Thad McCotter

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding. I would just like to conclude with an observation and a question. When we last participated in special orders, I asked the question about where is the opposition's plan for dealing with terrorism? Where is their plan for reconstructing Iraq? Where is their plan essentially to protect the national security of the United States, whether they would delegate it to the United Nations or keep it where it remains, here in the bosom of the sovereign people? Well, I got kind of an answer, and I guess maybe this is what passes for planning these days, it seems to me more a statement of the obvious, that part of the opposition's plan was that they would, with sufficient evidence, preemptively take out terrorists. Well, I am glad that they concur with part of the President's plan. But that is not necessarily the in-depth approach that we need at the present time. Maybe the forthcoming week will show us more. My observation along those lines is perhaps more of a frustration, that many people today are saying that America needs international support if we are to stand with the Iraqi people. We all know we would enjoy international support. But what I find galling is they will then turn around and say they are most capable of building the international support for the coalition to help reshape Iraq and help defend the United States. But, in the process of doing that, they have done something very interesting, is that they have denigrated as coerced, as distorted, as bribed, quote-unquote, the allies we have abroad as part of our coalition whose children, whose young men and women, are fighting beside our soldiers in Iraq and who are dying. Now, I am a liberal arts guy, I was not a math guy, but it seems to me that if you attack and denigrate your own allies, it is very difficult through subtraction to build a larger coalition, especially when one is going to rely on people who have adversarially tried to undermine the United States' effort and our coalition partners' efforts in Iraq. I am thinking of many people in the United Nations who during the Oil For Food scandal were not necessarily in the best position to tell Saddam Hussein, who they were in league with and making money off of, to try to follow the resolutions they passed regarding weapons of mass destruction. So I would just ask people to consider whether someone may or may not hypothetically be fit to be the Commander-in-Chief of the United States who, during a time of war, denigrates our allies and courts our adversaries. There is no simpler way to put that, because that is absolutely true. Ask yourself that question.

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to touch upon a couple of points that the gentleman from New Mexico brought up. One of them I think that is fascinating is the fixation in this country to try to split hairs between what is a collaborative tie between Iraq and al Qaeda or what is, I suppose, called a casual tie between Iraq and al Qaeda. Or whether or not because al Qaeda may or may not have been involved in Iraq to a great extent but other terrorists were, it still was unjustified. It seems to me, and I can only speak for myself on this, if a terrorist kills me, it is not really going to matter to me whether he was al Qaeda or whether he was some other group that was housed in Iraq or anything else. It is going to seem to me that, assuming I am looking down as opposed to looking up, I would ask the question why nothing was done. Have we become that legalistic in this country, that formalistic, that blind to the reality around us that we do not understand that if a dictator hates you and a terrorist hates you and they have ties, it does not bode well for you? I think that is just something that has grated on me for quite some time, how we tend to intellectualize things without seeing the reality, behind the sophistry of the arguments. It is much like the approach that many wish to take towards terrorism. Many in this country believe that you can cleanse the criminal by deeming it political. A murder is a murder. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Extortion is extortion. It is an inherently, intrinsically evil act. The goal for which one engages in the intrinsically evil act does not change its nature, does not justify it. So when we hear many in the international community trying to justify the actions of the terrorists based upon years of colonial occupation by European powers, I reiterate European powers, or we hear that there are underlying root causes, many of which are valid root causes but no justification for the act of terrorism, we have to be clear in our minds, because as I said before, every single American today is under attack from the terrorists. The act of killing our fellow citizens or kidnapping and killing our fellow citizens or kidnapping and killing other citizens of this world is designed to prey upon our minds, so that we believe that we cannot prevail, that we tend to doubt that people wish to breathe free, that they wish to love their children, that they wish to grow old, that they wish to savor the gift of life from our Creator. Some would have you believe that there are people in this world that are unfit for democracy, that they would say they can never take to this forum, that it cannot be imposed from above. I believe that the thirst for democracy, the thirst for freedom, comes from within, and that what we as a Nation have done is created the conditions in which their own yearnings can be expressed and their own futures be determined, and then can they live in freedom. I think that if you come from that perspective, it is easy. It is difficult to miss the reality in Iraq which proves my point about the terrorists trying to prey upon your mind. There are 25 million people in Iraq. The reason the terrorists are engaging in individual suicide bombings, in individual kidnappings, is because you do not have millions of Iraqis fighting with their new government to return to the days of Saddam Hussein. We do not see organized armies of Iraqis out in the field en masse trying to overthrow the transitional government and replace it with a terrorist regime. What we see every day in Iraq is what we try to do here: Iraqi citizens trying very desperately to live normal, happy lives. They want to take their children to school. Let me just stress this. In this country when people take their child to school, they generally feel safe that their child will be in a stable environment, will be educated, will return to their loving arms. Put oneself in a position of an Iraqi parent today, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and I were there at the time of the so- called days of national resistance when the first place they put the fliers threatening to kill people were around the schools so the parents would not take their children to school. We see an Iraqi parent, they have to take their child to school with the threat of terrorism around them every day in a magnitude we have yet to experience. We see them dropping them at the schools, under threat of death for doing so, and then praying that their child comes home to them. And yet many in this world will say that these are people unfit for freedom. They are no different than we are. I think it was President Kennedy that put it best: We all inhabit this small planet. We all breath the same air. We all cherish our children's future, and we are all mortal. To our fellow human beings in Iraq, we cannot offer condescension. We cannot offer derision. We must continue to offer assistance so that they can breath free, so that their internal thirst can commence upon a quest for freedom in their lifetimes. And probably one of the things I will always remember from Iraq, as we were leaving, we were getting on the Black Hawk helicopters to leave the Green Zone for the final time. It was Halloween, and there was an American soldier with a small Iraqi child, maybe 8 or 10, and he had little Dracula fangs he was playing with and smiling at the American soldier. That to me expressed the hope for Iraq, that that child who has been inoculated, who has been given an opportunity to go to school, whose parents have a chance to seize his freedom, that child is the future of Iraq, and we cannot turn our back on that child.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce). As a member of the Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on the Middle East, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for bringing into the committee some victims who had survived Saddam Hussein's brutality so we could personally hear from them. They also had with them a documentary filmmaker, Mr. Janos, who showed excerpts of his film interviewing survivors, the grieving mothers and widows of Saddam Hussein's executioners. It is not often that we truly get a chance to plumb the unfathomable depths of human pain, but I believe we experienced that in committee yesterday. We had a chance to see a grieving mother whose husband was killed, whose children were killed, saying she would never laugh again in her lifetime, and praying to God for a short life and a merciful death so she could forget. We saw a mother break down because she remembered the cries of her child in a cell, a 6 year old, crying out that he had no milk, he was hungry. Well, he is gone and she remains to grief. We had a Mr. Ibraham and a Mr. Taimor. They were both testaments to the evil of the Iraqi dictator. Mr. Ibraham, a Shiite, had been chased through that country, arrested several times, housed in Abu Ghraib prison, and was so shocked by what he experienced there he could not speak about it, especially about what happened to the women. We also saw Mr. Taimor who had been shot by Iraqi executioners in front of a mass grave and while bleeding had to crawl out. We in this country hear much from many that Iraq was a mistake. I ask one thing of those people, I ask them to say it to those victim's faces. We hear the hippocrits in this country say that Saddam was a bad man, but the United States should not have taken him from power. I ask them to say that to the Iraqi victims' faces. For those people who believe America is the greatest threat to peace in the world, I ask them never to show their faces in public again. Whether we like it or not, what we are seeing internationally is a clash of revolutions. It is a clash of revolutions that is fought not upon maps but upon minds. It is the American revolution of freedom for the individual and republican forms of democracy and private enterprise that chased every king from Europe or put them on the dole, that has chased imperial Japanese forces and put a democracy in place, and the world is better. We have seen the Philippines that we once annexed and helped bring into a stable democracy, and throughout the globe we see people trying to emulate the freedom and opportunity we have here. Yet the second revolution, which is lot upon many, is the Iranian revolution, a revolution of extremism and totalitarianism perverting the peaceful tenets of Islam to accomplish political objectives. Right now our revolutions meet in Iraq. That is why those in this country who do not think deeply about this believe we can retreat from Iraq and that the only consequence will be the United States will have to act multilaterally. The reality is we cannot retreat because unless freedom and democracy are established on the borders of the Iranian revolution, the Iranian revolution will continue to be exported through means both traditional and terrorist. The stakes have never been greater. I know it is very difficult for many to remember that we are and remain the seminal revolutionary country, and that in many ways it is hard to admit we are a moral force for good in this world, and that absent the United States, what would the world be like. Well, we might have trouble remembering that, but when I had the chance to ask the victims of Saddam if they thought any other country on the face of the earth could or would save them from his butchery, their answer was no, only the United States could do that. Only the United States would do that. I asked them if they thought it was a mistake, and they said no, that they believe we were a great and a good country for helping to save them. So as we engage in the debate through now and the election and perhaps throughout the remainder of our lives, let us remember what is at stake, the clash of revolutions. Either we will prevail or we will be defeated, and if we are defeated, as President Lincoln said, we will lose the last best hope of earth.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor the City of Novi Police Department as we celebrate the department's 50th Anniversary. The men and women who protect the Novi community have a long and distinguished record. In 1954, the Oakland County Sheriff's Department had been patrolling the small farming community of Novi, and protecting its approximately 5,000 residents. As the community grew, the Board of Trustees worked to establish their own force. The Department's first chief, Lee BeGole, a member of the Wayne County Sheriff's Department and World War II U.S. Army veteran, organized the fledgling organization. BeGole served alone initially, adding three or four officers later on. He was a dedicated law enforcement officer who served the City of Novi for 32 years. During its early years, the Novi Police Department served the community by making the most of its meager means. With a pair of police cars and no police radios, the operation of the Department was very basic. Police equipment was very basic, too. The officers furnished their own firearms and paid for their uniforms. The patrol cars did not have overhead emergency lights, but rather were equipped with red or blue spotlights and a ``coaster siren'' under the hood. The size and scope of the department has increased greatly over the past half century. In 1991 Chief BeGole retired and Douglas F. Shaeffer became the second Chief of Police in Novi's history. The Department moved into the 21st Century--the 1968 Rambler with the single red/blue roof light and coaster siren has been replaced by a large fleet of the latest police package Ford Crown Victorias, equipped with multifunction electronic emergency lights and siren. The old faithful police revolvers have been replaced by the newest in semiautomatic Glock pistols. Laptop computers are installed in each patrol unit, and a new in-house data system at the station has taken over most of the hand- written reports and forms used daily. Today, the City of Novi Police Department is truly a world-class law enforcement organization led by outstanding men and women who are committed to providing the community with the highest caliber service and protection. Mr. Speaker, today I ask you and my esteemed colleagues to please join me in congratulating Chief Doug Shaeffer, the men and women of the Novi Police Department, and the elected officials and citizens of Novi for their support of 50 years of excellence in law enforcement.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I request the House of Representatives join me in recognizing Ms. Diane Browning, who has been chosen the Women of Westland's 2004 Woman of the Year. Ms. Browning's dedication to Westland led her to serve as the Women of Westland's Secretary this past year, in which role she has participated in every event the group has sponsored--the Relay of Life, a 24-hour charitable walk for the American Cancer Society to promote cancer research; the Respite Relief program to provide for children; countless scholarship programs to promote educational opportunities; and, of course, her long standing devotion to the Huron Valley Girl Scouts. Honest, intelligent, and intensely involved in the life of her city, Ms. Browning truly represents the transcendent spirit of Westland. Her daughter, Gretchen, and her parents, Bud and Virginia Hassett, are rightfully proud of Diane's undeniable mark on the community; and we are all admiring of and appreciative for her inspired leadership on behalf of our community and our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, the timing was impeccable tonight, to have heard the previous speaker from Ohio talking about the 30-something Democratic Caucus. As a 38-year-old Republican, I am disappointed his bipartisan effort has not reached this far across the aisle to include some of the rest of us. Especially people my age, we are not baby boomers. We are Generation X. We grew up through the malaise of the Carter years. We grew up watching America internationally impotent in the world. We watched friends, neighbors, family lose their jobs under stagflation. And then we watched Ronald Reagan's administration come in. We watched America be truly respected throughout the world. We watched free market economies grow and expand to provide opportunities for us as we left our college years, and we were blessed enough to see the fall of Godless communism throughout Eastern Europe. But then we are also very practical opinion people for another reason, because shortly after that, we got to see our generation quoting Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on the streets of Tiananmen Square being gunned down by yet another totalitarian government, and we realized early on in life that life is a struggle between good and evil and in many ways it is a perpetual one. My generation also had some difficult lessons to learn too. We were the first ones to realize that a sexual infection which was once curable could be superseded by sexual infections that could kill people; that we would have to continue to work our lives longer and longer with even the remote chance that we would have Social Security because we were the first generation smaller than the one that went in front of us, which was never part of the plan. We have to watch our parents, who are living longer, come to us for help as we try to watch the soaring cost of tuition for our own children behind us. And perhaps because of the realistic, practical nature of my generation and perhaps something we have gotten from our grandparents, the Greatest Generation, that I think it is time on Iraq to ask some fundamental questions, and I think they are exceedingly fair questions to ask because no one has answered them and no one has bothered to posit any answers to them. I want to know what the plan is from the minority party. The multilateral mantra has been disproved by the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food scandal, their inability to stop genocide in the Sudan or in Rwanda prior to that, and their abject anti-Americanism in so many of their member states. Would we like to see multilateralism work and the reconstruction of Iraq? Absolutely. But I do not think we the American taxpayers should hold our breath until the governmental entity where we pay 22 percent of their core funding decides that they do not dislike us as much as they do. So multilateralism is also not going to work because the Democratic approach to that has been quite simple. The Democratic Presidential nominee has derided and criticized our allies whose soldiers are fighting and dying next to us in the fields of Iraq as the coalition of the bribed and the coerced, the bought, and the extorted. How do they build an international coalition attacking their allies? Whom are they trying to add? One cannot attack their allies and add their adversaries and call that a true coalition, especially if one is trying to be the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces. So then we have to ask, what is the plan? We have not heard a plan. We have to ask, on the question of weapons of mass destruction, what constitutes a significant tie with al Qaeda? If one does not believe there were significant enough ties, there were contacts, although the same intelligence which is being derided is also being used to disprove that they were collaborative, which is quite an interesting feat rhetorically. I want to know under what circumstances, what was the threshold the minority party would hold Saddam Hussein to before they would engage in defending the United States of America without a veto from the U.N. When could we unilaterally protect ourselves if necessary? Ten tons of yellow cake from Niger, which the French Government, the Italian Government, and the British Government still stand by exclusive of the bogus material, the one bogus document. What is the threshold? What is a collaborative link? What is their standard for defending the United States against an external threat from a terrorist-sponsoring state and a terrorist-sheltering state? If they did not like President Bush's, if they do not believe he had enough, then I ask them to tell us what their standard is so as we head into this election we can have a debate on issues, not individuals, because the American people deserve to know what they are going to do to defend this country if they hold public office today and tomorrow and probably for our lifetime in this war on terror. I think those are fair questions to ask. I think we should also ask the question about the moral equivalency that we used to see between the Soviet Union and the United States and the left in this country, I want to ask the question where did the moral equivalency go? There is more outrage over Abu Ghraib prison than there is the treatment of American soldiers that are shot and killed by the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. The actions at Abu Ghraib were horrible, but the purpose behind them was to gather information from people who were shooting at and trying to kill our troops to protect our troops and protect the United States citizens, just as it was at Guantanamo Bay. The goal of the terrorists that are violating every civilized notion of captivity, their goal is to foist terrorism back upon Iraq and back upon the rest of the world. It is so sad, I would not even settle for moral equivalency from the left these days that would wax nostalgic for it. Finally, I just find it very difficult to see this debate continue and not to see a plan. I reiterate that. We are sentient human beings. We have the gift of reason if we so choose to use it. And as we head into this troubled time for our country, deeper and deeper we go, the longer and longer it takes us to come to each other with ideas to debate and discuss for the common good that can be objectively analyzed and assessed by the electorate and by each other, the worse off we are going to be. So in the future I would just ask a simple question of anyone who has any opinion on this, on Iraqi reconstruction, on weapons of mass destruction, on the role of the United Nations in this world. It is nice to have their protestation and opinion, but show me their plan and perhaps we can proceed together.

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I am most impressed by the gentleman from Utah's understanding of the Spanish-American War. In fact, I would only add that there were also front page stories about American troops and captured insurgents in that war as well. The gentleman brings up a very good point that I would welcome the opportunity to address, as my district has many constituents who are Iraqi and Arab American and, more importantly, many of my friends are. One of the things we have heard repeatedly throughout this debate is the Iraqi people will not take to democracy, that they have suffered too long under a totalitarian yoke. Well, what country could you not say that about in this world? Half have suffered under totalitarianism with no history of democracy, including up until the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian people themselves? How many Eastern European countries never knew full freedom, only knew serfdom and feudalism? So I would like to add to my list of requests for plans one final one: Those people who believe that there are some human beings that cannot take to democracy, I would like your test and your complete list of those who you deem unfit for freedom.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. First, just a couple of minor observations on the debate so far tonight. We heard earlier the gentleman from Oregon mention that the Pentagon on three separate occasions believed that they could strike and eliminate a terrorist who was a threat to the United States. I would just caution the gentleman to be very careful lest he be considered as advocating a preemptive unilateral act of war against a resident alien in his sovereign host country. Also, on the previous mentioning of plans, whether real or not, that explored potentially delaying the election, I, too, would just like to say that I would oppose any plan to delay an American election. But I also think that it is important to remember that in the 1864 election Abraham Lincoln did not spend a lot of time personally campaigning to win the votes of southern voters, as my understanding is that those people chose not to participate in that election. The distinction which is critical would be, then, that while the southern States in rebellion chose not to participate in the Presidential election, there may be many Americans who, through an act of terror, may be precluded against their will from participating in an American election. So if we are done with the rhetorical flourishes of partisanship, perhaps there would be some who would like to explore a responsible policy approach and instead think of if an urban center, which are primarily the targets of the terrorists, would be attacked, we do not suspend the date of the election but perhaps the election could be extended until those people could be given their American constitutional right to vote in that election. I say that as a Republican knowing full well that my party does not do well in large urban areas, but I say that as an American respecting the rights of my fellow citizens to be able to participate in the choosing of their national leadership. On to the point that I wish to talk about. Mr. Speaker, in addition to playing host to the United Nations, United States taxpayers provide 22 percent of the United Nations' core funding. It is not, therefore, inhospitable nor unwarranted for U.S. taxpayers to demand a full and fair accounting of the U.N.'s $111 billion Oil-for-Food Program, especially when, as revealed in a May 6 article by Hudson Institute Fellow Claudia Rosett, the U.S. Treasury Department has designated one of the Oil-for-Food contractors as a front group for senior officials of the Saddam Hussein regime. Initial reports estimate over $10 billion has been stolen, misplaced and/or skimmed from this program that was designed to help the Iraqi people. Combined with the aforementioned front group/contractor, we may well have witnessed a U.N.-administered relief program result in food being torn from the mouths of victimized Iraqis and placed in the pockets of Saddam's executioners and their contemptible, utterly corrupt international co-conspirators. We in the world demand and deserve answers, Mr. Speaker, and yet we have been met by a stone wall of resistance and a wealth of stealth on the part of the United Nations. Excuses abound for the cover-up, the two most noticeable being that it is an institutional response. I am sure that they culled that from the old records of Tammany Hall. They also say that they will not release any of the 55 internal audits because of the, quote, sensitivity of member states. I think that the sensitivities of member states like the United States and the United States Congress which have repeatedly asked for these documents should be accorded as much as the purported sensitivity of states who may have something to hide. If they do in fact have nothing to hide, if the intimidating letters to contractors and the untendered records to Congress may be belied, then to save its last lingering endangered chard of integrity, General Secretary Kofi Annan, with the stroke of a pen, can release all the requisite oil for food documents and shed transparency and truth upon this abominable fraud. And while the U.S. taxpayers might not hold our breath until he complies, we U.S. taxpayers must withhold our funding from the United Nations until he does.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a great debate in a great and dangerous time. At the heart of this debate dwells the United Nations' scandalous Oil-for-Food program, for it constitutes not merely a matter of dollars and cents, but truly a matter of life and death. I would like to quote to prove the point a copyrighted article by the writer Claudia Rosett, who is a Fellow at the Hudson Institute, in which she cites Claude Hankes-Drielsma, a British advisor to the interim governing council, in which he says of the scandal, ``It is expected to demonstrate the clear link between those countries which were quite ready to support Saddam Hussein's regime for their own financial benefit at the expense of the Iraqi people and those that opposed the strict applications of sanctions and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.'' Clearly this proves the scandal not only has disgraceful fiscal consequence but has also had dire martial consequences. The resolutions regarding the weapons of mass destruction that the U.N. passed and yet lacked the resolve to fully and fairly and truly enforce, that lack of resolve will remain a question in the minds of many as long as this scandal lingers; for we will have to ask ourselves, did the U.N. come to their decisions, come to their lack of resolve with clean hands or with the money of Saddam Hussein in them? How much better would intelligence have been had the U.N. been actively and forcefully trying to get Saddam Hussein and Iraq to comply with those sanctions rather than finding one excuse or another not to do so? In terms of our U.S. coalition and the buildup to the war, how many other countries would have been willing to join us had not many in the U.N. undermined our efforts to enforce those resolutions? And again, we ask ourselves, Did those countries that undermined our efforts to build a coalition come to that with clean hands or with Saddam Hussein's Oil- for-Food money in those very hands? As for our soldiers, we now have to ask ourselves, how much of the potentially $10 billion that was skimmed, stolen, misplaced, misspent, gone, how much of that money wound up in the hands of contractors who were front groups, as the U.S. Treasury has just designated one, of contractors who did business under the Oil-for-Food scandal? How much of that money that was stolen is currently being used by Saddam's insurgents and terrorists to kill America's sons and daughters in Iraq? So much of the debate that we have heard internally in this country cannot have a resolution or even properly be addressed until we determine the extent of the corruption, the venality and the moral bankruptcy that lurks at the heart of this scandal, especially because the great debate I mentioned in many quarters these days hinges on this. There are those in this country who believe the United States should be more like the United Nations. I for one am not ashamed or abashed to say I believe the United Nations should be more like the United States. If they had been, perhaps the sanctions would have worked, perhaps the dictator would have been deposed through democracy and other soft means; but we were not given that chance to see that because we were not dealing with an ally at the United Nations. We were dealing with an adversary. We were dealing with an adversary bent on their own financial gain at the expense of the Iraqi people and democracy throughout the world.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mr. Dale Freese and his 30 years of service to the City of Westland. After serving honorably in Vietnam as an Air Force Staff Sergeant, Dale was approached by his family asking him to take over Norman's Market, a grocery market owned by his father, Norman Freese. Immediately after taking over, Dale expanded the store and improved the shopping environment, thus increasing sales. But Dale also used the store for the purpose of philanthropy, giving many organizations the use of his store for fund-raising purposes, including the March of Dimes and the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Dale has also given his own time for many worthy causes. In particular, he has provided his own resources to homeless shelters and has helped improve the job skills of local students through his participation in the Garden City High School co-op program. Above all, his generosity and civic activism have made him an important member of Westland. Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincere appreciation to Dale Freese for all he has done and his fine example of how local business can make a difference in the community.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. In many ways, it is with somewhat of a heavy heart that I rise in support of the amendment, especially as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has been so helpful in restoring the Manufacturing Extension Partnership funds which will help my State of Michigan, and because of the enormous respect I have for the chairman of the Committee on International Relations on which I sit, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). But being from Michigan, my small businesses have asked me to come and support this amendment and ask that we not raise these fees at a time when the Fed is raising our interest rates. As the backbone of our economy, our small businesses deserve no less during difficult times, especially while, despite a recovering economy, pockets of persistent downturn remain, many of them in the industrial States, one of which I represent. As for the National Endowment for Democracy, in many ways it is important to remember that democracy begins at home. It will be very difficult to continue to mobilize Americans' resolve to spread democracy abroad if in an economic downturn we are tempted to turn inward towards our own struggling economy. The continued support of small business, the perpetuation of their entrepreneurial dreams, is the seed of democracy which we are endeavoring to sow throughout the world. Let us not forget them and turn our backs today.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, on June 17 a friend to our community, Mr. Rolland B. ``Bob'' Lyons passed away following a courageous fight with cancer in which his courage never faltered or failed. Enduring and self-effacing, this entrepreneurial genius and civic leader, who used to like to call himself ``just a ditch digger from Ann Arbor,'' was a truly unique character. He had a massive toy collection. He created a reproduction of a 19th century hardware store in his office. And most of all, he liked to wear some of the most outrageous seersucker suits and bow ties that you would ever see, at least back home in Michigan. Bob was probably one of the people in life that you would meet that you could not but befriend. I would like to extend my condolences to his family and to all who, in knowing Bob Lyons, could not but love him.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Bill McSween upon his retirement after 26 years of service to our community. After graduating from Brown University on a hockey scholarship, Bill McSween served our country in the United States Army. In 1978, the same year he was inducted into the Michigan Amateur Athletic Hall of Fame for his exceptional hockey career, Bill came to the Redford Township Parks and Recreation Department as Assistant Director. In 1992, Bill was promoted to Director of Parks and Recreation. Over the past 26 years, Bill has left an undeniable mark upon our community. Citizen participation in recreation programs throughout the township has flourished under his direction. Bill successfully negotiated two projects involving school lands being leased to the township for one dollar, which fostered the creation of new recreational programs for both the township and the schools involved; and successfully passed on his passion for sports and recreation to our entire community. Let there be no doubt: Bill McSween is a paragon of public service. His wife, Marge, and his children, Katie, Kelly and Bill, should be rightly and extremely proud of the undeniable mark he has left on the life of our community; while, we all will sorely miss and always benefit from his dedication and leadership. Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincere appreciation to Mr. Bill McSween, upon his retirement as Director of Parks and Recreation for Redford Township, for his fine service to our community and our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, we are daily inundated with the rhetoric of terrorists selling their singular savagery to the world as revolution. Yet, when did we cease to be a revolutionary country? Never. One look about this weary, wanting world sufficiently reminds us it is we, the Americans, who were, are and continued throughout our democracy always must be the embodiment of the revolutionary ideals, powering the emancipation of populations throughout the globe. Thus, today is this resolution offered and its adoption urged in order that we might hearten our Iraqi allies in this dark hour before the dawn of their democracy, in order that we might unmask the archaic barbarians of evil and find, not revolutionaries, but lying reactionaries; and, finally, hopefully, in order that we might recall our own indispensable, indisputable revolutionary role in the advancement of man. Let us, then, pass this resolution and duly honor our revolutionary brethren, the Iraqi people, upon the occasion of the assumption of their sovereignty and the advancement toward their democracy, which like ourselves since our inception, they must win and keep. I urge support of the resolution.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, being from Detroit, I am often able to watch CBC, and last night I was privileged to watch Albert Finney's performance as Winston Churchill in a movie called ``The Gathering Storm.'' And perhaps it was his finest hour, the former prime minister's. When Hitler was rearming, he stood in front of the House of Commons and warned his own conservative party's government, led by Stanley Baldwin, that Hitler was indeed more than prepared for war; that he was arming to instigate a new one. Churchill was thought insane at the time, because no one, coming off the horror of the millions killed in World War I, could believe that a European leader would seek to rekindle that tinderbox, certainly not a corporal of the German army who had been blinded by mustard gas in combat. Yet Churchill was proven right. And when we apply these lessons to our own time, one of the first things we can realize is that sometimes the forest is so menacing, we choose to stare at the tree which shields us, until it is too late. Our Nation is in a war on terror. In this war on terror, Iraq is a theatre. It is not a war unto itself, any more than FDR's much- maligned, at the time, strike into north Africa was a diversion from the war against Hitler. What we have seen in our time is the preemption doctrine applied, and what I have not heard anyone say is that the pillar upon which this administration entered into the Iraqi theatre in the war on terror did not achieve its result. Saddam Hussein desired weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein had contacts without apparent collaboration, but contacts nonetheless, with terrorist groups and was, in fact, shielding terrorists like Abu Nidal in Baghdad. Since the United States engaged in hostilities against Iraq, we can be sure of two things, the Saddam Hussein regime will never have weapons of mass destruction that can be used against the United States or its troops in the field, and the Saddam Hussein regime will never again have any contacts with any terrorist groups. In some polls that are cited, we hear about people believing the link between al Qaeda and September 11; but one of the polls that I saw that was interesting was that about 70 percent of the American people realized that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, and in the war on terror the states which sponsor terrorism are as much our enemies by enabling the terrorists, as the terrorists are our enemies themselves, for terrorist cells cannot exist without state sponsorship, without state succor. Now, put yourself in President Bush's position at the time post- September 11. You have seen reports from the past administration up through his present administration detailing contacts, ``shadowy with terrorists,'' including bin Laden. You know that Saddam Hussein wants to engage a weapons of mass destruction program for their acquisition, and you say to yourself, what am I going to do? The President of the United States in applying the preemption doctrine made sure, again, that two things would not happen: the Saddam Hussein regime would not have weapons of mass destruction, ever, and that they would no longer be able to even be considered for succor as a terrorist haven. Now, there were some important points brought up in the earlier debate, and I would be more than happy to come back tomorrow or at any time to assist to talk about some of those points with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle; but I find it fascinating some of the points. Now, we are splitting hairs when we say that the contact between Iraq and al Qaeda in hindsight may not have appeared to have formed a collaboration. Yet, we cannot say whether they would or not. Now, to try to destroy that link or denigrate that link, we will hear that these contacts were meetings, but Iraq never responded. Now, all of us here in the U.S. House have to get elected. Now, as politicians, put yourselves in an interesting position. Consider this: you are sitting around getting ready to run for re-election. An opponent you have defeated in the past is having coffee on a regular basis with the opponent running against you now. Do you say to yourself, well, I am sure they are just having pleasantries and this has absolutely nothing to do with me, and that while they be having contact, there is apparently no collaboration that they are out to get me? I highly doubt many of the people in this room would ascribe to the latter theory. If Saddam Hussein could, he would do anything to hurt the United States. Now, why would bin Laden and his associates that are in captivity deny any link with al Qaeda? Al Qaeda's premise, on a perverted facade of Islam, is to work with the secular Ba'athist regime under Saddam Hussein, but undermine its very credibility as it goes after Saudi Arabia and other regimes in that region. Now, the ones in captivity like al-Anni that were referenced before, I would just caution everyone, do not take a terrorist at their word unless they say they are going to kill you, because whether in captivity or not, there is no incentive to prove any member of the United States' present administration was correct, and there is certainly no impetus for these people to undermine the very position, belie the very myth of al Qaeda as an Islamic group trying to liberate its people and lead them to a greater life in Islam. So I would caution against that. I also would like to just reiterate something that I think is very troubling to me, that we hear many people saying that our ability to preemptively deal with the situation in Iraq has somehow hurt us internationally. I suppose there will always be those people who believe that when the United States has to defend itself that we will be hurting ourselves. This is mistaken. In fact, many of these same people never credit the good will of the acts of the United States in the immunization of Iraqi children or the education of Iraqi children or the free speech and association that is occurring in Iraq today. I would argue that over the long term, these benefits to the United States are going to outweigh any short-term anger that the terrorist organizations may feel, because we are striking a blow at them in the heart of the terrorist network. I also have not heard about how the regime change and reconstruction nexus that has been applied in Iraq has also led to the regime conversion and potential rehabilitation of the Libyan regime, which also not only in that regard shows what strength and resolve have done in Iraq. I think that one of the things that has been missed when Qadhafi admitted he has a weapons program, he invited weapons inspectors in, who were then led to the labs or testing facilities of the Libyan Government. Some of the inspectors pointed out that they would never have found these unless they were shown. Dr. Kay, who I have much respect for, when I met with him in Baghdad did not say that we had weapons of mass destruction, to his credit. But he did say that Saddam Hussein and his regime were actively engaging in re-energizing to try to acquire them, especially chemical and biological, which could have been generated in 2 weeks to 2 months. If we had trouble finding extant technologies for weapons production in Libya, even with the Libyans' assistance, it should come as no surprise that in Iraq we are having extreme difficulty finding not only the weapons of mass destruction, if they exist themselves, but the labs or the scientists who were trying to accumulate them, because, as Dr. Kay pointed out, the trouble we have in Iraq is that many of the scientists whom we would go to to try to find this information are being killed or are frightened. I eagerly await to see what the fruits of security once it is firmly established in Iraq will yield to us in terms of intelligence regarding the weapons program and its state; and if there were any weapons, where did they go once the scientists and others in the community that participated in these programs feel that they are free of the threat of assassination or other reprisals to themselves or their family for sharing this information with the United States of America. In conclusion, I would like to add just one personal point. I will not condemn the Clinton administration for what it did not do prior to September 11, but I would hope that others would be slow to condemn the Bush administration for what it has done since September 11 in defending the interests of the United States. In many ways, I do understand what occurred under the Clinton administration. While I was not one who was swayed at the time, when we defeated European Communism, we saw books from left and right proclaiming to the United States that the end of history was here, that we had peace dividends, that our future was bright, that we could go on to the task of perfecting the American experiment in democracy by addressing internal problems, such as education, race relations, poverty, hunger, injustice; and on September 11 that was taken from us. What was foisted upon us was an unsought struggle against extremists perverting the tenets of Islam. Our generation and all the generations have to face the fact that once again we are called to our historic duty to defend freedom and civilization from every would-be tyrant bent upon world domination. On September 11, we went from sorrow to anger. But it is fair for us to also feel frustration that a country as great as ours, that has offered the world so much, could be so lowly stricken and have to deal with this type of aggressor yet again. It is unfair, but it is here. As I said at the beginning, it is a menacing forest; but the trees will not shield us from the truth any longer, and we must accept the fate that we now share and succeed and continue with our resolve in the overarching war on terror to do one thing: it is to kill the terrorists before they kill us, to kill the terrorists before they kill our children; and it is to win the war on terror in our lifetimes.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker I rise today to honor and acknowledge an important milestone as Mr. Rhys Lewis celebrated his 80th Birthday on Thursday, May 13, 2004. Rhys honorably served in the South Pacific during World War II as a United States Marine Corp Sergeant, fighting against tyranny and defending America's freedom and security. Following his invaluable service to our country, Rhys returned safely home to marry Ruth M. Lewis in 1947. After successfully building and managing two small businesses, Rhys was elected a Trustee of the Charter Township of Redford. His personal commitment and ongoing efforts to better the community have made Rhys indispensable and the people of Redford have benefited from his character, dedication, leadership, and tireless motivation. His wife Ruth, and their two children, Arthur Lewis and Judge Charlotte Wirth, should be extremely proud of the indelible mark he has made. Mr. Speaker, I extend my appreciation to Mr. Rhys Lewis, upon his 80th birthday, for his fine service to our community and country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer a long delayed thank you to President Reagan for his help with a personal matter of mine. By the time I turned 15 in 1980, I had grown acutely aware of a quadrennial rift between my parents. My father was a Truman Democrat, my mother was an Eisenhower Republican, and my brother and myself were, of course, KISS fans. Then one cold November night, there was a thaw. My father walked in the door, sat my mother down and, in a hushed, tremulous tone, as if every fellow Irish Catholic Democrat he had known from his days in the St. Francis Home for Boys Orphanage, every worker in a Detroit Labor Day parade, and everybody on every St. Patrick's Day pub crawl might somehow overhear him, Dennis Vincent Patrick Mullen McCotter admitted to his wife, quote, ``I cannot believe I went and did it, Joan, I voted for him.'' Him was Ronald Wilson Reagan. This vignette of American democracy's unifying force occurred in millions of homes across our Nation in 1980. The resulting national unity, which was brought about through the thawing of so many families' political Cold Wars, ultimately led to the end of the global Cold War. Madam Speaker, today the words of Albert Camus ring true: ``A man does not show his greatness by being at one extremity or the other, but rather by touching both at once.'' Truly, President Reagan was a unifying force for moral good in our Nation and our world. And thus his great humility would have precluded him from ever agreeing, Ronald Reagan was a great man. He will be mourned and missed and forever remembered. I offer my perpetual gratitude to the man, and my profound condolences to his family.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mr. James McIlvain upon his retirement after 37 years of service to Wayne- Westland Community Schools. Mr. James McIlvain has had a long and distinguished career in academia. Following his graduation from Ohio State University where he developed a love of history, government and politics, James was led to the noble profession of teaching. Beginning his career in 1967 at Adams Junior High School, he taught United States History and Geography contributing to the education of countless students and enriching the lives of the students, families, staff and faculty around him. After advancing excellence in the classroom, James became a guidance counselor where he served as a role model promoting good character and helping students as they made the transition into adulthood. Undoubtedly, the everlasting legacy of James's work can be seen in the community, as he has helped create the future generation of leaders. His wife, Susan, and his two daughters, Becky and Kelly, should be extremely proud of the undeniable mark he has left on the community. We at home will remember and always benefit from his dedication and leadership. Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincere appreciation to Mr. James McIlvain upon his retirement as a John Glenn High School Guidance Counselor and for his fine service to our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mrs. Barbara White upon her retirement after nearly 40 years of service to the citizens of the City of Garden City, Michigan and the students of Garden all City Public Schools. Barbara White began her career in the Garden City Public School District in 1964 where she served as Head Secretary for Memorial, Maplewood, Cambridge, and Marquette Elementary Schools. Over the next 23 years, she contributed to the education of the countless students enriching the lives of the students, families, staff and faculty around her. Following her retirement in 1987, Mrs. White was elected to the Garden City School Board. During her tenure as a Board Member, she served on the Finance, Facilities, and Policy Committees where she helped to create and implement policies that would educate and prepare students to be knowledgeable, responsible, contributing citizens. Serving 16 years on the school board, she tirelessly acted as an advocate for an intellectually alive and meaningful curriculum for all students in Garden City Public Schools. Her husband, Dwight, and her sons, Glen, Howard, and Noel, should be extremely proud of the undeniable mark she has left on the community. We at home will fondly remember and always benefit from her dedication and leadership. Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincere appreciation to Mrs. Barbara White upon her retirement from Garden City Public Schools and for her fine service to our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor the Village of Wolverine Lake, Michigan on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Incorporated on April 5, 1954 under the State of Michigan's long tradition of Home Rule, the Village of Wolverine Lake's caring citizens, diligent community leaders, superior schools, and vibrant economy accumulate and constitute an exceptional civic life for its citizens. The Village of Wolverine Lake's rich history dates back to 1919, when Dr. Howard Stuart's efforts led to the construction of a dam connecting several area lakes to form Wolverine Lake. Local residents then established the Consolidated Subdivision of Wolverine Lake Neighborhood Association to maintain and protect the beauty of Wolverine Lake. The Village of Wolverine Lake has now grown to a population of more than 4000 residents. Undoubtedly, the Village of Wolverine Lake will continue to fulfill its promise of boundless opportunity and beauty for its people. Mr. Speaker, today I ask you and my esteemed colleagues to please join me in congratulating the Village of Wolverine Lake on their very special anniversary.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I am aware of America's not having a role in Kilmainham Jail or grandpa would not have come here in the first place, quite likely. I never implied that. It was never stated. I think the fact that we are having this debate is a worthwhile debate, but it is not what is reflected in the amendment. If the new Iraqi Government applies, if the Iraqi Government referenced in the amendment on line 17 applies to the new sovereign Iraqi Government, it should say so. And since this seems to be the age of deadlines or timelines, put July 1 or later. It also should not suggest only one course of action. It should suggest that after a new sovereign Iraqi Government decides what they want to do with that facility, I cannot use that word, that evil site, then we should be able to assist them in whatever decision they make. I was talking to another Member today, it was kind of ironic, about this situation, and he mentioned he had been to Dachau. And there are two testaments to evil that I can right off think of, Dachau and Auschwitz where America liberated. Auschwitz, which is in Poland, still stands intact. Dachau is a fence with pictures; Dachau is in Germany. This is an intensely personal decision for the Iraqi people. It should be done through their sovereign government. There should be no external pressure or suggestions as to what they should do. I believe that a better amendment would have been that we will assist them and the new sovereign government after July 1 in whatever disposition of that prison that they sought and saw fit, based upon the suffering on that site.

Mr. McCOTTER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in a time of war events often lead legislation and precede it. I have the utmost respect for the sponsors of this amendment and their intent. I believe him about the legislative process. It is my concern that come July 1 Abu Ghraib prison may not stand anymore and may not be there for a new sovereign Iraqi Government to make that determination. That is my concern; and the drafting of the amendment, as such, could arguably allow that to happen with the implicit consent of a House that passed this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, while I strongly support the underlying bill and fully respect the intent of the esteemed Member's amendment, I reluctantly rise in opposition to it, which I believe at present could potentially result in the alacritous demolition of Iraq's Abu Ghraib Prison. In so rising, I site the present disposition of another notorious site of murder and repression, Ireland's Kilmainham Jail. Built in Dublin by the British, from 1796 until the release of its last prisoner and future Irish president, Eamon de Valera, in 1924, Kilmainham Jail played a grim host to the incarceration, repression, and execution of Irish prisoners by both the English and then, most tragically, by the Irish themselves. After initially falling into disrepair and dilapidation, the jail's restoration was commenced in 1960 and eventually concluded in the 1980s by the Irish Republic's Office of Public Works. Today, over 150,000 visitors a year come from all over the world to view Kilmainham Jail, for it constitutes a historical mirror into the torturous times which culminated in Irish independence. In its present state, Kilmainham Jail has been wrested from its inhuman captors' use as a paradigm of oppression and death, and has instead been presented to humanity as an enduring testament to the transcendence and ultimate triumph of the human spirit in the face of evil. Mr. Chairman, so too must stand Abu Ghraib Prison. For decades, Abu Ghraib Prison housed the murder, torture and rape of Iraqi citizens at the hands of a butcher, Saddam Hussein, and most tragically has seen the inhumane treatment of Iraqi prisoners by an unrepresentative smattering of despicable captors. Thus, just as Irish suffering secured Irish ownership of Kilmainham Jail's fate, Iraqi suffering has secured Iraqi ownership over Abu Ghraib Prison's fate. Abu Ghraib is not America's to obliterate as a site of evil. It is Iraq's to elevate as a testament to history and a caution of the future. Yet, this is but my opinion, for not being an Iraqi, such is not my decision to make. Nor, I caution, is this a decision to be made by the Coalition Provisional Authority or the Iraqi Governing Council. The CPA and IGC are transitory stewards of Iraqi sovereignty. They are not the sovereign government comprised of the Iraqi people. Thus, if the CPA and/or the IGC makes a determination on Abu Ghraib's future, especially its demolition, such an action will be viewed by many Iraqis as having been done at the behest of the U.S. and our allies and not on behalf of the Iraqi people by the Iraqi people. In a country and a time teeming with missed opportunities and impending deadlines, let us not miss this chance to act presciently, not precipitously. I make then the following proposal: Immediately upon the transfer of sovereignty from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the Iraqi people on July 1, the United States must formally tender to the Iraqi government Abu Ghraib Prison. Then the Iraqi people and their new sovereign government, without external pressure and through free speech, debate, assembly, petition and all lawful political processes, the very political freedoms we are trying to impart to them, can justly make their final determination upon Abu Ghraib's final fate. Nothing could more clearly and fully exhibit our true and sustained commitment to our own democratic principles and to the Iraqi people that our manifest comprehension of a few depraved captors' shame does not eclipse thousands of Iraqis' pain. This is the sovereign Iraqis' decision to make. It is not ours to insist upon or suggest but only to abide. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.