[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 147 (Monday, October 20, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9720-H9725]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXAMINING RECENT COMMENTS BY MAJORITY LEADER ON ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY
IN IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last week during debate on the $87 billion
supplemental appropriations bill to fund military and reconstruction
efforts in Iraq, Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Members who had the
audacity to challenge the Bush administration's foreign policy and not
support the appropriations bill were not supporting our troops over in
Iraq. This statement, Mr. Speaker, comes on the heels of statements
that Mr. DeLay made last month after Senator Edward Kennedy seriously
questioned the Bush administration's reasoning for the war in Iraq and
its handling of Iraq during the postwar period. The majority leader
called Kennedy's criticism ``hate speech.'' During a speech at the
Heritage Foundation on September 24, Mr. DeLay said, and I quote, ``Ted
Kennedy unleashed the most mean-spirited and irresponsible hate speech
yet.''
One day earlier, the Associated Press quoted Mr. DeLay as saying, and
I quote, that ``Kennedy's brand of hate speech has become a mainstream
in the Democratic Party.''
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentleman that he
must refrain from improper references to Senators.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader must have a short
memory. If these statements are hate speech and mean-spirited, I would
hate to see how Mr. DeLay would characterize his own comments about
President Clinton on the eve of a successful bombing campaign that
ejected Serbian troops from Kosovo and led to the uprising that ended
the murderous regime of another dictator, Slobodan Milosevic.
Here are some examples of DeLay's criticism of President Clinton
during that Kosovo conflict that I would like to point to this evening.
This was a statement that Tom DeLay said, a floor statement opposing
the resolution commending America's successful campaign in Kosovo on
July 1, 1999.
He said, and I quote, ``For us to call this a victory and to commend
the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing
great leadership in Operation Allied Forces is a farce.''
On the same resolution, floor statement, Mr. DeLay said, and I quote,
``So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an
unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of carrying it
out. I hope my colleagues will vote against the resolution.''
I would like to point out to my colleagues that on one occasion, Mr.
DeLay is basically questioning the President's ability as Commander in
Chief, in the case of President Clinton; and in this other case, he is
suggesting that the Clinton administration is incompetent of carrying
out the war in
[[Page H9721]]
Kosovo. Again, the reality of it is that these statements by Mr. DeLay
went much further than Senator Kennedy's and than those of most of my
colleagues during last week's debate on the Iraq supplemental. Of
course as a Member of the House of Representatives, Mr. DeLay has a
right, even a duty, to question the administration when he does not
agree with its policies, just like Members of the other body have the
right to speak out and Senator Kennedy did several weeks ago.
The problem that I see, and I point this out to my Republican
colleagues, it stems from the fact that whenever someone speaks out
criticizing the Bush administration or its policies, there is a
concerted effort on the part of the Republican side to attack those
critics as unpatriotic. This is what we keep getting over and over
again, that those on the Democratic side of the aisle that suggest that
the administration's policy in Iraq is wrong or that it should not
continue or that it should not be funded are somehow unpatriotic. I
just want to remind my colleagues on the other side, and I just would
like to use a quote that was made by Thomas Jefferson in 1815, because
I think it says it all and the reason that I am here tonight and some
of my Democratic colleagues are here tonight. Thomas Jefferson said in
1815, and I quote, that ``differences of opinion lead to inquiry and
inquiry to truth and that I am sure is the ultimate and sincere object
of us both. We both value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by
our Constitution not to cherish its exercise, even where in opposition
to ourselves.''
That quote, I think, from Thomas Jefferson says it all, because I
think what he says is that we should feel free to criticize the
administration when we do not agree with its foreign policy, when we do
not agree with a war, when we do not agree with paying for the war,
when we do not agree with the conduct of the war. And for anyone,
particularly the majority leader on the Republican side, to question
whether it is a Member of the other body or a Member of this body's
patriotism or say that they do not support the troops or that they are
unpatriotic or that they do not care about this country because they
oppose the war in Iraq or any aspect of it, I think, is an outrage; and
it is important for us to say this over and over again tonight as well
as in the future.
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank my friend from New Jersey for his
persistent work in bringing the truth and bringing important issues to
the floor of the House of Representatives night after night. We all
have heard people in the administration, highly placed people in the
administration, from the Attorney General to Mr. DeLay and leaders in
the House of Representatives, Republican leaders, talk about patriotism
in sometimes directly, certainly by implication, sometimes directly,
question the patriotism of Americans, whether they are Americans in
Congress or American people generally, question the patriotism of
people who disagree with them on a whole host of issues.
I remember during the trade debate, during the Trade Promotion
Authority whether we should extend NAFTA to Latin America that many of
us were accused of not being patriotic because we did not want to pass
these trade agreements, which incidentally tend to hemorrhage lots of
jobs overseas in this country that never come back, manufacturing jobs,
all kinds of jobs.
But when I think about patriotism, I want to tell a story. I met 2
weeks ago in Akron at St. Paul's Episcopal Church with 25 families who
had loved ones in Iraq, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, cousins,
nephews, nieces, whatever. These 20 families talked about the treatment
that their loved ones were getting by the United States military, by
the administration, by our government. There were not enough Kevlar
vests, not enough body armor for our troops, one-fourth of our troops
do not have adequate body armor, even though the President of the
United States knew that we were going to war well over a year ago. They
are now saying, well, we will probably have enough body armor for our
troops by December of this year. They talked to us about not having
safe drinking water, hundreds and hundreds, thousands probably, of our
troops have come down with dysentery. They talked about some shortage
of antibiotics, that they actually had to go to the corner drug store
and send antibiotics to their son, one in the case of a son, another in
the case of a wife he had to send antibiotics to her. Many servicemen
and servicewomen when coming home on leave, if they got leave, had to
pay their flights home.
When you talk about patriotism, and then you look at the other side
of that issue, while we simply, this administration is spending a
billion dollars a week, a third of it going to private contractors,
much of that money going to Halliburton and Bechtel and friends of the
President and contributors to the President, when they accuse people
who disagree with them, the administration, of a lack of patriotism,
then I look and see we are not taking care of our troops but we are
taking care of the contributors to the President? Hundreds of millions
of dollars have gone to Halliburton. Much of that has been unbid
contracts. Yet Halliburton still pays Vice President Cheney $13,000 a
month. Halliburton contributes thousands of dollars, its executives and
its company, thousands of dollars to President Bush.
And while our troops are not being supplied with Kevlar jackets, our
troops are not being supplied with body armor, our troops are not
getting safe drinking water, our troops are not getting the antibiotics
they should get, this administration has the gall to charge injured
soldiers $8 a day for their food at Bethesda Medical Hospital, in other
hospitals around the country. At the same time we are shoveling money
to contributors of the President. And they call us unpatriotic? And
they call people who disagree with them unpatriotic? There is just no
room for that in this debate. The fact is we ought to do this right. We
ought to be working together in this effort in Iraq. We ought to come
up with an exit strategy. We ought to come up with a plan. We ought to
bring the United Nations in. We should not be shoveling money to
private contractors who are friends of the President, who are
contributors to the President, who continue to pay Dick Cheney, the
Vice President of the United States, $13,000 a month. We ought to do
this right.
The charges of lack of patriotism ought to stop. We ought to get down
to business. We ought to do this right. We ought to make this work.
There is just simply no reason for those charges to continue, whether
they are from Tom DeLay, whether they are from the top people in the
administration, whether they are from anybody else.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am going to be very brief, but I was just
moved by the comments of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, and I
appreciate the fact that he has met with families, military families.
So have a number of us. I would like to just add that these comments
certainly are protected by the first amendment. Some of them are
protected by the rules of this House.
{time} 2100
But I think they need to cease and desist because they are on the
brink of or on the verge of cutting a very divisive line in this body
and the other body, and that is that the appropriate discourse and
debate is no longer allowed.
As we moved toward the Declaration of Independence and the
Revolutionary War, I know, by reading history books, that there was a
vigorous divide in America as to whether or not we should stay with the
British, get along to go along, live and let live, or whether or not we
should follow the pathway of independence and seeking equal opportunity
and become a sovereign Nation. I can imagine it was probably a deeply
dividing debate, and I would hope to think that the reason why this
sovereign Nation has withstood the test of time is because that debate
went forward and each side managed to get through that debate without
undermining the other's patriotism to a certain extent or love for this
new fledgling 13-colony group of States. And one maybe wanted to stay
with the British Kingdom, if you will, or the United Kingdom, and
others wanted an independent land. I cannot imagine why we
[[Page H9722]]
have now a majority leader that, one, cannot remember his words of just
a few years ago, and now wants to divide this body by suggesting who is
patriotic and who is not.
And I would just like to share with my colleagues some words that are
constantly found throughout the Congressional Record as President
Clinton tried to direct this country in a way that would provide
defense to the defenseless, whether it was Somalia, and that, of
course, was not the best military operation but there was a desire
there to help those who could not help themselves, whether it was
Bosnia or whether it was Kosovo.
So this statement on March 11, 1999, said ``Bombing a sovereign
nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the
American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for
America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We
must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated
by the Unibomber.'' One could take from that that he has just called a
President of the United States the Unibomber. That happened to be
Kosovo, where millions of Muslims were being ethnically cleansed.
People were actually dying. The world could see it, and we were asked
to come in by the NATO allies.
There is no such basis in the preemptive attack against Iraq. We were
told there were weapons of mass destruction. We still cannot find them.
And so what is the reason for not having the right discourse and debate
on issues that are confusing and where the administration has been, if
you will, less than forthright on its reasons for going to war? Saddam
Hussein still exists. Osama bin Laden still exists. Then I think debate
is appropriate.
Let me close on this point. I, likewise, have had the opportunity to
engage military families in a townhall meeting that I held in Houston.
No one can experience their pain. Even though their loved ones are
alive, they feel the pain of those whose families are now experiencing
the continuing devastating pain of having lost a loved one in Iraq. But
one has to know what it is like to know their loved ones do not have
body armor, bulletproof vests, that their loved ones who are in the
National Guard or Reserve cannot get their paycheck on time, or they
have loved ones who are there who have not seen their newly born child
and ask a simple question of Secretary Rumsfeld which is when can we go
home? There is nothing wrong with that.
And I do not want to point the finger at the military because they
are following orders, and the policymakers are the ones who set
priorities. So when we do not have priorities that deal with 11
suicides, that represent 34 out of 100,000 when we analyze the number,
11 suicides since May 1; and we pass an $87 billion supplemental and we
do not provide for paychecks on time to Reservists and the National
Guard; we do not have a date certain on exit strategy; we do not deal
with suicides and mental health resources in Iraq and on the bases when
they return home? Then I would question the person who questions our
patriotism for asking these questions on behalf of the troops. And that
is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has done, and I think it
is unpardonable. I will certainly uphold his right to the First
Amendment, but when we debate on this floor, we should not cast those
kinds of ugly statements about one's patriotism because we allow free
debate, when he in 1999 suggested that our President was the Unibomber.
And I can assure my colleagues that we are still being thanked for what
we did in Kosovo. And I thank those troops there. I thank them in
Bosnia, and I thank them in Iraq. Because the troops are not the issue.
It is the policies that have sent them there, and each of us have the
responsibility and the obligation under this Constitution to engage in
debate and discourse, certainly on behalf of our constituents.
They say that lawyers get two and three closings; so let me make this
the last one, in fact, and I want to thank the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for his leadership, but I can assure him that the
kind of unpatriotic actions that we are being subjected to in Texas
where we are losing 50 years of congressional experience, individuals
who happen to be prominently placed on the Committee on Appropriations
and have been champions of veterans' rights are being drawn out because
of political reasons in this politically-gerrymandered massacre of a
redistricting process, I can assure the gentleman that we could
probably use a lot of names to call people, but that is not
appropriate. The issue is a legal issue, a political issue, a court
issue or judiciary issue. And taking up and casting about and calling
people names as it relates to their patriotism, which anyone could do,
is not what we choose to do, and I do not believe we should choose to
do it in this body.
I thank the gentleman for allowing me to participate this evening,
and maybe we can bring some civility to this place and debate fairly
without name calling because people passionately have a difference of
opinion, and maybe someone would say ``I told you so'' after all of
this is over.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the
gentlewoman from Texas. And, again, I know other speakers are going to
follow me, but I just want to point out, again, I find it incredible
that the majority leader, who just a few years ago in the case of
Kosovo, severely questioned and essentially called the President of the
United States names because of the actions that he was taking in
Kosovo, now gets up on the floor and essentially has the audacity to
criticize Democrats for questioning this President's policies in
another war.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding. It is a pleasure. I am pleased that he would raise this
issue. The questioning of Members of Congress because they dispute with
the President is not unpatriotic. And those who take that route, I
think, are simply not understanding what this country is all about.
This country was formed by dissenters, people who said, We will not
be taxed without representation. Now, they were speaking to the King,
for heaven's sake, who could cut their head off. All we have to deal
with is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). And I think Thomas
Jefferson's words in 1815 need to be repeated: ``Difference of opinion
leads to inquiry and inquiry to truth, and that, I am sure, is the
ultimate and sincere object of us both. We both value too much the
freedom of opinion, sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish its
exercise even where in opposition in ourselves.''
For us to be unwilling to have debates out here and categorize people
who are talking here as being unpatriotic is absolutely nonsense. What
is really fun, though, is to go through the Record and see what the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) says. I really had a great time doing
this. We have already heard this quote, which I think he was talking
about the President in bombing Baghdad when he said ``Bombing a
sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives
undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect
and trust for America is diminished every time we casually let the
bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy
is being formulated by the Unibomber.''
If I did not know that came from March 11, 1999, and had to do with
Kosovo, I would think that one of my colleagues had made that statement
about our present President. When it was said on that day, nobody got
up and said ``You are unpatriotic, Mr. DeLay. You are unpatriotic.'' We
let him say it. He is wrong. History has proven him wrong, but he has a
right to say it in this country.
My favorite quote of all the quotes is one that I wish that I had
said. I wish that I was as smart as my distinguished colleague from
Texas. He said ``I cannot support a failed foreign policy.'' I wish I
had said that about 3 days ago. He said it on April 28, 1999. ``History
teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace.'' I thank
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay) for laying that out for me. I
agree with him. I agree with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay). It
is very seldom that I can think of a way to agree with him. ``This
administration is just learning that lesson right now.'' You had better
believe it. Read a newspaper. Pick it up every day. Kids are dying over
there. Go out to Walter Reed and you can see kids without limbs, you
can see all kinds of horrible
[[Page H9723]]
things that have happened to our troops. It is easy to make war, hard
to make the peace, and they are learning over in Iraq day by day that
when you treat people that way, hey, they are going to maybe fight
back. I do not know why people think that only Americans would fight
back. Why would the other side not fight back? It should not be any
surprise. But they did not plan for that. They thought these people
were going to come out with flowers and put them in the ends of their
rifles. What nonsense could have been going on in the Pentagon I have
no idea, but it certainly was a failed foreign policy.
``The President began this mission with very vague objectives and
lots of unanswered questions.'' He must have been talking about Mr.
Bush. Who else could he mean?
``A month later these questions are still unanswered.'' No, I say to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay, 6 months later these questions are
still unanswered. Things that were said here on the floor were
inaccurate. We all know it, but the President says nothing.
``There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no
timetable.'' One of the amendments out here the other day was let us
have a timetable, but the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay) said no, we
cannot put a timetable on our President, let him kind of fumble around
until he figures it out or put the training wheels on his bike or
whatever. I do not know. But no timetable was allowed. The amendment
was not allowed here to say we had to have a timetable before we gave
$87 billion away.
``There is no legitimate definition of victory.'' Boy, that certainly
fits this situation. How are we going to declare victory and get out of
there?
``There is no contingency plan for mission creep.'' He means Syria
and he means Iran, and I do not know where else he means. ``There is no
clear funding program.'' Oh, yes, there is. Borrow. Borrow from the
Social Security and Medicare funds; put us deeper in debt. That is what
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay) wants. That is what he came out
here and did. He took $87 billion out of thin air and gave it to the
President and said, Hey, go over there and do whatever you have to.
``There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military.'' That is
exactly what we are hearing. The Reservists are being kept away from
their jobs. Everybody is in trouble. The troops are worn out. The
equipment is worn out. Things that were supposed to go 80 hours have
gone 500 hours, and so things are breaking down. Gee, he was prescient
about what Mr. Bush was going to do.
``There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are
at stake.'' Well, we are still looking, boy. It must be they are
connected to al Qaeda. No, that is not true. It must be because of
weapons of mass destruction. No, it is not that. What is it? What was
our national interest? Oil, or something else? I do not know.
I can hardly wait for our President to come here next year and stand
in the well and tell us what our national interests have been saved
from, because it is not clear what happened before.
``There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this
thing, and there is still no plan today.''
I watched with amazement and amusement in a certain sad sort of way
when we had this hurricane out here, Isabel, and they had all these
generators lined up and all these water purification units lined up.
They saw that coming out a week before, and they said, hey, we are
going to need electricity, we are going to need water. They planned for
3 years for going into Iraq, at least for a year, fully planning, all
the time. From October right after 9/11, they started planning, and
they did not think they would need an electrical generator. They did
not think they would need purification of water. Did they think they
were just going to kind of march in and it would all come back up out
of the dust after they had bombed it? They bombed them for how many
days, until there was nothing hardly standing, and they could not
figure out that if they bomb something, they are going to have to build
it back up. They should have had all that planning done. They
prepositioned every weapon imaginable to man and woman on the border
with Kuwait. It was right there ready to go, but they had nothing
behind it in the way of planning for how they were going to deal with
the aftermath.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay) wants to come out here and say
we are unpatriotic for raising these questions. This is what he said to
President Clinton. It was not unpatriotic, I guess, when the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Delay) does it, but if the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pallone) or I do it or the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) or anybody else comes out here and does it, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sandlin), I mean suddenly we are unpatriotic. No way.
I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) answer these questions.
Answer your own questions. You put those questions to a President. Why
do you not put them to your fellow Texan and ask him?
{time} 2115
What is the answer? What do I say to these guys? Because they are
tearing us apart. We intend to keep it up until we see a way out. There
is no plan, there is no timetable, and our troops are dying day by day.
The worst thing about it, you pick up the New York Times today, the
young man who was killed yesterday, he is not on page 1, he is not on
page 2, or, 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7; he is on page 8. Like, you know,
just a kid, right? Those are our young men and women. We asked them to
go over there. They ought to be on the front page, every day. They
ought to be in the President's mind every day.
I really thank the gentleman for giving us an opportunity to come and
raise these questions and make it very clear to the American people.
I wear this little button. I started wearing it. I am not one who
goes around, but I got that because I served during the Vietnam War.
Now, in the war, I spent 2 years in Long Beach, California, dealing
with casualties coming back. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) did
not serve. I do not know where he was. I know he loves his country; I
would not even question that. But the question ought to be, how do we
get out of this, not is somebody patriotic or not.
I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, one time the House majority leader said, ``American
foreign policy is now one huge big mystery.'' I think I would have to
agree with that.
I enjoyed listening to my colleague from Washington as he gave the
quote, and I have a copy of that quote, and I began reading it. Without
going through that long quote again, it does have a lot of relevance to
the situation our country finds itself in today and to our debate
tonight, where the leader says, ``I cannot support a failed foreign
policy. The President began the mission with vague objectives and lots
of unanswered questions. There is no timetable, no legitimate
definition of victory, no contingency plan for mission creep, no clear
funding program.''
Those are the very issues that we debate today, and those are
legitimate questions raised by the majority leader. Those are
legitimate issues. That is a legitimate debate.
Those comments were about, of course, the war in Kosovo. And while I
may not agree with all of those points, I certainly do not see it as
unpatriotic to raise those issues, just as it is not unpatriotic to
raise those same issues today.
Just last week, Mr. Speaker, as we engaged in one of the most
important debates of this Congress on the $87 billion supplemental
appropriations bill to fund the military reconstruction efforts in
Iraq, not Kosovo, the majority leader denigrated the Members of the
House who had the audacity to question the administration's Iraq policy
or to ask for an accounting or to ask for a justification for the
spending of taxpayer money.
Those, just like in the Kosovo effort, were legitimate questions, it
raised legitimate issues, it was a part of legitimate debate. It was a
different war; it was a different political situation, different
politics. Legitimate debate, different politics. And yet, once again,
[[Page H9724]]
our majority leader equated a failure to blindly go along with the
administration policy to be unpatriotic, while in actuality many on
this side of the aisle wanted to make sure that the funds went directly
to our servicemen and servicewomen and to their protection, and not
just to the beneficiaries of no-bid contracts.
Recently, the majority leader said this ``isn't about patriotism. It
is about judgment.''
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, judgment requires a presentation of the
facts, and judgment is important. But, speaking of judgment, in a press
release the majority leader complained about what he called the
``vociferous Democratic critics,'' from Kerry to Dean, and Daschle to
Pelosi, claiming they used ``hateful rhetoric.'' Now, what sort of
judgment is that, when we are talking about legitimate debate,
legitimate issues, about funding, about how we make sure our servicemen
and servicewomen are protected in the field, and to call that hateful
rhetoric?
We may not agree in this House on all the points of the war effort.
We do not even agree completely within the confines of each party, Mr.
Speaker. That is clear. But it is our duty to examine these issues
closely and to account for the American taxpayer dollar. It is our duty
to exercise the judgment that the majority leader was speaking about.
But I am sad to say he seems to be suffering from a crippling short
memory. In questioning the administration's policy in Iraq, the manner
in which it is handling operations in Iraq and the examining of the
accounting, I would be interested to know how the majority leader would
now characterize his own comments on the eve of the war in Kosovo.
Many of them have been set forth tonight, but in case some of us have
forgotten the rhetoric that was ``spewed,'' to use that term at that
time, he said in April that ``this is the President's war.'' These are
the comments made while we are in war, comments made about our
Commander in Chief: ``This is the President's war.''
Next he said, ``There is no national interest of the United States in
Kosovo. It is flawed policy. It was flawed to go in. I think this
President is one of the least effective Presidents in my lifetime. He
has hollowed our forces while running around the world with these
adventures.''
That is what he said in 1999 about Kosovo, in the middle of a
military action.
He said, ``American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery.''
That is what he said. He said, ``Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-
defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature
in the world.'' That is what was said by the majority leader in the
middle of a conflict.
He said, ``Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my complete opposition
to sending American troops to Kosovo. There is simply no vision to this
mission.''
Later he said, ``It is clear that any deployment in Kosovo will
simply drag on and go enormously over budget,'' some of the same
comments being made today.
Later he said, ``So what they are doing here is they are voting to
continue an unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of
carrying it out.''
In April he said, ``It is very simple: the President is not supported
by the House and the military is supported by the House.''
The quotes go on and on. I do not want to bore this House with quote
after quote after quote after quote, but the point is made. Those were
legitimate issues, legitimate questions, legitimate things to debate in
the House of Representatives. And while I do not agree with many of
those points, I agree that it is legitimate to talk about these things
in the greatest deliberative body that the world has ever known. And no
one at the time questioned the patriotism of the leader or anyone
setting forth those positions.
He had no problem in questioning the legitimate action of American
policy when it suited his political fancy, but now there are problems
for those that question the actions we are taking today. When anyone
speaks out criticizing the lack of accounting, the lack of
justification for spending money, the lack of a plan, those folks are
attacked as unpatriotic.
I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we look at what was said
recently, on March 27 of this year, by the leader when he said, ``Now
is not the time to question the carrying out of the present war.'' A
week earlier he said, ``Rhetoric does nothing more than demoralize the
troops.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, if rhetoric demoralizes the troops, I wonder what
a lack of planning does. I wonder what a lack of equipment does. I
wonder what a lack of preparation does. I wonder what a lack of an exit
plan does. I wonder what those sorts of things do.
Those are legitimate questions. The point being, it is hypocritical
to raise them in one war, and it is then later unpatriotic to talk
about it in the other. Either our majority leader was not supporting
the troops in 1999, or he is the one that is spewing hypocrisy today.
We are obligated, obliged in this body, to have an honest and full-
throated debate about all the issues that are being brought up and
about the accounting of the public's money for the support of this war
effort.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to remember what Mahatma Gandhi
said one time. He said, ``Honest disagreement is often a good sign of
progress,'' and Mark Shields said, ``Debate and dissent are the very
oxygen of democracy.''
Mr. Speaker, our country faces many challenges today, both from
within and from without. From within we face challenges of addressing a
budget with record deficits, record debt, and reckless budgeting. We
face a challenge of making prescription drugs available to our seniors.
We have the challenge of educating our children and giving them access
to quality health care at affordable prices.
From without we face the threat from nameless, faceless, hateful
terrorists who are bent on destroying the freedoms that we believe in
this country are unalienable, granted to us by the Creator and
protected by our Constitution and our Armed Forces.
All of these issues deserve and demand a full debate and a complete
examination. To turn this debate, this effort, this war effort into a
political platform, to criticize or to call names or to point at one
side or the other and say you are unpatriotic for asking for an
accounting, for a justification, for asking that we air out the issues
in this war is beneath this House.
Our troops and our country deserve a full and complete debate on
these issues. Our country supports knowing what our plan is, what we
hope to accomplish, how we are going to get out, and how much it is
going to cost. That is a complete support of the troops and our
efforts, and our House needs to support the will of the American public
in those areas. Calling one side or the other unpatriotic is simply
improper.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for
what he said and for pointing out to us those many statements made by
the majority leader, because, again, I think that it is very simple,
the point we are trying to make tonight, which is the majority leader,
the Republican majority leader many times during the war in Kosovo
questioned President Clinton about the conduct of the war and the
paying for the war, and did so in ways that were, to say the least,
very unflattering. Now, when Democrats question the conduct of the Iraq
war, we are accused of being unpatriotic. So he cannot have it both
ways. Obviously, he is trying to have it both ways.
{time} 2130
I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pallone) for gathering us together to call for some
accountability, some of the remarks of the majority leader of the
House, but actually to make an even more important point, I think. When
I was elected to this great body in 1998 and came to the U.S. House of
Representatives in 1999, I was under no illusion that the elected
Members would agree on every issue. I looked forward to the vigorous
debate that would take place between Republicans and Democrats and even
among Members of my own party and would expect that since free and open
debate is not only a tradition of this Congress, it is, perhaps, the
most highly-valued principle of our great democracy.
[[Page H9725]]
The very first amendment to our Constitution is freedom of speech,
our precious right to say exactly what we believe, even when those
words challenge those who are in power. Maybe I should say particularly
when those words challenge people that are in power.
Voltaire's words, quote, ``I disapprove of what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it,'' is the spirit of the first
amendment. And all of our great Presidents have defended that right to
speak one's mind in this great country. And one of those eloquent
statements was made by a Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, who
said, ``To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or
that we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public.'' Very strong words.
But now in an environment in which one party dominates the U.S.
House, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency, and even the Supreme Court,
those who challenge the policy decisions of the Republicans are being
accused of being unpatriotic, of aiding and abetting terrorists,
disloyalty to the Commander in Chief, of needing to apologize for
voicing their views. And leading that effort has been the majority
leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). And I think it is time to
call him to account for his hypocritical comments and his effort to
stifle important and legitimate debate.
We are now engaged in war, in a war in Iraq. And our young men and
women as well as innocent Iraqis are dying every day. There is nothing
more serious than this. Many of us have been critical of the decision
to engage in a preemptive war of choice, not necessity, of the poor
planning, of the lack of proper equipment provided to our troops, of
the lack of accountability of the billions of dollars being spent, more
than a billion per week, much of which has gone to friends of this
administration and not to provide things like clean water and modern
body armor to our troops. There are legitimate issues to raise whether
one agrees or not.
But rather than deal with the substance, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay) has, to put it bluntly, slimed the questioners. On March 20
of this year, Mr. DeLay said, quote, ``This destructive rhetoric does
nothing more than demoralize our troops and second-guess our Commander
in Chief,'' unquote. But in May of 1999 while our troops were there
fighting against genocide and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, that same
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, quote, ``It is a flawed policy,
and it was flawed to go in. I think this President is one of the least
effective Presidents of my lifetime. He has hollowed out our forces
while running around the world with these adventures.''
It was perfectly fine then for him to make this critical and, I would
argue, somewhat intemperate comment about his Commander in Chief in
1999 while our troops were engaged in conflict. But not now. Oh, no.
Last week during the debate on handing another $87 billion to this
administration that cannot seem to provide enough fresh water or
sunscreen to our troops, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said,
``Let me just say that the old debating tactics of `I support the
troops but' is just not going to cut it this time. If you support the
war, and you support the troops, you must, you must vote for this
bill.''
Well, that is a very, very different story, again, from what he said
in 1999. Our leader, the Republican majority leader, came to the floor
of this house, stood probably over there, and said to this body, quote,
``This is a very difficult speech for me to make because I normally,
and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are
doing, but, I cannot support a failed foreign policy.''
Now last week, he is saying ``no buts,'' and in 1999 he was all about
``but he could not support a failed foreign policy.''
Mr. DeLay can say what he wants because that is his right, not only
as the majority leader or an elected Representative, but because that
is the right of every American. But I have the right and we have the
right, and I think an obligation, to demand that he act in the spirit
of the oath that he took to uphold the Constitution, to take
responsibility for the hypocritical and, I would say, unpatriotic
remarks he has made for the purpose of demeaning and defeating his
critics and critics of the failed policies of the Republican
administration and Republican Congressional leaders.
I urge him, once again, to heed the wise words of the President from
his own party, Teddy Roosevelt and let me repeat that quote, he said,
Teddy Roosevelt, ``To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public.''
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for her comments, and I may ask that we leave
up that quote, if we could, from Teddy Roosevelt, because I think it
says it all about what this special order is tonight and why so many of
my colleagues have gotten up here and spoken out about the statements
that have been made by the majority leader.
And if I could conclude tonight, I would like to conclude with a
couple of quotes comparing what the majority leader said this year, in
regard to the war in Iraq, and what he said a few years ago, with
regard to the war on Kosovo, because I think that one of the greatest
concerns I have is this notion that he has tried to spread that somehow
if you do not support the war in Iraq or if you criticize this
different aspects of the war or if you do not vote for the funding for
the war in various ways, that you do not support the troops. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
Everybody in this House of Representatives on the Democratic side,
and I know on the Republican side as well, support the troops and want
to do whatever we can to support the troops. And much of the
controversy and much of the debate last week on the supplemental was
about how best to support the troops. But at no point was anybody
suggesting that we not support them, just how best to support them.
And the thing that is amazing about it is if you look up one of the
quotes that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) made this year with
regard to the Iraq war, and this is the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) on March 20 of this year, a quote from the Washington Times
where he said, ``I think it is hypocritical to say on the one hand that
you support the troops, while on the other hand you say the reason they
are risking their lives was wrong. I think it undermines the effort and
the unity this country ought to be showing right now.'' Yet just a few
years earlier, talking about the Kosovo war, as quoted in the USA Today
regarding floor votes on Kosovo, the majority leader, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), then said, ``It is very simple: The President
is not supported by the House and the military is supported by the
House.'' What he essentially was saying that you do not have to support
the President in the war in order to support the troops.
And that is the bottom line. Everyone here on the Democratic side and
the Republican side wants to do whatever is necessary to support the
troops and to make sure that they are not unnecessarily in harm's way.
But the bottom line is that you can support the troops and not support
the President's foreign policy, either collectively in Iraq, or
separately on different votes.
And I think it is very, very important for us as Democrats to
continue to make that point. And we will continue to make it unless the
majority leader stops his criticism and his comments relative to the
patriotism of the Democrats.
____________________