[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22718-22725]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2015
                     NOT ALL DOOM AND GLOOM IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, this last Sunday in the 
Minneapolis Star Tribune on the front page of the opinion section was a 
picture in Iraq, and above this picture it says, ``Look at this 
picture. What do you see?'' And then it lists a couple of 
counterpoints, including one from myself. If you look at the picture, 
you see a market in Mosul, and you see some fruits up front, you see 
some women dressed in clean, neat clothes. You see a market with the 
shelves full, and you see a U.S. soldier from the 101st Airborne 
watching over that market and making sure that it stays secure.
  Some in this Chamber have expressed doom and gloom as to what they 
see. As we listen to the articles in the paper and the TV and the 
radio, too often we hear that saying, doom and gloom. But there is a 
different picture that I am going to try to, with several of my 
colleagues, bring out today. Those who have been to Iraq, as I have, 
and many of my colleagues, have seen a different picture. There are two 
sides to this story, and I would argue that the story of advancement, 
of progress, of moving towards a democracy and an open government, an 
open economy, is the more accurate picture.
  I was challenged recently by someone back home in Minnesota who said, 
Mark, why is not anybody else saying anything positive about Iraq? And 
my answer would be, well, I am not sure that anybody is reaching beyond 
some of the press they are getting, because not everybody is going to 
Iraq, not everybody is looking at other sources. Mr. Speaker, it was 
Thomas Jefferson who said that you would be better educated if you read 
nothing than if you read nothing but papers, newspapers, and that is, 
unfortunately, the case in this situation.

[[Page 22719]]

  Mr. Speaker, the press does a better job of reporting crashes than 
landings. We are certainly having great reporting of the crashes, but 
the landings and the progress that we have seen, with progress towards 
quality of life, progress towards getting Iraqis governing themselves, 
and progress towards more stability, more freedom in a country that is 
very diverse and has great potential is something that we are going to 
try to bring out here today.
  As I mentioned, I will have several folks joining me, and I would, 
first of all, like to welcome the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) 
for some comments that he has.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. The 
gentleman has actually been to Iraq, he has been to Baghdad, and he has 
seen on the ground many of these things of which we are speaking about 
tonight. As the gentleman points out, we are not really getting, if you 
rely just on 24-hour news and the newspapers and coverage, we are not 
really getting the whole picture, the full picture. I am glad that the 
gentleman was part of a group that recently was in Iraq who could see 
for themselves and understand that, as he points out, how much progress 
is being made.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of discussion, of course, about where the 
weapons of mass destruction are, where is Saddam Hussein, and, of 
course, we want answers to those questions. But what the public needs 
to understand is that progress is definitely being made. Nobody denies 
the existence of Saddam Hussein, and I think we will ultimately find 
him. But let me just point out a little bit of information that I think 
is important on this issue.
  The Iraq Survey Group is tasked with the search for the weapons of 
mass destruction. The ISG has between 600 and 800 personnel in Iraq and 
is headed by former U.N. inspector David Kay. The Iraq Survey Group's 
highest priority is the hunt for weapons of mass destruction. They have 
formed quick reaction teams to explore sites indicated by intelligence. 
The Coalition Provision Authority has actually offered a reward of up 
to $25 million for the capture of Saddam Hussein. And, of course, this 
same type of incentive is what led to the finding and the killing of 
Uday and Qusay.
  So a lot of progress is being made. We have the inspectors on the 
ground, and we are following up on every lead. This is just one of the 
things that I wanted to point out, and the gentleman from Minnesota, of 
course, knows that because he has been there and he has seen it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, one of the first things I did 
when we landed in Baghdad was I asked the general in charge there, I 
said, how are things here relative to what we are hearing back home? 
And he said, with a combination of disgust and disappointment, that it 
is total distortion. There are so many things that are going on 
positive here. We in our group saw that. We had a bipartisan group of 
11 Members. We went to Mosul, to Tikrit, to Babylon. We drove around in 
Baghdad, visited the police academy, visited the hospital, met with 
folks from Iraq who had recently been elected to city councils and to 
provincial councils, and what we saw was progress in every direction. 
As we flew over Iraq at night, the lights were on. As we drove through 
even Baghdad, the markets were up. There were cars and, in fact, 
traffic jams even in Baghdad as people were getting on with their 
lives.
  As we went up to Mosul, we went in a garden variety tour bus, 11 
Members of Congress, through the markets of Mosul, and, for the most 
part, most of the citizens did not really pay much attention to us. 
They were just going about their normal life in the progress of 
rebuilding. We passed by schools and hospitals that were rebuilt.
  So having all of the hospitals up and running again and the schools 
up and running is great progress, and that is something I was very 
pleased to see. I know the gentleman as a physician can appreciate what 
we are doing on the health care side, and I think on all of those 
fronts we are making great process.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, yes, and I am 
so glad the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) brought that up, 
because there are some 240-some hospitals in Iraq, and many of them are 
being brought back on line, and there is a lot of work that is being 
done. The gentleman points out the fact that schools are being built, 
hospitals are being reopened. Much of the infrastructure is markedly 
improved.
  Electricity is an example. I think currently there are 3,200 
megawatts of electricity being generated. The prewar level was 4,000. 
The national demand is estimated to be 6,000, but the Coalition 
Provision Authority plans to reach 4,000 megawatts by August. Baghdad 
is receiving, the city of Baghdad, 1,200 megawatts. Prewar levels were 
2,500, averaging 3 hours on and 3 hours off each day.
  So we are definitely making progress, as the gentleman points out, 
and not only in the infrastructure, but, as he also mentions, in health 
care, and in water as well. Much of Iraq is at prewar water level 
supply levels now. There is no critical shortage of water.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would say the gentleman is 
absolutely right on all of those counts. One of the reasons that 
possibly explains why we get such negative press is that Iraq, like 
America, is a very diverse country, with a lot of different ethnic 
groups and different regions throughout the country. And one of those, 
the Sunni Arabs from which Saddam came, represents about 15 percent or 
maybe 20 percent of the total population, and that group as a whole 
received preferential treatment. So as we compare their state today 
versus where they were before, it is not quite as attractive as the 
Shiites in the south that were really abused and tortured and done 
things to that one would not even want to describe in some cases, but 
some of them as vicious as rerouting the river so that they could not 
cultivate their crops. Similarly, the Kurds in the north were treated 
in a like fashion.
  There were three electrical grids in Iraq prior to us coming in 
there, and even today; one electrical grid to make sure that all of 
Saddam's palaces, his almost 50 palace compounds, were lit up around 
the country. The second was for the Sunni areas around Baghdad, because 
Baghdad was a showcase to the world to show the world that ``I have a 
great country here.'' And the third went to the southern and northern 
regions if there was any left over. Now today, of course, we are 
treating everybody equal. So in and around Baghdad, it might not be 
quite up to their preferential status they received before the war, but 
in the 80, 85 percent of the rest of the country, they are doing 
significantly better.
  We also have a situation in Baghdad that really is not talked about 
enough, and that is that 100,000 criminals, we are talking murderers 
and rapists and thieves, were let out just before the Americans took 
over, and their records destroyed, so that these criminals are 
wandering around the city causing untold havoc to the native Iraqis, 
making it a much riskier environment than it was before, as well as 
cheap criminals for hire to go after our soldiers. So within Baghdad, 
it is a much more challenging situation. It is much more difficult. It 
is much more risky.
  Unfortunately, like any capital, that is where most of the press are. 
But I have to tell my colleagues, when one goes out beyond Baghdad, it 
is a lot calmer. One does not hear the reports of the attacks on 
American troops out there. They are working with the natives. They are 
making great progress. I remember driving down one country road and 
having several children run down the country driveway to come waving at 
us and showing their appreciation. And I have talked to many Members, 
even on the other side of the aisle, who have said one of the things 
that struck them most was just how appreciative the Iraqis were, 
particularly outside of Baghdad.
  So there is good progress. It is not evenly distributed around the 
country, but that is because Saddam was not evenly treating people in 
the fashion that Americans have come to expect.

[[Page 22720]]


  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman has pointed out 
something that is very important in regard to the fact that Saddam 
Hussein, at the outset of the conflict, just opened the prison doors. I 
mean, he just literally opened those prison doors and turned all of 
these bad guys, and when I say bad guys, I am talking about murderers, 
onto the streets of Baghdad, particularly in the population center. 
Now, one can just imagine if we did that in this country. In my home 
State of Georgia, if we just all of a sudden opened that Federal 
penitentiary in Atlanta and let all of these people out on the street, 
the number of attacks, assault, battery, assault with a deadly weapon, 
murder, rape that would occur in the city of Atlanta, and one can 
understand. One begins to get, I think, a better picture.
  But as the gentleman points out, there is not mass chaos in Baghdad. 
We have, yes, some very difficult things to deal with, as the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) points out, Mr. Speaker. But let me give 
my colleagues this information about security and force protection that 
we have begun to restructure.
  Coalition forces are on the offensive. They are putting constant 
pressure on the enemy to disrupt some of these attacks. The coalition 
forces are also deterring attacks with aggressive patrolling, cordons, 
and raids based on actionable intelligence. I do not think anything is 
more important than intelligence, and we are beginning to get that.
  Currently the Coalition Provisional Authority has actually hired some 
32,000 police officers nationwide, and 28,000 are already on the 
streets. The ultimate goal, by the way, is some 61,000. The police are 
conducting joint patrols with coalition forces.
  So this picture that is being painted of mass chaos and everything on 
the backs of our brave American fighting force, they are doing a great 
job; they are doing a great job, but they are not doing it completely 
on their own. As I point out, we are hiring, we are putting Iraqi 
security forces on the street, and ultimately they will do the job. 
They will restore order for their own country.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia is 
very correct. Our soldiers are doing a fabulous job. They are rightly 
proud of the great work they are doing, and they are not alone. We have 
long known that the British have had a region of the country around 
Basra. But while we were there, down in Babylon, also in southern Iraq, 
they were preparing to turn that region over from the 1st Marine 
Expeditionary Force, which came in with the initial assault, and turn 
that over to a Polish-led division, and that has happened.

                              {time}  2030

  The Spanish are helping them, and just recently this week the 
remaining portion around Nasref was handed over to the Spanish, which 
was with that Polish division. So two of the six regions of the country 
are already being administered by our allies, by a group of almost 30 
countries that are providing 20, 25,000 troops; but the gentleman is 
absolutely correct.
  The solution here is to have Iraqis protecting Iraqis, and while we 
were in Baghdad we met with the police academy; and Bernie Kerik, the 
former police commissioner from the city of New York City, is there on 
the ground in charge of helping to train these Iraqis. One of the most 
emotional statements that I heard during my whole trip there was when 
we were talking to the Iraqi general in charge of the police that are 
helping to secure Iraq right now.
  He says as they come through the academy and they learn about the 
things that we take for granted here in Minnesota from our great police 
forces around the country and teach them respect for civilians, not to 
torture, civilian authority, so many other things to keep us secure and 
protect our civil liberties as well, he says, When they come, I 
challenge them to be heroes. He says, When I tell them about what a 
hero is, a hero is somebody who leaves their family, leaves their wife, 
leaves their children, leaves their parents, lives their familiarity of 
home and goes to a strange land, suffer through tremendous heat, 
tremendous deprivations and puts their life at risk for a stranger.
  Hearing from him how appreciative he was for our soldiers, our 
Marines that are doing that each and every day and how he holds those 
men and women up as their heroes was a great comfort and a great 
reassurance to me, but it is not just from the police. We are adding 
them on the border patrol. We are adding civil defense units to guard 
units to take our troops out of those regions and have Iraqis 
protecting Iraq, and we are seeing that.
  We had a second unfortunate attempt to bomb the U.N. headquarters in 
Baghdad; and if we see who it was that unfortunately lost their life in 
that attempt, it was the bomber himself and an Iraqi policeman that was 
on guard doing exactly what my colleague was talking about, guarding 
the treasures of Iraq, guarding their own security and protecting their 
own citizens. We are moving as fast as we can in that direction. They 
are taking it on very willingly, and that is a very positive step.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman mentioned about the 
heroism of our troops and of course some 130,000; and of course, he 
also pointed out that there are about 25,000 from other countries, 
indeed some I think the gentleman said maybe 20-or-so other countries, 
obviously the Brits, the Pols, and that is growing every day; but there 
is just no question that the commitment of the coalition forces and our 
own troops is strong.
  They know what the mission is; and obviously, loved ones back home, 
spouses, parents, grandparents, they are concerned. Their youngsters, 
their loved ones are in harm's way. Sure, they want them to come back 
home and they will come back home; but they know what their mission is, 
just as our men in World War II and the Korean conflict and other wars 
that we have been engaged in, they are committed and they will stay the 
course. I just could not be prouder of the job that they are doing 
there.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I could not be prouder either and the 
gentleman is right. We have 130-or-so thousand, from I think it is up 
to 30 countries now. It is about 55,000 Iraqis on the job making sure 
that Iraqis are safe, and that number is growing. I think it is the 
Czech Republic that stepped forward to train another 25,000-or-so on a 
police program up in their country and get them more on duty to guard 
their own country.
  One of the other things that is really very gratifying is that our 
soldiers are working with the people to make the country better; and as 
they go on these raids that the gentleman spoke of earlier and they are 
collecting a million dollars here, a hundred million dollars there as 
part of those raids of money that was stolen from the American people, 
they are putting it back to work on projects there in Iraq. In fact, 
there are 6,000 projects that have been completed and these might be 
cleaning up the school, making it more presentable and safe and a 
better learning environment, helping with the hospitals. We were in a 
neonatal institute there in Baghdad. Helping the water be a little bit 
cleaner, buying a fire engine for the local fire department, buying 
equipment for the local police department, on and on and on these 
projects are going on.
  My favorite was the 101st Airborne brought 10,000 Screaming Eagle 
soccer balls for the children to have something to play with, but these 
are helping to move that forward in an endless number of ways and 
really making it a better country each day and I think helping to 
really have a positive working relationship between our brave men and 
women in uniform and the Iraqi people.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk a little bit about the 
cost. Of course, the President is coming to Congress now and asking for 
a supplemental appropriation to continue the efforts to win this war on 
terrorism, not only in Iraq and Baghdad but also in Afghanistan and 
really in the entire world. We hear a lot of discussion obviously 
about, well, how can we afford 87

[[Page 22721]]

additional billion dollars to continue this effort, and I want to just 
talk to the gentleman a little bit about that and maybe get into a 
discussion about cost and putting this in its proper perspective.
  Obviously, $87 billion is a big number and the question comes up, we 
hear it all the time, can the United States afford this war and 
continue to do everything else the President calls for? The answer is 
yes, in my opinion. We cannot afford not to do what is necessary to win 
the war against terror, ensure a sustained economic recovery, and 
secure the homeland. The funding for the war is necessary and 
significant; but keep in mind, it is a temporary cost, and the cost of 
fighting the war is well below the cost of previous conflicts. In fact, 
$87 billion is less than 4 percent of the entire Federal budget.
  I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that people understand the 
total cost of the 9/11 attack. We are talking about hundreds of 
billions of dollars in costs just from that act of terrorism, and one 
study even pegged the cost to our economy of well over $2 trillion. So 
we know that this effort that we are conducting in Iraq, this war 
against terrorism there, better there than on our own soil, and our 
continued expenditures for homeland security, it is a big number but it 
is small in comparison to what it would cost us and the devastating 
effect on this economy should we have another 9/11 occur anytime soon.
  So I think it is real important that we put that in perspective, and 
I would like for the gentleman to speak to that if he would.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would absolutely agree. The 
issue we have is we have a situation where we have a country that is in 
desperate need and has traditionally been a source of frustration for 
its own neighbors, disrupting the security of its own neighbors and 
contributing to terrorism and making us less safe here at home.
  The question that I would have is when FDR decided that we were going 
to take Hitler out of Germany, did we ask how much it was going to 
cost? As I hear our friends on the other side of the aisle lambasting 
what is going on and lambasting the costs, it is a terrible cost to 
pay. I do not want to have to pay anything like that. It is something 
we have to watch over closely and make sure it is well spent, but we 
cannot not afford to pay it, and when they are talking, I say what if 
this was FDR? What if this was World War II? Would the same thing not 
apply?
  If we look at what we did in Germany, what we did in Japan, we had 
the best track record of setting a region anew, setting a country anew. 
In the 50 years before 1945, Germany had helped initiate two world wars 
where millions of people had died. In the 50 years since, they have 
been a great contributor to prosperity, to world peace, a great friend 
and neighbor and a great friend of ours. We can say the same thing 
about Japan.
  I have the very real sense that what will happen with our success, 
that we cannot afford to fail, we must win, we must create a democracy 
in Iraq, that we will have that same stark contrast between a 
disruptive past and a future that will benefit the region as much as it 
has in the past.
  Mr. GINGREY. The gentleman is so right, and of course, people want to 
say, well, we have not found any weapons of mass destruction, we have 
not killed or captured Saddam Hussein, so we have not accomplished the 
mission, the reason we went there; but of course, that was never the 
reason. As the gentleman from Minnesota points out, the reason for 
being there was to rid that part of the world of a dictator, of a 
tyrant; and of course, although we have not found a cache of weapons of 
mass destruction, in the process of looking, we have certainly found 
lots of evidence of mass destruction, that is, bodies, mass graves, 
where Saddam Hussein has murdered his own people.
  As the gentleman points out, the main purpose is to bring some 
stability to the Middle East and to that part of the world as we effect 
this regime change; and make no doubt about it, that mission has been 
accomplished, and I wanted to just speak a little bit more, continue in 
that vein on cost, and it is actually estimated that since the Gulf War 
10 years ago that the cost of containing Saddam Hussein, and that cost 
would be continuing if we were not rid of him, that cost over that 10-
year period cost Americans at least $30 billion, $30 billion from the 
end of the Gulf War to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, for 
the military forces stationed in the Persian Gulf, patrols over the no-
fly zone and, of course, associated costs.
  So just appeasing, or if we want to say containing, Saddam and 
maintaining the status quo, as so many of our allies of the United 
Nations, countries who have been our friends and I think will continue 
to be our friends, that appeasement, that stance of do nothing and 
taking a chance and letting a sleeping dog lie was costing us, over a 
10-year period of time, $30 billion; and those costs were just going to 
escalate.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. The gentleman is absolutely right. The cost 
of freedom is high, but the cost of not defending freedom is far 
greater, and I appreciate the gentleman bringing up the mass graves.
  Our soldiers over there, part of what really drives the fact is that 
they know they are there for a reason, and they are proud of what they 
are doing is having seen mass graves. One stands in front of a mass 
grave, as we did in our group in Babylon where there was 3,000 bodies 
recovered, 2,100 of them identified but 900 just reburied with whatever 
personal effects were remaining, were left in plastic bags on top for 
someone to try to identify them afterwards, and that is out of what 
they expect to find a 3 to 500,000-people mass grave, a million three 
people missing. This is out of a country with a population of 26 
million where most people can tell you they know somebody who is no 
longer around, and that is the kind of grave, grave tragedy that we 
have recovered them from.
  I am very pleased that we have been joined today by our good friend, 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who I know has been to 
Iraq even more recently than I have and has some thoughts to share with 
us on this subject.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here 
tonight. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Kennedy), for asking me to be here tonight. Prior to my visit to 
Iraq, the gentleman was very helpful to brief me on what to expect, 
what to look for. He was very incisive, he was very knowledgeable, and 
it certainly made the visit I had very helpful.
  Mr. Speaker, the central front in the war on terror is being fought 
in Iraq, and I was honored to be selected by the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the Committee on Armed Services ranking 
Democrat, to serve on a delegation last week to newly liberated Iraq.

                              {time}  2045

  Our troops are heroes of an historic military victory and I was 
privileged to see firsthand how they are professionally conducting 
peacekeeping as they enable democracy to develop in Iraq.
  This is not a war we sought, Mr. Speaker, but is a direct consequence 
of the September 11 attacks on America, leading to our fulfilling the 
President's plan to stop any country from harboring or supporting 
terrorists. As my colleague from Minnesota stated a moment ago, this is 
a war we must win. It is a war we can face head on in the terrorist 
breeding grounds overseas or it will return in full force on American 
soil.
  As I met in Baghdad with Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, the commander 
of coalition forces in Iraq, I was impressed by our military competence 
and resolve. At each stop we met with top military Iraqi and coalition 
civilian officials, but a highlight was to meet informally with troops 
of all ranks from our home States. I was startled that instead of 
patrolling streets by remote armed vehicles, our soldiers were walking 
the sidewalks, really getting to

[[Page 22722]]

know the people, who are favorable 70 to 90 percent to our presence, 
and this has led to improved human intelligence, reducing terrorist 
attacks, Mr. Speaker.
  When I asked General Sanchez about media reports of being mired, he 
responded very forcefully that this was untrue because real progress is 
being made. From his perspective, and that of Major General David 
Patraeus at Mosul, the coalition efforts are progressing much more 
quickly than what they had experienced in Bosnia and Kosovo.
  Daily administration of Iraq is capably led by Ambassador Paul Bremer 
of the Coalition Provisional Authority. His leadership has coordinated 
recruiting over 60,000 new Iraqi security forces and initiating over 
6,000 community development programs for hospitals, schools, electrical 
transmission, business development, and road improvements.
  From South Carolina, we are very proud that Columbia attorney George 
Wolfe, counsel of the U.S. treasury, is detailed to the Authority in 
Baghdad. He is helping coordinate currency conversion of tons of 
Hussein dinars to be replaced by new money beginning this month. 
Following World War II, it took nearly 3 years to convert German 
Deutschmarks, but the coalition will complete this feat in only 5 
months.
  The Iraqi Governing Council has been formed of 25 supporters of 
democracy to begin the process of self-government. It was encouraging 
on our delegation at the Al-Rashid Hotel to meet at a reception with 
Chairman Ahmad Chalabi.
  Since the fall of Saddam's dictatorship, more than 90 percent of 
Iraqi municipalities have elected town councils, and I met courageous 
supporters of democracy serving as mayors, council members, and 
provincial governors as we toured Baghdad and then visited Al Hillah to 
the south and Mosul to the north. Traveling by helicopter, I could see 
markets filled with people, bridges left intact with heavy traffic and 
minimal war damage.
  Visiting Al Hillah, I met the Polish general who is commanding over 
20,000 coalition forces from 32 countries. In ancient Babylon, we were 
welcomed by religious university president Sayyed Qizwini, a descendant 
of Mohammed, who explained that Americans are revered as liberators. 
Then, as a chilling reminder of the Hussein dictatorship, the local 
governor escorted us to a mass grave site where thousands of women and 
children were slaughtered by the regime, which was cited a few minutes 
ago by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey).
  Following meetings at the palaces of Hussein, which have been 
transformed into Coalition military headquarters, I was glad to see the 
vibrancy of Mosul, the northern city of 1.8 million people, which had 
been the ancient capital of Nineveh of the Assyrian Empire. We attended 
the reopening of Kisik refinery, where 300 new jobs were restored. The 
refinery was abandoned 4 years ago, but is back on line producing fuel 
to trade with Syria for electricity to be sent to Baghdad as the 
dilapidated infrastructure is being rebuilt, ignored for decades by 
Saddam Hussein as he put more money into his palaces.
  As our delegation returned last Tuesday, our transport carried a body 
bag containing a soldier who had died in Iraq, a sad reminder of the 
courage and sacrifice of our troops. He is a hero, protecting our 
homeland overseas from a hate-filled terrorist enemy, which has as its 
goal the destruction of modern Western democracy. His service should be 
an inspiration for Americans to take forcefully the new challenges we 
face.
  Again, I would like to conclude by thanking my colleagues here 
tonight. They are making excellent points and ones that need to be 
brought to the attention of the American people. I want to thank both 
of them for making such a difference on behalf of our troops, our 
country. Civilization as we know it is under attack, and this is not 
the time to quibble, it is a time to stand together, and both of my 
colleagues are making a difference.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
South Carolina. I thank him for going there and finding out the truth 
for himself. And I really appreciate your bringing up the elected 
governments, because our goal there is to get out. Our goal there is to 
turn over the reins to the Iraqis. But we are not going to do that 
until there is a constitution that protects the rights of the 
minorities, the Assyrian Christians, the Kurdish, and so many other 
minorities there, the Turkamens.
  Over 90 percent, as the gentleman mentioned, of the town councils 
have been elected. One of the things that struck me, and maybe the 
gentleman got the same briefing, they have provincial councils up and 
running as well. And our troops helped organize those elections, and if 
there are, say, 30 members on the provincial council, the leaders of 
the town and the province would come together and elect them, but the 
generals would hold out, say five to appoint themselves. And that was 
to make sure we had women involved, that we had the minorities properly 
represented. And we do have women on the Iraqi governing council, women 
in the provincial councils.
  One of the things that struck me is that the Wall Street Journal 
recently published the first poll that was conducted in Iraq, the Zogby 
and American Enterprise Magazine did this, and one of the many things 
that I took away from that poll is when they asked, Do you want 
democracy or not? Women wanted democracy by a far greater percentage 
than men. This is a country and a culture that has not always had the 
same views towards women that we have in this country. We obviously 
respect the great corrections that they are not only applying 
throughout our country here, but if you go to Iraq you see many. And I 
am sure the gentleman saw many servicewomen doing just fine jobs, great 
jobs, and being wonderful examples for the Iraqi people. And I think 
that is something that is really another great sign of progress.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. What is also very impressive, too, is 
that when, in fact, we talk about other countries, such as Germany, and 
how we helped restore democracy to Germany, we cannot say that about 
Iraq. Iraq has never had a democratic history. So this is a new 
challenge. And I think it is extraordinary, as my colleague pointed 
out, that the Zogby poll indicated there is a favorable desire.
  What I found so impressive in talking to the troops from my home 
State of South Carolina, and it was an informal setting, it was not 
contrived, there were no ranking officers there to make sure everybody 
said the right thing at the right time, they told me in walking the 
streets of Baghdad, which was really surprising, again, that they would 
be walking the streets of Mosul, that the people really impressed them 
as to their education level and their knowledge of issues. So there is 
really a bright future because of the people who live in that country 
and who deserve a chance.
  Another point that was so exciting too, as we flew over by 
helicopter, we could see the number of satellite dishes. Prior to 
March, with the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, there were no 
satellite dishes. Just as in North Korea, it is illegal to have a 
satellite dish in a totalitarian regime. But we saw hundreds, possibly 
thousands of satellite dishes, where people could stay in touch with 
what is going on in the world. They could receive the various networks 
from around the world by satellite. This is a new development which I 
think will be encouraging for democracy.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Yes. And, Mr. Speaker, one of the things we 
did not see was all the planned-for catastrophes that never happened. 
We have challenges, yes, but the dams were not blown up, so they did 
not flood everybody down river. The oil refineries and the oil wells 
were not blown up, so they are producing. They are maybe not producing 
as much as they will in the future, and they are helping to offset the 
cost we are incurring. We did not have the tribal warfare everybody 
projected.
  So there are so many negative things that did not happen at the same 
time all these positive things are happening.

[[Page 22723]]


  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. And, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is 
being very concise in what he is saying. He is not overstating. The 
gentleman did not include the predictions of mass refugee formations 
going into Iraq out of Iraq through different regions. And if my 
colleagues will remember, there were dire predictions of urban warfare; 
there was going to be a massive quagmire. Did not occur. Even the 
quagmire that had been announced when we had like a 24-hour pause due 
to a sand storm, that did not occur.
  Then, finally, of course, there was people who made extraordinary 
predictions of mass starvation. That did not occur. And it did not 
occur because the American military made substantial planning. The 
American government, through U.S. Agency for International Development, 
did extraordinary planning. I had the privilege of being last year in 
Kuwait in November and learning of the plans that were being made in 
the event an invasion was necessary.
  I was very fortunate to go back in February to Kuwait and meet with 
the troops on the front lines, the 3rd Infantry Division from 
Hinesville, Georgia, and the 1st Marine Division, and I saw the 
preparation being made for the conflict and then for after the conflict 
to avoid the dire consequences that we had heard would occur and did 
not occur.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. And the gentleman spoke of the satellite 
dishes. They are watching all kinds of channels now that they never saw 
before. They are seeing the outside world.
  If you ask me, Mr. Speaker, what the average Iraqi thinks, the 
average Iraqi is thinking, how do I get to be like Kuwait as quickly as 
possible? How do I become a prosperous country? How do I have 
everything everybody else has? And it is not just the oil Iraq has. And 
I am sure my other colleague saw the same thing, when we looked down 
from those helicopters, it was green. They actually grow rice there. 
They have enough water between the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers to 
flood fields and grow rice. This was the old supposed Garden of Eden. 
This was the cradle of civilization. So we have, really, a region that 
has foundations for prosperity, not just oil but water, that can 
produce a strong agricultural base as well as industry.
  I know my colleague must have in Georgia many industries that rely on 
water, and having that diversified economy to employ the people is 
something that Iraq is potentially uniquely qualified in that region to 
do.
  Mr. GINGREY. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think 
it is important to point out that in Iraq we are not talking about a 
Third World country. We are talking about what we formerly knew as 
Mesopotamia, the land between the Tigris and Euphrates. It is one of 
the oldest nations on the face of the earth and has had beautiful 
civilizations.
  This is a situation where a brutal dictator was suppressing, indeed 
even killing his own people. And not only his own people, but also the 
neighboring countries, where we have moderate Muslim countries that are 
friendly and understand the value of life, like Turkey, as an example, 
and we mentioned Kuwait, and, of course, other neighbors of Saddam 
Hussein. Under this dictator, this regime and its reign of terror, if 
you will, these other countries lived in constant fear. And until we 
rid Iraq of Saddam, there would never be any opportunity for people to 
feel secure.
  I am real pleased that the gentleman from South Carolina joined us 
this evening, and I commend him. He is one of maybe only 25 percent of 
the Members of Congress who is actually a veteran. I know his three 
sons also served in the military, and no doubt his teenage boy one day 
will. And it is really good to hear in these colloquies, and I know the 
gentleman from Minnesota would agree with me, to hear from people like 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) who knows the military, 
understands, and who was part of a group that just recently returned 
from Baghdad, along with the gentleman from Minnesota, and with his own 
eyes, and your own eyes, saw the tremendous job that our troops, our 
well-trained troops, our modern technology was able to perform. They 
were able to inflict maximal damage with minimal collateral damage; 
with laser precision attacks, protecting as many innocent men, women 
and children as possible and I commend you.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. And we absolutely saw that. People might 
ask if everything is so great over there, why do we need this money to 
rebuild Iraq. Well, I want to point out, it was not due to the war.
  As we went through Baghdad, and I am sure the gentleman from South 
Carolina saw the same things, we saw specific buildings, specific 
floors on buildings that were targeted and that were hit, but right 
beside that there would be a building standing and continuing in 
commerce today.

                              {time}  2100

  But what has caused a need for reconstruction is the fact that Saddam 
Hussein spent one-third of total income on armaments, and we are 
constantly recovering huge caches of arms in palaces. We were in one 
palace complex in Tikrit that had 112 buildings on the palace compound, 
each one of which could be called a palace itself. When you spend money 
in such awful ways on destructive things and neglect the people, that 
is what we are recovering from. We are not recovering from the war. 
That damage was very tightly focused, and maybe the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) can talk about what he saw in Iraq.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, that was something very 
startling. I was showing pictures to my family of my visit; and I, of 
course, had some terrific aerial photos as we were flying by 
helicopter. We had a perfect view of the communities. I saw during the 
flights that I had six buildings destroyed. I also saw sites where 
rubble was pushed up, so I knew there were buildings no longer there. 
But the infrastructure is in place. The bridges that had to be 
destroyed in Serbia, that did not occur in Iraq. The bridges were in 
across the Tigris and the Euphrates.
  When we talk about rebuilding, I hope the American people understand 
it is not because of the American destruction. The destruction is that 
created by Saddam Hussein. For example, in the schools, we are working 
very hard to show our good faith to the people of Iraq to get the 
schools open on October 1. When we talk about rebuilding the schools, 
we are not building beautiful edifices. Many of these schools are one-
room schoolhouses which we are repainting. Particularly in the Shiite 
areas, the persons less likely to be followers of Saddam Hussein, their 
schools were closed or left to be dilapidated. They are not to American 
standards, but they are going to be very fine schools. And very 
importantly, the materials they have to learn from will be modern 
materials. No longer will the math book have contrived subliminal 
messages of how bad America is and how bad the West is. Now it will 
deal with math, and history will be authentic. This starts on October 
1.
  Another part of the rebuilding that the American people should 
understand because it was not due to our destruction was the electrical 
transmission. Because Saddam Hussein had such a heinous dictatorship, 
there were two electrical transmission systems. This is, unfortunately, 
a very common occurrence in dictatorships, and that is the palaces had 
a system. Additionally, the Baath Socialist Party members, they were on 
the system that worked, and then the different government agencies were 
on that system, but then the general public was on another system. In 
fact, that system had been left in place during the 1930s and the 
1940s, built by the British. That system is not only antiquated, it had 
rolling power service. The people who got service were the ones who 
paid a bribe to the people who administered the power plants. This is a 
bizarre circumstance.
  It is very difficult, obviously, for Americans to realize there are 
two transmission systems. We are going in to help rebuild that system 
because it is crucial for economic development. One of the greatest 
industries of Iraq is

[[Page 22724]]

cement production to build buildings and have commerce. That is a very 
high-intensive use of electricity. By getting the electrical 
transmission, some people perceive that as we are just trying to 
provide frills; but, no, we are trying to provide basic services so the 
economy can come back.
  The bottom line is that is beneficial to America, because, as has 
been pointed out, after World War II we had the Marshall Plan. That was 
to rebuild Germany. It was not because we were fond of the Germans, but 
what it was is that we did not want that to become a breeding ground 
for communism, and the way to avoid that is for the economy to be 
revived. Our challenge in Iraq is to restore the economy so it will not 
be a breeding ground for terrorists.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman mentioned, 
with electricity, we are bringing forth that core concept of equal 
treatment under the law. No longer does the Baath Party chair or the 
Sunni Arabs around Baghdad get their electricity before the rest of the 
country. Everybody is being treated equal.
  Now the children are also benefiting from those schools. We are not 
having Saddam Hussein's picture on every other page of the textbooks.
  We have had some very vicious attacks on Iraq by terrorists recently. 
This is the new front for the war on terrorism. We are fighting them in 
their area of strength. Patton said, do not let the enemy pick where 
you are going to fight, bring the battle to them, and we are. But those 
terrorists think they are somehow hurting America and dividing us from 
the American people, but I sense something completely different.
  When they attack the U.N., they are attacking the people who are 
trying to help in Iraq. When they attack the Shiite cleric in Najaf, 
they are creating a common enemy. The Iraqi people and America have a 
common enemy, and these acts are pulling us together toward the same 
goal of getting to the point of security and government where everybody 
in Iraq, as mentioned, can be equal under the law, and that is the 
final goal that we have to achieve before we turn over the reins.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, pointing out 
the attack on the U.N. Embassy in Baghdad where most of the deaths were 
Iraqi citizens, and, of course, the Ambassador from Brazil who had 
spent his entire professional life in trying to promote humanitarian 
efforts not just in Iraq, but in many, many countries, and for them to 
just come in and blow up that U.N. Embassy, and what was the U.N. doing 
in Baghdad? They were not a fighting force, they were just there for 
humanitarian reasons, that is all; in fact, so humanitarian that they 
refused to defend that facility. They did not want it to be guarded. 
They did not want it to appear that they were in any way there as a 
fighting force. And look what happened to them.
  As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) has pointed out, this 
killing is wanton, it is indiscriminate, and so they are not just 
attacking our fighting men and women, the United States troops, it is 
their own people. And it is this reign of terror that we are having to 
deal with, and it is something that just could not stand, and we had to 
bring an end to that, and we are going to have to continue.
  The President has come to the Congress, and I talked earlier about 
the cost, and trying to put it in the proper perspective. And I think 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) would agree with me, none of us like deficits. 
We do not like debt. We would love to have a balanced budget. We are 
all fiscal conservatives, and $87 billion is a lot of money, but let us 
talk about cost and try to put it in its proper perspective.
  I have heard this statement: The $87 billion is far more than what we 
spend on education or other priorities. How can we justify that? That 
is absolutely wrong. Of course it is a lot of money, but remember this: 
This is a temporary expenditure. This is an investment in America's 
security.
  In contrast, the government's sustained commitments to domestic 
priorities are dollars spent every year, and they grow over time which 
appropriately dwarf this incremental cost.
  Let me just give some comparisons in the fiscal year 2004 budget: 
Social Security spending, $492 billion in fiscal year 2004 and growing; 
Medicare, $259 billion; Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance 
Program, $187 billion; veterans expenditures, $57 billion; education K-
12, $53 billion; the amount of money this country spends and we will be 
appropriating this year for higher education in the way of Pell grants 
and student aid loans to our neediest students so they can go to 
college, $90 billion.
  Again, $87 billion, and I love to get the input from the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and the gentleman from South Carolina in 
regard to this overall cost and putting it in the right perspective. We 
hear over and over that people are more concerned about jobs than they 
are about homeland security. Members have heard that. We see it on some 
of the news shows at night. But while jobs, jobs, jobs are very 
important, and the President has brought to us an economic growth 
package that is going to grow those jobs, yes, there is a little bit of 
lag in the policy before those small business men and women can create 
those jobs, but just keep in mind, and I want to throw this out to put 
it in the right perspective, on September 11, 2001, some 2,875 men and 
women that went to work that morning at the Twin Towers at the Trade 
Center, they had jobs. They had good jobs. They had good jobs with good 
benefits, and they went to work that day feeling secure. Unfortunately, 
they were not secure. They no longer have jobs. They no longer are with 
us. They lost their lives that morning.
  So while jobs are extremely important, and we need to do everything 
we can to stimulate this economy, and I commend this President and this 
administration and this leadership in what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, 
in trying to grow those jobs, they are not worth a tinker's darn if we 
cannot assure these workers when they go to work every day that they 
are going to come home to their loved ones in the evening. So we have 
to put it in its proper perspective.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) helping us do that. This is the front line 
in the war on terrorism. We are up against people who kill men and 
women with no mercy and with no shame. One of the most vivid 
discussions I had was with the vice mayor of Mosul. He said, for you in 
America, this is a foreign policy issue. But for the jihadists that 
want to take the world back and have the women wearing veils, and have 
the men punished if they shave their beards, and have a few guys in 
beards making all of the decisions, and do what they have not been able 
to accomplish in so many other areas, if we succeed and have a 
democracy and freedom and an open economy in Iraq, they will fail and 
fail forever, because just as Iraq has been a very disrupting force in 
the region in the past, it has the potential to be a force that expands 
that freedom, expands that prosperity, expands that openness and that 
choice to their neighbors, to Iran, to Syria, to Saudi Arabia, and what 
better way to make Americans secure, to make sure that they are not 
going to have to be worrying about their security than to plant that 
freedom in Iraq in that neighborhood.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, indeed what we are talking 
about is jobs, because in the war on terrorism, if we were to have 
disruption of our economy as we did on September 11, it could be 
immediately catastrophic.

                              {time}  2115

  With the container ships that we all very much depend on for products 
being sent from the United States by export, back to the United States 
by import, we know that there is a potential for an abuse there of 
explosives or whatever. So by having an interruption of our shipping, 
it could be absolutely

[[Page 22725]]

catastrophic, particularly in the Northeast. If there was even a 3-day 
disruption of shipping, there could be a disruption of the oil and 
gasoline necessary for refining above New York City to the Northeast to 
the point where it would be catastrophic. We would have the return of 
the lines with the lack of fuel; people would lose jobs. In my home 
State, the number one industry is tourism. We already know that if we 
were to have a terrorist attack of some nature, that it would 
completely devastate the hospitality industry. This is just a ripple 
effect all over the United States, actually all over the world. So the 
war on terrorism is crucial for us to proceed. It is a war we must win. 
I want to thank both of my colleagues again for making this clear.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. 
I thank the gentleman from Georgia. We cannot afford to lose. This is a 
fight that we must win.

                          ____________________