Again, I just want to thank my colleague from Arizona
and all of the others who have appeared so far, and I just appreciate
learning more myself and also to lend my support to this effort.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his input.
In the light of the fact that I want to get all of the remaining
Members here who want to speak, a chance to speak, let me yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
yielding but also for organizing this special order.
I think this is extremely important. Others have said it more
eloquently than I will. I think the fundamental reality here is we have
an opportunity as well as a responsibility to win the peace just as we
won the war, and the President's proposal is about winning the peace.
The $20.3 billion that will go towards rebuilding Iraq is about one
winning the peace in Iraq. It is about helping the Iraqi people build a
viable society that will not be a threat to its neighbors and to us
anymore.
The President's determined that this money is needed soon after the
decades during which Saddam Hussein's tyranny and the wars that he has
brought on the Iraqi people has made this need urgent, and I hope we
will all fully support this President's request.
I do, however, want to introduce an idea that I think is perfectly
consistent with funding this request, and that is an idea that goes to
the heart of what we ought to be doing here in Congress, and I think
that is establishing our priorities, funding our priorities, and
tightening our belts and living with some fiscal discipline throughout
our budgeting process.
Today just happens to mark the first day of a new fiscal year for the
Federal Government, and, unfortunately, it is a fiscal year in which we
are going to undoubtedly run a several hundred billion dollar deficit.
Given that situation, I think it is all the more important that we
exercise the fiscal discipline and identify the priorities that we need
to.
{time} 1930
This is a priority. So I have proposed, together with our colleague,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), that we fund this, and we
fund this fully but, at the same time, over the next several years, we
find offsetting spending reductions in other foreign aid proposals,
programs, areas that are not as high a priority, frankly, as rebuilding
Iraq; and we reduce that spending by an amount that will, over time,
add up to the amount we are spending in Iraq so that at the end of the
day, the American taxpayer is not paying any additional net new sum of
money to do this vital function. I think it is about priorities.
There are a number of areas that I would not suggest that we reduce
funding in our foreign aid budget. For instance, our aid to Israel and
Egypt is fundamental and very important. For other reasons, diplomatic
and embassy security. There are a number of programs we should not
touch. But frankly, if we were to trim by about 15 percent a year for
the next 4 years, the next 5 years, I correct myself, for the next 5
years, we could fully offset this critical $20.3 billion expenditure
that we need to make for our own security and for the security of our
troops in Iraq and for the sake of the security of that region.
So I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. Again, I am very
supportive of the President's request, but I would urge my colleagues
to join me in an effort to find the appropriate offsets over the next
several years so that this vital priority gets funded and some less
important foreign aid programs wait until we have the resources to do
it.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his
participation, and I want to express my appreciation for his thoughtful
analysis of this issue. We do have to prioritize, and the suggestion he
makes is a good one. As was mentioned earlier, today was the first day
of school in Iraq; and in my visit there, we learned that America has
done a great deal to rebuild the schools, although Americans will say,
well, why are we rebuilding their schools and not ours. As I explained
earlier, what we are doing is going in and painting existing school
buildings.
But helping the people of Iraq educate their children is a critically
important role for America. Again, it helps us to win over their hearts
and minds and to do what our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Marshall), said, and that is have the Iraqi
[[Page H9103]]
people side with us in this struggle. For example, for them to help our
troops find an explosive device that is planted and intended to kill an
American, they are the best ones who can do that. Education is a big
part of that effort; and to discuss education in Iraq further, I yield
to our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona. People have
asked me what the trend is in Iraq, for better or for worse. I just
returned from Iraq and the trend is for the better. The last time I was
in Iraq, I was in uniform flying at 20,000 feet and the Iraqi Air
Defense network was shooting at us. That force is now gone.
Now that the allies have won, I think we should follow several key
principles. One, the war on terror must be fought overseas and not in
America's cities. I come from Chicago, home to America's tallest
building. The Sears Tower is still standing, and we want to keep it
that way.
Second, we must finish the job in Iraq; otherwise, we condemn a
future generation of young Americans to refight this war. If Desert
Storm had a key lesson, it is that unfinished work ensures a new Middle
East war. I think we should make sure that no future generation of
Americans has to fight again, and that is why we need to finish what we
are doing in Iraq.
Our goals must match the best ideals of Americans: an Iraq that does
not invade another member of the U.N. each decade; an Iraq that governs
by the consent of Iraqis; and an Iraq that cooperates with the United
Nations, not confronts it. These are worthy missions and if we accept
these missions, we must accept that we need to give our troops the
tools they need to complete this job.
This is a difficult job. Let us look at Iraq under Saddam. Life
expectancy in Iraq totaled just 58 years. Forty-seven percent of
children did not attend school. Half of Baghdad's phones did not work.
Iraq had the highest infant mortality rate in the Middle East. Seventy
of 90 city water systems did not work. Saddam's health budget totaled
75 cents per person per year. There was only one newspaper, Uday
Hussein's newspaper.
Under the allies now, the situation has changed. Ninety percent of
Iraqi school kids started class today. Power generation is up 100
percent from 1,200 megawatts to 3,700. Five million school books were
delivered, but these school books did not have the anti-U.S., anti-
Semitic rhetoric. Now there are several dozen newspapers. I brought
them back with me. These are newspapers that did not exist before May
1, like Azzaman, al-Balad, Al Mutamar, Ashraa, and even an English
language newspaper, Iraq Today.
When I was in Iraq, I learned that 90 percent of Western reporters
have left Iraq and for those young reporters who remain, their editors
have told them that they are only interested in one story: injuries to
Americans. We are not allowed to know about anything else happening in
Iraq, but there are many developments in Iraq that we should know
about.
I want to tell one last story. As my colleague from Arizona said,
today is the first day of school in Iraq. And we, the United States
Government, have prepared a school kit with the U.S. emblem on the
front. This school kit is a book bag with pens, a calculator, school
supplies, all intended for Iraqi children. The U.S. Government
delivered 1.5 million of these school kits to the children of Iraq to
ensure a good start with the school year. This was a start of the
school year which did not include half of Iraqi children; it included
90 percent. They got a good start. Each day, Iraqi children, when they
open their book bag, will see the U.S. emblem on the front. And that is
a powerful message that they will remember: who helped them in their
earliest years in class.
I think this represents some of the best ideals of America. It is
showing that we are part of the future of this country. The situation
is changing and changing for the better, and I thank my colleague for
having this Special Order.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman illustrates how exactly we
are going about winning the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq, and
I thank him.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for putting on this
Special Order, and I really feel privileged to be a part of this story
tonight.
I too traveled to Iraq the last week in August. I came back to this
country and turned on the national network news one night and the lead
story was about Iraq. But honestly, I did not recognize the country
that they were talking about, the country I had just left a few hours
before. Perhaps General James Conway of the First Marine Expeditionary
Force summed it up best when he said, ``Iraq is a vivid success
story.'' Iraqis are concerned not that we will stay too long, but that
we will leave too soon.
Let me talk for just a minute about health care in Iraq. Put this in
the context that there was no health care infrastructure improvement in
over 30 years. A member of the 385th Civil Affairs Brigade, Lieutenant
Colonel Michael Keller, a good west Texas boy, had been to the medical
library in Baghdad. He reported to me that within the medical library
he could not find a medical text that had a copyright date later than
1984. Pharmaceutical agents that were manufactured in Iraq were
useless; and, in fact, after the end of the combat phase, we relied
heavily upon donations of medicine from the Kuwaitis. Saddam's per
capita medical expenditures were 50 cent a person, compared now to $45
a person in the last 6 months.
Perhaps the most searing comparison was the opulence of the palaces
compared with the dreadful poverty of the hospitals in Iraq, palaces
that had marble veneers on every wall, two-story-high fireplaces, and
hospitals that did not even have linoleum on the floors, hospitals that
did not even have medical gases piped in.
Mr. Speaker, one of the points that was brought up earlier was the
humanitarian disaster that did not occur in Iraq. Let me point out that
if there had been 15,000 heat-related deaths in Iraq this summer, we
would have been blistered in this country because of that. The 15,000
heat-related deaths occurred in France. We barely heard a word about it
from our news media.
I know time is tight, so I yield back to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman who brings a great perspective. I
yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding to me.
I rise in very strong support of the supplemental appropriation that
the President has requested. In doing so, I do not take the position,
and I am sure my colleagues do not, that this supplemental
appropriation will be free of scrutiny. We will look it over; and,
frankly, we will check it out, and I have no doubt in the legislative
process we will improve it greatly.
But I think as to the big question, the President has it right, and I
think he has it right for three reasons. First, as has been alluded to
several times by a number of speakers tonight, our own history gives us
the lessons that we should be drawing in this particular case. In the
First World War, we won the war, we participated with our allies, but
we did not do anything to rebuild a shattered Europe afterwards. Less
than a generation later, young Americans were dying again in the same
fields, in the same countries, for the same cause. In the Second World
War, we took a different approach and it was extraordinarily
successful. We not only won the war, we won the peace, we secured
Europe; and, in doing so, we set up a powerful example in Europe that
saved that continent from the awful tyranny of Communism.
There is even a more recent example and, frankly, a less happy one
that I think as Americans we ought to reflect upon. We were engaged
indirectly and, to some extent, directly in the struggle in Afghanistan
to push out the old Soviet Union, and we were successful in that. We
walked away from the problem. And in walking away, we left a country
that was destroyed, that was devastated, that was divided; and in less
than a generation, frankly, in a matter of a few years, terrorists set
in, took over and planned and launched a deadly attack on the United
States that we have lived with the consequences of. We should learn
from our own history.
[[Page H9104]]
The second reason I support this supplemental is, quite frankly, the
situation in Iraq. There is no question Iraq is a potentially rich
country, but it is not rich today. The oil revenues, the revenues that
the people of Iraq generate from their hard labor and work need to be
reinvested in Iraq and will be reinvested in Iraq. The reality is there
is simply not enough wealth to be created to get the job done and to
get the job done in a timely, expeditious way, a way that is good for
Iraq and, frankly, in a time frame that makes it possible for our own
people to leave as quickly as possible, which is what we want and what
they want.
Finally, and most powerfully, I think I favor this resolution simply
because I support our American troops that are on the ground there. We
have asked a generation of young Americans to perform a dangerous and
difficult task.
I serve on the Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Speaker; and every
single military person that has come to visit with us has told us this
is an important part of winning the war, securing the peace, and that
these dollars, particularly spent on civilian projects and rebuilding
and reconstruction in Iraq, enhance the security of American forces
that are deployed. I want American troops to be looked upon as what
they are: liberators and benefactors. I do not want them to be regarded
as conquerors, occupiers, and exploiters; and I think the latter will
be the case.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a historic opportunity. All of us
have a responsibility, I think, to do what previous generations of
Americans have done: rise up, meet this challenge.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman for his
leadership. He has not only spoken eloquently tonight, but I too heard
the gentleman repeatedly in groups, caucuses, and organizations; and
the gentleman is doing a fantastic job.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, rather than closing, my colleague, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), is here. I know he feels
passionately about this. I guess we have 15 seconds left. The gentleman
led his own Special Order on this issue last night, and I yield to the
gentleman to close.
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, and I
think the fact that we only have 15 seconds left, we have had so many
Members here tonight to tell the real story.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have ever seen a Special
Order with this many speakers.
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, the fact that we have so many Members who
want to share the real story of Iraq I think speaks well, for the facts
are that there is great hope, there is great optimism. Supporting the
President's request is the right thing to do. We have one chance to get
it right.
I thank the gentleman very much for hosting this evening's
discussion.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. It is clear to me
that we need to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. As
our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), said from the
other side of the aisle here tonight, we absolutely must have them on
our side. This is the way to do it. I urge my colleagues to join us in
supporting the President's full request.
____________________