[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6479-6485]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  RESPONSIBILITIES IN WAR AGAINST IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, Members who were not here during the first 
Persian Gulf War, the next few days will probably be some of the most 
serious time that we have served in the House. The consequences of the 
action of our Nation will be consequences that will go down in history. 
I think it is a good time this evening for us to sit back and take a 
look at what are our responsibilities.
  What are our responsibilities as Republicans? What are our 
responsibilities as Democrats? On what issues should we act in a 
bipartisan fashion? On what issues should we go out and be willing to 
stand up for the issues, for the very standards that this country 
stands for? I think in the next 48 hours or so, our country, it is 
pretty obvious, will engage in a military conflict; and I think it is 
for the right reasons.
  President Bush's speech last night was simple, not a lot of fancy 
language. It was straightforward. He did not mince any words; but more 
than anything else, it was appropriate. It spoke of the responsibility 
of the Commander in Chief. It spoke of the responsibility of the United 
States of America. It spoke of the responsibility of the allies and the 
willing coalition that has the gumption, has the foresight to stand up 
to one of the most vicious men and one of the most vicious regimes in 
the history of the world. It is time for us to stand united.
  When we speak about responsibility, let us talk about what another 
President thought about responsibility. Let us talk about Bill Clinton, 
the former President of the United States. He recognized, and whatever 
issues Members have with Bill Clinton, he recognized what Iraq was 
about and what Saddam Hussein was about. Unfortunately, in the last few 
days I think the former President has violated kind of an unspoken rule 
and that is past Presidents do not interfere or try to interfere or 
play politics on foreign matters especially at a time of war. But 
President Clinton and, of course, former President Jimmy Carter have 
decided to speak out.
  But I want to relate to Members and show exactly what President 
Clinton recognized; he recognized what the responsibility of this 
Nation was against the horrible regime of Saddam Hussein. This is what 
Bill Clinton said about it on February, 18, 1998. President Clinton on 
Saddam Hussein and Saddam's threat: ``What if Saddam Hussein fails to 
comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which 
gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of 
mass destruction and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he 
made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost 
its will. He will then conclude he can go right on and build an arsenal 
of devastation and destruction.'' Bill Clinton 1998.
  That President recognized the responsibility of this country, and 
President Bush and his team at the White House have correctly 
recognized and stood up for the responsibility of this country and our 
willing allies. I want to talk about what are the responsibilities of 
the United Nations; what can the United Nations do and what should we 
expect from the United Nations; and what can they not do or what would 
be defined as an overexpectation of the capabilities of the United 
Nations.
  Let me say first of all, we have to look at the structure of the 
United Nations to understand why, when it comes to standing up 
militarily or taking a tough police action which involves military 
engagement, we can see why the United Nations the way it is structured 
cannot possibly come to an agreement on how to do that. They could not 
come to an agreement in Kosovo where we had clear and resounding 
agreement on Slobodan Milosevic. They could not come to an agreement on 
the Cold War or on Somalia. The United Nations, time after time when we 
take a look at particular actions that require military engagement, the 
United Nations cannot come to a decision. Why can they not come to a 
decision? Because of the makeup of the United Nations.
  The United Nations has 192 separate countries. The United Nations has 
chosen to put Libya as head of the Human Rights Commission; and they 
actually had Iraq to chair the U.N. conference on disarmament. Mr. 
Speaker, Iraq was chairing the United Nations conference on 
disarmament. How can we expect much more from the United Nations. The 
United Nations has failed to act.
  The United States and its willing coalition has stood up to its 
responsibilities. The United Nations, unfortunately, was bulled over, 
as they always are, in my opinion, in part by the French. And the 
French, the only success that I have seen in the last month or 6 months 
or 12 years, frankly, the only success I have seen from the French and 
the Germans and the Belgians is to successfully isolate themselves.
  It is interesting to think that the members of the United Nations 
like North Korea, Libya, Iraq and Iran consider the French their ally. 
Who could have ever imagined, who could have ever imagined that the 
French, the perception out there in the country of renegade nations, 
that those nations would recognize France as their ally?
  We all grew up with the understanding that the French were a 
democratic society, a society that stood strong with the United States, 
although the French never really led the battle. Keep in mind in World 
War II, it was the French, and frankly when we look at it, take a look 
at where they were. It was the French that adopted the constant policy 
negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, talk, talk, talk. In World War II some 
of these countries in

[[Page 6480]]

Europe wanted to do everything they could to get rid of Adolph Hitler, 
except for one thing. They did not want to fight him. They did not want 
to take him head on.
  But back to the United Nations. How can the United Nations function 
when it is 192 separate countries from 192 different economic levels 
from a variety of different types of governments within those 
countries, whether it is democracy, communism, socialism, dictatorship 
or run by a bunch of thugs like we saw in Somalia? Those 192 different 
countries have different economic levels and cultural environments that 
they have adopted over the years, and different treatments of human 
rights. Take a look at the treatment of women in Iraq or the treatment 
of children in Iraq and the so-called theory of education in Iraq, and 
the starvation and prejudice that we see in North Korea; but yet all of 
those countries are standing members of the United Nations, and I am 
being told that we can expect the United Nations to come together on an 
issue of serious consequences such as the engagement of a military 
conflict? We can understand why it has taken the United Nations 12 
years to reach a decision that they cannot reach a decision. The United 
Nations is in fact on military engagement a paper tiger.
  Does the United Nations have an appropriate location and what is 
their responsibility? One, their responsibility right now at the very 
beginning, and the responsibility of the French and the responsibility 
of the Germans and the responsibility of the Belgians, they should all 
adopt resolutions supporting the troops of the willing coalition. They 
should all put out a resolution supporting a regime change of Saddam 
Hussein. The door has closed on the so-called diplomatic relations as 
stated by the President.
  If the Germans and French want to continue what I think were good 
allies or at least an alliance that withstood a lot of pressures 
through the years, they need to come out and support the American 
troops and the troops of their neighbors, the troops of Spain and Italy 
and the British troops. The French, the Germans, and the Belgians need 
not go any further to be identified as allies of North Korea, as allies 
of Libya, as allies of the regime in Iraq, and as allies of Iran. They 
need to distinguish themselves, and all they have done in the last 
several months is to isolate themselves in a corner with those rogue 
countries.
  We have had the debate and discussions. We are going to engage in a 
military conflict, barring some miracle in the next 24 hours. The 
French, it is time for our allies to stand up. We are not asking for 
much, they would not give us much, but they at least ought to stand up 
and support the American troops, and that is the responsibility I 
think; and I am not asking too much of those allies who I feel this 
time around, as in the past, have let us down.
  But going back to the United Nations, where does the United Nations 
fit in this puzzle? How can the United Nations be an effective 
institution? I think they can be an effective institution as long as we 
focus very narrowly on the responsibilities. Again coming back to the 
responsibilities, one, responsibilities that they can handle; and, two, 
responsibilities that they can effectively carry out.
  As I have made clear in my statements, the United Nations cannot 
effectively handle nor can they come to any kind of decision when it 
comes to military conflict in the world. They just do not have the 
structure to do it. We cannot have 192 nations with that kind of 
diversity with those different kinds of governments come to an 
agreement.
  But the United Nations can play a role. What role do I see them play? 
I see the United Nations as a social institution, as an institution 
that can probably effectively deliver food to starving countries such 
as Ethiopia, maybe even help under certain circumstances to deliver 
what human aid they can to North Korea, what human aid will not go 
straight to the military, what will go to the people.
  I see the United Nations as a social institution which can help 
facilitate and lead the world's fight against AIDS, and be a leader 
against breast cancer and prostate cancer and health in general. I 
think they can be effective in those areas. But it is a huge mistake, 
and it has been proven in the last several weeks, for us to assume that 
the United Nations can really play an effective role in standing down a 
regime like Saddam Hussein.
  To me the United Nations is kind of like Chamberlain was in 1938 with 
Hitler. I have a well-written article, and let me give credit to the 
author, Alistair Cook. Throughout the ceaseless tide, there was a voice 
of an old man, Prime Minister Chamberlain, saying instead of taking on 
Hitler, I believe it is peace for our time. When he made that 
statement, instead of going to war to stop Hitler from taking 
Czechoslovakia and other countries, he said, I believe it is time for 
the peace of our time.

                              {time}  1945

  The entire House of Commons applauded. They stood up. They gave him a 
standing ovation. Only one old grumpy man in the back of the room said 
much of anything, and he said, ``I believe we've suffered a total and 
unmitigated defeat when we look at somebody like Hitler and say it is, 
`Peace for our time. Appease him.''' That grumpy old man happened to be 
a guy named Churchill. The scene concluded in the autumn of 1938 with 
the British Prime Minister's effectual signing away of most of 
Czechoslovakia to Hitler, the appeasement. The rest of it, within 
months, Hitler went ahead and walked into it and conquered it. ``Oh, 
dear,'' said Mr. Chamberlain, ``he has betrayed my trust. Oh, my gosh, 
Hitler has betrayed my trust.''
  What do you think you are dealing with when you are dealing with a 
Saddam Hussein? That is why in my opinion the United Nations really, I 
think, have tremendously weakened themselves. I do not see any 
circumstances whatsoever. I mean, we have a history of 12 years of the 
United Nations, and I have got a poster over there that shows 
resolution after resolution after resolution after resolution, 
appeasement after appeasement after appeasement after appeasement. And 
where has it gotten us? It has not gotten us anywhere. Frankly, I 
think, in fact, it has gotten us into a war.
  I think if the United Nations would have taken just their first 
resolution and followed through with what they said they were going to 
do, if they would have put inspectors in there that really meant 
something, if they would have enforced that, we could have done it 
diplomatically. The United Nations probably could have done it during 
that period of time diplomatically. But instead they adopted the 
doctrine of appeasement. They adopted the doctrine of the French. 
Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. Do whatever you can to get 
rid of the problem except fight it.
  The policy that was adopted by the United Nations, the policy that 
has been adopted by the French and the Germans and the Belgians is the 
policy of going to the cancer doctor, and when he tells you that you 
have cancer, you say, ``Doctor, I don't want to believe it. I'm going 
to go out of this room and hope I can talk to some friends about what a 
horrible thing it is, and it's going to go away on itself. Don't talk 
to me about cutting my foot off, Doctor. There's got to be some other 
way to handle this cancer, maybe some warm talk or maybe prayer.'' 
Prayer helps, by the way, but it usually does not get rid of the 
cancer. ``Maybe there is some other alternative other than going in 
there under the knife, Doc, to attack this cancer.''
  The fact is that had you attacked the cancer when you first went to 
the doctor, the next time you go to the doctor, it probably would not 
be all over your body. The fact that here in the United Nations, had 
the United Nations not let the world down, had the French and the 
Germans been as insistent on the United Nations enforcing their first 
resolution as they are insistent on the United States and its allies 
not enforcing 1441, the 16th or 17th resolution, we would not be here 
today. We would not have a war.

[[Page 6481]]

  It amazes me that the French stand out to the world as the 
peacemakers of the world, as if they are the Chamberlains. Where were 
they in 1993 and 1994 and 1995 and 1997? By the way, those were years 
that Saddam Hussein was using mustard gas, nerve gas and anthrax 
against his own population. Where were the French? Where were the 
Germans?
  I honestly think we could have avoided war today had we tackled that 
cancer back then, but they did not do it.
  The United Nations has, as the President says in dealing with the 
French, the United Nations has played their hand. They are not fit. 
They are not structurally designed to do this. They do not have the 
gumption or the leadership to do this. They cannot get the votes to do 
this. They are not a military institution. They are not an institution 
that can issue resolutions and then back it with discipline.
  It is kind of like going to school. I knew some teachers that became 
principals. They were not successful as principals. They were great 
teachers. In fact, in most cases they were too nice to be a principal. 
They could not bring it upon themselves, one, to discipline other 
teachers, and they could not bring it upon themselves, even though we 
were friends with the principal, we knew we got away with misbehavior 
because the principal was too nice, he just could not bring it upon 
himself in this particular case to discipline us. We read that like a 
clock, just like a clock.
  Saddam Hussein can read the United Nations like a clock. It is not 
complicated, by the way. You figure it out pretty soon. It is like 
going to the cookie jar. You find out pretty soon whether you are going 
to get in trouble or not for getting your hand in the cookie jar. If 
you are not in trouble, you tend to find your hand going to the cookie 
jar a little more frequently.
  I think the United Nations unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, now 
that I think about that, maybe it is good that this has occurred so we 
really can figure out what focus the United Nations should take. Maybe 
it is good in that we can understand, look, we have overassigned the 
United Nations, we have expected too much from a structure that simply 
cannot handle the responsibility that is handed to it. With that 
vision, I think once we resolve this situation in Iraq, there will be 
other problems. There is going to be the North Koreas. There is going 
to be the Irans. There are other problems out there. But I think we are 
best, I guess, situated or to our advantage to approach those problems 
understanding that the United Nations really should not be the vehicle, 
the wagon that we put all our gear in and expect the United Nations' 
horses to be able to pull that wagon up the hill. They cannot do it.
  But as I said earlier, there is an appropriate spot for them, to help 
us in the worldwide fight on AIDS, the worldwide fight on starvation, 
to help education throughout the world. Those are passive, social 
science issues that are very, very important to the international 
community and very, very important, whether my colleagues are 
Republicans or Democrats, very, very important for the whole world. Our 
Nation can help in that, but I think the United Nations is appropriate 
in that location.
  I want to switch from the United Nations. I think I have made it 
pretty clear. I think they have dropped the ball on this. I think it 
was the Wall Street Journal today, and I may even have a copy of an 
editorial out of the Wall Street Journal. They are right. The Wall 
Street Journal said today, ``The fighting will likely soon commence, 
but it is not in fact the start of this war. It is the beginning of the 
end of the war that began when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on August 
2, 1990.''
  Keep in mind that the reason Saddam Hussein remained in power is not 
because Bush, Sr., did not want to go into Baghdad, it is because Bush, 
Sr., frankly listened to the advice and the demand from the United 
Nations that the regime be left standing; that the only mission out 
there was to free Kuwait, to push Iraq out of Kuwait, but to leave 
Saddam. We could not go into Baghdad. People blame the Vice President, 
Dick Cheney, whom I think is one of the outstanding leaders of this 
Nation. People say, ``Why didn't you guys kill him 10 years ago?'' It 
is because we listened to the United Nations, and the United Nations 
insisted, demanded that the United States not go in and kill Saddam 
Hussein. That was the United Nations. Just another example. They cannot 
do it.
  I am critical of the United Nations, but I also understand. It is 
kind of like getting mad at a child. You know they misbehaved, but you 
have also got to look at all the circumstances around it. Does that 
child have some reason that they cannot behave, that they cannot really 
control? It is the same thing with the United Nations, structurally the 
way it is built. You think North Korea? You think Iraq who is head of 
the disarmament convention, or you think Libya which the United Nations 
just installed as the head of the Human Rights Commission are going to 
come to some kind of agreement to restore human rights, for example, in 
any country in the world?
  Let me move off the United Nations and talk about something else. I 
have heard time and time again, in fact, I was surprised, over the 
weekend, time and time again I heard commentators who know better 
talking about the United States' war against Iraq, the United States' 
effort against Saddam Hussein. The United States. I have heard this so 
often, it almost makes me ill. The United States acting alone. I used 
to be a police officer. Somebody asked me the other day, my friend, 
Fred Cheney, ``What is it you took out of your police career? What is 
it that you took that was the most benefit to you being a police 
officer?''
  I said, ``I can't tell you how many times I rolled up to the scene of 
an accident or rolled up to the scene of a crime, made an assumption as 
to what happened there only to find out later I was completely wrong 
once we looked at all the facts.'' I guess the best case is the Smart 
case in Utah. Take a look at that. Everybody probably assumed that the 
deceased suspect was the one who kidnapped her. They found stolen goods 
in his car, everything pointed to him, so it must be him. Once the 
facts are looked at more carefully and more carefully, we find out, in 
fact, that he was an innocent man.
  It is the same kind of thing here. Before these journalists start 
making the statement that the United States goes it alone, or they 
somehow downplay the fact that the Brits, Tony Blair, who stands up as 
a profile in courage, they downplay the courage that he has shown, they 
downplay the United Kingdom as if it is not much of a country, and so 
the fact that they are joining the United States really is not of much 
substance because, after all, who is the United Kingdom? The 
responsibilities, again coming back to that word responsibilities, the 
responsibilities of the national media and the worldwide media are to 
look at the facts.
  Let me show you the facts on the coalition, the willing coalition, as 
President Bush puts it. To my left are the member countries that are 
joining the United States, joining the United Kingdom, joining the 
Spanish, joining the Italians, joining the Turks, joining the Polish, 
joining the Hungarians. Look at all of these countries. These 
countries, even Poland, the Polish are sending 200 troops into this 
action. You tell me that any of those commentators that talk about the 
U.S. going it alone or the U.S. and the Brits going it alone, this does 
not take a lot of intellectual ability to figure out what this 
coalition is. You can pull this list right off the Internet. Take a 
look at these countries that are supporting us in our effort. Denmark, 
Afghanistan. I will just jump around. Hungary, Japan, Lithuania, 
Nicaragua, Rumania, Turkey, Slovakia, Philippines, Macedonia, South 
Korea, Iceland, Ethiopia, El Salvador, Colombia, Albania, Australia, 
they are sending forces in there, Czech Republic, Georgia, Italy, I 
talked about Italy earlier, the Netherlands, Poland, I talked about 
them, Spain. This is what that coalition looks like, and the momentum 
is building by the day. The momentum is building by the day.

[[Page 6482]]

  Why are these countries doing it? Because they understand the word 
``responsibility.'' We cannot afford to shirk our responsibility. We 
cannot walk away from this fight. This is a cancer you cannot walk away 
from and hope it is better tomorrow. This is a cancer that you cannot 
go away and say, if I sleep on it and wake up tomorrow, it is actually 
going to recede. That cancer is going to go in remission because I 
simply sleep on it and give it a little time. Give cancer a little 
time, and it will go backwards. It will go into remission. That is not 
what happens. You have to reach out and attack it.
  I was at a town meeting not too long ago, actually a group meeting, 
not an official town meeting. Somebody said, the United States, what is 
our responsibility as a government to protect this government from 
terrorism, and are they tied together? I said, of course they are tied 
together. A lot of these people feed from the same trough, frankly. 
They have the same coffee together. Of course it is tied together. But 
the fact is in order for us to protect, we cannot have security at 
every mall in America. We cannot have armored guards and meters and 
checkpoints when you go to some theater somewhere, you go to a mall, 
you go to a restaurant somewhere in this country, you go to a football 
game, a high school football game.
  The fact is our responsibility, and frankly, Democrats, it falls on 
you as well, but our responsibility is to reach out. We cannot defend 
this country completely. We have got to go out and attack the 
terrorists, in their field. We cannot sit, and every country in this 
list to my left understands, you cannot sit and let that cancer grow. 
We have let Saddam Hussein flaunt his weapons, flaunt the United 
Nations, flaunt the international community for over 12 years and many, 
many resolutions.
  By the way, I find it somewhat appalling when we talk about 
responsibility. I listened over the weekend, and I am not trying to be 
partisan here, but I am talking about facts. Howard Dean stands in 
front of the Democrats at their convention in California. They give him 
a standing ovation as he blasts the leadership of this country, as he 
blasts this antiwar stance. My response to Howard Dean, my response to 
Martin Sheen, my response to Sheryl Crow and my response to some of 
these other people is, don't walk away from the cancer. You better 
figure out how you are going to handle this thing. It will not go into 
remission on its own.
  Frankly, these countries have come together in a willing coalition to 
do whatever is necessary to take care of the threat that Saddam Hussein 
has. I think this coalition will come close to the size of the 
coalition that we had in the first Persian Gulf War.
  My particular point here is when you listen to the media, understand 
clearly, it is not the United States acting alone. It is not the United 
Kingdom acting alone. It is a coalition of the willing.
  I give a lot of credit to our President. I think he has done an 
admirable job. Anybody that thinks they would like to have his job, 
look at what he faced in his first term. He comes into an economy that 
is going south on him. We had two down quarters before he even came 
into office. He has got an economy that seems to barely be hanging on. 
He loses a space shuttle on a weekend. He has got the problem with the 
Middle East, with the Palestinians and the Jewish community fighting. 
We have got this situation with Iraq. We have got the situation with 
North Korea. He had the international incident with the Chinese when 
they went on the aircraft equipment. That is a full-time job. These 
people that criticize it, I find it interesting that people like Martin 
Sheen, who has probably had all of 5 minutes' education on foreign 
affairs and certainly, certainly is not able to access any classified 
briefings at all that we get or any kind of knowledge on the subject, 
criticizes our President, has spent, many, many, many times more, same 
with Howard Dean, criticizing our President than they have Saddam 
Hussein.

                              {time}  2000

  Where is the responsibility? I think it is a freedom, a part of 
democracy, that we stand up and voice our opinion. I absolutely agree 
with that. But at some point, it does become unpatriotic.
  And let me issue a challenge right now to my colleagues on the 
Democratic side because frankly I have not heard it on the Republican 
side, but I am pointing to some of my colleagues on the Democratic 
side, to Howard Dean, to Martin Sheen, to Sheryl Crow, to some of these 
movie stars out there that have become all of a sudden experts. 
Although they are wonderful actresses and actors, they have become 
experts in foreign affairs, they do become unpatriotic. And mark my 
words here. They do become unpatriotic when this action begins if they 
do not support the troops of the United States of America and its 
allies. They ought to throw that sign they have been carrying or those 
T-shirts they have been wearing or, in Sheryl Crow's case, that guitar 
band she likes to wear around; and they ought to throw that in the 
trash and replace it, Sheryl Crow, with a band that says ``I support 
the troops of the United States of America.'' And if they cannot find 
it upon themselves to do that, in my opinion, they have in fact crossed 
that line from patriotism. Regardless of how they debate the issue, 
they can still be patriotic. They have crossed that line to be 
unpatriotic. They have shirked their responsibility. They have dropped 
their responsibility to this great country.
  George W. Bush has done a good job. Dick Cheney has done a 
spectacular job. The President leading this team, putting this team 
together. How could we have been so lucky as to find somebody like 
Condoleezza Rice? Take a look at Colin Powell. Take a look at Rumsfeld. 
Take a look at that team. We have got the A-team down there on 
Pennsylvania Avenue. We have got a team that most countries only dream 
of; and we have got a team that when it has come time to stand up and 
accept the responsibility, they do it. And this Congress, frankly, and 
to the credit on both sides of the aisle, we did it in a bipartisan 
vote. Although we had some dissent and we heard some very harsh 
language, especially at the Democratic convention in California, the 
fact is most of the Democrats and all of the Republicans stood up and 
supported this.
  We are standing up to our responsibility, and it is not the United 
States going alone. These countries in their own way, even if it is 
only 200 troops from Poland, in their own way with the resources they 
have, they have stood up. They stood to be counted, and counted they 
will be. And every one of these people, the contribution they make to 
this effort, even as small as it may seem to others, it is big to them; 
and, frankly, in the overall picture it is very, very important. When 
we fight a cancer, we had better take all the assistance we can get 
from every friend we can find.
  That is the only way we are going to conquer it. And I want them to 
know I appreciate it, and any of my colleagues here who have family 
over there, come from these countries, know people, the next time they 
see somebody or the ambassador or one of their representatives or just 
a citizen from this country, they ought to tell them thanks. Not thanks 
that they came to the assistance of the United States of America, but 
they ought to thank them for standing up to the responsibility that the 
entire world ought to be standing up to, that they are filling the void 
that the United Nations could not stand up to, that they are taking on 
the issue head-on for the good of their country and for the good of the 
rest of the world. They are not doing it as a favor to the United 
States or as a favor to the United Kingdom. They are doing it as an 
obligation of responsibility to this fine world that we live in.
  Now I want to talk about our forces. I am so proud of those young men 
and women, and not only the young men and women right now that are on 
the desert floor waiting for the final order, not only the men and 
women that have now actually instituted in one way or another the 
beginning of the military action, but also the young men and women, and 
not just young, by the way, but the men and women of our military 
forces that are stateside as

[[Page 6483]]

well. Keep in mind it takes a lot of logistics. It takes a lot of men 
and women to prepare all of the things.
  I was talking to somebody yesterday. I said, just imagine, we have 
got 250,000 troops out there. Somebody in the United States has to 
figure out about every other week how to get 250,000 tubes of 
toothpaste to these people, 250,000 meals times three or probably four 
a day considering the energy that they are using, how to get the fuel 
to the trucks. This is a nationwide effort by a lot of citizens of the 
United States.
  I taught a class in Montrose, California, yesterday. I had a young 
man ask me, and I hear this question quite often, ``Are we ever going 
to see the draft again?'' And I think this action that we see today 
illustrates why the draft will not work. Why will it not work? I said 
to this young man, ``What do you want to be?'' He wanted to be a 
songwriter. Frankly, I think the kid probably will be a songwriter one 
of these days and probably a pretty good one, but he wanted to be a 
songwriter. I said, ``How would you like to have graduated from college 
in music, beginning your songwriting career, and the United States 
Government calls you up and says, `One, we are not only going to put 
you in the military but instead of going to the Army band, for example, 
you are going to be washing trucks or doing something that you cannot 
stand. We are forcing you to do it and you are going to have to give up 
2 years of your life'?''
  What we have today is not a force at all like that. Today our force, 
regardless of the branch of the military, is an all-volunteer force, 
and our morale is the highest it has been in decades. Our people are 
serving this country because they want to serve this country; and I 
know that by far the majority, not all of us on this floor, but the 
majority of us support these troops 100 percent. And I am embarrassed 
and I am going to be really embarrassed and angered, by the way, if 
people like Martin Sheen cannot, and the debate is over, Martin, and 
Sheryl Crow, who, by the way, a lot of us country music listeners like, 
and the Dixie Chicks kind of stepped on their own toe last week too, 
put it aside and support the troops.
  Put down the signs, protesters, that are giving more credit to Saddam 
Hussein and have expressed more hatred towards their own President than 
they do one the most vicious men in the history of the world, the worst 
murderer, by the way, who killed more Muslims than any other man in the 
history of the world. Put down the signs that are supporting him and 
trashing our own President. Put those signs down and pick up a sign 
that says to the troops of the United States of America ``We are behind 
you. You are our people, you are our boys, you are our men and women 
and we support you.'' Regardless where we stand on the issue of the 
war, whether or not we like the United Nations or do not like the 
United Nations, whether or not we like Scott McInnis or do not like 
him, whether or not we like the President or do not like the President, 
the fact is the time has come for every so-called peace protester, 
although I happen to think the way we secure peace is to make sure we 
do not let Saddam Hussein out there, the way you stop cancer is to 
attack it, not to ignore it. But all out there who have carried those 
signs, I challenge you, and colleagues of mine here on the floor, I 
challenge each and every one of you to pick up a sign or make a sign 
tonight that says ``We support the troops of the United States of 
America,'' whatever those troops need.
  Tomorrow many of us will go on with our daily routine, but the real 
sacrifice is going to be carried by several hundred thousand of our 
people in the military forces and civilian employees that support them; 
and we ought to at least take a little time in our day, regardless 
again of where we stand on the issue, to say thanks, to pat those 
people on the back and to give them every prayer we can possibly give 
them, to give them every thought of hope we can give them. Our 
government and our President and this administration as previous 
administrations have provided them with the weapons and the assets. We 
have given them everything they can get out there. But what will get 
them over the hump, what they really need the most is to know that 
people at home support them.
  Martin Sheen, what do you think it says to our military forces or to 
those Democrats that stood and applauded at the Democratic convention 
in California this week, the anti-war attitude of that party, what kind 
of message do you think it sends over to these people? Put it aside. 
Stop. Put it aside. And just for a while come out here and help send a 
word of praise, a word of encouragement, a ``go get them'' to our 
forces that, by the way, are the ones that will really make the 
sacrifice. Most people tomorrow in this country will go to McDonald's; 
they will go to the grocery store. Their life pretty well will run on 
pattern, but in the next 2 or 3 days, hopefully not very many but we 
have to expect there will be some deaths in this engagement and the 
next few days those people will be sacrificing, and they at least ought 
to know that the people of America unanimously, not part of the people, 
but the people of America unanimously support the troops of the United 
States of America.
  Let me move on to another subject that I think is awfully important. 
I have several times during my comments talked about Saddam Hussein and 
his vicious regime; and let us not kid ourselves, his sons are as 
deadly as he is; and I want to just read some of the firsthand 
experience. A lot of people have come up to me and said, How do you 
know he is such a vicious guy? That is what some people say. How do you 
know he has these weapons of mass destruction? For two reasons: One, we 
have got the proof of the horrible things he has done; and, two, the 
fact that these weapons that he now says he did not have, he said he 
did have. But I want to read this comment, and this is from an Iraqi 
expatriate. The reality of Saddam's Iraq.
  This is not a Martin Sheen. This is not a Sheryl Crow. This is not 
Howard Dean, the ex-Governor of Vermont talking. Those people have 
never been there. In fact I would bet that Sheryl Crow, Martin Sheen, 
the Dixie Chicks, some of these people like that have never felt 
hardship, have never felt hardship like the person that I am talking 
about. My guess is they have never been on a foreign visit other than 
playing in a concert somewhere or playing in a movie somewhere. My 
guess is they have never been on the ground firsthand to witness what 
this person talks about.
  Let us read it: ``You will be hardpressed to find a single family in 
Iraq which has not had a son, a father, or a brother killed, 
imprisoned, tortured, or disappeared due to Saddam's regime.'' And I 
note here not just Saddam but Saddam's regime. The majority of Iraqis 
inside and outside Iraq support the invasion action because they 
believe they are the ones that have to live as things are. They believe 
they are the ones that have to live as things are.
  The President, in his speech last night, very accurately said we will 
liberate the people of Iraq. There are a lot of people like the Martin 
Sheens and the Sheryl Crows and people like that in the world that are 
protesting in our own country that have no idea how oppressed those 
people are. They have no idea how happy those people will be when they 
see American forces.
  Take a look at Afghanistan 2 years ago and take a look at Afghanistan 
today, the liberation that took place there. Take a look at the people 
in the villages running up and hugging the soldiers, people offering 
the soldiers food, applauding them, cheering them. Take a look at Iraq 
a year from today. As a challenge, take a look at that, where the 
people will be a year from today versus the oppression that they are 
under today under this regime. Do my colleagues think we would have 
gotten there through negotiations with the United Nations? Do my 
colleagues think we would have gotten there with the French or the 
Germans or the Belgians that love to negotiate and talk and have coffee 
and negotiate and talk and have coffee and negotiate and talk and have 
coffee? No way. They have tried it for 12 years. The Wall Street 
Journal said very accurately this war

[[Page 6484]]

started 12 years ago. It is not beginning in the next few days. It 
started 12 years ago.
  And, finally, there is a coalition of countries throughout this world 
that are willing to stand up and liberate the people that have faced 
this kind of oppression. Name one other leader in the world that has 
used mustard gas or nerve gas to wipe out between 5,000 and 50,000 of 
his own citizens.
  I was corrected. Remember Kent State years ago in the Vietnam War and 
the protests and this country's armed forces, I think it was the 
National Guard shot, I think, four students at Kent State and the 
country was outraged. How could a Nation's military kill four people of 
its own? And yet the very people that I am sure would have been leading 
the protest, objecting to that kind of action, are the very people that 
unfortunately, tragically, incorrectly stand by silently as this 
population of people suffer from the regime of Saddam Hussein.

                              {time}  2015

  I am pleased to say that our fine President, our President and this 
administration and this Congress and this country, is not going to 
allow that to go on for very many more hours. I did not say years.
  I cannot tell you how proud I am to stand here and look to the next 
generation behind us, to my kids, to the young people, to the people 
that we serve, and say we are about to end a regime within the next few 
hours, the next couple of days at the most, 3 days, but certainly 
within hours. The country of Iraq will be liberated from one of the 
most horrific animals, one of the most vicious men ever known to 
mankind.
  I wish some of you that were carrying those protest signs, and I wish 
some of you who had been so vehemently opposed to George W. Bush, 
personally attacking our President, I wish you could be in this young 
lady's presence when she finds out, when she gets the word that Saddam 
Hussein and his regime are dead and gone, that they are out of power. I 
wish you could be in the family room of some of these people when these 
families find out that the horrible monster that they have dealt with 
has been put down by a coalition of the willing, by some people willing 
to accept the responsibility that this cannot stand, that this cannot 
continue to go on.
  I also hope, those of you that witness this, keep in mind and let 
your memories keep in mind those people who would not join the willing 
coalition, those people who stood by and said, leave him alone, we have 
no right.
  Today, in fact, I heard a previous speaker here on the House floor a 
few minutes ago say that we are violating some international concept he 
has. In his opinion, from what I drew from his remarks, I am not 
quoting him, but from what I drew from his remarks, it was let it be. 
Kind of like the Beatle's song, ``Let It Be,'' to let it go.
  Keep in mind, those people that were willing to let this regime 
stand, that after 12 years of breaking resolution after resolution, 
after killing tens of thousands, not tens, not hundreds, not thousands, 
tens of thousands of his own people through poison gas, and these 
people stood there and talked about, well, let us have another cup of 
coffee and negotiate, while people like this expatriate's family 
suffered.
  God knows how many people in that country we are going to discover 
have suffered horrible acts of violence. I read yesterday on the I 
think it was the AP wire about the shredding machine, one of the 
torture chambers they have. One of the ways they have of torturing is a 
shredder. If they are kind, they put you in head first, because it 
kills you instantly. If they do not want to do that, they put you in 
feet first, so you know what happens. This kind of stuff we are going 
to find out.
  The Sheryl Crows and the Martin Sheens and the people that are saying 
we are going to use the Oscar ceremonies to protest the war, I hope you 
are watching your TV. I hope you are paying as much attention to what 
Saddam Hussein has done, when the facts come out after we militarily 
bring down that regime, as the time you have devoted to condemning our 
President and our team down there on Pennsylvania Avenue, and, in fact, 
this United States Congress.
  Responsibility, that is what it is about. Every one of us in this 
House was elected to accept responsibility. We have more 
responsibilities than the average person on the street. But the average 
person on the street has responsibilities. It is not an overused word. 
It is not an overused word.
  Responsibility is a character. It is a standard of character, in my 
opinion. Responsibility, acceptance of the responsibility and carrying 
out the mission of responsibility.
  I stand here with a great deal of pride, one acknowledging the 
responsibility and the great sacrifice our American forces have made. 
Once again I renew my challenge to every protester, to every 
Congressman, to every movie star, to every singer, the Sheryl Crows and 
those out there. I challenge you tomorrow, or as soon as we take that 
action, for you to stand up and sing a song for the forces of America.
  This responsibility that we carry on our shoulders, nobody ever said 
pulling that wagon up the hill was going to be easy. But it is our 
responsibility to get that wagon up the hill, and not just for the 
United States of America, not just for our willing coalition of 30-some 
countries, but for the world, for the goodness of man. There is no 
country in the history of the world that has represented more goodness 
and protected more goodness and accepted the responsibility of helping 
other people than the United States of America.
  This Nation has nothing to apologize for, and I as a United States 
Congressman will never apologize for the United States of America. I 
stand here with pride, because I think in part we as Congressmen, 
although we do not carry, are not there in the field, I would like to 
be. I wish I were 20-some years younger. I would like to have them drop 
me in the center of Baghdad. I know many of my colleagues would, too.
  In a small way as Congress people, and the administration in a big, 
big way, a lot of people in this country have stood up to the 
responsibility, have acknowledged it and have put that pack on their 
back. They are willing to help get that wagon up the hill. A few have 
dropped off.
  When I went camping as a young man, I always used to get upset with 
the people that sat by the fire but never helped gather the firewood. A 
lot of people deserve to sit by the fire, because they have helped get 
the firewood. It is time for those who have not helped gather the 
firewood to get out there and get some firewood. Then they, too, can 
sit by the fire.
  But we have an inherent obligation, an inherent obligation, to our 
generation and to the generations that follow our generation to make 
sure that tyrants like Saddam Hussein, to the extent that we can stop 
it, that we carry out the mission of our responsibility, that we carry 
out the mission of our duty to the United States of America, that we 
make the people who have fought for decades and generations under the 
Stars and Stripes, that we carry out our part, that our generation, 
too, can be spoken of in the future as one of those generations that 
stood when the challenge came forward and proudly took those colors and 
proudly took those colors to the next generation and delivered to that 
generation a country strong in will; a country strong in freedom; a 
country that represents democracy, the model of democracy; a country 
that is militarily strong; a country that has a good, solid justice 
system; a country that has an educational system second to none; a 
country that has a medical system second to none. Those are big 
challenges.
  In the next few hours we are going to see who is going to be counted, 
and I hope every person that is listening to me on this floor, I hope 
every one of us unanimously, not one dissenting vote, unanimously 
supports the forces of the United States of America in their mission to 
accept that one word, responsibility.
  I hope with Godspeed that all our forces are safe. I hope with 
Godspeed

[[Page 6485]]

the citizens of the United States and all of our allies, and, in fact, 
the whole world, can be freed of this tyrant so we can all live in at 
least some type of peace.
  But from the bottom of my heart, I want to thank all my fellow 
citizens, and I want to thank those forces that are out there in the 
time of need and the time of danger that have stood up and accepted 
that responsibility.

                          ____________________