[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10254-10260]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE WAR ON TERRORISM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be joined by my colleague 
from Georgia this evening. What we would like to do is to talk a little 
bit about the war on terrorism, the situation in Iraq, the situation in 
Afghanistan. We want to start off by providing an answer to some of our 
colleagues from the other side of the aisle who have been asking the 
question, In 2004, are we better off than we were 4 years ago? In many 
ways as we have talked about this issue, we need to recognize and put 
it in the context of September 11, 2001. For the first time, America 
has a real and serious response to the war on terrorism. During the 
1990s, were we better off in the 1990s as we were attacked in the World 
Trade Centers in the early 1990s? As our embassies were attacked in 
Africa? As our barracks were attacked in Saudi Arabia? And as the USS 
Cole was attacked in Yemen, but America did not respond? Was that a 
good position for us to be in? We found out the cost of neglecting the 
threat, the emerging threat of global terrorism on September 11. We 
found out what it would cost us not to have responded during the 1990s.
  As this threat emerged, an administration, perhaps even we in 
Congress, said, this is not a threat that needs a serious focus. We now 
have an administration, a President, and a Congress that were united in 
our response to September 11. We said we do face a real threat. We face 
a global war on terrorism. We face a global war on terrorism that had 
been emerging throughout the 1990s, but had never been responded to. 
Now is the time to respond because it is a real threat and it is a 
threat that we need to take seriously and it is a threat that we need 
to respond to by taking the war to the terrorists.
  The question may not be, Is America better off? We know that America 
is probably safer than what we were on September 11 or on September 12, 
2001. We know that America is much safer than what we were before 
September 11. We also recognize that we may be safer, but we are still 
not safe. But there are other questions that can be asked: Are the 
Afghan people better off today than they were 4 years ago? Are the 
people of Iraq better off than they were 4 years ago? Are the people in 
Libya facing a brighter future because of the decisions that have been 
made over the last few months than they were 4 years ago?
  Tonight I do not claim that we have solved all of these problems or 
all of these issues. I think that we recognize that there is still a 
tremendous amount of work to do in each of these areas. But Afghanistan 
does have a new government. Afghanistan does have a new constitution. 
The Taliban is gone from power. They still exist in various forms of 
resistance. Al Qaeda no longer has a safe haven in Afghanistan to plan 
additional attacks against the United States and the rest of the free 
world. They are still planning those attacks, but the first thing that 
they have to plan each and every day is how they are going to get 
through that day. They no longer have the luxury of believing, and 
during the 1990s knowing, that America would not strike them, even 
though we knew where they were and we maybe had some idea of their 
overall intentions and that they had declared war on the United States 
that we would leave them alone.
  So Afghanistan is freer and better off than they were. Saddam Hussein 
is no longer in power. As ugly as the abuses have been in the prisons 
by American troops, by a limited number of American troops, we cannot 
lose the perspective that probably over 300,000 Iraqis were driven to 
their graves through the brutality of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
  Libya is now in the process of disarming. A couple of months ago, I 
had the opportunity to meet with Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. We tried to 
understand exactly why Qaddafi had made this switch in strategy, why 
from being on a list of terrorist states he had evolved to a position 
where now he was disclaiming any terrorist intent, working with the 
United States and working with the European Union to disarm, but not 
only to disarm from weapons of mass destruction but to disclose to the 
United States and others the capabilities that he had in his nuclear 
weapons program, which is a step

[[Page 10255]]

forward, to also not only describe what his program was and to give us 
many of the materials but also to give us an understanding as to how he 
had acquired those materials and what was the network of suppliers that 
facilitated the development of his nuclear weapons program.
  As we better understand that network, we also get a clearer picture 
of what maybe exists today in Iran, what may exist in North Korea as 
they were on the market shopping for nuclear weapons programs.
  So are these three countries and the people in these countries better 
off? The 50 million people alone in Afghanistan and Iraq that have been 
liberated from terrorist regimes, are they better off than what they 
were 4 years ago? Are the people of Libya better off in the new course 
that their leader has embarked on? I think the answer is very, very 
clear. The answer is absolutely yes. Is America safer because of a 
change in regimes in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq? I think the answer 
is clear. It is an absolute yes.
  Again I am not saying that the work is done. As we see in the media, 
as we get in our briefings each and every day, there is still a 
tremendous amount of work that needs to be done. But we cannot forget 
the unity that this Nation had after September 11, a unity that said we 
need to stare terrorism in its face and we need to stare it down and we 
need to take the battle to the terrorists. That was the message that 
came from the White House. But that was also the message that was 
embraced by this Congress and supported by this Congress.

                              {time}  2200

  What we need to recognize is that going to war and rebuilding or 
building representative government or new governments in each of these 
countries is not an easy process. We maybe had a quick major conflict, 
a McDonald's war, but when we get done with it, we recognize that 
building a new Iraq and a new Afghanistan is going to take a tremendous 
amount of time. And that is the process that we are embarking on today.
  But take a look at what has happened. It is progress. Afghanistan is 
free. Libya has disarmed. Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. Iraq is 
becoming a free country, making the heart of the Middle East more 
stable and, therefore, making America more secure. We are more secure 
because we now have a Department of Homeland Security. Is all the work 
in the Department of Homeland Security complete? Absolutely not. We do 
not create that type of an agency and give them that type of a mission 
and believe in 12 to 18 months that all of that work is going to be 
completed.
  But we now have a Department of Homeland Security that is focused on 
making sure that our airports are more secure, making sure that our 
ports are more secure, making sure that our local communities are more 
secure, because we are developing an infrastructure, a database that 
allows information-sharing across all levels of government so that we 
will be more prepared to identify the threats that we face and 
hopefully to respond to those threats in such a way that a threat never 
becomes a successful attack on America.
  All of our border activities have been consolidated into the 
Department of Homeland Security, a single agency, doing away with a 
multitude of different organizations that allowed in some cases the 
opportunities for some of the 9/11 hijackers to slip through our 
borders, to rent apartments, to find employment and to train in flight 
schools, only to have their visas approved by INS after they carried 
out the attacks on the Twin Towers.
  So we are facing the issues that have been identified and moving 
forward, moving forward in a very difficult process because America is 
still a free country. And that is exactly what we want to maintain. We 
want to maintain a free society, but we want to maintain a society that 
is free and safe. Those are the two paths that we are continuing to try 
to balance.
  I do not know if the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) has any 
comments. There are lots of things we want to talk about, but I think 
this is kind of set in context to answer that first question: Are we 
better off? Absolutely. We recognize the threat that this Nation faces. 
We are addressing that threat, and we are working and focusing on that 
real threat each and every day. We do not claim absolute security and 
safety, but we do now recognize the threat and continue to work to try 
to make sure that we will not have another terrorist attack in the 
United States.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for organizing this Special Order tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here to pay tribute really to the courage, the 
commitment, and the endurance of our service men and women. And 
specifically I would like to spend a few moments kind of reflecting on 
the tremendous job that our troops have been doing in Iraq.
  We must never forget that our American forces are primarily 
responsible for one of the most complex and awesome military successes 
in history. And the overwhelming majority of our troops did it with 
compassion, with care for the dignity and the basic human rights of the 
Iraqi people.
  Remember that our military, our military, liberated 25 million Iraqi 
citizens in just over 3 short weeks. And when we include Afghanistan, 
American troops have now liberated over 50 million people from 
oppressive regimes.
  Yet despite this military success story, Mr. Speaker, I cannot think 
of another time in which so much precious time and treasure have been 
invested in the reconstruction of another country. An international 
coalition led by America is now building new, modern power plants, a 
totally new phone system, and nearly 2,500 schools.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan I know has been to Iraq 
several times, has been to Afghanistan, been to Libya. He has seen what 
I saw the one opportunity that I had to visit Iraq just before 
Christmas of 2003, and at that time Fallujah was a little more peaceful 
than it is today. And I remember General Swanick took us on a patrol. 
We were in a situation where things were relatively stable. We 
obviously could not do that today, but we went in those Humvees with 
those soldiers of the 101st, and we visited a school, which by our 
standards, Mr. Speaker, one probably would not want their child in a 
building that has no air conditioning and no heat. It is lighted, but 
there is not a nice playground or anything like that. But, by golly, 
there is a chalkboard, and those kids were there and not only little 
male children but of course for the first time probably in 30 years 
little precious female children were able to get an education. They 
were sitting there. They were bright eyed, and they were hopeful. And 
that is what we were doing in Fallujah before Sadr and all of these 
terrorist thugs started killing everybody just wantonly and the mass 
destruction that is going on there right now.
  But, I mean, this is the kind of thing that we were doing. More than 
8.7 million textbooks have been printed and distributed throughout 
Iraq; 32,000 secondary school teachers and administrative staff have 
been trained to teach Iraqi children; 240 hospitals; 1,200 health 
clinics. Health care spending in Iraq has increased 30 times over its 
prewar. Five million children have been immunized for measles, mumps, 
and rubella. That is because of the liberation and the compassion that 
this country has brought to Iraq.
  And I know the gentleman from Michigan has seen so much of that and 
agrees with me that the good stories are not being told. All of us are 
appalled with the activity of a miscreant few in that Abu Ghraib prison 
there in Baghdad and what they did is unforgivable. There is no excuse 
for that, and they will pay the price.
  But it is a shame that we have got 165,000 brave men and women 
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and 25,000 coalition forces that are 
laying it on the line and indeed sometimes paying the ultimate 
sacrifice to do the right

[[Page 10256]]

thing, and that is the message that of course does not get the 
soundbites on this 24-hour news that we have to literally put up with 
every day in this country. But we are here tonight, and I am just so 
pleased to have an opportunity. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
allowing me to join with him and talk about the good things that we are 
doing, and at the end of the day we will succeed in this mission.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.
  I want to again talk a little bit about the war that we are in. The 
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Steve Cambone, gave a 
speech back in January that I think kind of describes the challenges 
that we face as a Nation. And as we talk about the progress that we 
make in Iraq, as we talk about the progress that we make in 
Afghanistan, we cannot lose context of the total situation that we face 
as a Nation. And here is how the Under Secretary described it: ``We are 
a Nation at war. We do not know how long it will last, but it is 
unlikely to be short. We cannot know where or against whom all of its 
battles will be fought. There are multiple fronts in this war, and 
there is no single theatre of operations. We do know that we are all at 
risk, at home and abroad, civilians and military alike. We do know that 
battles and campaigns will both be conventional and unconventional in 
their conduct. Some of those battles and campaigns will be fought in 
the open, and others will be fought in secret where our victories will 
be known to only a few.''
  Going on in his speech he says: ``We are facing a turbulent and 
volatile world populated by a number of highly adaptive state and 
nonstate actors. Some of these are weighing whether, to what extent, or 
how they might oppose the interests of the United States and its 
friends. Others such as the terrorist organizations responsible for 
attacks on the United States, Turkey, Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, 
Israel, Kenya, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and other 
places have committed themselves to war.''
  I think this gives us some idea as to the full context of the threat 
that we face and the number of different places that we face that 
threat.
  He also goes on to say: ``It is impossible to predict with confidence 
what nation or entity will pose a threat in 5, 10, or 20 years to the 
United States or to our friends and allies.''
  His speech goes on: ``But not everything that unfolds in the coming 
years should be a surprise.'' Here is what we can expect: ``We can 
expect that an adversary will continuously search for effective means 
to attack our people, our economy, military and political power, and 
the people in power of our friends and allies. We can also expect that 
an adversary will have access to a range of modern technologies and 
will be prepared to use them to magnify the destructiveness of their 
attacks, using truck bombs and improvised explosives, cyberintrusions 
to attack the computer systems upon which we rely, radio transmitters 
to jam our space assets, small laboratories to develop new and 
biological or genetically altered agents, and chemical and nuclear 
technology materials delivered by missile, plane, boat, or backpack to 
poison our environment and destroy human lives.''
  Here is what candidate Bush said in 1999, perhaps better 
understanding that threat than the administration at that point: ``Now 
our President reminded his audience of an earlier time when a free 
people confronted what he called `rapid change and momentous choices.' 
That time was the 1930s. Nazi Germany was rearming, and the British 
Government was reluctant to take forceful steps to stave off war. To 
give voice to his own concerns, candidate Bush quoted Winston 
Churchill, who repeatedly called upon his countrymen to respond to the 
gathering storm.''
  Here is what candidate Bush said and quoted from Winston Churchill: 
```The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and 
baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close,' Churchill said. 
`In its place we are entering a period of consequences.' That period of 
consequences arrived not only for the military but for those who 
practiced intelligence just 2 years after the President's Citadel 
speech on September 11, 2001. Like our colleagues in the military 
forces, we will be judged by our successors on our response to this 
period of consequences. We face few substantial impediments to 
transforming intelligence. We are led by individuals at the Department 
of Defense and agencies who embrace the need for and who likewise are 
committed to this effort. Congress has provided the resources.''
  What we see is a true response. ``There is an urgency to transform 
intelligence, defining and achieving operational goals.'' But what we 
will not see and what we have not seen from this President, what we 
perhaps saw during the 1990s and what the folks in Great Britain saw in 
the 1930s, what they saw and what we perhaps saw, the British 
Government, the U.S. Government in the 1990s was reluctant to take 
forceful steps to stave off war. Again: ``The era of procrastination, 
of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is 
coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of 
consequences.''
  That was the end of the quote from Winston Churchill. It was the end 
of an era where we had delays and baffling expediency.
  What this President has provided us is an era of leadership, 
strategically. There can be differences on the tactics. We have done 
things wrong. Mistakes have been made. It is always great in hindsight 
to identify a mistake, 20/20 vision, saying we should have done that 2 
years ago or we should have done that 3 months ago, and we are second 
guessing our military commanders in the field, but what we do have is 
we have a clear sense of vision and commitment to move forward and to 
get this done. That is what this President has provided. Strategically 
we are headed in the right direction. Tactically we have got some work 
to do.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to thank him, too, I really appreciate the historical perspective 
that he brings to this debate, because we learn from our history. God 
help us if we do not learn from our history. We repeat the same 
mistakes.
  But the bottom line here is, as the gentleman from Michigan was 
explaining at the top of the hour, we had 10 years, we had a lot of 
time, where the gentleman mentioned the USS Cole, the Marine barracks 
in Lebanon, the embassies, and it goes on and on. What did we do? It 
was a series of drawing a line in the sand, and let me suggest not a 
very deep one, and a series of double-dog-dare-you.
  And what happened? The Twin Towers attack on September 11, 2001. I 
want to remind, Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues, that that indeed was 
not the first attack. It happened in 1993. And what did we do? It is 
just like, you bomb an aspirin factory?
  The gentleman from Michigan put it in such great perspective. We are 
hearing from the other side, and you are going to hear it for the next 
6 months of this presidential election year, we know it, we have heard 
it, we have heard all about campaign rhetoric, are you better off than 
you were 4 years ago? They are trying to borrow a phrase from a great 
president, President Reagan. And what a wonderful job he did, probably 
one of the greatest presidents we ever had.
  I will tell you, like the gentleman from Michigan said, we are better 
off than we were 4 years ago. But it is not so much important are we 
better off, but the world is better off. The world is a better place. 
It is kind of like borrowing from Charles Dickens in the Tale of Two 
Cities, on that first page, the first paragraph, when he said, It is 
the worst of times, it is the best of times.
  Well, in many ways it is the worst of times. It is always a bad time, 
a very bad time when we are losing men and women who are paying the 
ultimate sacrifice defending this country. Even though we agree with 
Thomas Jefferson when he said that every now and

[[Page 10257]]

then the Tree of Liberty has to be nourished again by the blood of 
patriots.
  That is what is going on today. Those are the worst of times, but 
they are the best of times, because we, by the grace of God, have a 
Commander-in-Chief, a leader of this country, that is a man of faith, a 
God-fearing President with resolute determination, and he will lead 
this country out of the morass that we find ourselves in, because it is 
the right thing to do.
  I am so appreciative for having an opportunity to share a little time 
with the gentleman from Michigan, because the story needs to be told.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, we talk about are we better off. 
Think about it. It is 1995-1996. We have been attacked a few different 
times in a few different places around the globe. We know that the 
organization that is attacking us is a terrorist organization. It is 
not a nation state, so it does not have a defined boundary. It does not 
have buildings that you could go and occupy or you could declare war 
on.
  So, what is the response that we have in the intelligence community 
in 1995-1996? We may have talked about this the last time we had an 
opportunity to do a special order. It is the called the Deutch 
Doctrine. Deutch was the head of the CIA during that time.
  Are we better off? Well, the response to terrorist organizations, to 
the uncertainty in Iraq, Saddam was in there. A few years later he 
kicked out the UN inspectors and continued to flaunt the different 
resolutions that came out of the UN.
  What was the response in the intelligence community to what was a 
growing and emerging threat? It was the Deutch Doctrine, which says, 
well, if you are in the field in the CIA and you are thinking about 
recruiting spies, if they have any human rights violations or they have 
a criminal record, they really need to go through a special screening 
process. And, by the way, we do not really want to do business with 
those kinds of folks. So if you want a career-ending move, send us a 
bunch of folks that have questionable backgrounds and tell us you would 
like to recruit them to be spies. In effect, we closed down our human 
intelligence.
  We took a look at what was going on in Iraq prior to the war and what 
was going on there the last few years. We have excellent imagery from 
space. We can see buildings and we can see trucks and people moving 
around, but we do not know what is actually in the building. We can 
guess. We do not know exactly what is on the minds of the people. Are 
they stockpiling and producing weapons of mass destruction, or have 
they decided that they will put the facilities in place that once the 
UN is out? Do they think, we can produce the stuff in massive 
quantities in a very short period of time, a just-in-time inventory? We 
could not understand their strategy, because we went blind on the human 
intelligence side.
  We went worse than that. We went through a process in the CIA that 
scrubbed the folks that were working for the CIA. What does that mean? 
Not only were we not going to recruit any more of these folks, but we 
also said, let us go through and see if we have any kind of these 
people working for us, and, if we do have these people working for us, 
it is time to cut them off.
  My colleague and I, we know enough about al Qaeda, we know about the 
other kinds of terrorist organizations, we know enough about Saddam 
Hussein. The question is, what do you think the profile is? How many of 
the Eagle Scouts that we said we would only recruit to work for the CIA 
were in the tent with bin Laden or in one of the palaces with Saddam?
  Mr. GINGREY. That is exactly right. As the gentleman said, back in 
the previous administration, they scrubbed it to the extent that if you 
had ever had a history of spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking, you 
were ineligible to work for the CIA or work in our intelligence.
  You have got to fight fire with fire. These are bad guys. When you 
think of somebody in retaliation, as they might say, or retribution, 
because we had a few miscreants mistreating, horribly mistreating, and 
we do not condone that, in one cell block in Abu Ghraib prison in 
Baghdad, so, tit-for-tat, you chop off the head of a 26-year-old young 
man who is in Baghdad, who has a history of being compassionate and 
wanting to help people and do the right thing and maybe restore some 
communication networks in Iraq. That is what we are dealing with.
  So, it is absolutely right. We fell asleep at the switch. But not in 
this administration. Not on this watch and this president. He 
immediately responded after 9/11 and told us, and reminded us, this war 
against terrorism, this is not going to end with the capture of Osama 
bin Laden. This does not end because we have found Saddam Hussein. He 
told us 2\1/2\ years ago that this war on terrorism is a global war, 
and it is something that is going to be with us for a long time.
  These oceans no longer protect us. It is easy for people to forget.
  I want to make one other point, if the gentleman from Michigan will 
allow me a little bit more time. You know, somebody told me today, I 
did not realize this, but I went to a movie recently, the premier of 
``Ike,'' starring Tom Selleck, a great movie about the lead-up to 
Normandy, Operation Overlord, and the agony, of course, they went 
through in trying to time that mission and train the troops on the 
coast of England.
  I did not realize that they actually practiced the invasion of 
Normandy there on the beaches in England. Of course, a lot of live fire 
was used practicing that invasion to make sure they got it just right, 
and over 700 of our soldiers were killed practicing for Normandy, for 
D-Day, because they were using live fire. There were some accidents 
that occurred, but we lost over 700 soldiers in the preparation for 
Normandy.
  What if the our Greatest Generation, what if we were in a digital 
world back then and all that news got out to the 24 hour news network, 
and, oh my God, what would have happened? Maybe D-Day never would have 
occurred.
  I realize, of course, we have lost over 700 by comparison, maybe 800 
now in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we need to put it in perspective. If 
you ask the Greatest Generation, what should be our exit strategy in 
Iraq, they would quickly tell you the exit strategy is to win; to win. 
You do not pull your team off in the fourth quarter because the going 
gets tough. That is when the tough get going. That is with what made 
that generation the Greatest Generation.
  I think today we may have an even greater generation with these young 
men and women, these 135,000, 140,000 active component, Guard and 
Reserve over there laying it on the line for us, spilling their blood 
to nourish that Tree of Liberty. It makes me very proud of them, and 
humble as a Member of Congress.
  But we have got to stay the course. We have got to continue to, as 
the gentleman from Michigan has said, to let the American people 
understand, to know, to put this in the right perspective.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, one of the things we wanted to do 
tonight, we wanted to talk a little bit about the young men and women 
who are serving in Iraq. We have a list of many who have received the 
Distinguished Service Cross or the Bronze Star and those types of 
things. Maybe we will read some of those citations.
  But today in USA Today there was a story entitled ``A Marine sees 
what defeatists do not.'' This is a young man who is now serving his 
third deployment with the 1st Marine Division in the Middle East, Ben 
Connable.
  Here is one of the things he talked about when he first went in 1991. 
``Waiting for war in the Saudi Arabian desert as a young corporal in 
1991, I recall reading news clippings portending massive tank battles, 
fiery death from Saddam Hussein's ``flame trenches'' and bitter defeat 
at the hands of the fourth largest army in the world. My platoon was 
told to expect 75 percent casualties. Being Marines and, therefore, 
naturally cocky, we still felt pretty good about our abilities.

[[Page 10258]]

  ``The panicky predictions failed to come true. The flame trenches 
sputtered. Nobody from my platoon died. Strength, ingenuity and 
willpower won the day. Crushing the fourth largest army in the world in 
four days seemed to crush the doubts back home.
  ``Twelve years passed, during which time America was faced with 
frustrating actions in Somalia and the Balkans. Doubt had begun to 
creep back into public debate.
  ``In the spring of last year, I was a Marine captain, back with the 
division for Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I waited for war in the desert 
just 100 miles to the north from our stepping-off point in 1991, I was 
again subjected to the panicky analysis of talking heads. There weren't 
enough troops to do the job, the oil fields would be destroyed, we 
could not fight in urban terrain, our offensive would grind to a halt, 
and we should expect more than 10,000 casualties.
  ``Remembering my experience in Desert Storm, I took these assessments 
with a grain of salt. As a staff officer in the division command post, 
I was able to follow the larger battle as we moved forwards. I knew 
that our tempo was keeping the enemy on his heels and that our plan 
would lead us to victory.
  ``But war is never clean and simple. Mourning our losses quietly, the 
Marines drove to Baghdad, then to Tikrit, liberating the Iraqi people 
while losing fewer men than were lost in Desert Storm.''
  Then he talks about on March 30 he was reading a U.S. newspaper that 
was in one of the packages that he had received. The stories in the 
paper: ``Horror in Nassariyah, faltering supply lines and 
demonstrations in Cairo. The mood of the paper was impenetrably gloomy, 
and predictions of disaster abounded. The offensive was stalled; 
everyone was running out of supplies; we would be forced to withdraw.
  ``The Arab world was about to ignite into a fireball of rage, and the 
Middle East was on the verge of collapse. If I read those stories on 
March 30, I would have had a tough time either restraining my laughter 
or, conversely, falling into a funk. I was concerned about the bizarre 
kaleidoscope image of Iraq presented to the American people by writers 
viewing the world through a soda straw,'' not taking a look at the 
total picture.
  He now says, ``As I write this, the supply lines are open, there is 
plenty of ammunition and food, the Sunni Triangle is back to status 
quo, and Sadr is marginalized in Najaf. Once again, dire predictions of 
failure and disaster have been dismissed by America's willpower and 
military professionalism.
  ``War is inherently ugly and dramatic. I do not blame reporters for 
focusing on the burning vehicles, the mutilated bodies or the personal 
tragedies. These things sell news and remind us of the sober reality of 
our commitment to the Iraqi people. The actions of our armed forces are 
rightfully subject to scrutiny.
  ``As a professional, I have the luxury of putting politics aside and 
focusing on the task at hand. Protecting people from terrorists and 
criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good 
mission, no matter what brush it is tarred with.''

                              {time}  2230

  Think about it. This is what one of our soldiers said there. And I 
have heard this story over and over and over, if you talk to our troops 
when they are coming back, whether you are in your district or they are 
in the airport, and you go up to them and say, Thank you.
  Here is why they are, I think, overwhelmingly positive because this 
is what they see their mission as, and they know that when they are 
doing this mission, they are also doing a mission which protects you 
and I and our constituents.
  Here is how he described it: ``Protecting people from terrorists and 
criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good 
mission no matter what brush it is tarred with. Nothing any talking 
head will say can deter me or my fellow Marines from caring about the 
people of Iraq or take away from the sacrifices of our comrades. Fear 
in the face of adversity is human nature, and many people who take 
counsel with their fears speak today. We are not deaf to their cries. 
Neither do we take heed.''
  His closing two sentences are absolutely awesome. This is one of our 
young men who is over there with the Iraq people each and every day. He 
is not talking about in Iraq where the people, as we sometimes perceive 
in the media, where all the Iraqis and all the people of Islam, hate 
Americans. Here is what he says, and think about this; this is a 
soldier who is representing the troops that are putting their lives on 
the line each and every day. ``All we ask is that Americans stand by us 
by supporting not just the troops, but also the mission.'' And then I 
guess as any Marine would say, Here is how he closes. ``We will take 
care of the rest.''
  Mr. GINGREY. The gentleman is wearing a poppy in his lapel as most of 
us did today. He continues to wear his, and I am proud of him for that.
  Memorial Day is coming up pretty soon, and we all know the symbol of 
the poppy. And we passed a resolution today honoring those who have 
served. Our country is almost 230 years old. We have had a lot of 
conflicts, and that poppy represents our tribute to the fallen many in 
multiple conflicts.
  I cannot help but think about that poem at a time like this that was 
written by a physician, a surgeon, a Canadian, Doc McCrae, when his 
best friend was killed in Flanders, Belgium, and buried on their 
hallowed ground where those poppies grow. It was inspiration to Dr. 
McCrae to write that poem that we all know so well today.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not sure my memory reciting poetry is that good, 
but I do remember that last stanza is, a short poem, a very short poem. 
It went something like:
  ``Take up our quarrel with the foe, to you from failing hands we pass 
the torch, be yours to hold it high, for if you break faith with us who 
die, we shall not sleep, though poppies grow in Flanders Field.''
  Mr. Speaker, it says it all. It is just what the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) was referring to. We owe such a debt of 
gratitude to these brave men and women who have paid it, an ultimate 
sacrifice, to those soldiers at Walter Reed or at Bethesda who are over 
there trying to rehabilitate and get used to wearing those prostheses 
because they have lost a limb or maybe multiple limbs.
  It is very easy to stand here in the House, and sometimes some of our 
colleagues are awfully critical in talking again about the exit 
strategy, and we will probably hear some of that later on tonight from 
the other side. But I think that is absolutely despicable when these 
men and women, no matter what the cause, have paid that price.
  You go back and you talk about the Civil War, you talk about the 
Korean conflict, you talk about Vietnam where we lost 58,000 men and 
some women in that conflict. But let me, if I can, just to kind of put 
it in perspective to bring some reality to it.
  Yeah, we had some thugs running that cell block in Abu Ghraib that no 
matter how much training they may have received, there is no excuse, 
because what they did, it does not take $50,000 worth of military 
training to teach them that it is wrong. Any Boy Scout or Girl Scout 
that follows the creed and knows the Scout oath would never, would 
never do a thing like that.
  But let me just talk a little bit about one, just one of the brave 
many who serve and, in this particular instance, paid the ultimate 
sacrifice for his country and does it the right way. Listen to this, 
Mr. Speaker.
  ``The President of the United States takes pride in presenting the 
Silver Star posthumously to Gunnery Sergeant Jeffrey E. Bohr, Jr., 
United States Marine Corps, for service as set forth in the following 
citation:
  ``For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action against the 
enemy while serving as Company Gunnery Sergeant, Company A, 1st 
Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 5, 1st Marine 
Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force in support of Operation Iraqi 
Freedom on 10 April 2003. With his company assigned the

[[Page 10259]]

dangerous mission of seizing a presidential palace in Baghdad and 
concerned that logistical resupply might be slow in reaching his 
comrades once they reached the objective, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr 
selflessly volunteered to move in his two soft-skinned vehicles with 
the company's main armored convoy. While moving through narrow streets 
toward the main objective, the convoy took intense small arms and 
rocket-propelled grenade fire. Throughout this movement, Gunnery 
Sergeant Bohr delivered accurate, effective fires on the enemy, while 
encouraging his Marines and supplying critical information to his 
company commander.
  ``When the lead vehicles of the convoy reached a dead end and were 
subjected to enemy fire, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr continued to boldly 
engage the enemy while calmly maneuvering his Marines to safety. Upon 
learning of a wounded Marine in a forward vehicle, Gunnery Sergent Bohr 
immediately coordinated medical treatment and evacuation. Moving to the 
position of the injured Marine, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr continued to lay 
down a high volume of suppressive fire, while simultaneously guiding 
the medical evacuation vehicle, until he was mortally wounded by enemy 
fire.
  ``By his bold leadership, wise judgment, and complete dedication to 
duty, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr reflected great credit upon himself and 
upheld the highest tradition of the Marine Corps and the United States 
Naval Service.''
  God bless him, Mr. Speaker. We all need to remember people like 
Gunnery Sergeant Jeffrey Bohr.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague. We have a long list of folks who 
have served heroically in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my own district I 
have had two young men who were killed in Iraq, Steve Hewlett and Todd 
Robbins.
  Again, I want the folks in the district and in the country to 
recognize that, as was described in USA Today, the work that Steve and 
Todd were engaged in was protecting people from terrorists and 
criminals while building schools and lasting friendships, a good 
mission no matter what brush it is tarred with and no matter how other 
people try to paint that picture.
  Ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, just 
as they are protecting people from terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan 
and other places. As we eliminate terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan 
and other places, we also have to remember that the larger goal and 
objective of these terrorist organizations is not to terrorize the 
people of Iraq, not to terrorize the people of Afghanistan. They were 
already doing that. Their larger goal was to build a network to 
terrorize the rest of the world.
  We felt on September 11 that the terrorists that were based in 
Afghanistan attacked the United States. The people in Israel and other 
parts of the Middle East have felt it for years, as Saddam Hussein 
exported terrorism and paid bounties and cash bonuses to the families 
of suicide bombers in Israel. There is no doubt that these nations and 
the leadership in these countries were actively engaged in a global war 
on terrorism.
  For them, it was only a matter of time before they would have taken 
those resources and expanded that to continue to attack U.S. interests 
in the Middle East, in Europe and other parts of the world, but also to 
take that battle to the United States.
  When we talk about some of the other things that have happened in 
Iraq, Jim Hoffman, an individual from my district, served 8 or 9 months 
in Iraq, served as the Minister of Health; on April 1 the Ministry of 
Health was turned over to the Iraqis. Today, health care is not being 
provided by the coalition. Health care is now being provided by Iraqis.
  There is a Ministry of Education, teachers' salaries $120 a month; 
entry level salaries have gone from $5 a month to $66 a month. The 
Minister of Public Works and Municipalities established programs to 
rehabilitate 14 water treatment plants.
  The Ministry of Science and Technology has taken the lead in 
establishing the foundation for E-government in Iraq. The Ministry of 
Culture has revitalized the national symphony orchestra, begun clearing 
Iraq's library collection.
  The Ministry of Agriculture is rehabilitating Iraq's agriculture 
colleges to carry forward Iraq's long agricultural history of 
displacement and migration. The Ministry of Water Resources cleared 
over 17,000 kilometers of irrigation canals.
  So there is a tremendous amount of work, and as I talk to our troops 
that come back, one of the things that frustrates them is that the bad 
news is what is focused on here. Many of the troops that I talk to say 
they do not even watch the news anymore when they come home. They do 
not watch it when they are in Iraq because what they see on the news 
they say is not reflective of what they see while they are on the 
ground in Iraq. These are the kinds of things that are not talked 
about.
  I think my colleague and I, we are not denying that the bad things, 
they are happening, but again I think as Ben Conable pointed out in his 
article in USA Today, and this is a person that is there in his third 
tour, he says, the media is looking at Iraq through a straw, not giving 
the total picture.
  Mr. GINGREY. The gentleman is so right. He referred earlier about the 
McDonald's mentality. Of course, meaning no disrespect to a great 
company. Just suggesting at that time ``quick fix,'' the fast delivery 
which that company is so well respected for, that is just not what 
happens in a situation like we are in in Iraq. And in the 24-hour news 
networks, of course, it is one sound bite after another.
  And as the gentleman said, and I asked when I was in Iraq, I asked 
some of the soldiers, and unfortunately, when they get a break from 
those patrols or they are in those Humvees, whether they are up-armored 
or after-market armored or unarmored and they are on those dangerous 
missions. They probably go 12, 14-hour, 16-hour shifts and they get 
back to the billet and maybe they have access to relax, knowing that 
they have to go back out the next day and do it all over again and 
every day their lives are at risk. So sure they watch television. And 
it is just unbelievable what they are seeing and the discouragement.
  God forbid if they are tuning into some of the coverage of what they 
hear here in the halls of Congress; you would think that they would get 
a little bit discouraged. It is funny how sometimes you hear the 
opposition say, Oh, we support the troops. The troops we love. They are 
brave men and women. We support the troops, but, hey, you know, the 
coach sucks.
  You just put it in perspective of a high school football team. If the 
booster club says, We want the boys to go out there. We love them. They 
are doing a great job, but we do not like the coach. We question all 
the plays. Pretty soon it gets down to the players and they are not 
going to win too many games that season and that is what you are seeing 
here, that sort of thing.
  The Iraqi people, they were not as fortunate as we were in this great 
country called the United States of America. We were born to freedom.

                              {time}  2245

  Our Forefathers bought and paid for that, and certainly all of us 
today never knew anything different. We have freedom of press, freedom 
of religion, freedom of speech. We take it for granted, unfortunately.
  These people, the Iraqi people, the 25 million most of whom are good 
people. They have never known that. So it is going to take a long time, 
Mr. Speaker, for them to understand, to get the feel of that, and yet 
we hear from the other side, well, Mr. President, what is your exit 
strategy. Indeed, indeed.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there was an editorial 
today by William Safire in the New York Times, and it is kind of an 
interesting thing because what he talks about today, ``In this rush to 
misjudgment, we can see an example of the `Four Noes' that have become 
the defeatists' platform.''
  ``The first `no' is no stockpiles of WMD, used to justify the war, 
were found.'' He goes on to say what we may find is ``the successful 
concealment of

[[Page 10260]]

WMD, as well as pre-war shipments thereof to Syria,'' I think what most 
likely happened is that Saddam moved away from stockpiling weapons of 
mass destruction to putting in place plans ``for production and missile 
delivery,'' but that is my own conjecture, ``by Saddam's Special 
Republican Guard and Fedayeen, as part of his planned guerrilla war.''
  This is what Safire goes on to say. ``The present story line of 
`Saddam was stupid, fooled by his generals' would then be replaced by 
`Saddam was shrewder than we thought.'''
  ``Defeatism's second `no' is no connection was made between Saddam 
and al Qaeda or any of its terrorist affiliates. This is asserted as 
revealed truth with great fervor.''
  Now we see, going on in the article that he wrote today, ``most 
damning is the rise to terror's top rank of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who 
escaped Afghanistan to receive medical treatment in Baghdad. He joined 
Ansar al-Islam, a Qaeda offshoot whose presence in Iraq to murder Kurds 
at Saddam's behest was noted in this space in the weeks after 9/11. His 
activity in Iraq was cited by President Bush 6 months before our 
invasion. Osama's disciple Zarqawi is now thought to be the televised 
beheading of a captive American.
  ``The third `no' is no human-rights high ground can be claimed by us 
regarding Saddam's torture chambers because we mistreated Iraqi 
prisoners. This equates sleep deprivation with life deprivation, 
illegal individual humiliation with official mass murder. We flagellate 
ourselves for mistreatment by a few of our guards, who will be 
punished; he delightedly oversaw the shoveling of 300,000 innocent 
Iraqis into unmarked graves.'' He goes on to say, ``Iraqis know the 
difference.
  ``The fourth `no' is no Arab nature is culturally ready for political 
freedom and our attempt to impose democracy in Iraq is arrogant 
Wilsonian idealism.
  ``In coming years, this will be blasted by revisionist supporters as 
an ignoble ethnic-racist slur. Iraqis will gain the power, with our 
help, to put down the terrorists and find their own brand of political 
equilibrium.
  ``Will today's defeatists then admit they were wrong?'' Safire goes 
on to say, he answers that question with, ``That's a fifth `no.'''
  Once a defeatist always a defeatist. I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman for 
bringing this hour to our colleagues in the House on both sides of the 
aisle and for giving me an opportunity to share with him this time 
because it is so important.
  Mr. Speaker, it is so important for not just American people but for 
those men and women who are over there in harm's way defending our 
freedom and liberty and allowing us to sleep well at night and to 
hopefully bring in peace, democracy, liberty, freedom that we enjoy, 
that we take for granted, to the people in the Middle East.
  I think that we just need to remember that our every waking hour and 
never forget what they are doing for us and we are doing the right 
thing, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan for being courageous to 
bring this time to the American people, but especially to those men and 
women who maybe, yes, they just came off patrol from Fallujah or the 
Sunni triangle or hottest of the hot spots in Iraq, and they take that 
backpack off and that body armor off and they take off their boots and 
they relax a little bit and they turn on the television and hopefully 
maybe they are watching what we are saying tonight, and I hope they are 
because they need to know that people like the gentleman from Michigan, 
a distinct leader in this 108th Congress, we believe in them and we are 
going to support them, and we are going to stick with them, and we are 
going to see them to the end, and we are going to have victory for the 
world, not just for the United States of America.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to just close 
again by going back to the article that was written by Ben Connable 
from Ramadi, Iraq. Remember, this is his third deployment, and when we 
talk about the voices of defeatism, as Safire talks about it in the New 
York Times today, these guys hear that message.
  He says doubt had begun to creep back into the public debate. He sees 
and hears that now. He saw it when they were talking what about was 
going on in the Sunni triangle and what really is going on. He knows 
and admits that war is inherently ugly and dramatic, but here is again 
what he said.
  ``But as a professional, I have the luxury of putting politics aside 
and focusing on the task at hand. Protecting people from terrorists and 
criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good 
mission, no matter what brush it's tarred with.
  ``Nothing any talking head will say can deter me or my fellow Marines 
from caring about the people of Iraq,'' and I would say they are there 
because they know that by caring for the people of Iraq or Afghanistan, 
they know that they are caring for the people of the United States, 
``or take away from the sacrifices of our comrades. Fear in the face of 
adversity is human nature, and many people who take the counsel of 
their fears speak today. We are not deaf to their cries; neither do we 
take heed.''
  A simple request from Major Ben Connable is this. ``All we ask is 
that Americans stand by us by supporting not just the troops, but also 
the mission. We'll take care of the rest.''

                          ____________________