Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and I think he has it exactly right, because we have to recognize how far these people have to go and where they are coming from. I mean, whether it is in Afghanistan where they were under the control of the Russians and the Taliban for 12 years and their per capita income is $150, where they do not have the rule of law, they do not have police agencies in place, they do not have a judicial system in place, they do not have transparent government agencies, so they have to go through that whole building process and they have to learn about representative government. It is unrealistic for America, for Congress, or for anyone else to expect that by July 1 they will be like us, that they will fully understand representative government. That is going to take a tremendous amount of work; and we are doing this work in a very difficult environment, because there are still folks there who, if they saw and could identify the Iraqis that were meeting with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), those folks will become targets. There are groups out there, this is still a very deadly environment, but the gentleman is absolutely right. These people are going to be at the leading edge of building a new country.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, some ask, are you winning the war on terror, and the level of violence in Iraq is something that we are very, very disappointed in. But the gentleman is absolutely right. We should not be surprised. There was a letter that we intercepted and captured a couple of weeks ago that clearly indicates we are making progress, because the letter indicates that, Hey, we need to kill Americans and coalition forces; but where we really now need to move to, because we know that they are being successful, we need to target Iraqis, either to discourage them from moving forward to building a new Iraq, and to try to create divisions between the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Kurds and try to incite civil war. The terrorist organizations and individuals who feel that they will be disenfranchised because they are associated with the former regime will do just about anything to keep power, and that anything right now means that they will target and kill Iraqis. When we were there, we had the opportunity to meet with 600, 500, 600 police cadets, and we went there because the week before we were there, again, two bombings and over 100 either police recruits or policemen were killed. They are the first step in building a civil society, keeping law and order on the streets. And we talked to them; we laid a wreath at the academy and spoke with them about how we were going to stand with them. Because we know that these young men and women, men and women in their police academy, the day they leave that academy, they are going to go into an environment where the police are going to have a price on their head. But when we went through, and I mean the gentleman had the same experience with the folks that he saw, the first thing you did is you looked in their eyes. They were glad that we were there. You looked in their face and there was a smile on their face. You heard what they had to say, and I think there was appreciation in what they had to say. You shook their hands, and it was a firm handshake. Something that I had not experienced in my previous trips: when we were at the police academy, after just about every handshake and every thank you, they put their hand over their heart and then put it at their side. I said, What does that mean? I got it wrong; sometimes I would start with that. And they said, no, no, no, you end with that. What they said when they explained, they said, that demonstrates the intensity and the sincerity with which they are expressing their appreciation and their feelings to you for being there. So we had six Members of Congress who went to their academy and said, thank you, and as the gentleman states, our chairman was very eloquent when he talked to them, saying that you are the generation that will create the foundation for a new Iraq, and people will remember you because of what you are doing and the risks and the sacrifices that you may take. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, during much of the 1990s this was done on a bipartisan basis, which is maybe different than what we see today; but here is Vice President Gore talking on May 23, 2000: ``The classic challenges of war and peace, of course, extend beyond Israel's immediate neighborhoods to Iraq and Iran. In 1991, I broke with many in my own party and voted to use force to stop Saddam Hussein's aggression in the Middle East. I believe in bipartisanship most of all when our national interests are at stake.'' Going on, he wants to build bipartisan bridges to bring Democrats and Republicans together in support of policies that would promote what is in our Nation's best interest. As my colleague has gone through and read some of the quotes, there was a bipartisan understanding about Iraq and the threat that it posed. Here again is Al Gore, the Vice President, in May of 2000: ``Despite our swift victory and our efforts since, there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein still seeks to amass weapons of mass destruction. You know as well as I do that as long as Saddam Hussein stays in power, there can be no comprehensive peace for the people of Israel or the people of the Middle East.''

Mr. HOEKSTRA. One of many palaces.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I think the quotes go well on to other folks in 2000. So this is a continuing story of intelligence. As we move through this process, on a bipartisan basis, this is what we believed the threat was to the United States. One of the things that we are going to focus on here today, not what we think about here in Washington, when we put this in context, we will talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein was, not to America, not to the Middle East, but most importantly to his own people.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Right. And we knew that he used these weapons, and so he had them at one time. The interesting thing about what Vice President Gore said in May of 2000, ``We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone,'' that became the official policy of the United States, was to remove Saddam Hussein, not only because of the weapons of mass destruction, but because of the threat that he posed to his own people, to the Middle East, and to the rest of the world. We can go on and there are lots of quotes by other folks who have talked about that. This morning we had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Kay again, the original head of the Iraqi survey group, taking a look at exactly what was going on in Iraq. He has said, and I tend to agree with him after having met with him a number of times and after having gone to Iraq, we may not find the weapons of mass destruction. They may actually not be there. But what he has said is take a look at what was going on. He was developing the capability to go into quick production of weapons of mass destruction. He said I am not going to inventory this stuff, but as soon as the U.N. inspectors are gone, as soon as the sanctions are lifted, I will have the capability that 3 to 6 months I will be able to produce all of the chemical or biological weapons I need, so why store them. Get rid of the inspectors, develop the capability under what appear to be legitimate purposes; but they are dual-use capabilities. I will use them to make this, but just with the flip of a switch and fine-tuning, I can use those to make weapons of mass destruction. We know that he was developing those capabilities. There is evidence that he was doing human testing to fine-tune the capabilities that he would have and the weapons and products that he would eventually produce. We know that he was doing research on UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles, potentially to be the means for delivering weapons of mass destruction. We know that he was developing a missile capability well beyond the authorized levels that had been established by the U.N. So in all of these areas, he was either moving his program forward secretly or moving them beyond what the U.N. sanctions had said. So there is no doubt, and that is the message through the 1990s. We are not sure exactly what was there because it was a very secretive society. He was very good at deceiving others when we were trying to penetrate into what was going on in Iraq. But there is no doubt about what his plans and intentions were. This is why Dr. Kay will say we may not have found exactly what we were expecting to find when we got into Iraq; but what we found was as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than what we had anticipated that we would find.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, what we know is through the 1990s, there was a consensus that there was a war on terrorism that was being fought, that there were issues dealing with Iraq and dealing with Saddam Hussein. It was not only the President; it was the Clinton administration. Madeleine Albright said ``Hussein's weapons will not discriminate if and when they are used, and therefore it is important for the region to understand that he is a threat.'' In September 1998 she said, ``Our adversaries are likely to avoid traditional battlefield situations because there American dominance is well-established. We must be concerned instead about weapons of mass destruction and by the cowardly instruments of sabotage and hidden bombs. These unconventional threats endanger not only our Armed Forces, but all Americans and America's friends everywhere.'' That is September 9, 1998. So the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but most importantly the larger threat not specifically identifying what terrorist organizations would use, but recognizing the emergence of a different kind of threat to American, to Western Europe as the Cold War collapsed of unconventional threats that would endanger not military folks, but that would target civilians.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very valuable debate to have here in the United States about what did we find versus what we expected to find; and that will force us to seriously look at our intelligence capabilities, what do we need to do to improve our intelligence capabilities to give us as policymakers better information on which to make decisions in the future; and we will have that discussion and debate. The President is fully cooperating with the various commissions that are out there to do an investigation of the intelligence community. The Senate Intelligence Committee is doing it, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is doing it. We all recognize that the intelligence business is a very, very difficult business; that we do not get all the information we would like to have; that when we go into a place like Iraq or try to take a look at what is going on in North Korea, Libya or Iran, as we are trying to look in and figure out what is going on, these folks are trying to hide and deceive us so that we do not understand what is going on.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, today, I am joined in this special order by my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). As my colleague from California just indicated, we come to the floor of the House recognizing the tragedy of the terrorist attacks in Spain. We are not quite sure who was responsible, but we know there was a significant loss of life. We know that Spain has been an ally in the war on terrorism. Their soldiers have fought with our troops in Iraq. Their prime minister was here a couple of months ago indicating their strong support and their partnership, whether it was al-Qaeda, whether it was domestic terrorism, or whatever. But we join in expressing our sympathy to the government and the people of Spain for the loss that they suffered today and reaffirm our commitment to the people of Spain that we will continue to work and fight with them in this war on terrorism that in so many different ways has reared its ugly head not only in Spain, the United States, but in Africa, in Saudi Arabia, and with the USS Cole and a number of other attacks throughout the world. Today, we want to talk a little bit about the situation that has gone on in Iraq and kind of put that in context. We have recognized this war on terrorism. We have recognized the threats from Saddam Hussein and others for a long period of time. It was back in 1992 that Senator Gore was talking about what a threat Saddam Hussein and Iraq was. Here is a quote from a speech he gave in 1992. Senator Al Gore: ``He,'' meaning Saddam Hussein, ``had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Bush knew it, but he looked the other way. Well, in my view,'' and the ``my'' was Senator Gore, ``the Bush administration was acting in a manner directly opposite to what you would expect with all the evidence it had available to it at the time. Saddam Hussein's nature and intentions were perfectly visible.'' Already in 1992, Senator Gore had identified Saddam Hussein and Iraq as a threat to American Security and to the security of the Middle East and as a danger to his own people. And I think that goes on to President Clinton, who, during the 1990s, identified Saddam Hussein and Iraq as a threat. And I think my colleague from Indiana may have some of the statements that President Clinton was making. This is not to say what should or not have been in the 1990s, this is saying that through the last 10 to 15 years we knew Saddam was a threat. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Indiana.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I get a little nervous talking about saying we got it wrong, because I have had the opportunity, having served on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now for 3 years, to have met a lot of our men and women involved in this process. The first thing we have to recognize is they got a very important thing right, Saddam was a threat. It is not like we got into Iraq and it is like, wow, there is nothing here; he was not doing anything, he was just trying to build the country for his people. He was focused on delivering them quality healthcare, education. You guys got it all wrong. That is not the Saddam Hussein we see and this is not the Saddam Hussein that his own people saw. They got it right, that this guy had every intent of restarting a weapons of mass destruction program, and we missed that he changed his strategy, from stockpiling to producing these things on demand. So we got some of those things wrong. But overall, the strategic analysis, because these men and women we have in our Intelligence Community, this is an art, and Saddam Hussein was a master at deceit, and we did not necessarily give our intel folks everything they needed to figure it out.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for bringing it up. It reinforces the amount of work that needs to be done there: Getting a constitution, establishing a law, getting the police force in place, getting the judiciary, getting government institutions in place, and then also practicing the art of representative government. But there is no doubt that I believe the people of Iraq are thankful that we are there, that we are making progress in that. And we have talked about the people in Iraq that my colleague and I have personally had the opportunity to meet. We have talked about our second hand accounts that are told to us by our troops who are interacting with the Iraqi folks on a daily basis. Then there is one other level that I just want to get to before we run out of time, and that is before I went to Iraq the last time we spent a day in Libya. And for those who do not believe that we are making progress in the war on terrorism, there are a lot of folks who are believing that we are not winning or making progress in the war on terror, or that we are not serious about it, Muammar Qaddafi, Colonel Qaddafi believes that we are making progress, that we are serious about winning this war on terrorism. The changes that have happened in Libya are dramatic, going from somebody who had a weapons of mass destruction program, a nuclear program all under development, all secret, to where we are today, fully exposing it, telling us not only what he has, but how he got it and these types of things. We do not fully understand exactly why, but I do not doubt that there is some relationship to what we did in Iraq and where we said we are going to be focusing on, a war on terrorism, focused on it like a laser, we are going to go after it, and however he got to where he is and however Libya got to where they are today, we ought to be thankful that in this element of the war of terrorism, we have made that much progress in a very short period of time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt we are making progress. I want to read a couple of quotes from a speech that we heard in Libya. And if it becomes the role for the Middle East, we will have made great progress. Think about this quote. This is one of the Libyan parliamentarians. ``I believe God created man on this earth. Therefore, they have natural needs and natural rights. These are not bestowed by anyone else and they cannot be taken away by men.'' This is in Libya. Now, think if they move that that direction. ``Every person has the right to develop to their full potential to live in peace, security and prosperity.'' ``How can you enslave people who are born free?'' There is something that is inside of all of us that we recognize these types of rights as being basic rights. And as we help bring those rights to Libya, as we help bring and foster those rights in Afghanistan and Iraq, we do not light the spark or the flame in these peoples, we give the flame the opportunity to grow and flourish. It is there. That is something that is in all of us, the right to be free, to be secure. And what we are doing is we are giving them the right to do that. But we also, at the same time, recognize the difficulty and also the number of people who want to extinguish that flame and enslave these people one more time just like Saddam did. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. I thank my colleague for joining me today.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to go to Basra, but the gentleman from Indiana talked about the Third World conditions. Again, I spent more time in the health care area in talking on a pretty regular basis with Mr. Haveman, talking about what is going on there and what existed before. This is actually what the first lady talked about when she was talking about the new hospital we want to build in Basra. Decades ago Iraq had one of the strongest systems. But here are some of the stories. Mothers tell stories of watching their children die because doctors do not have a small enough tube to give them oxygen. When parents bring their children to the hospital, they must also bring food, bedding and clothing, even their own blood supply. Under Saddam Hussein, one in eight children died before the age of 5. One in three was malnourished. Infant and child mortality rates doubled in 10 years while low birth weights increased from 4.5 percent to 30 percent. Today, infant mortality rates, and this is when the coalition came in, infant mortality rates in Iraq are similar to those in much less developed countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The prevalence of leukemia has also increased dramatically in the past decade and continues to grow at an alarming rate. Children in the United States with leukemia have a 90 percent survival rate. In Iraq, the rate is less than 10 percent. Saddam took care of himself, his family, and a core group of Baathists, but other than that, the country just totally slid. And those folks received very little health care, very few benefits from the government. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to my colleague.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Let us go to where the gentleman wanted to go today. I was in Iraq last year in August, I went back in September of last year, and then I was there 3 weeks ago. You were there last week. If there is any question about whether Saddam was an instrument of mass destruction, I think you and I were most touched when we actually had the opportunity to talk to the people of Iraq and their response. Then you talk to the next group that has had the most interaction with the Iraqi people on a personal level, and that is our troops. Then you talk to the policymakers and all of those kinds of things. But the closer you get to the people who were closest to Saddam, I think my colleague will agree, that, by and large, the vast majority of those folks, and I will admit and recognize that Iraq continues to be a very dangerous place; there are people there who want to kill our troops; there are people there who want to kill the Iraqis that are working towards building a new Iraq; but for the average person in Iraq, they are absolutely thrilled and thankful that Saddam Hussein is gone.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I experienced some of the same stuff when I met with the Iraqi people. You went right to where I was going. They are learning the ability to speak out, because under Saddam Hussein, if they had spoken out, they would be dead. So they are aggressive, and sometimes you kind of say look, you cannot say it that way or whatever. But, wait a minute, they have only had the opportunity to speak out for the last 8 months. You are right, they do not know everything they have to do to be politically correct. But what a wonderful experience for them for the first time to be able to speak out, to meet with Members of the U.S. Congress or of the Parliament from Britain or members from Spain, but representative government, and for the first time, to have the ability to express their opinions and their vision for their own country and communities.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at a different layer, because the gentleman and I know that when we are in Iraq, we do not get to go to all of the places we would like to go. I mean, when I have been in Baghdad, it is kind of like there is a lot of commerce, there is a lot of cars, the roads are busy, there is lots of people; and you want to just grab your driver and say stop, let me out, and let me spend the next half hour, hour just walking down the streets and talking to the people of Iraq, because I want to find out whether you are giving me the straight scoop. I think I am getting good input from the Iraqis, but are you selectively feeding me people that will only come with a smile on their face and those kinds of things. The gentleman and I have both had the opportunity to talk to another layer of people who have interacted with the Iraqi people, and that is the American and coalition troops. When I was there last time, I had the opportunity to have dinner with 10 soldiers from Michigan, and my colleagues had dinner with 10 to 15 troops from their States. So we are talking to 75, 80 troops. And then I also had the opportunity to talk to parents or spouses whose husbands or wives are over in Iraq; and the American troops and the coalition troops, they are the ones, the ones that I met with. They are the ones that are patrolling the streets of Baghdad. Baghdad is divided into sectors, and the group that I had dinner with, they are patrolling four segments. So you ask them and say, What are the Iraqi people saying to you? And our troops, although I have not spoken to all of them, so I cannot say all of the troops, but the ones that I have spoken to have no doubt that we are there for the right reasons. The gentleman from Indiana is right, they are not worried about whether we found weapons of mass destruction. Again, they have heard the stories of the torture, the killings, the brutality they have seen, how Saddam took care of himself and did not take care of his own people. They know all of this stuff. And they will tell us we are there for the right reasons. The Iraqi people are thrilled that we are there. The Iraqi people are frustrated that some of the rebuilding is not going as quickly as they would like it, that the security is not where they would like it, it is not where we would like it. But at the end of the day, they are glad we are here, they are glad Saddam is gone, and they are going to help us rebuild. They will tell us great stories about interacting, handing out books, rebuilding schools, digging wells, cleaning up irrigation trenches, getting the power going, and doing all of these things to help the Iraqis on a personal level. I think the gentleman from Indiana had an opportunity to meet with some of the troops, and I yield to my colleague.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. What we forget is the rich tradition of Iraq. I do not know whether you have got it, but I have some things that have been posted on the Internet by folks who recount the history of this part of the world. It is a rich cultural heritage, the cradle of civilization, and that is what the people of Iraq want to be recognized and remembered for. They want to forget about the days of Saddam Hussein, because he robbed them of that great history and tradition.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding, because I want to identify with the remarks she made starting off her 5-minute speech. I was going to start my special order in the same way, recognizing and extending our sympathy to the families of the victims in Spain. It was only a short period ago that the prime minister from Spain was here, and last summer I had the opportunity to visit in Spain with the prime minister, along with the Speaker of our House, to express our appreciation to our colleagues in Spain who have been very involved in the war on terrorism. And so I thank the gentlewoman for bringing that to the attention of our colleagues here in the House. I will also take a look at the legislation that the gentlewoman has authored, recognizing that the war on terrorism is a real war.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, today I want to spend a little bit of time talking about the war on terrorism, and I believe it is a war, tracing the history of the previous administrations and the Bush administration in recognizing the threat that al Qaeda, Iraq, and others pose to the United States as evidenced most dramatically on the events of September 11, 2001. Back in February 1998, then-President Clinton talked about the threat of Iraq: ``They have harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors.'' Another quote: ``They,'' predators of the 21st century, ``will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of the people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses, a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them, to provide them to terrorists who travel the world. If we fail to respond today, Saddam Hussein will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity.'' Another quote from President Clinton in 1998: ``I have no doubt he would use them again if permitted to develop them.'' So back in 1998, President Clinton was highlighting the threat as he saw it, in this case talking about Iraq specifically, but also laying out the possibility of what might happen in the future. Again the quote: ``A rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists.'' On September 11, 2001, we found out in the United States about the willingness of terrorist organizations to use airplanes as a weapon of mass destruction and to inflict death and destruction to an extent we had never seen before. Another quote, and this is from President Clinton, I believe: ``Some day, some way, I guarantee you he will use the arsenal; and I think everyone of you who has worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.'' Again, not President Bush in 2001, 2002 or 2003, but a consistent message beginning in the late 1990s from President Clinton and his administration outlining the threat of Iraq; and, more importantly, the threat of a linkage of the capabilities that Iraq might have and their willingness to give those capabilities and share them with terrorist organizations. Again, the same speech: ``Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us what we must know about the 21st century. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination and, when necessary, action. In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now, a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.'' Through the window of 9/11, we can see how prophetic President Clinton was in 1998. Let me read that again: ``In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination and, when necessary, action. In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now,'' or paraphrasing, that I believe terrorist organizations will pose in the 21st century. December 17, 1998, President Clinton said: ``I am convinced that the decision I made to order this military action, though difficult, was absolutely the right thing to do. It is in our interest and in the interest of the people around the world. Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles before. I have no doubt he would use them again if permitted to develop them.'' So back in the 1990s, the late 1990s, President Clinton was highlighting the threat of Iraq and also outlining the threats of terrorist organizations in the 21st century. Another quote, and this is from the White House, a White House briefing. It is a speech by Senator Al Gore. This is way back in 1992. So even in the early 1990s, key officials in what would become the Clinton administration had identified the challenges that we would face as a Nation in the 21st century. Here is what Senator Al Gore said: ``He had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly,'' and this is what he says about the President at that time, ``and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorist activities, and Bush looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush knew it, but he looked the other way.'' Then Senator Al Gore in 1992 said: ``Well, in my view, the Bush administration was acting in a manner directly opposite to what you would expect. With all of the evidence that it had available to it at the time, Saddam Hussein's nature and intentions were perfectly visible.'' In other remarks made by Vice President Al Gore, May 23, 2000, talking about the threat of Saddam Hussein: ``Despite our swift victory in every sense, there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein still seeks to amass weapons of mass destruction. You know as well as I do that as long as Saddam Hussein stays in power, there can be no comprehensive peace for the people of Israel or the people of the Middle East. We have made it clear,'' and this is Vice President Al Gore on May 23, 2000, ``we have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone.'' In parentheses, applause. ``We have sought coalitions of opponents to challenge his power. I have met with the Iraqi opposition, and invite them to meet with me again next month when I will encourage them to further unite in their efforts against Saddam.'' The threat to peace in the civilized world was well identified through the Clinton administration through the 1990s. Here is another article talking about folks and their views of Saddam Hussein dated November 1997: ``The stakes are very real, and they are enormous,'' said Richard Haass, Middle East expert on the National Security Council during the Bush administration. ``This is someone who has used weapons of mass destruction twice against his own people and against Iran. He does not have qualms. Based on U.N. inspection reports and Western intelligence assessments, Washington's allies are convinced that Saddam Hussein possesses the resources and technical skill to begin cranking out menacing new supplies of exotic weaponry and delivery systems with even a brief absence of foreign watch dogs.'' That is the same thing that David Kay said when he came back, saying at this point in time the Iraqi survey group may not have found stockpiled weapons of mass destruction, and David Kay believes that maybe they did not exist after meeting with the new folks over there. He said we may or may not find the stockpiles, but the key thing here, and this is what David Kay said, which was reported already in 1997: ``Washington and its allies are convinced that Hussein possesses the resources and technical skill to begin cranking out menacing new supplies of exotic weaponry and delivery systems with even a brief absence of foreign watch dogs.'' So the real question was after the war and after we went in and took a look at what they had, what did David Kay find? He found exactly what was identified in 1997, that if the stockpiles are not there, what Saddam Hussein has done is he has developed the capability, the weaponry, to crank out menacing new supplies during a brief absence of foreign watch dogs. The intent was clear. Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction at one time, may have had stockpiles, but clearly was building the technical infrastructure to be able to produce significant quantities of weapons of mass destruction in a relatively short period of time once the inspectors were gone and once sanctions were lifted. September 9, 1998, Madeleine Albright: ``In this struggle our adversaries are likely to avoid traditional battlefield situations because there American dominance is well established. We must be concerned instead by weapons of mass destruction and by the cowardly instruments of sabotage and hidden bombs. These unconventional threats endanger not only our Armed Forces but all Americans and America's friends everywhere. We must understand that this confrontation is long-term. It doesn't lend itself to a quick victory.'' For those of us who believe that September 11 was the culmination of our war with al Qaeda and with terrorist organizations, listen to Madeleine Albright, 1998, who recognized that this war was already going on in the 1990s because of the length and the number of attacks that had taken place during the 1990s. Remember, early in the 1990s was the first time that the World Trade Center was hit, and she recognized in her quote: ``We must understand that this confrontation is long- term. It doesn't lend itself to quick victory.'' She goes on to say: ``Force for peace, freedom, progress and law in the world. But no threat, no bomb, no terrorist can diminish America's determination to lead.'' She then also goes on: ``A second major threat to America's security also has entered a new phase and that is weapons of mass destruction and the systems that deliver them. For decades, we viewed this threat primarily through a narrow Cold War lens and now our concerns have broadened. We are deeply concerned by regional tensions in South Asia where both India and Pakistan have conducted nuclear tests.'' Going on: ``Chemical or biological warheads and they are devilishly difficult to shoot down.'' So the threat of weapons of mass destruction was well understood during the Clinton administration by President Clinton, by Vice President Gore, by Senator Gore in 1992, by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright when we used force against Saddam in December of 1998. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: ``This is a moment of grave determination. We have decided to use force because other means simply have not worked. Saddam's capacity to develop and brandish such armaments poses a threat to international security and peace that cannot be ignored. Month after month we have given Iraq chance after chance to move from confrontation to cooperation and we have explored and exhausted every diplomatic action. We will see now whether force can persuade Iraq's misguided leaders to reverse course and to accept at long last the need to abide by the rule of law and the will of the world.'' October 16, 1998, National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, an op-ed piece in the Washington Times: ``Indeed we have information that Iraq has assisted in the chemical weapons activity in Sudan. We had information linking bin Laden to the Sudanese regime and the Al Shifa plant. ``One senior administration official, who asked not to be quoted by name, said the administration had compelling evidence tying Al Shifa to the Sudanese military and to Iraq's chemical weapons program, none of which have ties to bin Laden.'' So there were questions about whether bin Laden was involved or not with the Al Shifa plant, but there was no question here back in 1998 by a number of folks within the Clinton administration that Iraq was involved with chemical weapons activity in Sudan. A dangerous world. Why do I talk about the events of the 1990s up until 2000, the Clinton administration? It is because for a long time leaders in this country have been identifying Iraq and terrorism as the new threat to the security of America and Americans and the free world. An interesting quote, Secretary Albright, Time Magazine, November 23, 1998: ``Up to now, we've had diplomacy backed by force. Now we need to shift to force backed up by diplomacy.'' In that same article, she is quoted as saying: ``We'll be prepared to act alone if we have to.'' Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: ``Month after month we have given Iraq chance after chance to move from confrontation to cooperation. We have explored and exhausted every diplomatic action. We will see now whether force can persuade Iraq's misguided leaders to reverse course and to accept at long last the need to abide by the rule of law and the will of the world.'' President Clinton in the State of the Union speech on January 20, 1999: ``For nearly a decade, Iraq has defied its obligation to destroy its weapons of terror and the missiles to deliver them. America will continue to contain Saddam, and we will work for the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.'' Remember that by that time, the policy of regime change for Iraq had already become the accepted policy of the United States and the accepted policy of the Clinton administration. Why do we talk about it now? Because the threat in 2004 is still very, very real. But let us go back and document that what happened on 9/11 was not an isolated event. It was the most significant event of a series of attacks on U.S. interests. In 1993 was when the World Trade Center was bombed for the first time. 1996 was when the U.S. military barracks were bombed in Saudi Arabia. In 2000 there was the attack on the USS Cole. Of course we also had the attacks on our embassies in Africa during the late 1990s. In 1995, two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan. In 1997 a Palestinian sniper opened fire on tourists atop the Empire State Building. A bomb exploded across the street from the U.S. embassy in Manila, injuring nine people. The list goes on. What had happened during much of the 1990s, there was compelling evidence that there were individuals who had declared war on the United States, but we never recognized the threat in terms of the actions that we took. I am sure that that will be a debate much like there is a debate as to whether going to war in Iraq was the appropriate activity. There should also be, and there will be, a debate as to whether doing very little during the 1990s was the appropriate action. But what we do have in the 1990s is a clear record of factual events that America was a target. We have the clear statements from a President, a Vice President, a National Security Adviser, a Secretary of State that identified the changing shifts and the challenges to the security of the United States, moving out of the Cold War mentality of the period from 1945 to the early 1990s to a new threat of rogue states, but also rogue organizations that were not tied to a single country but that were loose gatherings of individuals, scattered throughout parts of the world that in many cases were willing to operate on their own. They are still out there, and in many ways we have damaged their capabilities to effectively attack us; but they are still out there organizing, recruiting, raising funds and training with the hope and expectation that they will hit us and that they will hit others again in the future. Is that a new threat? Here is what we said about Iraq in 1999: ``Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the anti-regime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safe haven and support to various terrorist organizations.'' Going on, the ``Global Terrorism Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism'' says: ``Iraq continued to provide safe haven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front, and the former head of the now defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of U.S. aircraft. Iraq provided bases, weapons and protections to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime.'' The ``Pattern of Global Terrorism'' report in 2001 said about Iraq: ``In addition, the regime continued to provide training and political encouragement to numerous terrorist groups, although its main focus was again on dissident Iraqi activity overseas. Iraq provided bases to several terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Abu Nidal organization. In 2001, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine raised its profile in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by carrying out successful terrorist attacks against Israeli targets. In recognition of the PFLP's growing role, an Iraqi vice president met with former PFLP Secretary General Habbash in Baghdad in January 2001 and expressed continued Iraq support for the intifada. Also in mid- September a senior delegation from the PFLP met with an Iraqi deputy prime minister. Baghdad also continued to host other Palestinian rejectionist groups including the Arab Liberation Front and the 15 May Organization.'' Iraq continued to support terrorism organizations. 2002, the ``Patterns of Global Terrorism'': ``Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002. Throughout the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Services laid the groundwork for possible attacks against civilian and military targets in the United States and other Western countries. The Iraqi Intelligence Services reportedly instructed its agents in early 2001 that their main mission was to obtain information about the U.S. and Israeli targets. The IIS, Iraqi Intelligence Services, also threatened dissidents in the Near East and Europe and stole records and computer files detailing anti-regime activity. In December 2002, the press claimed Iraqi intelligence killed Walid al-Mayahi, a Shia Iraqi refugee in Lebanon and member of the Iraqi National Congress. Iraq was a safe haven, transit point, and operational base for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other countries. Baghdad overtly assisted two categories of Iraqi-based terrorist organizations, Iranian dissidents devoted to toppling the Iranian government and a variety of Palestinian groups opposed to peace with Israel.'' It goes on to list the groups that I have talked about before. Again, provided material assistance to the Palestinian terrorist groups that are in the forefront of the intifada. ``Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to encourage Palestinian terrorism, channeling $25,000 since March through the ALF alone to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. Public testimonials by Palestinian civilians and officials and canceled checks captured by Israel in the West Bank verify the transfer of a considerable amount of Iraqi money.'' The threat is real. Back a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to be at a meeting where the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Steve Cambone, spoke. I think he wrapped it up quite well, because I think if you go through this and later on when you take a look at what the Director of the CIA said, Mr. Tenet, who served in both the Clinton and the current Bush administrations, you go through and you take a look at everything or much of what was said during the 1990s by a number of officials within the Clinton administration, what was said by the Bush administration, what was said earlier on in the 1990s by Senator Al Gore, outlining the threat to the United States. And then imagine taking a look at that threat through the window of 9/11. Here is what Mr. Cambone said: ``We are a nation at war. We do not know how long it will last, but it is unlikely to be short. We cannot know where or against whom all of its battles will be fought. There are multiple fronts in this war. There is no single theater of operation. ``We do know that we are all at risk, at home and abroad, civilians and military alike. We do know that battles and campaigns will be both conventional and unconventional in their conduct. Some of those battles and campaigns will be fought in the open, and others will be fought in secret, where our victories will be known to only a few.'' Think back on the last few years and the attacks that we have been the victims of. We do know, as Dr. Cambone says again, that we are all at risk, at home and abroad. On 9/11, the attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the crash in the field in Pennsylvania, civilians were victims, civilians here in our homeland. But our embassies have been attacked in Africa. Our military folks have been attacked aboard the USS Cole. Our barracks have been attacked in Saudi Arabia and the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993. Dr. Cambone identified, ``We do know that we are all at risk, at home and abroad, civilians and military alike,'' and we know now with the ongoing activities in Iraq that over 500 young men and women have lost their lives in Iraq. There have been countless numbers of our folks who have been wounded, many of them rather severely. I had the opportunity to meet with one of the families this week of someone who was badly injured in Iraq, and it was their prayer and their request that we, as Americans, not forget about those who have been injured in Iraq, that with these improvised explosive devices that are targeting our military vehicles or that suicide bombers with very deadly bombs, that there are other American families who are hurting. They are the ones whose loved ones are in a hospital in Iraq, in Germany or here in Washington, D.C. at Walter Reed Hospital. So let us not forget our military individuals who have been injured in and their families. Dr. Cambone goes on to say ``We are facing a turbulent and volatile world populated by a number of highly adaptive state and nonstate actors. Some of these are weighing whether, to what extent, or how, they might oppose the interests of the United States and its friends. Others, such as the terrorist organizations responsible for attacks on the United States, Turkey, Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kenya, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and other places have committed themselves to war.'' I think that is what we have to recognize. This is what Dr. Cambone says. These individuals have committed themselves to war with the United States. Whether we want to be engaged in this war or not is no longer our decision. They have committed themselves and declared war on the United States. We now need to respond to protect and provide for the security of the United States. `` . . . It is impossible to predict with confidence what nation or entity will pose a threat, in 5, 10, or 20 years, to the United States or to our friends and allies.'' Dr. Cambone goes on to say: ``But not everything that unfolds in the coming years should be a surprise.'' If we take a look at history the last 12, 13 years, what can we expect? He goes on: ``We can expect that an adversary will continuously search for effective means to attack our people; our economy, military, and political power; and the people in power of our friends and allies. ``We can also expect that an adversary will have access to a range of modern technologies and will be prepared to use them to magnify the destructiveness of their attacks, using truck bombs and improvised explosives, cyber intrusions to attack the computer systems upon which we rely, radio transmitters to jam our space assets, small laboratories to develop new biological and genetically altered agents, and chemical and nuclear technology and materials delivered by missile, plane, boat, or backpack to poison our environment and destroy human lives. ``In this era of surprise, lack of preparation is a harbinger of catastrophe. Being prepared, by which I mean taking measures to avoid surprise, if possible to mitigate its effect when it occurs, and to bring appropriate force to bear to defeat those who would surprise us, is essential.'' This is a very complicated and a very difficult environment in which we work today. We need to convince ourselves that there is a real threat to the United States. We need to educate ourselves as to what the threat looks like. It is very difficult to predict exactly what it is going to look like, and then to have the dialogue and the discussion as to how we respond. I think part of the problem that we have in 2004 is that the debate and the discussion that could have taken place 4 or 5 years ago never took place. Even though there was mounting evidence and even though the Clinton administration in many ways was trying to raise the profile of this issue, we did not have the national debate about how we respond to an emerging threat to the United States. We had that discussion and that debate and we understood the threat of the Cold War. I am not sure how long it took America and our allies to come together to recognize the threat and to respond to the threat, but we did. America responded after World War II immediately recognizing the threat, helping to rebuild a free Europe, a democratic Europe, being the focal point for creating NATO to stand as the barrier to expansion of the former Soviet Union, and we did it incredibly well, and in many ways, as we describe the effort against the former Soviet Union, it kind of matches the threat that we face today. We knew there was a threat. We did not know exactly how it would manifest itself. We did not know exactly if there would ever be an attack against the United States. But we figured it would be a long and difficult struggle. There were no easy answers but that we would come together and that we would be engaged in what we called the Cold War. And the Cold War lasted 45 years. And then finally the wall came down and we were able to declare victory. But as that wall was coming down, another threat began to emerge, and that was the threat of terrorist organizations. So after 1945, it probably took us a period of time to identify the threat, to have the discussion and the dialogue within the country as to how we should respond to the threat, but once we identified the threat, once we had the national dialogue about the threat, there was a lot of consensus about how we should respond, and the response was one of we are going to be forceful and we are going to be in a position to defend ourselves and we are going to stand strong. And after 45 years we were able to defeat and win the Cold War. There are lessons that we can learn from that but we need to now go through the process. Hopefully Americans, as they take a look at the events of the 1990s, as they then take a look at what happened on 9/11, and as they take a look at what is going on in Iraq and what we have found in Iraq, they will begin to understand the nature of the threat to the United States. A very uncomfortable threat. With the former Soviet Union and the Cold War, we could identify the buildings, we could identify the people, we could identify the borders and the boundaries most of the time. But here we do not know the players. We do not know their strength. We do not know where they are. But we do know a few things. We do know that they are very willing to use unconventional weapons in unconventional ways, that they will attack civilians and military personnel. They will attack our friends, they will attack us in places around the world in very deadly ways. We know that they come back and revisit their same targets on a regular basis until they are successful. So we know quite a bit about them. Here is what Director Tenet of the CIA said, who is very familiar with this because he is the one person who was carried through as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from the Clinton administration through the Bush administration, recognizing that the Clinton administration saw terrorism and Iraq as a threat and carried that message and that understanding into the Bush administration. What does he say in a speech that he gave on February 24? I would encourage my colleagues to read the speech in detail because it gives a lot of framework and context to the challenges that we face in 2004. As a matter of fact, it is entitled The Worldwide Threat 2004: Challenges in a Changing Global Context. What does he say about terrorism? ``I'll begin today on terrorism, with a stark bottom line: The al Qaeda leadership structure we charted after September 11 is seriously damaged, but the group remains as committed as ever to attacking the U.S. homeland. But as we continue the battle against al Qaeda, we must overcome a movement, a global movement infected by al Qaeda's radical agenda. In this battle we are moving forward in our knowledge of the enemy, his plans, capabilities, and intentions. And what we've learned continues to validate my deepest concern: that this enemy remains intent on obtaining, and using, catastrophic weapons.'' Going on: ``Military and intelligence operations by the United States and its allies overseas have degraded the group. Local al Qaeda cells are forced to make their own decisions because of disarray in the central leadership.'' ``We are creating large and growing gaps in the al Qaeda hierarchy. ``And we are receiving a broad array of help from our coalition partners, who have been central to our effort against al Qaeda.'' In a little while, I am going to talk about the changes in Libya. But the amazing thing is that more and more countries are coming to the realization that we are involved in a war on terrorism and that they are involved in a war on terrorism and that in many cases the terrorists do not distinguish between America or America and its friends. Whom are we getting help from? ``Since the May 12 bombings, the Saudi government has shown an important commitment to fighting al Qaeda in the Kingdom, and Saudi officers have paid with their lives. Elsewhere in the Arab world we're receiving valuable cooperation from Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, the UAE, Oman, and many others. President Musharraf of Pakistan remains a courageous and indispensable ally who has become the target of assassins for the help he's given us.'' It is always interesting to hear people say we do not have any friends in this. We have got lots of friends in this whose countries are paying with the lives of their citizens and their security personnel. Partners in Southeast Asia have been instrumental in the roundup of key regional associates of al Qaeda. Our European partners worked closely together to unravel and disrupt a continent-wide network of terrorists planning chemical, biological, and conventional attacks in Europe. So we have made notable strides. But do not misunderstand me, again quoting Director Tenet. Do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting al Qaeda is defeated. It is not. We are still at war. This is a learning organization that remains committed to attacking the United States, its friends and allies. Successive blows to al Qaeda's central leadership have transformed the organization into a loose collection of regional networks that operate more autonomously. These regional components have demonstrated their operational prowess in the past years. The sites of their attacks span the entire reach of al Qaeda: Morocco, Kenya, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia. And al Qaeda seeks to influence the regional networks with operational training consultations and money. Khalid Sheik Mohamad sent Hambali $50,000 for operations in Southeast Asia. You should not take the fact that these attacks occurred abroad to mean that the threat to the United States homeland has waned. As al Qaeda and its associated groups undertook these attacks overseas, detainees consistently talk about the importance the group still attaches to striking the main enemy, the United States. Across the operational spectrum, air, maritime, special weapons, we have time and again uncovered plots that are chilling. On aircraft plots alone, we have uncovered new plans to recruit pilots and to evade new security measures in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Even catastrophic attacks on the scale of 11 September remain within al Qaeda's reach. Make no mistake, these plots are hatched abroad; but they target U.S. soil or that of our allies. Remember, I am quoting from a speech that is available to all my colleagues on the Central Intelligence Agency Web page, and I encourage them to read this. So far I have been talking only about al Qaeda, but al Qaeda is not the limit of terrorist threats worldwide. Al Qaeda has infected others with its ideology, which depicts the United States as Islam's greatest foe. The steady growth of Osama bin Laden's anti-U.S. sentiment through the wider Sunni extremist movement and the broad dissemination of al Qaeda's destructive expertise ensure that a serious threat will remain for the foreseeable future, with or without al Qaeda in the picture. If we take care of al Qaeda and capture bin Laden, it is not over. There is still a tremendous amount of work to do. A decade ago, bin Laden had a vision of rousing Islamic terrorists worldwide to attack the United States. He created al Qaeda to indoctrinate a worldwide movement and global jihad with America as the enemy, an enemy to be attacked with every means at hand. In the minds of bin Laden and his cohorts, September 11 was the shining moment, their shot heard round the world; and they want to capitalize on it. That was not the culmination; that was the kickoff of their campaign. And so even as al Qaeda reels from our blows, other extremist groups within the movement, it influences to become the next wave of the terrorist threat. Let me just kind of summarize the terrorism and the threat that we face, quoting Mr. Tenet from his speech: ``For the growing number of jihadists interested in attacking the United States, a spectacular attack on the U.S. homeland is the brass ring that many strive for, with or without the encouragement by al Qaeda's central leadership.'' A spectacular attack on the U.S. homeland is the brass ring that many strive for, with or without encouragement by al Qaeda's central leadership. I want to talk a little bit about the rebuilding efforts that are going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a couple of weeks ago that I and some of my colleagues had the opportunity to visit Iraq and to take a look at exactly what was happening. There is tremendous progress being made in Iraq, there is tremendous progress being made in Afghanistan, but I think we have to put this in the context of how much work actually has to happen. Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq for over 30 years. There was no rule of law. There were no effective police agencies. There were no judicial processes in place. It was a mess. If we go back and take a look at the rebuilding process, as Americans we should not underestimate the amount of work that needs to take place. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein ruled this country ruthlessly for 30 years, killing, executing somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 to 500,000 of his own people, brutally attacking the Shiites after the 1991 Gulf War, attacking the Kurds in the north of Iraq, breaking down the rule of law, breaking down a civil society, no police, no law enforcement, no judiciary, no transparent government, you know, totally destroying what we would call a civil society. That is the same thing we see in Afghanistan after 12 years of rule by the Taliban or the Russians. Again, the rule of law is gone, no police, no effective security forces, no framework, and no rules by which society can live together in a civil way. We are now trying to help the Iraqis and the people in Afghanistan to build a civil society, with a tremendous amount of focus on developing policing organizations, a law enforcement process, a judicial process, a constitution that will enable the folks in Iraq and Afghanistan to create a civil society. In both countries we are also working on trying to help them rebuild infrastructure, roads, hospitals, schools, other health care facilities, make sure that they have got water and food, the basic necessities of life. It is going take tremendous amounts of time and energy for the people in these countries to identify the rules by which they want to live together, to then structure the security and the police and the law enforcement and the judicial branch to make it happen, to establish institutions of government that are transparent so that the people who are served by these government institutions actually recognize and believe that these government institutions are working for them, rather than being an organization that they should fear, that might imprison them. They are experimenting with the opportunity of free speech, and in both countries they are beginning the process of constitutional and representative government by which they will have elections and have the individuals that they elect begin to govern them. So it is a very, very difficult process that, at the same time, is being hindered by the continuing violence in both Iraq and Afghanistan. So as we try to help them rebuild a civil society, there is tremendous challenge that they face because of the violence. There is a letter that we got the other day that was picked up in Iraq that outlined the strategy. Here is one of the terrorists talking about their strategy: ``After study and examination, we can narrow our enemy down to four groups. The Americans. These, as you know, are the most cowardly of God's creatures. They are an easy quarry, praise be to God. We ask God to enable us to kill them and capture them to sow panic among those behind them and to trade them for our detained Shiites and brothers. ``The Kurds. These are a lump in the throat and a thorn, whose time to be clipped is yet to come. They are last on the list, even though we are making efforts to harm some of their symbolic figures, God willing. ``Soldiers, police and agents. These are the eyes, ears and hands of the occupier through which he sees, hears and delivers violent blows. God willing, we are determined to target them strong in the coming period before the situation is consolidated and they control.'' I will get on to the fourth in a minute. When we were in Iraq, we had the opportunity to go visit the police academy, 500, 600 young people who were committed to helping rebuild Iraq and rebuilding a civil society. They know that when they come out of their 4 to 6 weeks of training and they go on the streets of Baghdad, Basra and the other cities in Iraq, they walk out on their streets with a target on their back, because the last thing the terrorists want to see, of those opposed to us in Iraq, the last thing that they want to see is an effective law enforcement and security apparatus in Iraq, because they know that that is the beginning of the end. We went there, we laid a wreath in recognition of the over 100 police cadets, policemen and women and potential recruits who were killed in the 8 to 10 days before we came there through suicide bombings. We then had the opportunity to shake hands and to meet many of these recruits. Their enthusiasm for their work, their enthusiasm for building a new Iraq, their enthusiasm that Saddam Hussein was gone and that they had their country back was very, very clear. They knew that it was the Americans that had given them their country back; and they were very, very appreciative and thankful. They knew that the future of Iraq was in their hands, and not in the hands of the Americans or the coalition forces, but that what we provided them was the framework to take back their country and to move in the future. You could see it in their eyes when you looked at them, you could feel it in the vigor and the strength of their handshake, you could hear it in their voices; and as you left, they took their hand and put it on their heart and moved it away to express the deepness and the sincerity in the comments that they were making to us. The Shia, how do our terrorists feel about the Shia? These, in our opinion, are the key to change. I mean, the key to change? What kind of change are they looking for? I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies and bear the teeth of the hidden rancor hidden in their breast. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger and annihilating death at the hands of these Sabians. Despite their weakness and fragmentation, the Sunnis are the sharpest blades, the most determined and most loyal when they meet those Batinies, who are a people of treachery and cowardice. They are arrogant only with the weak and attack only the broken wing. Most of the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people, watch their sides and fear the consequences of empowering them. Were it not for the enfeebled Sufi sheiks and the Muslim brothers, people would have told a different tale. It is very clear what the folks who are opposed to us are going to do. They are going to kill the police and they are going to fight and drive sectarian violence. I want to talk just briefly about Libya, because some have said showing strength is a problem. Take a look at what has happened with the Libyans. I was there a couple of weeks ago as well. At the end of the December visit, the Libyans admitted having a nuclear weapons program and having bought uranium feed material for gas centrifuge enrichment, admitted having nuclear weapons design documents, acknowledged having made about 25 tons of sulfur mustard chemical weapons agents, aerial bombs for the mustard and small amounts of nerve agent, provided access to their deployed Skud-B forces and revealed the details of indigenous missile design work and of cooperation with North Korea on the 800 kilometer range Scuds-CSs. What a change in Libya. The headlines in today's paper. ``Ghadafi Vows No More Terror.'' He seeks a new era with the United States, seeks better relationships with the United States. One of our colleagues who was there this weekend is quoted as saying, ``The incredible thing about being here is to hear a former antagonist of our country say, `What in the world was I thinking when I took on a superpower,' says Silvestre Reyes, Texas, Democrat. `I thought it was an incredible, historic moment. This could potentially redefine our relationships with Africa and potential with the most conflicted part of the world, which is the Middle East. If I had not been here and had Chairman Weldon or Congressman Ortiz tell me about it, I would not have believed it,' he said.'' So what a dramatic change we are seeing, I think, in many reasons because we have displayed strength and the determination in dealing with the types of threats that President Clinton and his administration identified throughout the 1990s, that President Bush and his administration identified during their administration, and because of the strong action we are seeing a change in behavior in Libya, with a possibility and hope for progress in Iran and North Korea.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to build off the comments of perhaps some of the previous speakers in talking about America is still a Nation at risk. In his new book, Why America Slept, author Gerald Posner raises the possibility that better tactical performance by the United States could have averted the September 11 terrorist attacks. He suggests that the problem was that law enforcement and other agencies failed to effectively identify and act on numerous clues in the months preceding those tragic events. This could be true, but it is more likely that the attacks could have been averted had the U.S. recognized a new enemy emerging in the 1990s and developed a strategy to effectively respond to it, a lapse that the United States Intelligence Community will have to make up as it reinvents itself to respond to a fluid world that I think was redefined by September 11. Terrorist attacks throughout the previous decade were treated as isolated criminal acts rather than a developing new emergent threat bent on destroying the United States, and I think this is a question that we have to ask ourselves, and we have to determine what we believe the threat will be in the future. We know what happened during the 1990s. We know about the examples of the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. There was a bombing. In 1996, there was a bombing of the U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia, and also in the 1990s there were the attacks on our embassies in Africa, and then in 2000 the USS Cole was attacked. But these are just a small sample of the increasing number of terrorist attacks against the U.S., our people, our interests and our allies that took place throughout the 1990s. In 1995, two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan. In 1997, a Palestinian sniper opened fire on tourists atop the Empire State Building, killing a Danish national, wounding visitors from the United States and Argentina. In 2000, a bomb exploded across the street from the U.S. Embassy in Manila. We have had bombings in Turkey and other places. The strategic error that we made through the 1990s is that we assumed that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, American policymakers assumed that the international political environment had become more stable and more predictable. How wrong we were. During the 1990s, the international political environment became more volatile and more unpredictable, and this was not necessarily unrecognized by our leadership. In a February 17, 1998, speech President Bill Clinton said, And they, then in parenthesis, the predators of the 21st century will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There should be no doubt Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us. In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now, a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists who travel the world. If we fail to respond today, Saddam will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. Again, on February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton highlighted the threat not only of Saddam Hussein, but of this emerging threat that we saw in the 1990s of various terrorist organizations and people who seek to do us and our allies harm. In that same speech, the President at that time, President Bill Clinton, said, And someday, some way, I guarantee you he will use the arsenal, and I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. Continuing, In this century we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination and, when necessary, action. In the next century the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now, again, a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us, unnoticed, a different kind of emerging threat to the United States and our security. December 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton, I am convinced the decision I made to order this military action, though difficult, was absolutely the right thing to do. It is in our interests and in the interest of people around the world. Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles before. I have no doubt he would use them again if permitted to develop them. In another speech, this is by Richard Haas, he is a top Middle East expert on the National Security Council during the Bush administration. The stakes here are very real, and they are enormous. This is someone who has used weapons of mass destruction twice against his own people and against Iran. He does not have qualms. As we are going through the 1990s, and even as we were going through the first couple of years of the new millennium, we have seen that America was becoming more aware and our leaders were becoming more aware of these various threats. Madeleine Albright in a speech September 9, 1998, here is what she has to say. In this struggle, our adversaries are likely to avoid a traditional battlefield situation because there American dominance is well established. We must be concerned instead by weapons of mass destruction and by the cowardly instruments of sabotage and hidden bombs. These unconventional threats endanger not only our Armed Forces, but all Americans and America's friends everywhere. We must understand that this confrontation is long-term. It does not lend itself to quick victory. Force for peace, freedom and progress and law in the world, but no threat, no bomb, no terrorist can diminish America's determination to lead. She goes on, A second major threat to America's security also has entered a new phase, and that is weapons of mass destruction and the systems that deliver them. For decades we viewed this threat primarily through a narrow Cold War lens, and now our concerns have broadened. We are deeply concerned by regional tensions in South Asia where both India and Pakistan have conducted nuclear tests. Going on later on, she talks about chemical or biological warheads, and they are devilishly difficult to shoot down. Again, already in 1998 or maybe saying as late as 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright identifying the threat to America, our people, our infrastructure and our allies. We need to continue this discussion and this debate to see whether this threat continues to be real. National Security Adviser Samuel Berger in an op-ed, Washington Times, October 16, 1998, And indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted in the chemical weapons activity in Sudan with information linking Bin Laden to the Sudanese regime and the al-Shifa plant. The threats are real. They have been identified in administration after administration. This week and over the last couple of weeks, we have had the opportunity to get an update, and I would encourage my friends to take a look at some of the statements that have recently been made so that they can reach their own judgment as to the kind of threat that faces America today, because as we understand the threat and reach agreement as to what the threat may be, that will also then provide the foundation for our actions and our response to that threat. Steve Cambone, an Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, delivered his views on this back on January 22, 2004. Here is what he had to say. We are a Nation at war. We do not know how long it will last, but it is unlikely to be short. We cannot know where or against whom all of its battles will be fought. There are multiple fronts in this war. There is no single theater of operations. We do know that we are all at risk, at home and abroad, civilians and military alike. We do know that battles and campaigns will be both conventional and unconventional in their conduct. Some of those battles and campaigns will be fought in the open, and others will be fought in secret where our victories will be known to only a few. Going on, In describing the situation that we find ourselves in today, we are facing a turbulent and volatile world populated by a number of highly adaptive state and nonstate actors. Some of these are weighing whether to or to what extent or how they might oppose the interests of the United States and its friends. Others, such as terrorist organizations, who are responsible for attacks in the United States, Turkey, Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kenya, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other places, have committed themselves to war. ``In such a world, where largely ungoverned areas can serve as sanctuary for terrorists, and where political and military affairs in Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America continue to evolve, it is impossible to predict with confidence what nation or entity will pose a threat in 5, 10, or 20 years to the United States or to our friends and allies. In such a world, where our vulnerabilities are all too well understood by our potential adversaries, we should expect to be surprised. ``Not everything that unfolds in the coming years should be a surprise. We can expect that an adversary will continually search for an effective means to attack our people, our economic military and political power, and the people and the power of our friends and allies. ``We can also expect that an adversary will have access to a range of modern technologies and will be prepared to use them to magnify the destructiveness of their attacks, using truck bombs and improvised explosives; cyberintrusions to attack the computer systems upon which we rely; radio transmitters to jam our space assets; small laboratories to develop new biological or genetically altered agents; and chemical and nuclear technology and materials delivered by missile, plane, boat, or backpack to poison our environment and destroy human lives.'' Also this week, I believe it was on Tuesday, Tuesday or Wednesday, February 24, George Tenant, the Director of the CIA, Director of the CIA under both President Clinton and President Bush, gave his update to the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and also the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. And part of his testimony, unusual in that it is typically in closed session, but part of his testimony was given in open session, and that is available on various Web sites for people to read. And I encourage people to go back and read the full testimony that Director Tenant gave in front of the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence. Let me just give you some brief excerpts of it. Because, again, what it does is it follows and builds on the conclusions, the statements, and the threat perception that President Clinton outlined for us in the late 1990s; that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, that Sandy Berger and other members of the Clinton administration laid out as potential threats, and that now continue to be seen in this administration but are being seen in a new light. They are being seen through the lens of September 11. Here is what Director Tenant has to say: ``Terrorism: I will begin today on terrorism with a stark bottom line. The al Qaeda leadership structure we chartered after September 11 is seriously damaged, but the group remains as committed as ever to attacking the U.S. homeland. But as we continue the battle against al Qaeda, we must overcome a movement, a global movement infected by al Qaeda's radical agenda. ``In this battle we are moving forward in our knowledge of the enemy, his plans, capabilities, and intentions. And what we have learned continues to validate my deepest concern. It is a concern that was expressed to the Clinton administration, it is a concern that we continue to have,'' the statement concluding, ``that this enemy remains intent on obtaining and using catastrophic weapons.'' During the 1990s, we saw what al Qaeda and other organizations were willing to do and what they were capable of doing. Director Tenant goes on and explains a little about the war against al Qaeda and its leadership: ``Military and intelligence operations by the United States and its allies overseas have degraded the group. Local al Qaeda cells are forced to make their own decisions because of disarray in the central leadership. We are creating large and growing gaps in the al Qaeda hierarchy. We are receiving a broad array of help from our coalition partners, who have been central to our effort against al Qaeda.'' This is something that we found out in some of the travels and in the opportunities I have had to meet with individuals in the Middle East. ``We have a number of allies in the war against al Qaeda. Since the May 12 bombings, the Saudi government has shown an important commitment to fighting al Qaeda in the kingdom, and Saudi officers have paid with their lives. Elsewhere in the Arab world we have received valuable cooperation from Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, the UAE, Oman, and many others. President Musharraf of Pakistan remains a courageous and indispensable ally, who has become a target of assassins because of the help he has given us. ``Partners in Southeast Asia have been instrumental in the roundup of key regional associates of al Qaeda. Our European partners work closely together to unravel and disrupt the continent-wide network of terrorists planning chemical, biological, and conventional attacks in,'' not in America, not in the U.S., ``in Europe.'' Again continuing to quote: ``So we have made notable strides. But do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting al Qaeda is defeated. It is not. We are still at war. This is a learning organization that remains committed to attacking the United States, its friends and its allies.'' Again, these are the words of our Director of Intelligence, Director Tenant. Going on again: ``Successive blows to al Qaeda's central leadership have transformed the organization into a loose collection of regional networks that operate more autonomously. These regional components have demonstrated their operational prowess in the past year. The sites of their attacks span the entire reach of al Qaeda: Morocco, Kenya, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Indonesia. ``Al Qaeda seeks to influence the regional networks with operational training consultations and money. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed sent Hambali $50,000 for operations in Southeast Asia. You should not take the fact that these attacks occurred abroad to mean that the threat to the United States homeland has waned. As al Qaeda and associated groups undertook these attacks overseas, detainees consistently talk about the importance the group still attaches to striking the main enemy: the United States. ``Across the operational spectrum, air, maritime, special weapons, we have time and again uncovered plots that are chilling. On aircraft plots alone we have uncovered new plans to recruit pilots and to evade new security measures in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Even catastrophic attacks of the scale of 11 September remain within al Qaeda's reach. Make no mistake, these plots are hatched abroad, but they target U.S. soil or that of our allies.'' Again, this is Director Tenant speaking to the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence earlier this week. And I encourage my colleagues to go to the Web sites and read this testimony in complete detail to better understand the threats that we still face; and if they have questions, to peel back the layers so that they can make their own personal assessment of the threats that still face the United States. Again Director Tenant goes on: ``So far I have been talking only about al Qaeda, but al Qaeda is not the limit of terrorist threat worldwide. Al Qaeda has infected others with its ideology, which depicts the United States as Islam's greatest foe. ``Mr. Chairman, what I want to say to you now may be the most important thing I tell you today. The steady growth of Osama bin Laden's anti-U.S. sentiment throughout the wider Suni extremist movement, and the broad dissemination of al Qaeda's destructive expertise, ensures that a serious threat will remain for the foreseeable future with or without al Qaeda in the picture.'' I believe that if you go back and take a look at the statements in the Clinton administration, what Director Tenant laid out earlier this week is very little different; is very, very consistent with what the Clinton administration outlined during the 1990s. There is a real threat out there. That threat continues to evolve, it continues to change, and it continues to mature and respond to the steps that we take against it. Again going back to Director Tenant's testimony: ``A decade ago, bin Laden had a vision of rousing Islamic terrorists worldwide to attack the United States. He created al Qaeda to indoctrinate a worldwide movement and global jihad with America as the enemy, an enemy that would be attacked with every means at hand. In the minds of bin Laden and his cohorts, September 11 was the shining moment, their shot heard round the world, and they want to capitalize on it. ``And so even as al Qaeda reels from our blows, other extremist groups within the movement it influences become the next wave of terrorist threat. Dozens of such groups exist. These far-flung groups increasingly setting the agenda are redefining the threat we face. They are not creatures of bin Laden, so their fate is not tied to his. They have autonomous leadership. They pick their own targets. They plan their own attacks. ``Beyond these groups with the so-called foreign jihadists, individuals ready to fight anywhere they believe Muslim lands are under attack by what they see as infidel invaders. They have drawn broad support networks, have wide appeal, and enjoy a growing sense of support from Muslims who are not necessarily supporters of terrorism. The foreign jihadists see Iraq as a golden opportunity.'' He kind of closes this part of his presentation to the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with these words: ``Let me repeat: For the growing number of jihadists interested in attacking the United States, a spectacular attack on the U.S. homeland is the brass ring that many strive for.'' Let me just repeat that: ``For the growing number of jihadists interested in attacking the United States, a spectacular attack on the U.S. homeland is the brass ring that many strive for.'' He then goes on, ``with or without encouragement by al Qaeda's central leadership.'' Like I said, I would encourage my colleagues to go to various different sources and review this material from Director Tenant that was given in open session and is available to them. Go through it in detail. It is that important that they have that information as we move through this year. I genuinely believe and agree with the assessments that came out of the Clinton administration, that are coming out of this administration, and that have come out of Director Tenant as he worked with the Clinton administration and as he works in this administration, that the threat is real. I believe that that is a bipartisan conclusion. Working on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, one of the things that you find is that on issues of national security there are not partisan differences. We strive to leave the partisan labels at the door when we move in. We recognize that the issues that we work on are so critical that we cannot politicize them. We cannot make them partisan. We need to have and focus on what is best for the security interest of the United States. In light of that, on a number of occasions members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have had the opportunity to travel abroad together to meet with leaders from different countries to assess what is going on in Iraq or what is going on in Afghanistan. And in that light, six of us had the opportunity a week and a half ago to go to Libya, to go to Iraq, and to go to Afghanistan. Let me just give a few highlights of that trip. I will have a diary available within the next week or so, if Members want to see a more detailed explanation of exactly my views of what happened on this trip; but it is a bipartisan delegation, four Republicans and two Democrats, who went on this trip. Our first stop was in Libya. It is kind of amazing as the individuals who were leading this trip were planning it in late November and December, I do not think that any of us would have expected when we traveled overseas in February that we would be stopping in Libya. That is one place that congressional delegations and Americans basically did not go. But in December and early January, Colonel Qadhafi started signals out that he was willing to disengage in his weapons of mass destruction program, and he was willing to move forward and allow U.N., NATO or U.S. inspectors into the country to look at his programs and then destroy those programs, and then move into the area of having closer economic and cultural ties with the U.S. and Europe. So our State Department requested that we stop in Libya and meet with Colonel Qadhafi and encourage him in the direction that he was moving. After much effort and seeing much of the Libyan countryside, that is exactly what we had an opportunity to do, to express our appreciation to Colonel Qadhafi about the direction he was going and encourage him to continue in that direction. We still have a number of issues with Colonel Qadhafi in terms of how he treats the people in Libya, but we will continue to work with him on those outstanding issues, but recognize as he dismantles the weapon of mass destruction program in Libya, that provides us with a huge step forward. It is a significant step forward. Already we have learned much about how that whole network of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons worked. It has helped us expose things in Pakistan and give some kind of a better understanding what currently may be available in North Korea, what may be available in Iran, and what these countries may have had access to on the international market, and how they would have accessed these goods and services and products, and how far they might have progressed. There has been much benefit as to Colonel Qadhafi and the steps he has already taken. We encourage him to continue moving in that direction. We also had some very interesting quotes as we sat down with an individual that we had read much about, but none of us ever had the opportunity or ever expected to have the opportunity to be in the same room with him or any of his parliamentary leaders. Some of their quotes included, ``God created man on this Earth. Therefore, they have natural needs and natural rights. These are not bestowed by anyone else, and they cannot be taken away by men.'' Another quote that came out of our discussions, and remember, this is the Libyans talking to Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, ``Every person has the right to develop to their full potential to live in peace, security, and prosperity.'' Another quote, ``How can you enslave people who are born free?'' Something that they are very proud of, and it is captured in this quote, ``The leader of the revolution has even received recognition with an international human rights award.'' Let me go back to the first quote, and would it not be great if Libya and others lived by what they told us, ``God created man on this Earth. Therefore, they,'' meaning men, ``have natural needs and natural rights. These are not bestowed by anyone else, and they cannot be taken away by men.'' We had an opportunity to spend about an hour and 45 minutes with Colonel Qadhafi. As I said, we were supposed to meet with him in the morning, and we finally ended up meeting with him late in the afternoon. It was a fascinating discussion. The message that he first delivered us, even though we were in a situation where we had been adversaries for such a long time, we never knew each other. It was felt that was not good, we ought to get together, and we ought to have a dialogue. And I think we agreed that we want to have that dialogue, and not just a dialogue on weapons of mass destruction, but also on human rights within his country. He talked about his decision to dismantle the weapon of mass destruction program and denounce terrorism, which was based solely on the self-interest of Libya. Our concern was not why Colonel Qadhafi has moved in that direction, but we ought to be thankful that he has decided to move in that direction. Colonel Qadhafi expressed a desire for the normalization of relationships between our countries, a desire for political economic ties, as well as cultural and student exchanges between Libya and the United States. It was a fascinating opportunity to get an insight into this man and into this country and to be part of perhaps history, to be part of a history that will be part of rewriting the chapter of relationships between the United States and Libya. We then went on to Iraq. I have been to Iraq a number of times before in measuring the progress of what has been going on. There are a number of reasons that we ought to be pleased about the success that we are having, but as we go through this, I think it is important to recognize that there is still so much to do. There is no doubt that we are making progress on the economic side. There is no doubt that we are making progress on the political side. There is no doubt that we are making progress on the national security side, but the bottom line is there was so far to go. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, remember, they had either been under the control of someone like Saddam Hussein for the last 30 years, a total destruction of the fiber within the country, the fiber of a civil society. In Afghanistan, we have the same thing, which has been under control of the Taliban or the Russians for the last 10, 12 years, and as President Karzai told us, what little we had in terms of infrastructure and a civil society, what little we had was destroyed during the 1990s. But we are now in the process of helping these countries rebuild a civil society, and by a civil society we mean there is a rule of law, that they understand the rules by which they as a society have agreed to live by; that they have an enforcement mechanism, and that they have a police force to monitor and enforce the laws and the rules that have been put in place; that they have a judiciary that can adjudicate disputes between the people in a peaceful way; and they also have the opportunity for representative government, and that they have an opportunity for transparent government bureaucracies. What does that mean? It means that the people have a high degree of confidence that the actions that are going on in the institutions of government are free from corruption and are achieving the results to benefit the people of the nation and not a few of the rulers. So we are working to establish a civil society in both Iraq and Afghanistan; and we are making progress, but do not underestimate the amount of work that needs to take place. Recognize how far these countries have to go, and recognize where they started from. When this Nation was founded, we started with the Articles of Confederation, found out that they did not work the way that we wanted them to, and then we developed the current Constitution. When our Founding Fathers got together that second time to develop the Constitution as we now know it, it took them 4\1/2\ months to write it. Afghanistan has just completed writing its Constitution and ratifying it. Hopefully they will be moving, and we are expecting that they will be moving towards elections this summer. It is a significant step forward and guarantees equal rights to men and women. Twenty-five percent of their new Parliament are guaranteed to be women by the nature of their Constitution. In Iraq, we are asking this government to come up with a process for selecting the people who will write their Constitution. And then developing the Constitution, we are basically giving them right around 4 months to do that. It is important that we have an accelerated process, but we are asking these folks to do a lot in a very short period of time, and we are asking them to do it in a dangerous and difficult environment. There are still folks out there who want to ensure that we do not have a civil society in Iraq and that we do not have a civil society in Afghanistan because they recognize that as the roots of a civil society take place, they will no longer be able to benefit at the expense of the larger population, and they realize that they will lose the power to intimidate the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. These were brutal rulers in both of these regimes, killing thousands of their own people. In Iraq, it is estimated that Saddam Hussein and his henchmen killed over 300,000. We are asking to provide an opportunity to move these societies to the rule of law, transparent government, functioning judiciaries, a functioning free press and an openness in their society. There are a lot of statistics that are out, and I believe these are also available on various Web sites from the Pentagon, talking about the progress that we are making in Iraq, talking about the progress that we are making in the area of electricity, talking about the progress that we are making in the area of oil production, and talking about the progress that we are making in the area of education, opening schools, inspecting new schools, training teachers, having 1,500 secondary students participate in student exchange programs, talking about what is going on in health care, providing training to 2,500 medical staff by April 4. These are folks who for 20 years have been in isolation. There are all kinds of positive things that are going on that are helping to bring back a civil society in Iraq. We are making sure that we provide folks with basic human needs, including food and those types of things, telecommunications. There is a lot of information about the progress that we are making, but I just want to share a few things that I think are maybe as indicative, if not more indicative, of the change that may be taking place in Iraq. Let me state again, there is a tremendous amount of work that still needs to take place in Iraq. There is a tremendous amount of work that still needs to take place in a relatively short period of time in a difficult environment with people who are committed to seeing not that the coalition fails, but that the folks in Iraq, the Iraqis who want to build a new nation, that they will fail. These are folks that are thrilled that they have been liberated and that America is there. They are thrilled that Saddam Hussein is gone. The interesting story in Afghanistan is the most popular person, as President Karzai talked to us in Afghanistan, and he is a very popular President because he represents the move toward civil society in Afghanistan, but the most popular person in Afghanistan today is the American Ambassador to Afghanistan. President Karzai said it is a good thing your ambassador is not on the ballot because he might win. The Iraqis and the Afghans are optimistic about the opportunity they have to create a new Iraq and create a new Afghanistan. Like I said, one of the most moving parts of our trip was when we went to one of the police academies in Baghdad. Part of creating a civil society is to make sure that not only do you have the rule of law which is going to be developed in their constitution but that the person on the street recognizes that there is a rule of law and there is a mechanism to enforce that. Part of that is the police force. We all know that that is essential by what the folks who are opposed to the coalition and to a new Iraq have been doing over the last couple of months. They are no longer targeting Americans and coalition forces. Sure, they will take a shot at us if they see a vulnerability or an opening, but what they are now doing is they are attacking those folks that are helping to put together the pieces of a new Iraq. A critical part of that is the police force. The week before we went to Iraq, there were a couple of just dramatic bombings, deadly bombings. Over 100 policemen or recruits were killed in two bombings. Each time we go on this trip and when we come home, we are committed to honoring the lives and the sacrifices of American and coalition forces in Iraq. What we also wanted to do this time is we wanted to extend our appreciation to the young men, and the young women, in Iraq who are stepping up and taking their place eagerly in the new Iraqi police force, recognizing that when they leave that academy they become the targets, because they are that link of the new Iraqis who are going to be putting together and enforcing and creating a civil society. They are the targets for those that are opposed to our success. They recognize that in the last couple of weeks 100 of them had been killed. Just this past Monday, I believe, or this past weekend, there was another bombing, another seven policemen were killed. We met with these young recruits. They are going to go through 4 to 6 weeks of training. Some of them may be selected to go on for more advanced training. They will be the ones that in many cases will be patrolling the streets of Baghdad with coalition and American forces, to get additional training. We went there. Eloquently, the leader of our delegation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), expressed our appreciation and expressed our sympathy to these recruits in recognizing that 100 of their colleagues had died recently. We then had the opportunity to go around and to talk to many of these recruits as they were lined up in formation, and we shook hands with probably over 200 to 250 of the 500 troops or the policemen that were assembled there. Universally, the message was consistent. You could see the energy, the enthusiasm and the excitement on their faces and in their eyes. They were excited about what they were doing. You could hear it by what they said, because the message consistently as they shook our hands was, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you for liberating us from Saddam Hussein and thank you for coming to us and expressing your support for what we are doing and the training and the jobs that we have committed ourselves to and recognizing the sacrifice that Iraqis are paying in building a new Iraq. And then as we moved past, as we shook their hands, they took their hand, placed it on their heart and moved it away, meaning the true sincerity by which they were expressing their words and their actions and their emotions. As we left and as we finished meeting with and talking with these recruits, they broke out into a spontaneous applause and cheer, recognizing the partnership and the kinship, although very few of them spoke English, but the partnership and the kinship that they felt with a congressional delegation from the United States and a police academy headed by a Brit that we all were on the same page, working and moving in the same direction of building a new and a free Iraq with a civil society and that we were united in the effort to fight terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. We saw the same kinds of things as we went and drove the streets in Iraq, the actions of the kids as we walked by or as we drove by through the streets of thumbs up. They knew what it was like before. They know what it is like now. They can only anticipate. But they anticipate with eagerness what they see happening in the future. I just want to share a few more things. One of the great things now about Iraq, it was a closed society for 30 years. There was a story of someone who was imprisoned. They asked him, there was a question as to, or there was somebody who wanted to help us, they said, well, he was a Baathist and these types of things and people were suspicious. But then he said, well, you know, I spent a year in jail, at which point in time it kind of perked the interest of some folks. They said, maybe this guy is all right. They said, why did you get into jail? He said, I badmouthed Saddam Hussein. I badmouthed Saddam Hussein to my best friend and my best friend told the authorities, and I ended up in jail. That was the kind of Iraq that they saw for 30 years. So they eagerly anticipate going in places they have never been. In this new society, they are experimenting, and they are seeing things they never had before. Freedom of dissent, freedom to express opinions, access to technology they never had before, cell phones, satellites; and as soon as they have that, they have access to information they never had before, and in a very short period of time, they are now finding that many Iraqis are putting up their own Web pages, communicating in e- mails, talking about what it is like to be in a new Iraq, what they hope for in the future. Here is one story off one of the Web pages. Thursday, February 12, 2004: Hi, friends. I received this e-mail from a Kurdish Iraqi who now lives in exile. I post this without any editing on my part. This has moved me. This is an e-mail that someone gave to me and thought I would be interested in reading it. For the love of our nation. I am a big fan of Iraq. I love it inch by inch from Zakho to al-Fao. I love Iraq's mountains. I love Iraq's desert. I love Iraq's big cities and small villages. I love Iraq's old and new music. I love Iraq's poetry. I love Iraqis' sarcastic sense of humor. I love Iraq's tea shops. In short, without Iraq, there is no me. Born a Kurd in the breathtakingly beautiful North, I was taught as a child to speak, read and write both of Iraq's main languages, Kurdish and Arabic. Oh what a feeling it would be when one day I learn how to speak Assyrian and Turkish so that I could communicate with my Assyrian, Chaldean and Turkman brothers and sisters in their native language. I love the sound of the speakers at dawn when Iraqis are called to prayer, not because of my religious passion but because it is the practice of my people. I love the bells of the Iraqi churches on Sundays, not because of my Christian views or lack thereof but simply because of my Iraqiness. You see, comrades, I would like to ask of you a small favor. I want you to please look at the word Iraq. Look at it. Now picture it on Ahmad Radhi's jersey. Picture it on the atlas. Picture it in the index of every book where civilization is mentioned. Picture it at the United Nations. Picture it on your passport. The secret is very simple. To love Iraq and Iraqis without exception is to not think of Iraq as Saddam Hussein, as those in favor of the occupation and those opposed to it. It is not to think of it as to whom Kirkuk belongs. But what's really beautiful about Iraq is the fact that it predates all of these things, not as a piece of land through which two rivers flow but as a civilization where the setting of the stage for all that human beings have accomplished began. That is Iraq and we are blessed to be members of this land that has fascinated the world in its entirety. Why am I writing this? I am writing this because I see among us a bigger sense of division than unity. I see among us more feelings of resentment than those of joy. I see among us more anger than soberness. I see among us people like fanatic Kurds and people who instead of trying to understand them or convince them otherwise, they attack their people as if they have a mandate from the Kurds of Iraq. In Kirkuk, Kurdish flags virtually crisscross the city. In response to the Kurdish obsession with their flag, the Turkmans have done the same with their flag. The Arabs of Kirkuk are virtually trapped in the middle of too much ethnic tensions. They have every right to Kirkuk just as the people of Dohuk have every right to Najaf as long as their desire for residency is on the basis of their Iraqiness rather than their Kurdishness or Arabness or Shiaism or Turkmanism. Yes, I am inventing these terms because they should not exist. Am I boring you? Well, read on. There are 1 million Kurds living in Baghdad. That number is larger than the Kurds of Kirkuk, Sulaimania, Arbil and Dohuk, not combined but individually. What does that mean? In a democratic Iraq; that means 1 million votes. We are often deceived of hearing the Sunni center without considering the number of Kurds and Shia, not to mention Christian and Yezidi Iraqis that live in Baghdad and around Baghdad. We hear the Kurdish North without looking at Mozul, the second largest Arab city in Iraq after Baghdad. We hear of the Shia South without considering the Sunni, Kurds and Arabs that live all around the south from Basra to Hilla to Najaf to Karbala. The bottom line is, Iraq is the land of the Iraqis. The groups that constitute our beautiful mosaic should be Iraqis before they are Kurdish, Arabic, Assyrian. Once an Iraqi government is established and the various Iraqi groups are given something to lose, they will naturally feel more Iraqi. Once we are sober and awakened, things will be different. Have faith in Iraq because there is no land on Earth that is more beautiful than Iraq. Behold, one little beautiful flower of new Mesopotamian nationalism blossoms. More will follow. Salaam. There are all kinds of these. Let me go to the last one. This is interesting because one of the key issues about what is going to be happening in Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts of the Muslim world is what is going to happen to the women, will they have equal rights. Like I said, in Afghanistan 25 percent of the new parliament will consist of women. The women are guaranteed equal rights in the constitution, equal rights between men and women. It is a very, very positive statement. Here is another: ``Iraqi Women Groups Take to the Streets.'' Iraqi women representing 55 women groups and organizations from all over Iraq gathered at Fardus Square this morning to sign a petition against resolution 137 to demand equal rights and fair, unbiased representation, at least 40 percent, in the future Iraqi transitional council, governorate and municipal councils. Forty percent. They are not satisfied with what they got in Afghanistan with 25. They want at least 40 percent. The sit-in was organized by the Supreme Council of Iraqi Women, the Advisory Committee for Women Affairs, and the Iraqi Women Network. Other noted women groups were present such as the Iraqi Contemporary Women Movement, Organization for Women Freedom in Iraq, Iraqi Hope Association, Independent Women Organization, Women's Union of Kurdistan, Kurdistan Free Women Movement, Iraqi Women Revival Organization, and the Iraqi Students and Youth Union. Over 55 different groups. Think of it, in a very short period of time, the number of organizations that are forming and learning how to participate in representative government. They will make mistakes, but they are going through a very constructive process. They are learning how to express their voice in a meaningful way that they have not had the opportunity to do. Several women activists gave speeches. Planning Minister Dr. Mahdi Al-Hafudh shyly gave a brief word of support and signed the petition. It got interesting when a woman in a burqa showed up at the gathering with her three kids. Remember, this is all on their Internet, the Web pages. Reporters all stormed forward trying to interview her. Her husband was imprisoned for years by the former regime for political reasons, only to be executed in the end and for her to pay for the bullets. A very heart-rending story. She held his death certificate, as you can see in the pictures. She said, we didn't wait all these years without the most basic rights to be denied them now. An Arab reporter asked her if she was Sunni or Shiite. Her quote: `` `I'm neither,' she snapped at him. `I'm an Iraqi citizen first and foremost, and I refuse to be asked such a question.' ``AYS, and I, skulked around Fardus square and took pictures. Omar joined us later. We signed the petition against Resolution 137 and the woman offered us a rose. If you want to sign it, there is an on-line petition which you can find at this site. Equality in Iraq. The petitions are to be submitted to Paul Bremer, and Kofi Annan later this week. Bremer has made it known that he will veto any law that will not recognize basic civil freedoms, but Resolution 137 is yet to be vetoed. ``You can find pictures of the gathering'' as well. Communication and representative government and participation is alive and well, as the other e-mail indicated and closed, ``Behold, one little beautiful flower of new Mesopotamian nationalism blossoms. More will follow.'' Let us hope and pray that that is exactly what will happen in Iraq. There is a tremendous amount of work that has been accomplished in Iraq. There is a tremendous amount of work that has been accomplished in Afghanistan. There is a tremendous amount of work that needs to still occur for those flowers, additional blossoms, to bloom. But that is what we are working for so that these folks can have a representative government, a new and free Iraq and a new and free Afghanistan.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Referring to Bush I, and, what, accusing him of inaction?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. There is an interesting article I would like to reference that talks a little bit about what the previous administration did during the 1990s. The article is ``Show Stoppers,'' and it is out of the Weekly Standard, January 26, 2004. It is written by Richard Shultz, who is director of International Security Studies at the Fletcher school, Tufts University, and director of research at the Consortium for the Study of Intelligence in Washington, D.C. He brings up an interesting point. America has the best trained military in the world, regular Army; but then we also have some very special folks, Special Operations folks. Remember, the policy as he lays out here was that we were prepared to preemptively and offensively attack those individuals who we thought might be a threat to the United States. We knew who they were. The Clinton administration identified al Qaeda; they identified bin Laden as being threats. We heard that in our quotes tonight. But what Richard Shultz goes on to point out, he says not once during the 1990s, even though we on occasion might have known where bin Laden was, we knew where his terrorist camps were, not once did we take and use our Special Operations forces to neutralize the capability of these folks who we were relatively confident and who the Clinton administration were selling the American people on that these were a threat to the American public and to our military and to our allies around the world. We never used our Delta Force, we never used our Seals, we never used our Rangers to kill or capture bin Laden or attack al Qaeda training bases.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Taking back my time, Mr. Shultz goes on to talk about the Clinton administration's desire for preemptive and offensive actions. But they never took the step. Terrorism is a crime, they said. They said we will prosecute it afterwards. We will not use our forces for minimizing the capability of these people to wage war against us. It does not meet the Pentagon's definition of war. We are risk-averse. That sent a very clear message to terrorist organizations and rogue regimes like Iran, Iraq, Syria and a number of other countries that said the United States is not going to do anything. They may respond, but even if we attack their battle ships, even if we attack their embassies or their barracks, they will not respond or they will respond in a very minimal way, and they will allow us to keep moving forward and to prepare other attacks. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. on Saturday, February 14, 2004, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 361, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.