[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 17, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1122-H1129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 557, RELATING TO THE LIBERATION
OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE AND THE VALIANT SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED
FORCES AND COALITION FORCES
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 561 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 561
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H.
Res. 557) relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people and
the valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and
Coalition forces. The resolution shall be considered as read
for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption
without intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on International Relations
or their designee; and (2) one motion to recommit which may
not contain instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of House Resolution 557
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Fort Lauderdale
(Mr. Hastings) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago, our brave servicemen and -women began a
military operation that brought freedom for tens of millions, toppled
one of the most despicable regimes in the history of the world, and
strengthened the national security for the American people.
Operation Iraqi Freedom was, and continues to be, a military success
of the highest order. Within 4 weeks from the start of operations on
March 19 of last year, the U.S. military had won unqualified victory.
Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime could no longer terrorize the
Iraqi people who were finally free to act, do and say as they pleased
for the first time in decades.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Saddam Hussein endangered
world security. He posed a threat to his people, his region and the
international community. Trusting the intentions of a man who started
two wars, gassed his own people, and supported international terrorism
would have been grossly irresponsible.
As weapons inspector David Kay has said, we know Saddam Hussein
wanted weapons of mass destruction, we know he was attempting to
resuscitate his illicit programs, and we know with certainty who he
viewed his greatest enemy to be.
In a world where Iran can buy its way to a nuclear program with
assistance from Pakistan's top nuclear scientist, combined with
Saddam's access to illicit oil revenue, the fact that weapons of mass
destruction have not yet been found in Iraq is hardly proof that Saddam
Hussein did not want to severely hurt our country. Moreover, American
national security has been solidified by the military action that was
undertaken last year.
Mr. Speaker, does anyone really believe that Iran would be
cooperating with international nuclear inspectors today if we had not
launched this military operation? Does anyone really believe that North
Korea would be engaged in six-party talks over the future of their
nuclear program if the United States had not deposed Saddam Hussein?
Does anyone really believe that Muammar Qaddafi, as recalcitrant in his
defiance to the international community as ever a dictator has been,
would have willingly come to the United States and Britain and declared
that he wanted to end his illicit weapons programs had the American
military not marched into Baghdad?
Mr. Speaker, Operation Iraqi Freedom sent an unmistakable signal to
the rest of the world's tyrannical leaders: Either play by the rules or
face the consequences.
Now, the events of September 11 taught us that we cannot allow
threats to arrive on our shores before we combat them. If other Nations
wish to keep their head in the sand about the dangers of proliferation
and terrorism, that is their prerogative, but we cannot and could not
afford to take that chance.
To those who complain of the cost of war and its aftermath, I simply
will note that estimates of the cost of containing Saddam and his
successors, as some have argued we should have done, are upwards of six
times the dollar amount we have spent on war and reconstruction thus
far, and significantly higher in terms of human lives lost.
Because of the heroic action of our military, the Iraqi threat has
been mitigated efficiently and a new dawn has begun for the people of
Iraq.
Earlier this month, Iraqi leaders signed the transitional
administrative law into effect. It establishes an Iraqi law, a bill of
fundamental human rights and paves the way for Iraqi democracy.
Perhaps more important than the signing of the law itself, was the
agreement of Suni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders to sign the document.
While differences amongst them remain, and the road ahead will be
difficult, it is clear they are acting with the best interests of the
new Iraq and its people firmly in mind.
I should say our colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is
going to, in her remarks today, tell a
[[Page H1123]]
very moving story about the fact that these very, very disparate groups
have been able to come together sharing this pursued goal.
The Iraqi people themselves are clearly enjoying their newfound
freedoms under the transitional government. Poll results released just
yesterday demonstrate that not only do a significant majority of Iraqis
feel they are much better off than they were under Saddam Hussein's
reign, but the extremely high level of participation in the poll
demonstrates their desire to exercise their right to speak their minds,
something that was unthinkable under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.
{time} 1030
Such progress has only been possible because of the tireless
commitment of our Armed Forces and those of the 34 nations assisting us
to provide security on the ground in Iraq.
It is dangerous territory; and the forces of evil, whether they be
Ba'athist remnants or infiltrated al-Qaeda sympathizers, are a constant
threat. In the past year, we have lost over 550 of our best and
brightest Americans, with another 3,190 wounded. That number, as it is
in any conflict, is too high. Without question, we owe the soldiers we
have lost, the soldiers who remain, and their families, an enormous
debt of gratitude. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this resolution
marking this first anniversary is designed to do. If there is any
solace, it is knowing that because of their actions, America and the
world are safer places today with Saddam Hussein's regime dismantled.
Because of our military, the people of Iraq have a bright future,
where Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd alike can dream of being treated equally,
of electing their representatives, of owning a prosperous business, and
being free to say, worship, and read what they want.
Mr. Speaker, it would be all too easy for the United States to leave
Iraq now and let the Iraqi people fend for themselves. Avoiding
conflict is the path of least resistance and is always politically
expedient. But unlike previous conflict, terrorism cannot be contained.
It has no boundaries. It has no rules. One day it strikes Baghdad, the
next Madrid. The only recipe for success in this war is our resolve to
defeat threats where we see them and promote democracy where we can.
Mr. Speaker, true success in the war on terror is taking place right
now on the ground in Baghdad and Kabul. By supporting, securing, and
strengthening the democratic governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, we
are promoting greater equality within those countries as well as
providing forums for those who feel disaffected to air they grievances
without picking up arms. As open and transparent governments spread
throughout the world, the precursor ingredients for terrorism, anger,
and fanaticism will dissipate. That will be the continuing legacy of
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule and the underlying
resolution, which not only affirms the actions that the United States
undertook a year ago, but provides every Member of this body the
opportunity to reaffirm their own personal commitment to winning the
war against terrorism, our commitment to democracy in Iraq, and, most
important, to our troops in the field.
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that this resolution will enjoy strong
bipartisan support. That is our goal. I also hope, Mr. Speaker, that as
soon as we pass this resolution that we will immediately have it
translated in Arabic so that Saddam Hussein can read it in his cell and
be reminded constantly of what we and the victims are regularly
reminded of. Thanks to our military, Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein does
have time to read that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules, my very good friend, that I thank him for yielding me this time,
and had it been intended that this would be a bipartisan resolution,
then Members in the minority would have been included in drafting this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I truly wish that I could support this
rule. National security is a bipartisan, or actually a nonpartisan,
issue. And when we commend the troops, all of us, all of us have a
stake. Every congressional district has a stake in commending the
troops.
As a matter of fact, small town and rural America have furnished 46
percent and 43 percent of the deaths in Afghanistan and in Iraq. So all
of us, whether we are from small towns or large cities, have a stake in
a resolution commending the troops, and we should have been consulted
about it. I am sorry for that.
Now, more than that, while we commend the troops, I would also have,
had I been consulted, recommended that we do our best to protect our
troops by including more body armor and extra up-armored Humvees, of
which we still do not have enough in Iraq. As a matter of fact, Mr.
Speaker, I received from the United States Army a letter indicating
that there are unfunded requirements for the extra up-armored Humvees
and the body armor, which is so necessary.
I would also have recommended that we have complete, timely, and
high-quality health care to treat the wounds and injuries for those who
have served, and to recognize those who pay the sacrifice, whether it
be in wounds, injuries, or, sadly, deaths.
I would also have recognized the contributions of and the sacrifices
of the families of our servicemen and -women, particularly in the Guard
and Reserve. I would have recognized the efforts to improve our
intelligence gaps that our troops need and so that they be better
protected in the future. And I would have recognized and recommended
the sufficient up-front funding for our military operations so we can
ensure the safety and well-being of our troops.
Mr. Speaker, I would also have included the fact that there should
have been better planning for the postwar period. I sent two letters to
the President, one on September 4, 2002, and another 2 days before the
attack on Iraq, both of which I include in the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us should have been at least brought
to the table and all of us had an opportunity to write this resolution.
I am so proud of our troops, whether they be from Missouri or Maine or
wherever they are from. This is the best military our country has ever
seen. And I think every Member of Congress, both sides of the aisle,
should have had the opportunity to say thank you, we are proud of you,
and God bless you.
Mr. Speaker, here follows the letters to which I referred earlier in
my comments:
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, September 4, 2002.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Thank you for inviting me to the
briefing this morning. I share your concern about the
continuing threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his efforts to
produce weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I would like to
offer my assistance as the administration considers how to
deal with this threat.
Before Congress can authorize any military action that
might be part of the administration's plan, we must have
answers to more questions than were able to be raised at
today's meeting. Our constitutional duty requires us to
ensure that all implications of such action are considered in
advance. The case has not yet been fully made as to what the
threat is, why military force is an appropriate way of
addressing the threat, and why action must occur now. In
short, Congress and the American people must be clear on your
strategic vision before we can authorize a specific course of
action. I believe, like Clausewitz, that in strategy there is
an ``imperative . . . not to take the first step without
considering the last.''
Your strategy for dealing with Iraq must address the
fundamental questions of the threat, the method of acting,
and the timing. Furthermore, any strategy to eliminate Iraqi
WMD must also address several component issues, each of which
raises critical questions.
1. How to manage Iraq's transition to a stable post-Saddam
regime
As I mentioned to you this morning, this is a crucial
question for administration strategy to answer in advance of
any military action. I have no doubt that our military would
decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like
the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must
consider what we would do after we caught it.
As Sun-Tzu said in the classic strategic treatise, The Art
of War, ``To win victory is
[[Page H1124]]
easy; to preserve its fruits, difficult.'' Military planners
and political leaders alike new this in World War II.
Planning for the occupation of Germany and Japan--two
economically viable, technologically sophisticated nations--
took place well in advance of the end of the war. The
extreme difficulty of occupying Iraq with its history of
autocratic rule, its balkanized ethnic tensions, and its
isolated economic system argues both for careful
consideration of the benefits and risks of undertaking
military action and for detailed advanced occupation
planning if such military action is approved.
Specifically, your strategy must consider the form of a
replacement regime and take seriously the possibility that
this regime might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to
civil unrest and even anarchy. The effort must be to craft a
stable regime that will be geopolitically preferable to
Saddam and will incorporate the disparate interests of all
groups within Iraq--Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd. We must also plan
now for what to do with members of the Baath party that
continue to support Saddam and with the scientists and
engineers who have expertise born of the Iraqi WMD program.
All these efforts require careful planning and long-term
commitment of manpower and resources. The American people
must be clear about the amount of money and the number of
soldiers that will have to be devoted to this effort for many
years to come.
2. How to ensure the action in Iraq does not undermine
international support for the broader war on terrorism
In planning for military operations in Iraq, we cannot
ignore the lack of international support to date. Pre-emptive
action against Iraq is currently vocally opposed by many of
our allies and friends throughout the world and particularly
in the Middle East.
When we are seen as acting against the concerns of large
numbers of our friends, it calls into question the ``humble''
approach to international relations you espoused during the
presidential campaign. More than that, it has several
potentially damaging long-term consequences. First, it risks
losing the large number of partners needed to prosecute the
global war on terrorism. To ferret terrorists groups out of
their many hiding places, we must have broad allied support.
Second, it risks seriously damaging U.S. moral legitimacy,
potentially providing states like India and Pakistan with a
preemptive option that could drive long-standing conflicts
beyond containable bounds.
Finally and perhaps most dangerously, actions without broad
Arab support may inflame the sources of terrorism, causing
unrest and anger throughout the Muslim world. This dynamic
will be worse if Iraq attacks Israel--perhaps with weapons of
mass destruction--and draws them into the conflict. Iran,
which has the potential to seize a reformist path, may well
move away from the United States in the face of attacks that
could next be taken against them. Together, these dynamics
will make achieving peace in the Middle East more difficult
and may well provide the rationale for more terrorist attacks
against Americans.
These concerns do not make military action in Iraq
untenable. They do, however, highlight the depth and
importance of the issues to be addressed before we strike. We
need to ensure that in taking out Saddam, we don't win the
battle and lose the war.
3. How to ensure that the United States can execute this
operation successfully as well as its other military
missions
As you are well aware, Mr. President, the consideration of
military action against Iraq comes at a time when U.S. forces
are actively engaged throughout the world in a range of
missions. Given the operational pressures these forces
currently face, we must ask what the risks and trade-offs
will be of defeating Iraq, particularly if Iraqi forces mass
in Baghdad for urban operations. How many casualties must the
American people be prepared to take in a worst-case scenario?
What will the impact of sustained operations be on so-called
high-demand, low-density assets? What military operations
might we have to forego because of continued demands in Iraq?
Will we still be prepared for the range of other threats that
might emerge throughout the world? With little allied support
and contributions, will we still be able to maintain military
spending on transformational technologies and on sound
quality of life for our forces if we are bearing a huge
wartime cost alone? What will be the impact on the domestic
economy of these resources drains and of the long-term costs
of reconstructing Iraq? These questions must be answered
before any military action commences so that the American
people understand the risks and the sacrifices involved.
I ask these questions only to highlight the complexity of
the undertaking and the need for Congress, the American
people, and our friends around the world to understand
exactly what is at stake and why we must act now. Only such a
comprehensive strategic approach will ensure that we commit
U.S. troops consciously and with full knowledge of the range
of challenges we face--both in the initial campaign and in
the long aftermath to follow. Even a strategy that has
military action as its centerpiece will require great
diplomatic efforts to ensure its success. I look forward to
hearing the administration's answers and to working with you
to find the best course of action.
Sincerely,
Ike Skelton,
Ranking Democrat.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, March 18, 2003.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: This is a critical week for our nation
and for the world. As you prepare to make the most difficult
decision of sending our troops into combat, the thoughts and
prayers of all Americans are with you. My colleagues here in
Congress have many different views on the wisdom of action in
Iraq and the severity of its consequences. But we are united
in our support for all the men and women who serve this
nation.
There is no doubt that our forces will be victorious in any
conflict, but there is great potential for a ragged ending to
a war as we deal with the aftermath. I appreciate the efforts
that members of your administration have made to keep me
informed about plans for the administration and
reconstruction of Iraq following military conflict. Your team
has thought about many of the things that will need to be
done.
Secretary Rumsfeld frequently talks about the list he keeps
of things that could go wrong in an Iraq war. I have kept my
own list--of things that could go wrong after the war is
over. This list below is indicative of this broader list. My
hope is that this will be helpful to members of your
administration as you continue to plan for all possibilities.
These are not complete scenarios but rather a series of
possible problems that could occur in some combination.
Internal Divisions and External Influences in Iraq
Without access to Iraq through Turkey, U.S. troops are not
present in northern Iraq in large numbers. Turkey enters
northern Iraq to establish a buffer zone and fighting breaks
out between the Turks and Kurds. A significant U.S. military
force is needed to separate the groups, complicating the
governmental transition and international support.
An uprising in Kirkuk leaves the Kurds in control of areas
of the city and surrounding area. This triggers a large
Turkish invasion to protect the Turkmen minority and to
prevent Kurdish control of oil resources. Again this would
require U.S. military resources with all the attending
effects.
In the event that Turkey crosses into Iraq, Iran may do the
same, ostensibly to stem the refugee flows from southern Iraq
and to protect Shi'a interests. Shi'a populations in the
south rebel and undertake attacks against Sunnis. U.S.
troops must step in to protect the Sunnis and restore
peace. These tensions resurface during attempts to build a
federal and representative government.
Urban fighting in the south brings Shi'a into conflict with
Sunnis. The resulting devastation causes a refugee crisis as
Shi'a make for the Iranian border. The results of Saddam's
policy of forced Arabization of areas like Kirkuk yield
dangerous consequences. Groups like the Kurds flow back into
these areas seeking to reclaim their former homes and land,
sparking conflict with Iraqi Arabs.
Attempts to fashion a federal government in Baghdad prove
difficult. Iran is able to establish proxies for its
influence among the Shi'a representatives. Once in Iraq,
infighting breaks out among members of the former Iraqi
opposition in exile. The United States is unable to
transition the administration of Iraq effectively and has to
remain in place, with significant military backing.
The war involves lengthy urban combat, particularly in
Baghdad. Most infrastructure is destroyed resulting in
massive humanitarian problems. The emphasis on humanitarian
aid distracts from efforts to establish a new government.
Once established the government faces massive political
pressure from the sustained humanitarian crisis.
weapons of mass destruction
Saddam uses biological and chemical weapons against
advancing U.S. troops, but also inflicts substantial civilian
casualties. Efforts to stabilize cities and to establish a
government are complicated by the need to deal with the large
number of dead and to decontaminate affected areas.
Saddam uses biological and chemical weapons directly
against civilian populations or against another Arab country
and seeks to affix blame for civilian suffering to the United
States. Over the period of occupation, this resentment
complicates U.S. efforts to maintain support for
reconstruction efforts.
U.S. troops are unable to quickly find all of Saddam's
capabilities, requiring a long, labor-intensive search and
anxiety as to when the task is complete.
Regional leaders, for money or to gain influence, retain
caches of WMD and transfer some to terrorist groups.
Saddam attacks Israel with missiles containing weapons of
mass destruction. Israel retaliates. Arab countries, notably
Saudi Arabia and Jordan, come under intense political
pressure to withdraw their support from the U.S. war effort.
U.S. forces are forced to reposition operational centers into
Iraq and Kuwait, complicating reconstruction and transition
efforts.
oil resources
Saddam sabotages a significant number of wells before his
defeat. Current estimates indicate he may already have wired
up to 1,500 of these wells. The damage takes years to contain
at great economic and environmental cost and removes a major
source of reconstruction funding.
[[Page H1125]]
Internal groups, such as the Kurds, seize oil-rich land
before American troops reach the area, causing internal
clashes over these resources. Militant Shi'as seize other
wells in the South.
International Support
The United States takes immediate control of Iraq's
administration and of reconstruction. The United Nations
can't agree on how involved to get given the divisions among
the Security Council about the need for conflict. The lack of
UN involvement in the administration makes the European Union
and others less likely to give. This situation delays
reconstruction and puts more of the cost on the United States
and a smaller number of partners.
U.S. reconstruction efforts that give U.S. corporations a
great role at the expense of multilateral organizations and
other participation--as was detailed in yesterday's Wall
Street Journal--spur resentment and again limit the
willingness of others to participate.
American Commitment
Stabilization and reconstruction prove more difficult than
expected. U.S. troop requirements approach 200,000--the
figure General Shinseki has mentioned--for a sustained
period. This puts pressure on troop rotations, reservists,
their families, and employers and requires a dramatic
increase in end-strength.
Required funding reaches the figure suggested by a recent
Council on Foreign Relations assessment--$20 billion annually
for several years. During a period of economic difficulty,
the American public calls for greater burdensharing.
It is my hope that none of these eventualities comes to
pass. But as you and all military leaders know, good planning
requires considering the range of possibilities. It also
requires advance preparation of the American people. You have
regularly outlined the reasons for why the United States must
disarm Iraq. I urge you to do the same in explaining why we
must stay with Iraq for the long haul, even with the economic
and military burdens this will entail.
As always, I am willing to help in any way I can to make
this case to my colleagues and the American people.
Sincerely,
Ike Skelton,
Ranking Democrat.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I want to engage my
colleague from Missouri in a colloquy.
There is no Member of this House who is more highly regarded in the
area of national security than our friend, the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton). I am privileged to be a native of the Show Me State, and
he has done us all very proud.
I know at the end of the day he will want to support this resolution,
Mr. Speaker, because this resolution does exactly, exactly what my
friend just stated in his closing remarks: recognizing our troops.
Now, we had no intention of offending anyone in drafting the
resolution. In fact, we thought it was so noncontroversial that it
would be an appropriate thing to move it forward.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I would have thought it a mere courtesy of
saying, Would the gentleman from Missouri like to read this over and
add or make recommendations? I would love to have been there in order
to support the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I
completely understand that he would like to have had input; and that is
one of the reasons we, in fact, did provide an opportunity, which is
unusual, in consideration of this rule, for a motion to recommit for
Members of the minority, if in fact that was the case.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia
(Mr. Linder), my very good friend and the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Technology and the House of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on
Rules for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this rule and
urge my colleagues to join me in approving this resolution.
H. Res. 561 will allow the House to work its will on the underlying
resolution. It is an appropriate procedure, given the nature of H. Res.
557, which is a simple resolution. H. Res. 557 was introduced to
recognize the Iraqi people's suffering under Saddam Hussein, the
significant advancements being made in Iraq since last March, and the
courage of U.S. and Coalition Forces as they strive to bring order and
stability to the country.
The media is accurate in its reports of the difficulties that still
face U.S. and Coalition Forces in Iraq. But there are also positive
events taking place every day that deserve recognition and are largely
ignored by the media. Probably the greatest accomplishment is that the
Iraqis are returning to their lives and are enjoying freedoms that
never could have existed under Saddam Hussein. Under his regime, the
Iraqi lived in terror on a daily basis. Now, the people of Iraq have an
opportunity to shape their history as they choose. The Iraqi people
recently took their first step in shaping their future with the recent
signing of the Iraqi interim constitution into law.
Other notable advancements in Iraq over the last year include the
rise in oil production to roughly pre-March 2003 levels, the
circulation of the new Iraqi currency, and the repair of critical
infrastructure and roads. Additionally, the electricity supply has
become more stable, and many Iraqi hospitals are up and running.
The number of Iraqis that have joined the Iraqi police force, border
patrols, and army has also increased, allowing Iraqi citizens to
participate in protection of their very own infrastructure.
Iraq is still a dangerous place, not only for Iraqi citizens but also
for U.S. and Coalition Forces. I commend the U.S. and Coalition Forces
for their dedication, sacrifice, and service in Iraq; and I salute them
for helping to make our world a safer place.
The task of rebuilding Iraq will be no easy feat, and it will
certainly take time. However, I am encouraged by the positive events of
the last year, and I believe it is in the U.S.'s interest and the
world's to persevere and create a stable and democratic Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may
proceed to debate the underlying legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule because it works against the
values and principles for which American citizens are risking their
lives in Iraq and Afghanistan on this very day.
We are fighting for democracy abroad, but we will not allow democracy
on the floor of the House of Representatives of the United States. The
fact of the matter is, if this had not been a political document, every
Member of this House would follow the line, ``Commends the members of
the United States Armed Forces and Coalition Forces for liberating Iraq
and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.'' But that is
not all that is in this resolution.
This is not about stopping consideration of the underlying
resolution. It is a pleasure to take the time to pay tribute to the men
and women who distinguish themselves daily in selfless service to this
Nation. I do this, as do all Members on both sides of the aisle, at
every available occasion. But there are other important matters that
are not addressed in this resolution. And the fact that we were not
included in its drafting allows them to be pronounced during the course
of opposing this rule as well as in general debate.
We have not, for example, recognized the efforts of our National
Guardsmen and Reserves, who have left friends and families and civilian
jobs to serve in Iraq. But this completely closed rule does not give
all Members of the House of Representatives the opportunity to
commemorate the outstanding service of all those who have served in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once this institution was considered one of the world's greatest
deliberative bodies, and its Members were statespersons rather than
professional self-promoters. Once Members of Congress were brimming
with ideas befitting a proud democracy. But no more, Mr. Speaker. To
all of my colleagues who showed up last night at the Committee on Rules
with amendments that they thought could strengthen this resolution, I
apologize to you for the majority's disdain for your contributions.
Actually, I had an amendment to this resolution that urged the
President to provide Congress a straightforward and honest assessment
of our past and future commitments in Iraq, as well as recognizing the
selfless acts of the men and women in our service, who we all love and
adore and applaud for their courage on a daily basis.
{time} 1045
These are some of the many questions for which we are all seeking
answers from the administration. Even
[[Page H1126]]
more, there are questions to which Congress has a constitutional
responsibility and obligation to raise and demand answers.
Mr. Speaker, I asked myself last night as the Committee on Rules
Republicans passed yet another closed rule, and 11 have been closed, 1
has been open this year, which stifles debate and shuts off meaningful
contributions from all of the Members of this Chamber, I asked myself,
What is the problem? The problem is that the majority has introduced
this resolution for political reasons. C-SPAN will broadcast today's
speeches and Fox News will run stories professing the patriotism of
those on the other side of the aisle. Thus, the Republican majority
hopes to disguise the neglect and misdirection they have shown in
governing by not making this a bipartisan effort.
The Republicans have not established a record which helps all
Americans, and are relying on photos ops and waving the American flag
to get themselves reelected. It would be much more patriotic to address
the perennially underfunded veterans affairs health care system. By the
Bush administration's own estimate, their policies will exclude
approximately 500,000 veterans from the VA health care system by 2005.
This is shameful. President Bush also proposed an increase in pay fees
and copayments in an effort to shift the burden onto the backs of
veterans and drive an additional 1 million veterans from the system. It
is shameful.
Our troops should be taken care of when we send them into battle, and
be given the respect they have earned when we bring them home.
America's veterans fight and fought for our freedoms, they should not
have to fight for their benefits.
As the Republicans continue to protect the wealthy and act like show
horses in front of the cameras, Democrats are working for the men and
women in uniform and our veterans today as well as in the future. We
will continue to applaud them.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is true that the United States of America has had a bipartisan
foreign policy. This resolution is not about foreign policy. This
resolution is not about foreign policy, this is a resolution that is
simply designed to congratulate our troops. I do not understand why
there is any controversy on it. As I said earlier and as I said in the
Committee on Rules last night, we are sorry if anyone was offended over
the fact that Members of the minority were not offered a chance to have
input. I said to a number of my colleagues, that is one of the reasons
that we have in fact made in order a motion to recommit that will allow
the minority at the end of the bill an opportunity to cast a vote on
that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) who has done a phenomenal job of focusing on the rights of
women. She chairs our Republican Conference and the Subcommittee on
Legislative and Budget Process Reform for the Committee on Rules.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I stand before Members to strongly
urge my colleagues to support this resolution for freedom and democracy
in Iraq.
Life under Hussein's ruthless regime was unlike anything we have ever
experienced. His cronies, in order to get information out of men, would
rape their wives and their sisters and mothers. Women in Iraq
frequently lost their husbands to ``the law,'' never knowing what
happened to them, where they went or why they were arrested. These same
women, forbidden to go to work to support their families, were left to
starvation.
The Iraqi women under Saddam Hussein's regime were someone's mothers,
wives, and sisters, and they suffered tremendously. I led a women's
delegation to Iraq and heard these atrocities firsthand from the women
who now are free. They no longer dread the strong arm of Saddam
Hussein's injustice. Coalition forces are now protecting the newly
acquired rights of all Iraqis. I learned of the story of these two
women who were protesting.
Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago they would have been executed for
protesting. They were protesting to get the rights of women included in
the Iraqi constitution. One of these women was waving her husband's
death certificate saying, we have not waited all these years to be
denied freedoms. A reporter, an Islamic reporter, went up to ask, Are
you Sunni or Shiite? These women said, We may be one of each, but it is
none of your business, we are Iraqis now.
That is what this is all about. This is what freedom stands for. This
is what it means to two women, one who lost her husband and had no way
of knowing what happened to him. This is what we are celebrating today.
This is what has been accomplished by our Armed Forces, by the will of
this administration.
Saddam Hussein, the ruthless murderer, is now in jail. He will be
tried by his own people in his own country, and he will get his just
rewards, and these two women, despite the fear and dread and horror of
their past, will live in freedom. We should be very happy today.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) who has fought aggressively
for open rules on the Committee on Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the undemocratic,
completely closed rule, and in opposition to House Resolution 557.
Mr. Speaker, like all of my colleagues, I have tremendous respect for
the men and women of our Armed Forces who are bearing the burden of
this military action in Iraq. My support and my commitment to them and
their families are unwavering. I will work to ensure that they remain
the best trained, the best led, and the best equipped military force in
the world. I am grateful and humbled by their courage, endurance and
sacrifice, and I honor them not just today but every day, and I only
wish this House was considering today a truly bipartisan resolution
that properly honored our troops.
Unfortunately, once again this House is claiming to honor our troops
without devoting the necessary resources for their safety or for their
support. House Resolution 557 will do nothing to ensure that every one
of our military personnel, including our National Guard and reservists
serving on the front lines in Iraq will be fully equipped with the
latest body armor. Instead, many families of our troops are buying and
shipping that protection overseas to their loved ones, out of their own
pockets with no hope for reimbursement. This is unacceptable, and we
should fix it.
This resolution will do nothing to close the pay gap for our
reservists and National Guard members who have been called away from
their civilian jobs to serve in Iraq. Their families are struggling,
going into debt as a result of their patriotic service. Yet the
leadership of this House, unlike the other body, resists funding
commonsense solutions to the problems caused by these overlong
activations. This is unacceptable, and we should fix it.
This resolution contributes nothing towards fully funding our
military construction needs so that all our military personnel have
decent housing and facilities in which to live, train, and work. This
is unacceptable, and we should fix it.
Mr. Speaker, I support our troops. I want to help the suffering
people of Iraq live and prosper in a safe and secure nation. I want
them to have the opportunity to choose their own government, one where
every Iraqi may worship as he or she chooses, and every man, woman and
child can live out their lives. But 1 year and $120 billion later, we
face continuing hostilities in Iraq, with no end in sight.
This resolution fails to mention that the war in Iraq was justified
by this administration on the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
Why? Because just like the experts tried to tell us for months before
the war, we now know there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I do not believe we needed to send over 150,000 American troops to
Iraq to confirm that fact. Mr. Speaker, 566 soldiers, sailors, airmen
and marines have died, and over 3,200 more have been wounded. Thousands
of Iraqi men, women and children have perished, and scores of other
civilians and nationals have been killed since we entered Iraq. There
is no mention, no remembrance for them in this resolution.
[[Page H1127]]
Today the American taxpayer is still paying for almost all of the
cost of Iraq without the least idea of how much the war has cost to
date or how much it will cost in the future. In fact, the operations in
Iraq are not even included in the President's budget. We still do not
have a truly independent commission to provide a full accounting of the
events leading up to the war and the nature of the intelligence of
policymaking that led the Bush administration to go to war.
Mr. Speaker, 1 year later the United States is more isolated than
ever in the world. Terrorist networks are proliferating, including new
networks in Iraq and Europe. And our troops abroad and our first
responders at home are overstretched, underfunded, and overburdened.
I am glad Saddam Hussein no longer has the power to torment the Iraqi
people, but unlike the claim made in this resolution, I do not believe
that the world is a safer, less dangerous place than it was 12 months
ago.
This resolution is more about what the Republican leadership wants us
to forget about the past year: the costs, the bloated contracts, no
weapons, no ties to al Qaeda, the flawed intelligence, the wounded and
the dead.
I urge all my colleagues to remember and vote against this
undemocratic rule and vote against this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to simply say that again, we did not have a
goal of offending Members on this. This is not about foreign policy,
this is about commending our troops.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is 2\1/2\ pages long, okay. I am going
to share with our colleagues the resolved clause.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives
(1) affirms that the United States and the world have been
made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime
from power in Iraq;
(2) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face
of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by
Saddam Hussein's regime;
(3) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's
interim constitution; and
(4) commends the members of the U.S. Armed Forces and
coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its
gratitude for their valiant service.
That is what this resolution is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), the very distinguished Chair of the
Republican Study Committee.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
September 11, 2001, is a day that should be etched in the mind of
every American, because that is the day that terrorists chose to attack
America and that threat is still here. The primary function of our
Federal Government is to protect our citizens and we are doing our best
to see that happens.
It is now 1 year since the coalition forces entered Iraq to free
those people from Saddam Hussein's rule of terror. Freedom is
flourishing and the Iraqi people know they are better off. However,
terrorists are still doing everything they can to interrupt that and
see that does not happen. The Iraqi people are in control of their
destiny for the first time, and we are here today to encourage them in
that effort, and we are here today to say thank you to our troops, all
those men and women who have served in the past in this effort and who
are serving now over there, giving of themselves and giving their lives
so they can protect these freedoms that we all enjoy. We know the world
is safer today without Saddam Hussein.
We must never forget 9/11 and that we are fighting over there so we
do not have to fight the terrorists here at home. And no matter what
the terrorists try to do, they need to be reminded that these colors do
not run.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the chairman of the Committee on Rules,
if this is not about foreign policy, then how is it that the chairman
of the jurisdictional foreign policy committee brought it to the
Committee on Rules? If it is not about foreign policy, why is the
language for the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 referenced in this
resolution? If it is not about foreign policy, why is the mention of
the 16 previously adopted United Nations Security Council resolutions
in this matter? If it is not about foreign policy, why is the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002
referenced in this resolution? The other side of the aisle is trying to
defend the indefensible.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International
Relations, who may be able to tell us why it is not about foreign
policy.
{time} 1100
Mr. LANTOS. I want to thank my friend for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I urge all
of my colleagues to vote it down. I deeply regret that this resolution
was not handled in a bipartisan manner. The Democratic side was not
consulted on this resolution, and the Republican leadership bypassed
its consideration before the Committee on International Relations. It
is simply unacceptable that not a single amendment was made in order,
no substitute is allowed; and there is no other way we on our side can
offer improvements to this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the country is at war. The men and women who serve are
Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The men and women who are
wounded are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. And, yes, Mr.
Speaker, the men and women who die are Democrats and Republicans and
Independents. The families grieving are Democrats and Republicans and
independents. Many of us have tried very hard for a long time to work
towards a bipartisan foreign policy decades ago and certainly since
September 11. The manner in which this resolution was crafted and the
way in which it is being considered under this rule is a slap in the
face of all those who have tried to conduct a bipartisan foreign policy
in the national interest. You on your side have neither a monopoly on
wisdom nor a monopoly on patriotism. You should have come to the
Democrats to craft a resolution honoring our troops, which would have
passed this body unanimously. You have created divisiveness at a time
when we need cohesion and unity. You have created divisiveness for no
reason except illusory partisan advantage. This is a flawed resolution,
flawed in its presentation, flawed in its procedure, flawed in its
partisanship. This is not a Republican tax bill to be handled only by
Republicans. This is a bill of national importance. Democrats,
Independents, and Republicans have a right to have an input, to say how
much we admire the courage and patriotism of our troops. You have
failed, and you have failed miserably.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule and to come forward with a
reasonable resolution supported across the political spectrum in this
body.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that my friend from
California is one of the greatest patriots in this institution. I hold
him in the highest regard. I believe very strongly in the need for us
to pursue a bipartisan foreign policy. Let me just say that, again, we
had no intention of offending anyone in the crafting of this
resolution, and it should be a nonpartisan resolution itself. At the
end of the day because we found that controversy came forward in the
Committee on Rules last night beyond the request that was made by
Chairman Hyde, we did in fact offer a motion to recommit for members of
the minority.
But I do believe again that this resolution is designed to do nothing
more than commend the troops and the people of Iraq. That is what it is
designed to do. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy. This here
marks the first anniversary of this very, very successful effort. I
think that what we are trying to do here is, in a bipartisan way,
acknowledges that.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend
from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), an able member of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman
for yielding me this time. I think it is appropriate on the 1-year
anniversary of the liberation of Iraq
[[Page H1128]]
that we focus on that monumental and extraordinary event on the floor
of this House today. The resolution before us congratulates the valiant
men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the Coalition for
having liberated the people of Iraq, and it states that because of that
heroic effort by the Armed Forces of the Coalition and principally the
United States, the world is safer today. The world is safer, Mr.
Speaker.
Each time a dangerous madman is removed from power anywhere in the
world, the entire world is safer because there is one less madman
kidnapping power in a country and holding the entire people of that
country hostage and linking with terrorist groups throughout the world.
Saddam Hussein was not the only dangerous enemy of freedom and peace in
the world; but he was a dangerous enemy of freedom and peace in the
world, and the entire world is safer because Saddam Hussein is gone
from power and facing justice. I would ask the people of Iraq if they
feel safer after having seen the regime deposed or if they do not feel
safer.
The entire world is safer and especially, I believe, Mr. Speaker, the
people of Iraq are safer. Just like we can ask the people of Albania if
they feel safer because Hoxha is no longer in power or in Romania
because Ceausescu is no longer in power or in Russia because Stalin is
no longer in power. I think that we should ask all those peoples if
they believe that they are safer or not safer because their former
totalitarian despots are no longer in power. Or ask the people in
Cambodia if they feel safer because Pol Pot is no longer in power.
Each time a madman is removed from power, not only the people that
that madman had kidnapped and was torturing and oppressing are safer,
the entire world is safer. Or is it that when we talk about Iraq, Iraq
is not on planet Earth? The entire world is safer, but especially the
people of Iraq are safer and the American Armed Forces are the primary
liberators of that people. They deserve the commendation and the
admiration of the entire world and most especially of this House. That
is why I thank the authors for having brought it forward at this
important occasion, the 1-year anniversary of the liberation of Iraq.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The Chair will remind Members to
refrain from trafficking the well while another Member is speaking.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to
say to my distinguished friend from Florida that I do not believe that
the families of the people of Spain or Morocco or Turkey where bombs
have gone off feel safer. So maybe they are in this world.
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my good
friend from California (Ms. Harman), the distinguished ranking member
of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with whom I work
regularly.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding
me this time and commend him for his service in this Congress and
particularly his excellent service on the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to consider a resolution on
the eve of the Iraq war anniversary. I agree that the world has much to
be glad about with the fall of Saddam Hussein and the end of his
despotic regime. And I certainly hope that the Iraqi people will create
a transparent, democratic form of government for the first time in
their history, a chance that they have now that Saddam Hussein is no
longer in power. I for one, and I believe this entire Congress, will
stand by them and must stand by them and support them as they make this
transition. We must stay the course.
But there is more to this subject on the first anniversary of the
Iraq war than H. Res. 557 acknowledges. Much more. On the anniversary
of our military action in Iraq, we need to be talking about more. That
is why many of us wanted an open rule and certainly an open process so
that we could contribute to the language contained in this resolution.
As ranking member of one of the key committees with jurisdiction over
this subject, that is, the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, I would have welcomed the opportunity to share some of my
ideas to fashion a great resolution which I believe would have passed
this body unanimously. I consider myself a passionate bipartisan on
questions of defense, national security, and intelligence; and I think
that my ideas, if I had had a chance to communicate them, would have
been accepted.
For example, I am one of many Members here who has visited Walter
Reed to see the wounded from Iraq. These are very courageous kids.
Thousands have been wounded. I would have liked us to acknowledge them
and their courage.
I visited the families in my district who have lost family members in
Iraq. I would have liked to acknowledge those losses and those
families.
I have visited Iraq twice. Some have been there more. In addition to
acknowledging our troops, I would have liked to acknowledge the
intelligence community personnel who take such risks on our behalf and
the civilians working selflessly there.
I worked in 1999 and 2000 as a member of the National Commission on
Terrorism chaired by Jerry Bremer, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer. I might
have liked to acknowledge him and his selfless service in Iraq.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me, and I will address this
along with other Intelligence Committee members later in the debate,
that I would have liked to acknowledge the important role that
intelligence products play in force protection now in Iraq and why
those products need to be better. In my view, Mr. Speaker, and I think
many would share this, good intelligence is a force protection issue.
And so it seems to me on the first anniversary of our action in Iraq
that we should acknowledge the need for better intelligence products
and the need for this administration to fix right now, not next year
but right now, the way we source and analyze intelligence. That is a
suggestion I also would have made on a bipartisan basis if I had been
permitted to participate.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that as we commemorate the
first anniversary of the action in Iraq, we need actions and not just
words.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who
also had an amendment that would have strengthened this matter had it
been permitted by the Committee on Rules.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just thank the gentleman from Florida
for yielding me this time and for his strong leadership on each and
every committee on which he has served.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and this resolution.
This resolution really is an affront and an insult to our troops. I
tried to offer an amendment to this very deceptive resolution. My
amendment just basically expressed deep sorrow and real support for all
of those who have been killed in this war and we extended support for
their families in my amendment.
As the daughter of a career military officer, Mr. Speaker, I know how
important this is and what this means. This resolution as it is written
never even mentions the over 550 Americans who have died. How insulting
and insensitive. It does not even mention the Iraqi civilians and all
of our international friends who have died in this war. My amendment
also stated that the war in Iraq has undermined our alliances, it has
cost hundreds of Americans and unknown numbers of Iraqi lives and
billions of dollars, and it has made the world a more dangerous place
rather than a safer place. The evidence speaks for itself on that. We
are not voting on my amendment today because once again the Republican-
controlled Committee on Rules did not allow any amendments, not only my
amendment but zero, none, they did not allow. Once again true debate is
being stifled. What a shame and disgrace. As an officer of the
Congressional Black Caucus, we continue to stand in full support of our
troops, in support of our veterans and their health benefits, and in
support of their economic security. This resolution does none of this.
None of this.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. I urge them to vote
``no'' on this resolution. Remember, this is part of a pattern of
deception which we have
[[Page H1129]]
seen from day one. We are talking about not only the intelligence
information that was not there but really a whole host of deceptive
measures that have come before this body that we have voted on. I hope
we vote ``no'' on this resolution. It is wrong. It is terrible.
{time} 1115
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Brentwood, Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a very able new Member of this
body.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule because I
think it is a fair rule for a worthy resolution. And like a lot of my
constituents, I have spent time reflecting on what September 11 and the
war in Iraq has meant to our country, how terrorism affects our lives,
and what all of this means in the context of our world community, and I
have come to the conclusion that as complicated as our world is and as
tangled as the diplomacy surrounding our economic and military ties
with the rest of the world become, I know that there are certain basic
truths. And one of the great basic truths is the constant struggle
between good and evil. And there are times in our history when the
struggle is very clear, and today we are at one of those moments of
such clarity. The lines are drawn, and we know who is aligned on each
side.
America leads a fight that we did not seek against a movement founded
on distorted religious views and failed nations. This resolution marks
a victory for good, and it is so very important that when good triumphs
and advances that we celebrate that victory.
This resolution honors our men and women in uniform. They have made
the world a safer place for our children, and there are fewer greater
gifts than that. And today we are welcoming the Iraqi people into the
community of free nations. The resolution says to the world that
America was willing to take on this fight to dedicate the fruits of her
labor to free a horribly, horribly oppressed people a world away. Iraqi
success in rebuilding and being free is our greatest weapon against
terrorism. Terrorism seeks to destroy. Freedom builds. And that is why
we are in Afghanistan and why we are in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I thank our troops, I thank our families, and the
communities that have supported them. And may God bless America.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is going to be a
motion for an adjournment vote here, and I just wanted to, before we
proceed with that, inquire how many speakers the gentleman has
remaining for the debate as we prepare to go into this.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Three and possibly four, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
____________________