[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 31, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1766-H1772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        IRAQ AND SADDAM HUSSEIN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, tonight I would like to spend a few 
minutes talking about an update on a situation on the various inquiries 
as to what happened before 9/11. Most importantly, the work that they 
are doing is taking a look at putting together a series of 
recommendations that will enable us to improve our intelligence 
capabilities and improve our response capabilities into the future.
  As I was listening to some of the earlier speakers, someone said when 
that happens and these inquiries present their work and they make their 
recommendations and then Congress, of course, will have the opportunity 
to review those recommendations and we may or may not implement them, 
the comment then was made: and then we know that an event like 9/11 
will never happen again.
  As much as I would like to endorse that comment, I do not believe it 
is accurate. On 9/11 we, as a Nation, were surprised; and I believe 
that in the future, regardless of the recommendations that come 
forward, regardless of how effectively we implement them, we will be 
surprised again.
  Let me just lead up to 9/11 and outline some of the things. What do 
we know today? We know this: that in March of 2003, the United States, 
we led a coalition of over 30 countries in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 
action was undertaken as a last resort. Iraq had been in noncompliance 
or material breach of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions spanning a 
period of 12 years to remove the threat posed by Saddam to his people, 
the Gulf region, and the world.
  A couple of things I really want to point out here is that some have 
said this was an initiative by the Bush administration, and later on I 
will go through some of the quotes by the previous administrations and 
also the documentation and the data that shows that throughout the 
1990s, the administration, Congress, and others saw Saddam Hussein and 
Iraq as a threatening menace to his own people, to the region, and to 
the world. A consistent pattern.
  Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a constant and immediate threat to his 
neighbors in the Gulf region. And what did Saddam do in the Gulf 
region? Under Saddam, Iraq fought a decade-long war against Iran and 
launched an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait. After Iraq's defeat in the 
Gulf War in 1991, Iraq rebuilt its military strength and continued to 
use the threat of military action in attempts to intimidate neighboring 
countries.
  The pattern is pretty clear. In the region Saddam Hussein treated his 
neighbors brutally. With his own people we know that Saddam Hussein was 
a mass murderer. We removed that capability from him. The day we hauled 
him out

[[Page H1767]]

of that spider hole, he no longer had the capability to again be a mass 
murderer. He was a mass murderer and will be held accountable for the 
crimes against his neighbors and the crimes against his own people.
  It is estimated that somewhere between at least 400,000 and perhaps 
1.2 million Iraqis were killed by his brutal regime. His security 
service is responsible for the disappearance of thousands of Iraqis, 
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, perhaps millions, who ended up in mass 
graves. And his military used chemical weapons not only against Iran, 
but also against Iraqi citizens. For over a decade prior to Operation 
Iraqi Freedom, Iraq was on the U.S. State Department's list of state 
sponsors of terrorism. Saddam's regime attempted to assassinate former 
President Bush in 1993.

                              {time}  2015

  His security intelligence services maintained strong links to 
international terrorist groups. Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq amassed an 
arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and it possessed an 
advanced nuclear weapons program. After the Gulf War, despite the U.N. 
inspections that continued through 1998, the United States, along with 
the United Nations and many individual countries, such as Germany and 
France, assessed that Iraq continued to possess and develop weapons of 
mass destruction.
  Post-Operation Iraqi Freedom, the evidence shows that Saddam, in 
contravention of Iraq's responsibilities under multiple United Nations 
Security Council resolutions, continued to maintain elements of his 
weapons of mass destruction programs and had a clear goal to rebuild 
these programs.
  It is clear: Iraq and Saddam Hussein proved an evil menace to his own 
people, to the people in the Gulf and to the rest of the world. It is 
not brand new.
  As we go through this, there is a bipartisan consensus as to what 
this looked like. February 17, 1998, this is a speech that President 
Bill Clinton gave: ``Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut U.N. 
inspectors. They have harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled 
monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the backdoors. 
And talking about the different types of predators of the 21st century: 
``They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals 
of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver 
them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There should be no doubt, 
Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction 
poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of 
the world. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam 
Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the 
stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us. In the 
next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very 
kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass 
destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists who travel 
the world. If we fail to respond today, Saddam will be emboldened 
tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity.''
  ``I have no doubt he would use them again if permitted to develop 
them,'' another quote from the same speech.
  One of the disappointing things that has happened, especially in the 
last few weeks, is that people are trying to rewrite history, rewrite 
who did what. President Bush after 9/11 did not go back and collect 
these comments from the previous President and did not go back and 
measure those comments versus the actions that were taken. The 
President said we need to move forward. We are at war. We do not have 
the time and the energy to look back and to try to point a finger or 
identify a single individual or group of individuals who failed.
  The President recognized exactly the type of threat that we faced, 
the same type of threat that Bill Clinton identified in 1998, a rogue 
state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide 
them to terrorists. Maybe the terrorists on 9/11 used a weapon of mass 
destruction that was different than what we expected when they crashed 
planes into buildings, but there is no doubt that there was a 
consistent theme that already identified this threat in the 1990s.
  But our President said it is important to recognize that we are at 
war, and we need to get on a full-scale footing to combat this war and 
to win this war, and we are not into the blame game. What we have seen 
in the last 2 to 4 weeks is, I believe, people starting to use this and 
trying to use it for partisan benefit. This issue is too important and 
too critical to the future of this country for it to be used as a 
partisan weapon.
  I think that President Bill Clinton in the 1990s had it right. He 
understood the threat. President Bush looked at the work that was done 
by President Bill Clinton and, after 9/11 had the opportunity to look 
through it through the lens of 9/11, and decided it was necessary to 
take a much stronger position and a much stronger role than what had 
ever been contemplated before, although even early in 2001, before 9/
11, President Bush had indicated that it was time to take a look at our 
strategy and see if we should be more aggressive.
  It was not only the President, but Members of Congress identified 
this threat. People are looking at people and saying, why did we not do 
this or that? Here are some quotes from the other body:
  ``If Saddam Hussein had nothing to hide, why would he have gone to 
such lengths to prevent the U.N. inspectors from doing their job? There 
is no doubt that since 1991 Saddam Hussein has squandered his country's 
resources to maintain his capacity to produce and stockpile chemical 
and biological weapons. If we bomb Iraq again, he would be right back 
at it, claiming victory for standing up to the U.S., but no longer 
under the watchful eye of UNSCOM's cameras.''
  Another statement in 1998 from a colleague in the other body: 
``Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means 
to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They 
pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, 
to the world's energy supplies and to the integrity and credibility of 
the United Nations Security Council.'' 1998.
  Another quote from the other body: ``We are here today to affirm that 
we and the American people stand with the President and the 
international community in an effort to end Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction programs and preserve our vital international interests.''
  The rules of the House prohibit me from mentioning the names of those 
individuals who made those quotes, but it is very interesting to see 
exactly who they are and the clarity with which they identify the 
threat Saddam Hussein and others posed to the United States.
  Bill Clinton, February 18: ``In this century we learned through harsh 
experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is 
firmness, determination and, when necessary, action. In the next 
century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind 
of threat Iraq poses now; a rogue state with weapons of mass 
destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug 
traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us 
unnoticed.''
  Here is an interesting quote. A critic of the President, a critic of 
the first President George Bush. It seems some people are never happy. 
I believe this is a quote from the candidate at that time for Vice 
President, Mr. Al Gore. This is where Vice President Gore, Senator Gore 
at that time, was talking about Saddam Hussein: ``He had already 
launched poison gas attacks repeatedly and Bush looked the other way. 
He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities and Bush looked 
the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire 
nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction; and Bush knew 
it, but he looked the other way. Well, in my view, the Bush 
administration was acting in a manner directly opposite to what you 
would expect with all of the evidence it had available to it at the 
time. Saddam Hussein's nature and intentions were perfectly visible.'' 
Were perfectly visible.
  You wonder if you went through this quote and used it shortly after 
9/11, you could have written it something like this: President Clinton 
and Al Gore knew that al Qaeda had already launched attacks against the 
World

[[Page H1768]]

Trade Center in 1993, but the Clinton Administration looked the other 
way.

  Al Qaeda and terrorist organizations had already attacked our 
embassies in Africa, but the Clinton Administration looked the other 
way.
  Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations were deeply involved in the 
effort to attack our barracks in Saudi Arabia. The Clinton 
Administration knew it, but they looked the other way.
  They knew that al Qaeda or terrorist organizations were involved in 
the attack on the USS Cole, but they looked the other way.
  Al Qaeda, bin Laden, their intentions were perfectly clear, but can 
it be said that the Clinton administration just looked the other way? I 
am not sure that that is a fair characterization.
  As I said, the attacks on 9/11 were a surprise. But if you take the 
language that was used against then-President George Bush in 1992 and 
apply it shortly after 9/11 to what happened during the 1990s and the 
statements that were made and the inconsistencies, you wonder why there 
was not more action taken.
  You have heard the quotes from various Members in the other body. You 
have heard the quotes of then-President Bill Clinton, of candidate Al 
Gore.
  Madeleine Albright, November 16, 1997: ``Hussein's weapons will not 
discriminate if and when they are used, and therefore it is important 
for the region to understand he is a threat. Our adversaries are 
unlikely to avoid,'' and here she is talking about understanding the 
threat of terrorism, ``our adversaries are likely to avoid traditional 
battlefield situations because there American dominance is well 
established. We must be concerned instead of weapons of mass 
destruction and by the cowardly instruments of sabotage and hidden 
bombs. These unconventional threats endanger not only our Armed Forces, 
but all Americans and America's friends everywhere.''
  Here is a very clear statement. Again, some folks are trying to 
rewrite history saying everything was done during the 1990s. I am not 
sure it was. We will talk about that a little more. They are also 
saying the strategy to eliminate Saddam Hussein was recent, that it was 
not policy of the United States.
  May 23, remarks by Vice President Gore: ``Despite our swift victory 
and our effort since the Gulf War, there is no doubt in my mind that 
Saddam Hussein still seeks to amass weapons of mass destruction.''
  People talk about the intelligence being cooked up. The intelligence 
maybe, and we know, was not everything we wanted it to be; but it was 
not cooked up. ``Saddam Hussein still seeks to amass weapons of mass 
destruction. You know as well as I do,'' what a statement, ``you know 
as well as I do that as long as Saddam Hussein stays in power, there 
can be no comprehensive peace for the people of Israel or the people of 
the Middle East.'' This is Vice President Gore, May 23, the year 2000.

                              {time}  2030

  They hear us talking about what the policy was, and I think it was 
established a couple of years earlier. But here is what the then Vice 
President says about the policy of the Clinton administration. We have 
made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein marginalized? 
That is not the word that is used. Contained? No. Reformed? No. We have 
made it clear, that is, the Clinton administration has made it clear, 
that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone. That was the policy 
of the United States prior to a new administration coming into office, 
prior to 9/11, because it was stated during the Clinton administration.
  It goes on: We have maintained sanctions in the face of rising 
criticism while improving the Oil For Food program to help the Iraqi 
people directly. And just as a sidebar, while improving the Oil For 
Food program, we found out now, as the details have come back, that 
that was one of the greatest rip-offs ever. It was used to fund weapons 
acquisition, it was used to fund palaces and to build runways in the 
middle of nowhere in Iraq.
  Going on with this quote: We have used force when necessary, and that 
has been frequently, and we will not let up in our efforts. We will not 
let up. We will not let up in our efforts to free Iraq from Saddam's 
rule. Should he think of challenging us, I would strongly advise 
against it. As a Senator, I voted for the use of force. As Vice 
President, I supported the use of force. If entrusted with the 
presidency, my resolve will never waiver.
  Madam Speaker, the statements go on. Those are the statements in the 
1990s. What about in 2002?
  Again, some of my colleagues, and here is a quote from the presumed 
Democratic nominee for President: I believe the record of Saddam 
Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and 
standards of behavior, which is at the core of the cease-fire 
agreement, with no reach, no stretch is cause enough, is cause enough 
for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if 
necessary. Senator John Kerry, October 9, 2002.
  Here is another quote from one of his colleagues: But that isn't just 
a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons 
capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. Saddam has 
used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against 
his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles 
and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons 
against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could 
make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties 
which have contact with his government. Those groups in turn could 
bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating 
attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.
  Madam Speaker, it is pretty amazing, the unanimity between various 
sides of the aisle, the executive and the legislative branches, as to 
the threat posed by terrorism in the 1990s and the characterization and 
the threats posed by Saddam Hussein.
  Here is another quote: As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, 
the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer 
afford to wait around for a smoking gun. I do believe Iraq poses an 
imminent threat. I also believe that, after September 11, that question 
is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons that he 
has and the way they are targeted against civilian populations that 
documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning 
we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow 
Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we 
can.
  That was the unanimity that we saw in 2002, it was the unanimity that 
we saw in the late 1990s, and over the last 4 to 6 weeks, folks have 
been trying to rewrite history in saying, no, no, I was not there. That 
is not where I was in 1990. That is not where I was in 1998. That is 
not where I was in 2002. As a matter of fact, the only person that has 
messed up in this whole thing is the current administration. And that 
is utterly false. There was a consensus, and what is now happening, and 
what I am concerned about is that when we are at war, and that is where 
I think we are, we are a nation at war.
  Madam Speaker, I see my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) has joined me, and I yield to him.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, first of all, I was watching 
the gentleman on television and I agreed with so much of what he said, 
in fact, everything that the gentleman said. But one of the things that 
concerns me is, while I was watching the gentleman on television, I was 
also watching CNN and Fox and watching the news reports on what 
happened in Fallujah in Iraq today. And some of the people who have 
been commenting on what happened have said, we really out to 
reevaluate, we ought to pull our troops out, and they are talking in a 
way that will give aid and comfort to the enemies of the free world, 
not just the United States, but the free world, and that concerns me a 
great deal.
  President Bush is doing the right thing, as the gentleman has stated, 
in fighting this war against terror and terrorism and terrorists. This 
is a world war. And the American people and my colleagues and the media 
need to realize, this is a world war not unlike what we faced in World 
War I, World War II and so forth. The difference is it is a guerilla-
type war

[[Page H1769]]

being fought by fanatics who use people as bombs, who blow up innocent 
civilians and kill people, and they are not going to go away.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining me, 
because I wanted to talk about exactly that, and I feel fine going 
there.
  Because, as the gentleman may remember, a couple of weeks ago, maybe 
a couple of months ago, we got this Dear Colleague memo talking about 
the new strategy, and I would just highlight it tonight. Because what 
we saw today, and it is tragic, the loss of American lives, the loss of 
the foreign civilians in Iraq and what they did with the bodies. But we 
should have known. Again that phrase, ``we should have known.''
  Because here is what Zarkawi said. ``Someone may say that in this 
matter we are being hasty,'' remember, this is their document outlining 
the strategy of the terrorists against our forces and against the 
forces that want to move forward in Iraq, ``that we are being hasty and 
rash in leading the Islamic nation into a battle for which it is not 
ready, a battle that will be revolting,'' I mean the acts of today, 
dragging the bodies and hanging the bodies is revolting, ``will be 
revolting and in which blood will be spilled. This is exactly what we 
want, since right and wrong no longer have any place in our current 
situation.''
  He predicted. This is exactly, what we see today is exactly the 
strategy, because they believe that that is the way that they can beat 
us, if they are revolting, spill blood, and right and wrong makes 
absolutely no difference.
  I yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, they saw what happened in 
Somalia when Black Hawk Down happened, and the previous administration 
did exactly what they wanted them to do, and that was to pull out.
  Now, that was an encouragement, I believe, to the terrorists around 
the world at that point. Now we are in a world war against them. The 
President has made a commitment to free the world from terrorism and to 
protect the American citizens against another attack like 9/11.
  If we want to encourage the terrorists, and I say this to my 
colleagues and to the news media and everybody else, if we want to 
encourage the terrorists, what we need to do is pull out and give them 
the green light to continue to use this kind of terrorist tactic to 
dissuade the free world from fighting against this terrorist activity 
and we are going to let them have the run of the field. That is 
something that we cannot do, we must not do. This is a war that the 
free world and the United States cannot lose.
  Toward that end, regarding Fallujah and what happened in the last 
couple of days and the terrorist attacks in Iraq, what we need to do, 
and I would say this if the President were here tonight, what we need 
to do is let our troops go in there and go house to house and take 
those weapons away to pacify that area. And anyone who has a gun, 
arrest them. And anyone who uses weapons in the commission of a 
terrorist attack or a crime, arrest them, get them out of there, and 
let the people know over there that we are going to do what is 
necessary to free them from the terrorist influence. And if we do not 
do that, then we are going to continue to encourage them.
  So I would say to the President if he were listening tonight, and he 
may very well be or his advisors, let us let our troops go in there and 
pacify that area. Let us send a very strong signal to the terrorists 
and their affiliates over there that we are not going to stand still 
and let American citizens be killed or let American military personnel 
be killed.
  It is extremely important that this signal be sent and sent now, 
because if we start listening to the liberals and the media who say, 
pull in our horns, let us start regressing and getting out of there, 
then what is going to happen is there is going to be a green light to 
the terrorists and we are going to have a hell of a problem.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the 
gentleman and I have probably both talked to a lot of our soldiers from 
our districts who have been in Iraq.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. And the gentleman has been to Iraq, and so 
have I.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Yes, on three different occasions.
  It was interesting, I talked to one of my soldiers today. He was back 
in a small town in my community of New Era, Michigan. He just came home 
after just about a full year in Iraq. He told me what was going on and 
what the highlights were. He told me that he had been sent into a small 
community of 15,000 people, I think right near Kirkuk, and I said, hey, 
you kind of acted as mayor, because he was the governing authority. We 
know the strategy. We send our troops in, and they are not always 
fighting. He said, that is exactly what I had the opportunity to do. He 
said, we rebuilt that community from nothing. And he said, the people 
are thrilled that we are there; and they are looking for us to leave, 
because they want their country back.
  Then we had a very good dialogue back and forth.
  Then I did ask him, I said, okay, you have your Congressman on the 
phone. You are going back. You are going to be in the country for a 
couple of more weeks, but you are leaving west Michigan later on this 
week, and in a couple of weeks you will be back in Italy. I asked him, 
I said, you have your Congressman on the phone. What do you want to 
tell your Congressman?
  He said, you know, can you do anything about the news media?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Yes.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Because he said, when we were in Iraq, he said, we 
could get CNN. He said, we finally turned it off, because what we saw 
on CNN had absolutely no relationship to what we were seeing in Iraq.
  The gentleman from Indiana and I are not denying that these five 
Americans died today. That happened, and it is tragic, and it is sad. 
We are not denying that the four foreigners and the rioting and the mob 
scene in Fallujah, that happened. But, at the same time, in much of 
Iraq today, and the soldier quoted to me. He said, I think 98 percent 
of the people are there with us, and they are working with us, and they 
never get any coverage.
  I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, when I watched the media a 
while ago, they showed the people demonstrating in Fallujah and the 
cars burning and the people waving the victory sign and everything. I 
was there. The gentleman was there. That is the minority of the people. 
And the media continues to focus on that, instead of the things that 
are being accomplished; and that really, really bothers me.
  The other thing is, we have lost about 500 troops over there, and 
that is terrible. We do not want to see one young American maimed or 
die. But what happened in World War II is that 50 million people were 
killed worldwide because we let a war get out of hand. We have an 
opportunity right now to win this war on terrorism and to stop the 
terrorists and to send a very, very strong signal to them. It is a war 
that is going to go on for a long time. But if we do not send the right 
signals to them right now, they will be encouraged, in my opinion, and 
we will see more death take place that would not be necessary if we did 
the right things now.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think the 
gentleman and I are in total agreement that if at this point in time we 
step back, the terrorists will have won. And that does not mean that 
the terrorists will go back to their home in Afghanistan or in the 
remote regions of Pakistan and say, well, chalk one up for the bad 
guys. They will say, let us now go back, and they will say, yes, it 
works.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Yes. Let us back them up in New York or 
someplace else.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Let us go attack them in New York and what we will now 
have is we will now have a safe haven. We can plan out our attacks and 
we can work on our schedule and when it is appropriate to attack, we 
will attack. We will now have a safe haven to develop chemical weapons, 
biological weapons, and it is kind of like that is one direction, 
backing off.
  That is not where we can go. We need these folks to wake up every 
morning and the first thing that they have to fear is that an American 
helicopter or American Special Ops force is going to come through their 
door.

                              {time}  2045

  Or that a missile is going to come from somewhere up in the sky from 
a

[[Page H1770]]

Predator, and they are never going to see it coming.
  We saw that a war on terrorism can be won. I mean, who would have 
thought that our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon), would address the General People's Congress of Libya? Who 
would have thought that 3 months ago? I think that happened within the 
last 4 years that our colleague was over there.
  I was in Libya about four or five weeks ago. I think within the last 
month we have picked up, what, 500 tons of mustard gas and chemicals 
and equipment. Who would have thought that that amount of progress 
could have been made in that short time? This is a win for the good 
guys.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The gentleman makes a very good point. That is 
the kind of thing that the media should focus on. Here is a terrorist 
state, a known terrorist state that has said, okay, we are going to 
reject terrorism. And the reason was because they saw what we did in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. We sent a very strong signal.
  We have had 500 troops die there in Iraq. I do not want one of those 
troops to have died in vain. They sent a very strong signal around the 
world. If the media continues on the path, and I am not talking about 
all the media now, but if the more liberal media continues on the path 
that it is on saying why should we not bring our troops home, why are 
we letting these sorts of things happen, they send a signal, as my 
colleague said before, to the terrorists that this sort of thing is 
working. That should not be the signal we send.
  It was not the signal we sent in World War I or World War II. We 
should not send it now. Because this is a world war that the United 
States and the free world cannot afford to lose. And we cannot afford 
to send signals that encourage the terrorist network.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, maybe my colleague 
heard the quote that I read from candidate for Vice President Al Gore 
talking about the first Bush administration where he said, ``He had 
already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly. Bush looked the other 
way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities and Bush 
had looked the other way.'' Can one imagine what would happen if we 
pulled out of Iraq and pulled out of the war on terrorism and the next 
terrorist attack occurred and somebody would come to us and say excuse 
me, they attacked the World Trade Centers, you looked the other way. 
They attacked our barracks, you looked the other way. They attacked the 
Cole, you looked the other way. They attacked our embassies, you looked 
the other way. They attacked the Trade Centers a second time and took 
them down, they attacked the Pentagon and you guys looked the other 
way. What were you guys thinking?
  I think that we were all in this together. We recognized the risk 
during the 1990s; and Congress and the executive branch, I think, did 
not take enough direct action. And so we can go back. But I think the 
criticism should be why did America not act earlier against bin Laden 
and against these threats in a more decisive way? Because the pieces 
were out there that said these folks are a threat, and it is only a 
matter of time before they try something big in the United States. I 
will yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say that back in the mid-90s we 
knew from intelligence reports that there were terrorist training camps 
in and around Khartoum in the Sudan. We knew that. We knew Usama bin 
Laden was in Khartoum, and we knew of the terrorist attacks like the 
ones that my colleague cited a few minutes ago; and we really did not 
go after him, although we should have at that time.
  Now, I am not saying there is not enough blame to go around. Any time 
you get into a military conflict, especially one this extensive, there 
are going to be mistakes made. But the one mistake that has not been 
made is by our President. He has done the right thing in taking the 
mantle of leadership and moving forward. He is going after the 
terrorists wherever they hide in Afghanistan, in Iraq, wherever they 
are. And I commend him for that.
  And this country, and the media in particular, if they are paying any 
attention tonight, the media in particular ought to think about the 
ramifications of trying to get us to pull in our horns when we are 
fighting a war against terrorism. They should be supporting the effort 
to rid the world of terrorists and the terrorist network instead of 
pointing out all the deficiencies.
  We are in a war against terrorism, one we cannot afford to lose. We 
have a man at the helm right now who is doing the right things. And, by 
golly, he ought to be supported not just by my colleague and me, but by 
the entire country and, in particular, those in the media because they 
have such a tremendous influence on public policy.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am not looking for 
the media to support the President, it might be nice, or to support the 
country or to support the direction or support our troops. It would 
just be nice if they presented a balanced approach, fair and balanced 
approach to what needs to get done.
  And it is why when I go home it is good to take a look at the local 
papers because the local papers will cover the stories of our soldiers 
that come home. The soldier that I talked to today said he has been in 
Iraq for 11, 12 months. He is home with his family for the first time. 
One would think he would say, man, I am just going to sit back on the 
couch and I am going to vegetate and just enjoy this. He is going to 
the schools, he is going all over his community telling them about what 
he did and what America did in Iraq. He is proud of it. He says, I am 
doing it because nobody else is. We are not getting any help from the 
media. I am going out and I am telling the story because I was there.
  And has my colleague been to Iraq?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, yes, I was there about 3 weeks 
ago.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. We have looked into the eyes of the Iraqi people. We 
have shaken their hands. We have heard them speak. We have seen the 
sincerity. I always say this is not easy. And there are going to be 
other ugly days and other ugly events. We are not going to fix this all 
in one day. We are not going to fix it in 24 months. This takes work. 
These people are experimenting with a free press, representative 
government, free markets. They are doing this for the first time after 
30 years of a brutal regime.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield. 
When I was over there, I am sure my colleague found the same thing, 
they had found 400,000 people in unmarked graves. They estimated 
between 1 and 1.3 million people that are unaccounted for. They were 
putting people in wood chippers, they were raping women. It was 
horrible what was going on, the torture and everything.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, one point, 
he is right, it is going to be somewhere over a million people 
probably, in a country of 27 million. That means 4 percent of the folks 
in that country were brutally murdered. In our country that would be 
about 11, 12 million people.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, if we did not do anything but 
free that country, that would be a great thing. But what we have done 
is we have sent a very strong signal to the terrorist network al Qaeda, 
the Taliban, the Baath Party in Iraq, and the terrorists around the 
world; and what bothers me now is because the media is focusing only on 
the negatives and not the positives, not on what we have accomplished 
but what we have not yet accomplished and, I believe, maybe 
inadvertently, they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the 
terrorist network, and that is something they should not do.
  They may not agree with everything President Bush has done, but they 
have to admit that we have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. We are on the 
heels of Usama bin Laden. We have knocked out an awful lot of the 
terrorist network, and there have been no more attacks on the United 
States of America. That does not mean we will not have them. But there 
have been no more attacks. That is because of President Bush, homeland 
security, and Tom Ridge, and because they are doing the right things. I 
just wish the media would focus on them.

[[Page H1771]]

  I normally do not come down here and vent my spleen like this. I try 
to be a little bit more moderate, if one wants to say that; but right 
now I am very, very angry because all we are seeing on the screen right 
now is should we be there, should we not be pulling out, should we be 
pulling in our horns.
  The one thing we must not do, and I am speaking to the media in 
particular right now, is we must not send the message that we are going 
to withdraw or cave in this war against terrorism. It is essential that 
we are victorious. No matter how long it takes, we have to be 
victorious. Just like in World War I and in World War II, we have to 
win this war, otherwise we are going to suffer terrorist threats and 
terrorist attacks for many, many, many years to come.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think that is one 
of the things that we as a Nation need to recognize. I was on a TV 
program earlier today and someone asked me what are you guys 
accomplishing, or who is responsible. I said, well, obviously, there is 
plenty of blame to go around. But not only is it the executive branch, 
and by executive branch I mean generic, not this President, because I 
agree with my colleague, this President has shown the leadership that 
is necessary to fight this war on terrorism, not only is there blame to 
go around in Congress, but there is also a certain responsibility of 
the American people.
  Because our actions sometimes are too often guided by public opinion. 
And for folks to say, well, you should have done more in 1998 or you 
should have done more in 2001, the real question is do we really think 
that the American people would have embraced it.
  We know that even after 2001 some of them have been restrained in 
their support or been openly hostile to going after al Qaeda and going 
after bin Laden and going into Afghanistan.
  The other thing is my colleague and I both probably know that the 
quickest ticket to unemployment in Congress is to show any interest in 
foreign affairs. One goes on a trip and learns more about the Middle 
East or whatever, and it is, oh, you do not care about us back home 
anymore. The American people bear some of that responsibility because 
we are the world's sole superpower economically and politically and 
militarily. That carries an awesome responsibility with it. I think it 
is one of the great cases for federalism.
  This place should focus on national security. It should focus on 
international trade agreements and our relationships with the rest of 
the world. Many other issues ought to be dealt with on a State and 
local level. We have a tremendous responsibility to address these 
issues.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I would like to say something 
about what my colleague said a moment ago. He was talking about, in 
essence, we cannot look back and talk about the shortcomings. We have 
to look forward and say what are we doing now to deal with the problem; 
what are we going to do with it in the future.
  Bobby Jones, one of the greatest golfers of all time, I will use this 
as an analogy, he said, You play the ball where it lies. When he was 
hurt, when he was dying and was physically impaired, people said, do 
you not feel bad about that? He said, That is life. You play the ball 
where it lies.
  What we have to do now is realize where we are in this world and what 
it is all about. And there is a war against the terrorists that is in 
progress, and it is a war we cannot lose. So we have to start here and 
go forward. And the President has already started that ball moving in 
the right direction by taking on the terrorists, taking on Saddam 
Hussein, trying to make sure there are no weapons of mass destruction 
that are going to be used against the Middle East or the United States 
or the rest of the world. I think we are on the right track.
  The thing we have to do now is make sure we keep the American people 
with us in this war against terrorism, and that is why the media is so 
important. They can play a very valuable role in making sure that the 
facts are out there, not opinion; but the facts are out there on what 
we have accomplished and where we are going.
  As my colleague said, it does not have to be pro-Bush or against 
Bush, it just has to be fair reporting. If they report the progress 
that is being made and how the war is progressing and what we are 
winning instead of just the negatives, I am sure that everything will 
come out all right.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I love the analogy of play the ball 
where it lies because that is exactly what President Bush did after 9/
11. He went back and took a look at what capabilities we had and the 
threats that were out there, but never went back to try to assess blame 
on something that happened 5 or 6 years ago or the Deutsch Doctrine 
that gutted our human intelligence. When we should have built 
intelligence up in the mid-1990s, it was gutted. That is exactly what 
happened when we get to 2001 and here we are in 2004 and we would like 
to have a human intelligence capability, we say, God, where did it go? 
We scrubbed it because we got rid of all the bad guys in 1995 and 1996 
who spied for us. And one can say, well, when we are dealing with a 
terrorist organization, the only people that are in terrorist 
organizations are bad folks to begin with.
  But that is not where the President was. He took a look at 9/11, took 
a look at where we were strategically, militarily, and what we needed 
to get done, and went forward, never trying to pin blame anywhere but 
just said, hey, I am playing it where it lies.
  We will look at how it got here to make sure it does not happen again 
in the future, but I am not going back and say that guy took a bad 
swing or he sliced it or whatever; I am going to take it and move it 
forward. Because, again, I think in some ways Americans are getting a 
little lackadaisical. There is a real threat out there. And this 
President and this administration, and I hope Congress in a bipartisan 
way, stay focused on the threat that is out there and put in place a 
strategy to fix it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. One of the things that was reported on briefly 
but should have been reported on in more detail was after 9/11 and the 
World Trade Center was taken down by the planes, and the Pentagon was 
attacked, and they were going to attack the Capitol had it not been for 
those heroic people in Pennsylvania that died, but the fact of the 
matter is planes coming from Paris, France, and from Europe were 
stopped from coming over here because they found out through 
intelligence gathering that they had potential terrorists on those 
planes that were going to make them into bombs to blow up more 
buildings in the United States.

                              {time}  2100

  So our intelligence-gathering capability has increased dramatically 
since President Bush took office and since Tom Ridge took over homeland 
security.
  Things are getting better, and we are stopping terrorist attacks, but 
those are the things that ought to be reported upon, the things that we 
have stopped from happening in the United States to protect the 
American people, instead of dwelling just on negatives. If we just do 
that, I would be much, much happier.
  I just want to say to my colleague, because I am going to leave the 
stage back to him, I want to thank you very, very much for taking this 
time. We ought to have a whole host of our colleagues down here talking 
about this tonight, but you are the guy that did it, and I want to 
thank you for carrying the mantle of leadership tonight. You are to be 
congratulated.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague; and I hope he 
recovers his voice soon. We would miss it if he lost his voice.
  There is a lot of stuff that has happened in what we have talked 
about. There are a couple of other documents that I just want to talk 
about, and we have talked a little bit about rewriting history.
  There was some testimony just from the last couple of days in front 
of the joint inquiry; and it really I think in many ways, from my 
perspective, boils down to partisan politics, partisan politics at its 
worst. Because national security is too important an issue to take down 
into the partisan battleground, and it is one of the very positive 
things about serving on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

[[Page H1772]]

  There have been a couple of things in the last few weeks that have 
been disappointing, but, by and large, the commitment by members of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is to do their work 
aggressively, effectively, but to leave the partisan labels at the door 
and to recognize that the issues that we are working on are too 
important to drag down into a short-term, partisan, political game 
because, at the end, the country loses.
  Here is what Dick Clarke said. The Bush administration decided in 
late January to do two things: one, vigorously pursue the existing 
policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings. The point 
is, while this big review was going on, the lethal findings were still 
in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do was to 
initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table 
for a couple of years and get them decided, and that is in August of 
2002.
  In the spring of 2001, the Bush administration began to change 
Pakistani policy by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift 
sanctions. So we began to offer carrots which made it possible for 
Pakistanis I think to begin to think that they could go down another 
path, which was to join us and break away from the Taliban. So that is 
really how it started.
  A few minutes ago, we talked about the victory and the progress we 
have made in Libya. Back in 2001, the Bush administration, before 9/11, 
was talking about changing the policy in Pakistan to forge that 
partnership which then and now has enabled us. I met with the head of 
the Pakistani intelligence agency just a few weeks ago, right when they 
were sending a number of troops into their tribal areas, and they had 
lost a number of Pakistani troops. But who would have thought maybe 
even 2 or 3 years ago that by 2004 that the Pakistanis would not only 
be cooperating in our war on terrorism but they would be sending their 
own troops into these regions to find al Qaeda, to find the leadership 
of al Qaeda and to help us take out the Taliban and al Qaeda elements 
that were seeking refuge in Pakistan.
  Again, I had a question today about when Condoleezza Rice and the 
President and this administration had really provided unprecedented 
support for the subcommittee that I served on in the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence that did a review almost directly after 9/11, 
provided full support and access to the joint House-Senate inquiry and 
now to the independent Commission. This is a statement that the 
Commission made on March 30.
  ``The Commission welcomes the decision of the President and the Vice-
President to meet in one joint private session with all 10 
commissioners.
  ``We also commend the President for his decision to accept the 
Commission's request for public testimony, under oath, by the Assistant 
to the President for National Security Affairs, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.''
  Remember, Dr. Rice had already testified to this Commission for 4 
hours in private session.
  ``These decisions represent a significant contribution by the 
President to the work of the Commission, consistent with our mandate to 
`provide a full and complete accounting' of the terrorist attacks of 
September 11.
  ``The President has consistently stated a policy of strong support 
for the Commission and instructed the executive branch to provide 
unprecedented extraordinary access to the Commission.''
  This is what the Commission said. ``The President has consistently 
stated a policy of strong support for the Commission and instructed the 
executive branch to provide unprecedented and extraordinary access to 
the Commission. His decisions today reflect that policy of strong 
support, and we welcome them.''
  The Commission recognizes what is going on and that the President's 
support has been unprecedented, and we have got to remember that this 
is not looking back in history and saying, well, what happened during 
the war on terrorism. We are still fully engaged in the war on 
terrorism. We are still in the middle of fighting that war, and what is 
unprecedented about this President's cooperation is that there have 
already been I think 20 witnesses from the executive branch in front of 
the Commission.
  Now Dr. Condoleezza Rice has already testified in private, will now 
testify in public, but the public nature of this reviewing the 
decision-making process at the very time we are still conducting the 
war, not when it is done, but at the very time, digging into the inner 
reaches of an administration and asking about how they are conducting 
policy, how they are making decisions, and it is one thing to do it in 
private. It is another to do it fully in public.
  Someone asked me earlier this week and said in some ways I think the 
administration has gone almost too far. We are at war and the 
information is provided in private or secret session to those folks who 
are entrusted to make the decisions and the recommendations that enable 
this country to move forward responsibly, aggressively and effectively, 
but I sometimes worry that there are some in the world today who take 
comfort and believe that they are being successful in their efforts to 
defeat us in this war on terrorism when they see the partisanship that 
we sometimes are engaged in. This issue is too big to move down into 
partisanship.
  The last comment that I wanted to make is today I talked with one of 
our soldiers today who was back from Iraq. I have met with the family 
of one of our soldiers who was killed in Iraq. I have met with the 
family of one of our soldiers who was very badly wounded in an 
incident. In each of those cases, they have said, make sure that we win 
this war on terrorism, that we dedicate the resources to this war on 
terrorism. But they also said, do not forget the sacrifices of the 
families that have been asked to sacrifice, the families that have seen 
a son and husband gone for a year, the family that has seen a father 
and a husband and a son killed on a battlefield in Iraq and the family 
of the son and the husband of a soldier who has been badly wounded and 
will live with that for the rest of his life.
  But I think we need to remember all of these folks and the troops 
that are still serving over there, and I hope that we as a Nation, that 
we as a Congress, continue to remember these families and these 
individuals in our prayers.

                          ____________________