Tom Cole

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), 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 Monday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the House report for H.R. 5631, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2007. Mr. Speaker, when the Rules Committee met, it granted an open rule, providing 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. For the purposes of amendment, the bill shall be read by paragraph. Additionally, this rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill which fail to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, and it authorizes the Chair to accord priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. It provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 5631 and the underlying resolution. In past debates on defense appropriations, I have spoken of the four challenges I believe we must successfully address if we are to ensure the security of our country in the 21st Century. These challenges are, first, addressing the equipment and readiness needs created by the 1990s procurement holiday; second, transforming and adapting our forces to use the opportunities and meet the challenges posed by the new technologies of the information age; third, increasing the size and changing the force structure of our forces in order to have more available manpower for deployment and for combat operations; and, fourth, doing those things necessary to win the war on terror and succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr. Speaker, the rule and the underlying legislation do much to meet these four challenges. The bill itself provides $427.4 billion to meet the needs of our military. That is $19.1 billion more than last year. Speaking broadly, the bill provides $84.9 billion for military personnel, $120.5 billion for operations and maintenance, $81.5 billion for procurement, $75.3 billion for research and development and $50 billion towards the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The procurement sections of the underlying bill do much to bring on line new weapons and replace worn-out equipment. I am particularly pleased to note the $11 billion for naval shipbuilding and conversion, the $2.9 billion for 42 F/A-22 aircraft and the $500 million above the President's request for National Guard equipment needs. In addition, in light of developments in North Korea, the $9 billion for ballistic missile defense is clearly a prudent expenditure. Additional funds are available to replace equipment lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the personnel front, the end strength for the National Guard is funded at its full projected strength of 350,000. Moreover, all personnel receive a 2.2 percent across-the-board raise that the administration requested. Mr. Speaker, we have a long way to go before we make up for the neglect of our military in the 1990s when we reduced our end strength levels and failed to replace and update weapons systems and bring on new weapons. The changing nature of technology poses real threats and opportunities. Moreover, our forces are involved in a tough fight against a vicious enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq. They require our continued support. No one bill in and of itself can address all these challenges. However, the Appropriations Committee has brought us a bill that makes significant progress in all these areas. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill, carefully crafted by the chairman, Mr. Young of Florida, and the ranking member, Mr. Sabo of Minnesota. Their professionalism and cooperation in devising ways to meet the needs of our men and women in uniform is something to which we should all aspire. I particularly want to recognize Mr. Sabo, who is leaving Congress after the completion of his current term, for his distinguished career of service to his district, his State and our country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert tabular and extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the National Security Subcommittee of Government Reform, a gentleman who has been to Iraq on 12 different occasions, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 868 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and insert tabular and extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. 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, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of House Resolution 861. Mr. Speaker, the rule is a closed rule providing 10 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution and provides one motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions. It further provides that, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, in the context of today's debate, I believe there are four relevant questions we must consider. First, should we have entered the war in Iraq? Second, with Saddam Hussein gone, what are the stakes in terms of our involvement in Iraq? Third, what are the chances for success in Iraq? And finally, where will the battle be won or lost? I would like to consider each of those questions in turn. First, should we have entered the war in Iraq? I remind the Members of this House that it was official policy of the United States Government beginning in 1998, agreed to by both Houses of Congress, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We had good reason to do so. This is a person who had twice launched regional wars and took over a million lives; who pursued and nearly acquired nuclear weapons on two different occasions; who developed weapons of mass destruction and had used them against his own people; who was a state sponsor of terrorism; who had systematically worked his way out from under the restrictions applied to him by the United Nations; who had expelled weapons inspectors from his own country; who was a continuing threat; and, frankly, who had terrorized and brutalized and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein. Second, with him gone, what is at stake in Iraq? For that I think we should turn to the enemies that we fight today. al Qaeda, they have designated this and other terrorist groups as the central battlefield in the war on terror. I quote from the chief theoretician of al Qaeda: ``Iraq is the greatest battlefield against the infidel and his native allies. It is not the American war machine that should be of utmost concern. What threatens the future is American democracy. To allow Iraq to build a democracy would represent our biggest defeat.'' So the stakes are certainly worth the effort. Next, what are our chances of success in Iraq? Frankly, I think they are very good, for two reasons. First, obviously, the skill, the bravery, the professionalism of our own people which was demonstrated only last week when they cornered and killed al Zarqawi, one of the world's worst terrorists; but second, and we ought to note this, the Iraqi people themselves. It is they who stepped up under the most difficult of circumstances and turned out in successfully greater numbers at three different elections. It is they who, in the civil turmoil they are going through, have fashioned a Constitution, have created a permanent government. It is their leaders who run the risk of being killed every single day, and it is their people who are standing up literally by the thousands and fighting back to defend their own country and to move it forward to a hopeful and democratic future. So I think our chances of success in Iraq are good. Finally, though, where will the battle be won or lost? Finally, Iraq is a crucial theater. What happens there with our military, what happens with the Iraqis is determinative to the outcome; but I would also suggest that the United States is itself a battlefield, a political battlefield. The real question is whether or not we will sustain the will that it takes to ultimately be successful, and that decision will be made not in Iraq but in Congress and in the United States itself. So what we are about today is a fight, I think, that involves us on the most critical battlefield of all, the battlefield of American public opinion. Mr. Speaker, today we may hear about the ``unfairness'' of this resolution. We may hear charges of a rigged process. Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker. The minority was asked to provide their own party substitute to this resolution, and they did not choose to do so. We were ready to make this in order in the Rules Committee. They did not do so, and we moved forward with our resolution. Mr. Speaker, if the other side of the aisle would like to argue process rather than substance, that is certainly appropriate, and that is their privilege. They should vote against this resolution. If they disagree with the resolution in substance, they should vote against it. If they disagree with the resolution because they consider it ramrodded, they should vote against it. That is their right. Frankly, I believe their real challenge is that they have no common unified position on Iraq as a party. Whether we are right or wrong on our side of the aisle, we do have a common position, and it is expressed in the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I urge those on both sides of the aisle who believe that winning the campaign in Iraq is of the utmost important in achieving success in the wider global war on terror to vote for this resolution. I believe that many Members of both parties will. Mr. Speaker, to that end, I urge the support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself just 15 seconds. I want to make note for the record, we did offer the minority an opportunity for a substitute resolution.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. And no, I will not yield. My time is very tight, and you have time to respond. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I am prepared to close whenever you are, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of my close, I simply want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle the simple fact is, despite their insistence to the contrary, our side never received a substitute amendment to consider. The Rules Committee received four amendments, none of which was a Democratic substitute. We cannot make in order what is not submitted to the Rules Committee. Let me say that I suspect that this procedural problem really represents the fact that there is not a cohesive alternative presented by the other side. We have watched again and again and again as the Democratic Party has struggled to come to grips with this issue and find a united position, and so far no united position has emerged. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, we do indeed have a united position. It is one that you can agree with or disagree with, but it is a resolution that we can put forward and we can command the overwhelming majority of our Members to support. And, frankly, I hope and trust that many Members on the other side will also be supportive of that position. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. What is at stake in Iraq is the war on terror, whether or not we will be successful. That is the central battlefield of this particular moment. Everybody on both sides agrees that removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing to do. He was an evil man, a dangerous man, a tyrant to his own people, a threat to world peace. That removal was not going to come about by accident or by internal revolution. They had indeed tried to do that. Unfortunately, they had failed. It took direct military intervention by the United States of America to rid the world of one of the worst tyrants we have seen in the second half of the 20th and the opening of the 21st centuries. Once there, the terrorists, our enemies, made this the central battlefield. And, frankly, over the course of the last 3 years, they have inflicted enormous damage on the Iraqi people. I, for one, am enormously proud of how the Iraqis have responded to that challenge. To see a people who, in the face of terror and death and destruction, have gone out to the polls not once, not twice, but three times with ever increasing numbers of participants; to see them write a constitution in the midst of turmoil and challenge; to watch them create a permanent government; to watch that government take control; and to see their people, thousands of their people, stepping forward to defend their country and fight their enemies who are also our enemies is, frankly, an inspiring and a noble sight. I think we have a terrific chance to succeed in Iraq because of the Iraqi people, because of the valor and the skill and the professionalism of the American military. The real battle and the real arena, as my friend Mr. Shays suggested, is here on the floor of this Congress and in the court of public opinion in the United States. If we maintain the resolve, if we maintain the commitment, if we keep our promise to the Iraqi people, we will be successful. If we do not, we not only will fail, we will strengthen and harden our enemies and, frankly, will bring dishonor on ourselves. I am extraordinarily proud of this President. I am extraordinarily proud of this Congress with its bipartisan commitment to succeed in Iraq. To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I want to address one of the points that my good friend from Wisconsin made. He used the phrase ``unnecessary war in Iraq.'' I would respectfully disagree with that judgment. The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was not a policy adopted simply by this administration or this Congress. It was the official policy of the United States under our former President beginning in 1998. Why did we do that? Why did we choose to make the removal of Saddam Hussein a priority in American policy? You can tick off the reasons. This is the man who launched two regional wars that killed over a million people, and he involved our country in armed conflict in 1991 in Kuwait. This is a man who twice had come close to developing nuclear weapons. First, in 1981, the Israelis took them out. Then he was evidently within 6 months of having nuclear weapons when the Gulf War broke out, according to the United Nations. You visit Iraq, you can find mass graves everywhere. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. This was a person who was financing terrorism up to the moment he was removed from power, offering $25,000 bounties and rewards to families whose children were killed in terrorist activity. This is a person who was getting out from under U.N. sanctions, who had already despoiled the Oil-for-Food Program, and who step by step was moving himself toward the ability to be a threat in the region again, or to enhance his threat. So I think when we actually look at this regime, it is fortunate that it is not there, because, frankly, if it were there today, it would be freer and more powerful and I think more threatening than it was when it was removed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert tabular and extraneous material on the resolution.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I simply want to note that this supplemental actually addresses many of the gentlewoman's concerns. It includes money for armoring Humvees and truck vehicles. The supplemental makes modifications to requests in order to get the safest, most effective armored vehicles to troops in the field, including the National Guard, in a timely manner. It also adds $726 million to requests to ensure that Army tracked combat vehicles, such as Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, are upgraded and available to the National Guard. There is also in this appropriation additional funds to look after the well-being of the troops. I think that our House Committee on Armed Services has done an excellent job in identifying problems as they have shown themselves and dedicating resources to them throughout this conflict. Certainly more can be done, and it is being done in this supplemental. But I would also point out for the record, while every loss of life, every loss of life is a tragedy and something that one would prefer not to happen, this is still one of the lowest, if not the lowest, casualty rates in the history of sustained conflict in our country. So I think, frankly, those in charge of these particular areas have done a commendable job and, frankly, are trying to improve on that job literally on a daily basis. This supplemental is a step in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I just want to once again disagree with my good friend. I find, frankly, comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam to be incredibly overdrawn and misplaced. When we look at the scale of the American involvement in Vietnam, the level of casualties, the fact that there were not democratic elections, that there was not the constitution, that there has not been the progress; frankly, when we look at the threat that was constituted by Saddam Hussein as opposed to North Vietnam, they simply are not on a comparable scale. Saddam Hussein was somebody who tried to assassinate a President of the United States, who drew us into war, who was actively seeking weapons of mass destruction throughout his political career. I would agree with the gentleman, the fact that we had had a relationship with him was an enormous mistake and bad judgment by the American Government. I would actually concede my good friend's point in that regard. I am glad in the end we understood who and what this person is. I point out again, that recognition began before this administration ever took office. That began with an act of this Congress and the preceding administration, the Clinton administration, that declared it was in the interest of the United States to remove this tyrant from office. I would also point out with respect to the intelligence, while undoubtedly mistakes were made, those were mistakes that were made by the entire planet, and, frankly, I can bring quote after quote out by the preceding administration, by Members of this body that would suggest all of us believed there were weapons of mass destruction. There is no question that at various points in his career, Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass destruction, acquired them and used them. And in a post-9/11 world, there is every reason to believe he would do so again and that that technology, that capability, could easily migrate to our opponents. The world is safer; Iraq has a chance for a better future because Saddam is gone. That is due to the heroism and the professionalism of the American military. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.