Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, Notre Dame Academy and Ottawa Hills High School were recently awarded the Blue Ribbon School Award for the 2001- 2002 school year. I was pleased to congratulate each school at receptions in their honor held in Washington, DC, October 3-4, 2002. For the past 19 years, the U.S. Department of Education has honored schools that have demonstrated excellence through leadership, teaching, curriculum, student achievement, and parental involvement. Upon receiving the Blue Ribbon School of Excellence Award, Notre Dame Academy and Ottawa Hills High School have joined a select group of outstanding schools throughout America. The human mind is our most valuable resource, and education equips young people to function in a free society, keep America competitive in the world economy, and enjoy all the resources and opportunities our country has to offer. Upon receiving this recognition, Notre Dame Academy and Ottawa Hills High School will continue to be viewed with high esteem by educators, teachers and parents in the state of Ohio and across the country. These schools truly have elevated the citizens of our great community, and join the ranks of previous local awardees, each superb local school, offering our students the finest quality education. I commend the Notre Dame community--administrators, teachers, support personnel, parents and students and alumni--for their hard work and unwavering commitment to educational quality. Likewise, Ottawa Hills High School will continue to be viewed with high esteem by educators, teachers and parents in the state of Ohio and across the country. Onward!

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, for our nation to have a strong defense capability, we need to make certain that critical manufacturing capacity and skills are maintained. Some of the most vital are tool and die, mold making and precision machining. They represent the first step in manufacturing. These companies are family owned businesses located in every state of the union. They are characterized by highly skilled employees that provide the economic bedrock of our defense industrial base. Many of America's small businesses that offer this capability to our defense infrastructure are closing their doors due to economic difficulties caused by the current economic recession facing our manufacturing industry. The National Tooling and Machining Association has stated that over 400 companies have closed since January of this year. We often find that prime contractors are subcontracting with foreign firms rather than American businesses. If steps are not taken now to assess and correct the situation, America may find itself without these critical capabilities and skills. As was learned in the West Coast dock work stoppage, some parts that are required by the U.S. military were unavailable. This situation highlights an important decision we must make. If we do not take steps immediately, our country will lose the capability to produce the parts that are needed to protect our country. I appreciate the commitments I have received from the distinguished chairman and ranking member to work with us to secure within 60 days from the Department of Defense a report regarding what steps can be taken to increase procurement, development of contracts, and subcontracts, with these vital American small businesses.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks before election seems to be an odd time to be authorizing war. It is especially odd when President Bush himself said at the United Nations that Iraq represents a ``grave and gathering threat,'' not an imminent threat. For a month, this debate has frozen off the front pages Social Security, prescription drugs, rising unemployment, growing deficits, robbery of pension accounts, corporate abuses and the inaction of this Congress itself. The generals have not weighed in either. Retired General Norman Schwartzkopf, who headed the Persian Gulf War campaign, called on President Bush ``not to go it alone.'' Retired General Wesley Clark, who headed up the Balkans campaign, called on President Bush ``not to go it alone.'' Former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft said an attack on Iraq without addressing the problems of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict ``could turn the whole region into a cauldron, and thus destroy the war on terrorism.'' Last weekend, Israel's Chief of Military Intelligence, speaking on television, disputed contentions that Iraq is 18 months away from nuclear capability. He concluded Iraq's time frame was more like 4 years, and he said Iran's nuclear threat was as great as Iraq's. Yes, Congress, on behalf of the American people must decide whether the United States incursion now into Iraq will make our country more secure and whether it will make that region more stable. On both counts, my conclusion is no. It will not make America safer, because unilateral military action without broad international support will isolate America further. It will thrust us into the position of becoming a common enemy in a volatile region where anti-western terrorism grows with each passing year. It will not make the region more stable either. The Bush approach will yield more terrorism and instability, not less. We should insist on rigorous inspections in concert with our allies and enforce all U.N. resolutions relating to the Middle East. Indeed, if the politics of the oil regimes and lethal force had been successful over the past 25 years, America's citizens would not be the victims of escalating terrorist violence at home and abroad. Since 1975, more American diplomats and military personnel have been killed or taken hostage as a result of Middle Eastern tumult than in the first 187 years of our Nation's history, and it worsens with each decade. After 9/1l, 13,025 additional names of civilians here at home were added to that growing list. Look more deeply at the roots of the rising levels of hatred and terrorism toward our people. Even if Iraq were able to serve as an instrument of global terrorism, the causes of that terrorism will not disappear with the demise of Saddam Hussein. The enemy has many fresh faces. They spring daily from the growing resentment of western influence over an Islamic world that is awakening to its own political destiny. America must not wed itself to the past but to the rising aspirations of subjugated people; and we must do it in concert with our friends, both inside the Arab world and outside it. What propels the violence? A deep and powerful undercurrent moving people to violence in that region. It is the unresolved Israeli- Palestinian conflict. The other major destabilizing force is America's utter and dangerous dependence on imported oil, whose purchases undergird repressive regimes. We must address both. Think about it. Modern terrorism dawned in our homeland in June, 1968, with the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. The unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict lay at the basis of that tragic loss. His disgruntled assassin, a Jordanian Arab, revealed in his diary that loss of his homeland in East Jerusalem lay at the root of his discontent. Sirhan Sirhan is one such face. The intifada now proceeding in the West Bank and Gaza proves the lingering tragedy of the Holy Land resists peaceful resolution until today, and its irresolution instructs the street and produces sacred rage. Now, let us look at oil, the one word the President left out of his address in Cincinnati. As the 1970s proceeded, America's economic security became to be shaped more and more by events abroad. Thrust into two deep recessions due to the Arab oil embargoes as petroleum prices shot through the roof, our economy faltered. And the current recession, too, has been triggered by rising oil prices. Meanwhile, America, rather than becoming energy independent at home, sinks deeper into foreign oil dependence, from the undemocratic regimes of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq, to also include the state-owned monopolies of Nigeria and Venezuela and Mexico. While our military enforces the no-fly zones over Iraq, we import 8 percent of our oil from her. America has become more and more hostage to the oil regimes, with our future intertwined with the politics that Islamic fundamentalism breeds in the Muslim world. Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national, is but the latest face of international terrorism. Al Qaeda's goal is expulsion of western influence in the Gulf and the creation of a religious, unified Islamic caliphate. Mohammed Atta grew up in the undemocratic oil regimes of Saudi Arabia where 17 of the 19 hijackers originated. By contrast, the goal of Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party has been control of the vast oil deposits in Iraq and access to waterborne shipping in the Persian Gulf. Hussein has been a fairly predictable foe. In the 1990s, he conventionally invaded Kuwait; and the raw truth is he never got what he expected, which was access through Kuwait to the Gulf. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the dispute not only involved Iraq's belief that Kuwait was part of its historic territory, but essentially the struggle involved who within OPEC would control that oil. Is defending oil reserves worthy of one more American life? Before launching another war, Congress must vote to place our priorities where they belong, security here at home and a valued partner in the global community of nations. Please vote for the Spratt-Skelton resolution and no on the Hastert- Gephardt resolution. Three weeks before election seems an odd time to be authorizing war. It is especially odd when President Bush himself said at the United Nations that Iraq represents a ``grave and gathering threat,'' not an ``imminent threat.'' For a month, this debate has frozen off the front pages Social Security, prescription drugs, rising unemployment, growing deficits, robbery of pension accounts, corporate abuses and the inaction of this Congress. The generals have not weighed in either. Retired General Norman Schwartzkopf, who headed the Persian Gulf War campaign, called on President Bush ``not to go it alone.'' Retired General Wesley Clark, who headed up the Balkans campaign, called on President Bush ``not to go it alone.'' Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft said an attack on Iraq without addressing the problems of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict ``could turn the whole region into a cauldron and thus destroy the war on terrorism.'' In Cincinnati, President Bush said Iraq is seeking nuclear capability. He did not say Iraq had such a capability. And never has Saddam Hussein risked his regime's annihilation, which would be a certainty if he exhibits any adventurism. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported yesterday (Tuesday) that a Central Intelligence Agency report, which was released last Friday, concluded that it could take Iraq until the last half of this decade to produce a nuclear weapon, unless it could acquire bomb grade uranium or plutonium on the black market. Intelligence sources confirm chemical capabilities have been substantially reduced as a result of inspectors and Iraq's armed forces are 40% of their strength prior to the Gulf War. The President claimed Iraq had acquired smooth aluminum tubes for its secret nuclear weapons program. But analysts at the Energy and State Departments concluded that the Iraqis probably wanted the tubes to make conventional artillery pieces. On chemical and biological weapons, all the evidence indicates the inspection regime of the 1980s worked and that civilized nations are effective in dismantling rogue states' arsenals when they join in common cause. Last weekend, Israel's chief of military intelligence, speaking on television, disputed contentions that Iraq is 18 months away from nuclear capability. He concluded Iraq's time frame was more like four years, and he said Iran's nuclear threat was as great as Iraq's. I daresay Israel's chief of military intelligence is not the type of person who would engage in self-delusion. Yet, Congress, on behalf of the American people, must decide: whether U.S. military incursion now into Iraq will make our country more secure, whether it will make that region more stable. On both counts, my conclusion is ``No.'' It won't make America safer because unilaterial military action, without broad international support, will isolate America further. It will thrust us into the position of becoming a ``common enemy'' in a volatile region where anti-Western terrorism grows with each passing year. It won't make the region more stable, either. The Bush approach will yield more terrorism and instability, not less. We should insist on rigorous inspections in concert with our allies and enforce all U.N. resolutions relating to the Middle East. Indeed, if the politics of the oil regimes and lethal force had been successful over the past 25 years, America's citizens would not be the victims of escalating terrorist violence at home and abroad. Since 1975, more American diplomats and military personnel have been killed or taken hostage abroad as a result of Middle Eastern tumult than in the first 187 years of our nation's history. And it worsens with each decade. After 9/11, 3025 additional names of civilians here at home were added to that growing list. Look more deeply at the roots of the rising levels of hatred and terrorism toward our people. Even if Iraq were able to serve as an instrument of global terrorism, the causes of that terrorism would not disappear with the demise of Saddam Hussein. Terrorists are being molded every day. Look at the enemy. It is not conventional. It is not faceless. The enemy has many fresh faces. They spring daily from the growing resentment of Western influence over an Islamic world that is awakening to its own political destiny. America must not wed itself to the past but to the rising aspirations of subjugated people, and we must do so in concert with our friends both inside the Arab world and outside it. What propels the violence? A deep and powerful undercurrent moving people to violence in that region is the unresolved Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The other major destabilizing force is America's utter and dangerous dependence on imported oil whose purchases undergird repressive regimes. We must address both. Think about it. Modern terrorism dawned in our homeland in June 1968. with the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. The unresolved Israel- Palestinian conflict lay at the basis of that tragic loss. His disgruntled assassin, a Jordanian Arab, revealed in this diary that loss of his homeland in East Jerusalem lay at the root of his discontent. Sirhan Sirhan is one such face. The intifada now proceeding in the West Bank and Gaza proves the lingering tragedy of the Holy Land resists peaceful resolution event until today and its irresolution instructs the street and produces sacred rage. Now, let's look at oil . . . the one word the President left out of his address in Cincinnati. As the 1970's proceeded, America's economic security came to be shaped by events abroad. Thrust into two deep recessions due to Arab oil embargoes as petroleum prices shot through the roof, our economy faltered. The current recession too has been triggered by rising oil prices. In 1980, Jimmy Carter lost his bid for re-election because economic conditions at home so deteriorated. Carter had dubbed Arab oil price manipulation as the ``moral equivalent of war.'' He had launched a major effort to restore America's energy independence. Ronald Reagan and George Bush were elected in a campaign that highlighted the ``misery index,'' the combination of unemployment and interest rates exploding over 20 percent. By the 1980's, OPEC's cartel had realized that it lost revenue when America caught economic pneumonia. So OPEC learned something it practices to this very day: how to dance a clever pirouette of price manipulation rather than outright price gouging. Meanwhile, America, rather than becoming energy independent at home, sinks deeper into foreign oil dependence--from the undemocratic regimes of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq to also include the state-owned monopolies of Nigeria and Venezuela and Mexico. While our military enforces the no-fly zone over Iraq, we import 8% of our oil from her. America has become more and more an economic hostage to the oil regimes, with our future intertwined with the politics that Islamic fundamentalism breeds in the Muslim world. America's ill-fraught alliances with unpopular Middle East regimes was vividly revealed in 1979 when Iran, though not an oil state, fell despite the fact the U.S. and our CIA had supported its Shah and his secret police, purportedly to assure regional stability. It produced exactly the opposite--a revolution. Recall 1983, in the thick of Lebanon's civil war, when suicide bombers attacked the U.S. Marine compound in Beirut, killing 241 Americans. They were caught in the crossfire of that civil war. From that point forward, U.S. casualties escalated every year, as more and more U.S. citizens were killed abroad and at home. If you travel to Lebanon today, our U.S. embassy is built like a bunker, underground. This is happening to U.S. facilities around the world. Here is our nation's capital--barricades, concrete barriers, truck- bomb checks have become commonplace. A citizen can no longer drive down Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. It is blocked off. We now have red, orange, yellow warning lights across the land. It is harder for our people to access their institutions of government. Block by block, our freedom is being circumscribed. In 1993, at the World Trade Center, six people died and one thousand were injured here at home in a bombing masterminded by a Pakistani trained in Afghanistan. In 1996, a truck bomb killed 19 Americans in Saudi Arabia at Khobar Towers, a residence for American military personnel. Last week a Green Beret was killed in Manila by a terrorist bomb, and yesterday in Kuwait two U.S. military personnel were fired upon--one died. Dozens of such tragedies now happen each year, and the body count mounts. Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national, is but the latest face of international terrorism. Al Qaeda's goal is expulsion of Western influence in the Gulf and the creation of a religious, unified Islamic caliphate. But Al Qaeda and Osama are not Iraqi. Mohammed Atta grew up in the undemocratic oil regimes of Saudi Arabia where 17 of 19 hijackers originated. They believed in the religious fundamentalism of the Wahhabi sect, but not its economic imperative that holds power through billions earned from vast oil reserves. Despite oil wealth, the king has become less and less able to control the disgruntled in that society, who resent the secular nature of the religious kingdom. By contrast, the goal of Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party has been control of the vast oil deposits in Iraq and access to waterborne shipping in the Persian Gulf. Hussein has been a fairly predictable foe. In 1990, he conventionally invaded Kuwait. The raw truth is he received his early encouragement and support from the first Reagan-Bush Administration, in the early 1980s. That administration engaged Saddam Hussein and provided him with resources, and credits to depose Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, who had just deposed the CIA-supported Shah in 1979. Through his U.S. contacts, Hussein assumed Iraq's quid pro quo would be access to the Persian Gulf on Bubiyan Island. Kuwait, however, never agreed. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the dispute not only involved Iraq's belief that Kuwait was part of its historic territory. Iraq also surmised that Kuwait was asking too low a price for oil sold to the West. Yes, America went to war to defend Kuwait's border. But essentially the struggle involved who within OPEC would control that oil. Subsequent to the Persian Gulf War, America began stationing more and more troops in Saudi Arabia, ostensibly to guard the oil flow out of the Persian Gulf. Is defending oil reserves worthy of one more life? Of course, these forces also conveniently offered some threat to unwelcome enemies of the Saudi regime, at home and abroad. Anti- western resentment in the region continues to rise. In 2000, our destroyer USS Cole was suicide bombed in Yemen harbor guarding the oil flows. Thirteen U.S. service members were killed and 39 wounded. Over the last quarter century, it is interesting to reflect upon the intimate connection between the George Bush family, oil, and the shaping of foreign policy towards the Middle East. During the 1950s and 1960s, George Herbert Walker Bush, an oilman from Midland, Texas sought international exploration and investments as Texas oil wells were depleted prior to seeking office. In the 1960s and early 1970s, George Herbert Walker Bush served in the U.S. House, Senate, U.S. Ambassador to China, and was appointed head of the CIA in 1976 and served until March 1977. Simultaneous with George Herbert Walker Bush's service in the CIA, Syria sent troops to Lebanon to stem the civil war, the Iranian Revolution gained steam, and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat traveled to Jerusalem and became the first Arab leader to recognize Israel. George Herbert Walker Bush served as Vice President from 1981 to 1989 and as President from 1989 until 1993. During this period, the U.S. was drawn more directly into a central role in Middle East security. In 1990, with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, President George Herbert Walker Bush fashioned a U.S.-led coalition of nations to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. More than 400,000 U.S. troops were involved in that war. One hundred forty Americans died in that war, thousands have sustained war injuries and tens of thousands of Iraqis died. With each succeeding decade, wars involving terrorism and America escalated. Now George Bush's son is serving as President and a second war resolution is being contemplated. It is fair to say that the Bush view of the Middle East literally has dominated U.S. policy for 75 percent of the past two decades. 9/11 was but the latest chapter in the expanding violence. It is also important to inquire as to what private oil interests in the Middle East are held, or were held, by key officials in the current Bush Administration and how that might influence their views of U.S. ``vital interests.'' In the past, according to the Arabian Peninsula and Gulf Studies Project (supported by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences). George W. Bush sat on the board of Harken Oil of Grand Prairie, Texas, as a private citizen, and held major oil company involvement in Bahrain both professionally and personally. Halliburton, the firm that hired Vice-President Dick Cheney as its CEO subsequent to the Persian Gulf War, had previously operated in Iraq. During the early 1980's, Vice-President Chaney served as U.S. Secretary of Defense and Donald Rumsfeld as one of his Assistant Secretaries of Defense. Newspaper reports now indicate that during that same period, biological and chemical germ samples were transferred to Iraq from the government of the United States through the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program. Indeed, the U.S. government provided agricultural credits to Iraq to finance these transactions and the purchase of large amounts of fertilizer and chemicals to be used in Iraq's protracted war with Iran. Congressional records and CDC documents for that period show Iraq ordered the samples, and claimed them for legitimate medical research. The CDC and a biological sample company called the American Type Culture Collection sent strains of several germs. The transfers were made in the 1980's. Included among these strains: anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin, and the germs that cause gas gangrene. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus. Senator Robert Byrd has questioned Secretary Rumsfeld, as President Reagan's envoy to the Middle East at that time, inquiring about how contacts were made with Iraq to transfer chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq as its launched its attacks on Iran. Before launching another war, this one unilaterally, Congress must vote to place U.S. priorities where they belong--security here at home and a valued partner in the global community of nations. Three policy prescriptions deserve greater weight. First, inspection now, rigorous and full, in legion with the world community. Second, America must restore energy independence here at home. If we could land a man on the moon in 10 years, surely we can gather ourselves to master this scientific imperative. No longer should oil become a proxy for America's foreign policy. Our economic relations should not reward dictatorships. Third, the U.S. must regain momentum to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Bush should dispatch former U.S. Senators George Mitchell and Warren Rudman to the Middle East as ambassadors without portfolio to exercise their considerable talents. In closing, let me re-emphasize: What is the ``imminent threat'' to the United States that justifies going to war now? Where is the hard evidence of the new threat? With unilateral action, how will the United States avoid being viewed in the Islamic world as a ``common enemy?'' What specific threat justifies abandoning 50 years of strategic policy in favor of a unilateral policy of pre-emption? Who would succeed Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq? How would a partitioned Iraq be a stabilizing force? Does the United States want to engage in nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously? Who will pay for this nation building? When will the United States wean itself from its dangerous dependence on foreign oil, which takes money from our people and distorts our foreign policy? Why should the U.S. military be asked to serve as an occupying force in Afghanistan and Iraq? What makes Iraq's threat to the United States so much more serious today that it was four months ago or even two years ago? In closing, let not America be perceived as the ``bully on the block'' in the most oil-rich region of the world, where not one democratic state exists. Vote for security. Vote for stability. Vote for energy independence. Vote for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Vote for Spratt-Skelton. Vote ``no'' on the Hastert-Gephardt resolution.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, this evening I would like to insert several articles into the Record dealing with the issue of war against Iraq and the gulf, and I wanted to remind those who are listening that, indeed, if we look at the foreign policy of the United States over the last 30 years or so, we have had more Americans killed at home and abroad as a result of rising terrorism than in the first 187 years of our country. So we have to begin to ask the question, why are we losing so many Americans in this way? Why is Washington becoming more barricaded? Why can we not go and ride in front of the White House anymore in our cars? Why are there bomb searches all over this city? Why are American embassies being built like bunkers all around the world? I would like to submit the following. If we think back to the time when President George Bush, Senior, prior to his election as President was director of the CIA, that was about 1977, the mid-1970s, before President Jimmy Carter became President of the United States, and at the time my colleagues might recall that the Shah of Iran was deposed in the late seventies. I think it was late 1979, and many American hostages were taken, including Terry Anderson. At the moment that Jimmy Carter's presidency reverted to Ronald Reagan after the election of 1980, the hostages were returned home. President Carter worked very, very hard, as history will record. Then when the Reagan-Bush administration, the new administration, took over, they essentially made a deal between our country and the Gulf states to go after Ayatollah Khomeini, the new leader in those days of Iran, who had taken our hostages. And who did they hire to do the dirty work for them? They hired none other than Saddam Hussein. They gave him weapons through the government of the United States, and, indeed, if we look back, and I am trying to find the exact set of hearings right now. In the Committee on Banking of the House of Representatives, a hearing was held regarding the extension of Treasury tax credits, agricultural tax credits to Saddam Hussein in order to buy fertilizers, in quotes, with chemicals from our country at the same time in our country's history when we would not even make those same extensions of credit to our farmers. Companies in Salem, Ohio, and Bedford, Ohio, were being asked by our Treasury to sell those same chemicals to Iraq; and, indeed, it was done. The Gulf states and the United States were afraid perhaps that the Ayatollah Khomeini at that time might bomb Mecca or try to spread his revolution throughout the Middle East and get control of the oil fields. So Saddam Hussein was promised access, better access from Iraq, which is landlocked, to a waterborne commerce through Kuwait, a slip of land, which in the end he never did get and, ultimately, he invaded in order to get that access. Then, of course, if we look back to the early 1990s, the United States went to war to defend the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border, but, in fact, the very monster that we helped to create at that point was trying to fulfill what he had been promised as a result of U.S. assistance all through that period, especially when the Reagan and Bush administration took office and then President Bush himself elected in 1988 and taking us into the Gulf War. It is really important to remember and to ask ourselves the question, who encouraged Saddam Hussein? Who encouraged him to take on Iran? Who encouraged him to try to depose the Ayatollah, and who gave him the weapons and the credits to our Treasury Department to finance those initial actions inside of Iraq that created the monster that the President of the United States, the son of the first George Bush, talked about on the television tonight? My colleagues might also think about the fact, who armed Osama bin Laden to fight inside Afghanistan against the then Soviet Army? Who did that? Who was President of the United States when that happened? George Bush, Senior, was President of the United States when that happened; and, of course, the Russians went to certain defeat in Afghanistan after a long period of time. Where did al Qaeda learn some of those fighting techniques? Who helped them do that? Where did they get those rifles? So I just wanted to put that on the Record. I know there are other historians who will add to this, but I also wanted to read from a veteran who wrote an editorial to the New York Times last week Wednesday entitled, Fighting the First Gulf War. The last sentence, and I will end with this, reads, ``I watched the fallout from the burning oil wells coat my uniform and I knew that I was breathing into my lungs the crude oil I was fighting for.'' I ask America to think about it. I will insert in the Record at this point the articles that I referred to earlier. [From the New York Times, Oct. 2, 2002] Fighting the First Gulf War (By Anthony Swofford) Portland, Ore.--In August 1990 my Marine infantry Battalion, deployed to Saudi Arabia to defend the country from invasion by the Iraqi army. Iraqi soldiers had invaded Kuwait during the early morning of Aug. 2. For more than a week afterward we sat atop our rucksacks on the parade field at the Marine base at Twenty Nine Palms, Calif., waiting for transportation to Riyadh. From where we sat, the world looked amazingly black and white, with little room or need for diplomacy or cowardice. We were excited to retaliate against Saddam Hussein, to enter combat. When we finally arrived on the tarmac at Riyadh, everything looked and felt extremely hot, a mirage on high boil, the heat warping the terrain into a violent storm of sand and weaponry and thirst. We spent the next six months living and training in the Arabian Desert, in constant fear of the nerve gas our commanders had warned us Saddam Hussein would use. Even when I slept, the gas mask was there, a reminder of the horrors of sarin gas. To negate the effects of the sarin, we were ordered to take pyridostigmine bromide pills, now considered a possible cause of the mysterious gulf war syndrome. But worse than the pills was the constant ringing in our ears--``Gas! Gas! Gas!''--the warning call we practiced at all hours to don and clear our gas masks in less than 10 seconds. Under a gas attack we'd also have to wear Mopp suits, 10-pound charcoal-lined garments that were unwieldy and hot--and were only available in a jungle- camouflage pattern (not much help hiding in the desert). On Jan. 16, 1991, the American-led coalition against Iraq started the bombing campaign that would, over about six weeks, devastate Iraq's military. Our colonel informed us that Operation Desert Shield had changed to Storm, that we were now at war. Two days later the Iraqis launched a few Scud missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia. Despite the fact that my unit operated in the middle of the desert and that Iraq's air force had been destroyed, and with it most of Saddam Hussein's intelligence apparatus, we spent our evenings jumping in and out of fighting holes for Scud alerts that turned out to be false. During the air campaign we traveled around the desert in our Humvees much the way we had prior to the bombing--bored, tired, dehydrated, anxious and afraid of what the future might bring. We wanted to live, even though the way we'd been living was unpleasant. We hadn't had proper showers in 10 or more weeks. My friend Troy insisted one morning that I pour a five-gallon water jug over his head while he scoured his body with Red Cross soap. The water and soap and filth poured off Troy and soaked the ground in a large damp circle, and for a moment, while standing in this circle, I thought that I'd somehow been made safe. I thought that with our little ring of water and Troy's simple desire to be clean, we'd created a gap between ourselves and the rest of the desert and the enemy lurking there, and that we could sink into the earth, into our small safe space. But in the distance I saw a Marine tank battalion roaring across the desert, and I knew again that safety had ended months before. On Feb. 18, when my unit moved to the Saudi-Kuwaiti border, the ground war was imminent. Combat engineers had built a 15- foot-high earth berm between the two countries. On the other side of the berm, we were told, were Iraqi antipersonnel mines. My platoon dug fighting holes in a perimeter around the command post. Before we completed our task, the Iraqis attacked with artillery. The incoming rounds were confusing, frightening and ineffective. Someone incorrectly called out, ``gas.'' Had the enemy's forward observer walked his rounds 100 yards north he would've scored a direct artillery hit on our command post. But he hadn't. At the border, while we awaited our orders to fight, helicopters outfitted with tape players and powerful speakers flew overhead and played 1960's rock music--Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, the Rolling Stones--all day, to harass the nearby enemy. As the music blasted, coalition propaganda pamphlets blew across our side of the border like useless, retired currency. A few days later, we entered Kuwait and fought the Iraqi Army. The tankers experienced the most combat. At one point, another Marine task force mistook my task force for the enemy. Those devastating tank round passed over my head and I watched them explode. For a split second I imagined myself the victim of my own country's firepower. My team leader screamed into his radio handset to stop the friendly attack. One of my platoon mates, a burly Texan, folded himself into a ball and wept and cursed quietly. I knelt, stung by shock, a statue of fear. At least 35 of the 148 United States service members killed during the Persian Gulf war died at the hands of allied forces. My six-man night patrol passed near enough to an Iraqi troop carrier to hear the troops speaking. We were outgunned, so we listened and didn't shoot. I urinated down my legs and into my boots. The next morning, in my wet boots and useless Mopp suit, I marched 20 miles north from the Saudi border. I put on and took off my gas mask dozens of times for false gas alerts. We marched past Marine artillery battalions busy sending their fierce rounds 10,000 yards north. The men screamed and clapped as each round left their powerful weapons. From the ground, I witnessed the savage results of American air superiority: tanks and troop carriers turned upside down and ripped inside out; rotten, burned, half-buried bodies littering the desert like the detritus of years--not weeks-- of combat. The tails of unexploded bombs, buried halfway or deeper in the earth, served as makeshift headstones and chilling reminders that at any moment, the whole place could blow. On the last day of the war, from a sniper hid I observed a confused Marine infantry battalion attempt to overtake an airfield while smoke from burning oil wells hampered command and control. Across the radio frequency I heard medevac calls, after two Marines shot each other with rifles; on the other side of the airfield hundreds of Iraqi soldiers surrendered, their boots hanging around their necks, white towels and propaganda surrender pamphlets clutched in their hands like jewels. I watched the fallout from the burning oil wells coat my uniform, and I knew that I was breathing into my lungs the crude oil I was fighting for.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time; and I wish to join my colleagues this evening in paying special tribute to our dear and able and incredibly hardworking Member of this House, Congressman Ben Gilman of New York, an ambassador for our country at home and abroad, someone whose knowledge is unparalleled. As I said recently to the Governor of New York, when the day comes for Ben Gilman to cast his last vote here, I would hope that there would be a way for him to become an ambassador at large. I would give him without portfolio, and I would give him the toughest problems in the world, and we have sure got a couple of those right now because I know that I would have a completely honest, extraordinarily knowledgeable, very experienced diplomat, someone who understands the Congress and who has dedicated his life to building peace, to building understanding, to building alliances and maintaining those alliances, understanding the importance of those alliances and knows world leaders on a first-name basis. There is not a corner of the world where he cannot go and be received. So I think it is important for the American people to know that the institutional memory that exists with this man is unparalleled in the executive branch. I cannot find one person over there, regardless of administration, that can compare to what this man has done. So I wanted to add my words of commendation this evening to urge the Bush administration to give Ben a very brief sabbatical and then give him a really hard job and he would have entree here in the Congress whenever he would choose to come back. I want to thank him for his deep friendship on both sides of the aisle, to his wife, Georgia, who is his constant companion, to his family. Thanks to the citizens of New York for sending this incredibly gifted man to serve in this House.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Oregon for yielding me this time, and I offer my strong support of this wonderful, wonderful resolution that was entered initially by Ambassador Tony Hall's neighbor, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), with the strong support of the Ohio delegation and the full cooperation of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette). How fitting it is that 200 West 2nd Street, the Federal building and courthouse in Dayton, will now permanently be named in honor of this really incredible Ohioan, who has traveled the world on behalf of the most downtrodden people, those who are starving, those who live in undemocratic places, those whose futures are truly bleak, and who has tried to be a voice for them in the world community, in the United States at the United Nations, and now as U.N. ambassador to the food and agriculture organization. I think it is so magnificent that Congressman Hall comes from a part of Ohio that understands agriculture well and yet he was a city boy. I walked with him many times through the food banks across this city, across the city of Dayton and across this country. I can remember when he and Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland traveled together across the world and began the germ of the idea of a hunger caucus here inside the Congress of the United States, and bringing young people here to learn about not just America's needs and the food pantries needs of our country, but indeed the starving people of the world. I know the people of Dayton are justly proud that they have sent their favorite son in service to the Nation not just in the Peace Corps in one country but in the cause of peace globally. So I wish to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) on behalf of the entire Buckeye delegation here for so properly recognizing the historic work of former Congressman and Ambassador Tony Hall.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate 100 years of AAA Northwest Ohio. For a century, the company has provided quality service to people throughout its region. Prior to the formation of AAA, a series of small automobile clubs served the 23,000 automobile owners across the country. In 1902 as more people began to own cars, these clubs formed into the federation American Automobile Association, AAA. In that same year, fifteen Toledoans came together to form the Toledo Automobile Club, later renamed AAA Northwest Ohio. Its first president was Dr. Lewis Liffrin. By 1947 the club boasted 10,000 members. Only 15 years later, in 1962, that number had reached 50,000 and in 1989 the milestone of 100,000 members was achieved. Today, AAA Northwest Ohio is over 150,000 members strong. With its mission to offer the community ``exceptional customer service and diverse member benefits along with a commitment to public safety'' AAA Northwest Ohio strives to put the customer first. The association provides roadside emergency assistance, a full service travel and insurance agency, and its unique ``triptik'' maps for travelers. I am pleased to recognize the invaluable service AAA Northwest has provided to its customers, and congratulate its employees past and present for a century of dedication and commitment to quality.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to a man whose life embodied the living Gospel, the Reverend Frank Musgrave. Reverend Musgrave, of Toledo, Ohio, passed from this life on Tuesday, September 10, 2002. A personal friend, Reverend Musgrave was a true servant and legendary figure of ministry and service whose love extended to our community as well as his church. A Baltimore native, Frank Musgrave served four years in the Army Air Corps, then went on to pursue his degree in early childhood education. He met his wife Jane while both were students at Johns Hopkins University. Reverend Musgrave attended the Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge, Massachusetts and was ordained in 1952. His first assignment was St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Toledo, where he remained until his 1991 retirement. Even after retiring, he continued ministry on a part-time basis in churches in Fostoria and Monroeville, Ohio and later at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Toledo. He served the Episcopal diocese as well, as youth chaplain and examining chaplain for new clergy. Fervently ecumenical, Reverend Musgrave served on the Toledo Ministerial Association and the Toledo Area Council of Churches as president and past president of the organizations. An ``outstanding ecumenist who was ahead of his time'' according to one associate, Reverend Musgrave would say, ``. . . if the good Lord came down and put us all in a bag, shook it up, and rolled us out, we wouldn't know who we were anyway.'' He was very much a leader in the early years of the ecumenical movement, and remained a visionary for ecumenism. He is credited with starting Toledo's ecumenical Feed Your Neighbor Program, a comprehensive network of area churches providing groceries for those of our own community who do not have enough to eat. A real labor minister, Reverend Musgrave was long a member of the Toledo Labor Management Citizen's Committee, and served as the organization's chair from 1975 to 1993. His voice of reason, coupled with tenaciousness and passion marked his tenure, as Reverend Musgrave guided the Committee into the cooperative entity which has become its hallmark. Reverend Musgrave lived out Christ's teachings by zealously pursuing social justice and never backing down on his principles. His heart was with those among us most vulnerable, and he never lost sight that true Christian ministry served all people. Our community has been privileged to call him a true and enduring friend. As he joins our Creator, he leaves to this earth his wife Jane and their children Amy and Jane, his brother and grandchildren. May they find comfort in the memory of this gifted and wonderful priest, family man and friend, committed activist and Christian. May he guide them and us from above on our journey forward.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to recognize the passing from this life of Dr. Benjamin Reed, Physician Emeritus of Fulton County, Ohio. Dr. Reed joined our Creator on August 13, 2002 at the age of 80 years. Born in West Virginia, Dr. Reed's grandfather was a country doctor, visiting his patients by horse and buggy. After receiving a teaching degree from Concord College in his hometown of Athens, Dr. Reed entered the United States Army. He served in the Pacific Theatre for three years, receiving both the Purple Heart Award and a bronze star. After his discharge he went to medical school, completing, his medical degree in 1950. He then decided to open his practice in Fulton County, serving as Delta's doctor for 46 years! He even managed a two year stint as the village's mayor. Moving to Wauseon in 1974, Dr. Reed served as the medical director of three Fulton County nursing homes while continuing his Delta family practice. In addition to his medical service to the people of Fulton County, Dr. Reed was a community leader. He was past president of the Fulton County Health Center's medical staff, where he served on the Board of Directors for eighteen years. He was a past president of both the Fulton County and Northwest Ohio Heart Associations; a member of both the Delta and Wauseon Chambers of Commerce; president of the Fulton County Medical Society and member of the Toledo Lucas County Academy of Medicine, the Ohio State Medical Association, the American Medical Association, and the Peer Review Organization in addition to volunteering in several other health related programs. All the while, he served Fulton County as coroner for 38 years. If the measure of a man is the goodwill of his community, then Dr. Reed was peerless. A physician in the purest sense of the word, he was also a humanitarian, civic-minded, and a man of faith. He was well known and beloved by everyone, and his life touched countless people through the years. Those whom he met were made better for having known him. Our condolences turn now to his wife Penny and their children David, Tom, and Nancy, and grandchildren Peter and Molly. May their love for this truly great yet humble man sustain them in their loss while memories offer some small comfort. May it hearten those grieving Dr. Reed's passing to know that the legacy he carefully built over nearly half a century will go on.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, coming from a family of combat infantry men and Marines, I must say that anytime this Congress is asked to consider the authorization for the use of force, it is a request that we consider very seriously. I might add that most of those who are making this request from the White House have never served in combat themselves. Certainly the Secretary of Defense has not. Certainly the Communications Director of the White House who made the flippant statements this week that one silver bullet is cheaper than going to war, in referencing a possible assassination in Iraq, is one of the most appalling comments I have ever heard from a White House official. If he had been in the service of Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman or John Kennedy, he would no longer have a job. The resolution this Congress will be asked to consider next week is a work in progress. Initially it started with inspections where we had the broad support of the international community. And all we needed to do was expand that a little bit and be rigorous, as we have done before, working with our allies around the world. But, no, the ante was raised by the White House conveniently 4 weeks before an election now and the objective is regime change. The President has said it, it is not disallowed in the resolution that is brought up to us; and I want to speak tonight a little bit about how the United States, not just through this resolution but through the rhetoric that has been spewing out of Washington here across the Islamic and Arab world, is going to increase terrorism, is going to increase hatred toward the United States of America. When the President of the United States uses terms like dead or alive, do you think General Omar Bradley would have ever said that? General Hugh Shelton, would he have ever used those terms so publicly? When you have not been to war, you are loose with your rhetoric. Senator Warren Rudman, who helped produce a report with Senator George Mitchell about the rising threat of terrorism around the world, sobered our membership when he came up here a few months ago and said though he had traveled the world as a Senator, he did not realize until he got into the issue of terrorism how much he found America hated around the world. Tonight I want to place in the Record a longer analysis of what is really wrong with U.S. policy towards that region of the world, but let us be clear where the hatred comes from and what spawns the terrorism. First of all, we have the lack in the Middle East and Central Asia of a real resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This has been with us in the free world for over 50 years. We do not have a peace process under way. Every night we see in the newspapers or we see on television more killing of Israelis by Palestinians or vice versa. There was a great cartoon, a sad cartoon, in one of the newspapers recently showing Mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat holding hands and falling together down a deep cavern and blaming one another as they fell to their certain deaths. We as a world need to organize in order to resolve the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Without it, terrorism will continue not only in that region of the world but will find its way creeping into our homeland as we saw on 9-11. The other major issue deals with U.S. ties to the oil kingdoms in the Middle East on which we have become even more dependent than during the oil crises of the 1970s and the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s, and importantly to the repressive regimes that our dollars help support. There is a very rude awakening in the Middle East and Central Asia for a different way of life and America is fast becoming the excuse for the repression under which the majority of people live all in undemocratic regimes. So my first advice tonight is please, Mr. President, do not position the United States as the common enemy that serves as a unifying force against which all the disparate malcontents and discontents of the Middle East and Central Asia can unite. We saw a sign of that in our homeland last year. But not only our homeland, across the world American embassies are being built like bunkers. Our diplomats are being killed more and more, every 10 years more of them are killed, whether it is Africa, whether it is Malaysia, whether it is the Middle East. To achieve long-term stability, the United States' policy toward the Arab and Islamic world must be shaped multilaterally and affirm our belief in democratic principals. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policies continue us down this dangerous path. Allies Working Toward a Secure Future To achieve long-term stability, U.S. policy toward the Arab and Islamic world must be shaped multilaterally and affirm our nation's belief in democratic principles. The Bush Administration's initiatives will lead to neither. Indeed, it is positioning the U.S. to be the common enemy in a volatile region where terrorism grows with each passing decade of war and remembrance. Bush policies--such as threatening regime change or the ``one bullet policy'' on Iraq--are destabilizing and pose a real threat to U.S. long-term interests. These irresponsible policies inject the U.S. into the festering antipathy of disparate forces whose common denominator is growing anti- Western sentiment. Thus, a resolution that employs all diplomatic and economic means to draw broad multilateral support to allow U.N. arms inspectors access to conduct robust investigations of Iraq's suspected weapons sites is of paramount importance. As a first step, Congress should support the recently negotiated international agreement allowing inspectors to return to Iraq after four years. Especially in this region of the world, former Senator George Mitchell emphasizes the importance of diplomacy in the Mitchell Report, ``Whatever the source, violence will not solve the problems of the region. It will only make them worse. Death and destruction will not bring peace, but will deepen the hatred and harden the resolve on both sides. There is only one way to peace, justice, and security in the Middle East, and that is through negotiation.'' first strike Based on the lack of verifiable evidence presented to Congress and the American people, the President's proposal to pre-emptively, or unilaterally, strike against Iraq is unacceptable. Due to the predictably destabilizing effect on the region, the U.S. should avoid a first strike. Dr. Mark Juergensmeyer, Director of Global and International Studies at U.C. Santa Barbara, ``It is essential that a multilateral force be deployed if action is contemplated.'' If America goes to war, the cause must be just and better justified. toward a changed region Powerful Islamic stirrings inside undemocratic regimes in the Middle East and Central Asia, including violent forces operating outside nation-states (like Al Qaeda), create conditions for emerging revolutions. In responding to these, the U.S. must act in a manner that is true to our founding principles as the world's oldest democratic republic. We, too, have been a revolutionary people aspiring to a better way of life. We must not wed ourselves to monarchy, dictatorship, or repression. As a superpower, the U.S. must position itself for long-term, relations with many emerging nations. The U.S. should not become the inheritor of a new world order in the Middle East and Central Asia, nor an occupying force. Simply put, U.S. dominance there is not unilaterally sustainable. grave and gathering vs. imminent threat Congress must ask: what is the ``imminent threat'' to the U.S. that justifies a war resolution now? The President, in his remarks before the U.N., stated, ``Iraq is a grave and gathering danger.'' He did not say ``an imminent threat.'' What has Iraq done differently in the last 4 months than the prior year to warrant invasion now? Yes, Iraq is a secular state that seeks greater domination over the Arab world. But intelligence briefings have indicated that Iraq has fewer military capabilities than it did 10 years ago. Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that Iraq's army is only 40% of what it was 10 years ago. The Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency have verified that Iraq's chemical and nuclear capabilities are substantially less than 10 years ago. However, in the area of biologics, Iraq is likely ahead of where it was 10 years ago. The international community has the opportunity to use its united efforts to require Iraq to abide by U.N. resolutions requiring immediate access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. there is a distinction between al qaeda and Iraq Congress must ask the Bush Administration to distinguish between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The carnage that took place on September 11, 2001, was committed by members of the Al Qaeda terrorist network. Al Qaeda's primary objective is to rid the Middle East of all foreign influence and impose strict Islamic religious rule based on its particular interpretation of the religion. Iraq, rather, is a secular state headed by a military dictator, Saddam Hussein, holding the second largest oil reserves in the Middle East. Saddam's chief objective is to control the entire region's oil reserves and eventually gain greater power in the Arab world. America's war on terrorism began as a clear campaign against Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Neither Congress nor the American public has been presented with any evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Though some terrorists may be ``present'' especially in the northern zone of Iraq, which Hussein does not control, there is no linkage of evidence between them and the government of Iraq. The President asserted in his draft resolution that members of Al Qaeda are ``known to be in Iraq'' and that Iraq may give weapons to terrorists. His statements are filled with innuendoes, not facts. No intelligence information has been presented to Congress to add certainty to the President's statements. oil is the primary underpinning of u.s. ``vital'' interest Congress must ask: For how long will Americans be asked to die for ``vital interests'' centered in the oil kingdoms? The economic underpinning of Iraq is oil--the second largest reserves in the world. 95% of Iraq's economy is oil driven. Americans might ask the question: ``Why has the U.S. become bogged down in this region so many times in modern history?'' and ``Why have all of America's major recessions in the past 30 years been triggered by rising oil prices?'' In fact, rising oil prices triggered our current recession, and prices are rising again. During the 1970's, two Arab oil embargoes drove the U.S. economy into deep recession. President Jimmy Carter tried to move America toward energy independence, calling the challenge the ``moral equivalent of war.'' But as world oil prices dropped through O.P.E.C. price manipulation, America lost its edge on energy independence. Though conservation and alternative energy development progressed, their pace was not sufficient to meet demand. In the early 1990's, America went to war over Iraq's invasion of neighboring Kuwait's oil fields and port access. In October 2000, the USS Cole, a Navy destroyer protecting the oil shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, was suicide bombed in Yemen's harbor. Even now, as the President contemplates invasion, 8% of America's oil originates in Iraq. Oil is not worth one more American soldier's life, nor any more disruption to our national economy. America needs a national commitment to become energy independent again in this decade, much like the space program of the 1960s that led America into the heavens. Ms. Robin Wright, Foreign Diplomatic Correspondent for the Los Angeles Times has stated, ``To build a more peaceful world, the U.S. must deal with the oil issue. It must also deal with the political destiny of people in that part of the world who want to have some say in their futures.'' naked aggression in not the american way Yes, Iraq is in gross violation of U.N. resolutions calling for inspections, but America should not pressure Iraq unilaterally, without maintaining that same broad-based international support. It was proper for President Bush to deliver an address at the United Nations. Our nation has always sought to be a constructive partner among the community of nations. We need to maintain this policy of engagement with the nations of the world. Naked aggression by a superpower with no evidence presented to its lawmakers is discomforting to the American people and not the way to forge alliances in a troubled part of the world. America, surely, does not wish to be perceived as the ``bully on the block'' in the most oil rich region of the world where not one democratic state exists. a plan for the future As a first step, we should support International Strategic Partnership to Eliminate a Common Threat (INSPECT), an alternate resolution encouraging the President to support the recently negotiated inspection plan between the Iraqi Government and international representatives calling for a robust team capable of ensuring that Iraq is no longer in violation of international agreements. The resolution rejects any unilateral military action by the U.S. until Congress is able to grant its approval. In addition, the President must submit a report to Congress, at least every 30 days, on matters relevant to this resolution. According to David Albright, President of the Institute for Science and International Security. ``Nuclear threat is not imminent. Because the threat is not imminent, inspectors could be beneficial.''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for allowing me the courtesy to speak this evening. As the daughter of a family of infantrymen and Marines, I was particularly captivated by an article I read just a few days ago in USA Today's editorial page entitled ``Untested Administration Hawks Clamor For War,'' by James Bamford, who is a member of USA Today's board of contributors. I would like to read a portion of it into the Record and insert it in its entirety. He says, ``Beware of war hawks who never served in the military. That, in essence, was the message of retired four star Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, a highly decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and the White House point man on the Middle East crisis. Zinni is one of the growing number of uniform officers in and out of the Pentagon urging caution on the issue of a preemptive strike against Iraq. ``In an address recently in Florida, he warned his audience to watch out for the administration's civilian superhawks, most of whom avoided military service as best they could. `If you ask my opinion,' said Zinni, referring to Iraq, `General Brent Scowcroft, General Colin Powell, General Norman Schwarzkopf and General Zinni may all see this the same way.' ``It might be interesting to wonder why all of the generals see it the same way, and all those (who) never fired a shot in anger (and) are really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. `` `That's usually the way it is in history,' he said. ``Another veteran, Senator Chuck Hagel . . . who served in combat in Vietnam and now sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, was even more blunt. `It is interesting to me that many of those who want to rush this country into war and think it would be so quick and easy don't know anything about war. They come at it from an intellectual perspective versus having sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off.' '' They have never seen that. He talks about during the bloodiest years of the Vietnam War, Vice President Cheney decided against wearing the uniform of his country. Instead, he used multiple deferments to avoid military service altogether. In fact, he quotes the Vice President as saying, ``I had other priorities in the '60s than military service.'' Mr. Cheney is far from alone. ``Neither Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defense Secretary, nor Richard Perle, the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, have served in uniform, yet they are now two of the most bellicose champions of launching a bloody war in the Middle East. ``What frightens many is the arrogance, naivete and cavalier attitude toward war. `The Army guys don't know anything,' Perle told The Nation's David Corn earlier this year,'' and debated with him whether 40,000 troops would be sufficient, when indeed most of the military say 200,000 to 250,000 would be needed, plus the support of many allies. ``Non-combatants, however, litter the top ranks of the Republican hierarchy. President Bush served peacefully in the Texas National Guard,'' and indeed was missing for 1 year of that service. ``Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spent his time in a Princeton classroom as others in his age group were fighting and dying on Korean battlefields (he later joined the peacetime Navy). Another major player in the administration's war strategy, Douglas Feith, the Defense Under Secretary for Policy, has no experience in the military. Nor does Mr. Cheney's influential Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby. ``The top congressional Republican leaders'' in both the House and Senate ``never saw military service,'' and in contrast, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) here in the House, ``a World War II combat veteran, has expressed skepticism about hasty U.S. action, as have some prominent Democrats'' such as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), a distinguished Member who was in the military during the Vietnam War. ``What is remarkable about this administration is that so many of those who are now shouting the loudest and pushing the hardest for this generation's war are the same people who avoided combat'' themselves, ``or often even a uniform, in Vietnam,'' just simply were not there. ``Military veterans from any era tend to have more appreciation for the greater difficulty of getting out of a military action than getting in, a topic administration war hawks haven't said much about when it comes to Iraq. ``Indeed,'' the author closes, ``the Bush administration's nonveteran hawks should review the origins of the Vietnam quagmire. Along the way, they might come across a quote from still another general, this one William Westmoreland, who once directed the war in Vietnam,'' and said, The military does not start wars. Politicians start wars. Also, he quotes Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman, who observed, ``It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.'' I commend this article to my colleagues. The title of it is ``Untested Administration Hawks Clamor for War.'' I ask Americans to think about it. I will insert in the Record at this point the article that I mentioned previously. [From USA Today, Sept. 17, 2002] Untested Administration Hawks Clamor for War (By James Bamford) Beware of war hawks who never served in the military. That, in essence, was the message of retired four-star Marine Corps general Anthony Zinni, a highly decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and the White House point man on the Middle East crisis. Zinni is one of a growing number of uniformed officers, in and out of the Pentagon, urging caution on the issue of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. In an address recently in Florida, he warned his audience to watch out for the administration's civilian superhawks, most of whom avoided military service as best they could. ``If you ask me my opinion,'' said Zinni, referring to Iraq, ``Gen. (Brent) Scowcroft, Gen. (Colin) Powell, Gen. (Norman) Schwarzkopf and Gen. Zinni maybe all see this the same way. It might be interesting to wonder why all of the generals see it the same way, and all those (who) never fired a shot in anger (and) are really hellbent to go to war see it a different way. ``That's usually the way it is in history,'' he said. Another veteran, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who served in combat in Vietnam and now sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, was even more blunt. ``It is interesting to me that many of those who want to rush this country into war and think it would be so quick and easy don't know anything about war,'' he said. ``They come at it from an intellectual perspective vs. having sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off.'' The problem is not new. More than 100 years ago, another battle-scarred soldier, Civil War Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, observed: ``It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.'' Last month, Vice President Cheney emerged briefly to give several two-gun talks before veterans groups in which he spoke of ``regime change'' and a ``liberated Iraq.'' ``We must take the battle to the enemy,'' he said of the war on terrorism. Cheney went on to praise the virtue of military service. ``The single most important asset we have,'' he said, ``is the man or woman who steps forward and puts on the uniform of this great nation.'' But during the bloodiest years of the Vietnam War, Cheney decided against wearing that uniform. Instead, he used multiple deferments to avoid military service altogether. ``I had other priorities in the `60s than military service,'' he once said. Cheney is far from alone. For instance, neither Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy Defense secretary, nor Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, has served in uniform, yet they are now two of the most bellicose champions of launching a bloody war in the Middle East. What frightens many is the arrogance, naivete and cavalier attitude toward war. ``The Army guys don't know anything.'' Perle told The Nation's David Corn earlier this year. With ``40,000 troops,'' he said, the United Stats could easily take over Iraq. ``We don't need anyone else.'' But by most other estimates, a minimum of 200,000 to 250,000 troops would be needed, plus the support of many allies. Even among Republicans, the warfare between the veterans and non-vets can be intense. ``Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad,'' Hagel, who came home from Vietnam with two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, told The New York Times. Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Vietnam combat veteran and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has often expressed anger about the class gap between those who fought in Vietnam and those who did not. ``I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units.'' he wrote in his 1995 autobiography, My American Journey. ``Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country.'' Non-combatants, however, litter the top ranks of the Republican hierarchy. President Bush served peacefully in the Texas National Guard. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spent his time in a Princeton classroom as others in his age group were fighting and dying on Korean battlefields (he later joined the peacetime Navy) Another major player in the administrator's war strategy. Douglas Feith, the Defense undersecretary for policy, has no experience in the military. Nor does Cheney's influential chief of staff, Lewis Libby. The top congressional Republican leaders--Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Majority Leader Dick Armey and House Majority Whip Tom Delay--never saw military service, either; only one, Armey, has shown hesitation about invading Iraq. In contrast, House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R- Ill., a World War II combat veteran, has expressed skepticism about hasty U.S. action, as have some prominent Democrats-- House Minority Whip David Bonior, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and former vice president Al Gore--who were in the military during the Vietnam War. No administration's senior ranks, of course, have to be packed with military veterans in order to make good military decisions. But what is remarkable about this administration is that so many of those who are now shouting the loudest and pushing the hardest for this generations's war are the same people who avoided combat, or often even a uniform, in Vietnam, their generation's war. Military veterans from any era tend to have more appreciation for the greater difficulty of getting out of a military action than getting in--a topic administration war hawks haven't said much about when it comes to Iraq. Indeed, the Bush administration's non-veteran hawks should review the origins of the Vietnam quagmire. Along the way, they might come across a quote from still another general, this one William Westmoreland, who once directed the war in Vietnam. ``The military don't start wars,'' he said ruefully. ``Politicians start wars.''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, as so many of my colleagues, I went home this weekend and talked to our constituents about the very serious and all-important subject of war, and I thought that I would put some of this on the record tonight, because my constituents are asking me, is war the answer? Is war the answer to meet the terrorist threat? Who is really the enemy, and what are the roots of the terrorism that America faces? I found a great ambivalence among the people, wanting to say, ``Well, we want to be united even though we do not understand the cause. We want to stand with the President. We may not agree with what is being done, but if we stand united, then we will win whatever we go into because we remember Vietnam, and the reason we lost in Vietnam is we were not united, and so this time united we stand.'' I just wanted to say to those who may not have lived during the Vietnam period, America did not lose in Vietnam because she was not united. America did not carry the day because there was no way any Western power could have carried the day in a country that was undergoing regime change, fundamental, a fight we never should have been into in the first place, and we asked the impossible. So we think about what is happening with the terrorist situation and some of the breeding grounds for those who hate the West in the Middle East and Central Asia, and it is important to ask ourselves whether war will solve the problem; will solve the problem of growing terrorism; will solve the problem of hatred expressed against the United States and other Western countries and installations. I have done quite a bit of research, and I want to put on the Record tonight what I call a terrorism chart that covers the entirety of the 20th century and goes back actually to 1902 and to how the original countries in the Middle East and Central Asia were formed. But it reminds us also, it takes us through the Suez crisis back in 1956; and then when I came of political age, the assassination of Robert Kennedy as a Democratic candidate for President by a Jordanian Arab national who felt he had lost his homeland in east Jerusalem. And still remaining, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that remains unsolved and remains a lightning rod and source of discontent in that region of the world. Then, in 1968, the beginning of mass terrorism. One can go through 1979; we probably remember the Iranian hostage-takers, held 52 Americans for 444 days. The point I wish to make is, with all of the turmoil, all of the assassinations, and the growing level of violence, did the Persian Gulf War really solve the growing level of terrorism and violence we see? Did the wars of the Middle East and Central Asia solve the terrorism that we now see springing up all the way from Malaysia to central and East Africa? I think it is important for us to understand the roots of the terrorism that have resulted in the loss now last year of 3,025 additional lives here in our country. So I wish to place on the Record this summary. It also exists on our Web site. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to quote from a very, very prescient author, Robin Wright, ``Sacred Rage,'' written back during the 1980s and recently updated from the first chapter where she talks about the crusade, that, indeed, the challenge of terrorism is really the challenge of meeting a different point of view arising globally from many sources. She quotes the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Saeb Salam, who said, ``The growth of Islamic fundamentalism is an earthquake.'' I can remember being elected in 1982, coming here in 1983, in the fall; and we saw the U.S. marine command center at Beirut's International Airport devastated by two car bombs and we lost 240 Marines, and Navy personnel dead. I can remember at that time becoming brutally aware of a changing world and the shifting sands of the politics of that region of the world. In Robin Wright's book she talks about a wall in our State Department where if you walked in the door at that time, two greenish-black stone plaques listed in gold letters the names and dates of diplomats of the United States killed in the line of duty since the founding of our Republic. Over that period, from 1780 to 1967, over 187 years, we had lost 143 U.S. diplomats killed in the line of duty. But the second plaque that sits at the State Department was filled in equal number in almost 18 years. And, if one looks at the pace of terrorist attacks against the West, one sees that the pace is increasing in spite of wars, in spite of additional military actions. So one has to ask ourselves whether more wars lead to less terrorism or more terrorism, and whether war is really the answer to give at the root of what the problem is. I commend this book, ``Sacred Rage,'' to those who are listening among our colleagues here and only end with one of the sentences in the book that points out some of the mistakes, particularly by the West, that have only provoked the Muslim fundamentalists rather than cope realistically with what they represent: ``The stakes have never been so high, the potential for misunderstanding and further violence never so great.'' Mr. Speaker, war may not be the answer to solving the terrorist threat.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), now the senior Member representing that great State here for our Republic in the House, and rise in support of his Resolution with all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to honor our friend and colleague Congresswoman Patsy Mink, as this beautiful, beautiful poster indicates, a woman of hope. Patsy's service, now 24 years, places her among the longest-serving women in the House, certainly currently. She was honest and intelligent, gifted and dedicated, and leaves behind a stellar record of accomplishments. For almost half a century, she was a devoted advocate for her constituents and her native State of Hawaii. She served America with distinction. She will be deeply missed. She was a trailblazer. Her career embodied a series of firsts. She was the first Asian American woman to practice law in Hawaii, and the first Asian American woman to be elected to the Hawaii Territorial Legislature. And then in 1964 she became the first, in her own words, woman of color ever elected to the United States Congress, an Asian American woman of Japanese American heritage from the then new State of Hawaii. She transcended race and gender throughout her life. She was a leader on women's rights, social and economic justice, health care and child care, and no one here knew more about education. She came to this House at the beginning of the 88th Congress in 1965, served until 1977, and then again from 1990 until her untimely passing this past Sunday. When Patsy first began her career in this Congress, she was one of only 11 women serving in the House. She watched as Members came in the 1980s and began to double the number of women to 24, up to the current ? level of 62 with 13 women now in the Senate. I agree with my colleagues that Patsy viewed as her most important achievement passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. She, as the gentleman from Hawaii indicated, had experienced race and gender discrimination. She often said her life experiences challenged her to lead the fight for women and girls to have equal access to education and athletic opportunities. Title IX has torn down barriers for women and girls in America. Title IX has had a dramatic impact on women's access to higher education opportunities, especially medical and law school, in addition to the more publicized impact on girls' and women's athletics. Throughout our Nation, millions of girls participate in sports programs today, and millions of girls and women have more opportunities available to them because of Congresswoman Patsy Mink. She stood up for them and for us. Her legacy will survive in every classroom, every school and every campus. In celebrating the 30th anniversary of Title IX, Patsy stated her belief that ``we must rededicate ourselves to the continued pursuit of educational opportunities for girls and women.'' Her leadership on a wide range of issues, the environment, poverty, civil rights, helped shape a stronger America. Patsy will live forever in our hearts and in this great institution. She truly remains America's daughter for all time, a woman of hope. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to place on the record and ask my colleagues to sign a letter being sent to the Speaker from all of us that asks the Speaker to work with the membership as the Speaker deems appropriate to commission a portrait or sculpture of Congresswoman Mink to memorialize her contributions to our Nation. We would expect that the costs of this effort would be privately financed, working with an appropriate nonprofit entity, and that following the completion of this work of appropriate artistic quality, we would like to have it placed in a fitting public space here in the Capitol, perhaps in the new Capitol Visitors Center, so that her story can continue to inspire the millions of visitors who come to Washington to learn more about our democratic system, which she strengthened every day of her service to our country and indeed the world. Mr. Speaker, the text of the letter is as follows: Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, October 1, 2002. Hon. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: Appreciation for the diversity and accomplishment of our nation's leaders throughout our history strengthens people's understanding of freedom's legacy and potential. This is a key reason why so many of us have urged that the artwork displayed in the public spaces of the House be more representative of this rich history of accomplishment, including correcting the underrepresentation of women in the current collection on display. The passing of our beloved colleague, Patsy Takemoto Mink of Hawaii, offers us the opportunity to both improve our representation of women who have contributed to this institution and our nation, as well as pay proper recognition to a woman whose path-breaking efforts have shaped a more optimistic future for generations of Americans. Congresswoman Mink's life embodied a series of firsts. She was the first Asian-American woman to practice law in Hawaii, and was the first Asian American Women to be elected to the Territorial House before Hawaii became a State in 1959, and she was one of the pioneers that advocated for Hawaii's statehood. In 1964, she became, in her words, the first woman of color ever elected to the U.S. Congress. As the first Asian American woman of Japanese-American heritage elected, she served with distinction twelve terms in the House of Representatives for two 12-year periods. Congresswoman Mink transcended race and gender discrimination throughout her career. Her life experiences challenged her to lead the fight for women and girls to have equal access to education and athletic opportunities. She played the leading role in the enactment of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibited for the first time gender discrimination by federally funded institutions. That law has become the major tool for women's fuller participation not only in sports, but also in all aspects of education. Patsy's leadership on a wide range of issues as the environment, poverty, education, and civil rights shaped a stronger America. During her tenure in Congress Mrs. Mink helped write environmental protection laws safeguarding land and water, and communities affected by coal strip mining. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we respectfully request the opportunity to work with you and other officials of the House whom you deem appropriate to commission a portrait or sculpture of Congresswoman Mink to memorialize her contributions. We would expect that the costs of this effort would be privately financed, with an appropriate nonprofit entity being designated for the receipt of any contributions. Following the completion of this work of appropriate artistic quality, we would like to have it displayed in a fitting public space of the House, including possibly the new Capitol Visitors' Center, so that her story can continue to inspire the millions of visitors who come to Washington to learn more about our democratic system which calls for the inclusion of all Americans, regardless of race, gender, or origin. We look forward to this opportunity to work with you. Sincerely, Neil Abercrombie, Marcy Kaptur, Robert A. Underwood, Diane E. Watson, Michael M. Honda, Robert T. Matsui, Members of Congress.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like the record to show that I am assuming this responsibility for the next 30 minutes only in that the rules do not allow the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) to remain on the floor for more than 1 hour. He is present in the Chamber and right here at my side. We will continue paying tribute to our beloved friend, Congresswoman Patsy Mink, and send our sympathies to her precious family. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes on behalf of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and myself to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for those eloquent words. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of those who have participated this evening and give special regard and thanks to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who has brought us all together, and who has been with us on the floor working to design this resolution and to assure that all Members had an opportunity to speak this evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) for the next proceeding.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), to place on the record this evening information important to the American people. One of the questions I have on this resolution that President Bush has sent up to the Congress, the joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq, is the first question of why now, 7 weeks before an election? Just about a week ago, the President properly appeared before the United Nations, and he talked about the grave and gathering danger of what was occurring inside Iraq relative to Iraq's development of nuclear weapons and biological and chemical weapons. But the President did not say an imminent danger. In other words, 7 weeks before an election in this country, why does a grave and gathering danger require us to take precipitous action against another nation state? I would ask the President if action is not imminent, why now? Why now are we faced with this resolution, 7 weeks before congressional elections? It is very, very curious timing. One of the other questions I would ask the President is who is the enemy? Now, we know who caused the carnage over New York and Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon, and we know al Qaeda is a Middle Eastern-based terrorist network, but their base is not Iraq. So I would say, what is the connection between al Qaeda, where our attention should be focused, and Iraq? I have gone to every single briefing here in the Capitol this week trying to get the evidence from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, former ambassadors from that region, weapons inspectors that have gone into Iraq in prior years. They have established no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. So, who is the enemy? Who is the enemy, Mr. President, and why are you trying to pass this resolution at this point? Our forces are engaged in many places on the globe, certainly keeping order in the Balkans. But now we have the Afghanistan situation facing us with terrible, terrible disruption inside that country, with terrorists coming back, the Taliban, the leftovers, creating difficulties in that region of the world. And I think it is very important to recognize that moving into Iraq will be a significant military undertaking. Who is the enemy? Who is the enemy? We are not saying that Saddam Hussein and that despotic regime functions in a way that we consider acceptable on the face of the Earth. But what is the justification for now? Let me mention also, is it just a coincidence that in Iraq, which holds the second largest supply of the world's oil reserves, is there any possibility that in the resolution the President has sent us where he talks about defending the national security interests of the United States and restoring international peace and security in the region, that it might have anything to do with the oil that sits underground in that particular country? We know that about 2 years ago in October one of our destroyers, the U.S.S. Cole, was suicide-bombed in Yemen Harbor, and we know that we are extended in that part of the world to protect the oil lanes that are supplying this country every day. I say to myself when I look at the President's plan for energy that he sent up here earlier this year, what a disappointment to me as an American, a 21st-century American, that he has us wed to oil as the future, a diminishing resource. We should be moving to a carbohydrate future, not a hydrocarbon future in this country. We should be moving toward a hydrogen future, not a petroleum future. We should be moving to a photovoltaic future, to a fuel cell future, not a petroleum future. So both domestic policy and the flawed energy document released and our foreign policy are totally tied together in this wedding of oil and politics that has been the heritage of this country for the last 70 years. It is time to change. America wants to move on. In fact, if we removed oil as a proxy for our foreign policy, what a different world this would be. I think it is important to remind the American people that the current recession that we are in, causing significant damage across this country, including in districts like mine, was triggered by rising oil prices. Lots has happened since that occurred; but nonetheless, look at what you spend at the gas pump and watch international events and how they are tied to oil. I would just say that it is time for America to change. I look forward to future debates on this resolution and the future direction for this country that is domestically independent and at peace in the world.