Honoring the life and legacy of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and recognizing his contributions on the anniversary of the date of his birth.

Mr. Speaker, the measure before us contains many consentaneous American thoughts: Recognition that Saddam was a despot of tyrannical proportions; support for a process of democratic self- governance in Iraq; and, profoundly, appreciation for the sacrifice and commitment of Americans serving in our armed forces in these very troubling, indeed dangerous, times.

But as widely accepted as these notions are, care must be taken in this debate to underscore what this resolution is not. It cannot be read either as a Gulf of Tonkin-like resolution giving the Executive a blank check for future actions or considered an indication of Congressional approval of executive action to date.

Many in Congress, perhaps a majority, would be willing to vote for a more expansive resolution, but such is not before us today. Nonetheless, the subject matter of this resolution necessitates a review of what has transpired since the Congress, without my support, authorized military intervention in Iraq a year and a half ago.

All of us recognize that Iraq is a judgmental quagmire. Thoughtful Americans are conflicted. The President has a case for the actions he has taken. But I feel obliged to make clear why I continue not to find it compelling and indicate, in as constructive a way as I am able, the problems that a lengthy occupation may yield and present a theoretical framework and the case for timely disengagement.

Perspective is difficult to apply to current events or for that matter life itself. But it is important to attempt to frame the discussion of the war in which we are engaged in relation to our history, to the development of knowledge (particularly science), and to our relations with other countries.

First our history. In the broadest sense the political history of America has encompassed four great debates. The first was the question of whether a country could be established based on the rights of man. The second was about definitions: whether the concept of ``man'' included individuals who were neither male nor pale. It took over a century, a civil war and suffrage and civil rights movements to bring full meaning to the universal language of the Declaration of Independence. With courage and sacrifice Americans finally came together to embrace the democratic notion that consent of the governed lacked legitimacy unless all individuals of all backgrounds had rights of citizenship.

The third debate is about opportunity, whether individual rights can be protected if every citizen doesn't have a fair crack at the American dream. There are many on-going elements of the opportunity debate, which in the 20th century was symbolized by the New Deal initiatives of Franklin Roosevelt and the counter-weight of the Reagan revolution. But I would like to emphasize an aspect of this debate which gets little attention because it is taken for granted, and that is the role of public education. All young Americans not only have access to public education, they are required by law to attend public schools or comparable alternatives. As society becomes more complicated, educational opportunity becomes increasingly central to advancing social opportunity. And as we look at the narrow schooling provided by madrasses abroad it becomes apparent that how and what others teach has relevance to the security of Americans at home.

The fourth debate is symbolized by Hiroshima and Nagasaki and revolves around the question of whether any right can be valid if it is not underpinned by a right to peace.

In these debates the role of foreign policy is critical, and even when we've looked inward it has been with an eye to establishing a shining city-state on a hill, a beacon for all.

The greatest legislated act in American and perhaps human history is the Declaration of Independence. The universality of its principles constitutes the cornerstone of historic American idealism in foreign as well as domestic policy.

As architect of the Declaration, Jefferson--while never a member of Congress--was our greatest legislator. And as the architect of the Louisiana Purchase, he stands as our greatest

diplomat-president. The precept implicit in the Declaration and the Louisiana Purchase is the notion of individual rights and collective decision-making by a people entrusted with the capacity to make sovereign decisions.

Jefferson was the philosophical godson of John Locke, who borrowed from Thomas Hobbes the 17th century paradigm of a state of Nature where, according to Hobbes, life was nasty, brutish and short.

Hobbes had a pessimistic view of human nature. Self-centered man could not escape from the jungle of human relations. Locke, on the other hand, was an optimist. He also assumed that man was self- centered, but, unlike Hobbes, he believed that individuals were rational enough to recognize the necessity of accommodating the self- interest of others. Civil society--the condition where rules would govern disputes and third-party arbitration would exist--was thus possible as well as necessary.

Whether or not the theoretical constructs that political philosophers relied on three centuries ago have relevance to real life on the planet, then or now, the progress of science has made man's efforts to protect the rights of individuals and society more difficult today. In one of the most profound social observations of the 20th century, Einstein noted that splitting the atom changed everything save our mode of thinking.

Physics has brought us nuclear energy and perhaps a way to help live a modern life without reliance on fossil fuels. Biology has brought us the capacity to extend the life of man by several and perhaps many decades. But just as splitting the atom has a dark side--nuclear weapons--splitting genes has ominous implications, too--the ability to manufacture diseases for which there may be no antidote. Hence the obvious: at no time in human history is there a greater obligation for people in public life to appeal to the higher rather than lower angels of our nature.

This is particularly the case as the world has smallened and friction between peoples has increased in economics, politics and, most profoundly, religion.

Perhaps the most thoughtful speech ever given in Iowa was delivered four decades ago by the Oxford historian, Arnold Toynbee. A decade earlier, Winston Churchill chose a small Midwestern college in Fulton, Missouri, to warn of the dangers of Soviet expansionism; an ``Iron Curtain,'' he said, had descended on Eastern Europe. Toynbee picked Grinnell College to chastise Marxists for shallowly looking at history through the lens of economic determinism and Americans for assuming, in part because of the civil rights movement then underway, that the most contentious issues in the world related to race. Toynbee argued that at this stage in history conflict would more likely erupt because of religious differentiations than economic or racial ones. As we look at the Middle East, at Northern Ireland, at the Balkans, at the divisions between Pakistan and India, Toynbee's observation appears to be vindicated.

Expanding on Toynbee, Samuel Huntington of Harvard has propounded a theory of international relations over the past several decades that suggests that the next great wars are less likely to represent battles between countries than clashes between various civilizations.

Given Toynbee's predictions and Huntington's civilization-clash paradigm, it is appropriate to return to Jefferson, who at the public level strove assiduously to protect individual freedom of religion and at the private level believed that what mattered most was not nuanced differences between religions or denominations, but the moral threads common to all creeds. In terms of guides to individual behavior, it is impressive, for instance, that the Ten Commandments underpin Islam as well as Judaism and Christianity. And the Confucian doctrine of ``shu,'' which asserts that moral behavior should be premised on not doing unto others what one would not have done to oneself, is an inverted kind of Golden Rule.

Despite the fact that history is rife with examples where religious differentiations have caused and intensified conflicts, there is no credible substitute for the constructive role of faith-based convictions. Conflict may be envisioned, but it can be constrained if individuals are taught the most esoteric of precepts: loving, or at least not hating, one's neighbor.

Ironically, genocide, which is disproportionately a 20th century phenomenon, is about weapons of lesser lethality: machetes, bullets, poisonous gas.

But if mankind can't prevent killing up close, the question must be pondered whether there can be any optimism that the world can avoid a cataclysmic exchange from afar of weapons of mass destruction, which would make the greatest crime of mankind to date, genocide, the second- to-last crime in human history. It is simply a short stop from genocide--the killing one at a time of millions--to ``global-cide''-- the end in a single stroke of all life on the planet.

In recognition of the 20th century's experience with Holocaust and other brutal genocides, from Cambodia to Rwanda, we have no choice except to change our mode of thinking. Man's instinct to hate must be curbed and social wisdom applied to the new challenges science has thrown at man.

In this context, I want to stress a second challenge of science that has nothing to do with war and arms making but is clearly the largest foreign policy issue of our day. It is the problem of disease. In Iraq more than 500 Americans and perhaps as many as 20,000 Iraqis have been killed in the past year. But over the last two decades 20 million people have died of AIDS and 40 million are infected with HIV. In Africa, Southeast Asia, and Southern Russia, AIDS has hurdled well beyond the groups considered most vulnerable in the U.S. In many countries children are infected through mothers at birth and in several countries a 15-year-old girl is far more likely to have the disease than a 15-year-old boy. We simply must expand resources to stop this disease abroad before it stops our families at home.

Not that everything in the world is dark or unraveling. Promising political breakthroughs are occurring between India and Pakistan; in the civil war in Sri Lanka; in Libya, where Muammar Khaddafi may be giving up a quest for nuclear weapons; and even with North Korea, as six-party talks unfold. Several of these bits of good international news are developing without a central U.S. role; several will require our leadership. My only advice to the Executive is to meet every positive step of others with at least two steps of our own. Progressive change from suspect leaders cannot be sustained if peoples of various societies are not convinced that America prefers extending carrots to applying bullying tactics. We simply can't wait for tomorrow to respond to good omens today. This is especially true of a country like Libya where backsliding is so easy. It may be more difficult with the hermit country--North Korea--simply because paranoia and anti-Americanism run so irrationally deep in the people as well as the government. But constructive steps, especially of a humanitarian dimension, can be taken.

Iowa also has brought some good news to the world. In January I attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and a Conference on the Prevention of Genocide in Stockholm, Sweden. In conversations with Europeans the depth of anti-American sentiment becomes quickly evident. But when asked what state I represent, I was impressed with the sincerity of the positive responses when I indicated I was from Iowa. Everyone knew of Iowa because of the caucuses. In Iowa the caucus process seems a bit mysterious. In other states it is very mysterious, and in Europe it is a full blown mystery. But people in Europe were deeply impressed that individuals seeking the most important political position in the world had to come to the homes and schools and offices of private citizens who, with real care, reviewed their credentials and platforms.

For many years I have had reservations about the caucus system because the ballot is not secret and because participation is not as large as in a traditional primary. But I feel obligated to reconsider and, as a Republican, must tip my hat to the Iowa Democrats for the thoughtfulness with which they advanced American democracy and spotlighted our values for the world. Abroad, people followed but did not necessarily identify with the individual candidates, but everyone was impressed with the process and the care with which citizens carried out their duties.

It is instructive to put the current tension in transatlantic relations in historical perspective. With regard to the profoundest issue--war and peace--attitudes on each side of the ocean have come full circle over the five centuries of interaction.

The U.S. was founded by immigrants seeking refuge from religious persecution and a spate of seemingly senseless wars among European countries and principalities. The new Americans sought to distance themselves from the violence and religious intolerance of the Continent. It was with the greatest reluctance that in 1917 a pioneer country, which had been convulsed with the magnitude of a westward moving Manifest Destiny, determined that blocking a Kaiser's ambitions called for intervention in European affairs.

In the wake of a war trumpeted to end all wars, America retreated into political isolation in the 1920's. After inspiring its creation, we refused to join the League of Nations; and after expanding trade in industrial and agricultural products, we succumbed to economic protectionism in the 1930's. Only a direct attack on our territory caused us to enter World War II.

Today, it is Europe which is looking inward, pre-occupied with its manifest destiny, political integration made feasible by a growing economic union. Increasingly secular Europeans desire to separate themselves from an America that appears to them to be too unilateralist and quick to go to war, too fundamentalist and

thus blind to tolerance, and too simplistic to realize that conflicts with religious overtones are the most traumatic to manage.

When speaking to constituents of the rationale for and against the Iraq War, I have over the past couple of years referenced a set of books that held particular currency in the 1960's: the Alexandria Quartet by Lawrence Durrell. Each of the four books describes the same set of events in inter-war Egypt from the perspective of a different character. While the events are the same, the stories that unfold are profoundly different, causing the reader to recognize that one person's perspective is at best a snapshot of reality. A clear picture cannot be pieced together without looking through the lens of a multiplicity of eyes and experiences.

The Moslem experience gives substantially less weight than the Western experience to the two cataclysmic wars of the 20th century. Despite Lawrence's involvement in Arabia and the battles between Allied forces and Rommel's tanks, the engagements in the Middle East and North Africa were skirmishes compared with the struggles in Europe and the Far East. Not only do Moslems see the 20th century differently from Westerners, but Europeans and Americans have drawn different strategic parallels in the application of common experience to current challenges in the Middle East.

In the immediate aftermath of the First World War, historians and political strategists in Europe rightly concluded that the European alliance system had been too rigid and the assassination of a relatively minor figure, an archduke, should not have precipitated a war of such devastating consequences. Hence European leaders in the 1930's falsely concluded that historical wisdom necessitated initial accommodation with Hitler's adventurism. Too little flexibility caused one war; too little spine led to Munich. In the current context, President Bush sees himself as Churchill rather than Chamberlain, but Europeans see 9/11 as more analogous to the shots fired at Archduke Ferdinand than as a cause for a doctrine of preemption or war with Iraq, a war that could too easily spring into a clash of civilizations. Second guessing is always conjectural because history gives few second chances. Unlike football, downs aren't repeated.

Accordingly, the challenge today on both sides of the Atlantic is to put debate about going to war behind and work together to figure out how we proceed from here. A lot of polite observations have been made that European leaders seem less angry about American decisions related to Iraq this year compared to the differences expressed during the pre- war buildup. This may appear that way on the surface, but my sense is that European judgment, if anything, is more solidified and definitive today. Europeans may have become resigned that events have unfolded without their concurrence. By the same token, frustration that their advice has been discounted has caused anti-American anger to metastasize into anti-American smugness. Europeans believe that their skepticism has been vindicated by events. The stark good-versus-evil clarity that Washington policy makers seek appears to Europeans to be un-nuanced, unsophisticated, and unappreciative of differing judgments.

Americans countenance criticism of our President and his policies by fellow Americans, but we are not so tolerant of foreign dissent. The assumption in Washington is that Continental leaders deliberately sought to undercut U.S. leadership in the world community and that, in particular, the refusal of the French and Germans to support the President's position in the Security Council and NATO has made matters more dangerous for our troops and reconciliation more difficult in the current post-war setting.

On our side of the Atlantic, the sense exists that French and German political judgment has not only been at variance with American ideas but that a concerted effort was made on the Continent to triangulate the terrorist challenge and take advantage of America's dilemma. By distancing themselves from Washington, Paris and Bonn are seen to be encouraging the re-direction of Moslem discord. Whereas the rhetoric of Osama Bin Laden and other extremists was initially anti-Western, it is now more exclusively anti-U.S. The opportunity to transplant America's commercial as well as political position in parts of the world consumed with anti-Americanism appears not to have been lost on the European political-industrial elite.

With all of the attention given to the new transatlantic tensions, the implications of the Iraq war on Russia have received short shrift. But the new European antagonism to America has not gone unnoticed in Moscow. The cleavage between Washington and Europe and the preoccupation of America with the Middle East clearly give Putin a freer hand to advance a less democratic and more nationalistic set of policies at home. This is one reason why it is so important that America and NATO demonstrate then can work together in such areas as Afghanistan, where strategic common ground exists.

Likewise, the priority we have given to Iraq as well as North Korea, two charter members of the so-called ``Axis of Evil,'' means that we have been implicitly forced to subordinate trade and human rights issues with China. China's support, or at least not opposition, in international strategic affairs, has become so central to Administration policy makers that Beijing has been able to downgrade U.S. concerns about the historic shifts taking place in trade terms. A Chinese trade surplus with the U.S. that now exceeds $10 billion a month and an undervalued currency pegged to the dollar that makes flexible trade adjustments impossible are simply not being given the attention they deserve.

Economics and politics have seldom been more intertwined. Yet underappreciated is the prospect that a protectionist backlash of 1930's dimensions could develop if our political policies fail and our government loses respect in the world. Analogously, a political backlash could sweep the country if Washington doesn't develop institutional reforms to protect the political system from vulnerabilities to single-issue and special-interest constituencies. At a time when our foreign policy appears too attentive to ideological forces and too prone to rely on proxy empowered corporations to advance the national interest, Congress has an obligation to aggressively provide oversight of the contracting as well as intelligence judgments advanced by the Executive. Just as committees to review a new intelligence inadequacies are in order, so is a new committee to oversee government contracting related to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The professionalism and integrity of government decision- making about issues of war and peace must be above reproach. The country can afford neither ideological posturing nor war profiteering.

As for the dilemma of the moment, policy makers have been caught philosophically short. As mistaken as the overestimation of Saddam's WMD capacities was, the greater judgmental error may relate to the political pressure applied to the intelligence community on the issue of Iraqi complicity in the plane strikes on 9/11. Initially, the CIA straightforwardly noted that there was no credible evidence of Iraqi involvement. Then, under obvious pressure, it changed its stance and in presentation after presentation to Congress ominously suggested they had an ``evolving'' view of the role of Iraq, despite, to date, producing nothing of a definitive nature to show why the community changed its initial representation. Hence, the decision to go to war was against the backdrop of public opinion polls showing 60 percent of the American people believed significant Iraqi involvement existed in the 9/11 attack.

Compounding this lack of forthrightness, where the intelligence community knew the situation but refused publicly to differ with the political decision makers, was a judgment showing doubtful understanding of Moslem attitudes. The notion that American forces would be welcomed in Iraq as a liberating force with the well- intentioned option to reshape over time Iraqi political institutions was a mistake of profound proportions. Now, given the anarchy that has mushroomed in the country, Washington is swept by occupation analogies of World War II. Japan and Germany, it is noted, were occupied for more than five years after hostilities ceased. Hence, many are suggesting, we must be prepared to stay at least this long in Iraq.

I have seldom been more apprehensive about an historical analogy. Japan and Germany were the instigators of war; their citizens understood this. Iraqis don't see it this way. They see the U.S. as the aggressor. Images form Al-Jazeera portray a country under siege. In the Moslem world Iraq looks more like a police-cordoned West Bank than a great and ancient society on the move to a better life. Outsiders are viewed as unwanted intruders acting out of great power self-interest, unrespectful of the culture and values of the country being occupied. The irony that it is Shi'a clerics, not American statesmen, who are pushing for democratic elections at this time is not lost on the Iraqis or the Moslem world.

More profoundly, I am amazed that pundits haven't caught on to the possibility that the only thing worse than being wrong in our intelligence assessments of Iraqi WMD would have been if we had been right and thereby taken the risk of precipitating a retaliatory BW attack against Israel or possibly an American city. Biological weapons in the control of petty potentates is mad science in the hands of mad men. To go to war against a country with BW weapons, especially if the initiator has no knowledge where they are, is to hazard more than a clash of civilizations; it is to instigate a potential challenge to the maintenance of civilization itself.

In any regard, if a WMD rationale for intervention can't be established, we must not allow the democracy case to founder. To authorize an additional $80 billion for Iraq and

not be able to find the means to conduct timely elections is preposterous.

Legitimacy is critical for all countries. There may be times and circumstances in which the U.S. national interest requires action without a U.N. sanction. But the U.N. is ignored at great risk, especially when the international community is at odds with a nation state's policies. The U.N.'s help, for instance, could be significant at this point in facilitating elections and helping legitimize new governing structures. If a commitment to a time frame for democratic elections isn't soon forthcoming, the Administration may see an escalation of violence in Iraq led by the Shi'a in the South, thus adding to the traumas precipitated by Saddam's old henchmen and foreign trouble makers in the Sunni triangle to the north, where disorder is so prevalent today.

The judgment call Washington must make is whether to employ something closer to a ``get in/get out'' strategy or one of prolonged occupation. Each approach caries risk, with the likelihood of a certain amount of disorder developing whenever the American presence is reduced. Whether that disorder becomes less deep with time or whether time allows anarchist forces to organize more vigorously and lay claim to a legitimizing nationalist mantle is conjectural.

In the realm of policy timing can often be as important as substance. Just as Senator Dirksen once noted that a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there and pretty soon you're talking about real money, in foreign affairs a week here and a week there can soon add up to a policy dilemma.

The difficulty of timing was underscored this week when some in Washington charged the newly elected Spanish Government with ``appeasement'' for its announced intention to withdraw its forces from Iraq in the wake of last week's bombings in Madrid unless the U.N. role in Iraq is broadened. The language of appeasement may appropriately describe the lack of resolve of Western leaders when they refused to stand up to Hitler's growing power in the 1930s, but it may not be as fair to apply such a term to Spanish policy today. Indeed, doing so may carry irresponsible implications because fear of its connotations may make disengagement more difficult if the country or forces of an occupying power are ever under attack. For instance, if ``appeasement'' is considered the dominant potential issue, U.S. policy makers relinquish their sovereign discretion and instead could give terrorists the determinative say when we will disengage from Iraq. A few radicals could with relative ease launch a steady dose of terrorist attacks on our civilian and armed services personnel and ``force'' us to stay or then be in a position to argue when we eventually leave that they forced us out. That is why it is so critical that we lay out a basis for withdrawal that has nothing to do with the terrorist behavior of Iraqi radicals and everything to do with the establishment of a freely elected leadership.

On the issue of the timing of the hand-over of civil authority I give less judgmental weight in the Iraqi circumstance to historical analogies to the post-war occupation of Japan and Germany and more to a personal anecdote about the manner the Vietnam war came to be concluded. Early in my career in Congress, I was invited to the Library of Congress to join a small group of historians to listen to a lecture by Henry Kissinger about the negotiations that led to the end of that war. The night before the lecture, I perused one of Secretary Kissinger's autobiographic tomes and came across a paragraph that so startled me that I asked him about it in the seminar that followed the lecture. Kissinger wrote that in December 1968, shortly after Richard Nixon had asked him to be his National Security Council director, he met with the President-elect to discuss the direction of the new administration's foreign policy. They determined together, he noted, that their policy would be to get out of Vietnam. So I asked him why they didn't just proceed to do that. Kissinger looked at me for a moment and then uttered words I will never forget. ``Young man,'' he said, ``we meant with honor.'' I then asked him if ``honor'' required escalation. ``Absolutely,'' he responded.

In governance, judgment to be good must be timely. The course of history and attitudes toward America would be very different today if the Nixon administration had acted forthrightly on its own judgment. In Iraq, where we are fast becoming a magnet of instability rather than a force of stability, we must not hesitate. If the issue is democracy, let's hold elections with dispatch and use the democratic transition as the rationalization for deep troop reductions.

If we maintain a heavy presence much longer our president could find himself in a dilemma of the kind Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon came to know too well. There are circumstances in life where the small can humble the powerful. This has the makings of one. Despite the overwhelming nature of our military victory and the courageous commitment and sacrifice of our armed forces, policies can fail if the timing of disengagement is wrong.

This is why clarity of purpose and flexibility of response are so crucial. And why the neo-con mantra--``we must see this through''-- deserves review. Hasty withdrawal is problemsome; orderly, philosophically cogent decisions to wind down the military dimension of our presence in Iraq should, however, be our highest national interest priority. Democratic elections are the key. They can be held in relatively short order (at least by year's end; preferably earlier) if there is a will and commitment to do so. But the longer we heed the advice of those who want to hold onto power in Iraq, the harder it will be to avert increased terrorism here and abroad.

Here I would like to return to what in most contexts must be considered a rather esoteric paradigm: the Hobbesian notion of a state of nature. Terrorism is a military or, more precisely, militant tool of anarchy. It is the desire of terrorists to make Iraqi society a social jungle, a state of nature where anarchy rather than law rules. Legitimacy of government in this setting can perhaps be precipitated but it cannot be imposed from the outside. Outside pressure is less convincing when it appears to be presented by a singular authority-- i.e., the United States. One of the reasons so many countries prefer a strong U.N. role is that such a role not only provides greater legitimization of intervention but greater legitimization of processes leading to a new government. U.S. slighting of the U.N. undercuts governmental legitimizing efforts and causes the entirety of the Moslem world to become more antagonistic to our country.

For our part, we have gotten caught in a web of events we can influence but not control. In the end, legitimacy of any new government in Iraq will depend on consent of the governed. The only wise U.S. policy is to steamroll ahead with a constitutional framework of democratic elections with a pre-announced strategy of large-scale troop withdrawals commencing somewhat before or just after elections are held.

In conclusion, let me suggest a corollary to Lord Acton's maxim that power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. The Leach corollary is that military power tempts and excessive power tends to tempt excessively. America's enormous military strength is critical at this stage in history. But while we are obligated to recognize that its maintenance is imperative, we must also realize that its utilization may not fit, and may indeed be counter-productive, in certain strategic settings. We have to use more than just our own eyes and rely on more that just our own expertise if in turbulent times we are to manage prudently the affairs of state.

Analogies between all wars exist, but comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are frail. What must be understood is not that Iraq could be as bad as Vietnam; rather, that it could be far worse. Vietnam, after all, involved no WMD issues; and while the North was predominantly Buddhist and the South Catholic, there were no implications of a world-wide religious struggle; nor of a conflict that might last many decades, if not centuries. The issue at the time was Communism and fear that if Vietnam fell, neighboring governments would topple like dominoes. In retrospect, the real domino lesson of Vietnam was about political decision-making. Once the patriotic flag was raised, stands taken, words uttered, one doubtful decision precipitated another, and the pride of politicians did not allow a change of course until the people demanded common sense reconsideration.

In this context, there is an aspect of this resolution that deserves reflective review. It is true, as the resolution asserts, that Iraq and the world are better off without Saddam Hussein ensconced in power. But it is not necessarily true that our country and the world are safer if the overthrow of one thug leads to the creation of millions of rebels with a cause.

It would be a mistake of historical proportions if respectful relations not only between America and the Moslem world but between America and its traditional allies were to rupture. We are obligated to see that they don't.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) who has been so gracious to me on so many occasions for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, first let me thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for introducing this resolution honoring President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

It is important for Members of this House to not only remember but to acknowledge his many accomplishments and his unique place in our history. The vast majority of Presidential scholars consider FDR to be one of our country's greatest Presidents. As we all know, FDR assumed the Presidency as this Nation confronted the Great Depression. His inspirational words of hope helped Americans get through some of the most difficult economic challenges in our history, and his bold leadership and creative policies ultimately led us out of the Great Depression.

He showed us then, and I think we should all remember this now, that government can be a force for good. It can be an instrument to empower and to help people.

For example, Social Security is one of FDR's greatest legacies. Today, Social Security provides half the income of 60 percent of our senior citizens. It is a program that keeps countless seniors from falling into poverty, the kind of devastating poverty that plagued so many before FDR's efforts. As we honor Franklin Delano Roosevelt's efforts today, we must recommit ourselves to protecting and strengthening Social Security. It can be there for our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren.

After America was attacked at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, FDR and the Greatest Generation rose to the defense of our country by fighting against the Axis Powers. Millions of men and women were mobilized for our war effort.

These Americans came from small towns, large cities, regardless of race or class. They courageously defended our freedom. They sacrificed much, and our country's eternally grateful for their service.

It is particularly fitting that we honor FDR now because 2004 is the 60th anniversary of D-Day. In honoring FDR, we honor the young soldiers who stormed the beaches of France and turned the tide of World War II.

This is also the year that we will dedicate the World War II memorial on the Washington Mall.

Madam Speaker, I attend veterans events in my district all the time, and never is there a time when a World War II veteran does not come up to me and tell me how honored he was to serve under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was an extraordinary Commander in Chief.

Following FDR's death on April 12, 1945, plans were formulated to honor FDR on the dime. The chief proponent of placing FDR's likeness on the dime was then-U.S. Representative Clyde Doyle of California; and Madam Speaker, at this point, I will insert the text of a letter written by Representative Doyle to the U.S. Mint in the Congressional Record

May 3, 1945.

Re To have the likeness of our late President Franklin Delano

Roosevelt placed on the dime.

Director, Bureau of the Mint,

Department of the Treasury,

Washington, DC.

My Dear Friend: A few days ago I received from you in

compliance with my request the listing of the relative place

in our currency circulation of the first three coins. I note

the dime is No. 3. Thank you for this information.

As we stated in asking you therefor, I had in mind that it

would be proper to have the likeness of our great President,

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, placed on the dime. I say

``proper'' for the following reasons, amongst others: First.

The dime was made famous over the world because of the

triumph by our great beloved President of great spirits,

heart, mind, and soul over physical infirmities and

handicaps. Second. It was made famous over the world because

of the March of Dimes which was sponsored by him in order

that the terrible disease of infantile paralysis might be

eliminated in the experience of all mankind. The millions of

dollars received has actually achieved a great deal in this

worthy objective. Third. Other coins of our great Nation have

had the likenesses of our great Presidents and citizens

placed upon them. Fourth. The circulation of the dime, while

No. 3 now in our Nation, is so rapidly increasing that it has

become almost the most popular coin in business. Fifth. The

dime has become a piece of money for which the average

American has real affection because of the identity thereof

with the March of Dimes.

The other most commonly used coins each have the head of a

great American past President, to wit: The penny, Abraham

Lincoln; the nickel, Thomas Jefferson; the quarter, George

Washington. It would be very appropriate to have the replica

of this great American on one side of the time and the

replica of the Goddess of Liberty on the other side.

I do not purpose to offer a bill on the floor of the House

in this regard, because I anticipate that a simpler and more

efficient process of doing this timely act would be by your

Department deciding so to do. If I am in error in this

important thought, I shall appreciate your advising in the

premise.

I will say, from the Eighteenth Congressional District of

California, which I have the honor to represent, there come

frequent and very large numbers of requests that this

development in honor of this great American take place as

promptly as possible.

If there is any reason why this cannot be done by you,

kindly call my attention thereto by reply mail.

I have the honor to be,

Sincerely yours,

Clyde Doyle,

Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, as many people know, there is an effort underway by some of our colleagues to diminish FDR's legacy by taking his profile off the dime and replacing it with President Ronald Reagan's profile. I am not opposed to honoring President Reagan, who served our country with great distinction, but why in order to honor President Reagan must we dishonor President Roosevelt?

I would like to explain to my colleagues the reasons why FDR is on the dime. Having been paralyzed by infantile paralysis, polio, FDR was a long-time supporter of efforts to eradicate the disease. In 1938, he founded the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, a national organization which raised funds to find a cure for polio.

The following year, comedian Eddie Cantor asked the Nation to mail dimes to the White House to help the foundation; and in one month, the White House received $85,000 in dimes. Cantor declared it a March of Dimes, and the name became the lasting moniker for the foundation.

The new FDR dime was issued on January 30, 1946, the date that would have been FDR's 64th birthday. In a broadcast kicking off the annual March of Dimes campaign on the same day, President Harry S. Truman declared: ``The fight to conquer infantile paralysis is an unfinished task of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It must and shall be carried to complete victory.''

Madam Speaker, at this point, I include in the Congressional Record the March of Dimes statement against removing FDR's profile from the dime.

March of Dimes Strongly Opposes Removal of FDR From the Dime

The profile of President Franklin D. Roosevelt was placed

on the dime in 1946 to memorialize his 4 term Presidency, his

fight to find a vaccine to prevent polio, and the volunteer

movement epitomized by the March of Dimes. For all these

reasons, the March of Dimes strongly opposes efforts to

remove FDR from the dime.

The Franklin D. Roosevelt dime commemorates a national

movement that resulted in the eradication of polio from the

United States and in the near future from the entire world.

The efforts funded through the ``March of Dimes'' campaign

initiated by Roosevelt provided care for the victims of polio

while aggressively working to develop vaccines against it.

This represented one of the first large-scale, nationwide

biomedical initiatives, led by a charitable organization. It

also helped make the volunteer movement an integral part of

the fabric of American life.

In January 1938, alarmed by decades of worsening polio

epidemics and the terrible toll the virus was taking on

America's young, President Roosevelt established the National

Foundation for Infantile Paralysis. The National Foundation

emphasized the nationwide significance and non-partisan

character of the polio crusade. FDR believed that people

could solve any problem if they worked together. Comedian

Eddie Cantor coined the phrase ``March of Dimes'' (playing on

the popular newsreel feature ``The March of Time''),

appealing to radio listeners all over the country to send

their dimes directly to the White House. The campaign proved

to be hugely successful with over 2.5 million dimes sent to

the White House the first year. The National Foundation

officially changed its name to the March of Dimes in 1979.

The FDR dime not only commemorates his presidency, but

represents the American spirit of working together to help

one another. The coin is symbolic of the struggle to end

polio through the ``March of Dimes'' campaign and the

worldwide eradication of polio is expected in 2005. The dime

is a vehicle in which to explain what the volunteer spirit in

America means, it would be a shame to lose that.

In response to the Reagan dime bill, I introduced H. Con. Res. 343, which expresses Congress's support for the FDR

dime. It currently has 130 cosponsors. In fact, Nancy Reagan supports leaving FDR on the dime. Mrs. Reagan said, ``While I can understand the intentions of those seeking to place my husband's face on the dime, I do not support this proposal, and I am certain Ronnie would not. When our country chooses to honor a great President such as FDR by placing his likeness on our currency, it would be wrong to replace him with another. It is my hope that this proposed legislation will be withdrawn.''

I, at this point, would insert into the Congressional Record an editorial from the Gainesville Times on this issue.

Honor Reagan? Fine. Dishonor Roosevelt? No.

The latest lunacy to emanate from Congress needs to stop on

a dime: literally.

Rep. Mark Souder, a Republican from Indiana, is miffed

about the miniseries now airing on Showtime, a premium cable

channel operated by CBS, on former President Ronald Reagan

and his wife, Nancy. The miniseries portrays Reagan, who

suffers from Alzheimer's, as a doddering, rather pathetic

figure and his wife as a calculating, domineering

manipulator.

Therefore, according to Souder's logic, Reagan should

replace former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the

dime.

Souder and other conservatives, inside and outside

Congress, were outraged when CBS announced earlier this fall

that it would air ``The Reagans'' on network TV. CBS backed

off last month and sent the miniseries to Showtime, where it

plays to much smaller audiences. That hardly mollified Souder

and some of his colleagues in the House.

``It's what precipitated me introducing the bill . . . and

why it was a lot easier to get a lot of support,'' Souder

said of the miniseries, which he termed ``vile'' in a letter

to colleagues in support of his proposal.

Souder claims to have the support of 88 other House

Republicans for his ridiculous idea. More than a dozen of

them are from California, where the Reagans make their home

and where Reagan is a former governor.

In his effort to rewrite history and dishonor Roosevelt,

Souder trots out the ``L'' word in what's becoming a tiresome

exercise in partisan politics.

``I believe (Reagan) represents conservative values as we

would see them implemented through a president better than

anybody else we've had in American history,'' Souder said.

``He, to conservatives, represents kind of the reverse of

FDR, who is kind of the liberal icon. Ronald Reagan is the

conservative icon.''

We ``kind of'' miss Souder's point and why the obscure

congressman believes it's proper to replace Roosevelt on the

coin.

The presidencies of Roosevelt and Reagan occurred nearly 50

years apart under circumstances that were quite different.

While Reagan helped restore some resolve to American

foreign policy in the aftermath of the caution that resulted

from the disastrous Vietnam War and gets credit for cracking

the facade of communism, Roosevelt governed in much more dire

and challenging times.

In 1933, FDR inherited a nation that was reeling from the

Great Depression, which began four years earlier when the

stock market crashed and set into motion the most cataclysmic

economic emergency in the nation's history. From Wall Street

to Main Street, panic reigned. Tens of millions of Americans

watched their savings, jobs and fortunes vanish.

Roosevelt's innovative employment and economic programs,

and the sweeping changes that guaranteed the financial future

of older Americans with the creation of Social Security,

lifted the nation out of the Depression's nightmare.

During World War II, Roosevelt and British Prime Minister

Winston Churchill turned back the horror of Nazi Germany in

North Africa and Europe and the brutal occupation of most of

Asia by the Japanese in leading history's greatest and most

successful coalition in the name of freedom.

While Roosevelt and Churchill were hesitant to partner with

Soviet leader Josef Stalin and shortsightedly criticized for

doing so, they pragmatically understood the war against

Hitler could not be won without assisting the communists.

Roosevelt an icon? How else to describe a president so

popular and successful he was elected to four terms as

president?

We suspect that many of the Indiana voters represented by

Souder were helped to no small degree by the policies that

Roosevelt engineered until his death in 1945. Many of them

still are beneficiaries of Roosevelt's work.

Reagan deserves an important place in history. And he has

won recognition for his achievements in many ways. Ronald

Reagan National Airport and the building that houses the

Justice Department are named for the former president, as

well as countless schools, streets, roads and bridges across

America.

We respect the conservatism that Reagan personifies and the

conservative values that Souder desires so passionately to

honor. But removing Roosevelt from the dime is an illogical

and disrespectful way to do so.

Roosevelt and Reagan both were great men and leaders. Few

rise to the office of the president without the extraordinary

qualities that both possessed.

We would urge Souder and his colleagues to find a less

partisan and emotionally charged way to honor the

accomplishments of Ronald Reagan. He deserves better than the

outlandish scheme that Souder and his co-sponsors of the bill

offer.

Mr. Speaker, FDR was a true liberal. He was a believer in dynamic and efficient government. He was not afraid to use government to lift people out of poverty or to help our children, our seniors, our farmers, our veterans, the unemployed, or those who have been forgotten by society.

In his second inaugural address, he said: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.''

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with my colleagues in honoring FDR. He was a wonderful President, and our Nation and our world is better for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 557 and claim the time set aside for us under the rule, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, our President, having exhausted all other options, made the decision to take action against Saddam Hussein and the threat posed by his evil tyranny. During that course, the debate about that, this House was presented with an overwhelming body of evidence detailing the brutal inhumanity of Saddam Hussein and his regime, the suffering of the Iraqi people under his repressive dictatorship, the threat that Saddam presented to his neighbors and to the world, and indeed the piles of bodies in neighboring countries he left behind. Today, now that Saddam has been removed from power and the mass graves, the secret laboratories, the vast military stockpiles, missile capacities that he had, have all been exposed to the world, the world is a safer place. Certainly the Iraqi people, all Iraqi people, have a new hope for a better future today than they did just a year ago. Just a year ago. What a remarkable accomplishment by our troops and the coalition.

Yet we continue to hear claims from some that the liberation of Iraq, no matter how worthy the result, no matter how necessary to improving U.S. national security, was somehow a flawed endeavor. Yes, it was hard, but they claim it was a flawed endeavor because the intelligence that the United States had prior to the war was not perfect.

Some apparently feel that either the Intelligence Community was pressured by the administration into stating that Iraq was a threat or the Intelligence Community did not really believe Iraq was a threat but the administration misused the intelligence provided to it. The truth is neither of those are correct. But that has not deterred some conspiratorially critics from contorting themselves, trying to make both arguments simultaneously.

Looking back about a year and a half ago, while the Intelligence Community was focused heavily on Iraq, the President stated that Saddam was ``a grave and growing threat.'' And he was right. Today we have the benefit of hindsight, of a presence on the ground in Iraq, and of the thousands of hours of studying all there is to study on the prewar intelligence picture of Iraq, and we have barely begun to get that job finished.

Taking advantage of all these benefits, I would like to share my assessment so far, and I would note that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House, and I know of the Senate also, is underway in coming forward with a formal review of all this, which I hope we will be able to share with our colleagues before too long. That is our plan.

The intelligence picture of Iraq, of the threat Iraq posed to its neighbors and to the United States, including the assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, was entirely consistent over a period of almost a decade. The assessment is consistent in the finished intelligence and the daily current intelligence pieces from the mid- 1990s onward. It is consistent in the classified records that have been provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence over the past year. So I have to conclude on that basis alone, if the intelligence adjustments regarding Iraq were the result of political pressure or manipulation, any such machinations must have occurred in the middle of the 1990s. But I do not believe that that is the case. Therefore, if the intelligence picture is unchanging, was there a change in the substance or tone used by this administration to describe that threat? We do not need to go to the Intelligence Community or to any classified records to answer that question. We just need to compare public statements that have been made, and they are available to the world.

In 2003 President Bush said this: ``Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies who would use them without the least hesitation.''

In 1998 then President Bill Clinton said: ``In the next century,'' which is now, ``the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now, a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who traveled the world . . . if we fail to respond today, Saddam . . . will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity.''

And again in 1998, then President Bill Clinton said: ``There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world . . . His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.'' President Clinton, 1998.

Fast forward, 2003, President Bush: ``Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike . . . Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.''

Actually, there is not a lot of difference in the leadership that was taking place in this country on the question of the threat that Saddam Hussein and his regime and weapons of mass destruction that might be at his disposal were to the rest of us. It is pretty clear that that was a consistent view.

So, were the intelligence assessments perfect? No. In fact, comparing the intelligence assessment to what has been found in Iraq today, it is clear there were insufficiencies in our intelligence capabilities and they are of concern to us, and on a bipartisan basis we are looking into that. What was the cause of these insufficiencies? Perhaps Iraq, under Saddam, was a difficult target. It was sort of a denied area. There was a ruthless security apparatus there that made information gathering inside the country extremely difficult, very dangerous. We also know that Iraq instituted a truly massive denial and deception program designed to mislead anyone attempting to learn about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and related programs. Virtually everybody who tried found out that he was involved in denial and deception. So these factors made intelligence collection a little difficult, but it is the tough job that intelligence is there for.

So, what else? I found that cuts in intelligence resources, personnel, and political support in the mid-1990s made many aspects of the intelligence mission in Iraq even more impossible than what we are up against.

Where were these cuts most severe? In the case of Iraq, it turns out it was the decline in our intelligence capabilities that hurt the most. Human intelligence is where we get more than pictures, more than fragments. We get insight into the plans and intentions of our target. What is going on in the minds of the troublemakers? And without good human intelligence, HUMINT, as we call it, it is very difficult indeed to get an accurate picture of what an adversary is up to.

Yet from 1991 to 1998, a time of cutbacks for military and intelligence resources across the board, our human intelligence capabilities suffered dramatically. The number of officers collecting information shrank by about a quarter; the number of operating locations overseas dropped by about a third; reporting sources declined by almost 40 percent; and the number of intelligence reports produced were cut in half or thereabouts.

So we add on top of that the politically correct ``nice spies'' guidelines that were posed in 1995, the risk aversion problem, and we begin to see why information in Iraq was so hard to come by. Good information about plans and intentions, the eyes and ears, just were not sufficient.

So despite these severe limitations, I think the scorecard shows that the United States Intelligence Community provided the best assessment it could. And referring Members to the Director of Central Intelligence's recent speech at Georgetown, the assessments were not as far wrong as some critics of the war would have us believe.

In the final analysis, I think it is important that we get it right. Saddam was a threat. The United Nations believed he was a threat. The vast majority of the Western nations, even those outside of the U.S.- led coalition, believed he was a threat. The U.S. Intelligence Community assessed consistently that Saddam was a threat. The previous administration told the American people that Saddam was a threat. And it has been the official policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq since 1998 across two administrations. The difference between 1998 and 2003 is that President Bush took the bold action necessary to address a grave threat where others before him did not. The world is a safer place for it.

Freedom is not free. The purpose of this resolution is to recognize the hardships that the men and women who are doing the dangerous, risky work of protecting our freedoms, the people in our military services, the people in the coalition, the people who are taking risks. After a year, we are here to say, you are doing great work, keep it up, we are so grateful.

We are also including some applause for the people of Iraq who have gone through miserable times and now have some hope, and they have completed the remarkable achievement of a temporary constitution already. This is the sign of a spirited people who are looking for a better life.

This resolution simply says that and commends that. I believe we can all agree that these are the times that we can get together and say, well done, more to do, let us get on with it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), and chairman of one of our critical subcommittees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a member of our committee and the chairman of a subcommittee as well.

(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who is also a subcommittee chairman of the committee.

(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the vice chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a former member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 45 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) working as the ranking member on our committee to improve our Intelligence Community and to build support for the Intelligence Community in this House. It is important that we deal with a subject like this on a bipartisan basis. I know the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) is anxious and sincere in her call for action. I am too.

I believe we did have a call for action after 9/11, and I think that call for action has led us to go forth as the United States of America and to try to do the right thing on the war on terror. And I think from time to time as we go through that war, it is fine for us to say to the troops, well done, God bless you, and it is time to say to people involved in places like Iraq, we know it is tough, thanks for hanging in there, you have a better future ahead.

That is what this is about. I thank all Members for having that kind of understanding and looking ahead. We have a lot to do; we have got to get along and get it done.

Mr. Speaker, really in one sense, it does not matter how people vote on this resolution because it has no effect, but some things need to be said about it.

Every Member here supports the troops. Every Member here applauds the sacrifices the men and women of our Armed Forces have made. Every Member here understands that America needs no one's permission to defend this country from attack.

But when American leaders choose to wage a preemptive war against a country that did not attack the United States, when those leaders attempt to rally the American people to their support on the basis of faulty information and bad intelligence, when that unilateral decision costs more than 500 American lives, when it costs thousands of American wounded, when it costs the lives of uncounted thousands of innocent civilians, that decision does not, despite the claims of this resolution, it does not leave us in a stronger and safer position, as this resolution falsely suggests. In fact, it could be argued it does just the opposite.

Are we really in a safer and stronger position when the world and our allies know that we went to war unilaterally on the basis of wrong intelligence? Are we really going to be in a stronger position to persuade the world to follow us the next time we tell them it is necessary to act; for example, in the case of an American conclusion that North Korea has nuclear weapons?

Are we really in a safer and stronger position in persuading more Americans to serve in the military when they see that we rushed to war before 45,000 U.S. troops were supplied with the ceramic inserts that they needed for their body armor, when they see their government did not provide the shields that protect Humvees and their occupants from roadbed explosions, or when they see that their government did not supply our troops with the electronic jammers needed to protect those troops against remotely detonated bombs and mines?

Are we really in a safer and stronger position when we are forced to police Iraq largely on our own, with little help from our allies? Have we really created a safer world when, by our actions, we have told the Indians and Pakistanis, who have been close to nuclear war with each other, that a doctrine of preemptive war is acceptable? Are we really as safe and strong as we would be if we had not diverted to Iraq key personnel and taken intelligence resources away from the crucial task of finding Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan?

Last night, many of us sang the praises of John Hume, the great Irish peacemaker. Hume said last night that there has been no war in history that has not killed more innocent civilians than it has combatants.

Are we really safer and stronger in a world where thousands of young Muslims now are being told to hate the United States because we waged a war against a Muslim country that had not attacked the U.S., rather than focusing like a laser on destroying the al Qaeda network which is the justifiable target of our rage?

Many Members who vote for this resolution today will do so despite the misstatements it contains, because it contains an expression of support for our troops. Many who vote against it will also do so because of the unwarranted assertions in this resolution that needlessly detract from our focus on the sacrifices those troops have made.

Mr. Speaker, shame on the House leadership for drafting this resolution in a way that needlessly divides us rather than unites us. By not allowing meaningful alternatives to be debated and voted on, they do not promote democracy; they mock it.

Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the Record after my statement a copy of the resolution on which we should have been allowed to vote.

Resolution

Relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people and the

valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and

Coalition forces.

Whereas Saddam Hussein and his regime committed crimes

against humanity, systematically violating the human rights

of Iraqis and citizens of other countries;

Whereas Saddam Hussein's terror regime subjected the Iraqi

people to murder, torture, rape, and amputation;

Whereas on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein's regime had and

unleashed weapons of mass destruction against Kurdish

citizens, killing nearly 5,000 of them;

Whereas as many as 270 mass grave sites, containing the

remains of as many as 400,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's

regime, have been found in Iraq;

Whereas rape was used to intimidate the Iraqi population,

with victims often raped in front of their families;

Whereas the regime punished the Marsh Arabs by draining the

marshlands, which created hundreds of thousands of refugees

and caused an ecological catastrophe;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-

338), passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 360

to 38, made it United States policy to support efforts to

remove from power the regime headed by Saddam Hussein;

Whereas with the Iraqi regime failing to comply with 16

previously adopted United Nations Security Council

resolutions, the Security Council unanimously approved

Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, declaring that Iraq `has

been and remains in material breach of its obligations under

relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in

particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United

Nations inspectors'; and

Whereas on October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives

passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against

Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) and on March 19,

2003, the United States initiated military operations in

Iraq: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) acknowledges the belief on the part of some that the

United States and the world have been made safer with the

removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq

and the belief that a final judgment on the value of

activities in Iraq cannot be made until Iraq is stable and

secure;

(2) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face

of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by

Saddam Hussein's regime;

(3) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's

interim constitution;

(4) commends the members of the United States Armed Forces

and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its

gratitude for their valiant service; and

(5) urges the President--

(A) to take all steps necessary to ensure that all members

of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq receive the

best force protection equipment available, including

protective body armor and extra-armored wheeled vehicles

capable of providing better protection against explosive

devices;

(B) to ensure that all members of the Armed Forces who

suffer wounds or other injuries, or who incur illness, while

serving in Iraq receive complete, timely, and high-quality

health care to treat the short-term and long-term

consequences of such wounds, injuries, and illnesses;

(C) to recognize the key contributions made by members of

the reserve components of the Armed Forces, and their

families, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and, in consultation

with Congress, to address immediately the disparity that

exists for many Reserve and Guard personnel between the pay

they receive in civilian life and the military compensation

they receive when ordered to active duty;

(D) to acknowledge that there were serious deficiencies in

United States pre-war intelligence on Iraq, particularly in

light of the failure to find any evidence of significant

weapons of mass destruction programs, and to take steps now

to improve intelligence so that United States troops are

better protected and future United States national security

strategies are better informed;

(E) to request sufficient funding immediately to fully

support United States military operations in Iraq and the

surrounding region in order to ensure the safety and well-

being of United States troops deployed to Iraq and the

surrounding region;

(F) to obtain far-reaching international participation in

the securing, reconstruction, and political development of

Iraq so that the United States can reduce the number of its

troops in Iraq, and reduce the size of its financial

commitment to Iraq operations; and

(G) to take steps to correct the failure of the United

States Government to plan adequately for the post-war

occupation of Iraq, including the failure to integrate

internal United States Government studies and outside expert

opinions that predicted the onset of guerrilla activity and

described how to promote effective reconstruction,

democratization, and civil society development activities,

and the failure to apply those studies and opinions today in

order to improve current United States reconstruction efforts

in Iraq;

(6) expresses deep sorrow and regret for the deaths of more

than 550 and the wounding of more than 3,500 members of the

United States Armed Forces in Iraq and extends support to

their families; and

(7) expresses sorrow and regret for the deaths in Iraq of

United States civilians, Untied Nations personnel, unknown

numbers of Iraqi civilians, and other noncombatants.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are considering today is deeply flawed. The way it was handled was meant to be divisive, and it has achieved that goal. None of us in this House knows if next January we will have a Kerry administration or a Bush administration, but we do know that whoever is in the White House must ensure the success of U.S. policy in Europe. Success in time of war requires cohesion and unity. We do not need a divisive, partisan resolution. This may be the way to prepare a Republican tax bill, but it is not the way to prepare a foreign policy resolution to win broad bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, the conflict in Iraq should not be a partisan issue. The soldiers who are fighting in Iraq are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The soldiers who are wounded and killed in Iraq are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The families who grieve for their sons and daughters who died in Iraq are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The citizens of this country who are paying for this war are Democrats and Republicans and Independents.

Mr. Speaker, it is totally unacceptable that not a single amendment to this resolution was made in order. This was a Republican resolution, drafted with partisan intent by the Republican leadership. Many of us in this House who have been committed to and who have worked for a bipartisan foreign policy for decades know that this is a slap in our face.

A resolution that commends our troops ought to receive the unanimous support of this body, but this resolution has been written specifically to prevent that result.

Mr. Speaker, war is a time for shared sacrifice, a time when we are all united in a common struggle. This is not shared sacrifice. Some Americans are being killed, some are being wounded, some are asked to leave their families and risk their lives far from home; and some at the very top of the income scale are being asked to accept massive tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution commends the troops, but it does not acknowledge the supreme sacrifice of many who are fighting. This resolution makes no reference to the more than 550 service men and women who have died in Iraq. It makes no reference to the thousands more who have been wounded. It offers no condolences to the families of those who have been killed. It makes no reference to the sacrifices of the families whose members are away from them serving in Iraq for many months or over a year. It makes no reference to the many civilian and humanitarian workers who risk their lives daily. It makes no reference to the contribution of our allies who have thousands of troops in Iraq, and it makes no mention of the death and casualties they have suffered. And it makes no reference to the Iraqi civilians who have lost their lives and suffered injuries, including dozens who were killed today.

Mr. Speaker, there are other serious omissions in this resolution. We should spend our time today debating substantive legislation to fix these problems. The American people have not sent us here just to be an ``amen'' chorus for this administration. There are serious problems, and we should be debating serious solutions.

There is no mention in this resolution of the flawed intelligence that was the basis of the administration's argument for going to war in the first place. We should be debating the establishment of a truly independent commission to examine the shortcomings of U.S. intelligence and the way it was used.

The members of this commission must not be appointed solely by the President, and the commission should make its findings known before Election Day. Only a truly independent investigation, and an investigation that the American people perceive to be independent, can bridge the credibility

gap in our intelligence both here at home and abroad.

The failure of this Congress to deal with the problems facing our intelligence agencies will ultimately harm our national security, the war against terrorism, and our fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Speaker, we are commending our troops but we are not taking action that we can and should take to make their lives and to make the lives of their loved ones easier. The sacrifices being made by our National Guard and reservists in Iraq and elsewhere are extraordinary. Many National Guard and Reserve families have suffered serious financial losses because of the pay gap between their military pay when they are called up and their private sector pay. With longer rotations, Guard and Reserve families are facing dramatically increased financial burdens while their loved ones risk their lives far away from home. One of the consequences is a serious problem with reenlistments in the Reserves and the National Guard.

My legislation, H.R. 1345, legislation that I introduced 1 year ago this week, would fill that pay gap. My bill would ensure that government and private sector employees can continue to defend our country without being forced to worry about their families facing financial disaster.

Words of support for our troops ring hollow when substantive legislation to improve their conditions is sandbagged by the leadership on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that this resolution in its present form is brought before the House today. This should be a time for bipartisan unity and cohesion, not a time for partisanship. This should be a time for us to deal substantively with serious problems we face in Iraq and in our foreign policy. This should be a time for us to take serious action to help our service men and women. All of us join in commending our brave men and women of our Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from Florida, let me remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that national unity and cohesion are not matters of parliamentary procedure. They are at the core of uniting the United States and the American people at a time of war.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the distinguished chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an important member of the Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia of the Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Human Rights.

(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a

distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), my colleague and a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), my good friend and distinguished colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), our last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I designate each of the following three Members to control \1/2\ hour of time allotted to me under the rule: \1/2\ hour for the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), \1/2\ hour for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), and \1/2\ hour for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).