[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13220-13228]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gerlach). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks related to this special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just pick up where we left 
off in this last hour. And I appreciate the discussion with my 
colleagues. And if we have the time, I will be happy to yield to them. 
It seems like we probably will have the time.
  There is no question, none at all, that al-Qaeda and the Saddam 
Hussein regime and people connected with that have met on numerous 
occasions. There is no question that in May of 2002, Zarqawi, one of 
the top lieutenants the senior al-Qaeda with bin Laden was in Baghdad 
for medical treatment. And Uday Hussein provided that. There have been 
numerous occasions that they have been together.
  Now, the question was Osama bin Laden went to Saudi Arabia and he 
said we have got to get rid of this guy up there, Saddam Hussein, 
because he does not follow the hard-core Muslim line. The fact is 
Winston Churchill, and I hate to go back in history, but he decided to 
work with Joe Stalin, a communist tyrant who killed 50 million of his 
own countrymen. They asked Churchill, ``Why in the world are you 
working with Stalin?'' He said, ``I would go to bed with the devil in 
order to beat Adolph Hitler.''
  Osama bin Laden calls us the big devil and I believe Osama bin Laden 
was willing to work with Saddam Hussein, who is one of the powerhouses 
in

[[Page 13221]]

the Middle East, to do everything he could to destroy Western 
civilization and the United States.
  Now, we do not know what went on in all these meetings. But we do 
know that Osama bin Laden and his minions did talk to and work with 
Saddam Hussein's people.
  Now, do you err on the side of safety or do you not? We knew that 
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He killed thousands, 
tens of thousands of Kurds with mustard gas. We found weapons just 
recently that had sarin gas in them. Just recently our troops found 
those. He had a nuclear facility that was bombed by the Israelis in 
1981. So he was trying to develop a nuclear facility.
  Now, for anybody to believe that he just threw that stuff out of the 
window when he hates the West so much and he was negotiating and 
talking with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, I think they are just 
blowing smoke. Now, the President said we have got to go after the 
terrorists. He did not go after Saddam Hussein first, he went after the 
Taliban that we knew was working with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. 
And he did a pretty good job of it.
  And then he said there is the threat of weapons of mass destruction, 
they have been used in the past. He had intelligence information that 
indicated there were weapons of mass destruction and he decided to go 
after Saddam Hussein. And all of us in this chamber when he did it said 
that is the right thing to do.
  Now, of course, everybody is second guessing.
  I think it is important to go back in history a little bit because 
history is very important, very important. In the 1990s Osama bin Laden 
in the Sudan had 13 terrorists training camps around Khartoum. Our 
intelligence agencies talked about that. The President and the NSC knew 
about that. And at that time, we had an attack on the World Trade 
Center because Osama bin Laden's minions tried to bring it down. That 
was in 1993. In 1996, we had the attack that killed a lot of Americans 
in Khobar Towers. In 1998, we had the attack on the embassies in 
Athens, Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam and Tanzania, all of those in 
1998 by al-Qaeda connections. And then in 2000, we had the attack that 
killed a lot of our sailors on the USS Cole. We knew that Saddam 
Hussein was behind that. We knew he was in the Sudan. We knew there 
were 13 terrorist training camps and the previous administration did 
nothing.
  Now we go to September 11, 2001. And the President had an attack on 
the World Trade Center, against a second one. We did not do anything 
about the first one. We did not go after Osama bin Laden then but we 
waited. Then they brought down the World Trade Center, both towers.
  And the President said we are going after the terrorists worldwide, 
no matter where they are hiding. We are going after them if they are in 
the Sudan. We are going after them if they are in Afghanistan. We are 
going after them under every rock they are hiding. And we are going to 
do it also in Iraq because we believe Saddam Hussein is working with 
al-Qaeda. He had connections with al-Qaeda. His son worked with al-
Qaeda.
  And they had weapons of mass destruction because we knew they had 
used them before and the President was told by intelligence agencies 
that they were there. Quite frankly, I still believe there were weapons 
of mass destruction. It is the size of California. And I believe that 
we will find more. And many of them may have been sent to Syria. 
Everybody is concerned about that because Syria is a very close ally 
and was of Saddam Hussein.
  But the fact of the matter is do you err on the side of safety? Do 
you go after the terrorists before they attack or do you wait until 
they attack and say oh, we need probable cause.
  When we passed the PATRIOT Act, this is a side issue, we had a lot of 
colleagues from the other side of the aisle say oh, my gosh, what about 
civil rights? What about Constitutional rights? The problem is when one 
is in a world war against terrorists, one cannot wait until they blow 
something up and kill 10 or 15,000 people or more. One tries to preempt 
them.
  The PATRIOT Act allowed us to hold people while we investigated 
whether or not they were going to perpetrate a terrorist attack. If we 
did that, we might head it off. That is why we created Homeland 
Security, which my committee wrote a great deal of it, and I think the 
gentleman, I do not know if he worked on that or not, but we worked on 
that with the Senate.
  But the fact of the matter is this President did not go off half-
cocked. He declared war on terrorism. He is continuing that. President 
Bush is doing a good job.
  And I love my colleague from Massachusetts, we have a great deal of 
fun together. I love my friend from Hawaii.

                              {time}  2115

  The fact of the matter is we are trying to politicize something at 
this time that should not be politicized. We are fighting a war against 
terrorism. The President is doing the right thing; and this Nation 
needs to stand behind him, instead of nitpicking and going back and 
saying this should have been done or that should have been.
  If we had this kind of nitpicking prior to the invasion of Normandy, 
I believe that the media and everybody would have said, oh, my gosh, 
that is a terrible thing to do; the waves may be too high. They would 
have alerted Hitler, and we may all be speaking German today.
  The fact of the matter is, President Bush, in my opinion, and my 
colleagues may differ, I think he has been very prudent. He has done 
things that he thinks that are necessary to protect the American 
people.
  I love my colleagues, I really do; and I do want some Macadamia nuts.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) very much for yielding.
  All of this would be well and good except that it is not working. I 
know my colleague did not intend to do this hour, and I will not use 
his time or his colleagues' time but merely to say, and perhaps we can 
carry this on at greater length, maybe even tomorrow night if it is 
okay with the gentleman.
  I do not want to interfere, but just to say on the points that he 
raised, if this was the right war and the right place, that would be 
one thing; but it is not nitpicking to say that we are doing the wrong 
thing in the wrong place at the wrong time and actually undermining our 
capacity to be able to take on terrorists, and in fact, creating more 
terrorists as a result of it, with fewer allies.
  I do not bring that up to try and dispute my colleague tonight; but 
merely to say I think there is an alternative point of view that is 
worthy of discussion, and perhaps we could do that at another time when 
our colleagues do not have the time for the topic they want to discuss.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I will get together and talk with 
my colleagues.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say that I think we 
are operating on a totally different understanding of the facts. I feel 
very comfortable with what we have reported here tonight and what 
others have said.
  I think over the course of time the kind of conversations that we are 
having will elucidate the facts for the American people; but again, 
every Member in this House is concerned about what is happening to this 
country. We do not want to make the mistakes of the past, and I am very 
concerned that we are; but we will leave that for a later time, and I 
am sure that it will be a feisty and contentious, but friendly, 
conversation; and I wish my friend a most happy birthday.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends, and I have 
great admiration for the silver fox from Massachusetts.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Hau oli la hanau, which means happy birthday.

[[Page 13222]]

Take my word for it, it means what my colleague thinks it does.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana 
for yielding, and I always find it interesting. Monday morning 
quarterbacks are always right in their minds because they have a chance 
to look back on tough decisions that have to be made; but as we know, 
the war on terrorism is progressing to one of those situations where 
the lessons of the past are important, because when Americans have been 
impatient, we have lost; and when we recognize that the war on terror 
is going to take time, al Qaeda and other terrorist elements are in 65 
different countries that we know of, thousands of terrorists were 
trained in the camps in Afghanistan and Sudan and elsewhere, but we are 
making progress; and we are holding firm on the war on terror.
  Clearly, the war on terror is progressing. It is a tough, hard fight; 
and our effort in Iraq is a key front in the war on terror.
  Just less than 2 short weeks history will be made. Today, Saddam 
Hussein is in jail and an international coalition led by the United 
States and our 31-country allied coalition will hand over authority 
over Iraq to a sovereign Iraqi government. Let us review what is going 
on; and frankly, here is the bottom line.
  The goal of the 31-country international coalition, which the United 
States is part of, has the bottom line goal that Iraq will govern its 
own internal affairs. The Iraqi interim government will run the day-to-
day operations of Iraq's government and ministries. The Iraqi interim 
government will increase security and prepare the country for national 
democratic elections.
  The President has a five-point plan that is now being implemented and 
has been implemented over the last several months as we worked not only 
to win the war on terrorism but to put in place a stable, 
democratically elected government in Iraq.
  The President's five-point plan calls for handing over authority to a 
sovereign Iraqi government that should be achieved in just 2 short 
weeks. We want to establish the stability and security in Iraq that 
democracy requires. We want to continue rebuilding Iraq's 
infrastructure. We want to continue to build international support 
beyond the 31 nations already involved, and we want to move towards 
free national elections that will bring forward new leaders empowered 
by the Iraqi people themselves.
  The past few weeks have proved that the President's Iraqi plan is 
moving forward; it is working. The international community is coming 
together to help Iraqis secure their own future.
  On June 8, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution 
which supports free elections and reauthorizes a multinational force to 
help provide security in Iraq. The international community is now on 
the record. The coalition will continue to help in every way possible 
on the economic front, the security front and the political front; and 
the international coalition will continue in the process of assisting 
the Iraqi people and taking responsibility for the future of their 
country.
  I am pleased that as a result of the recent summit, the G-8, that we 
continue to build that international support. In fact, many of us had 
the opportunity just less than 2 weeks ago to meet with the new, free 
Iraqi President when he visited Washington, and it was an impressive 
meeting with an impressive leader.
  Iraq is improving and has already taken big steps to keep Iraq on the 
path to national elections by January 2005, leading the way to 
representative government by and of the people of Iraq. That interim 
government is making progress.
  Ninety thousand militia members are being transitioned into new 
occupations. All six of Haditha Dam generating units recently ran at 
maximum capacity for the first time since 1990. To date, over 10,000 
democracy development activities, program activities, have been held in 
communities across Iraq involving more than 312,000 Iraqi participants. 
Today, there are now 55,000 Internet subscribers in Baghdad compared to 
only 3,000 just 2 years ago. Reconstruction of the Baghdad 
International Airport is expected to be completed by this August; and 
primary, intermediate, and secondary students are completing their 
final exam for the school year with minimal disruption; and I would 
note when we visit Iraqi schools today, we see young girls attending 
those schools again. That is progress.
  Our international coalition has a clear goal, to see the Iraqi people 
in charge of Iraq for the first time. America worked not only to defeat 
an enemy but to give strength, freedom and opportunity to our friends, 
the people of Iraq.
  Freedom can and will advance and enhance the lives of those living in 
the greater Middle East, just as it has been successful in Latin 
America, Eastern Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa. Today, we are 
fighting a war on terror. We are making progress. It is a tough, hard 
fight, but al Qaeda and other terrorist groups want to defeat our 
effort to bring freedom to the Middle East. With our commitment, we 
will win.
  In the next few weeks we are going to be tested by al Qaeda and other 
international terrorist organizations. We are going to be tested and 
have violence that is going to be likely. The terrorists and Hussein 
loyalists would rather see innocent Iraqis die than let them taste 
freedom. They honestly think that Americans will cut and run, because 
they have seen that happen in the past. We are going to be tested in 
this war on terror, and how we conduct ourselves today and in the weeks 
ahead will determine whether or not we win the war on terror, whether 
or not we give the people of the Mideast a taste of real freedom.
  They will not succeed and the forces of good, the forces of freedom 
and the international coalition, which is growing, will win if we 
remain firm and hang together, because, again, we are being tested. My 
hope is we will hang tough and continue to fight the war on terror 
because we would all rather fight the terrorists on the streets of 
Baghdad than here in Washington and in communities in the south suburbs 
of Chicago.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing I am confident through the will of the Iraqi 
people and the international community President Bush's plan will be 
implemented successfully. Iraq will have a free and representative 
government. The terrorist regimes of the past will be defeated and 
silenced, and we will prevail. That is because I believe, like I know 
so many other Americans do, the Iraqi people deserve and know better.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) and appreciate that very much.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I watched the debate, discussion that took place in the 
last hour, as many Americans did; and I could not help but note that 
lots of questions were raised by our friends on the other side of the 
aisle. I think the American public needs to be reminded that the vast 
majority of Members in this body on both sides of the aisle supported 
the resolution authorizing the use of force. The vast majority of 
Members on both sides of the aisle supported the supplemental 
appropriation that continues to support the operations in Iraq, and I 
think the public needs to ask itself whether debates like the one they 
just saw are really a serious discussion of policies and principles or 
whether or not they are more about election-year politics.
  Debate is a good thing. We should debate. We should debate often, but 
I think we also have to remember that the world is watching and our 
soldiers are watching, and there should be no doubt whatsoever about 
this Nation's

[[Page 13223]]

resolve to continue to fight on and to prevail in the war against 
terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important time; and even though it is an 
important time, I think it is useful for us to slow things down a 
little bit because I think sometimes we can only appreciate the 
significance of events perhaps after the fact. Sometimes we are too 
close to events to fully understand how they fit into the larger 
context, and I think we need to step back for a moment and take a look 
at where we are right now in Iraq.
  I believe that in the months and years ahead, as we take a look at 
these very important weeks and months that surround the handover of 
sovereignty to Iraq, I believe that we will look at these as great 
months and years for this nation. With each passing day, leaders for a 
new, free Iraq are taking steps forward, just as the terrorists try 
with their terrible attacks to force these same Iraqi leaders to take 
steps backward, but I believe that the clarity of hindsight will show 
us all in the years ahead that the violence and the bloodshed and the 
senseless destruction that we have seen far too often in that country, 
that our national media focuses on to the exclusion of all else, it 
seems is happening not because the coalition efforts are failing or 
falling short, but instead, because they are succeeding.
  They are the result of a growing fear in the terrorist world that 
decency and democracy will succeed, that they will take hold, that the 
success will not only inspire more and more Iraqis to embrace self-rule 
and to invest of themselves in the future of Iraq, but that it will 
serve as an inspiration to many oppressed peoples in many troubled 
lands all throughout that region.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to take time to talk about what is going 
on in Iraq because so much of it is really outside the narrow view of 
the camera lens. It is important for our soldiers that we tell their 
story because so many of our brave young men and women have put 
themselves on the line, have shed sweat, have shed blood for a mission 
that they believe in, a mission that I also believe in.
  Young men and women from all over America have traveled thousands of 
miles for this cause. One of the units from my own district, the 432nd 
Civil Affairs Battalion, has as its motto ``Order Out of Chaos.''

                              {time}  2130

  Well, that is just what they, the 432nd and the members of the 395th 
out of Appleton, and countless other units and soldiers from Wisconsin, 
and all over America, that is just what they are accomplishing. Some of 
it I saw myself firsthand when I was in Iraq late last year.
  The most recent good news, the good news that you may not have seen, 
is that President Bush has outlined a clear 5-step plan for Iraqi 
sovereignty and its implementation is already underway. On June 8, the 
U.N. Security Council unanimously, unanimously, adopted a resolution 
supporting free elections in Iraq and reauthorizing the multinational 
security force. This will provide greater security for Iraqis and for 
Americans in that country. Already the G-8 has responded favorably, and 
its members are making new commitments for the long-term rebuilding 
process.
  In Iraq itself, there are key signs that the government and the 
economy is beginning to mobilize and the economic and civic 
redevelopment process is underway, the rebuilding is marching on. For 
example, as my colleague, the previous speaker, has noted, the number 
of telephone subscribers in Iraq is 45 percent above prewar levels. 
There are now 55,000 Internet subscribers in Baghdad alone. Less than 2 
years ago there were 37,000. Eighty-five percent of Iraqi children have 
now been immunized. Two hundred forty Iraqi hospitals and 1,200 
preventive health care clinics are now operating. Twenty-five hundred 
schools have been rehabilitated, with another 1,200 to be rehabilitated 
by year's end. Hundreds of free, local government units have been 
launched and are up and running.
  Now, I cite these numbers, Mr. Speaker, not to gloss over the 
challenges but, instead, because I am afraid too many of us are guilty 
of glossing over the successes. These successes have been paid for with 
the lives of too many Americans. They have been paid for with the lives 
of countless Iraqis, people who believe in the future, people who are 
willing to put themselves on the line.
  Now, June 30th is not a switch we can simply turn on and have 
security and prosperity and perfect democracy, but it marks one more 
step down a clear path from which, for Iraqis, the future will be much 
brighter. Mr. Speaker, there are challenging times ahead of us, there 
are dangerous and dark days that we will see all too often. But, 
clearly, clearly there are good things happening in Iraq. Clearly, many 
people believe in the future. They have put themselves on the line. And 
that future is happening quickly and more brightly, I think, than many 
people expected could possibly occur.
  So, Mr. Speaker, debate is a good thing. We should talk about what is 
going on in Iraq, and we should question our leaders. That is 
important. But I think we must not let that crowd out what is going on, 
what is positive, the bright future that lies ahead, the hope that so 
many of us have. And, more importantly, the clear plan that we are 
following and that we are proceeding along each and every day; a plan 
that will bring democracy and decency to that country, a plan that will 
bring a brighter future to that entire region, a plan that so many 
Americans have fought for, a plan that all of us can be very, very 
proud of.
  I yield back to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for his very eloquent statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my good friend, one of the senior members 
of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the leadership 
he is providing on this very important, I would say, issue, but it is 
not an issue, it is the question of the day, the question of our time. 
Will the people of the United States stand tall in this time of crisis? 
Will we meet our responsibility? Will we overcome those who hate our 
way of life? Will we remain the last best hope for all of humankind for 
a better world.
  Let us look back and make sure we understand it. The American people 
have a heavy responsibility, because we do represent every race and 
every religion. We are a mixture of all the people of the world who 
have come here to live in freedom and show the world that there is a 
better way.
  That is why groups like the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists back 
in the last century knew they had to deal with us. We were attacked at 
Pearl Harbor because the Japanese knew that we were the only thing that 
stood in their way to the domination of Asia. The Nazis knew we were 
the only thing that was going to thwart them from creating a black evil 
empire over Europe, and much of Asia. Americans of that day stood tall 
and strong and did what was necessary to make sure that we saved the 
world from that evil threat.
  After the war, after that war, when our fathers and mothers, my 
father in particular, and I know the fathers of many of the people here 
in Congress today, fought so hard and risked so much, and saw their 
loved ones lose their lives, they thought they deserved a break. 
Instead, what we saw was the rise of another menace, another evil force 
that would have conquered the world, would have turned the world into a 
Marxist-Leninist dictatorship, the proletariat. They would have imposed 
on all of humankind their dream, their proletarian dictatorship, and 
they would have snuffed out the freedom our people had just fought so 
hard to maintain.
  Yet, during those days of the Cold War, Americans stood firm. And it 
was difficult to stand firm during the Cold War. In Vietnam and in 
Korea, we lost well over 100,000 people, together in those two 
conflicts, not to mention hundreds of thousands who were

[[Page 13224]]

wounded, but it was also a matter of hundreds of small conflicts that 
were going on. Yet our people stood firm. It was difficult, but we had 
the leadership that we needed there at the end.
  We just heard last week how Ronald Reagan saved the world from 
communism. But do not think that that was done without a great cost to 
him personally. There was no bipartisanship that I saw that helped end 
the Cold War. Ronald Reagan was ridiculed, he was undermined, he was 
back-bitten, and there was partisan politics played throughout his 
administration. Because no one predicted that the Cold War would be 
over and that our enemy would collapse. But Ronald Reagan stuck to his 
guns. He was tenacious, he was unrelenting, he was strong, he stood for 
principle, and he reached out to those other people in the world and 
put them on our side of the battles against communism.
  Well, today, we know that communism, yes, collapsed and we thought we 
were due for a break. There will never be a break for those people who 
are the champions of liberty and freedom and justice, because there 
will be evil forces in the future. We face another one today. It is not 
terror. People say the war on terror. They are trying to be a little 
bit diplomatic. It is a war with radical Islam which has declared war 
on the American way of life.
  Radical Islam believes that we are a sinful group of people because 
we permit people the freedom to make decisions on their own lives. 
Radical Islam would make chattel out of our women, out of women 
everywhere. Radical Islam does not believe in those things that we hold 
dear in terms of personal freedom. And radical Islam has declared war 
on us. And let us not make a mistake about it, 3,000 of our people are 
dead today in those towers in New York and here in the Pentagon because 
we did not recognize that they were at war with us.
  Well, we have recognized that, and there is no escaping it. Today, we 
have the same challenge as our forefathers and mothers did in the war 
against the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists, and as we did in the 
Cold War against the Communists. We have to win this fight or it will 
be a far worse world. It will be a dark world of chaos and despotism 
and fanaticism if we do not. Nowhere is that battle more important 
today than what is going on in Iraq.
  I say, thank God that we have a President who was willing to take 
this stand. What we are seeing in Iraq is an historic strategic move to 
outflank the radical Islamists. We are turning a dictatorship in the 
Muslim world into a democracy. And we are, thus, pointing to this so 
that the young people of the Muslim world will have an alternative to 
radical Islam. We are doing what Ronald Reagan did. We are cutting our 
enemy off from its source of strength. If we do what is right and we 
stick to this, our enemy will collapse, just as communism collapsed, 
just as that other evil force collapsed.
  Again, we are having to go through the pangs of partisan politics, 
the back-biting, the nitpicking, the let us cut and run. The people who 
ask, why should we risk anything; why are we losing these lives, they 
know if we would leave Iraq as it is today and the radical Islamists, 
especially the Iranians, then become a dominant force in Iraq, it would 
be a disaster for the future, not only of that region but for the 
people of the United States. We would have a future filled with fear, a 
future of knowing that the radical Islamic creed would have been 
gathering strength because we had demonstrated weakness.
  No, we have a President who is just as unrelenting as Ronald Reagan. 
We have a President who is a visionary, who is taking a positive 
approach, trying to establish a positive alternative to radical Islam. 
We have a President who has courage and is moving forward, but we also 
have a generation of young people who understand that strength and 
courage and commitment is the way to a better world.
  Those people who are giving their lives for us in Iraq know they are 
doing it to build a better world. They deserve solid support from this 
Congress. We support them because they are risking their lives for us. 
They are building a better world, just like those people who stormed 
ashore on D-Day over a half century ago. And just like those young men 
and women throughout the Cold War, who gave their lives, these are the 
heroes of our age.
  We have a President every bit as important to the future of mankind 
as was FDR when he provided the political leadership necessary to win 
the Second World War; and Ronald Reagan, who provided the leadership to 
help us win the struggle against communist tyranny. And now, with 
President Bush, he is a man who will not retreat, will not cower, will 
not turn his back and run. We have a man who has drawn the line in the 
sand and said we are going to win because the whole world depends on 
us.
  This is what is happening in Iraq. There is no option in terms of 
defeat. Defeat is not an option. If we walk away, it will only mean 
further bloodshed and further aggression, and not only terrorism here, 
but attacks on our friends throughout the world if we would retreat 
from Iraq today. We should never dream of emboldening our worst 
enemies. We should, instead, stand tall.
  That is what this is about tonight. That is what many of us are 
committed to here in the House. I hope the American people listen and 
take a look at the long run, take a look at what happened in the past, 
take a look at what will happen in the long run unless we have that 
same sense of purpose and courage that those who came before us had in 
these same type of challenges.
  We are building the world of tomorrow and it will be a world where we 
will be friends with the people of the Muslim faith because we will 
have helped them defeat the radical Muslims who hate our way of life. 
We will have a world that does have peace between the religions, 
whether they are Christians, Jews or Muslims, because we will have a 
world in which we have not permitted the fanatics of one faith, the 
Islamic faith, to superimpose their will on the rest of the world by 
force.
  We will not be cowards. We will do our duty. And God bless President 
Bush for the stand that he has made, and God bless the United States of 
America and those who defend it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  I will now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, being from Detroit, I am often able to 
watch CBC, and last night I was privileged to watch Albert Finney's 
performance as Winston Churchill in a movie called ``The Gathering 
Storm.'' And perhaps it was his finest hour, the former prime 
minister's. When Hitler was rearming, he stood in front of the House of 
Commons and warned his own conservative party's government, led by 
Stanley Baldwin, that Hitler was indeed more than prepared for war; 
that he was arming to instigate a new one.
  Churchill was thought insane at the time, because no one, coming off 
the horror of the millions killed in World War I, could believe that a 
European leader would seek to rekindle that tinderbox, certainly not a 
corporal of the German army who had been blinded by mustard gas in 
combat. Yet Churchill was proven right.
  And when we apply these lessons to our own time, one of the first 
things we can realize is that sometimes the forest is so menacing, we 
choose to stare at the tree which shields us, until it is too late.

                              {time}  2145

  Our Nation is in a war on terror. In this war on terror, Iraq is a 
theatre. It is not a war unto itself, any more than FDR's much-
maligned, at the time, strike into north Africa was a diversion from 
the war against Hitler.
  What we have seen in our time is the preemption doctrine applied, and 
what I have not heard anyone say is that the pillar upon which this 
administration entered into the Iraqi theatre in the war on terror did 
not achieve its result. Saddam Hussein desired weapons of mass 
destruction. Saddam Hussein had contacts without apparent 
collaboration, but contacts nonetheless, with terrorist groups and was, 
in fact,

[[Page 13225]]

shielding terrorists like Abu Nidal in Baghdad.
  Since the United States engaged in hostilities against Iraq, we can 
be sure of two things, the Saddam Hussein regime will never have 
weapons of mass destruction that can be used against the United States 
or its troops in the field, and the Saddam Hussein regime will never 
again have any contacts with any terrorist groups.
  In some polls that are cited, we hear about people believing the link 
between al Qaeda and September 11; but one of the polls that I saw that 
was interesting was that about 70 percent of the American people 
realized that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, and in the war on terror 
the states which sponsor terrorism are as much our enemies by enabling 
the terrorists, as the terrorists are our enemies themselves, for 
terrorist cells cannot exist without state sponsorship, without state 
succor.
  Now, put yourself in President Bush's position at the time post-
September 11. You have seen reports from the past administration up 
through his present administration detailing contacts, ``shadowy with 
terrorists,'' including bin Laden. You know that Saddam Hussein wants 
to engage a weapons of mass destruction program for their acquisition, 
and you say to yourself, what am I going to do?
  The President of the United States in applying the preemption 
doctrine made sure, again, that two things would not happen: the Saddam 
Hussein regime would not have weapons of mass destruction, ever, and 
that they would no longer be able to even be considered for succor as a 
terrorist haven.
  Now, there were some important points brought up in the earlier 
debate, and I would be more than happy to come back tomorrow or at any 
time to assist to talk about some of those points with our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle; but I find it fascinating some of the 
points.
  Now, we are splitting hairs when we say that the contact between Iraq 
and al Qaeda in hindsight may not have appeared to have formed a 
collaboration. Yet, we cannot say whether they would or not. Now, to 
try to destroy that link or denigrate that link, we will hear that 
these contacts were meetings, but Iraq never responded.
  Now, all of us here in the U.S. House have to get elected. Now, as 
politicians, put yourselves in an interesting position. Consider this: 
you are sitting around getting ready to run for re-election. An 
opponent you have defeated in the past is having coffee on a regular 
basis with the opponent running against you now. Do you say to 
yourself, well, I am sure they are just having pleasantries and this 
has absolutely nothing to do with me, and that while they be having 
contact, there is apparently no collaboration that they are out to get 
me? I highly doubt many of the people in this room would ascribe to the 
latter theory. If Saddam Hussein could, he would do anything to hurt 
the United States.
  Now, why would bin Laden and his associates that are in captivity 
deny any link with al Qaeda? Al Qaeda's premise, on a perverted facade 
of Islam, is to work with the secular Ba'athist regime under Saddam 
Hussein, but undermine its very credibility as it goes after Saudi 
Arabia and other regimes in that region.
  Now, the ones in captivity like al-Anni that were referenced before, 
I would just caution everyone, do not take a terrorist at their word 
unless they say they are going to kill you, because whether in 
captivity or not, there is no incentive to prove any member of the 
United States' present administration was correct, and there is 
certainly no impetus for these people to undermine the very position, 
belie the very myth of al Qaeda as an Islamic group trying to liberate 
its people and lead them to a greater life in Islam. So I would caution 
against that.
  I also would like to just reiterate something that I think is very 
troubling to me, that we hear many people saying that our ability to 
preemptively deal with the situation in Iraq has somehow hurt us 
internationally. I suppose there will always be those people who 
believe that when the United States has to defend itself that we will 
be hurting ourselves. This is mistaken.
  In fact, many of these same people never credit the good will of the 
acts of the United States in the immunization of Iraqi children or the 
education of Iraqi children or the free speech and association that is 
occurring in Iraq today. I would argue that over the long term, these 
benefits to the United States are going to outweigh any short-term 
anger that the terrorist organizations may feel, because we are 
striking a blow at them in the heart of the terrorist network.
  I also have not heard about how the regime change and reconstruction 
nexus that has been applied in Iraq has also led to the regime 
conversion and potential rehabilitation of the Libyan regime, which 
also not only in that regard shows what strength and resolve have done 
in Iraq.
  I think that one of the things that has been missed when Qadhafi 
admitted he has a weapons program, he invited weapons inspectors in, 
who were then led to the labs or testing facilities of the Libyan 
Government. Some of the inspectors pointed out that they would never 
have found these unless they were shown. Dr. Kay, who I have much 
respect for, when I met with him in Baghdad did not say that we had 
weapons of mass destruction, to his credit. But he did say that Saddam 
Hussein and his regime were actively engaging in re-energizing to try 
to acquire them, especially chemical and biological, which could have 
been generated in 2 weeks to 2 months.
  If we had trouble finding extant technologies for weapons production 
in Libya, even with the Libyans' assistance, it should come as no 
surprise that in Iraq we are having extreme difficulty finding not only 
the weapons of mass destruction, if they exist themselves, but the labs 
or the scientists who were trying to accumulate them, because, as Dr. 
Kay pointed out, the trouble we have in Iraq is that many of the 
scientists whom we would go to to try to find this information are 
being killed or are frightened.
  I eagerly await to see what the fruits of security once it is firmly 
established in Iraq will yield to us in terms of intelligence regarding 
the weapons program and its state; and if there were any weapons, where 
did they go once the scientists and others in the community that 
participated in these programs feel that they are free of the threat of 
assassination or other reprisals to themselves or their family for 
sharing this information with the United States of America.
  In conclusion, I would like to add just one personal point. I will 
not condemn the Clinton administration for what it did not do prior to 
September 11, but I would hope that others would be slow to condemn the 
Bush administration for what it has done since September 11 in 
defending the interests of the United States. In many ways, I do 
understand what occurred under the Clinton administration. While I was 
not one who was swayed at the time, when we defeated European 
Communism, we saw books from left and right proclaiming to the United 
States that the end of history was here, that we had peace dividends, 
that our future was bright, that we could go on to the task of 
perfecting the American experiment in democracy by addressing internal 
problems, such as education, race relations, poverty, hunger, 
injustice; and on September 11 that was taken from us.
  What was foisted upon us was an unsought struggle against extremists 
perverting the tenets of Islam. Our generation and all the generations 
have to face the fact that once again we are called to our historic 
duty to defend freedom and civilization from every would-be tyrant bent 
upon world domination. On September 11, we went from sorrow to anger. 
But it is fair for us to also feel frustration that a country as great 
as ours, that has offered the world so much, could be so lowly stricken 
and have to deal with this type of aggressor yet again. It is unfair, 
but it is here.
  As I said at the beginning, it is a menacing forest; but the trees 
will not shield us from the truth any longer, and we must accept the 
fate that we now share and succeed and continue

[[Page 13226]]

with our resolve in the overarching war on terror to do one thing: it 
is to kill the terrorists before they kill us, to kill the terrorists 
before they kill our children; and it is to win the war on terror in 
our lifetimes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding. I will 
also extend happy birthday to the gentleman from Indiana and thank him 
for putting together this hour this evening. I think this is extremely 
helpful.
  I, too, listened to the first hour of the debate from the other side, 
and I will not repeat everything that has been said here so eloquently 
tonight by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. McCotter); but I want to go to one word that was spoken on the 
other side and that word was ``misrepresentation,'' and it was used in 
the context of the Kay report.
  This is an unclassified document. In fact, it is Mr. Kay's testimony 
before the Senate select committee last October. In that report, Mr. 
Kay says that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs spanned more 
than 2 decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and 
were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that 
continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  Mr. Kay went on to say, we have discovered dozens of weapons-related 
program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq has 
concealed from the United Nations during inspections. A list of these 
included a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within 
the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to U.N. 
monitoring and suitable for conducting chemical and biological weapons 
research; a prison laboratory complex used in human testing of 
biological agents; reference strains of biological organisms concealed 
in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological 
weapons; new research on biological weapon applicable agents, Brucella 
and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever.
  This is a viral illness that is very similar to the e-bola virus. We 
heard a lot of discussion last year about the smallpox virus, and truly 
smallpox is a frightening chemical agent because it is so infective. 
This organism is not only infective but its early detection can be 
easily confused with other illnesses such as the flu. People put into 
our midst who are suffering from smallpox would actually quickly become 
apparent because they look sick and they are covered with sores. 
Individuals with Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever would look for all the 
world like someone suffering from a summer cold and could work a good 
deal of mischief in this country by infecting individuals going about 
their business.
  In addition, they found documents and equipment hidden in scientists' 
homes that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by 
centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation and a line of 
unmanned aerial vehicles not fully declared at an undeclared production 
facility.
  Most people do not consider a missile a weapon of mass destruction, 
but when that missile has a range of 1,000 kilometers, and Iraq was 
expressly prohibited from having missiles beyond 150 kilometers, 
depending upon what you put in the warhead of that missile, that, Mr. 
Speaker, is a weapon of mass destruction and found by the Kay Iraqi 
survey group.
  Finally, I will just sum up, as Dr. Kay himself did, deception and 
concealment were the watchwords of the Iraqi Government. You do not 
have those as your national priorities unless you have something to 
hide. Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders 
who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his 
aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass 
destruction.
  Another term that we heard over on the other side was whether or not 
Saddam was involved in September 11. I do not know the answer to that 
question; but so much was stated as fact from the 9/11 Commission, the 
commission that is studying the events around 9/11. In today's 
Washington Times, and anyone is free to pick this up, it only costs a 
quarter, and read it for themselves: ``Iraqi Officer an Al Qaeda 
Operative, Papers Show.''
  ``There is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant 
colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaeda,'' said September 
11 commission member and former Navy Secretary John Lehman. Although he 
stressed that the intelligence ``still has to be confirmed,'' Mr. 
Lehman told NBC's ``Meet the Press'' on Sunday that the information 
came from ``captured documents'' shown to the panel after the September 
11 Commission's staff report had been written.
  What we heard quoted tonight was from that staff report; so I would 
just tell the American people, Mr. Speaker, that the final word has not 
been written from the 9/11 Commission, and I would caution people about 
coming to conclusions based on data that is incomplete.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that time is somewhat at a premium, so I will 
wrap up; but President Clinton said in 1998 that Saddam had weapons of 
mass destruction, he had used them in the past and someday, some way, 
if you don't take them away from him, I guarantee you he will use them 
again.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. Speaker, I have been to Iraq a couple of times, and this is not a 
picture that I took, but this picture was taken by a member of the 
Corps of Engineers down in my district, Mr. Doug Cox, who was in the 
town of Kirkuk, Iraq right after Operation Iraqi Freedom started, and 
actually he was with one of the forward groups. And this picture was on 
the wall of the airport there in Kirkuk, the military training base, 
and this picture was in a room where apparently there was some sort of 
training facility. There were a lot of pictures on the wall, and we one 
might relate it to some type of training facility we might have seen in 
this country, but these pictures were obviously used for a purpose in 
training Iraqi military individuals.
  If people cannot see it well on C-SPAN, let me just describe it. It 
shows an individual here, who has a tank and an airplane and a couple 
of missiles at his disposal, and he is aiming them at a country, the 
United States of America, or the USA, as is abbreviated there, and we 
see an individual standing there in a cowboy hat or a Pilgrim hat, and 
we see the crosshairs on this individual's chest. It does not take a 
great deal of imagination to guess what was being taught in that 
training exercise in this military installation in Kirkuk, Iraq.
  And, finally, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) did such an 
eloquent job of talking about the times in the past that Saddam Hussein 
had used chemical weapons against his own people, and this was the true 
threat of Saddam Hussein. Yes, there are other countries that had 
perhaps helped terrorists in the past. Saddam Hussein was the only 
world leader who had ever used weapons of mass destruction in an 
offensive fashion, and that is what made him so dangerous. We have the 
proof from, as the gentleman pointed out, northern Iraq.
  We also have the proof from our poor individuals, our poor soldiers 
in the first Gulf War who suffered from Gulf War Syndrome, and Gulf War 
Syndrome was a result of neurologic chemical agents. Individuals who 
were susceptible, who had a specific enzyme defect, who were exposed to 
low levels of those neurologic agents, then became susceptible to Gulf 
War Syndrome.
  So it is not a point for discussion that Saddam had weapons of mass 
destruction. He clearly did. He used them offensively, and he clearly 
had designs on using them again.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas 
for that very comprehensive talk.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Indiana for yielding to me.
  There are some, both at home and abroad, who would have us believe 
that

[[Page 13227]]

Abu Ghraib is the true face of this war, that the acts of a few 
troubled individuals represent our cause. I believe there is a 
dramatically different face, and I would like to describe it to the 
Members.
  In a recent news story, Lt. Riley Sharon, an Army emergency room 
charge nurse from St. Cloud, Minnesota, a city I am proud to represent, 
and a fellow alumnus from St. John's University, tells of incidents at 
the Abu Ghraib prison when it came under attack from mortars fired by 
insurgents, killing scores of prisoners and wounding hundreds of 
detainees.
  In one 4-hour period, insurgents killed 22 detainees and Lt. 
Sharbonno's group treated over 100 enemy detainee patients. At the time 
Sharbonno and his fellow soldiers were fighting to save the lives of 
those who might have gladly taken theirs, they were under such heavy 
fire, they had to wear a Kevlar helmet and a bullet-proof vest.
  As Lt. Sharbonno said, ``I am unaware of any military in the history 
of war that has built an entire hospital for the exclusive treatment of 
enemy detainees or POWs. I don't understand the media's insistence on 
ignoring the atrocities committed by anti-coalition forces or the 
amazing things that the military has accomplished over here.''
  The brave work of the likes of Lt. Sharbonno is the real face of this 
war. This is the courage, compassion, and humanity of the American 
soldiers who fight for us all in this war on terror. Too little 
attention has been paid to their noble work and sacrifices. Too little 
attention has also been paid to recent successes in moving Iraq towards 
a democratic form of government.
  The Iraqi Governing Council has shown some real initiative recently. 
They selected a president America supposedly did not want and a prime 
minister the UN did not want. But by showing independence, they now 
have more credibility amongst Iraqis and the international community. 
The Security Council approved of a new government by a unanimous 15-to-
nothing vote. The new interim government got to work early, integrated 
the many independent militias so that they are now part of the 
solution, not a potential problem, and reorganized Iraqi security 
forces. Al Sadr is now trying to be a political force rather than a 
leader of a rebellious militia.
  There is no doubt that there will be further bumps in the road on the 
way to an elected government, but there can also be no doubt that 
significant progress has been made.
  And then we look at the actions of our enemies. If there is any 
remaining doubt that this is truly a war between good and evil, it 
should be gone. One can have no doubt at the depths of the enemies will 
or hatred when we are forced to confront the atrocities committed 
against Nick Berg and Paul Johnson.
  The insurgents attack oil pipelines, a source of hope for the Iraqi 
people. What is the point in this? Since the liberation of Iraq, the 
wealth of her natural resources is hers again. An Iraqi-led Oil 
Ministry controls the pipeline with revenues going to the Iraqi 
treasury. Iraqi officials disburse the profits for the benefit of 
Iraqis.
  With the fall of the dictator's regime, the money no longer goes to 
encourage hopeless and desperate Palestinian use to kill themselves 
while they murder innocent. The revenues no longer subsidize a 
megalomaniac's architectural fantasies in the form of grandiose 
palaces. It no longer subsidizes the sadistic whims of the dictator's 
sons.
  The revenue from Iraqi oil are a chance for the Iraqi people to use 
their own natural resources to educate Iraqi children, to build an 
Iraqi health care system, an infrastructure, and a strong Iraqi 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, the important question we should ask ourselves is why 
are the terrorists so desperate? Why are they willing to commit so many 
inhumane acts not just against Americans, but against the Iraqi people 
as well? The terrorist leader Zarqawi's memo to Al Qaeda's leader, 
Osama bin Laden, in that we find the explanation for their desperation.
  When pleading for bin Laden's assistance in the Iraqi insurgency, 
Zarqawi makes clear that his insurgency has failed to engender support 
within the country. Zarqawi also acknowledges that they have been 
unable to scare Americans into leaving, having been disabused of the 
idea that he had earlier professed that Americans were ``the biggest 
cowards that God has created.'' We have certainly proved him wrong. He 
believes that the insurgents might be able to win if they are able to 
kill enough Shiites so that the Shiites will attack the Sunni minority, 
that by creating such turmoil, there will be a civil war. They clearly 
understand what is at stake, the terrorists do. I hope we do.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that 
eloquent statement.
  Let me say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) will 
be going into detail in just a few minutes about the reasons why 9-11 
occurred.
  And let me say one more thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is if we had had 
foresight that Winston Churchill had prior to World War II, we would 
have saved 50 million lives. President Bush has that foresight, and he 
is doing the right thing right now.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, on June 30th, Iraq will assume control 
of its own destiny. Iraq will enter the post-Saddam era with the hope 
of the world resting upon them. No longer will the Iraqi people be 
subjected to a climate of fear and desperation. Saddam's murderous, 
thieving cronies have been removed. Uday and Qusay's henchmen likewise, 
will no longer be free to roam the streets, terrorizing their people.
  The challenge now for the Iraqi people and their new government is to 
set their future on a course for open thought, popular choice of their 
leaders, and freedom of action in which to conduct their lives and 
their futures.
  The Iraqi people must understand that, with this new-found freedom 
comes responsibility--a responsibility to remember the interests of all 
Iraqis. Each and every Iraqi has a stake in that nation's future and 
now with our transfer of sovereignty to them, that stake can be fully 
realized.
  We are thrilled to have played a role in empowering the Iraqi people 
and supporting them in their efforts to rebuild their country, after 
decades of corruption and oppression. They have the opportunity to make 
their nation a shining light for all to see, not only in the Middle 
East, but around the world. A nation filled with talent beyond 
imagination, Iraq can create a climate of freedom and opportunity for 
others to emulate.
  Problems have arisen. Yet, we must all acknowledge that this 
opportunity could not have happened without the brave men and women of 
the United States military. Through their courage, commitment and 
sacrifice, we have managed to free an enslaved people. We have brought 
down a tyrant who killed as many as one million of his own people.
  And thus, history will record that the United States brought a beacon 
of light and hope to a people who had only known misery, suffering, and 
brutality under Saddam Hussein. The future will judge us to have done 
right for the Iraqi people and for our nation.
  We are, however, not naive about the challenges that lie ahead. 
Freedom and democracy take time and hard work. They take vigilance and 
dedication to truth and a commitment to justice. These are things that 
come with patience. The terrorists want to deprive the Iraqi people of 
their future. But Iraq can and will prevail.
  Iraq's chance is now. Let us stand by the Iraqi people as they 
struggle to enjoy those rights and liberties that they denied for so 
long. Let us be motivated by the knowledge that we have helped make the 
world a better place for the Iraqi people and for all.
  As our beloved former President, Ronald Wilson Reagan, would say: 
``You and I have a rendezvous with destiny . . . If we fail, at least 
let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our 
brief moment here. We did all that could be done.''
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, ten days from today, on 
Wednesday, June 30, 2004, a historic day will occur in the cradle of 
civilization: the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) will formally 
transfer power and sovereignty to an Iraqi Interim Government (IIG). We 
are ten days to sovereignty.
  This step will be the most dramatic to date in a series of planned 
moves towards more democratic and representative government in Iraq. 
Since the elimination of the brutal Hussein regime, which terrorized 
and abused the Iraqi people for decades, significant changes have taken 
place, helping to put the country on a path to democracy, respect for 
human rights and economic prosperity.

[[Page 13228]]

  About 33,000 secondary school teachers and 3,000 supervisors have 
been trained as part of an effort to upgrade the quality of education 
and level of learning in Iraq. Nearly 2,000 schools have been 
rehabilitated and an additional 1,200 schools are expected to be 
completed by the end of the year. New textbooks are also being 
developed and utilized. No more government mandates for indoctrinating, 
inciting hatred or demonizing Americans, the West, or Jewish people 
through the use of school books.
  Last month, the first of several planned sewer treatment plants came 
online, ushering in a new era of sanitation and public health in an 
area rife with disease. On the technology side, the total number of 
telephone subscribers in Iraq is now over 1.2 million, which includes 
429,000 cell phone subscribers--representing a 45% improvement above 
pre-war levels.
  And, Iraqis want to be the business leaders in their new country. 
Already, 2,500 micro-credit clients have applied and received small 
business loans to help them build a free economy with robust industry. 
It is important to note that inflation is dropping, and the New Iraqi 
Dinar has been stable for the three months since its introduction.
  This progress has not come without great cost and sacrifice. 
Thousands of American families have lost irreplaceable time with their 
loved ones as they serve the cause of freedom in Iraq. Some American 
heroes have not and will not return home. We mourn their loss. For 
those who served, a grateful Nation must ensure those returning get 
world class healthcare and the compensation to which they are entitled.
  After June 30th, other milestones will be marked. Democratically held 
elections will be conducted in January 2005 to create a National 
Assembly. This representative body will craft a permanent constitution 
to strengthen and replace the transitional administrative law (TAL). 
The Iraqi people will then vote up or down in a national referendum for 
or against their own constitution. By the end of 2005, if all goes 
according to plan, the first democratically elected Iraqi government in 
history will take office.
  President Bush put it very succinctly during his speech before the 
Army War College, when he said: ``The rise of a free and self-governing 
Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow 
ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region. This will 
be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power, and a 
victory for the security of America and the civilized world.''
  The people in Iraq--like people everywhere--want to live free. And 
among the many reasons why democracy has a chance to succeed in Iraq--
although success is not assured--is because the United States is not in 
Iraq as an imperial power. We do not seek to permanently occupy Iraq. 
Far from it. Our mission is clear: to liberate Iraq from tyranny. Thus, 
it is absolutely at the heart of America's interests to see Iraq's new 
sovereign government succeed in establishing law and order in a just 
and democratic manner.
  Iraqis are a justifiably proud people with an ancient and rich 
history and culture. Like many other people, they are patriotic and do 
not like to see their country occupied by any foreign power, no matter 
how ostensibly helpful they try to be. The Germans and Japanese were 
undoubtedly relieved when the Allies formally returned sovereignty to 
their people.
  Although U.S. troops remained in each country in large numbers for 
decades, the former Axis nations truly thrived only after it became 
clear to the great majority of people that they faced a choice: they 
could either roll up their sleeves and get to work rebuilding their 
war-torn nation, or they could look backwards and remain in a miserable 
state.
  Today, Iraqis essentially face the same choice. If they keep focused 
on the task at hand--rebuilding their shattered country's 
infrastructure and creating jobs--they too can crate an economic boom 
similar to that experienced by Japan and Germany.
  We must not forget that rebuilding Germany, Japan, Italy after World 
War II was not easy. Democratic traditions take time to set roots. 
Italy's political system was not stable throughout almost the entirety 
of the Cold War. Japan essentially had one-party rule until recently. 
All three nations faced many upheavals and set backs along the way. But 
like the three defeated Axis powers, Iraq will also have the benefit of 
extensive international economic and financial assistance in 
rebuilding.
  Unlike an imperial power, when a nation is militarily liberated by 
the United States, we are willing to put our resources, technologies 
and willpower to work for democracy.
  Our enemies are well aware that the return of real and meaningful 
sovereignty to Iraqis will undercut one of their chief recruiting 
justifications--the occupation. That is why we have seen a decrease in 
terrorist attacks against U.S. and Coalition troops, and more of a 
focus against foreign contractor personnel and Iraqis involved in their 
new government.
  The terrorists are increasingly targeting new regime officials, 
police recruiting stations, and personnel involved in development 
programs. The terrorists and insurgents understand--perhaps better than 
the U.S. news media--that if the new Interim Iraqi Government headed by 
Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and President Sheikh Ghazi Al-Yawar 
succeeds, the terrorists will be defeated.
  If Iraqis establish enough basic security to allow for the systematic 
rebuilding of Iraq's destroyed infrastructure, and commerce and 
prosperity return to Iraq, the moral swamps from which disaffected 
young Iraqi men are recruited by insurgents, will dry up. And as 
democratic traditions and tolerance begin to take root, and the social 
and economic status of women are uplifted, the appeal of radical 
misinterpretations of Islam will also diminish.
  It is not an accident that Wahabbism and other forms of militant 
Islam flourish in conditions of chaos, in failed states, in places of 
misery and suffering, and in communities where women are seen as less 
than second class citizens. Our task in Iraq is to make sure these 
conditions never return, and are instead replaced by prosperity, 
freedom, and tolerance.
  When, over time, democracy takes hold in Iraq, other Muslims 
throughout the region will be able to use the experience of Iraq to 
refute the arguments of repressive regimes in the Muslim world who 
justify their corrupt and brutal regimes by saying that there is no 
other way.
  But there is another way. A better way. We need to stick by the side 
of those brave Iraqis who want to create a free, open and democratic 
society in Iraq and are willing to risk their lives in order to do it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                          ____________________