Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the distinguished ranking member for his comments.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for his support. Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, we will have a resolution and will not have to pursue it much further than this. But I appreciate the opportunity to at least have these companies have their chance to have an opportunity for their investments to be upheld under international law.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the chairman's concern. I resent the constant surge of amendments that confront particularly a single community. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), senior member of the Committee on International Relations who has worked on these issues. (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment and rise in favor of it. It is similar to an amendment that I offered in the Committee on International Relations. I believe this amendment helps create economic stability in the Western Hemisphere which will then create political stability, stem the flow of undocumented workers, improve health care and biodiversity, and ultimately create a growing market for American products and services. Now, 200 million citizens in Latin America and the Caribbean earn under $2 a day, 100 million live on less than $1 a day, and yet these poorest of the poor in our hemisphere will not qualify for assistance under the MCA. Experts tell us that only 15 to 25 million of those 200 million of the poorest of the poor would benefit from the MCA. Without this amendment, only 3 out of the 34 democracies in the Western Hemisphere would be included in the first year. That is not in the national interest of the United States. That ultimately undermines the problems we are having in the Western Hemisphere where there is a serious concern by leading analysts and experts on our hemisphere who say that, in fact, the march for democracy and free markets is being undermined. Latin Americans believe that march towards democracy and free markets is not bringing good things to their life. I applaud what is being done generally with the Millennium Challenge Account, but we need to bring the countries of Latin America and the Western Hemisphere into this as well. I applaud the gentleman's amendment. I believe it is limited in its scope, and I urge support of it.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would be here lauding and applauding your initiative on the Mexico migration agreement if in fact you would have a single but very powerful difference in your wording; and that is, instead of, after 2 years of significant talks and negotiations, speaking about a commencement, that we would be talking about a conclusion. Then I would be here supporting your amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I am outraged that particularly two amendments which I sponsored and which passed with bipartisan support in the Committee on International Relations will be stripped from this bill by legislative tricks designed to protect Republicans so the American public cannot see their anti-Mexican and anti-environmental beliefs. Let me emphasize that these amendments passed the Committee on International Relations. With their treatment of my Mexican migration amendment, Republicans have once again shown the real feelings of their party towards Hispanics. My amendment simply called on the United States to stop waiting and to support the President's own commitment in September, 2001, to ensure that migration is ``safe, orderly, legal and dignified.'' While we waited, 19 migrants from Mexico and Central American, including women and children, died this May from asphyxiation and heat stroke in a truck crammed with people. Over the past 5 years, more than 2,000 migrants have died crossing the U.S.-Mexican border. This is not a story of numbers and statistics. This is a story of real human beings literally dying. As the President mentioned, it is in the economic and national security interests of this country to conclude, not to begin, we have been debating this and the administration has been negotiating this for 2 years, to conclude a migration agreement with Mexico. My amendment recognized that Mexican immigrants make an invaluable contribution to this country, as immigrants have done throughout the history of the United States. Mexicans pick the fruit and vegetables that end up on our tables. They work in the service industry on the East and West Coast, they pluck chickens in Arkansas, and let us not forget that some who died in the war in Iraq were originally undocumented immigrants. However, my amendment was gutted by the Ballenger amendment, which should be called the Halliburton amendment since it cynically links migration policy to oil. In fact, it says that any migration accord between our countries should also include an accord to open Petroleos Mexicanos, or PEMEX, to investment by U.S. oil companies. What, in God's name, does that have to do with migration policy? But guess what? The Republicans finally figured out that their amendment was a huge error and made in order an amendment to strike the Ballenger provision and replace it with a watered-down version of my original amendment. Imagine the reaction of the Republican leadership, not to speak of the diplomatic consequences faced by this administration, when it realized that my simple amendment using the President's language to advocate for a conclusion of a migration accord with Mexico was hijacked by Republican extremists and turned into a ``migration for Mexican oil'' agreement. The callousness of that so-called Republican compassion equated U.S.- Mexico migration policy with U.S. access to Mexican oil, and Republicans were unable to spin their way out of this outrage but instead quickly provided another amendment that did away with this embarrassment but provided no further incentive to conclude, not convene, but conclude a migration accord. Now I would like to turn to my amendment on global climate change and tell a similar story about an amendment that passed the Committee on International Relations in a bipartisan vote and was removed from this bill by bipartisan tricks designed to hide the Republicans anti- environmental stance on global climate change. My global climate change amendment simply says that the United States should take the lead in the world in the fight against global warming, not Kyoto, not anything else, a lead in the world against global climate warming. This is not a new idea. This is an amendment which previously passed in the House. Both sides of Congress have supported it. This very amendment unanimously passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, this year. And last week it was sent to the Committee on Energy and Commerce so it could be stripped from the bill. The real goal is to save Republicans from taking a public stand on global climate change. What is the Republican leadership afraid of when it thwarts the bipartisan will of the Committee on International Relations or of any committee? Only through its procedural, back-door dealings was it able to reverse a decision made by this committee; and by doing so, it has staked out its opposition to the majority will of the committee, the American people and the world community. In this Chamber of democratic ideals, the House of Representatives is supposed to be the place where we take a stand on the issues. If Members disagree with my amendments, that is fine. Then stand up and vote against them, but do not sneak them out of the bill. The American people should be able to find out where Members of this House stand on global climate change, stand on concluding a Mexican migration agreement. The truth is that Republicans are so embarrassed by their own policies they will not let these two provisions remain in the bill or even allow a vote on the floor, the marketplace of ideas, the greatest democratic institution in the world. That is fundamentally shameful. Therefore, this undemocratic rule, this unfair rule should be voted against, and I hope my colleagues will join us in doing so so we will have an opportunity to vote on global climate change in a real amendment or resolution on Mexican migration accord.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Chief Louis E. Kelly on his retirement from the Elizabeth, New Jersey Fire Department, and to congratulate him for 33 years of dedicated and courageous service to his community. Chief Kelly's impressive career began in November, 1969, as a Probationary Firefighter in Ladder Company 3 of the Elizabeth Fire Department. In 1977, he became Fire Captain of Rescue Ladder 1, and in 1986, Battalion Chief. After being promoted to Deputy Fire Chief in 1993, he served as Acting Chief from 1995-1996, and was appointed to Chief of the Department in April, 1999. For the last nine years, Chief Kelly has also served as a Deputy Mutual Aid Coordinator for Union County. Over the years, the Elizabeth Fire Department and Chief Kelly have been the recipients of many commendations, recognitions, and awards. Chief Kelly is a three-time recipient of the Valor Award from the 200 Club of Union County, and has received two Heroism and Community Service Awards from Firehouse Magazine for his heroism and dedication. The Elizabeth Fire Department has awarded him three Class 1 awards, four Class 2 awards, and four Unit Citations. He is the twelfth chief of the Elizabeth Fire Department, which began officially in 1902 and replaced the volunteer fire department. Under the leadership of Chief Kelly, the Elizabeth Fire Department gave its all in the recovery efforts after September 11, 2001, an event which Chief Kelly noted, ``proved no entity can handle every situation on its own.'' The tragic events of that day demonstrated the Department's commitment and courage, which will never be forgotten. Chief Kelly will be remembered for his love for and dedication to his community, both as a coach for Elmora Youth League and for the Saint Genevieve's Parish, and his many other community activities. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Chief Louis E. Kelly for his years of service to the Elizabeth Fire Department and the City of Elizabeth.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a personal explanation. On June 23, 2003, I was absent from the Chamber as I attended my son's high school graduation. During that time, I was not present to vote on rollcall votes 297, 298, 299, and 300. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 297-300.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my 84-year-old mother and millions like her across this country. She worked her entire life in the factories of New Jersey. Today she has Alzheimer's and spends over half of her social security check on prescription drugs. If it was not for my sister and me, she would not be able to live with the dignity she deserves. Now, this Republican package is wrapped in a label that says, ``I care,'' but when you open it up, it contains nothing more than an empty promise. Under this Republican plan, which lacks the compassion promised by the President and expected from our doctors, millions of seniors who want to stay in traditional Medicare with their own doctor would essentially be forced into HMOs and left without the choices they deserve. This bill is the road towards privatizing Medicare. Republicans just cannot help themselves. Once again, they have chosen corporate interests over human interests. America's seniors deserve our respect. They have worked too hard, sacrificed too much to be forced to choose between paying their rent, putting food on the table, and having access to life-enhancing drugs. Support the Democratic substitute that has a real prescription drug provision under Medicare.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, three quick points. Number one is this says none of the funds, no funds will go to any municipality, any State entity, any governmental entity for any homeland security purpose if they have chosen in a totally legitimate way not to give information about someone's citizenship like mine or anyone else's because that is what the gentleman's amendment reads. This is a coercive action against any State, municipal or other entity to say to that State, municipality or other entity, you must do a series of things, including giving information on a person's citizenship status, like my citizenship status, to the INS. So much for State rights, so much for the local municipalities know best. So much for all I have listened to for the last decade. This is an unfunded mandate on all of those governmental entities making it an extension of what was the INS. That is what you really want to do. Lastly, you can keep taking lessons in Spanish, but if this is your Hispanic outreach we want none of it. I urge a no vote.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lambda Theta Phi Fraternidad Latina for its continued advocacy and celebration of Latino culture. Lambda Theta Phi will be holding its 2003 National Brotherhood Conference on June 20-22nd at the Wyndham Hotel in Newark, NJ. Founded in 1975 at Kean University in Union, NJ, Lambda Theta Phi has grown from 14 founding members to over 85 national chapters. It is the first and only nationally recognized Latino Greek letter fraternity in the United States. For over 25 years, Lambda Theta Phi has played a leading role in building unity among Latinos and provided a critical support network as young Latinos pursue their academic and professional careers. The work of the fraternity has truly embodied its principle of ``en la union esta la fuerza'' (in unity there is strength). Lambda Theta Phi has helped provide a number of Latinos with a strong sense of community and an extensive peer network as they graduate college and embark on their professional careers. Lambda Theta Phi also continues to provide valuable service to the community through responsible political and social action. The diverse makeup of the fraternity places it in a unique position to promote cultural awareness and to provide positive role models for the Latino community. Lambda Theta Phi is known for its dedication to activities that benefit the community including citizenship and voter registration drives, disaster relief, and Hispanic college days, which provide an opportunity for Latino high school students to visit colleges. As an honorary member of Lambda Theta Phi, it is my distinct pleasure to congratulate all the members of the fraternity and wish them the best as they continue to connect Latinos across the country and help to build unity among the next generation of Latino leaders. Today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Lambda Theta Phi Fraternidad Latina for promoting unity among Latinos, and to congratulate all the members of the fraternity as they celebrate their 2003 National Brotherhood Conference.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I regret that a family matter yesterday forced me to miss rollcall votes 276, 277, and 278. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 276-278.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the inspiring dedication of Jennifer Bernardes, a 13-year-old student whose compassion has had a wonderful effect on the life of her fellow New Jerseyan, Harry Ettlinger. Ms. Bernardes was one of the first students in New Jersey to take part in the ``Adopt-a-Survivor'' program, which matches young students with Holocaust survivors. Sponsored by the Holocaust Council of the United Jewish Communities of Metro West in Whippany, NJ, this program provides an amazing opportunity for young students to develop lasting relationships with and learn from those who have survived or escaped the Holocaust. Mr. Ettlinger, a World War II veteran who escaped the Holocaust, was the adoptee of Jennifer Bernardes, an eighth-grade student at Oliver Street School in Newark, NJ. As a participant in this program, Jennifer agreed to learn about Mr. Ettlinger's experiences, and to tell his story in 2045, the 100th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps. Jennifer Bernardes has demonstrated a strong commitment to learn about Mr. Ettlinger's experiences and met with him several times over the course of a year to hear his first-hand accounts. Recently, Jennifer spoke at Newark's Municipal Holocaust Commemoration sponsored by Mayor Sharpe James. She has also taken part in talks at the Jewish Community Campus in Whippany, NJ, and Oliver Street School, and has spoken with other school groups about participating in the program. Jennifer's dedication has taught her about humanity's darkest hour, and, in learning Mr. Ettlinger's story, she has inspired others to participate in this invaluable program. Jennifer's commitment has gone beyond what the ``Adopt-a-Survivor'' program hopes to accomplish. Earlier this year, Jennifer helped reunite Mr. Ettlinger with Hanne Hirsch, a childhood neighbor and schoolmate from his hometown of Karlsruhe, Germany, who he had not been able to locate after the Holocaust. On a visit to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, Jennifer and a fellow student noticed Mrs. Hirsch's story at an exhibit, and after successfully tracking her down, Mr. Ettlinger was reunited with Mrs. Hirsch after 64 years. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Jennifer Bernardes for her devotion and enthusiasm, and for her commitment to keeping alive the personal histories of Holocaust survivors. It is through the dedication of America's youth that we can ensure that these important stories are never forgotten.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair and undemocratic rule and proposal. Only in Washington would the Republican tax cuts just signed into law by the President come at the expense of working families. Only in Washington would Republicans borrow money to pay for that Republican tax package while failing to include child care tax credits for the working families whose very children will be forced to pay for the Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility. Only in Washington would the Republican tax package leave one in five children of active duty U.S. military families out from benefiting from the increased tax credit while their parents are off risking their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere for their Nation. Only in Washington would Republicans then propose an $82 billion tax bill, adding another $100 billion to the national debt to fix a $3.5 billion problem. If we repeal every sunset in their tax bill, which is what we are beginning to do here, we will have $400 billion in annual deficits. That is not what we want to do to the very children we are trying to help in this bill.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Monsignor Edward J. Hajduk for his years of service to St. Henry's Church and the people of Bayonne, Newark, and Elizabeth. Monsignor Hajduk celebrated the 50th Anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood on Sunday, June 1 at St. Henry's Church in Bayonne, New Jersey. Monsignor Hajduk has led a long life of commitment and service to congregations throughout Bayonne, Newark, and Elizabeth area. Ordained on May 30, 1953, Monsignor Hajduk first served at the Sacred Heart Church in Lyndhurst, New Jersey, where he was a parochial vicar for sixteen years. During his time at Sacred Heart, Monsignor Hajduk was the assistant director and moderator of the Catholic Youth Organization of Bergen County, a teacher at the Immaculate Conception High School, and a professor of Theology at Felician College. In 1969, Monsignor Hajduk was appointed by Archbishop Boland to serve as the youth director of the Archdiocese of Newark, where he worked until 1971. The Monsignor then served as administrator of St. James Church in Newark, where he played a vital role in reorganizing the parish. In 1979, Monsignor Hajduk was named chaplain to Pope John Paul II and given the title of Reverend Monsignor. In 1984, Monsignor Hajduk became a pastor at St. Hedwig's Church in Elizabeth, where he served for twelve years. During his service at St. Hedwig's, Monsignor Hajduk undertook the task of renovating the interior of the church. The Monsignor was elected dean of the Elizabeth Deanery, and asked by Archbishop McCarrick to lead a city-wide study of the future of the church in Elizabeth. Born and raised in Bayonne, Monsignor Hajduk returned to Bayonne in 1992 to serve as pastor of St. Henry's Church, where he is currently serving his second term. At St. Henry's, Monsignor Hajduk has helped restore and renovate the interior of the church and upgrade some if its facilities. Under his leadership, the Religious and Youth Center at the Church has grown substantially, and now serves over 500 students. Monsignor Hajduk continues to be an active member of the Bayonne community. He is currently a member of the Bayonne Faith Based Initiative Advisory Board, serves on the board of directors of the Bayonne Mental Health Center, is active in the Bayonne Interfaith Council, and was a representative to the Bayonne Census in 2000. Today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Monsignor Edward J. Hajduk for his exceptional service and dedication to the people of New Jersey.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Larry Barulli, recipient of the Lance Corporal Stanley J. Kopcinski Memorial Award. The Bayonne Detachment #191, Marine Corps League honored Mr. Barulli on May 26, 2003, at the VFW hall in Bayonne, New Jersey. Mr. Barulli served with the United States Army from 1950 until 1952, and was stationed with the ``C'' Company 79th Engineers Battalion in Korea from September 1951 until September 1952. For the past seven years, Larry Barulli has been an active member of the Korean War Veterans Association of Hudson County 38th Parallel Chapter. He is currently a member of the Korean War Veterans Association of Hudson County, the Catholic War Veterans Assumption Post 1612, and the American Legion--Mackenzie Post 165. Mr. Barulli played a critical role in establishing a monument in memory of the 126 Hudson County residents who gave their lives in the Korean War. The monument, which sits at the end of Washington Street in Jersey City, memorializes 126 men from twelve Hudson County communities who lost their lives during the Korean War. As the war often referred to as the ``Forgotten War,'' Mr. Barulli has helped ensure that the memory of these men will live on forever. The Lance Corporal Stanley J. Kopcinski Award is given out each year by the Bayonne Detachment of the Marine Corps League in memory of Stanley J. Kopcinski, the first Marine from Bayonne killed in the Vietnam War. Lance Corporal Kopcinski was well revered by his fellow Marines and was voted ``most likely to receive the Medal of Honor.'' The award is presented to those who follow in the spirit of Lance Corporal Kopcinski's dedication and service. A graduate of Bayonne High School, Mr. Barulli is now retired from Barulli's Deli Grocery, which he owned and ran with his father until 1980. Larry Barulli and his wife Elizabeth Ann Siwek Barulli will celebrate their 40th Wedding Anniversary in December, 2003. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Larry Barulli and congratulating him on receiving a well-deserved award. His continued service to the veterans of Bayonne and to the people of Hudson County is an inspiration for us all.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. The point really is that it is the congressional responsibility for oversight that we have on behalf of all of the American people to raise the questions and get the answers that ultimately lead us to make the right choices in the future, informed choices, based upon real substantive information, not perceived or possibly manipulated information, and to be understanding that we have got to be prepared. We won the war; we salute the men and women who did not ask whether this was the right conflict or not but just responded to the Nation's call. I visited one of our bases and the young men and women there told me, Congressman, we don't ask whether this is right or wrong, we don't pick the time, the place or the conflict, we just respond. We salute them for that. But before we send those young men and women, sons and daughters of Americans of this country, we should know that we are sending them on the right information, that we have a plan not only to win the war but then to achieve the peace and to make sure that the seeds that we seek to sow in terms of democracy take place. Those are some of our concerns I think in this process.

Mr. MENENDEZ. No, we do not hear about exit strategies or nation building anymore.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I think there are a variety of things. I am sure some of our colleagues have some ideas as well. But fundamentally you have to get Iraqi civil society back engaged. You have to create the wherewithal to show that not only were we liberators, hopefully, but at the end of the day that we have also come to help really create a better society and to assist Iraqis to be able to do that. That comes with, first of all, at least having the functioning entities of civil society be able to take place, as you suggested, some of those institutions. As our colleagues suggested, to get some of the basic fundamental services that Iraqis would expect from a liberating force to take place and to begin to act. So, clean water, running sewerage systems, the opportunity for electricity to be present, the return to schools of children, the opportunity for hospitals to be able to take care of the sick. The rudimentary elements of a civil society start there. And then to engage civil society within Iraq to begin to perform some of their own functions and to also ask the beginnings of Iraq's natural resources to go for the purposes of helping Iraq rebuild itself. I think the American people have the right to know how long are we going to continue to be there? How many more lives will we lose? How much will it cost? And, as I always listen to our colleagues here in the House and in committee, what is our exit strategy? What is our exit strategy?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman's point is well taken. As a matter of fact, one of the things that I was additionally concerned about, and the gentleman did mention the Internet and how anybody who just did a casual search would see that this foreign minister had not been in office in a decade, and yet we rely upon it as fact by which we act and we do not even do a rudimentary study to find out whether that document had legitimacy. It is interesting to note that one of our allies in this regard seems to have the same problem in this regard. There is an article that appeared in The New York Times that talks about how the top aide to Prime Minister Blair wrote to the head of Britain's Intelligence Service earlier this spring conceding that the government's presentation of a report on Iraqi arms was mishandled. And the report which is entitled, ``Iraq, Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation,'' was used as part of the reason to pursue an invasion of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. And it is now referred to in the British news media as the dodgy dossier because of evidence that part of it was down loaded from the Internet, completed with typographical errors from an American student's thesis that relied on 12-year-old public information. And it is now being reviewed by two parliamentary committees in Great Britain because it raises doubts about its central claim that Iraq's chemical and biological weapons were in such a state of readiness that they could be launched within 45 minutes, within 45 minutes. That type of information is incredibly frightening when that is the basis under which we would deploy American troops, put at harm American soldiers. There is no question, I think we would all agree, that Saddam Hussein was a dictator, was a bad actor, happy to see him leave from the world stage; but the question is, what invokes the policy of preemption, the use of U.S. forces and power abroad, under what basis? That is why so many of us who asked questions at the time and say, well, what is the foundation, what is the clear and present danger to the U.S., what is the imminent threat, have real concerns now as I think we see this intelligence information suggesting that there was not necessarily a clear and present danger, any imminent threat to the United States. I think it puts us in a serious doubt with the international community when the next situation arises. I do not know what my colleague thinks about it.

Mr. MENENDEZ. On the gentleman's very point, I want to thank our colleague for convening this opportunity to talk about a very important issue. I would like to ask both of the gentlemen, you sat, as I did here, during the State of the Union speech. You heard the President, as I did, say that one of the concerns is that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa. And that was included in the President's State of the Union speech, one of many compelling reasons why supposedly we had to be alarmed about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. And yet we read in today's Washington Post that the National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice conceded that that was an inaccurate claim. And yet here before the entire body of Congress and the American people, we were told that one of the compelling reasons, why do you buy uranium? You buy uranium for nuclear devices. Iraq is something that we need to be concerned about. And my question to both of my colleagues is, does this not go to the fundamental issue that if the President's preemption doctrine, not that many of us agree with that as a doctrine that should be followed by the United States, but this doctrine of preemption which basically says we cannot wait for the risk to rise to a level that is a threat to the national security of the United States, we have to go in there in any country and preempt that threat, that even if one is to ascribe themselves to that view, that it is based upon the ability of the United States too gather accurate intelligence and make honest assessments? Does that not go to that very purpose of that doctrine? When we see the revelations that seem to be coming forth like Condoleezza Rice saying, yes, that statement that the President made before Congress and the whole Nation about uranium purchases in Africa being false, that those begin to raise concerns. How do we begin to have any credibility in any such preemption doctrine when the fundamental underpinnings seem to be at question, which is what I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) is saying.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I think the questioning was a precursor, as mine was, when Secretary Powell appeared before the committee before that, and I asked the Secretary how long, how many lives will we lose, how long will we be there, how much will it cost, and are we nation building? And I know that my colleagues have listened certainly for the decade that I have been here, listened to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about how they abhorred the concept of nation-building when we were in Bosnia and other places, stopping real atrocities that were taking place, and hearing we are into nation-building. And yet as the gentleman was trying to elicit from the witness before our Committee on International Relations, which we both sit on, we have no real planning. There was Jay Gardner, who was designated as the head of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. Here we have the Department of Defense doing nation-building, something that we consistently heard our colleagues on the other side of the aisle rail against, and he in essence was on the job a full 3 weeks, and after all of that preparation that supposedly took place for him to be there, we get rid of him in 3 weeks. He was going to develop a national assembly of Iraqis, and that did not work. And then his State Department successor, Ambassador Bremer, thought that perhaps seven opposition groups might be able to work effectively as an interim government. That was soon abandoned. Now we are talking about a so-called advisory council of 20 or 25 Iraqis, but this latest plan of an advisory council seems to minimize, not increase, the participation of Iraqis in the process for months, if not longer. So here we are in this preemption doctrine for which we now have serious questions about the underpinnings under which we committed massive force because it was alleged at the time that there was a clear and present danger to the United States. We are told by the administration, well, you have to have a lot more time; and yet we did not want to give any more time to U.N. weapons inspectors, but we are asked to give enormous amounts of time here. And we have the full roam of the country uninhibited. And then we supposedly were prepared for the post-Saddam era, and we seem not to be able to put that together, or I am not sure what our intent is. We do not seem to know where Saddam Hussein is. We also do not seem to know where Osama bin Laden is, and that is a whole other issue in terms of Afghanistan and what happened. And so you have the confluence of all of these issues.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Very briefly, I appreciate the gentleman's engaging in the dialogue, and I hope we will continue it in the future. I think we owe America's young men and women who went into harm's way, that before we call upon them again for a preemptive strike, that we are doing so based upon sound information, that we are based on intelligence that is honest, truthful and transparent, that we ultimately have a plan not only to win the war but to win the peace, because we are losing soldiers every day. It is not as well publicized, but we are losing soldiers every day. We deserve, before we send the finest to answer the Nation's call, and that is where the congressional responsibility takes place, in asking these questions, in getting answers and being able to prepare for the future.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Armed Forces Naturalization Act, and I hope that it will give rise to some other opportunities that have been discussed here in terms of those who serve our country and their families. I remember during the 107th Congress when a Republican colleague of ours referred to legal permanent residents as enemies of the State on this very floor during campaign finance reform debate. Thousands of these enemies of the State, as they were referred to, are serving in our Armed Forces. They fight for our country, they shed blood for the country, and in some cases, they die for this country. They are also protecting our airports, our seaports, and our borders. They risk their lives daily in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world to protect us here at home. These members of the so-called green-card military, the more than 37,000 noncitizen legal immigrants currently serving in America's Armed Forces, have been fighting, and in some cases dying, for their adopted country. In fact, a noncitizen, Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez of Guatemala was the first U.S. casualty in the war with Iraq, and at least seven other noncitizen soldiers also made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. So this legislation rectifies a variety of barriers faced by U.S. servicemen and women seeking to become citizens of the country that they serve and that they risk their lives for. I hope we will not only pass this, but it will give rise to other opportunities.