Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. 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. COLE

Mr. COLE. 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. COLE

Mr. COLE. 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. COLE

Mr. COLE. 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.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. 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. COLE

Mr. COLE. 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. COLE

Mr. COLE. 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. COLE

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

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

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

Mr. COLE. 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. COLE

Mr. COLE. 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. COLE

Mr. COLE. 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. COLE

Mr. COLE. 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.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time. I rise in support of H. Res. 581, not simply because I have the great honor to represent 15,000 civilian employees at Tinker Air Force Base and 6,000 at Ft. Sill Army Post and thousands of others throughout the district; not just because my own father, who had a distinguished 20- year career in the United States Air Force, followed that with, I think, an equally distinguished 20-year career as a civilian employee at Tinker Air Force Base, but because I think H. Res. 581 expresses equity, good management, smart personnel policy, and, frankly, is also an asset to our national defense. Opponents of the idea of equal pay for military and civilian personnel quite often point to the inflation issue as something that they focus on. Frankly, I think the real question is the 32 percent wage gap between private sector and public sector employees, something that this House and this government has historically tried to address over time. I think we should continue on that path. I also think it is of the utmost importance that we retain qualified personnel in Federal civilian service. Over 50 percent of that workforce is now within 5 years of retirement at Tinker Air Force Base. It is an extraordinarily skilled force. It needs to be encouraged; and, frankly, we need to have the incentives to recruit equally qualified people in the future. I think in the end, Mr. Speaker, this is simply a matter of good policy. I have good friends on both sides of this issue. I think the motives are very good, but the reality is we know we need a first-rate military. We know we need to pay for that. We need a first-rate civilian personnel force to back them up when we are in conflict and, frankly, when we are not. So I am very proud to support this particular resolution.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 557 expressing the views of the House on the liberation of Iraq. Frankly, I find myself amazed that this resolution is the topic of such an extended and spirited debate. Who can seriously dispute H.R. 557's main points? The world is safer with Saddam Hussein in prison as opposed to being in power. If anyone questions that, let them ask the citizens of the two Muslim countries he invaded, the Kurds whom he gassed or the Shiites whom he butchered by the thousands. The Iraqi people should be commended for their courage in overcoming 35 years of oppression and they should be recognized for adopting an interim constitution and moving forward toward a democracy, similar to the same situation faced in our own Civil War. Certainly the United States military and our allies in the coalition deserve to be recognized for their heroic service and their valor on the battlefield and their continuing struggle in Iraq. The American people and our allies ought to also take pride in what we have done to improve the lives of the average Iraqi. Since the end of the war, 4.2 million children and 700,000 pregnant mothers have been vaccinated. Over 30 million vaccine doses have been procured and 22 million actually delivered to Iraq. By the end of 2004, 90 percent of Iraqi children will have been vaccinated against polio, tuberculosis, and measles; 600 primary health clinics have been reequipped to provide health care, dozens of schools opened, colleges kept operational and the sanitation extended. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what America and Americans have done in Iraq. I hope and trust that pride is shared by Members of this House and every American.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, it has been said by some that the American economy is in chaos and decline. I come to the floor today to counter such nonsense with the facts. After the shocks of the recession and the tragedy of 9/11, the economy has experienced 60 consecutive months of job growth and during that time has added a total of 364,000 new jobs to the economy. In point of fact, the unemployment rate is currently lower, lower than the average unemployment rate during the 1970s, the 1980s and even the 1990s. Since 2001, the U.S. economy has grown more than twice as fast as the economies of Europe and Japan. Our economy is in better shape and growing faster than any member of the G-7 group of industrialized nations. America is the largest exporter in the world and the main source of economic growth in the world. Productivity growing at 4.1 percent annually over the last 3 years is at an historic high. The economy is expected to grow faster from 2003 to 2004 than any other year in the last 20. Mr. Speaker, the number of Americans working today stands at 138.3 million, the highest number in the history of this Nation, higher even than the number of Americans who were working in January of 2001. And most Americans are prospering like they never have before, with family net worth hitting a record high of $44.4 trillion. This is in part because the home ownership rate stands at 68.5 percent also an historic high. I cite these figures not because I believe there is nothing that can or should be done to further promote economic growth and job creation, but instead, to provide some perspective on how the media and the other side of the aisle are misrepresenting and misportraying the facts concerning the state of our economy. Mr. Speaker, the truth is most Americans are not fond of the pointless debate over when the recent recession began or who was responsible for it. This debate does nothing to lower the unemployment rate. It is an exercise in political histrionics. We are now experiencing economic recovery and that is something most Americans do care about. What matters to them is how to maintain and sustain and expand that recovery. To sustain this recovery, I believe we need to simplify the Tax Code. We need to reduce the burden of frivolous lawsuits on our economy. We need to pass an energy bill to ensure an affordable and reliable energy supply. We need to streamline regulations and paperwork requirements on small businesses that are the driving force for job creation in this country. And we need to reduce the deficit. Mr. Speaker, Congress is beginning the effort to tackle the budget deficit, which I believe has been primarily caused by out-of-control spending and should be solved by controlling the growth in spending. We could balance the Federal budget within 5 years if we held increases in Federal spending to 2 percent a year. Inside the Beltway I know, to some that is an unthinkable sacrifice, but how many families, how many businesses had to limit their spending by similar amounts during the last few years? What we must not do is pass legislation that would make this economic recovery come to an abrupt halt. We should not take the easy way out of our budget problem by raising taxes. The tax cuts for families and small businesses created this economic recovery and raising taxes would put the breaks on this economic recovery.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on March 3, 2004 for rollcall vote 38, I was unavoidably detained. If I had been present, on rollcall vote No. 38, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of government spending. Prescription medicines for seniors, helping families own their own homes, supporting education and defending America--the list of the government's responsibilities to the American people is numerous. But, while it is the government's responsibility to provide assistance to the needy and fund programs for our children and seniors, it is intolerable to provide these services at the cost of leaving a crippling burden of debt on our children and grandchildren. When Congress passed the budget last year, it required us to identify ways to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. A task force was put together that was asked to report its findings. Since then, Congress and the General Accounting Office have identified over $85 billion in waste and fraud in government programs. There are quite a few outrageous examples of wasteful Federal spending. The Energy and Commerce Committee reported that by eliminating double-payments for welfare and Medicaid the Federal Government could save $3.7 billion over 10 years. The Education and Workforce Committee found that the government could save $340 million each year by allowing the Internal Revenue Service to verify the income eligibility of Pell Grant applicants. The Judiciary Committee reported that the Department of Justice spends about $2 million a year more than necessary on employee training. There are also numerous examples of duplicative programs. The Federal Government has over 50 different programs in eight Federal agencies to assist the homeless. Sixteen of those programs are specifically reserved for the homeless. Most of these programs have different eligibility standards and application procedures, making it difficult for the homeless population to receive help. The Federal Government operates 342 programs working in economic development. Six agencies and 26 programs serve to build roads and streets. Seven agencies and 31 programs fund water and sewer-related activities. Mr. Speaker, while these findings are a great step in reducing government spending there is still more work to be done. The percentage of waste in the Federal Government would be intolerable in the private sector. I believe that with further investigation and inquiry, we can find even more examples of waste, fraud and abuse. Congress should be accountable for every dollar of the taxpayer's money. By reducing waste and duplication we can create a slimmer, more effective government. With a government as large and as far-reaching as that of the United States, small mistakes and oversights can amount to millions of dollars of waste. Correcting those mistakes and saving these dollars should be a priority for every member of Congress. Working Americans deserve the best possible government at the lowest possible cost. Waste is a symptom of an ineffective government. Combating waste does not imply hostility toward government, but a desire to strengthen government programs so that they can serve constituents effectively. I believe it is possible to continue funding our priorities while also remaining fiscally responsible. By seeking to balance the budget we can bring accountability to government programs and departments.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 2691. I am generally supportive of the bill's thrust and appreciate the good work of both the Committee on Appropriations chairman and subcommittee chairman. However, the provision inserted into this legislation relating to the Indian trust issue makes it personally unacceptable for a variety of reasons. It is unacceptable, first, because it amounts to legislating in an appropriation bill, and I find that unfortunate. Second, it was not included in either the original House or Senate bill, and consequently did not receive the scrutiny and debate that it deserved. Finally, it is an effort, I think, inappropriately, to derail a judicial process that is already in progress. It is unfortunate that we are at this particular moment, and I regret having to vote against this bill. But I think had we operated through the Committee on Resources, let the processes in place work out, we could have arrived at a solution to the problem that was fair and equitable and trusted by all sides. It is with great reluctance that I rise in opposition. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Conference Report on H.R. 2691, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004. I am supportive of the general thrust of this bill, particularly the emergency funds to help fight the wildfires in the West. Moreover, I recognize the need to finish appropriation bills on a timely basis. I respect the Appropriations Committee chairman and subcommittee chairman who laid out the broad framework for this generally laudable appropriations measure. I want to be clear that my criticisms of the substance of one part of this bill in no way are intended to reflect on the fine work and integrity of the chairman and the members of the committee. However, I feel compelled to vote against H.R. 2691 because of one provision in the bill concerning the Indian Trust issue. This provision was inserted in language funding the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians and would dictate the manner in which the Department of the Interior undertakes a complete historical accounting of individual Indian Trust accounts. It is clearly the first step in a process designed to impose rather than negotiate a settlement of Indian Trust account claims and to do so for as little money as possible regardless of the merits of individual cases or the historical culpability of the Federal Government in the mismanagement and theft of Native American assets held in trust. This provision clearly violates the House Rule against legislating in an appropriations bill. Moreover, it undermines the excellent work of the Resources Committee, which has held two hearings on the Indian Trust issue and has been in the process of building a bipartisan framework to settle the Indian Trust issue in wake of the questions arising out of the so-called Corbel litigation. If this conference report is approved in its present form it will hinder the efforts of the Resources Committee to resolve this issue fairly and honorably for all concerned. In addition to being legislatively and procedurally unsound, the provision in question is clearly designed to limit the ability of Native Americans to pursue their legitimate claims in court. Frankly, I predict that this effort will fail. However, it will cost the litigants and the Federal Government more rather than less money in the long run. Moreover, it will further poison the historically poor relations between Indian tribes and the Federal Government. Frankly, I am appalled that this language was included in the conference report on H.R. 2691 since it was not part of either the original House of Senate Interior appropriation bills. It was added in the dead of night in order to avoid legislative scrutiny and open debate. This is a clear violation of the spirit if not the letter of the normal rules that govern the legislative process. It discredits the legislative process and should embarrass and disappoint every member of this body regardless of their position on the issue. In my opinion, this language delays justice for half a million individual Indian Trust beneficiaries who have waited over 100 years for a full and fair accounting of the property which the Federal Government holds in trust for them. This is both reprehensible and unacceptable. I intend to work within the framework of this institution to see that the mischief done in this appropriations bill is ultimately undone. Mr. Speaker, it is tragic that this provision was added to this otherwise praiseworthy and essential piece of legislation. Its inclusion makes it impossible for me or any other member who cares about the rights of Native Americans to support this bill. However, I take comfort in the fact that this issue will be dealt with again, both in the courts and in the halls of the Congress of this great republic.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I rise to support this important resolution, H. Res. 198. (Mr. COLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)