Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 252 expresses the sense of Congress that the Government of the United States should actively support the aspirations of the democratic, political, and social forces in the Republic of Nicaragua. I want to say it is possible that my good friend, Mr. Burton, may have already achieved the results that were intended in this resolution.

This bill was crafted to address a pact formed by Arnoldo Aleman, former president of Nicaragua of the LCP Party, who had been sentenced to 20 years of house arrest for looting state coffers of $100 million. The pact was with Mr. Aleman and Daniel Ortega, former president of the Sandinista Party.

The Aleman-Ortega Pact passed so-called constitutional reforms that weakened the power of the Bolanos presidency. It was in this context, I believe, that H. Con. Res. 252 was introduced.

However, I believe the context, perhaps the mere introduction of the bill, helped to bring about a change of the context. In October, days after Nicaragua received a threat from U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick that Nicaragua risked losing $175 million in U.S. aid if President Bolanos were toppled, Bolanos and Ortega agreed to postpone the constitutional reforms until the next president's term begins in 2007.

So, again, this may be an example where the mere introduction of a bill helped to bring about the desired change, and I think that Mr. Burton and everybody who has been involved in the introduction of the bill should be commended for their work.

H. Con. Res. 252, expressing the sense of Congress that the Government of the United States should actively support the aspirations of the democratic political and social forces in the Republic of Nicaragua may have already achieved its aims and may not be necessary.

This bill was crafted to address a pact formed by Arnoldo Aleman, former President of Nicaragua of the Liberal Constitutional Party, who had been sentenced to 20 years of house arrest for looting state coffers of $100 million, with Daniel Ortega, former President of the Sandanista Party.

The Aleman-Ortega pact passed constitutional reforms that weakened the power of the Bolanos Presidency. It was in this context that H. Con. Res. 252 was introduced.

However, the context has since changed.

In October, days after Nicaragua received a threat from U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick that Nicaragua risked losing $175 million in U.S. aid if President Bolanos were toppled. Consequently, the members of the pact agreed to postpone the constitutional reforms until the next president's term begins in 2007.

I commend the sponsors of the legislation but would suggest that since the resolution has achieved its ends, it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California.

I want to say that I was greatly concerned hearing the comments of my colleague from New York who raises some valid points about the United States' interventions in Latin America. Now, I think that, you know, on one hand, the sponsors of the legislation have already achieved their ends, and I just wonder if the gentleman from Indiana would yield to a question.

Mr. Chairman, you have sponsored a resolution here that, as I indicated earlier, the sponsorship moved some policy change. In light of that, would you have any interest in withdrawing the resolution and declaring victory?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of this resolution to honor the four United States churchwomen who were murdered in El Salvador 25 years ago this month: Maryknoll Sisters Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, Ursuline Sister Dorothy Kazel, and Maryknoll Lay Missioner Jean Donovan. Sisters Dorothy Kazel and Jean Donovan were both from my hometown of Cleveland. I was present at a neighborhood church during a reception for Sister Dorothy before she left on her last trip to El Salvador and have shared many moments with the Kazel family since then.

These churchwomen, along with other martyrs, dedicated their lives to working with El Salvador's poor during the incredibly dangerous and devastating period of the Salvadoran civil war. What their lives were about was bringing the social Gospel to those most in need. More than 70,000 civilians were murdered during the 12 years of that war.

The legacies of a history ripe with violence have lingered. Perhaps the best way to honor the four churchwomen is to do what they would do, to acknowledge the human rights offenses that have continued to this day. I would like to address such offenses: the continued operation of the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia, under the new name of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation; and the ongoing threats to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman in El Salvador.

I would like to urge support for Dr. Beatrice Alamanni de Carrillo, the Human Rights Ombudswoman of El Salvador. A crucial component of the 1992 Peace Accords that put an end to the Salvadoran civil war was the establishment of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, the principal human rights investigative and monitoring body in El Salvador. Dr. de Carrillo has received numerous accolades for her work strengthening human rights in El Salvador.

Yet 25 years after the murders of the four U.S. churchwomen, threats against defenders of human rights continue. Over the course of the past year, the Ombudswoman has been the target of ongoing intimidation and harassment. The United States has the responsibility not only to recognize the work of the four churchwomen who we memorialize today but also to support those who are continuing to defend human rights in El Salvador.

The murders of the churchwomen and countless others were executed by members of the armed forces of El Salvador. Three of the five officers involved in the 1980 rape and murder of four churchwomen were graduates of the School of the Americas. Other notorious graduates involved in human rights offenses in El Salvador have included: El Salvador death squad leader Roberto D'Abuisson; 19 Salvadoran soldiers linked to the 1989 murder of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter; two of the three killers of Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador; and 10 of the 12 officers responsible for the murder of 900 civilians in the Salvadoran village, El Mozote.

In supporting the resolution honoring the 4 churchwomen, I would like to urge for floor consideration of another bill offered by Congressman McGovern, H.R. 1217, the Latin America Military Training Review Act of 2005, which closes the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

Additionally, I would like to urge support for Dr. Beatrice Alamanni de Carrillo, the Human Rights Ombudswoman of El Salvador. A crucial component of the 1992 Peace Accords that put an end to the Salvadoran civil war was the establishment of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, the principal human rights investigative and monitoring body in El Salvador. Dr. de Carrillo has received numerous accolades for her work strengthening human rights in El Salvador. Yet 25 years after the murders of the four U.S. churchwomen, threats against defenders of human rights continue. Over the course of the past year, the Ombudswoman has been the target of ongoing intimidation and harassment, including anonymous death and other threats and public slander, at times even by high-ranking State officials. The United States has the responsibility to support the work of human rights defenders in El Salvador whenever we have the opportunity to do so. In memory of the four churchwomen murdered 25 years ago, I urge my colleagues to publicly support the work of Dr. de Carrillo and to pressure the State Department and the Embassy of El Salvador to also publicly support her work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time.

When Croatia was struggling for its independence and survival, I was one of the American political figures who challenged my own government for its lack of support for Croatia at a critical hour. Here I take great pride in asking my government in the House of Representatives as a Member to support the integration of the Republic of Croatia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

I take great pride in my Croatian heritage. My grandfather John Kucinich came from what is now part of Croatia. My father made sure that we stayed close to the Croatian culture and language while we were growing up in Cleveland, and greater Cleveland has a very large Croatian community. I take great pride in the achievements of my Croatian brothers and sisters in the United States as well as in Croatia and those around the world. And I agree that Croatia ought to be fully integrated into the European Union as well as NATO.

I want to at the same time, though, make sure that I make Congress aware of the conduct of the Croatian television network, HRT, which has, unfortunately, denied an American filmmaker access to documentary film footage so as to frustrate the commercial release of her production.

This is not a routine matter, Mr. Speaker, because this film by Ms. Brenda Brkusic, ``Freedom From Despair,'' has received great critical acclaim. She has won many awards, including the CINE Golden Eagle Award, which has previously been awarded to international filmmakers Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. She has been recognized by her peers as an emerging talent in the film industry. The Croatian National Foundation has agreed to be her fiscal sponsor; and Amnesty International, the largest human rights organization in the world, has endorsed her film for its strong human rights advocacy.

I believe that the Government of Croatia is sensitive to human rights issues, as has been stated by my friend Mr. Gallegly and also by my friend Mr. Lantos. However, we need to make sure that HRT, which is the state-owned television station, does not escape its responsibility to be sensitive to human rights.

So, I am using this opportunity while I celebrate the support for Croatia, I also believe that it is important to continue to point out wherever there are questions relating to human rights, whether they be in freedom of expression, in telling the truth about the past or in trying to lay the groundwork for a bright future that Congress needs to be the proper forum to make those statements.

Croatia desires to be in NATO to protect itself from outside forces. I want to make sure Croatia is protected from threats to freedom of expression inside the country of Croatia.

When Croatia was struggling for its independence and survival I was one of the American political figures who challenged my own government for its lack of support for Croatia at a critical hour. I take great pride in my Croatian heritage. My grandfather was born in what is now Croatia. I take pride in the achievements of my Croatian brothers and sisters in Croatia, America and around the world.

However, I want to make the Congress aware of the conduct of the Croatian television network HRT, which has deliberately denied an American filmmaker access to documentary film footage, so as to frustrate the commercial release of her production.

The Croatian television network, HRT, initially gave Ms. Brenda Brkusic rights to film footage for student use in the production. Once she asked for commercial rights, HRT refused to cooperate. HRT has refused to answer her questions about the specific price for rights to the footage, giving her general, estimated quotes much higher than are quoted to other people who have inquired for footage rights, and they have suggested unreasonable limitations on those rights. Most recently, when she sent HRT a list of archives she was given by HRT for student use, HRT then informed her that they do not have the right to sell her that material. Ms. Brkusic asked HRT where she must go to get the rights, yet HRT refused to answer her questions. Furthermore, HRT has on other occasions sold that same material that Ms. Brkusic requested to other individuals for broadcast on television.

This is not a routine matter about a routine film. Ms. Brkusic's film, ``Freedom from Despair,'' has received great critical acclaim. She has won many awards, including the CINE Golden Eagle award, which was previously been awarded to the internationally acclaimed filmmakers Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. She has been recognized by her peers as an emerging talent in the film industry. The Croatian National Foundation has agreed to be her fiscal sponsor, and Amnesty International, the largest human rights organization in the world, has endorsed her film for its strong human rights advocacy.

The fact that numerous media outlets have agreed to donate their footage to her film at no cost is noteworthy. They include: ABC 7 Chicago, NBC 5 Chicago, CBS 2, WGN 9 Chicago, and Greater Chicago Broadcast Ministries. They all granted her worldwide rights to their footage in perpetuity for free, within a few weeks of her request.

HRT, on the other hand, has not only been uncooperative, but obstructive. This distresses me. Given the high profile on this film and the extraordinarily fast rising stardom of its director, a young Croatian-American, HRT's antics will damage the reputation of the Croatian government in the international community.

Croatia desires to be in NATO to protect itself from outside enemies. But who will protect Croatia from threats to freedom of expression inside the country?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

First of all, I want to thank my friend for reviewing the history of commitment. I want to thank my friend for pointing out that Croatia has worked toward fulfillment of commitments on human rights. I would agree with that. At the same time, I would ask my friend to assist me in helping Croatia continue that commitment in an area that is really important, and that is freedom of expression.

I would like to at some point after the debate share with the gentleman the specific concerns that I had that

caused me to bring this up during debate. But I want to thank the gentleman for his sponsorship, for his commitment, and I join him in it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his eloquence on this matter.

I have been to Russia many, many times, and I believe it is always in the interest of peace between our two countries for us to keep an active dialogue, even on matters that are very difficult.

H. Con. Res. 312 urges the government of the Russian Federation to withdraw or modify proposed legislation that would have the effect of severely restricting the establishment, operations and activities of foreign NGO's in the Russian Federation.

I would agree that there are many NGO's that do great work in civil society and peace and human rights, in workers rights, in the environment and in health care, but there are also some bad apples in the bunch, and we cannot ignore that. If the Russian government were, for example, to be looking at the role that the National Endowment for Democracy played in the April 2002 coup of President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the Russian government would have good reason to oppose foreign NGOs in their country.

The State Department's Richard Boucher acknowledged that the Bush administration provided ``funding to groups that promote democracy and strengthen civil society in Venezuela and around the globe.'' He further stated that the funds are ``for the benefit of democracy, not to support any particular political faction.''

According to the New York Times, the organization ``funneled more than $877,000 into Venezuelan opposition groups in the weeks and months before the recently aborted coup attempt.'' More than $150,000 went to ``a Venezuelan labor union that led the opposition work stoppages and worked closely with Pedro Carmona Estanga, the businessman who led the coup.'' That is from the New York Times.

The National Endowment for Democracy, over the years, has actively worked to destabilize governments in Central America and Eastern Europe. According to a book by former State Department employee, William Blum, entitled, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, the NED ``played an important role in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, funding key components of Oliver North's shadowy Project Democracy network, which privatized U.S. foreign policy, waged war, ran arms and drugs, and engaged in other equally charming activities.''

So we in the United States have legitimate complaints about a variety of conditions in the Russian Federation and in other countries around the world, but I question whether we have the right to encourage the channeling of funds into NGOs who work as instruments of U.S. foreign policy. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to present this.

I have been to Russia many, many times and I believe it is always in the interest of peace between our two countries for us to keep on active dialogue.

H. Con. Res. 312, which urges the Government of the Russian Federation to withdraw or modify proposed legislation that would have the effect of severely restricting the establishment, operations, and activities of domestic and foreign NGOs in the Russian Federation.

While there are many NGOs that do great work in civil society, in working rights, in peace, in environment, in human rights, in health care, there are some bad apples of the bunch and we cannot ignore that. If the Russian government were to look at, for example, the role that the National Endowment for Democracy played in the April 2002 coup of President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the Russian government would have good reason to oppose foreign NGOs in their country.

The State Department's Richard Boucher acknowledged that the Bush administration provided ``funding to groups that promote democracy and strengthen civil society in Venezuela and around the globe.'' He further stated that the funds ``are for the benefit of democracy, not to support any particular political faction.''

According to the New York Times, the organization ``funneled more than $877,000 into Venezuela opposition groups in the weeks and months before the recently aborted coup attempt.'' More than $150,000 went to ``a Venezuelan labor union that led the opposition work stoppages and worked closely with Pedro Carmona Estanga, the businessman who led the coup.''

The National Endowment for Democracy, over the years, has actively worked to destabilize governments in Central America and Eastern Europe.

According to a book by former State Department employee, William Blum, entitled Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower the NED ``played an important role in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, funding key components of Oliver North's shadowy Project Democracy network, which privatized U.S. foreign policy, waged war, ran arms and drugs, and engaged in other equally charming activities.''

So we in the United States have legitimate complaints about a variety of conditions in the Russian Federation and in other countries around the world, we do not have the right to channel funds into NGOs who work as instruments of U.S. foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues in standing up in support of the state of Israel and in demanding that the Palestinian Authority do everything it can to set aside all the statements made by people within its sphere that would call for the destruction of Israel. And they must take action to stop terrorists and their infrastructure.

I would just like to respectfully suggest, however, that this resolution, as well intended as it is, has the potential to have an impact that would be contrary to what you are hoping for. Let me state how, that Congress passing this resolution could actually have a reverse effect in the streets of the Palestinian Authority and end up actually engendering more support for Hamas. I think that, as we are approaching the midnight hour and coming close to the 15th of December, the date when the elections are taking place in Iraq, it is kind of ironic that we are in this situation of, on one hand, encouraging the broadest participation in the Iraqi elections of people in some cases who have been shooting at our own soldiers and, on the other hand, saying that, in the Palestinian Authority, we are going to start to say, well, these groups cannot participate. No matter how much we object, and I do object, to their attacks on Israel; I would just again like to respectfully suggest that all of us who are here in support of a peaceful resolution of the conflict that is taking place in the Middle East, that maybe have a third way that we could proceed other than this resolution.

Letter From Americans for Peace Now:

Later today H. Res. 575 is scheduled to come to a vote on

the House floor. This resolution deals with the participation

of Hamas in the upcoming Palestinian parliamentary elections,

scheduled for January 25, 2006. Americans for Peace Now (APN)

rejects terror and has consistently called on President Abbas

and the Palestinian Authority to undertake meaningful,

sustained action to stop terrorists and destroy terrorist

infrastructure. APN agrees that the Palestinian Authority

must establish ``One Authority, One Law, and One Gun.''

However, APN believes that this resolution misses the point

on both democracy and Hamas.

APN urges Members, whether or not they vote for the

resolution, to speak out during the floor debate and to

submit statements for the record drawing attention to the

problems with this resolution.

Nobody (except the terrorists) is happy with the prospect

of Hamas and other terrorist organizations participating in

Palestinian elections. Likewise, few people are happy that

Hizballah is an active participant in Lebanon's political

process, including a longstanding presence in its parliament

and government. Likewise, few people are happy with the

participation of armed militias in elections in Iraq.

In the cases of Lebanon and Iraq, however, the decision has

been to ``not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the

good.'' The goal of eradicating terror and consolidating

weapons in the hands of the legal government remains, but the

elections were applauded and the process of democratization

was not put on hold. Nobody argued that eradicating terror

and establishing ``one gun'' should, in these cases, be a

prerequisite for democratic elections, or threatened that if

it was not made a prerequisite, the U.S. relationship with

the resulting democratically elected body--and U.S.

assistance to its people--would suffer.

President Abbas is trying to do in the territories what the

U.S. has encouraged the government to do in Iraq: absorb

militias into the official armed forces in order to make them

accountable to official command and control.

Israel spent nearly three decades trying to defeat Hamas

through military means alone, and failed. Since coming to

power less than a year ago, President Abbas has made a very

public commitment to take on Hamas and other terrorist

organizations after elections--a strategy based on the

reasonable assertion that, backed by a democratically-elected

parliament, he will have the strength and credibility to move

forward with this difficult task. He should be held to this

commitment.

The reduction of terror against Israeli citizens requires

the containment and eventual dismantling of militias,

including Hamas. Israeli General (Ret.) Ephraim Sneh, who

served as military governor of the West Bank and Deputy

Defense Minister of Israel, recently stated:

``Under current conditions in the Palestinian territories,

especially given the Palestinian government's weakness,

political containment should precede the dismantling of

Hamas's military infrastructure. The urgent objective is to

defeat it in the next parliamentary elections. Steps that

could strengthen it in the elections should be strictly

avoided. Attempts to postpone the elections yet again, or to

prevent Hamas's participation, or Israeli disruption of the

elections as `punishment' for the participation of Hamas,

will strengthen Hamas in the Palestinian street instead of

weakening it. The short time left before the elections must

be used to empower all who oppose Hamas, first and foremost

the supporters of the elected Palestinian president, Mahmoud

Abbas.'' (Washington Post, October 19, 2005)

In the countdown to the elections, for the sake of

democracy and peace in the Middle East--vital components to

Israel's security--the focus should be on strengthening

Palestinian moderates, including President Abbas. Actions

that risk elevating the status of Hamas and other extremists

should be avoided.

After the January 25th election, Israel, the Bush

Administration, and the international community--as well as

the Palestinian people--should hold President Abbas to his

commitment, and hold him accountable if he fails to take

action.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say briefly that I think that our Nation would be much more persuasive in our attempts to try to change the behavior within Syria if we also acknowledged that there are the news reports about a covert war in Iraq that has expanded in recent months to Syria, and that bombing has been taking place along the Syrian border.

I think it is going to be kind of difficult for us to engage Syria in discussions when they may be getting indications that we are attacking their country.

[From the New Yorker, Dec. 12, 2005]

Annals of National Security, Up in the Air

Where is the Iraq war headed next?

(By Seymour M. Hersh)

In recent weeks, there has been widespread speculation that

President George W. Bush,

confronted by diminishing approval ratings and dissent within

his own party, will begin pulling American troops out of Iraq

next year. The Administration's best-case scenario is that

the parliamentary election scheduled for December 15th will

produce a coalition government that will join the

Administration in calling for a withdrawal to begin in the

spring. By then, the White House hopes, the new government

will be capable of handling the insurgency. In a speech on

November 19th, Bush repeated the latest Administration

catchphrase: ``As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.'' He

added, ``When our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi

forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home

with the honor they have earned.'' One sign of the political

pressure on the Administration to prepare for a withdrawal

came last week, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told

Fox News that the current level of American troops would not

have to be maintained ``for very much longer,'' because the

Iraqis were getting better at fighting the insurgency.

A high-level Pentagon war planner told me, however, that he

has seen scant indication that the President would authorize

a significant pullout of American troops if he believed that

it would impede the war against the insurgency. There are

several proposals currently under review by the White House

and the Pentagon; the most ambitious calls for American

combat forces to be reduced from a hundred and fifty-five

thousand troops to fewer than eighty thousand by next fall,

with all American forces officially designated ``combat'' to

be pulled out of the area by the summer of 2008. In terms of

implementation, the planner said, ``the drawdown plans that

I'm familiar with are condition-based, event-driven, and not

in a specific time frame''--that is, they depend on the

ability of a new Iraqi government to defeat the insurgency.

(A Pentagon spokesman said that the Administration had not

made any decisions and had ``no plan to leave, only a plan to

complete the mission.'')

A key element of the drawdown plans, not mentioned in the

President's public statements, is that the departing American

troops will be replaced by American airpower. Quick, deadly

strikes by U.S. warplanes are seen as a way to improve

dramatically the combat capability of even the weakest Iraqi

combat units. The danger, military experts have told me, is

that, while the number of American casualties would decrease

as ground troops are withdrawn, the over-all level of

violence and the number of Iraqi fatalities would increase

unless there are stringent controls over who bombs what.

``We're not planning to diminish the war,'' Patrick

Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute for

Near East Policy, told me. Clawson's views often mirror the

thinking of the men and women around Vice-President Dick

Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ``We just want

to change the mix of the forces doing the fighting--Iraqi

infantry with American support and greater use of airpower.

The rule now is to commit Iraqi forces into combat only in

places where they are sure to win. The pace of commitment,

and withdrawal, depends on their success in the

battlefield.''

He continued, ``We want to draw down our forces, but the

President is prepared to tough this one out. There is a very

deep feeling on his part that the issue of Iraq was settled

by the American people at the polling places in 2004.'' The

war against the insurgency ``may end up being a nasty and

murderous civil war in Iraq, but we and our allies would

still win,'' he said. ``As long as the Kurds and the Shiites

stay on our side, we're set to go. There's no sense that the

world is caving in. We're in the middle of a seven-year slog

in Iraq, and eighty percent of the Iraqis are receptive to

our message.''

One Pentagon adviser told me, ``There are always

contingency plans, but why withdraw and take a chance? I

don't think the President will go for it''--until the

insurgency is broken. ``He's not going to back off. This is

bigger than domestic politics.''

Current and former military and intelligence officials have

told me that the President remains convinced that it is his

personal mission to bring democracy to Iraq, and that he is

impervious to political pressure, even from fellow

Republicans. They also say that he disparages any information

that conflicts with his view of how the war is proceeding.

Bush's closest advisers have long been aware of the

religious nature of his policy commitments. In recent

interviews, one former senior official, who served in Bush's

first term, spoke extensively about the connection between

the President's religious faith and his view of the war in

Iraq. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the

former official said, he was told that Bush felt that ``God

put me here'' to deal with the war on terror. The President's

belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002

congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful

message from God that ``he's the man,'' the former official

said. Publicly, Bush depicted his reelection as a referendum

on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another

manifestation of divine purpose.

The former senior official said that after the election he

made a lengthy inspection visit to Iraq and reported his

findings to Bush in the White House: ``I said to the

President, `We're not winning the war.' And he asked, `Are we

losing?' I said, `Not yet.'' The President, he said,

``appeared displeased'' with that answer.

``I tried to tell him,'' the former senior official said.

``And he couldn't hear it.''

There are grave concerns within the military about the

capability of the U.S. Army to sustain two or three more

years of combat in Iraq. Michael O'Hanlon, a specialist on

military issues at the Brookings Institution, told me, ``The

people in the institutional Army feel they don't have the

luxury of deciding troop levels, or even participating in the

debate. They're planning on staying the course until 2009. I

can't believe the Army thinks that it will happen, because

there's no sustained drive to increase the size of the

regular Army.'' O'Hanlon noted that ``if the President

decides to stay the present course in Iraq some troops would

be compelled to serve fourth and fifth tours of combat by

2007 and 2008, which could have serious consequences for

morale and competency levels.''

Many of the military's most senior generals are deeply

frustrated, but they say nothing in public, because they

don't want to jeopardize their careers. The Administration

has ``so terrified the generals that they know they won't go

public,'' a former defense official said. A retired senior

C.I.A. officer with knowledge of Iraq told me that one of his

colleagues recently participated in a congressional tour

there. The legislators were repeatedly told, in meetings with

enlisted men, junior officers, and generals that ``things

were fucked up.'' But in a subsequent teleconference with

Rumsfeld, he said, the generals kept those criticisms to

themselves.

One person with whom the Pentagon's top commanders have

shared their private views for decades is Representative John

Murtha, of Pennsylvania, the senior Democrat on the House

Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The President and his

key aides were enraged when, on November 17th, Murtha gave a

speech in the House calling for a withdrawal of troops within

six months. The speech was filled with devastating

information. For example, Murtha reported that the number of

attacks in Iraq has increased from a hundred and fifty a

week to more than seven hundred a week in the past year.

He said that an estimated fifty thousand American soldiers

will suffer ``from what I call battle fatigue'' in the

war, and he said that the Americans were seen as ``the

common enemy'' in Iraq. He also took issue with one of the

White House's claims--that foreign fighters were playing

the major role in the insurgency. Murtha said that

American soldiers ``haven't captured any in this latest

activity''--the continuing battle in western Anbar

province, near the border with Syria. ``So this idea that

they're coming in from outside, we still think there's

only seven per cent.''

Murtha's call for a speedy American pullout only seemed to

strengthen the White House's resolve. Administration

officials ``are beyond angry at him, because he is a serious

threat to their policy--both on substance and politically,''

the former defense official said. Speaking at the Osan Air

Force base, in South Korea, two days after Murtha's speech,

Bush said, ``The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front

in their war against humanity. . . . If they're not stopped,

the terrorists will be able to advance their agenda to

develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to

intimidate Europe, and to break our will and blackmail our

government into isolation. I'm going to make you this

commitment: this is not going to happen on my watch.''

``The President is more determined than ever to stay the

course,'' the former defense official said. ``He doesn't feel

any pain. Bush is a believer in the adage `People may suffer

and die, but the Church advances.' ``He said that the

President had become more detached, leaving more issues to

Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney. ``They keep him in the

gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be

anyway,'' the former defense official said. Bush's public

appearances, for example, are generally scheduled in front of

friendly audiences, most often at military bases. Four

decades ago, President Lyndon Johnson, who was also

confronted with an increasingly unpopular war, was limited to

similar public forums. ``Johnson knew he was a prisoner in

the White House,'' the former official said, ``but Bush has

no idea.''

Within the military, the prospect of using airpower as a

substitute for American troops on the ground has caused great

unease. For one thing, Air Force commanders, in particular,

have deep-seated objections to the possibility that Iraqis

eventually will be responsible for target selection. ``Will

the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals, or

other warlords, or to snuff members of your own sect and

blame someone else?'' another senior military planner now on

assignment in the Pentagon asked. ``Will some Iraqis be

targeting on behalf of Al Qaeda, or the insurgency, or the

Iranians?''

``It's a serious business,'' retired Air Force General

Charles Homer, who was in charge of allied bombing during the

1991 Gulf War, said. ``The Air Force has always had concerns

about people ordering air strikes who are not Air Force

forward air controllers. We need people on active duty to

think it out, and they will. There has to be training to be

sure that somebody is not trying to get even with somebody

else.'' (Asked for a comment, the Pentagon spokesman said

there were plans in place for such training. He also noted

that Iraq had no offensive airpower of its own, and thus

would have to rely on the United States for some time.)

The American air war inside Iraq today is perhaps the most

significant--and underreported--aspect of the fight against

the insurgency. The military authorities in Baghdad and

Washington do not provide the press with a daily accounting

of missions that Air Force, Navy, and Marine units fly or of

the tonnage they drop, as was routinely done during the

Vietnam War. One insight into the scope of the bombing in

Iraq was supplied by the Marine Corps during the height of

the siege of Falluja in the fall of 2004. ``With a massive

Marine air and ground offensive under way,'' a Marine press

release said, ``Marine close air support continues to put

high-tech steel on target. . . . Flying missions day and

night for weeks, the fixed wing aircraft of the 3rd Marine

Aircraft Wing are ensuring battlefield success on the front

line.'' Since the beginning of the war, the press release

said, the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing alone had dropped more

than five hundred thousand tons of ordnance. ``This number is

likely to be much higher by the end of operations,'' Major

Mike Sexton said. In the battle for the city, more than seven

hundred Americans were killed or wounded; U.S. officials did

not release estimates of civilian dead, but press reports at

the time told of women and children killed in the

bombardments.

In recent months, the tempo of American bombing seems to

have increased. Most of the targets appear to be in the

hostile, predominantly Sunni provinces that surround Baghdad

and along the Syrian border. As yet, neither Congress nor the

public has engaged in a significant discussion or debate

about the air war.

The insurgency operates mainly in crowded urban areas, and

Air Force warplanes rely on sophisticated, laser-guided bombs

to avoid civilian casualties. These bombs home in on targets

that must be ``painted,'' or illuminated, by laser beams

directed by ground units. ``The pilot doesn't identify the

target as seen in the pre-brief''--the instructions provided

before takeoff--a former high-level intelligence official

told me. ``The guy with the laser is the targeteer. Not the

pilot. Often you get a `hotread' ''--from a military unit on

the ground--``and you drop your bombs with no communication

with the guys on the ground. You don't want to break radio

silence. The people on the ground are calling in targets that

the pilots can't verify.'' He added, ``And we're going to

turn this process over to the Iraqis?''

The second senior military planner told me that there are

essentially two types of targeting now being used in Iraq: a

deliberate siteselection process that works out of

airoperations centers in the region, and ``adaptive

targeting''--supportive bombing by prepositioned or loitering

warplanes that are suddenly alerted to firefights or targets

of opportunity by military units on the ground. ``The bulk of

what we do today is adaptive,'' the officer said, ``and it's

divorced from any operational air planning. Airpower can be

used as a tool of internal political coercion, and my

attitude is that I can't imagine that we will give that power

to the Iraqis.''

This military planner added that even today, with Americans

doing the targeting, ``there is no sense of an air campaign,

or a strategic vision. We are just whacking targets--it's a

reversion to the Stone Age. There's no operational art.

That's what happens when you give targeting to the Army--they

hit what the local commander wants to hit.''

One senior Pentagon consultant I spoke to said he was

optimistic that ``American air will immediately make the

Iraqi Army that much better.'' But he acknowledged that he,

too, had concerns about Iraqi targeting. ``We have the most

expensive eyes in the sky right now,'' the consultant said.

``But a lot of Iraqis want to settle old scores. Who is going

to have authority to call in air strikes? There's got to be a

behavior-based rule.''

General John Jumper, who retired last month after serving

four years as the Air Force chief of staff, was ``in favor of

certification of those Iraqis who will be allowed to call in

strikes,'' the Pentagon consultant told me. ``I don't know if

it will be approved. The regular Army generals were resisting

it to the last breath, despite the fact that they would

benefit the most from it.''

A Pentagon consultant with close ties to the officials in

the Vice-President's office and the Pentagon who advocated

the war said that the Iraqi penchant for targeting tribal and

personal enemies with artillery and mortar fire had created

``impatience and resentment'' inside the military. He

believed that the Air Force's problems with Iraqi targeting

might be addressed by the formation of U.S.-Iraqi transition

teams, whose American members would be drawn largely from

Special Forces troops. This consultant said that there were

plans to integrate between two hundred and three hundred

Special Forces members into Iraqi units, which was seen as a

compromise aimed at meeting the Air Force's demand to vet

Iraqis who were involved in targeting. But in practice,

the consultant added, it meant that ``the Special Ops

people will soon allow Iraqis to begin calling in the

targets.''

Robert Pape, a political-science professor at the

University of Chicago, who has written widely on American

airpower, and who taught for three years at the Air Force's

School of Advanced Airpower Studies, in Alabama, predicted

that the air war ``will get very ugly'' if targeting is

turned over to the Iraqis. This would be especially true, he

said, if the Iraqis continued to operate as the U.S. Army and

Marines have done--plowing through Sunni strongholds on

search-and-destroy missions. ``If we encourage the Iraqis to

clear and hold their own areas, and use airpower to stop the

insurgents from penetrating the cleared areas, it could be

useful,'' Pape said. ``The risk is that we will encourage the

Iraqis to do search-and-destroy, and they would be less

judicious about using airpower--and the violence would go up.

More civilians will be killed, which means more insurgents

will be created.''

Even American bombing on behalf of an improved, well-

trained Iraqi Army would not necessarily be any more

successful against the insurgency. ``It's not going to

work,'' said Andrew Brookes, the former director of airpower

studies at the Royal Air Force's advanced staff college, who

is now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies,

in London. ``Can you put a lid on the insurgency with

bombing?'' Brookes said. ``No. You can concentrate in one

area, but the guys will spring up in another town.'' The

inevitable reliance on Iraqi ground troops' targeting would

also create conflicts. ``I don't see your guys dancing to the

tune of someone else,'' Brookes said. He added that he and

many other experts ``don't believe that airpower is a

solution to the problems inside Iraq at all. Replacing boots

on the ground with airpower didn't work in Vietnam, did it?''

The Air Force's worries have been subordinated, so far, to

the political needs of the White House. The Administration's

immediate political goal after the December elections is to

show that the day-to-day conduct of the war can be turned

over to the newly trained and equipped Iraqi military. It has

already planned heavily scripted change-of-command

ceremonies, complete with the lowering of American flags at

bases and the raising of Iraqi ones.

Some officials in the State Department, the C.I.A., and

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government have settled

on their candidate of choice for the December elections--Iyad

Allawi, the secular Shiite who served until this spring as

Iraq's interim Prime Minister. They believe that Allawi can

gather enough votes in the election to emerge, after a round

of political bargaining, as Prime Minister. A former senior

British adviser told me that Blair was convinced that Allawi

``is the best hope.'' The fear is that a government dominated

by religious Shiites, many of whom are close to Iran, would

give Iran greater political and military influence inside

Iraq. Allawi could counter Iran's influence; also, he would

be far more supportive and cooperative if the Bush

Administration began a drawdown of American combat forces in

the coming year.

Blair has assigned a small team of operatives to provide

political help to Allawi, the former adviser told me. He also

said that there was talk late this fall, with American

concurrence, of urging Ahmad Chalabi, a secular Shiite, to

join forces in a coalition with Allawi during the post-

election negotiations to form a government. Chalabi, who is

notorious for his role in promoting flawed intelligence on

weapons of mass destruction before the war, is now a deputy

Prime Minister. He and Allawi were bitter rivals while in

exile.

A senior United Nations diplomat told me that he was

puzzled by the high American and British hopes for Allawi.

``I know a lot of people want Allawi, but I think he's been a

terrific disappointment,'' the diplomat said. ``He doesn't

seem to be building a strong alliance, and at the moment it

doesn't look like he will do very well in the election.''

The second Pentagon consultant told me, ``If Allawi becomes

Prime Minister, we can say, 'There's a moderate, urban,

educated leader now in power who does not want to deprive

women of their rights.' He would ask us to leave, but he

would allow us to keep Special Forces operations inside

Iraq--to keep an American presence the right way. Mission

accomplished. A coup for Bush.''

A former high-level intelligence official cautioned that it

was probably ``too late'' for any American withdrawal plan to

work without further bloodshed. The constitution approved by

Iraqi voters in October ``will be interpreted by the Kurds

and the Shiites to proceed with their plans for autonomy,''

he said. ``The Sunnis will continue to believe that if they

can get rid of the Americans they can still win. And there

still is no credible way to establish security for American

troops.''

The fear is that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would

inevitably trigger a Sunni-Shiite civil war. In many areas,

that war has, in a sense, already begun, and the United

States military is being drawn into the sectarian violence.

An American Army officer who took part in the assault on Tal

Afar, in the north of Iraq, earlier this fall, said that an

American infantry brigade was placed in the position of

providing a cordon of security around the besieged city for

Iraqi forces, most of them Shiites, who were ``rounding up

any Sunnis on the basis of whatever a Shiite said to them.''

The officer went on, ``They were killing Sunnis on behalf of

the Shiites,'' with the active participation of a militia

unit led by a retired American Special Forces soldier.

``People like me have gotten so downhearted,'' the officer

added.

Meanwhile, as the debate over troop reductions continues,

the covert war in Iraq has expanded in recent months to

Syria. A composite American Special Forces team, known as an

S.M.U., for ``special-mission unit,'' has been ordered, under

stringent cover, to target suspected supporters of the Iraqi

insurgency across the border. (The Pentagon had

no comment.) ``It's a powder keg,'' the Pentagon consultant

said of the tactic. ``But, if we hit an insurgent network in

Iraq without hitting the guys in Syria who are part of it,

the guys in Syria would get away. When you're fighting an

insurgency, you have to strike everywhere-and at once.''

Yesterday, the President gave his progress in Iraq speech.

However, in Najaf, security is not being provided by the U.S.-trained Iraqi troops, but by the militia of radical Shiite Muslim Muqtada Al- Sadr.

In Mosul, the President said 50 percent of the people voted. But 56 percent of those who voted, voted against the constitution that the Bush administration was promoting.

On May 1 of 2003, the President stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier and gave his ``mission accomplished'' speech. Last week he gave his ``secret plan for victory'' speech. Yesterday, he gave his ``making progress'' speech.

I think I know the problem here. Whoever has been writing the President's speeches owes him an apology. They badly mixed up the sequence over the last few years. First, he was to give his ``plan for victory'' speech, then he was to give his ``making progress'' speech, then he was to give his ``mission accomplished'' speech.

I have here a copy of his ``get out of Iraq'' speech.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

What the majority is seeking to accomplish here is another transfer of wealth from the great mass of Americans to a privileged few. This bill would raise taxes on 17 million American middle-class families by as much as $640. Millionaires get tax cuts as much as $32,000. People who bet on the market are going to see their taxes cut or reduced, while workers are not going to see that kind of relief because this bill is about a transfer of wealth upwards, a transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy. More than half of the American taxpayers will get less than $30 out of this so-called tax cut; yet that is what this administration's strategy has been all about.

There has been no trickle-down benefits from their previous tax cuts of over a trillion dollars. Americans' savings have disappeared, credit cards are maxed out, home equity is exhausted, foreclosures have increased, pension funds are disappearing, health care benefits for many have been cut or eliminated. There are 45 million Americans without health insurance. The wealth in this country is being transferred upward, and as wealth accelerates upward, the quality of our democracy is deteriorating. This bill continues that trend with spending cuts suffered by college students, suffered by senior citizens and children and family farmers.

My colleague Congressman Lewis asked what would Jesus do. We know his teachings. He said whatever you do for the least of the brethren, you do for the Lord. This bill does not do for the least. It does for those who have the most. There is a transfer of wealth to the great mass of Americans to a few as a matter of policy here. It is tax cuts, it is the war, it is all of the spending that is accomplished by our majority brothers and sisters goes to help those who are wealthy become wealthier. That is not how you can maintain a democracy.

The tax system is central to making sure that we stay a democracy, and yet what we see here is the beginning of a plutocracy by continuing the acceleration of wealth upwards. We need to take stock and assessment of what these tax policies are doing to undermine people in this country, of what these tax policies are doing to make it impossible for a middle class to survive, of what these tax policies are ignoring in terms of trying to protect America's manufacturers. There are auto workers and steel workers who are looking for a way for businesses, their industries, to survive; and instead we are worrying about accelerating the wealth upward.

We need to take stock of this. This is not only a fiscal question. It is a moral question, and the arc of our moral fiber here is going to be determined on whether or not we can stand up to this challenge about accelerating the wealth upwards.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute and recognition of Dr. Frank William Reis, upon his retirement that reflects 35 years of exemplary service as an educator and leader within the public school and college arena.

Dr. Reis honorably served our country as a Vietnam war veteran. Following his service, he enrolled in college and earned a bachelor's degree in education, MBA and ME degrees, and a Ph.D. in Educational Policy and Leadership. Equipped with an unwavering commitment to raising the lives of children through the power of education, Dr. Reis brought his enthusiasm and concern for his students into the inner city classrooms of Rhode Island. In 1974, Dr. Reis was named the Rhode Island Teacher of the Year--a rare occurrence at that time for an inner city schoolteacher.

For the past 16 years, Dr. Reis served in critical positions at Cuyahoga Community College, most recently as executive vice president for Administration and chief operating office. His leadership and expertise served to elevate operations throughout the areas of human resources, training and development, public affairs, staff advancement, public safety, information technology, telecommunications and government affairs. Additionally, Dr. Reis instituted the ``Jennings Scholar'' program that recognizes outstanding public school teachers, K-12, throughout Greater Cleveland. Beyond his abiding dedication to his professional vocation, Dr. Ries has volunteered countless hours as a member and leader within numerous civic organizations, including the Community Organization for Drug Abuse Control, Kidscope, Recovery Resources and the Governor's Regional Economic Advisory.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Dr. Frank William Reis, whose retirement reflects 35 years of educational excellence and accomplishment. Dr. Reis's steadfast devotion as an educator and leader in education has empowered and inspired countless students, young and old. We wish Dr. Reis and his family an abundance of peace, health and happiness as he journeys onward from here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of United States Marine Corporal David A. Mendez Ruiz of Cleveland, Ohio, who bravely, honorably and selflessly heeded the call to duty and made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country.

Family, friends and service to others framed Corporal Ruiz's young life. He gained personal strength and faith from those who knew him best and loved him most, especially his father and mother, Maximiliano and Miriam; sisters and brothers, Sandra, Byron, Laura, Mynor, Zucely, Edgar and Nydia; grandmother, Elvia Ruiz; and his fifteen nieces and nephews.

Corporal Ruiz was born in Guatemala City, Guatemala, on May 26, 1985. In 1991, at the age of six, Corporal Ruiz and his family immigrated to the United States and settled in Cleveland, Ohio. He quickly assimilated to American culture; his easygoing nature and generous heart easily drew others to him. One

month after graduating from Greater Cleveland Christian High School in May 2003, Corporal Ruiz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps, where he served with dedication and honor. In February 2004, he left for first tour of duty in Iraq. Corporal Ruiz left for his second tour of duty on July 4, 2005.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Lance Corporal David A. Mendez Ruiz. I extend my deepest condolences to his parents, brothers and sisters, grandmother, extended family members and many friends. Integrity, kindness, unwavering service to others and endless heart defined his young life and his spirit will live forever in the hearts and memories of everyone who knew and loved him best--his family and friends. Corporal Ruiz's courageous life and legacy of service will be forever honored and remembered by the Cleveland community and by our entire nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Barbara Jacobs, whose joyous life was framed by family, community, culture and giving to others. Her passing marks a great loss for her family and friends, and also for the people of Cleveland, whom she served with the highest level of commitment, compassion and concern.

Mrs. Jacobs shared her enthusiasm for community service with her late husband, David Jacobs, former owner of the Cleveland Indians. The welfare of her family and her community defined her life. Together, Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs raised three children: Marie, David Jr. and John. They instilled within them the significance of giving to others and helping those in need.

Mrs. Jacobs continued to carry the torch of philanthropy that she shared with her husband. Her unwavering support focused on uplifting the lives of others. Her generous donations will ensure that students have musical opportunities at the Indiana University School of Music; her spirit of giving will allow poor families and individuals to receive free medical treatment at MetroHealth Medical Center; and her focus on healing will continue to provide support and funding for the Ohio Cancer Research Center.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Barbara Jacobs. Her boundless spirit of giving and joy for living will continue to have a profound impact upon the lives of countless families and individuals, from Cleveland, Ohio to the University of Indiana. I extend my deepest condolences to her children, Marie, David Jr. and John; to her five grandchildren and great-granddaughter; to her dear friend and companion, Albert Werner; and to her many extended family members and friends. Mrs. Jacobs' kindness, energy and compassion will live on within every life she touched and she will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Joan Didion, established author, wife and mother. Her current novel, The Year of Magical Thinking, traces her journey through one year after her husband's sudden death and her daughter's grave illness.

Joan Didion was born in Sacramento, California and graduated from the University of California at Berkeley. Didion is the author of five novels and eight books of non-fiction. Her distinguished works and publications were collected into Slouching Towards Bethlehem released in 1968 and The White Album in 1979. These books established Didion's name as an author and observer of American politics and culture with deepening personal reflections mixed with analysis.

Didion married John Gregory Dunne, also an established writer, in 1964 and together they had a daughter, Quintana. The family lived in California until moving to New York City in 1988. In 2003, their family was shocked to learn that Quintana had a fatal illness. Months after learning their daughter's bad news, John suddenly died.

They had just returned home from visiting their daughter in the hospital. Joan later learned her husband died of a massive coronary attack. Unable to bear with the grief that settled in, Joan began writing what turned into her latest book, The Year of Magical Thinking. This book chronicles her feelings and memories after John's death and the sickness of her daughter. Sadly, even after a brief recovery, Quintana died months after Joan finished the book.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in recognizing Joan Didion on her accomplishments as a writer and her courage as a grieving wife and mother. Her unwavering strength during difficult times should be an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Chairman Dave Hobson (R-OH) for his bold, principled stance to eliminate federal funding for the bunker buster bomb. It was a major victory for the United States and the world.

This achievement means the United States will send the message of responsibility to other nations who are considering building nuclear weapons. The United States can continue to advocate for the Non- Proliferation Treaty, whereby the United States and other nuclear powers pledged to disarm in return for other nations not seeking nuclear weapons. Because nuclear bunker-busters would be seen as tactical nuclear weapons, the development of these weapons would make it more difficult to encourage Russia to dispose of its arsenal of over 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons. Chairman Hobson has given the United States more clout to pressure Russia to eliminate its tactical nuclear weapons.

Again, I commend Chairman Hobson for his defense of our Nation.

[From the Columbus Dispatch, November 13, 2005

Hobson Will Keep Busting Nuclear Weapon

(By Jonathan Riskind)

The battle of the bunker buster, round two, goes to Rep.

David L. Hobson.

But the Springfield Republican isn't so sure the Bush

administration, especially Defense Secretary Donald H.

Rumsfeld and others in the defense community, has given up on

building a nuclear-tipped missile able to penetrate

underground bunkers.

This is a saga last visited in this space a year ago. Then,

too, Hobson, as chariman of the House Appropriation

Committee's energy and water subcommittee, successfully

fought the administration's push to build a specialized

tactical nuclear weapon.

Pursuing new nuclear weapons when the United States is

pushing nonproliferation around the world is wrong headed and

dangerous, Hobson believes. And he's been told by scientists

and candid members of the military that a nuclear bunker

buster is likely to kill many innocent people and inflict

such harm on the environment that no president would ``OK''

its use.

So Hobson refused to include $4 million Rumsfeld wanted in

the 2006 energy bill for bunker-buster research.

Hobson's counterpart in the Senate is Pete Domenici of New

Mexico, who chairs the Senate Appropriation Committee's

energy subcommittee. Domenici favors going ahead with the

research, but he told the Albuquerque Tribune that the

administration has abandoned its plans for a nuclear bunker

buster. He said that, however, after Hobson won the fight;

the final 2006 House-Senate agreement on a $30.5 billion

energy and water bill being sent to the White House reflects

Hobson's views.

So while it's ``over in my bill for this year,'' Hobson

said, his attention is focused on whether the Defense

Department will try to include bunker-buster money in the

still-pending 2006 defense-spending bill.

``I have to watch in the defense bill to try and make sure

they don't go around me,'' said Hobson, who is a senior

member of the defense-spending subcommittee.

This is one example of how public policy is enmeshed in the

fabric of the annual spending bills. Hobson's measure, for

instance, tackles the post-Katrina issue of improving the

efficiency with which the Army Corps of Engineers spends the

money Congress doles out to it, though part of the solution

is making sure lawmakers don't tie the corps' hands with a

plethora of pet projects. One tack seen in the energy and

water spending bills is to limit the ability of the corps to

take money intended for one project and spend it on another,

only to later come back and request yet more money for the

first project. Hobson also hopes the bill will force the

corps to do more long-term planning and to do a better job

moving projects along.

He cites a dam on the Ohio River between Illinois and

Kentucky that was authorized by Congress in 1988 at an

estimated cost of $775 million over about eight years.

Completion is now scheduled for 2015, at a revised estimated

cost of $1.4 billion.

``We're trying to bring some business management to the way

the corps conducts business,'' Hobson said.

But the most far-reaching policy platform in Hobson's bill

amounts to a nuclear nonproliferation stand that bucks the

notoriously stubborn Rumsfeld.

``We had a meeting and he made his views known and I made

my views known,'' Hobson said. ``He said there will be

another day. I don't think they've given up.''

But Hobson vowed to defuse the bunker-buster proposals for

as long as he's a committee chairman. He has three more years

to head the energy subcommittee before chairman term limits

set in, and intends to run for re-election to a ninth term

next year and serve all three of those years.

``They aren't changing my mind,'' Hobson said. ``It is bad

foreign policy to build a new type of nuclear weapon at the

same time you are telling everyone else in the world, don't

you do it.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Reverend Dr. Roland H. Crowder, upon the joyous celebration of his 40th Anniversary as Pastor of Second Calvary Missionary Baptist Church in Cleveland, Ohio.

Reverend Crowder was born in Cleveland in 1926, into meager beginnings, yet the promise of faith and family would raise his life into the light of leadership, accomplishment and service to others. Just an infant, Reverend Crowder was adopted by Emma and Reverend Edward Griggs. Tragedy struck shortly thereafter when his young mother died and his father became very ill after suffering a stroke. Young Roland was up for adoption again, yet his neighbors across the street, Mr. and Mrs. Will Crowder, opened their hearts and home to him and became his new parents. The family moved to Birmingham, where Reverend Crowder's parents taught him lifelong values that centered on integrity, hard work, family, faith and service to others.

In 1950, following his honorable service in the United States Navy, Reverend Crowder heeded the call to the ministry. After his father passed away, he and his mother returned to Cleveland in 1965, where he began his ministry at the Second Calvary Missionary Baptist Church. Fortified with an undergraduate degree, graduate degree from Malone College and a doctoral degree in theology from the Ashland Theological Seminary, and most significantly, equipped with valuable life experience, Reverend Crowder set the foundation for his life long journey of restoring faith and hope within the hearts of people here in Cleveland and around the world. Reverend Crowder and his late wife, Doris G. Crowder, were married for forty-five years. Together they raised five children: Roland Jr., Lydia, Rosalind, Hiram and the late Phillip. Today, Reverend Crowder and his wife, Sister Ida B. Cook Crowder, continue to serve in faithful ministry and community outreach to the congregation of Second Calvary Missionary Baptist Church.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Reverend Doctor Roland Hayes Crowder, whose compassionate leadership and guidance has been reflected throughout the Second Calvary Missionary Baptist Church of Cleveland, Ohio, for forty years. His commitment, kindness and caring for people in need of emotional and spiritual restoration continues to lift the spirits of countless individuals, and will forever bring faith, hope and light throughout our entire community and far beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I spent 3 years making the case against the war in Iraq, working with other Members leading a nationwide opposition to the war, developing an exit strategy once we got in, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on plans to withdraw from Iraq, to bring our troops home, but I will vote against this resolution because it is a fraud.

What more does anyone need to know but that the sponsor himself has called for defeat of his own proposition? If his real intention is to bring the troops home right now, why would he vote against his own resolution?

Wake up, America. The American people are fed up with politicians who say one thing and do another. Everyone of conscience and intelligence knows the magnitude of withdrawing 150,000 troops requires a plan.

The American people deserve a real debate on Iraq. Where are the WMDs? Where is Osama bin Laden? What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

This Congress, which is a coequal branch of government, which has the war power, has the oversight responsibility and has a moral obligation to find out why almost everything of significance we were told about the war turned out to be false. Instead, those who raise questions have their military service or their honor impugned.

They took John Kerry on a swift boat. We are not going to let them take Jack Murtha on a swift boat, nor are the American people. We have to stand up and expose the fakery when we see it.

Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq by Dennis J. Kucinich

The following is an analysis of the resolution which took

America to war in Iraq.

October 2, 2002. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war

of aggression against an illegal occupation of Kuwait, the

United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate

Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national

security of the United States and enforce United Nations

Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Key issue: In the Persian Gulf war there was an

international coalition. World support was for protecting

Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq.

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq

entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement

pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other

things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical

weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them,

and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors,

United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led

to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical

weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and

that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program

that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than

intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Key issue: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed

nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said

that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were

destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a

published report in the Washington Post, the Central

Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on

Iraq's WMD capabilities.

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the

cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons

inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass

destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which

finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on

October 31, 1998;

Key issues: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors

always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United

States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the

United States then launched a cruise missile attack against

Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a

military strike, the U.S. continues to thwart (the

Administration's word) weapons inspections.

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing

weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United

States interests and international peace and security,

declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of

its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to

take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution

and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into

compliance with its international obligations'' (Public Law

105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national

security of the United States and international peace and

security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material

and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by,

among other things, continuing to possess and develop a

significant chemical and biological weapons capability,

actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting

and harboring terrorist organizations;

Key issues: There is no proof that Iraq represents an

imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A

``continuing'' threat does not constitute a sufficient cause

for war. The Administration has refused to provide the

Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is

a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to

possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear

weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence

connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11.

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the

United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in

brutal repression of its civilian population thereby

threatening international peace and security in the region,

by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi

citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American

serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully

seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Key issues: This language is so broad that it would allow

the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there

is no material threat to the United States. Since this

resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related

violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since

the resolution cites Iraq's imprisonment of non-Iraqi

prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to

attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or

may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with

all requests to destroy any weapons of

mass destruction. Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and

Kuwait agreed to bilateral negotiations to work out all

claims relating to stolen property and prisoners of war.

This use-of-force resolution enables the President to

commit U.S. troops to recover Kuwaiti property.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its

capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction

against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its

continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the

United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate

former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of

occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged

in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security

Council;

Key issue: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it

have the capability to attack the United States. The ``no

fly'' zone was not the result of a UN Security Council

directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States,

Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned

by any Security Council resolution.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing

responsibility for attacks on the United States, its

citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred

on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Key issue: There is no credible intelligence that connects

Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those

events by assisting Al Qaida.

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other

international terrorist organizations, including

organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American

citizens;

Key issue: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist

groups in Middle East, is an argument for focusing great

resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the

Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the U.S. to

launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq.

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11,

2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the

acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international

terrorist organizations;

Key issue: There is no connection between Iraq and the

events of 9/11.

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to

use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current

Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a

surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces

or provide them to international terrorists who would do so,

and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the

United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine

to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Key issue: There is no credible evidence that Iraq

possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has

successfully concealed the production of such weapons since

1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the

capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In

the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of

biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the

willingness to use them against the United States Armed

Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible

information, which proves that Iraq has provided

international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678

authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United

Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent

relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain

activities that threaten international peace and security,

including the development of weapons of mass destruction and

refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections

in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution

687, repression of its civilian population in violation of

United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and

threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in

Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council

Resolution 949;

Key issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations,

including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN

resolutions.

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military

Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has

authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces

pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678

(1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council

Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674,

and 677'';

Key issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations,

including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN

resolutions with military force.

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that

it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the

goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as

being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military

Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), `` that

Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United

Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a

continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of

the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the

use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United

Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Key issue: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology

of the international process, and contrasts the current march

to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution

asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries

authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition

to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking

Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN

Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN

resolutions.

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)

expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy

of the United States to support efforts to remove from power

the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a

democratic government to replace that regime;

Key issue: This ``Sense of Congress'' resolution was not

binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic

means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse

the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it

endorse assassination as a policy.

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the

United States to ``work with the United Nations Security

Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to

``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making

clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be

enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be

met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the

war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international

terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of

mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under

the 1991 ceasefire and other United Nations Security Council

resolutions make clear that it is in the national security

interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war

on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security

Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of

force if necessary;

Key issue: Unilateral action against Iraq will cost the

United States the support of the world community, adversely

affecting the war on terrorism. No credible intelligence

exists which connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to those

terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. Under international law, the

United States does not have the authority to unilaterally

order military action to enforce UN Security Council

resolutions.

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the

war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and

funding requested by the President to take the necessary

actions against international terrorists and terrorist

organizations, including those nations, organizations or

persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the

terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or

harbored such persons or organizations;

Key issue: The Administration has not provided Congress

with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the

events of 9/11.

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to

continue to take all appropriate actions against

international terrorists and terrorist organizations,

including those nations, organizations or persons who

planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks

that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons

or organizations;

Key issue: The Administration has not provided Congress

with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the

events of 9/11. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence

that Iraq has harbored those who were responsible for

planning, authorizing or committing the attacks of 9/11.

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution

to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of

international terrorism against the United States, as

Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization

for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Key issue: This resolution was specific to 9/11. It was

limited to a response to 9/11.

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States

to restore international peace and security to the Persian

Gulf region;

Key issue: If by the ``national security interests'' of the

United States, the Administration means oil, it ought to

communicate such to the Congress. A unilateral attack on Iraq

by the United States will cause instability and chaos in the

region and sow the seeds of future conflicts all other the

world.

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,