[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16146-16154]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    AWARDING A CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 1511) to award a congressional gold medal to Prime 
Minister Tony Blair.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1511

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that Prime Minister Tony Blair of the 
     United Kingdom has clearly demonstrated, during a very trying 
     and historic time for our 2 countries, that he is a staunch 
     and steadfast ally of the United States of America.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

       (a) Presentation Authorized.--The Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate 
     shall make appropriate arrangements for the presentation, on 
     behalf of the Congress, of a gold medal of appropriate 
     design, to Prime Minister Tony Blair, in recognition of his 
     outstanding and enduring contributions to maintaining the 
     security of all freedom-loving nations.
       (b) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the presentation 
     referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall strike a 
     gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions 
     to be determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

       The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of 
     the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2 under such 
     regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, at a price 
     sufficient to cover the cost thereof, including labor, 
     materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and 
     the cost of the gold medal.

     SEC. 4. STATUS OF MEDALS.

       (a) National Medals.--The medals struck pursuant to this 
     Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 
     31, United States Code.
       (b) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of 
     title 31, United States Code, all medals struck under this 
     Act shall be considered to be numismatic items.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS; PROCEEDS OF SALE.

       (a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to 
     be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise 
     Fund such amounts as may be necessary to pay for the costs of 
     the medals struck pursuant to this Act.
       (b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of 
     duplicate bronze medals authorized under section 3 shall be 
     deposited into the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. King) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).


                             General Leave

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material 
thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct privilege today to be able to move this 
bill awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to British Prime Minister Tony 
Blair. Throughout our history, there has probably been no country that 
the United States has had a closer relationship with than Great 
Britain. Certainly we share certain immutable, transcendent values. 
Throughout our history we have stood together in a number of noble 
causes, probably dramatically manifested during World War II when Prime 
Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt stood together to defeat the 
forces of fascism and Naziism. But there is probably no British Prime 
Minister who has been there when America needs him more than Tony 
Blair.
  Certainly during the Clinton administration, it was Prime Minister 
Blair who stood shoulder to shoulder with President Clinton in the war 
in Kosovo against Serb aggression, against the dictator Milosevic. But 
nothing more illustrated the unique relationship between the United 
States and Britain and the immense courage and dedication of Tony Blair 
than what happened after our Nation was attacked on September 11, 2001. 
The first foreign leader to come to this country to express his regrets 
while the smoke was still there, while the flames were still burning, 
visited the World Trade Center, visited New York and came here to our 
Nation's capital was British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
  When President Bush addressed a joint session of Congress on 
September 20, 2001, just 9 days after the brutal attack on the World 
Trade Center, it was Prime Minister Blair who sat here in the gallery 
expressing his solidarity with the United States. On that evening, 
President Bush said, ``Once again we are joined together in a great 
cause and we are so honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an 
ocean to show his unity of purpose with America. Thank you for coming, 
friend.''
  Indeed, Tony Blair has been a friend of the United States but, just 
as important as that, he has been a friend and supporter of democratic 
values. He realizes the unique nature and relationship of the bonds 
between the United States and Britain and indeed between the United 
States and Europe. He has been a strong friend of the United States. 
Certainly in the recent war against Iraq, it was Tony Blair who 
resisted pressure both from the media, his own party and his own 
parliament to stand up and be with the United States.
  For all those reasons, and I am sure this debate will go on for a 
while, probably longer than we anticipated it would today, I stand in 
support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, who is the cosponsor of this resolution.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me

[[Page 16147]]

this time, and I rise in support of this legislation that awards the 
Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor Congress can award, to 
Prime Minister Tony Blair. Past recipients include Presidents George 
Washington and Harry Truman; heroic figures such as Charles Lindbergh, 
Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa; and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, 
who led England through the dark hours of World War II.
  Mr. Speaker, just as Prime Minister Churchill stood with President 
Roosevelt to defeat the Nazis, Prime Minister Blair has offered 
steadfast support for the United States since the terror attacks of 9/
11. The American people will never forget that the Prime Minister 
traveled across an ocean to be in the gallery of the House in a sign of 
solidarity with our country as President Bush addressed our Nation 
after the terrorist attacks.
  More recently, prior to the war in Iraq, the Prime Minister and his 
U.N. envoy, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, worked tirelessly to exhaust every 
diplomatic channel to build consensus in the United Nations. It was 
Prime Minister Blair who tried to bridge differences with our 
traditional European allies up until the wee hours before the war 
began. Additionally, Prime Minister Blair pushed our own administration 
to use its political capital to fully engage in the Middle East peace 
process.
  While that effort continues to face very substantial obstacles, most 
notably the unceasing suicide attacks against Israel citizens, the 
Prime Minister deserves credit for putting Mideast Peace on the table 
as does the Administration for its efforts to implement the ``road 
map.''
  While the Prime Minister has demonstrated considerable political 
courage in recent months, his stand with our country should not be 
surprising.
  As a political leader in Britain the Prime Minister has spent this 
life leading the Labour Party out of oblivion and into its current 
dominant position in the Parliament.
  At age 30 he was elected to Parliament. Later as a member of John 
Smith's shadow cabinet he worked to transform Labour into a party tough 
on crime and while still committed to its social causes.
  After being elected Labour leader in 1994, Blair moved the party to 
the political center and redrafted the party constitution in his image 
of ``New Labour''--much life President Clinton successfully moved the 
Democratic party to a position where it has won the popular vote in the 
last three Presidential elections.
  As leader of the Labor Party, the British people rewarded the Prime 
Minister with a landslide victory in 1997, ending 18 years of 
conservative rule. At 43, Blair became the youngest Prime Minister 
since 1812. As Prime Minister, he has continued to change his country 
for the better. He has taken on the right to hereditary positions in 
the House of Lords, allowed the de-evolution of Scotland and Wales, and 
implemented a massive investment program in the areas of health care 
and education.
  For the Prime Minister, education is the best economic policy and his 
government has followed this commitment.
  I have great admiration for the Prime Minister's commitment to 
governing from the middle ground rather than trying to divide his 
country by playing to extreme groups on either side of the political 
spectrum.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress could find no more deserving recipient of this 
high honor than Prime Minister Blair. In fighting terrorism, standing 
with the U.S. against Saddam and with the U.S. for Middle East peace, 
he has truly shown what it means for Britain to be our staunchest ally.
  A recent Washington Post article well characterized Prime Minister 
Blair's current standing in the world. ``After the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, he has found himself playing a pivotal role in reshaping 
international relations and winning points for standing on principle, 
even from some of his most vehement critics.''
  I recognize that some of my colleagues had strong reservations about 
the war in Iraq and I respect their opinions, but I urge that all 
Members stand and support this award in recognition of Tony Blair the 
man, as a leader of an inclusive political movement that has benefited 
all Britons.
  Mr. Speaker, the deaths of six more British soldiers in Iraq this 
week remind us of the common sacrifice our troops are making serving 
side by side around the world. This is just one more example of the 
special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. 
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in recognition of the 
man who has contributed so much to upholding this common bond.
  I would like to note that this bill passed the Senate unanimously 
with 78 cosponsors and that we have 290 Members of the House that have 
cosponsored this important legislation. I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) and all who have 
worked to pass and to get this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Let me at the outset commend the ranking member the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the tremendous assistance 
she has given me on this as she has on so many other issues that come 
before our subcommittee and also the work that she does for the State 
of New York.
  Mr. Speaker, one thing I should bring out is that on a personal 
level, I had the privilege of working with Prime Minister Blair several 
years ago on the Irish peace process. I saw firsthand at that time the 
sense of vision that he had, the sense of daring he had and the courage 
he had to do the right thing and the fact that he was the first British 
Prime Minister in history to be able to bring a settlement, to bring an 
agreement involving all the parties in the north of Ireland. To work 
with the Republic of Ireland and also to work closely with the United 
States is just one more demonstration of his courage and his ability to 
stand up and do what is right.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the awarding of this gold medal 
now. We have awarded gold medals to many people in our history since 
1776, but on only one occasion have we ever awarded a Congressional 
Medal of Honor to a sitting head of state: Nelson Mandela, when he was 
80 years old and in his last months in office. I suppose it is possible 
that these are the last months in office for Prime Minister Blair, but 
that is not clear just at the moment.
  At this moment he is fighting for his political future against 
accusations that he misled the public about British intelligence 
findings on Iraq. Mr. Blair's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, was 
brought up before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the House of 
Commons yesterday. He was asked, among other things, why Mr. Blair's 
influential January dossier on Iraq's capabilities was so reliant on 
the uncredited 12-year-old writings of an American graduate student. 
Today Alastair Campbell, his doctor of spin, will be up there and he 
will be answering accusations that it was he who inserted in a dossier 
the astonishing information that Iraq not only possessed fully 
developed, operational chemical and biological weapons but was capable 
of delivering them within 45 minutes of a command order. Foreign 
Secretary Straw said yesterday there were substantial errors. He said 
that lessons have been learned, but he blamed the demands of the media. 
That very media, of course, made sure that the false papers issued by 
Prime Minister Blair's government deceived others around the world as 
well as the Britons. The influential information and errors may have 
even influenced Members of this body.
  If this award to Mr. Blair is appropriate, it is either too late or 
too soon. If the medal had been awarded when it was first introduced, 
before these deceptions were discovered, it would have had smooth 
sailing. If it were brought up later, perhaps Mr. Blair will have 
cleared his name. At this moment,

[[Page 16148]]

however, we are prejudging and perhaps trying to influence the outcome 
of some very serious investigations going on in Britain. We are trying 
to prop up Mr. Blair. The White House has sent up another one of those 
rubber stamp bills. I do not dispute that he needs propping up. His job 
rating at home is minus 13 which means his disapproval exceeds his 
approval by 13 points. What I dispute is whether the Congressional 
Medal of Honor should become a prop in the strategy of the British 
Prime Minister to regain his people's trust.
  I ask the Members of this body to consider carefully whether they 
wish to risk cheapening the Congressional Medal of Honor by awarding it 
to an embattled politician. Let us not rush to judgment. Let us revisit 
this resolution another day. Even Winston Churchill was not awarded a 
Congressional Medal of Honor at any point in his tumultuous political 
career, though there were times when it would have come in quite handy. 
His medal was posthumous. With all due respect, Prime Minister Blair is 
not Winston Churchill.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Without getting into all of the merits or demerits of the gentleman's 
statement, I would note that if there is one person in the world who 
does not care what his poll ratings are, it is Prime Minister Blair. 
The fact that his disapproval numbers may be high is exactly one of the 
reasons why he has demonstrated courage. He stands up for what is 
right. He is not concerned about the naysayers. He is not concerned 
about the tides of public opinion as they may be that day.
  I would just again remind my colleagues that when the United States 
was at its darkest moment on September 11, 2001, the one leader who 
stood with us more than anyone else was Prime Minister Blair. He 
continues to stand with us. He can be proud of his record and we can be 
proud of our record if we do indeed award him this honor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. 
Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, since September 11 our Nation 
has faced very trying times. For the first time in decades we have been 
threatened on our very own soil. We have seen American lives and the 
lives of others tragically lost. Proud symbols of the American dream 
and our prosperity have also been lost.

                              {time}  1130

  But thankfully the American spirit was not. We have seen heroes rise 
from the dust where the World Trade Center towers once stood. American 
willpower and determination have united a Nation precisely when 
evildoers sought to divide us. We are resilient, proud, and since that 
fateful day, determined as ever. One nation, the United Kingdom, has 
stood proudly with us, shoulder to shoulder and shown solidarity and 
support as we vowed to end terrorism worldwide. The United States has 
no better friend than the United Kingdom and its leader, Prime Minister 
Tony Blair. Since day one, he has been a steadfast supporter of America 
in the war on terrorism and the ensuing campaigns in Afghanistan and 
Iraq.
  In recognition of his unconditional support of our Nation, I strongly 
encourage my colleagues to join me in passing legislation to award Tony 
Blair the Congressional Gold Medal. There are no words to express 
America's deep-felt appreciation towards Mr. Blair; and while this 
award esteems a well-deserved honor to Mr. Blair, it hardly scratches 
the surface at how grateful we are for his support and the support of 
his country. The Congressional Gold Medal has a long history of 
recognizing military leaders, from its first recipient, George 
Washington, to Mother Teresa, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and 
current leaders like then-General Colin Powell and now Secretary of 
State.
  Prime Minister Blair has certainly demonstrated the bravery, the 
dedication and conviction to join this elite group of awardees. 
Moreover, he has shown himself to be a true friend; and for that I 
commend him, and I look forward to voting ``yes'' on H.R. 1511.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I am genuinely moved by the breadth of spirit of my colleagues in the 
great praise they are heaping on this man of the left who presides 
proudly over a socialized health system and does so much else to show 
that government has an important positive role in our life, and I 
appreciate this kind of bipartisanship. Perhaps it will develop a 
certain trans-Atlantic quality and some of what they so vigorously 
praise in England might creep into their views about maybe doing 
something for the American people along the lines of what Mr. Blair 
does domestically for the British people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Hoeffel), who has been a leader in trying to formulate an 
appropriate American approach to some important questions.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I am pleased to rise in support of this resolution today, awarding 
the Congressional Gold Medal to a great leader of a great country who 
is and has been a great ally of ours. But it is true that Prime 
Minister Blair, as President Bush, both have a credibility problem 
regarding weapons of mass destruction. And it is interesting to see how 
England is dealing with this problem. They are dealing with it 
forthrightly, openly. The Parliament has held hearings. Two members of 
the British Cabinet who resigned in protest have testified. The Prime 
Minister has subjected himself to questions and they are dealing with 
this, I believe from a far, it seems to be a very open process, a very 
forthright process; and the public in England will get the information 
they need to make a judgment about whether their intelligence was on 
the mark, whether the intelligence was given to their leaders based 
upon what they thought the leaders might want to hear. Was the 
intelligence misused by the British leadership? Was it inaccurate? And 
I think they have dealt with it very forthrightly.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is not happening in this country. We 
are not seeing the administration stepping forward to deal with the 
growing credibility gap that has arisen because we cannot find the 
weapons of mass destruction. We know that Saddam Hussein had weapons of 
mass destruction and he used them in the past against his own people in 
a very murderous way, no question about it; but we cannot find them 
now. We may find them next week, and I hope we do because our 
credibility is on the line; but we need a full accounting of how we 
have dealt with this issue. We need to know where those weapons are. We 
need to maintain safe custody of them. We need to dismantle them. If 
they are buried in the desert or given to another country, we need to 
know what is going on and make sure that they cannot be used by anybody 
else in the future that has evil intent.
  But we also need a full accounting of our intelligence operation. 
What were our leaders told? I know what I was told, Mr. Speaker. I was 
told publicly and privately by the leading senior advisors to the 
President, with great certainty I was told that Saddam Hussein last 
fall had weapons of mass destruction, at the very time it turns out 
that the Defense Intelligence Agency was circulating a memo that there 
was no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein then had weapons of mass 
destruction.
  That is not the public comments nor the private assurances that 
Members of Congress or the American public were being given at the time 
of the President's Rose Garden speech September 26, 2002, and several 
other statements made. Was the President told what the intelligence 
agencies thought he wanted to hear? Did the President demand just one 
side of the story? We need an accounting of what has happened. Our 
credibility is at stake. If we are ever again to embrace the notion of 
preemptive use of military force which may be necessary in an age of 
terror when we are dealing with an adversary who does not have a 
country to defend or a capital city to defend, if we are ever going

[[Page 16149]]

to use a preemptive strategy again, we must know our intelligence is 
accurate; otherwise, the doctrine of preemption is unusable.
  If we are going to keep this country safe, we have to know what 
happened. We have to know how well or how poorly our intelligence 
operation functioned. We need an accounting. We are not getting it from 
the international relations committee, which last week refused to call 
for documents. We are not getting it on the floor with the intelligence 
bill because amendments to have an investigation have been ruled out of 
order. We have got a document dump at the intelligence committee. I am 
going to go over and look at those documents, but I do not think that 
is enough. We need to have an accounting. We need to know what 
happened.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It is really interesting listening to how certain people on the other 
side who are trying to turn this into a debate of weapons of mass 
destruction are raising the issue of credibility when their statements 
themselves seem to be at least lacking some credibility, to put it 
mildly. I would just emphasize we are talking about what was known and 
what was not known.
  Let us go back to last September when Vice President Gore said based 
at the time he was Vice President, he had absolutely no doubt that Iraq 
had an advanced program of weapons of mass destruction and those 
weapons were hidden throughout Iraq. That was Vice President Gore based 
on his access to intelligence. Just last month, President Clinton said 
he does not in any way fault President Bush on the issue of weapons of 
mass destruction because that is exactly what he was told when he was 
President of the United States. Just last Friday in the New York Times, 
Kenneth Pollack who was probably leading spokesman in the Clinton 
administration on the issue of Iraq said there was absolutely no doubt 
among any of the intelligence agencies in the world nor in the United 
States nor in the Clinton and Bush administrations that there were 
indeed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
  And it really is ironic that we have to look to a British foreign 
minister to stand with our government and give the United States the 
presumption of the doubt over Saddam Hussein when certain Members of 
the opposition party do not show that same level of support that Prime 
Minister Blair is showing, which I think is very significant; and it 
also demonstrates more than ever why Americans have such a high opinion 
of Prime Minister Blair.
  I would also say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who was heaping 
praise on the Republicans for trying to set up this trans-Atlantic 
relationship with the British and was hoping that perhaps this may 
manifest itself here on the floor, I would also remind the gentleman 
and ask him if he supports the fact that Tony Blair is bringing the 
Labor Party from the left to the right and is certainly being 
criticized by those in the left in Britain. I wonder if he will also 
share that in his party and move his party more toward the center.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I very much agree with many 
of the specifics, but the gentleman misstates British politics when he 
says he has moved them from left to the right. Blair would himself 
repudiate that. What he has done is to move them from a position that 
he thought was too far to the left to a more mainstream position, but 
still very much on the left, still very much socialized medicine. So, 
yes, I think that the direction that the Labor Party has moved in, 
which is very much a reasonable and responsible position on the left, 
is a good one; but to characterize that as having moved to the right, I 
think Mr. Blair would give back his gold medal if the price of 
accepting it was to become a rightist in the gentleman's mind.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say 
that the same critics in Britain who are criticizing Tony Blair's 
policy on the war would in fact be saying that he is moving his party 
to the right. So really I was quoting the equivalent critics in the 
British Parliament who are equivalent to those in this House. Those who 
oppose Blair's policy on Iraq, very similar to those on the other side 
who are opposing President Bush's policy on Iraq, are the same ones who 
are saying that he is moving his party toward the right. So I was just 
really quoting some of the ideological kinsmen of some of the opponents 
here today.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman once again 
misstates British politics because two of his sharpest critics were 
people who were in his government supporting his moves on domestic 
policy, supporting his repositioning towards New Labor. Two, Robin Cook 
and Claire Short, they resigned from the government specifically over 
Iraq. So the notion that criticism of his position on Iraq is also 
criticism of his movement towards the New Labor position is simply 
factually incorrect.
  Mr. KING of New York. Reclaiming my time, it is very accurate. In 
fact, anyone who knows Claire Short, and I have known her for over 20 
years, can say she was in the far left of the Labor Party. She was in 
the Blair cabinet very reluctantly, and she was one of those who was 
critical not just of his war policy but also of his domestic policies.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. What about Robin Cook? Who was the 
foreign minister and who resigned only over misuse of intelligence and 
not over anything domestic.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, actually this 
has turned into the House of Commons. This is great. But reclaiming my 
time, I would say that the overwhelming, absolutely categorically 
overwhelming majority of those in the Labor Party who are opposed to 
Tony Blair resent also the fact that he is moving the party towards the 
center.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would that also be true of the British 
public, which was opposed to his going to the war?
  Mr. KING of New York. Reclaiming my time, the beauty of Tony Blair is 
unlike certain politicians he does not follow the polls. The fact is he 
stands up for what is right. In the fullness of time he will be 
vindicated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to begin first by agreeing with the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. King) that Tony Blair has been historically courageous in Northern 
Ireland in helping to reconcile two sides that for 500 years have not 
been able to see eye to eye, and he deserves enormous historic credit 
for that. And on the issue of Iraq, but for Tony Blair, but for Tony 
Blair's insistence, President Bush would have never gone to the United 
Nations. It was he, Tony Blair, who made the precondition to his 
support that the United States would go to the United Nations in order 
to secure a vote, and for that he deserves enormous credit.
  But at the same time in England, Great Britain, the Parliament right 
now, there is an ongoing investigation of the information that was used 
as to justification for the war in Iraq; and it is to the credit of the 
Parliament, it is to the credit of Tony Blair, that he is accepting the 
responsibility of the examination of the information which was used 
with regard to the weapons of mass destruction that was produced by the 
intelligence community in Great Britain and in the United States as a 
rationale for the war. It is to the credit of Tony Blair that he is 
accepting that examination.
  In our country, just the opposite is the case. There are essentially 
three options that the American people, the

[[Page 16150]]

British people are now presented with. One, that the intelligence was 
correct, that the weapons of mass destruction existed, and that the 
weapons of mass destruction are now in the hands of al Qaeda, Baathist 
separatist activity groups, other terrorist groups, or in Syria. All of 
those options are horrific and not a consequence that we thought would 
be a result of this war.
  Secondly, that the intelligence was plain wrong right from the 
beginning. There was never any information and that they botched it 
right from the beginning. That is horrible.
  Or, third, that the intelligence was correct; but they were told, the 
intelligence community, to change the information, to change the 
information. They were told deliberately to alter it in order to argue 
that there were weapons of mass destruction, that Vice President Cheney 
did visit the CIA, did try to influence the intelligence community to 
change the information, to leave out key documents. In Britain they are 
now looking at that very issue. They are being told that the 
information with regard to the uranium from Africa was not correct, 
that the academic paper that was used rather than real intelligence was 
wrong and should not have been relied upon. We need the same kind of 
examination in our country.
  There is now sufficient evidence that is being produced that there 
has been a compromise of the total intelligence package that the 
Congress should have had but, more importantly, that the American 
people should have had as the basis of their judgment.
  I voted for the resolution last October. I voted for it, and I 
believe that the American people and this Congress deserve all of the 
information. We need a blue ribbon commission to examine all of the 
intelligence that was used. England is doing it right now. Tony Blair 
is accepting that examination. We should have the courage in our own 
country to give all of the information to the American public. The 
intelligence in this country is right now not complete with regard to 
what our government knew before we voted on the floor of this Congress.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the gentleman that there was another 
option left out and that is the option that Vice President Gore spoke 
about last September, that the weapons are there, the weapons are 
hidden, and we will find them.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for 
one question?
  Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Can we anticipate a gold medal for Vice 
President Gore too? Are you going to give a gold medal to Al Gore too, 
anybody who helps you out?
  Mr. KING of New York. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the ranking 
member if he wants to introduce that legislation and obtain 290 
signatures, certainly we will give it consideration at that time. We 
are very open-minded. We are very liberal on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, Members should speak for themselves about 
being liberal on this side of the aisle.
  Let me try to draw the debate back to what we had initially 
anticipated, which was to honor Tony Blair with a Congressional Gold 
Medal and discuss exactly why we were able to secure 290 co-sponsors 
for this legislation. It is because Tony Blair represents all that is 
good.

                              {time}  1145

  It is because of that that the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown-
Waite), a distinguished member of our committee, introduced this 
legislation and worked very hard, along with our friend, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) to gather 290 signatures, and 
under the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, that we are here today. That means that 
this House will go on record as supporting, with a strong bipartisan 
vote, exactly what Tony Blair means to the process and what he means to 
our country.
  We have had a special relationship with Great Britain for so many 
years, after we got the initial argument out of the way some 200 plus 
years ago, and since that time have worked harmoniously with Great 
Britain, no matter who was in charge over here, or who was in charge 
over there. And here we have a situation where the Prime Minister of 
the Labor Party is being supported by a Republican Congress and a 
Republican President, because of what he brings to our relationship and 
what he means to all of us.
  I think all of us were thrilled when almost a week after the terrible 
events of September 11, 2001, when President Bush spoke to the Nation 
from this very spot and said, America has no truer friend than Great 
Britain. And then, looking up to Tony Blair in the gallery right up 
behind me, and said, ``Thank you for coming, friend,'' meaning not just 
the Prime Minister, but all of his countrymen. That is the special 
relationship that we enjoy through good times and bad with Great 
Britain.
  My family on my dad's side was from England, and I have a great deal 
of respect for their traditions, and I certainly have a great deal of 
respect for their current leadership.
  So despite all of the arguments about weapons of mass destruction, 
despite all of the differences that we displayed over Iraq, it was 
Great Britain in the presence of Tony Blair who came to our defense. It 
was Tony Blair who made a special trip over to the United States to 
bring us condolences and talk about unification and working together 
with Great Britain, and yes, it was Tony Blair who defied public 
opinion, who did not stick his finger up in the wind and see which way 
the wind was blowing, to say that he was going to do something right 
and support the United States in our efforts against the brutal 
dictator, Saddam Hussein.
  For that and many, many other reasons, he deserves these accolades, 
and he deserves this Congressional Gold Medal. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this meaningful tribute to a great world leader, 
Tony Blair.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder 
of my time.
  Tony Blair is an embattled politician, as many people are. He will be 
facing an election within some period of years from his right wing, and 
he will be defending the positions that he holds. He is a strong 
defender of a continuation of socialized medicine. He believes that 
global warming should be addressed by international treaty. I support 
the British position on allowing gay and lesbian people to serve in the 
military. So there is a great deal about Tony Blair's record which 
seems admirable, and I am glad to see my Republican colleagues setting 
aside what might be some minor differences to them to intervene in a 
British election by basically giving him this big boost. I am not sure 
that their fellow conservatives in England are quite so happy.
  I do want to say, though, that I differ with those who suggested that 
somehow we should not have used this to debate the question of whether 
or not Americans ought to know whether intelligence was misused or how 
it was misused. I agree there would be better places to debate it. 
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has consistently done 
everything possible to keep that debate off the floor. The intelligence 
authorization will be coming up, and that would have been a good time 
to debate it. Our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Tauscher), had an amendment that would have allowed a debate on whether 
or not to have a select committee. We cannot have that debate today at 
the regular ordered time because the Republican leadership ordered the 
Committee on Rules to kill it.
  So yes, I will agree; I saw this and said, let us use this as a 
chance to at least have some debate on this issue, since the Republican 
leadership will not allow it. In fact, what I most admire about Tony 
Blair right now is that as the Prime Minister and the

[[Page 16151]]

head of the House of Commons, he has not even tried to use his control 
to shut off a debate. Unlike the Republican administration and the 
Republican leadership here, Tony Blair is allowing the British people 
and the British political system to have a thorough debate about the 
extent to which there was misuse of evidence on weapons of mass 
destruction, and I envy the British. I do not just envy them the Gold 
Medal, I envy them the fact that democracy is functioning in England 
today on this critical question of whether and to what extent 
intelligence was misused in a way that is not being allowed to happen 
in America.
  Now, the gentleman from New York managing this bill referred to the 
article by Kenneth Pollack. I will submit Mr. Pollack's article for the 
Record, because he said I am sure there were weapons of mass 
destruction, and he goes on in that article to be very critical of this 
administration's misuse of the evidence. It is a very interesting 
article, and I appreciate once again the gentleman citing it, because 
he talks about very important questions about the misuse of 
intelligence, the exaggeration, the manipulation. This is an 
administration that argued, in part, that the weapons of mass 
destruction were a major reason to go to war, and that a Rosanna Danna 
Banana ``nevermind'' is not an appropriate response in a democracy.
  That is what we are getting. We are getting from them bait and 
switch: Let us go to war because of weapons of mass destruction, and 
now it is because, well, he was a terrible man. Yes, he was a terrible 
man. Terrible people are killing people in the Congo. Terrible people 
run Liberia. Terrible people run Burma. If, in fact, we are going to 
become the ones that go to the rescue of people misused and abused by 
their government, there are a lot more that we can go to.
  Weapons of mass destruction was the critical argument used to justify 
a war, and it now appears that they were grossly exaggerated. The very 
article by Kenneth Pollack that the gentleman from New York cited is in 
fact harshly critical of this administration for its misuse of that.
  So thanking Tony Blair because he came to the President's defense at 
a tough time is a reasonable thing to do. Going to Tony Blair's defense 
in a tough time for him, that is a reasonable thing to do. Certainly 
politicians are not unused to helping each other out in tough times and 
reciprocating.
  But let us look at the contrast. I wish, in addition to the Gold 
Medal for Tony Blair, we were doing something for the American people. 
I would just propose to my friends on the other side, given your 
admiration for Tony Blair, a simple proposition: Let us duplicate here 
in the United States the procedures that are now being undertaken in 
the British Parliament, let us give the American people the same 
exposure to an open debate and investigation that the British people 
are giving. Let us do something for the American people while we give 
Tony Blair the Gold Medal, and thus show respect for democracy in our 
own country.

                        (By Kenneth M. Pollack)

       Washington.--Where are Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? 
     It's a good question, and unfortunately we don't yet have a 
     good answer. There is hope that the capture of Abid Hamid 
     Mahmoud al-Tikriti, Saddam Hussein's closest aide, will 
     provide the first solid clues. In any event, the mystery will 
     be solved in good time; the search for Iraq's nonconvential 
     weapons program has only just begun.
       In the meantime, accusations are mounting that the Bush 
     administration made up the whole Iraqi weapons threat to 
     justify an invasion. That is just not the case--America and 
     its allies had plenty of evidence before the war, and before 
     President Bush took office, indicating that Iraq was 
     retaining its illegal weapons programs.
       As for allegations that some in the administration may have 
     used slanted intelligence claims in making their case against 
     Saddam Hussein, they seem to have merit and demand further 
     investigation. But if the truth was stretched, it seems to 
     have been done primarily to justify the timing of an 
     invasion, not the merits of one.
       The fact that the sites we suspected of containing hidden 
     weapons before the war turned out to have nothing in them is 
     not very significant. American intelligence agencies never 
     claimed to know exactly where or how the Iraqis were hiding 
     what they had--not in 1995, not in 1999 and not six months 
     ago. It is very possible that the ``missing'' facilities, 
     weaponized agents, precursor materials and even stored 
     munitions all could still be hidden in places we never would 
     have thought to look. This is exactly why, before the war, so 
     few former weapons inspectors had confidence that a new round 
     of United Nations inspections would find the items they were 
     convinced Iraq was hiding.
       At the heart of the mystery lies the fact that the Iraqis 
     do not seem to have deployed any stocks of munitions filled 
     with nonconventional weapons. Why did Saddam Hussein not hit 
     coalition troops with a barrage of chemical and biological 
     weapons rather than allow his regime to fall? Why did we not 
     find them in ammunition dumps, ready to be fired?
       Actually, there are many possible explanations. Saddam 
     Hussein may have underestimated the likelihood of war and not 
     filled any chemical weapons before the invasion. He may have 
     been killed or gravely wounded in the ``decapitation'' strike 
     on the eve of the invasion and unable to give the orders. Or 
     he may have just been surprised by the extremely rapid pace 
     of the coalition's ground advance and the sudden collapse of 
     the Republican Guard divisions surrounding Baghdad. It is 
     also possible that Iraq did not have the capacity to make the 
     weapons, but given the prewar evidence, this is still the 
     least likely explanation.
       The one potentially important discovery made so far by 
     American troops--two tractor-trailers found in April and May 
     that fit the descriptions of mobile germ-warfare labs given 
     by Iraqi defectors over the years--might well point to a 
     likely explanation for at least part of the mystery: Iraq may 
     have decided to keep only a chemical and biological warfare 
     production capability rather than large stockpiles of the 
     munitions themselves. This would square with the fact that 
     several dozen chemical warfare factories were rebuilt after 
     the first gulf war to produce civilian pharmaceuticals, but 
     were widely believed to be dual-use plants capable of quickly 
     being converted back to chemical warfare production.
       In truth, this was always the most likely scenario. 
     Chemical and biological warfare munitions, especially the 
     crude varieties that Iraq developed during the Iran-Iraq War, 
     are dangerous to store and handle and they deteriorate 
     quickly. But they can be manufactured and put in warheads 
     relatively rapidly--meaning that there is little reason to 
     have thousands of filled rounds sitting around where they 
     might be found by international inspectors. It would have 
     been logical for Iraq to retain only some means of 
     production, which could be hidden with relative ease and then 
     used to churn out the munitions whenever Saddam Hussein gave 
     the word.
       Still, no matter what the trailers turn out to be, the 
     failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in no ways 
     invalidates the prewar intelligence data indicating that Iraq 
     had the clandestine capacity to build them. There has long 
     been an extremely strong case--based on evidence that largely 
     predates the Bush administration--that Iraq maintained 
     programs in weapons of mass destruction. It was this 
     evidence, along with reports showing the clear failure of 
     United Nations efforts to impede Iraq's progress, that led 
     the Clinton administration to declare a policy of ``regime 
     change'' for Iraq in 1998.
       In 1995, for example, United Nations inspectors found 
     Russian-made ballistic-missile gyroscopes at the bottom of 
     the Tigris River; Jordanian officials intercepted others 
     being smuggled into Iraq that same year. In July 1998, 
     international inspectors discovered an Iraqi document that 
     showed Baghdad had lied about the number of chemical bombs it 
     had dropped during the Iran-Iraq War, leaving some 6,000 such 
     weapons unaccounted for. Iraq simply refused to concede that 
     the document even existed.
       These episodes, and others like them, explain why many 
     former Clinton administration officials, including myself (I 
     was on the staff of the National Security Council in the 
     90's), agreed with the Bush administration that a war would 
     likely be necessary to prevent Iraq from acquiring nuclear 
     and other weapons. We may not have agreed with the Bush 
     team's timing or tactics, but none of us doubted the 
     fundamental intelligence basis of its concerns about the 
     Iraqi threat.
       As for the estimates the Bush administration presented 
     regarding Iraq's holdings of weapons-related materials, they 
     came from unchallenged evidence gathered by United Nations 
     inspectors (in many cases, from records of the companies that 
     sold the materials to Iraq in the first place). For instance, 
     Iraq admitted importing 200 to 250 tons of precursor agents 
     for VX nerve gas; it claimed to have destroyed these 
     chemicals but never proved that it had done so. Even Hans 
     Blix, the last head weapons inspector and a leading skeptic 
     of the need for an invasion, admitted that the Iraqis refused 
     to provide a credible accounting for these materials.
       And it wasn't just the United States that was concerned 
     about Iraq's efforts. By 2002, British, Israeli and German 
     intelligence services had also concluded that Iraq was 
     probably far enough along in its nuclear

[[Page 16152]]

     weapons program that it would be able to put together one or 
     more bombs at some point in the second half of this decade. 
     The Germans were actually the most fearful of all--in 2001 
     they leaked their estimate that Iraq might be able to develop 
     its first workable nuclear device in 2004.
       Nor was it just government agencies that were alarmed. In 
     the summer of 2002 I attended a meeting with more than a 
     dozen former weapons inspectors from half a dozen countries, 
     along with another dozen experts on Iraq's weapons programs. 
     Those present were asked whether they believed Iraq had a 
     clandestine centrifuge lab operating somewhere; everyone did. 
     Several even said they believed the Iraqis had a covert 
     calutron program going as well. (Centrifuge and calutron 
     operations allow a country to enrich uranium and produce the 
     fissile material for a nuclear bomb.)
       At no point before the war did the French, the Russians, 
     the Chinese or any other country with an intelligence 
     operation capable of collecting information in Iraq say it 
     doubted that Baghdad was maintaining a clandestine weapons 
     capability. All that these countries ever disagreed with the 
     United States on was what to do about it.
       Which raises the real crux of the slanted-intelligence 
     debate: the timing of the war. Why was it necessary to put 
     aside all of our other foreign policy priorities to go to war 
     with Iraq in the spring of 2003? It was always the hardest 
     part of the Bush administration's argument to square with the 
     evidence. And, distressingly, there seems to be more than a 
     little truth to claims that some members of the 
     administration skewed, exaggerated and even distorted raw 
     intelligence to coax the American people and reluctant allies 
     into going to war against Iraq this year.
       Before the war, some administration officials clearly 
     tended to emphasize in public only the most dire aspects of 
     the intelligence agencies' predictions. For example, of 
     greatest importance were the estimates of how close Iraq was 
     to obtaining a nuclear weapon. The major Western intelligence 
     services essentially agreed that Iraq could acquire one or 
     more nuclear bombs within about four to six years. However, 
     all also indicated that it was possible Baghdad might be able 
     to do so in as few as one or two years if, and only if, it 
     were able to acquire fissile materials on the black market.
       This latter prospect was not very likely. The Iraqis has 
     been trying to buy fissile material since the 1970's and had 
     never been able to do so. Nevertheless, some Bush 
     administration officials chose to stress that one-to-two-year 
     possibility rather than the more likely four-to-six year 
     scenario. Needless to say, if the public felt Iraq was still 
     several years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon rather 
     than just a matter of months, there probably would have been 
     much less support for war this spring.
       Moreover, before the war I heard many complaints from 
     friends still in government that some Bush officials were 
     mounting a ruthless campaign over intelligence estimates. I 
     was told that when government analysts wrote cautious 
     assessments of Iraq's capabilities, they were grilled and 
     forced to go to unusual lengths to defend their judgments and 
     some were chastised for failing to come to more alarming 
     conclusions. None of this is illegal, but it was perceived as 
     an attempt to browbeat analysts into either changing their 
     estimates for shutting up and ceding the field to their more 
     hawkish colleagues.
       More damning than the claims of my former colleagues has 
     been some of the investigative reporting done since the war. 
     Particularly troubling are reports that the administration 
     knew its contention that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from 
     Niger was based on forged documents. If true, it would be a 
     serious indictment of the administration's handling of the 
     war.
       As important as this debate is, what may ultimately turn 
     out to be the biggest concern over the Iraqi weapons program 
     is the question of whose hands it is now in. If we do confirm 
     that those two trailers are mobile biological warfare labs, 
     we are faced with a tremendous problem. If the defectors' 
     reports about the rates at which such mobile labs were 
     supposedly constructed are correct, there are probably 22 
     more trailers still out there. Where are they? Syria? Iran? 
     Jordan? Still somewhere in Iraq? Or have they found their way 
     into the hands of those most covetous--Osama bin Laden and 
     his confederates?
       Nor can we allow our consideration of weapons of mass 
     destruction and politicized intelligence to be a distraction 
     from the most important task at hand: rebuilding Iraq. 
     History may forgive the United States if we don't find the 
     arsenal we thought we would. No one will forgive us if we 
     botch the reconstruction and leave Iraq a worse mess than we 
     found it.

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to celebrate the purpose of the 
Medal, which is the great leadership of Tony Blair. The world needs 
civilized leaders. The world is a scary place. There are a lot of 
things going on, and all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for 
good men to do nothing. Good men are not infallible. Mistakes can be 
made. But good men acting on good judgment, doing the best they can 
with what they have is what we are celebrating here today.
  Tony Blair as Prime Minister has been a great friend to our country, 
which has a special relationship, of course, with the United Kingdom, 
of which we are very proud, and an especially strong relationship in 
the area of intelligence. He has been a great friend with President 
Clinton when he was President of our country, and with President Bush. 
Who is currently the President of our country.
  I think that friendship has gone through a lot of activity in the 
past several years, and Tony Blair has been there standing strong. He 
is a proud person to be associated with, in my view. I am pleased that 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown-Waite), the gentleman from New 
York (Chairman King), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and 
others have had the good sense to bring this forward at this time, and 
I thank them for doing it, and I urge strong support.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As I said at the outset, it is a great honor for me personally to be 
able to stand here and move this legislation today. I must say that I 
am sure some of my Irish ancestors are appreciating the improbability 
of this moment that I would be making such an impassioned defense for a 
British Prime Minister.
  The fact is, Tony Blair transcends national politics. He transcends 
pettiness and partisanship, and that is what we have tried to do here. 
Yes, obviously, there are differences between Members on this side of 
the aisle and certain policies of Tony Blair. We are not talking about 
his policies per se; we are talking about his courage, we are talking 
about his unique sense of dedication to democratic values and the fact 
that he is such a close ally of the United States, and that does 
transcend whatever differences there may be, and that should also 
transcend whatever differences we might have in recognizing the 
greatness of an individual and realizing the uniqueness of a very 
special relationship.
  But, if I could just add in closing, because I know there is going to 
be a record of this and we have gone over different debates, I would 
just thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for introducing the full 
column by Mr. Pollack. I would stand by that, and I would say that 
anyone reading that, any balanced person reading that would see that as 
an affirmation that weapons of mass destruction did indeed exist, and 
also honest differences as far as nuclear weapons. It is all there. I 
will allow the public to look at that, to read it, and come to their 
judgment. It certainly went far beyond as far as being reasoned, as far 
as being rational, some of the overheated rhetoric that has been coming 
forth from others here. And that to me is the type of debate we should 
be having, an intelligent debate.
  Also, I would say there is a difference between a parliamentary 
system and the system that we have. Indeed we fought a revolution in 
1776 to establish our type of government.
  But in conclusion, let us get back to the main point. Tony Blair is a 
unique world leader, an outstanding world leader, a long and dear and 
absolutely loyal friend of the United States. For that, Mr. Speaker, he 
deserves this Gold Medal as much as any world leader ever has. I stand 
with him. I would hope that the overwhelming majority of this Congress 
would stand with him, stand with the United States Senate in 
acknowledging the uniqueness and the unique loyalty and sense of 
courage that Tony Blair has demonstrated.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would be willing to stand with the 
Senate on this if we could stand with them

[[Page 16153]]

on the child tax credit. Can we make some kind of deal here on standing 
with the Senate?
  Mr. KING of New York. Reclaiming my time, I would say that when Tony 
Blair is here, that if we can arrange a private meeting with the 
ranking member from Massachusetts, I am sure he can impart unique 
wisdom to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and that would really 
mean that the Prime Minister has earned his gold medal.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation for a number of reasons. First, to force the American 
people to pay tens of thousands of dollars to give a gold medal to a 
foreign leader is immoral and unconstitutional. I will continue in my 
uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the 
enumerated powers of the Constitution--a Constitution that each member 
of Congress swore to uphold.
  Second, though these gold medals are an unconstitutional 
appropriation of American tax dollars, at least in the past we have 
awarded them to great humanitarians and leaders like Mother Theresa, 
President Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and others. These medals have 
generally been proposed to recognize a life of service and leadership, 
and not for political reasons--as evidenced by the overwhelming 
bipartisan support for awarding President Reagan, a Republican, a gold 
medal. That these awards have generally gone to these types of 
otherwise deserving individuals is why I have many times offered to 
contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other Members, to 
finance these medals.
  I sense that this current proposal is different, however. No one is 
claiming that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has given a lifetime of 
humanitarian service like Mother Theresa, or demonstrated the 
historical leadership of a Ronald Reagan. No one suggests that British 
Prime Minister, leading the avowedly socialist Labour Party, has 
embraced American values such as freedom and limited governments and 
imported those to Great Britain--as Margaret Thatcher had attempted 
before him. No, Tony Blair is being proposed for his medal for one 
reason: he provided political support when international allies were 
sought in advance of America's attack on Iraq. Does this overtly 
political justification for awarding this medal not cheapen both the 
medal itself and the achievements of those who have been awarded it 
previously?
  I find it particularly odd that this Republican-controlled Congress 
would nominate one such as Tony Blair to receive this award. His 
political party is socialist: Britain under Blair has a system of 
socialized medicine and government intervention in all aspects of the 
commercial and personal lives of its citizens. Socialism is an enemy of 
freedom and liberty--as the 20th century taught us so well. It is the 
philosophical basis of a century of mass-murder and impoverishment.
  In May, a British television poll found that Prime Minister Blair is 
the most unpopular man in Great Britain. A brief look at his rules 
leaves little question why this is so. He has eroded Britain's 
constitutional base--recently abolishing the ancient position of Lord 
Chancellor without any debate. He has overseen a massive expansion of 
government with the creation of costly ``assemblies'' in Wales and 
Scotland. He has also overseen changes in Britain's voting system that 
many have claimed has opened the door to widespread voting fraud. In 
short, he is no Margaret Thatcher and certainly no Winston Churchill. 
Yet today Congress is voting to give him its highest honor.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to be generous with the people's money. 
I believe the politicization of this medal, as we are seeing here 
today, really makes my own point on such matters: Congress should not 
be spending the people's money for appropriations not authorized within 
the enumerated powers of the Constitution. When it does so, it charts a 
dangerous course away from the rule of law and away from liberty. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on this unfortunate bill.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1511, to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Tony Blair, Prime 
Minister of Great Britain.
  The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor Congress can bestow 
to civilians and foreign leaders in recognition of their outstanding 
and enduring contributions to the United States. It is fitting that we 
consider Prime Minister Blair for this award in the wake of a 
challenging and historic period for our two nations.
  Upon the terrorist attacks of September 11, Prime Minister Blair was 
the first leader to rush to America's side to provide assistance. His 
expression of solidarity assured us that we were not alone in the world 
as a victim of terrorism, and that attacks on our soil were also as 
assault on the sovereignty of Great Britain, which lost more of its own 
citizens in the World Trade Center than any other foreign nation. In a 
very difficult time for our country, Mr. Blair has courageously 
demonstrated that the U.K. is our staunchest and most steadfast ally by 
helping us lead the coalition of democratic nations in the defense of 
our mutual security from terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction.
  Together with Great Britain we have made progress toward dismantling 
the global network of state sponsored terrorism. However, despite 
considerable public opposition and political fallout in his own 
country, Prime Minister Blair never wavered from his commitment to the 
United States and the international coalition to determine whether the 
existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq presented an imminent 
threat to its neighbors and our troops based on the Middle East. Under 
the Prime Minister's leadership, Great Britain contributed troops and 
meaningful support for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. 
As British troops fought shoulder to shoulder with American troops in 
Iraq, Mr. Blair made it clear all along that the U.K. shared our values 
and principles for the mission, particularly when he said, ``We go to 
liberate not conquer . . . and the only flag which will be flown in 
that ancient land is their own.''
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud Prime Minister Tony Blair's extraordinary 
leadership and his nation's enduring commitment to our mutual support 
of liberty and democracy. I am proud to support H.R. 1511 to authorize 
the President, on behalf of Congress, to award the Gold Medal to Prime 
Minister Blair. I also wish to thank the people of Great Britain, the 
members of the royal armed forces, and their families for their shared 
commitment and many sacrifices for the preservation of democracy and 
liberty in a world allied against terror.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is with great 
disappointment that I cannot be present today to speak and vote in 
favor of H.R. 1511, a bill to award Prime Minister Tony Blair the 
Congressional Gold Medal. I introduced this legislation on March 31 and 
have since been working with my colleagues to obtain the necessary 290 
cosponsors for floor action. I would like to commend Chairman Oxley and 
the Financial Services Committee, as well as Rep. Richard Baker and 
Rep. Carolyn Maloney for their tireless efforts in getting this bill to 
the floor today.
  As we emerge successfully from Operation Iraqi Freedom, it is 
important to remember that we did not fight this war alone. The brave 
men and women of the British military have fought and died, side by 
side, with our American soldiers. Just yesterday, 6 British soldiers 
were killed in an attack north of Basra. Great Britain, under the 
leadership of Tony Blair, has paid the ultimate sacrifice.
  Prime Minister Blair has ignored political expediency and risked his 
own career to stand up for what he knows is right. Operation Iraqi 
Freedom has freed millions of Iraqis from the oppression of Saddam 
Hussein's brutal dictatorship. The Operation has ousted a regime bent 
on securing and then distributing weapons of mass destruction to those 
who would use them against the United States, our friends, and the 
people of Iraq. Despite attempts by many of our ``allies'' to thwart 
this noble effort, Prime Minister Blair and Great Britain have remained 
strong and active players in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  I am deeply honored to play a role in awarding Prime Minister Tony 
Blair the Congressional Gold Medal and I thank my colleagues in the 
House of Representatives for joining me.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend British Prime 
Minister Tony Blair.
  I am proud to be a consponsor of this legislation to award Mr. Blair 
with the Congressional Gold Medal. I would like to recognize Mr. 
Blair's--and Britain's--longstanding staunch support of our nation's 
democratic ideals.
  Whether one supported or opposed the war in Iraq, it is true that 
under Blair's leadership, Britain has provided extensive military 
support in the war in Iraq. He has argued passionately and consistently 
about the threats Saddam Hussein posed in the Persian Gulf and 
ultimately to the Western world. Honoring Prime Minister Blair with the 
Congressional Gold Medal would be a fitting tribute to him, the people 
of Great Britain, and the thousands of British troops who fought 
valiantly alongside American soldiers in Iraq. We now have a historic 
opportunity to reaffirm our Nation's friendship with Great Britain, and 
our mutual commitment to freedom and democracy.
  I hope that the occasion of Mr. Blair being awarded the Congressional 
Gold Medal will be an opportunity to invite Mr. Blair to address a 
joint session of Congress. I have worked with my colleague Mr. Royce to 
encourage our

[[Page 16154]]

Congressional leaders to invite Mr. Blair to do so, and I can think of 
no occasion more fitting. In light of Mr. Blair's enduring friendship 
with the United States, I look forward to hearing his views on the 
future of Iraq and the Middle East.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1511.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________