Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 59 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule for House Concurrent Resolution 36, expressing congressional support for equal access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution is an important first step in addressing a misguided ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals regarding access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education.

During this time of conflict and the global war on terror, it is more important than ever to maintain the ability to recruit quality men and women for service in our military. The primary way that recruiters are able to do this is to work through those institutions which work closely with our young men and women, schools and universities.

Military recruiters need the same access to college campuses provided to other potential employers, and students deserve the right to discuss the option of a career in the United States military with the representatives of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, some ask, why the need for this concurrent resolution? Well, the answer is succinct. This concurrent resolution grows out of an egregious decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturning the power of Congress to control the purse.

This decision simply states that Congress and the Government may not as a matter of law deny funds to universities on the basis of their denial of access to recruiters and ROTC units. This decision, couched in the language of civil rights, fails to recognize the underlying inequity behind these university policies. This decision asserts the

Congress has compelled speech by these universities to the effect that they ``agree'' with the military's ``Don't ask, don't tell'' policy with respect to homosexuals in the service.

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further than the truth.

The Solomon Amendment compelled no such thing. It simply proposed standards for the receipt of Federal funds. Setting such standards is a normal and legitimate function of the legislative branch. It is what defines the power of the purse. This is an issue that the House and Senate have revisited and affirmed in bipartisan votes in 1995, 1996, 1999, and 2002 after the enactment of the original Solomon Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to note that the Reserve Officers Training Corps, or popularly known as the ROTC, has been embattled on some university and college campuses since the 1960s. This stems from what only can be described as a consistently anti-military philosophy advocated by some, and I want to say only some, college and university professors and administrators.

The new purported reasons for not allowing ROTC on campus often serves the convenient cover for these anti-military sentiments. Some educators now believe that they should be allowed to discriminate against students who wish to enter the military in order to please another group of students who object to the policies and procedures of the armed services, all the while soliciting and accepting Federal funds for their institutions. This is rank hypocrisy.

Why would an institution seek and use Federal funds, often from the Department of Defense, while denying representatives of the U.S. Armed Forces access to their campuses?

Mr. Speaker, the decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is a classic case of judicial overreach and one that must be addressed. As a former university educator and the son of a career Air Force noncommissioned officer, I find this decision disturbing and insulting to those men and women who defend our freedom and to those who wish to join their ranks.

The very least we can do is put the courts on notice as to exactly where the Congress stands on this issue. For that reason, this concurrent resolution is necessary and timely. Hopefully, it will underscore the importance that the Congress places on military recruiters having access to the educational institutions that receive Federal funds.

During this time of war, we should insist that institutions who pride themselves on freedom of expression allow the defenders of that freedom, the United States military, to freely recruit the soldiers who protect our democracy. To that end, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

I would like to quickly address a couple of the concerns that my colleague raised. While I certainly respect his concerns, I would like to point out that the measure in question had been on our Web site for 4 days and was not suddenly introduced yesterday. It had easy access. Frankly, on the nature of the rule itself, it is the opinion of the majority of the committee this is simply an up or down matter. It is not something we need to amend or deal with.

Let me make one other point, if I may, Mr. Speaker, in reference to the access of the military to college campuses. The military is a rather unique institution, but nothing prohibits college campuses from denying them access. All the Solomon amendment does is says, if they do, they lose some Federal funds as a consequence.

I would think that if they felt strongly, that this was a position of conviction, they would not want funds from the Department of Defense and other institutions. They would simply have nothing to do with them.

Further, I would simply like to make one additional point. The appropriate place to protest the policy, frankly, is in the political arena. This is not a policy in the Department of Defense per se. This is a policy devised by President Clinton, has been ratified repeatedly by Congress as a political avenue to address it. We should not put that burden on recruiters in the military and subject them to difficult circumstances when they are carrying out important work for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and in closing, I would like to say I think we have had a good and substantive debate today, but let us be clear: the concurrent resolution is really about ensuring those who defend our freedom and liberty the ability to have the same access to colleges and universities that is available for everyone else.

Mr. Speaker, often today others have placed this debate in the context of the ``Don't ask, don't tell'' policy. I suggest that those who would like to change that policy, that they look inward, at the political process itself. This was President Clinton's policy, and one enshrined in law that can only be changed by Congress.

If the other side of the aisle would like to make this change, they should propose it and debate it at this level. To put it in the context of the Solomon Amendment, I believe, is disingenuous and dangerous to our recruiting efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 306) honoring the service of Native American Indians in the United States Armed Forces, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 306, a resolution that honors the service of Native Americans in the Armed Forces of the United States. As a proud member of the Chickasaw Nation, it is a great honor for me to speak in tribute of the thousands of Native Americans who have worn the uniform of the United States or served in the ranks of our military throughout our history. As the heirs of their own proud warrior traditions that precede the founding of the United States, Native Americans have made notable contributions to the Armed Forces of our country from its very inception.

Even in the 19th century, an era of conflict between Indian nations and the United States, Native Americans could be found serving in and with our military. Native Americans fought with Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans. A Native American was a member of General Grant's staff at Appomattox. And Indian scouts played a critical role throughout the wars on the American Plains.

In the 20th century, Choctaw Indians from Oklahoma were used as Code Talkers in the trenches of Europe during the First World War. In World War II, the Comanche Code Talkers from the district I represent in Oklahoma sent the first messages on D-Day. And of course the Navajo Code Talkers who fought and died on the other side of the world helped turn the tide of war in the Pacific.

Two of the five Native American Congressional Medal of Honor recipients are from my home State of Oklahoma. Jack C. Montgomery, a Cherokee; and Ernest Childers, a Creek, served our country with great distinction. More recently, my fellow Chickasaw, Commander John Herrington, became the first Native American astronaut. Even now he is training in Russia for his next mission.

But, Mr. Speaker, not all Native American soldiers are scouts, Code Talkers, Medal of Honor recipients, or astronauts. Most serve in the ranks and at the same jobs as their fellow Americans. I think of my uncle who joined the Navy, fought in the Philippines, and endured 3\1/ 2\ years in Japanese prison camps during World War II. Or my brother, John Cole Jr., who followed my father, a career Air Force noncommissioned officer, and enlisted in the United States Air Force during the Vietnam era. They are typical of the thousands of American Indians who have served our country in times of peril.

That tradition of service continues today. Native Americans volunteer for military service at a higher rate than any other racial or ethnic group in America. This concurrent resolution which honors their gallant service comes as we celebrate the opening of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian. That institution honors the rich history and enormous contributions made by the First Americans to all Americans.

I congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), the proud son of a career officer and a former member of the Defense Department who represents thousands of Native Americans, for his fine work on this concurrent resolution. And I encourage all my colleagues to join him in honoring the outstanding Native American warriors who have served our country in peace and war.

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

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

I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, my good friend, for his support of this resolution and, frankly, for the terrific work he does for veterans of all stripes, all colors, all varieties, all nationalities. Nobody is a better friend to the American soldier and the American veteran than my good friend from Missouri.

I had the good fortune, Mr. Speaker, recently to visit Iraq and Afghanistan. And while there, I talked to a number of my fellow Oklahomans who are also Native Americans and continue that proud tradition of serving their country and honoring their tribes. Many of them remarked quite movingly the fact that they were part of a centuries-old tradition that they took with enormous seriousness. And, Mr. Speaker, they continue that proud tradition of service today as generation after generation enlists.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), the author of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4066, the Chickasaw National Recreation Area Land Exchange Act of 2004. This legislation finalizes a land exchange agreement that will allow the Chickasaw Nation to develop a cultural center which celebrates their long history and many contributions to our society.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will benefit the city of Sulphur, Murray County, the Chickasaw Nation and all of South Central Oklahoma. The cultural center will bring additional tourism to the area, create new jobs and expand educational opportunities for citizens all over the surrounding area.

It is a model of cooperation between the Federal Government, local government and tribal government.

I want to extend my gratitude to the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo), the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Rahall), the gentleman from California (Chairman Radanovich), the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ranking Member Christensen), as well as to the staff of the Committee on Resources, for helping the people of the fourth district of Oklahoma and the members of the Chickasaw Nation across our country achieve the goal of creating this cultural center and for guiding this bill through the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the passage of this bill, H.R. 4066.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the tremendous job our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines have been doing in prosecuting our global war on terror.

Just recently, I returned from a trip where I visited both the Afghan and Iraq theater of operations. Last year, I made a similar trip to Iraq, and now I can say with some certainty that we have made demonstrable progress.

Americans should not think we are without friends in this region. President Musharraf of Pakistan has been a brave and determined ally in the fight against terrorism. Strong leaders such as President Karzai and Prime Minister Allawi are beginning to emerge in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have put their lives on the line and trusted the word of the United States. We must not let them down, for our security is linked with their success in rebuilding their countries and defeating terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Iraq, U.S. forces are achieving daily successes in confronting terrorists while Iraqi troops and police are starting to undertake the tough everyday work of rebuilding and defending a civil society. In a recent Armed Forces hearing, Army Colonel Michael Linnington, former brigade commander with the 101st Airborne Division, testified that it was not uncommon for his troops to be building schools by day and patrolling for insurgents at night. Or for that matter, it was not uncommon for U.S. troops to be fighting insurgents in one part of a town while helping with elections in another part. The troops believe in their mission and are committed to seeing it through.

Mr. Speaker, our troops have met with daily success in Iraq. However, some observers have not accurately portrayed the results of their efforts. Moreover, it is important to note that we are not the only country suffering casualties in the fight for a free Iraq. In addition to our Coalition allies, hundreds of Iraqi policemen and national guard members have been killed as they fight to ensure the future of their own country.

With respect to Afghanistan, it is quite clear that the Afghani government is progressing in securing modern rights for its people every day. Mr. Speaker, over 10 million people have registered to vote in the upcoming October presidential election in Afghanistan, and 5 million Afghanis are now

enrolled in school. There are many civilian-military projects under way, and infrastructure reconstruction is beginning to reappear. The Coalition forces have changed the lives of the Afghanis and are providing them with opportunities that they never dreamed they could have.

Mr. Speaker, in Afghanistan, we met with interim President Hamid Karzai. He was effusive in his thanks to America and the work of U.S. troops. In particular, he praised the work of Oklahoma's 45th Infantry Brigade that has worked so hard to train the Afghan Army. This is just one example of the countless accomplishments of our citizen soldiers from across our Nation. The Afghani Army is now fighting hard and performing well in the hunt for al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to know when our global war on terrorism will end. This is not a war we sought. We engaged in hostilities only after being attacked. This is a war which has far- reaching implications and will determine the kind of world we leave for our children and grandchildren.

America has a clear choice. We can go the way of some who suggest that we withdraw into isolationism, or we can secure the peace for our progeny by expanding the frontiers of liberty and democracy into the Middle East. While the debate surrounding our actions is legitimate, I truly believe that the answer is clear if one takes the time to look at the implications of not vigorously prosecuting this war. To be secure at home, we must act forcefully abroad. In the war on terror, ``fortune favors the bold.''

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that our servicemen and citizen soldiers are doing fine work in representing the very best America has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note that on rollcall 397 I voted incorrectly and would like the Record to reflect that I had intended to vote ``yea'' on that rollcall vote.

Mr. Speaker, recent reports have done much to identify the mistakes, shortcomings and gaps in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. There is no doubt that the information we had about the weapons programs of Saddam Hussein was incomplete and, to some degree, inaccurate. However, these reports also demonstrate that in a number of respects, U.S. intelligence got it right. Saddam Hussein did possess forbidden weapons, particularly missiles. Saddam and his cronies did indeed have contact and discussions at some level with al Qaeda and various terrorist groups. Terrorists did in fact use Iraq as a sanctuary for training and as a source of supply.

Finally, if British reports are to be believed, President Bush was correct when he warned that Saddam was seeking nuclear material in Africa.

The real question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether U.S. intelligence was perfect, but whether America was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Not so long ago, few Americans professed doubts about removing Saddam. In 1998, President Clinton made regime change in Iraq the goal of U.S. policy. In doing so, he received bipartisan congressional support. When President Bush made the case for war against Saddam in 2002, he, too, received bipartisan support in Congress.

Lest we forget who and what Saddam Hussein was, we should remind ourselves of his actions over the course of his political career. Saddam is a man who launched two regional wars in the Middle East. One cost nearly a million lives. The other required an international military coalition led by the United States to free the victim. Saddam Hussein has actively pursued and employed weapons of mass destruction since the 1980s. He has trained, armed and patronized terrorists of various sorts. He attempted to assassinate a United States President, and his forces routinely tried to down U.S. and allied planes that were responsible for enforcing U.S. sanctioned no-fly zones.

Saddam's crimes and atrocities were not just directed against his neighbors in the international community. The 20-year-plus reign of terror he unleashed against his fellow Iraqis almost defies belief. The countless murders, torture sessions and rapes made him one of the 20th century's most feared and ferocious dictators. He gassed thousands of his own Kurdish citizens, poisoned the environment of those Arab marsh tribes that opposed his rule and looted the country of its wealth. When Saddam's own people rose up against him in 1991 at our urging, he butchered them by the tens of thousands.

When American and Coalition forces finally came to Iraq 12 years later, what did they find? Not, at least yet, stockpiles of WMD. They found something far worse. Dozens of mass graves containing an estimated 400,000 men, women and children murdered by the minions of Saddam Hussein.

I invite my colleagues who so quickly and correctly condemn every shortcoming in the Coalition occupation of Iraq to spend equal time cataloging and criticizing the atrocities of the Hussein regime. If they need any help finding the information, they should talk to the lucky survivors and visit with the thousands of grieving family members who can acquaint them with the full scope of Saddam's crimes.

Once they do, I suspect they will agree with one young American soldier I met while in Iraq. He said, ``The real question is not why we came to Iraq but why the whole world was not here years ago.''

Would it have been better to leave Saddam in power? In power to do what? To resume his unending efforts to acquire and develop WMDs, to expand, develop and formalize his evolving relationship with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, to continue murdering his domestic opponents by the thousands?

When the history of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of Iraq is written, Mr. Speaker, there will be many lessons to learn. We will wonder why our intelligence was not better. We will question some of the decisions we made during the occupation. We will be ashamed of a few of our fellow Americans who lost their moral compass in the awful crucible of war and occupation. We will ask why so many Europeans were so slow to learn the lessons of their own sad history and so unwilling to extend to others the freedom they now enjoy. And we will be amazed at so many humane and decent people willing to allow Saddam to reign from a palace rather than rot in a prison.

But, Mr. Speaker, history will show we were right to remove Saddam Hussein. It will demonstrate that the demise of his regime made the world better, America safer and gave the Iraqi people a chance for a decent future. It will vindicate the leaders, especially our President, who saw the danger, rallied the forces of decency and stayed the course.

Finally, and most appropriately, history will honor those Americans in uniform who once again answered the call of their country and liberated an oppressed people.

Mr. Speaker, the recent Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the status of Weapons of Mass Destruction in pre-war Iraq and the early release of material from the 9/11 Commission's Report that will appear later this week have done much to identify the mistakes, shortcomings and gaps in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. There is no doubt that the information we had about the weapons programs of Saddam Hussein was incomplete and, to some degree, inaccurate. It's worth noting that almost every other intelligence estimate in the world was similarly flawed.

The Senate Report and the 9/11 Commission Report, however, also demonstrate that in a number of respects, U.S. intelligence did get it right. Saddam Hussein did possess weapons--particularly missiles--which were forbidden under U.N. resolutions. Saddam and his cronies did, indeed, have contact and discussions at some level with al Qaeda and various terrorist groups. Terrorists did, in fact, use Iraq as a sanctuary, for training, and as a source of supply. Finally, if British reports are to be believed, President Bush was correct when he warned that Saddam was seeking nuclear material in Africa.

The real question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether U.S. intelligence was right in every particular. By its very nature intelligence is incomplete, imprecise, and imperfect. What America must resolve for itself is whether or not we were right to remove Saddam from power in Iraq. Is the world better off, America safer, and the situation in Iraq more hopeful without Saddam?

Not so long ago, Mr. Speaker, before the amnesia induced by the current political season, few serious Americans professed doubts about these issues. It was, after all, President Clinton who made regime change in Iraq the goal of U.S. policy. He received bipartisan congressional support when he did so. And, again, when President Bush made the case for war against Saddam in 2002 he received bipartisan support in Congress. That support included the votes and the vocal support of those from the minority party who now seek to unseat the President and the Vice President in the current electoral campaign.

Lest we forget who and what Saddam Hussein was we should remind ourselves of his actions over the course of his political career. Saddam is a man who launched two regional wars in the Middle East. One cost nearly a million lives. The other required an international military coalition led by the United States to free the victim. Saddam Hussein has actively pursued and employed weapons of mass destruction since the 1980's. He has trained, armed, and patronized terrorists of various sorts. He kidnapped and killed foreign nationals from Kuwait. He attempted to assassinate a former U.S. President. And his forces routinely tried to down aircraft from the U.S. and other countries which were responsible for enforcing the U.N. sanctioned no-fly zones in Iraq.

Saddam's crimes and atrocities were not just directed against his neighbors and the international community. He was at least a brutal toward his own people. The 20 year plus reign of terror he directed against his fellow Iraqis almost defies belief. The countless murders, torture sessions, and rapes made him one of the 20th century's most feared and ferocious dictators. He gassed thousands of his own Kurdish subjects, poisoned the environment of those Arab marsh tribes who opposed his rule, and looted his country of its wealth. When Saddam's own people rose up against him in 1991 at our urging, he butchered them by the tens of thousands. The failure of the United States and its allies to support an uprising which we helped to encourage is, in my view, a sad chapter in our own history.

When American and Coalition forces finally came to Iraq twelve years later, what did they find? Not (at least yet) stockpiles of WMD's, to be sure. They found something far worse--dozens of mass graves containing an estimated 400,000 men, women and children murdered by the minions of Saddam Hussein. I invite my colleagues who so quickly and correctly condemn every shortcoming in the Coalition occupation of Iraq to spend equal time cataloging and criticizing the atrocities of the Hussein regime. If they need any help finding the information--for it is seldom chronicled in the elite media of our country--they should read the voluminous documents and numerous eyewitness accounts, talk to the lucky survivors, and visit with the thousands of grieving family members who can acquaint them with the scope and scale of Saddam's crimes against humanity.

Once they do, I suspect they will echo the sentiments of one young American soldier I met while in Iraq. He said, ``the real question is not why did we come to Iraq, but why the whole world wasn't here years ago.''

Given Saddam's record of international villainy, brutality and mass murder how can anyone argue that it would have been better to leave him in power? In power to do what? To resume his unending efforts to acquire and develop WMD's? To expand, develop, and formalize his evolving relationship with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups? To continue murdering his domestic opponents by the thousands while the world turned a blind eye?

It is revealing, Mr. Speaker, that the current critics of the war in Iraq never question whether or not that tortured country is better off without Saddam in power. In fact, the critics usually ignore the Iraqi people altogether when they discuss the conflict. It is as if the critics believe that the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam does not matter and that their future does not count. How convenient! How self-serving! And how morally bankrupt.

When the history of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of Iraq is written, Mr. Speaker, there will be many lessons to learn. We will wonder why our intelligence was not better. We will question some of the decisions we made with respect to the occupation. We will be ashamed of a few of our fellow Americans who lost their moral compass in the awful crucible of war and occupation. We will ask why so many Europeans were so slow to learn the lessons of their own sad history and so unwilling to extend to others the freedom they now enjoy. We will be amazed that so many humane and decent people were willing to allow Saddam to reign from a palace rather than rot in a prison. We will even question, as we now do with respect to World War II, why the United States took so long to confront evil and act to end the atrocities of a dangerous and evil dictator.

But, Mr. Speaker, History will show we were right to remove Saddam Hussein. It will demonstrate that the demise of his regime made the world better, America more secure, and gave the Iraqi people a chance for a decent future. It will vindicate the leaders--especially our President--who saw the danger, rallied the forces of decency, and stayed the course. Finally, and most appropriately, History will honor those men and women in uniform who once again answered the call of their country, liberated an oppressed people, and left America and the world safer and freer than they found it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Iraq's transition to democracy and what it holds for our future.

Mr. Speaker, like all Americans, I was pleasantly surprised on June 28 when the Coalition Provisional Authority transferred power to the Iraqi interim government 2 days ahead of schedule. This was an important first step toward demonstrating that America fulfills its promises. Iraq is again a self-governing sovereign state.

However, with that said, we face many challenges in the days ahead. The anti-democratic insurgency in Iraq is still a reality that we and the sovereign and legitimate government of Iraq must confront every day.

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this insurgency, we must first ask ourselves the questions that opponents of the war in Iraq often fail to raise: Who are the insurgents? And why do they hate us and the new government in Iraq?

It is clear from studying this situation in Iraq, the insurgency is not made up of one group of people united around a common message. Rather, it is an insurgency based upon disparate groups with differing and conflicting agendas.

It is clear that we face an unholy alliance of four different, but overlapping, groups: Baathists, radical theocrats, transnational terrorists, and common criminals.

Each of these groups has differing objectives. The Baathists yearn for the day that they once again can control Iraq. This Fascist party formed the basis of the Hussein regime; and at its core it is corrupt, brutal, and anti-democratic.

The radical theocrats and fundamentalists, like Moqtada al Sadr, desire

the installation of a revolutionary theocratic government like that of Iran. Such a government will most certainly be anti-democratic and inherently repressive. Those who desire such a government do not have the support of the majority of Iraqis.

The foreign fighters and transnational terrorists can be divided into two categories: the first is al Qaeda. The second is made up of disparate radicalized Islamic groups. We know what the objectives of al Qaeda are, as September 11 so clearly demonstrated. It wishes to drag the Muslim world into a war against the West. The other foreign fighters are recruited by radicalized clerics and have a similar vision of international jihad.

The criminal elements in Iraq are undeniably part of the insurgency. While many thousands were unjustly persecuted in prisons under the Hussein regime, many prisoners were also legitimately criminals. Before the war began, Saddam Hussein saw fit to release a large number of these criminals to prey upon his own people. They form part of those opposing the legitimate government and the coalition forces.

Mr. Speaker, the follow-up question that many opponents of the war fail to ask is, Why do these insurgents hate us?

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is clear and straightforward. Our opponents hate us, the coalition, not because of what we do, but because of who we are. We represent individual liberty and democracy, two values that our terrorist opponents neither understand nor accept.

If we take the time to examine each of these four insurgent groups, we will find their opposition to the coalition is built upon a rejection of individual liberty and democratic pluralism. The Baathists, of course, have never supported freedom or true democracy. Thirty years of their regime amply demonstrated they believe in an Iraq ruled by a strongman like Saddam Hussein and plundered by his Fascist followers.

The radical fundamentalists for their part certainly do not believe in either freedom or democracy, unlike their mainstream Muslim brethren. They clearly support a regime ruled by a religiously radical minority. In this regime there will be no place for freedom or democracy.

Al Qaeda, of course, will never stop hating us and despises the principles which we believe are essential to Iraq's future. The other foreign fighters also aim to create a state that will pursue a permanent jihad against the West. This jihad is antithetical to values like freedom and democracy.

Finally, the criminal element of the Iraqi opposition is also opposed to the principles of freedom and democracy precisely because these principles do not empower them.

The great weakness of all these opposition groups, Saddamists, transnational terrorists, theocrats, and common criminals, is that none of them offer an attractive future for the Iraqi people. None of these groups could compete in open elections or attain power in a genuine democracy. That is why they so fiercely oppose our efforts to create a free Iraq based on individual liberty, tolerance, and democratic elections.

Mr. Speaker, our President is right: the key to victory in the war against terror is the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East. Our own security is intimately linked to the success of democracy in this troubled part of the world. The success of democracy and self-government in Iraq is the crucial first step to transforming and liberating the Middle East. That is why we must succeed in this critical battle of the forces of oppression and terror in Iraq, and that is why the opponents of the war in Iraq are so badly mistaken in their criticism of our current efforts. Success in Iraq will make America safer.

Mr. Speaker, despite the claims of critics, we have made real and genuine advances in Iraq. No one can deny the significance of 16 new governing councils, 90 new district councils, 194 city or sub-district councils, and 445 neighborhood councils. Together these institutions allow millions of Iraqis to engage in local policy discussions for the first time in history. These are clear advances which will empower Iraqis to control their own destiny. Through building democratic and free institutions, Iraq will be free; and America will be safe.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to come to the floor today to support H.R. 4517, the Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004, which will provide incentives to increase the Nation's refinery capacity.

I have several major refineries in my district. I also have several refineries that have gone out of business in recent years, largely in small rural communities where their loss has created significant unemployment problems. Those areas could benefit enormously from this particular piece of legislation.

As all speakers on both sides of this issue have agreed, the number of refineries in this country has been reduced significantly in recent decades. Indeed, since 1981 the number of refineries has been reduced by 52 percent. In that time, total refining capacity has declined by 9.8 percent. Recent increases in the refinery are due simply to some efficiencies as opposed to the adding of additional capacity.

Mr. Speaker, while our production is declining, demand for refined products is projected to increase substantially between now and 2025. We will meet the demand for additional refined products either by producing that product here in the United States or importing it from abroad. This bill is needed to restore manufacturing jobs and capacity in this country. Counties where oil refineries have closed in the last 20 years have an average unemployment rate of 6.8 percent, significantly higher than the national average. I am amazed that those who complain about the exporting of American jobs oppose this bill, for without it, its passage, we will surely export thousands of refining jobs in the coming years.

Mr. Speaker, by passing this bill, we can decrease our reliance on foreign sources of energy, create new good jobs here at home, and improve our energy independence.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk briefly about the reasons that I support this particular energy bill. I think we ought to talk first about the need, then about the process and then about, finally, some of the important provisions in this bill.

In terms of the need, the President warned us 3 years ago what would happen if we did not have a comprehensive energy policy. He warned us that natural gas prices would go up and that would make American industry less competitive. He warned us that we would become more dependent upon foreign supplies, and he warned us that the price of gasoline was going to become prohibitive for many Americans. All of those warnings have been vindicated by the facts as we have frankly in Congress failed to act on I think a series of excellent recommendations by the administration.

So we have had the warning. We should have acted. I compliment this body for having acted in a bipartisan fashion. Frankly I am appreciative for the majority of our friends in the other body for having been supportive of this particular piece of legislation. If it were not for a technicality that prevents us from getting the legislation to a vote, we could have had the energy policy that this country needs months and months and months ago, and it would have resulted in more natural gas, lower prices at the pump and more security for the United States of America.

That is something we ought to think about. This bill is the product of an intricate negotiated compromise that will lead this country down the path toward energy independence, something we have needed for many, many years. Particularly I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that it allows for the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska's North Slope to the Lower 48 States. That would open up a tremendous new source of energy for this country. It allows for more natural gas exploration development by providing royalty relief for deep and ultradeep gas wells in the shallow waters off the Gulf of Mexico. I would have liked frankly to have seen those same provisions extended to deep gas drilling on land but as one of the compromises that was not included in the

bill. I hope we can do that later. It authorizes and encourages more nuclear power, more energy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which is genuinely bipartisan and move this country toward energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, there are few men in our history whose lives can be said to have changed the world. Ronald Reagan was one of those men.

Ronald Reagan was an inspiration to me personally and politically. In 1984, I was honored to head his reelection campaign in Oklahoma. I also served as chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party during his Presidency. A favorite memory of mine is of a meeting with the President and Republican State party chairmen from the South at the White House in 1988. A 15-minute meeting turned into an hour-long treasure as he regaled us with one hilarious political story after another. Ronald Reagan loved politicians, he loved politics, and he loved public service.

I cannot claim to have known Ronald Reagan well. I was privileged to be with him on more than a few occasions. All the same, he changed my life and the lives of millions of others. He was a voice of faith, faith in America, faith in her people, faith in their future, and, most profoundly, faith in freedom.

Ronald Reagan inspired us to do great things. With him we accomplished much. It is for us to continue to build that shining city on a hill to which he so often referred. There is much yet to do. Ronald Reagan was my hero; but more importantly, he was an American hero. We mourn his passing, but we celebrate his life of achievement and patriotism.

Mr. Speaker, there are few men in our history and there will be few men in our future who live their lives in such a way that the world will be changed because of their existence. Ronald Reagan is one of those men. His dignity, character, strength and convictions will distinguish him in the pages of history and define him as one of the greatest presidents of the twentieth century. President Reagan was an inspiration to many and his optimism for America's future encouraged those across all party lines. He knew there was a brighter tomorrow through the path of strong values, hard work, tough decisions and perseverance. His leadership pulled America through the end of the Cold War, pushed the Soviet Union and the eastern Bloc onto the ``ash heap of history'' and restored the virtues of idealism and optimism to our country. He was a visionary who instigated the rebirth of conservatism and shaped the Republican Party into the governing national majority we see today.

Ronald Reagan was a source of inspiration to me both personally and politically. I was serving as Executive Director of the Oklahoma State Party when Reagan was elected. In 1984, I was honored to head his re- election efforts in Oklahoma. I also served as Oklahoma GOP Chairman during his presidency, so I had opportunities to meet and work with him.

Ronald Reagan had a magic that really appealed to people. A favorite memory is of a meeting with the president and Republican state party chairmen from the South in 1988. A 15 minute meeting turned into an hour-long treasure as he regaled us with one hilarious political story after another. His wit and humor are as fresh in my memory today as they were 20 years ago. I was privileged to see up close what so many Americans intuitively felt when watching him on television. He was an extraordinary man who lived life and enjoyed being with people. It is no wonder he was able to move thousands of people and mobilize them to support his efforts. It's a gift few of us have--and he had that magic in abundance.

Not only is Ronald Reagan a personal hero to me, his influence has shaped a generation of politicians. And by doing that he instilled the values that the Republican Party embraces today. Countless Republican officeholders got into elective politics because he fired their imagination. More profoundly, he showed that the institution of the presidency does work. We seldom remember that after the trials of Watergate and twenty years of failed or shortened administrations, some thought our country was too big for one man to govern, inspire and shape. No one, particularly those who worked with Ronald Reagan, question that today.

And let us not forget that he was a very effective politician whose drive to succeed and will to win were intense. He lost primary after primary in 1976 before coming back from the political graveyard in North Carolina, Texas and Oklahoma. Former Republican National Chairman Frank Farenkopf tells the story that on election day in 1984, the president was so far ahead in the polls that he and Ed Rollins cancelled a rally in Minnesota. He did not need to be bothered, they reasoned. After he won 49 states and only lost Minnesota by about 2,500 votes, the president liked to tease both of his advisors about their election day gaffe. It became a joke, but the president wanted Minnesota in his column.

Much has been made in recent days of Ronald Reagan's courage. We saw his physical courage when an assassin sought to take his life in early 1981. We saw it again when he confronted the ravages of Alzheimer's with grace, candor and sensitivity. But President Reagan also had the courage of his ideas and an ability to see the right path for his party and for is country.

One of Ronald Reagan's biographers, Edmund Morris, tells of his astonishment when he read the president's diaries from his time in office. He learned how many of the major and complex decisions of the Reagan Administration were made by the president, alone and in private. Ronald Reagan did not care, Morris recounts, who got the credit as long as his decisions were implemented and his goals for America came closer to realization. Recently Kiron K. Skinner and Marty Anderson's fine works detailed the depth and breath of Reagan's view of the world--a view he implemented in office.

In describing another great man at another time in history, Winston Churchill writes in his History of the English Speaking Peoples that Robert Peel was `` . . . the dominating force and personality in English politics . . .'' who ``whether in Opposition or in office . . . towered above the scene. He was not a man of broad and ranging modes of thoughts, but he understood better than any of his contemporaries the needs of the country and he had the outstanding courage to change his views in order to meet them.'' Robert Peel, Mr. Churchill added, saw the industrial revolution in Britain that made her the pre-eminent world power in the nineteenth century was driven not by the government but by private enterprise, by capital, by entrepreneurs, by a free people willing to take risks.

There are many differences between Robert Peel and Ronald Reagan. Mr. Peel split his party and destroyed a governing coalition to support Free Trade--a decision validated by history. As a governor and then as a president, Ronald Reagan united a party badly divided over ideas and led it out of the political wilderness. The Republican ascendancy in national government today is a direct result of his leadership. But in reading Winston Churchill's appraisal of Robert Peel's political biography. He was the dominating personality in American politics for a generation.

From the vantage of the early twenty-first century, it is hard to recall the mood of the country and its troubles at his election in 1980. Watergate, defeat in Vietnam, unrestrained Soviet adventurism, double digit inflation and interest rates, massive unemployment, an energy crisis, American hostages in Tehran, the end of the post-War U.S. domination of the global economy--all these combined to give some a sense America's best days were behind her; that perhaps free enterprise and freedom were not the answer; that we had to accept totalitarian communism as a legitimate and equally plausible alternative to our own way of life. Ronald Reagan rejected these ideas. He was optimistic about America, he believed the United States was ``a shining city on the hill'', a beacon of hope and freedom to the world. He understood communism was evil and free peoples must defend themselves against the darkness of tyranny and oppression. He saw a bright and prosperous future for all Americans, one where their work could carry them as far as they dared to dream. Looking back, we take all these things for granted, but Ronald Reagan was ridiculed by the intellectuals and so-called realists of his day. It took real courage to stand up for his beliefs to put them into practice, and to defend them from the faint of heart while they took root and blossomed. To paraphrase Mr. Churchill's assessment of Mr. Peel, Ronald Reagan understood his countrymen better than anyone else on the political stage. They needed leadership, he gave it and they loved him for it.

Like Mr. Peel, Ronald Reagan also had the courage to change his views. A New Deal Democrat, his partisan affiliation and ideological vantage point slowly shifted over time

from a liberal Democrat who believed in government intervention to a conservative Republican who trusted Americans and the people of the world to solve their own problems. As anyone who has even a passing understanding of Hollywood and it's cultural and political outlook knows, this was not an easy thing to do. Ronald Reagan learned about communists first hand when he battled to keep them out of the entertainment industry. Much of his later political success was based on a willingness to stand up to Soviet aggression. Yet, when a glimmer of light came through the darkness behind the Iron Curtain, President Reagan saw America's chance for victory through negotiation and began to talk to the Soviets and their leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. Many of his longtime supporters decried his decision and they did so with good reason because the Soviets historically did not negotiate in good faith. But the president had the courage and the vision to see the great opening and he took it. And, like so many times in the past, he was right. And we are better for it.

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans I cannot claim to have known Ronald Reagan well. I was privileged to be with him on more than a few occasions, but more often I watched him on television or read about him in the morning's newspapers with the rest of the country. All the same, he changed my life. And he changed the lives of millions around the world. His was a voice of faith. Faith in America, in her people, and in freedom. He inspired us to do great things. With him we accomplished much. Though he has gone to a better place, it is for us to continue to build that shining city on the hill. There is much yet to do. But Ronald Reagan's legacy and memory will inspire us in our task.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the greatest threat to the economic recovery now under way, rising energy prices. Since 2001, the price for a gallon of gasoline has increased by 52 percent, U.S. oil imports have increased by more than 10 percent, the cost of natural gas by more than 92 percent; and Alan Greenspan has repeatedly testified that energy prices are the single greatest threat to job creation.

Mr. Speaker, to meet our growing needs and address these rising energy prices, this House has passed comprehensive energy legislation three times. All three times it has been blocked through legislative obstruction in the other body. This obstruction hurts America. To oppose the President's comprehensive energy legislation while calling for more domestic energy production and lower gasoline prices is hypocritical beyond belief.

Mr. Speaker, for too long America has relied on other nations to provide the raw materials for our energy needs. It is time for us to move towards self-reliance so we are not susceptible to the threats, blackmail, and production fluctuations from abroad. The Congress must move forward with a responsible energy policy. Voting ``no'' for the energy bill is not an energy plan for America.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 417) honoring the Tuskegee Airmen and their contribution in creating an integrated United States Air Force, the world's foremost Air and Space Supremacy Force.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 417.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), the author of this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to request consideration of H. Con. Res. 417 because this resolution honors a remarkable group of African Americans who played a pivotal role in the military history of our country. They are not the only segregated unit to do so, of course. The 54th Massachusetts during the Civil War, the 9th and 10th Buffalo Calvary, which were honored with the name Buffalo Soldiers by their native American adversaries in the latter part of the 19th century, a group which constructed Fort Sill in my own district and won lasting fame there. And of course more recently, the 761st Tank Battalion whose exploits have been chronicled in a fine volume by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

But today, we are here to honor the Tuskegee Airmen who with their professionalism, their skill, and courage not only made an important contribution to fighting tyranny during the Second World War but also helped to forge the United States Air Force into the world's dominant air and space team.

On July 19, 1941, the Army Air Force began a program in Alabama at the Tuskegee Institute to train African Americans as military pilots. The primary flight training was conducted by the Division of Aeronautics at the institute founded by Booker T. Washington, and the transition to combat aircraft was conducted at nearby Tuskegee Army Airfield.

The first group of pilots completed training 9 months later in March 1942. Among that vanguard group was then-Captain Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., a future living legend in the Air Force who went on to become one of its greatest leaders. In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999, the Congress authorized the President to advance Lieutenant General Davis to the grade of General on the retired list of the United States Air Force.

That initial group of Tuskegee pilots was assigned to the famous 99th Fighter Squadron, which was eventually deployed on May 31, 1943, to fly P-40 Warhawks in combat missions in North Africa, Sicily, and throughout Italy. Later Tuskegee graduates were assigned to the 332nd Fighter Group and began overseas combat operations in Italy flying the P-40 and P-39 Airacobra.

Before the war ended, the Tuskegee program had graduated 992 pilots and 450 Tuskegee Airmen had flown over 15,000 combat sorties overseas. Approximately 150 men had been killed over the course of the program, with 66 killed in action. The combat record of these segregated units was superb. They destroyed or damaged 136 enemy aircraft in air-to-air combat and another 273 on the ground. They were highly decorated with over 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses being awarded to African American pilots.

The most impressive achievement of the 332nd Fighter Group was flying over 200 bomber escort missions over Central and Southern Europe without losing a single bomber to enemy aircraft. This unprecedented record was not lost on enemy fighter pilots who often elected to avoid attacking bomber formations when they realized that the fighter escort was the Red Tail fighters of the 332nd.

The challenges confronted by the Tuskegee Airmen were not limited to the wartime skies over Europe. Each of these men proudly met all challenges with skill and determination when racism and bigotry had caused lesser men to harass them and to seek their failure. There are a number of ways for men to display courage in their lives, but seldom are men confronted with as many tests of courage as were the Tuskegee Airmen; and very few men can claim as successful and enduring a legacy as they.

These combat pioneers distinguished themselves throughout their service in war and peace and over time redefined America's understanding of African Americans as warriors and leaders and set the stage for the racially integrated Air Force that achieved so much in the years to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for introducing this resolution. I feel very fortunate to have had the opportunity to address the House on this issue and recognize the contributions of Tuskegee Airmen to America.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a personal observation that was actually provoked by the gentleman from Missouri.

My father was a member of the United States Army Air Force. He joined in 1940. He grew up in a time and in a place where segregation was a very common thing, and not only common in the culture, but legal, recognized by law, enforced by law, and he thought joining the United States Army Air Corps was a way out and a way up for him, and it certainly was, given his background and given his station in life.

But it did more than that. Over the course of his lifetime, it transformed his views, it widened his horizons. He often talked about the United States Air Force or the Army Air Corps and later the Air Force to me as I grew up. I actually grew up when he was still a member of that. And he reflected on the tremendous lesson it had taught him about humanity, about the wonderful diversity of America and about the equality of all men in combat and all men under the law.

He often cited, frankly, the Tuskegee Airmen as people who had begun the transformation of the South, had begun the transformation of race in this country and had contributed mightily.

So it is a particular honor again to recognize these people, who were not only so brave in defending their country and so skilled in combat that they were recognized by their enemy but who taught us Americans a far greater lesson than we could expect any group of men to do, who reminded us again of the unfulfilled ideals of our country and moved us toward the ultimate realization of those ideals.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, on May 20, 2004, for rollcall vote 202, I was unavoidably detained. If I had been present, on rollcall vote No. 202, I would have voted ``aye.''

Personal Explanation

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 202. I wish the Record to reflect I would have vote ``yes'' on that amendment.

Personal Explanation

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 202. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address what I believe to be important facts about the United Nations Oil for Food Program with Iraq and how it ultimately was corrupted by Saddam Hussein with the aid and willing cooperation of allies from the international community.

In addressing this issue, Mr. Speaker, a few simple facts should be reiterated.

In February of 2000, President Clinton's administration registered their dissatisfaction with Saddam Hussein's government when he complained that approximately $2 billion was spent to build nine lavish palaces and import liquor and cigarettes under the Oil for Food program.

During the postwar occupation, some very serious allegations have been made regarding people and corporations who circumvented the Oil for Food program by receiving illicit payments from oil surcharges. Among those implicated were U.N. officials administering the Oil for Food program. This was first reported by Al Mada, an independent Iraqi newspaper. Some people and organizations who have been accused have been confirmed in this account to have violated the program. Others have so far denied it.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that a tremendous number of companies signed oil exploration contracts with Iraq that would ultimately have served to undermine any remaining viability of the Oil for Food program. Not surprisingly, the companies predominantly seemed to have come from countries which opposed the liberation of Iraq.

Just this March, the General Accounting Office testified before our own Committee on Financial Services that it believed that Saddam Hussein's regime increased its revenues through illicit activities in the Oil for Food program by approximately $10.1 billion between 1997 and 2002. These funds were spent to oppress the Iraqi people and provide a lavish lifestyle for the regime's rulers.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. Saddam Hussein engaged in an ongoing circumvention of the Oil for Food program, flouted the U.N. resolutions, persecuted his own people, and was engaged in widespread corruption. He was assisted in these activities by a number of companies and perhaps countries, as well as people within the U.N. bureaucracy itself. This is just one more example that gives credibility to our campaign to remove the regime of terror and replace it with one that truly represents the Iraqi people.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Oil for Food program, Iraq was able to successfully advance its foreign policy by offering future contracts to companies for oil exploration, thus receiving a buy-in from other countries, bolstering Saddam Hussein's legitimacy.

The Oil for Food program was suspended just before Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 19, 2003. The U.N. staff in Iraq departed on March 28, 2003. As U.N. forces moved north towards Baghdad, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1472, restarting the program's operations, empowering the United Nations to take direct control of all aspects of the program, and directing the United Nations to set priorities on the delivery of already contracted supplies. This actually enhanced U.N. authority and then was later extended on June 3, 2003, a remarkable usurpation of power given the record of the U.N. up to that time administering the program.

On May 22, 2003, Resolution 1483 was adopted, lifting sanctions on Iraq and providing for the phasing out of the Oil for Food program's ongoing operations within 6 months. In accordance with the resolution, the program was terminated on November 21, 2003, and was taken over by the U.S. occupation authority, the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues can be assured that the CPA is now more effectively delivering food and resources to the people of Iraq than Saddam Hussein ever did. Today, Iraqi resources are being used for the Iraqi people for the first time in decades. Our achievements are impressive in this area and should demonstrate our commitment to the people of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would once again call for a full and thorough investigation of the expenditures of all funds involved in the Oil for Food program. The corruption was so deep in the Saddam Hussein administration and in those countries, companies and international institutions that propped up the regime, I am convinced that we will not like what we discover.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and to express my revulsion and disgust at the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by a few reprehensible and unrepresentative individuals in our military or operating as representatives of our government.

The very first time I spoke on this floor, it was to warn Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi army of the consequences of not treating our prisoners of war in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. I feel just as strongly about the prisoners of war that are in the custody of our military.

This is not an issue I take lightly. My own uncle was a prisoner of war during World War II. He suffered terrible personal abuse.

Now a few soldiers have brought disgrace upon themselves. And in the process, they have embarrassed our Nation, its Army, and risked the lives of our soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, these abuses must be dealt with and the perpetrators prosecuted and punished. The incident represents a failure of leadership, clear and simple. Those in the chain of command responsible for this breakdown must be identified and sanctioned in some way stronger than simple letters of reprimand.

This resolution and the actions that follow are what makes us different from other nations, Mr. Speaker. Here in America when something like this happens, we put it out in front of the world, we identify the perpetrators, prosecute, and punish them. That is what our soldiers fight for. That is what 30 soldiers from my own district have died for.

In America, we do not have gulags. We do not have concentration camps. And we do not tolerate the mistreatment of those who are incarcerated. We are a just society built upon the rule of law. But make no mistake. Our cause in Iraq is just, and we will be successful in spite of this shameful episode.

Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of our soldiers are honest and upright and willing to risk their lives to defend and advance the cause of freedom. I know. I have had the honor of visiting them, and I am quite sure that they are as disgusted and outraged by the conduct of these few individuals as we in this House are.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage other Members to vote in support of this resolution, but also to thank the many soldiers who serve us and the Iraqi people, while we sanction the few who have violated our trust.