[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25278-25285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              SUPPORTING OUR PRESIDENT AND MAJORITY LEADER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I just sat through a fairly extraordinary 
hour with a lot of criticism of the majority leader of the United 
States. And first thing I want to make clear that I am not here to 
question anybody's patriotism. I think we have 435 patriotic Members of 
this wonderful body, and we have got some delegates in addition to that 
that are patriotic.
  What I would say is that Lord Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Britain 
right before World War II, was a very patriotic Brit, but his policies 
were very foolish. And they took the free world into some very 
dangerous times, and we could have lost our freedom throughout the 
globe.
  Lady Thatcher said, as early as 1986, that terrorism thrives on 
appeasement, much like the problem with Lord Chamberlain's policy, not 
that he was unpatriotic, but his foolish policies actually encouraged 
and empowered the Nazis. The same is true, according to Lady Thatcher. 
And I would submit that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and George 
W. Bush, our President, are the Churchills of our time when it comes to 
fighting the war on terror.
  Churchill took a lot of criticism leading up to World War II. Our 
President and our majority leader are the ones that have the courage to 
lay out a policy to stick to it and make sure that we do what is 
necessary to win the war on terror just like we won the war against the 
Nazis in World War II, just as, as Lady Thatcher said, Ronald Reagan 
won the Cold War without firing a single shot.
  The question here is not whether the Republicans or Democrats are 
patriotic. We are all patriots in this room. The question is who is 
better prepared to win the war on terror. Because if we lose this war, 
we will lose our way of life and probably our very lives themselves. 
The principle is that partisan politics ought, when we have men and 
women overseas, ought to stop at the water's edge.
  And that does not mean nobody is arguing that the debate has to stop 
about what is best in terms of prosecuting the war. It does not mean 
that one cannot ask questions, and it does not mean that one cannot 
vote your conscience. But when one exploits partisan politics while 
there are men and women fighting for our freedom and our survival and 
fighting for our way of life against this threat, the international 
terrorist threat, then there is something fundamentally wrong.
  We ought to engage in civilized debate, but what we ought not to do 
is to let partisan politics dominate our judgment.
  Mr. Speaker, I have got a number of Members that want to say a few 
words about some of the partisan aspects of this debate which are very 
disappointing. For those of us that are supporting the President, 
supporting our troops, are certainly supporting our majority leader who 
has done a wonderful job leading the House through these days, our big 
question is where the vision of the other party is.
  Now, I recognize in parliamentary governments around the world you 
often have a minority party that stands up and lays out their vision. 
We actually are going through a conflict where the President has laid 
out a plan, the majority leader has laid out a plan, we are following 
that plan, we have won the first part of the war, and we are doing our 
level best to win the peace as rapidly as possible, secure freedom for 
the Iraqi people, and bring our men and women home. That is the game 
plan. And there are lots of details to it, but that is the general game 
plan.
  But the problem we have is that there is nothing united about the 
Democratic side of this debate in terms of whether or not the war on 
terror is critical, in terms of whether or not we should have gone into 
Iraq, in terms of whether or not Saddam is an evil tyrant and dictator 
that we should have taken down. The only thing the Democrats seem 
united on is that the enemy is in the White House and majority leader's 
office of the United States House of Representatives.
  That is not the kind of leadership that I think the American people 
expect from the minority party. Thank goodness it is not the type of 
leadership that the President and the majority leader are giving.
  I want to tell my colleagues as we start the opportunity for some of 
the other Members to express their views about the partisan nature of a 
lot of attacks on our President and our majority leader, I want to tell 
you about a great speech that Ronald Reagan gave known as the 
Westminster Speech, when he went to the British Parliament June 8, 
1982.

                              {time}  2145

  He was referring back to World War II when he said that the island 
was really struck with terror and the potential for being taken over. 
Ronald Reagan said Winston Churchill exclaimed about British 
adversaries, ``What kind of a people do they think we are?''
  That is a great question to ask about the international terrorists. 
What kind of people do they think we are? Well, Britain's adversaries 
found out what extraordinary people the British are, but all the 
democracies paid a terrible price for allowing the dictators to 
underestimate us. We dare not make that same mistake again.
  So let us ask ourselves as Churchill, and then later Reagan said, 
What kind of people do we think we are? That is the message that we are 
trying to send international terrorists. What kind of people do the 
American people think we are? And are you more comfortable, ultimately, 
with the plans and the policies, the determination, the extraordinary 
courage of President Bush and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), or 
are you more comfortable turning it over to a disarrayed party that has 
no policy other than to attack the White House and the majority 
leader's office.
  What kind of people do Americans think we are? That is what the 
international terrorists want to know.
  Osama bin Laden said several years ago that as soon as the blood 
starts flowing, the Americans would pull out; and yet appeasement in 
the Lord Chamberlain style seems to be the policy of many of our 
Democratic colleagues and friends, not all but many. And I would state 
that we have got to stand up and we have got to insist that our 
majority leader not come under attack here on the House floor for the 
great things that he has done, for standing by our President, for 
standing by our troops, and for leading the effort to make sure that 
the wherewithal is there in Iraq to complete the war and to continue 
going after international terrorists elsewhere around the globe.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
his comments. I want to thank him for really bringing to the attention 
of the American people that, indeed, at a time of war, at a time of 
conflict, we should be considering working together in a bipartisan 
manner.
  It was distressing to me as I learned last week that there was going 
to be the presentation by the minority party here to attack the 
majority leader of the Republican Party, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay).
  I am fairly new to Congress. A little bit more senior than the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) but just a little bit; and it has 
just been an extraordinary opportunity for me to be able to serve with 
somebody of the

[[Page 25279]]

great integrity, the competence, the dedication of the gentleman from 
Texas (Tom DeLay).
  I can give a personal statement as recent as last Thursday. I was 
very pleased that I had the opportunity in a bipartisan way to welcome 
Ognian Gerdjikov, who is the Speaker of the National Assembly of 
Bulgaria, and he is a democratically elected speaker in a country that 
has emerged from totalitarianism, which is now one of the dynamic 
Balkan democratic nations. And it was really exciting to meet with 
Speaker Gerdjikov. And I had contacted the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) a couple of weeks ago and told him that he would be coming, and 
if he could meet with him it would mean so much to the people of 
Bulgaria who, again, have emerged from totalitarian Communism and into 
democracy.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) recognized immediately how 
important this was. It was a wonderful meeting we had at his office 
with members of the National Assembly, with Ambassador Elena 
Poptodorova of Bulgaria. He was so positive. He was so enthusiastic, 
thanking the people of Bulgaria for their support of the United States 
in the United Nations. They are on the Security Council. Thanking the 
National Assembly for their strong vote to provide for an American 
military base to be located in Bulgaria to defend southeastern Europe 
and to defend the people of Bulgaria and, ultimately, to become part of 
NATO, and also to thank the people of Bulgaria for providing 500 troops 
to be currently in Iraq to provide for security and to promote the 
development of democracy in Iraq, which we know is mutually beneficial 
to the people of Iraq and the United States. Because as we work to 
redevelop Iraq, we are denying the terrorists a breeding ground for 
more terrorists, and the same standard that we used after World War II 
where we helped redevelop Germany so that would not be a breeding 
ground for communists. We defeated Communism. We will defeat terrorism, 
but we need to have strong leaders as we have with the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  So that is my testimonial to a very fine gentleman that I am just so 
honored, as is the gentleman, to be serving with. And when he has made 
statements concerning the members of the minority, particularly their 
leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), there has been 
substance. It is not to question her patriotism, but it is to certainly 
question her judgment. And I know that in my service, 17 years in the 
State Senate of South Carolina and now my almost 2 years of service 
here, what I look at are the statements that I have made and the votes 
that I have made.
  And I really want to bring to everyone's attention that the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) made this statement on 
December 17, 1998: ``Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development 
of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to the 
countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons 
inspection process. The responsibility of the United States in this 
conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the 
danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi 
people.''
  What the gentlewoman said then was accurate, but the difference is 
that, of course, there was a different President in 1998. Of course, 
Mr. Clinton was in office at that time. And this was the defense of 
what many of us would actually give him credit for and that is 
recognizing the threat of Saddam Hussein to world peace.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, if I may, I want to show Americans the quote 
that the gentleman just referred to. This is from our minority leader, 
who is a wonderful woman. She is a great leader from California, but we 
sometimes usually disagree with her policies when it comes to big 
issues in American politics. This is what she said and I think it is 
important:
  ``Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of 
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the 
region and has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.''
  All over America there are candidates running for President on the 
other ticket claiming that President Bush lied about weapons of mass 
destruction in 2002 in Iraq. Here, 4 years earlier, our current 
minority leader is telling the American people her assessment of the 
situation.
  The question is whether George W. Bush, having spent a year or two in 
the White House, should have known more than leading Congress members 6 
years into the process. So if the gentleman will continue, we have got 
some other speakers, if we can get to them.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, indeed, I want to 
reiterate the difference between 1998 and 2002, 2003 is that we have a 
new President. And I regret, I feel that the reason that the change in 
judgment, not patriotism is politics.
  When we consider how persons are to be judged, I believe what we need 
to look at is how people vote. Their statements are very significant, 
but we see statements can be shifted and can have different meaning 
according to who the President is. I will state that going back on 
votes, and I want to cite from the Center for Security Policy, which is 
an organization that was created in 1988. It is nonprofit, nonpartisan, 
committed to stimulating and informing the national and international 
debates about all aspects of security policy, notably those policies 
bearing on foreign defense, economic, financial and technology interest 
in the United States. According to the Center for National Policy, 
national security score card, I want to bring up votes and I will go 
back to 1993.
  This is the 103rd Congress. The gentleman and I were back in Florida 
and back in South Carolina. But the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) was right here voting.
  The significance of 1993 is that when the first significant attack 
occurred on the United States, that was the first attack on the World 
Trade Center, we know later that the al Qaeda and the terrorists 
attacked our country in 1998 by blowing up embassies across Africa 
killing dozens of innocent people. And then, of course, in 2000 there 
was the attack on the USS Cole and, finally, the attack of September 
11, 2001.
  This was a war brought upon the United States. This was not one, as 
has been indicated by some people, that was contrived. We did not start 
this war. We are acting, I believe, in self-defense. But I want to 
raise some votes that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) made 
in 1993, which I think show her judgment as not being in the interest 
of national security.
  First of all, there was a vote on March 18, 1993, which would have 
reduced defense spending by $41.9 billion. What an extraordinary time. 
Can you imagine, $41.9 billion of 1993 dollars, what that would have 
done to the defense in the United States. Fortunately, it was rejected, 
overwhelmingly rejected.
  Next there was a vote to reduce funding for the ballistic missile 
defense system. Again, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
voted incorrectly. She voted to reduce the spending for the ballistic 
missile defense system. And of course we all knew my predecessor, the 
late Congressman Floyd Spence, chairman of the Committee on National 
Security, warned that there was the great prospect of North Korea, 
where I was a couple of months ago, of being able to develop a 
ballistic missile capability to attack the west coast, including 
California, of course. And at that time, the gentlewoman voted against 
the funding for the ballistic missile defense system.
  Additionally, there was another vote which provided for increasing 
funding for ballistic missile defense and she was consistent. She voted 
against that. Then there was a vote to downsize U.S. forces in Europe. 
And this would have been a vote to reduce the funding for U.S. forces 
in Europe, a very critical part of our defense of the United States. 
And it was a billion dollar reduction, and she voted to reduce that 
which would have crippled our ability to promote the development of 
democracy in Central and Eastern Europe at a very crucial time, and in 
addition to protect the people of the United States.

[[Page 25280]]

  Additionally, there was another vote and this was an amendment by the 
late Congressman Floyd Spence of South Carolina which would have 
limited the control exerted by a foreign national in U.N. operations 
which meant that the United States would maintain control of our 
forces. Again, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) voted 
incorrectly.
  Another vote in 1993 was to reduce defense and technology spending. 
This would have reduced the Federal spending for defense at a crucial 
time of $51.5 billion over 5 years. That would have been just further 
crippling.
  In the same session of Congress I have three more votes I want to go 
over and then let other people speak because the gentleman has some 
really talented people here tonight. I want to congratulate the 
gentleman on recruiting fine persons to come and address our colleagues 
as to the issue before us.
  There was a further vote in 1994 by Congressman Bob Michel of 
Illinois and this would have provided prohibition of U.N. troops being 
under U.N. command. And again the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) voted incorrectly. Can you imagine placing U.S. troops under 
the command which could possibly be under the command of someone as far 
out at that time as Saddam Hussein but also as Kaddafi of Libya. Just, 
I think, incredibly irresponsible in terms of our national security and 
defense.
  Then again in another vote in 1994 by the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), and that was to reduce the Defense Authorization Act. 
There was a provision to significantly cut defense spending to a level 
far below that which was being proposed, at a time in 1993, 1994, the 
beginning of the war on terrorism, where we were trying to maintain 
defenses as strong as we could provide, and I just want to reiterate 
that it is not a question of patriotism at all. Our leader, the 
gentleman from Texas (Tom DeLay), has never questioned a person's 
patriotism. It is judgment on votes. And those of us who have the 
privilege of serving the people of the United States need to be judged 
on our votes.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Wilson). I want to reiterate what he said because the whole last 
hour was a lot of our Democratic colleagues just terrified and 
enormously angry at our majority leader because he thinks that somehow 
he called them unpatriotic. This is not about whether you are patriotic 
or not. Actually, our majority leader, to quote him accurately, and 
none of them quoted our leader, but on July 25 of this year what he 
said was: ``When criticized for these comments, the Democrats said we 
were questioning their patriotism. Not so. The Democrats' problem is 
not a lack of patriotism. It is a lack of seriousness. They do not hate 
their country. They just refuse to lead it.''

                              {time}  2200

  I will never call the Democratic party unpatriotic, but I will call 
their current leadership unfit to face the serious challenge of the 
21st century. This is not about who is patriotic. We have got 435 
voting patriotic Members of this body. This is about whether the 
American people trust a Churchill or a Chamberlain to lead this fight, 
a Reagan or a McGovern during the Cold War. This is about whether they 
trust George W. Bush or the appeasement wing of the Democratic party. 
That is what the debate is about.
  With that, I would like to very quickly have one more quote if I can 
and then recognize our friend from Florida. I want to point out the 
difference between the last minority leader, who, again, we often did 
not agree with, and the current minority leader.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), when he was minority 
leader, said on September 17, right after the terrorist attacks, the 
following: ``The terrorists who did this want us to break up and fight 
with one another and that is the last thing we are going to do. We are 
going to fight together with the President and the people who have been 
heroic and courageous and wonderful, and we are going to win this.'' 
That is former Leader Gephardt.
  One more thing he said. ``It is the American political tradition that 
politics ought to stop at the water's edge.'' What our current minority 
leader says, and again we respect her, we just disagree with her 
judgment, ``I am devastated,'' the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) recalls saying on the morning after the bombing began in 
Baghdad, ``by the fact that we are going to war.'' In other words, 
actually prosecuting the war on terrorism in Iraq was terribly 
offensive to her.
  With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mario Diaz-Balart), my friend.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with 
my colleague more. He just quoted our leader the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay), and yet we have just heard for an hour our good friends on 
the Democrat side wailing into the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), 
saying that he said things, and again, they did not bring out quotes 
because they do not have them, saying that he said something that he 
did not say. He said exactly what the gentleman just quoted.
  Let me quote, and I am going to read part of the quote that my 
colleague had up here a little while ago when he had the distinguished 
minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), when she 
says ``Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of 
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the 
region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspections process.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is important. She also said, and these are 
her words, ``The responsibility of the United States in this conflict 
is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to 
our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people.''
  To me, it is kind of almost overwhelming when our good friends in the 
other party just from one day to another totally do a 180 to what they 
said. Of course, they try to put words in our mouths, in the 
President's mouth that he did not say, that the majority leader did not 
say, and that is why we did not hear a quote on the floor from the 
Democrats stating what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has been very clear. He is not 
questioning the Democrats' motives. He is questioning their policies, 
but here the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said what the 
United States responsibility is, and yet with her own votes, she has 
not done anything. She has done absolutely nothing to eliminate the 
weapons of mass destruction which she said the United States had a 
responsibility to do, or to minimize the danger of our troops which she 
said the United States had a responsibility to do, or to diminish the 
suffering of the Iraqi people. No. She voted against authorizing 
President Bush to use military force against Iraq.
  On the floor a little while ago from our friends in the minority 
party, we heard them say, well, some of our troops do not have 
sufficient body armor. It is a serious wording. We need to make sure 
they are prepared, but then they vote against the $60 billion to give 
our troops the necessary equipment to wage this war against terrorism.
  That is what we are talking about here. I have heard of people 
speaking through two sides of their mouth, but two sides are not 
enough. There are more sides of a mouth on that side of the aisle than 
there are seats on that side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, and again, what 
we are talking about here is the policy, the policy.
  What we then heard also was an hour of personal attacks, yes, 
personal attacks with innuendos and saying things because they could 
not quote them, saying that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said 
things he did not say. That should not surprise us, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, the Chair is from the wonderful State of California, and 
just in his wonderful State, they had an election, and I could not help 
but notice the smear campaign that the new

[[Page 25281]]

Governor-elect had to endure. I heard him say that it was the puke 
politics, the smear politics. He said, ``This is puke politics.'' It 
seems to be the modus operandi. It seems to be the way that our good 
friends in the Democratic party get taught when they go to campaign 
school, and again, what is important is that we cut through the 
rhetoric and look at the policy, not the puke politics, the policy.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) mentioned how this President 
is leading this country in this war against terrorism. The gentleman 
from South Carolina said it very eloquently. We did not pick this war; 
we were bombed. Our people were assassinated in cold blood. We did not 
pick this war, and we did not have an option but to now defend 
ourselves, and we do not have an option but to win this war. And yes, 
those that want to have the politics of appeasement, I will throw out 
another Winston Churchill quote. He said that appeasement was like 
feeding an alligator, hoping that you last. You know something, that 
alligator has already struck. Thank God we have a leader in the White 
House that understands we are at war.
  I want to quote another thing that the distinguished gentlewoman from 
the State of California, the minority leader, said about the war. She 
said, ``I don't really consider ourselves at war,'' May 6, 2002. She 
has the right to not consider ourselves at war, but I for one, Mr. 
Speaker, will not forget the Americans who have died in the embassies 
abroad, in the USS Cole, in Somalia and in 9/11. This country is at 
war. We will not forget.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) said that we will not be 
divided, and that we are at war, and that we will not be fighting among 
ourselves. Frankly, I am a little bit upset of what I just heard over 
the last hour which were personal attacks. Personal attacks were 
leveled at the majority leader in that puke politics that we saw so 
evident in California.
  Having heard all that, Mr. Speaker, I know and I am confident that 
because we have the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) as our leader and 
because we have George W. Bush in the White House, know, we do realize 
that we are at war. We do realize that there is a lot at stake, and 
those that want to hide their heads in the sand like an ostrich, 
including in violation of their own words, when the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) said, ``The responsibility of the United States 
in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to 
minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the 
Iraqi people,'' despite having to not argue, despite the fact that she 
is not arguing these are her words, I am confident because of the 
leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the White House 
we are going to win this war that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) does not think we are in.
  We are going to win it because this country has stood up to every 
single challenge. This country will not stand by and let its children 
die with impunity, be murdered with impunity. We are at war. The 
President understands it. The American people understand it. If the 
minority leader does not understand, it is her right and our right to 
disagree.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida, and I want 
everybody to be able to see exactly what the minority leader the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) actually said. She said it on 
May 6, 2002, on the Democratic show, Miles Benson. ``I don't really 
consider ourselves at war,'' Pelosi said.
  Now, Americans can decide whether they think we are at war or not, 
but I will tell my colleagues this points out an interesting 
distinction to me because forever when we really have a war going on, 
and most of us know when we are at war, it is not hard to tell, most of 
us are divided between one extreme of hawks and one extreme of doves on 
the war.
  It seems like most of the Democratic party are people running for 
President, the people that come down here and speak on Iraq every day, 
they are divided, too, between doves and ostriches, but the fact of the 
matter is, like a dove, you cannot fly away from terrorist attacks, and 
like an ostrich, putting your head in the sand will not protect you 
from the terrorist activity.
  Why do terrorists hate us so bad? This is one of the things all of us 
Americans have so much trouble understanding, and I will tell my 
colleagues that just like the Nazis hated us, just like the Communists 
hated us, the fact of the matter is they are very jealous, because, 
after all, as they see it, we are rich, they are poor. Our people are 
well-fed, while their people are often hungry. We are technologically 
advanced, while they are mired in unsophisticated ways. We are strong, 
while they are weak. Our wives and daughters are free to pursue diverse 
careers or home making as they choose, while theirs are treated as 
chattel. We have individual freedoms secured by a Constitution; they 
are enslaved by dictators and violent religious zealots. They hate us.
  Terrorists throughout the world hate us. We have to get used to it. 
We are at war, despite the minority leader's judgment.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on the Budget, I have 
heard hours and hours of testimony from Democrats about funding Federal 
programs.
  They claim that if we do not vote for an increase in the budget of 
welfare, then we do not care about the needy; if we do not vote for an 
increase of the budget of the National Institutes of Health, we do not 
care about cancer patients; if we do not favor major increases for the 
Department of Education, we must not care about our children learning 
their A, B, C's. In other words, in their world, support can only be 
measured by money.
  I have heard this line of reasoning over and over again in countless 
speeches by my Democrat colleagues, but when it comes to protecting the 
American homeland, all of the sudden the Democrats throw that reasoning 
out the window because now, Mr. Speaker, we are being told by the 
leader of the Democrats that they support our troops, they just do not 
support funding them. Which is it?
  If they support our troops but they do not want to fund them, what 
are we to do? Are we to pass around collection boxes at sporting good 
stores asking for donations of ammunition for our troops? Are we to 
start food drives at churches and synagogues and mosques in order to 
feed our soldiers who are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are we 
to shop at Goodwill for the uniforms that they need? I think not.
  Mr. Speaker, almost a year after 9/11, the leader of the Democrats in 
the House said she really did not consider that we were at war. I hope 
she has now come to a realization that we very much are. This is the 
same Democrat leader that described our simple resolution to support 
our troops in the field as a bitter pill to swallow. The real bitter 
pill to swallow is the realization that so many Democrats claim to 
support our troops, but they will not vote to arm and equip them.
  But the Democrat leader in the House is not the lone Democrat making 
outrageous political statements at this time in our Nation's political 
history. A Democrat leader in the other body stated that the war on 
terror is a fraud, made up in Texas.
  Let us ask 68-year-old mother Zahra Khafi if this war is a fraud. 
After her 28-year-old son was summarily executed 2 years ago by Saddam 
Hussein's regime for merely practicing his religion, she said, ``Should 
I be afraid? Is Saddam coming back?''
  Let us ask Ali Khemy if this war is a fraud. After the 1st Marine 
Expeditionary Unit liberated his village, he said, ``Americans very 
good, Iraq wants to be free.''
  Let us ask one of their religious leaders if this war is a fraud. 
When his country was being liberated by our troops, he said ``We need 
freedom more than we needed air.''
  A recent survey showed that 70 percent of the Iraqis are clear they 
want our help. Clearly, the people of Iraq know that this war is about 
something

[[Page 25282]]

real and tangible: freedom, democracy, security, not just theirs but, 
more importantly, ours.
  For any Democrat who still believes that there is no war, no threat 
from the forces of terrorism, let us ask the families of the nearly 
3,000 innocent Americans who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks 
after September 11. Let us ask the family members of those who recently 
lost their lives in terrorist attacks against the U.N. headquarters, 
those who lost their lives in Baghdad's Jordanian embassy or against 
the Shrine of Ali Mosque. Let us see if they believe that there is no 
war with terrorists.
  There is an old adage, Mr. Speaker, that those who fail to learn the 
lessons of history are condemned to repeat them. Today, those who do 
not consider our Nation at war or consider it a fraud, clearly have not 
learned the lessons of history.
  During 8 years under President Clinton when he deployed our troops 37 
different times, Republicans came to the floor of the House and voted 
to support our men and women in uniform. In those 37 deployments, 
Republicans gave President Clinton the funding he needed.

                              {time}  2215

  Now, if Republicans can support a Democrat President during time of 
war, why do so many Democrats refuse to support a Republican President 
during time of war? If Democrats are unwilling to recognize the war 
that we must confront, if they are unwilling to support our troops 
against these threats, then what do they propose that we do to avoid 
another attack against Americans on American soil? What is their 
solution to avoiding another potential attack with chemical, biological 
or a nuclear weapon that can make 9-11 pale in comparison?
  Under this President, with the support of Republicans and some 
Democrats in Congress, we are winning and fighting the war on terror. 
We are restoring stability and order. Just this month, the United 
States military and Iraqi police conducted joint raids, arresting more 
than 50 terrorists and criminals. Approximately 50,000 Iraqi police 
officers are back to work, Coalition forces are working with 36,000 
local Iraqi workers to refurbish 1,600 schoolhouses across Iraq, and 
last week Iraqis started a new path towards economic stabilization by 
introducing a new currency.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope my Democrat colleagues will move beyond the 
political rhetoric of their party's leadership and their Presidential 
candidates. We must continue the hard and expensive work of seeing 
freedom and democracy take root in Iraq and Afghanistan. For as they 
do, those countries will cease to offer safe haven to terrorists and 
the safer America will be.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nunes). The gentleman from Florida will 
suspend.
  The Chair must remind Members that remarks in debate may not include 
quotations of Senators, except as specified in clause 1(b)(2)(B) of 
rule XVII.
  The gentleman from Florida may continue.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to another gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess). We have several great gentlemen from Texas 
here tonight.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
putting this together this evening, and I certainly thank him for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I was fortunate enough to be in Iraq at the end of the 
summer, the last week in August. And during that trip, we talked with 
General Ricardo Sanchez, who talked to us about the accomplishments 
that had happened since the end of the major combat phase of Operation 
Iraqi Freedom, essentially 3 months later, the 90 days of progress.
  During that 90 days, schools had completed their academic year and 
conducted testing. Ninety percent of the major cities and towns had 
functioning town councils. At that point, over 50,000 Iraqis were 
contributing to their own security under uniform, that is either in the 
Iraqi Army or as border patrols. The prisons were on the verge of 
reopening. The judicial system was up and functioning. Food 
distribution was going on without much in the way of any hindrance. In 
fact, no humanitarian crisis grew as a result of the major combat phase 
of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The hospitals, although substandard, 
remained open and functional. And four and a quarter million children 
were immunized during those 3 months in the summer.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, we sat here for a good deal of time this evening 
and listened as our leadership, the leadership of the administration, 
the leadership of this House was criticized for the lack of a plan. I 
would just ask you: Does this litany of accomplishments that occurred 
during those 90 days sound to you like the lack of a plan? And just to 
put it in some perspective for our friends on the other side of the 
aisle, all of these things that I just mentioned that were pointed out 
by General Ricardo Sanchez, all of these things occurred within 90 
days. None of those things had happened a year after the end of combat 
in Kosovo. I ask you: Does it sound like there was a lack of a plan, a 
post-war plan in Iraq? I think not.
  And let us just talk for a minute about humanitarian crisis. Let us 
try to put that in some perspective. What would we have been hearing 
from the other side of the aisle tonight if there had been 15,000 heat-
related deaths in Baghdad this summer? Well, I will tell you what we 
would have been hearing. We would not have wanted to hear the words 
that would have been coming from the other side tonight. But the 
reality was there were not 15,000 heat-related deaths in Iraq this 
summer. Was the summer harsh enough to cause 15,000 deaths? Well, how 
about in France, where the average high temperature was 25 degrees 
cooler and where they had 15,000 heat-related deaths this summer. There 
is your humanitarian crisis. It did not occur in Iraq; it occurred in 
France.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we are here this evening is because 
of the criticism leveled at our majority leader, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is the duly-
elected majority leader of the House of Representatives. He has a duty 
not just to be a leader but to maintain his majority in the House of 
Representatives, and it is the fact that he is so successful in doing 
that, and the recent redistricting in Texas points to just how 
successful he is in that job, that that is what leads to his criticism.
  The gentleman from Florida is quite correct when he talks about 
people who are critical. It is largely not what we do wrong but what we 
are doing right that makes others so critical. Well, I, for one, am 
very glad that we have the type of leader we have in Leader DeLay. It 
is a privilege to serve in this House with him, and I look forward to 
serving with him for a great many more years to come.
  Mr. FEENEY. Well, I thank the gentleman for those comments.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been reminding some of our Democrat colleagues 
of the irresponsible positions that they have taken on the war on 
terror and the war on Iraq. But, in fairness, not all of the Democrats 
in this country have been totally irresponsible. For example, the 
former minority leader, before the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), Congressman Gephardt, on September 13 in the year 2001, 2 days 
after the bombing, said the following: ``There was no air and no light 
between the President and Congress and the two parties.'' In other 
words, we were together at that point on the war on terror.
  And just recently our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Marshall), said, and I quote, ``Responsible Democrats should carefully 
avoid using the language of failure. It is false. It can be 
unforgivably self-fulfilling.'' So there are responsible things being 
said, but they are in the minority and they are being drowned out.
  Before I turn to my colleague from Tennessee, I want to say that more 
like the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader, 
is the position of the last Secretary of

[[Page 25283]]

State under President Clinton. And let me first state that the National 
Democratic Institute for International Affairs is headed by Madeleine 
Albright, who recently returned from a fact-finding tour in Iraq, and 
what they found was that throughout the north, the south, and in 
Baghdad, secular religious Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish groups in both 
urban and rural areas there were what they called a newly formed 
umbrella movement. The Iraqi Coalition for Democracy said, ``We already 
see the positive results that the Americans have brought. We are free 
to talk to you, to organize a movement and party, free to meet and 
demonstrate. And all this was made possible by the Americans.''
  And almost at the same time, Secretary Albright, violating the old 
rule of not playing partisan politics against your own country while 
men and women are in the fields while you are overseas, said the 
following, and she said it on French radio and she spoke in French. 
Here is what she said, translated into English: ``It is difficult to be 
in France and criticize my government, but I am doing so because Bush 
and the people working for him have a foreign policy that is not good 
for America, not good for the world.''
  Thank you, Secretary Albright, for traveling the world and basically 
encouraging people that wish us no good.
  And I would note finally that one of the other great terror threats 
on the planet is North Korea, and Secretary Albright's great 
contribution in North Korea during her administration was to actually 
help facilitate the use of nuclear capabilities for power generation in 
North Korea. Not the kind of thing that has really been productive.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to a friend and 
colleague and marvelous spokesperson for the conservative and 
Republican-principled cause, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much. You know, 
the gentleman just used the quote from former Secretary Madeleine 
Albright, and I heard some about this this weekend while I was back in 
Tennessee, people who were disappointed, Democrats who were 
disappointed that she had chosen to make that remark of saying that our 
policy and our President's policy was not good for America and not good 
for the world.
  This past weekend, I was literally all over the State in Tennessee. 
We were over in Memphis, in Shelby County, which is part of my 
district, the seventh district of Tennessee. Also part of the ninth and 
eighth districts of Tennessee. And then I was over with our good 
colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), in his district, 
the fourth district, and up in Knox County, with our colleague, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), in his district. And I can tell 
my colleague that I was very encouraged with the way Tennesseeans 
support our President, the way they support our troops, they way they 
support our leadership in fighting this war on terrorism, the way they 
recognize that this is a global effort to destroy terrorism.
  And, Mr. Speaker, the people back home are really watching this. They 
are listening to the news, they are getting their information on the 
Internet, they are paying attention. They know that there are numerous 
links between Iraq and terrorism, and they understand the importance 
that it is. They know that it is vital that we secure an ally with 
Iraq; that we help them build a free and open society; that we help 
them get the underpinnings and the foundation so that they have a 
productive and aggressive economy. And they are committed to working 
with us as we get through the war on terrorism. I even had one of my 
constituents this weekend say that they thought that it was only in 
this stratified Potomac fevered air of Washington that people did not 
have the courage and the commitment to see this war through.
  Mr. Speaker, I was today reading some e-mails that had come to me, 
and one of them I thought was just terrific. It came from a gentleman 
who is a Vietnam veteran who said some things so very well, talking 
about how when he was serving in Vietnam that the liberal news media 
flamed the sparks of unrest and how that played on Congress and how 
Congress' decisions during that time affected him as a soldier.
  It was interesting to sit here and to read all of this. He went on in 
his e-mail and he used the Patrick Henry quote that I absolutely love: 
``Give me liberty or give me death.'' And as he has watched the war in 
Iraq, he said this had come back to him so many times and how he 
thought that that is so true, that without that personal freedom, which 
is the foundation of our constitution and of our society, then nothing 
else means as much, and how important it is that we recognize what a 
threat terrorism is; how important it is to win this war in Iraq; how 
important it is to build an ally with Iraq.
  And, of course, we have talked much tonight about the gentlewoman 
from California, the minority leader, and her comments in December of 
1998 when she gave her floor speech characterizing Saddam Hussein as a 
tyrant, which we all believe he is; and a threat to international 
security, which we all agree that he is. We have been through that 
quote tonight, but I want to go back into it. There is plenty of proof 
he had engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction. I 
agree with what the minority leader said at that time; we all do.
  We need to realize that in 1998 Bill Clinton was the President. 
Today, we do have a different President. And President George Bush is 
leading us in this war on terror. Our colleague from Texas just talked 
about the great work that the men and women are doing over in Iraq and 
the difference that they are making. I look forward to going and seeing 
this firsthand.
  Now the minority leader is coming along and she is questioning what 
we are doing in Iraq, and she is charging the administration with 
having a failed plan. The only thing this administration has failed to 
do, I believe, is to foresee how quickly Saddam Hussein's regime was 
going to collapse. To some extent, I think they have been victims of 
their own success. Because as our colleague from Texas pointed out, 
things have moved rather quickly. No one expected Baghdad to fall that 
quickly. They thought it was going to take months instead of weeks.
  I would like to quote from another Member of the minority party, who, 
unlike Minority Leader Pelosi, is considering the big picture. This is 
a quote from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), he is a 
Democrat, and he is considering the big picture. This is what the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) had to say in September of 2003, 
this year, in the publication ``The Hill,'' and I quote.

                              {time}  2230

  ``The media stresses the wounds, the injuries, and the deaths, as 
they should, but for instance in Northern Iraq, General David 
Petraeus,'' and I will pause here and say General Petraeus commands the 
101st Airborne from my district, ``has 3,100 projects, from soccer 
fields to schools to refineries, all good stuff and that is not being 
reported. Failure is not an option. Should the reconstruction effort 
fail, Iraq would become a snake pit, a haven for terrorists.''
  Mr. Speaker, we have learned the lessons of World War I. We learned 
from the successes of World War II. We know it is incredibly important 
that we see Iraq through to being firmly planted and seated on a firm 
foundation so they can be a success. I do not think it is patriotic for 
us to sit back and let terrorism take hold there or come over here and 
take ahold on our shores. I do not think it is patriotic to let tyrants 
kick dirt in our faces for a decade. I know the people in my district 
are tired of America choosing rhetoric over action, and they are 
pleased with the action that they are seeing. September 11 gave us 
cause for action.
  There is a great song that one of my friends and songwriter, David 
Worley has written. The song is Have You Forgotten, and that song is a 
reminder to each and every one of us that September 11 occurred, that 
men and women lost their lives, that terrorism brought its war to our 
shores, and it is

[[Page 25284]]

important that we support the reconstruction in Iraq and support our 
leadership as they lead through this.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership 
on this.
  Again, to point out, the two big debates tonight are not whether or 
not you are patriotic, the question is whether you are fit and 
responsible in the fight against the war on terror. The sad thing for a 
lot of us that enjoy working with our Democratic colleagues is that 
traditionally when there is an international war going on and America 
is heavily involved, and our security and lives are potentially at 
stake, are you a hawk and tend towards the hawkish side, or are you a 
dove and tend towards the dovish side, but in much of the Democratic 
caucus, the debate is between whether or not you are a dove or an 
ostrich.
  The terrorists came and found us on September 11, and they will do it 
again. Fortunately, there are some responsible Democrats that say 
responsible things. Unfortunately, we have not seen a lot of leadership 
out of the minority leader's office. I want to share a quote that talks 
about the fight to water down the resolution to fight the war on terror 
in Iraq. Minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), 
fought to tone down support for Bush and delete other passages opposed 
by antiwar Democrats.
  But at the same time, you have the second ranking person in the 
Democratic caucus, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) who 
basically said he would vote for the bill that his leader opposed. I am 
glad there are Members who put partisan politics aside and support our 
President, even though all of us have questions how we can do things 
better. That ultimately is not the question.
  I want to go back to the question whether or not we are at war with 
terrorism, and again the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
suggested we are not at war, and that while the war has not been 
officially declared by the United States Congress, we have not had one 
since I believe the Korean War, in over 50 years, this war is a 
declared war. The terrorists declared this war on the United States, 
and they did it in a resounding, ugly, atrocious way on September 11.
  But this threat is not new. In 1986 during the great Libya debate in 
the House of Commons, Lady Thatcher defended American's strike against 
Libya as she said, ``Terrorism thrives on a free society. The terrorist 
uses the feelings in a free society to sap the will of a civilization 
to resist. If the terrorist succeeds, he has won and the whole of free 
society has lost.'' Like Lord Churchill, Lady Thatcher is prescient, 
and she issued warnings a decade before the war was launched on 
America, much like Prime Minister Netanyahu in his book Fighting the 
War on Terrorism warned that ultimately the target of international 
religious zealot terrorism is not Israel, they are the temporary 
target. Ultimately, the great Satan is the United States.
  We were told in 1995 by Prime Minister Netanyahu that we would, in 
fact, be the target. But we do not have to believe our friends and 
allies on the topic of terrorism being a threat to our children, our 
grandchildren and our very civilization, if fact, it was over a decade 
ago that Osama bin Laden declared, ``We with God's help call on every 
Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with 
God's order to kill the Americans, and plunder their money whenever and 
wherever they find it. We also call on Muslim leaders, youths, and 
soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil 
supporters aligned with them, and to displace those who are behind them 
so they may learn a lesson.''
  We have been warned over and over again that they are coming to do us 
evil. We know it, and yet putting our heads in the sand is not an 
effective response, and hope is not a strategy.
  Winston Churchill said in the 1930s, warning about Hitler's Germany, 
if you give into aggression, there will be end to humiliation you have 
to suffer.
  Remember, it was Abraham Lincoln who basically said in terms of 
having to complete the war to put the Union back together, let us 
strive on to finish the work we are in.
  But again, we have great leadership from our President in very 
difficult, very challenging times. We have wonderful support and 
leadership from our majority leader who came under intense attack 
tonight, and where is the plan of the opponents of the President, where 
is the plan of the opponents of our majority leader, where is the plan 
of the opponents of the people who want to prosecute, fight and win the 
war on terror and to establish a free constitutional democracy in Iraq 
that is not a threat?
  Well, candidly, the Democratic party is very divided. The gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) split from his own father in criticism 
his father leveled against President Bush for attacking Iraq. The 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) said the country is better 
off without Saddam Hussein. His quotes are, ``I do not agree with his 
stance,'' speaking about his father. ``I believe that the United 
Nations needs to be a viable international organization, and the only 
way it is viable is if its proclamations and resolutions are 
enforced.''
  Despite all that warning about the fact that we cannot wait on 
permission from people in the U.N. to protect ourselves, there are 
still people attacking the President for the preemptive war on 
terrorists. This is a responsive war given the fact that Saddam Hussein 
has tried to export terrorism at every opportunity.
  It is not just the Democrats fight amongst themselves, sometimes the 
same Democrat is on both sides of the issue, like General Wesley Clark, 
depending on what day it was. Early in the campaign, he could not 
decide whether he was fully supportive of the President and our troops, 
or whether he would have voted against the resolution. It just depends 
on which version of General Clark's statements that we hear, now as he 
is running for President, and again using partisan rhetoric in trying 
to undermine the President in a time of war.
  Governor Dean has no such problem. He has been very consistent. In 
that old battle of hawks versus doves, the fact of the matter is that I 
think it is pretty clear that Mr. Dean is in fact on the ostrich side 
of that debate. He opposes the war, he opposes the doctrine of 
preemptive war, which means we have to wait, according to the doctrine 
of Mr. Dean, who is apparently one of the frontrunners for nomination 
for President, we have to wait until the next set of bombs, perhaps 
filled with nuclear weapons, hits an urban center in New York or 
Detroit. Maybe we have to wait until poison water in Los Angeles or in 
Miami poisons millions of our citizens. Terrorists maybe will have to 
drop nerve gas on population centers in Atlanta or Seattle before we 
can defend ourselves, and even at that point Governor Dean regularly 
suggests that we need to ask the United Nations before we defend 
ourselves.
  Let me remind Members that means that Libya, led by Colonel Quadafi, 
who declared basically a terrorist war on America 15 years ago, Libya 
controls the chairmanship of the Human Rights Commission of the United 
Nations. Maybe we should have to ask Syria, a state that sponsors 
terrorism on a regular basis and that serves on the Security Council of 
the United Nations, one of the top 15 votes in the United Nations. We 
should not have to ask for permission to defend ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say, hopefully, this debate can return to not 
who said what when, but who believes we need to stand up and fight to 
do the right thing to protect Americans to secure our interests and to 
ultimately bring our men and women from Iraq home as we continue to 
prosecute this war on terror.
  I will go back to what I started with tonight, in a great speech 
President Reagan gave to the British Parliament in 1982 called the 
Westminster Speech, he said, ``During the dark days of the Second World 
War, when this island was incandescent with courage, Winston Churchill 
exclaimed about Britain's adversaries, `What kind of a people do they 
think we are?'''
  Mr. Speaker, all over the world, terrorists are watching to see what 
kind

[[Page 25285]]

of people we think we are. Ultimately, it is the President of the 
United States, sometimes imperfectly, ultimately it is the majority 
leader and it is the leadership of the Republican Party in the United 
States House that the terrorists fear and know can defeat them, and the 
whole world is watching to see whether we back down to this terrorist 
threat.
  Mr. Speaker, I know what kind of people I think Americans think we 
are. We are ready for this challenge, and it is not easy; but the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and President Bush are our leaders.

                          ____________________