Heather Wilson

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), who has just returned from Alaska.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire the time we have remaining?

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, on the Monday after the war started, I went to Holloman Air Force Base, and for those who are from New Mexico or who watch these things, on the opening night of the war, everyone who knew that those were the F-117s knew that the only base in America where we have the F-117 is in Alamogordo, New Mexico, at Holloman Air Force Base. I went there the Monday after it all started, and I met and had lunch with a lot of the spouses whose husbands, in this case, all of them were women, the spouses, and their husbands are deployed overseas. The squadron commander's wife has a wonderful sense of humor, which I think always helps in these kinds of situations. Apparently the wives were all talking about the morning after the whole thing started and they were trying to decide which two husbands were on that first mission, a very dangerous mission as it happens, because they went in without the usual cover that you would have in front of you. And she said that she looked at one of her friends and said, if they hit the target, it was my husband; if they missed, it was yours. The families are so strong at home, and you can see it and feel it when you are talking to them. They support each other. And that is so true of the Air Force. One of the things that I thought was wonderful there is the wing commander, who is not deployed, every day when all of the 117s are back, he gets a phone call that everybody is home from their missions. And then the wing commander calls the squadron commander's wife, and then she calls all the flight commanders' wives, and they have a telephone tree. And by go-to-bed time in New Mexico, every spouse and every parent who has somebody flying the 117s in southwest Asia is reassured. And every child knows that dad is okay, that today dad is okay. And they sleep a lot better. Now, that probably violates some rule or regulation, and Colonel Hunt may get in trouble for it for me mentioning it here, but please do not. He is using his judgment to do the right thing. His guys are halfway around the world flying and fighting a war, and I know in his heart he would dearly love, like any fighter pilot, to be with them. But he knows the best thing he can do is to make sure their families are taken care of so that they can focus on doing the job that they are doing and doing so well. By the way, they hit the target, and they now know whose husbands were on the raid, and we are all very proud of them.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I told the gentleman I was a skeptic about plans, and I am. I will share some of the things I think are right about what we have seen so far, what the military has accomplished under the leadership of General Franks in southwest Asia. First, the tactical surprise. I do not think the enemy, and I do not think a lot of Americans, expected him to jump off with a ground assault. We did not do that 12 years ago. We waited for 38 days of punishing air strikes. But instead, they did something that I think was smart and took advantage of the situation, a completely different situation on the ground, a completely different political objective and military plan to achieve that objective. But they got tactical surprise. As a result, that force that came out of Kuwait not only seized the oil fields intact after they saw seven of them burning, they jumped off early to try to keep the rest of the oil fields intact to benefit the Iraqi people and rebuild Iraq, but they also seized the bridges up and down the Tigris and the Euphrates to allow our forces to advance instead, as the gentleman said, to build them as they go. So they had tactical surprise. They were rapid, very nimble. We think about how hard it is to plan, to move forward a large mass of people and vehicles at the same time. Think about doing that and then all of a sudden telling them we are going to do that 12 hours early or 24 hours early. That could be a real mess. And they did it. I think we have done a much better job in western Iraq than we did 12 years ago with the problem of Scuds and dealing with Scuds. Special Operations forces have been much more integrated with the ground and the air operation than we saw 12 years ago. And, as a result, they managed to control not only all of western Iraq where the Scuds were launching from 12 years ago, but to team up with the Kurds in the north and manage the problems in the north and seize key areas in the south and in the Persian Gulf. It was the Polish special forces that were some of the first to fire and the first to act in the Persian Gulf in seizing oil platforms, and British and American special forces moving forward to seize key sites in southern Iraq. So we have seen that integration of Special Operations Forces into the plan. Precision air. Madam Speaker, air power was decisive in the first Persian Gulf War, and I think even more so in this one, because we have gone from about 10 percent of our munitions being precision guided to 90 percent of our munitions being precision guided. And they are pounding the tar out of the Republican Guard divisions from the air. They have been integrated with the ground forces, so that the marine on the ground knows that if he needs air power, he gets it now, and he is not sitting in some queue or waiting for some A-10 to fuel up in Kuwait and fly for an hour and a half to get to him, while he has to sit there and take it until he gets there. He gets air there, now. We have precision, very good real-time intelligence and the integration of space to the battlefield and to the soldier on the battlefield so that that real-time intelligence is actionable. All of us have seen the pictures of the Predators and the Global Hawks. We are also getting information on that first night of the war, the Central Intelligence Agency, working very closely with our military, both here in Washington and in the field, so that if there is a piece of information, the military can act, whether it is to rescue a prisoner of war as was done so effectively yesterday, or to target a critical target, as was done on the first night of the war. We are seeing unit- level communications much better than it was 12 years ago. And we are seeing a joint operation. If we look back to Vietnam, we really did not operate as a joint military. The Navy had its route packages to fly, the Air Force had theirs, the Army was doing something different on the ground; there was no kind of integrated military operation. How much the American military has changed in the intervening years is astounding, and it is even more integrated today than it was 12 years ago.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and I also thank him for his leadership in the Committee on Armed Services at a time like this. I found his leadership to be refreshingly direct and full of good humor and also making sure that every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle have access to information, the kind of information that we need to make decisions. I came to this whole thing very much a skeptic. I know about these things. I think anybody who has ever worn the uniform is always very cautious about using military force because we know the consequences of war and we often know many of the participants. When we came to this House in October to decide whether we would authorize the President to use force, I think all of us came to that decision, a serious and sober decision, having been gathering information for several months. And I came to the decision that, yes, we did need to give him that authority, that we could not allow Saddam Hussein to have chemical or biological weapons or the ability to deliver them against Americans; and I also came to the decision that Saddam Hussein had the intent to use those weapons against Americans. Over the last 2 weeks we have seen the cruel brutality of this regime. Day and night air power is degrading Iraq's command and control and its armored divisions with powerful, sustained, and precise engagements. And to prevent the regular army from surrendering or defecting, Iraqi death squads now depend on executions to maintain a climate of fear. They kill people, civilians, women, children, the elderly trying to cross bridges just to get food and water. That is the regime we are facing. Most folks probably do not know this, but as Members of Congress, we are not told in advance exactly what the war plan is because we have no need to know, and the security of the operation is more important. We do not direct the Army or the Navy. We do not instruct the diplomats. Our role is different. But we do get briefings as things are going on, and we have been briefed daily; and I commend the Defense Department and the military for coming up here every day and answering questions from every Member of Congress that has them in a classified way about exactly what is going on so that we can put in some kind of context the soda straw views that all of us are getting on our televisions 24 hours a day. I am very much a skeptic about military plans too. I was one of the Members of this House that opposed U.S. action in Kosovo, and I opposed it for the reason of principle. So I believe when we go into combat we must first have a very clear political objective, and in this case we do. Our objective is to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein, to rid Iraq of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and then to put in place in Iraq a unified Iraq, a government that is responsive to its people. That is a clear political objective. I think people can understand that. Second, we need a military plan that is tied to that objective. That was our failure in Kosovo, by the way. It was a largely humanitarian mission, and we had a plan that included only air strikes against a door-to-door campaign of ethnic cleansing. We failed in that military plan. I have been looking day by day at this military plan as it has unfolded, not only what we see on television but what we are briefed on in detail in the gentleman's committee; and I have been very impressed. We were reassured before this started that we would use overwhelming force, the full force and might of the United States military, so that we could secure our objectives and bring our men and women home again. And that is what they have brought us, overwhelming military force, the full force and might of the American military. At the same time this plan is being executed, we are also seeing not only the greatness of the American military but the goodness of the American military. The commander of the United States Marines in Southwest Asia the night before the launch of the ground attacks said to his troops we are going to show the world, we are going to show the world that they have no better friend and no worse enemy than a United States Marine. They have been showing the world. There is no better friend and no worse enemy than a member of the United States military. This picture beside me was taken this weekend. It is of Annette Gonzalez; and she came to downtown Albuquerque in the plaza in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and she was a very quiet woman, but she brought a picture of her son. He is a sergeant in the United States Marine Corps, a staff sergeant. His name is Anthony. And before she knew it, Annette was surrounded by people on the plaza there in Albuquerque who gave her comforting messages, who told her that she would be in their prayers, who thanked her for her son's service; and she gets pretty choked up when she talks about Anthony. She says she is very proud to be a Marine mom, but nowadays it is very hard. The last time that the family heard from Anthony was about 3 weeks ago when he called his wife to tell her that he loved her. Anthony grew up in Las Lunas. He wrestled there and he played football, and he joined the Marines in 1993 shortly after he graduated from Las Lunas High School. He is a proud father, and he is considering becoming a preacher so he can help his fellow Marines learn about God. And that brought his picture of his full dress uniform to Friday's rally in support of our troops in New Mexico because she wants people to know that there are real people serving in Iraq. There are husbands and wives and sons and daughters proudly serving their country, and Annette is very proud of her son. They need and deserve our support and our prayers, and they have it.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I thank the chairman. And maybe the way for me to at least close my participation in this 1-hour Special Order that we are having tonight is with another e-mail. I think it shows the goodness of the American military. It is one thing to be great. We have a great American military who can do things that no other military in the world can do, the overwhelming power. But we also have a very good American military. And sometimes I think it is more important to be good than to be great. This is an e-mail that was forwarded to me by a master gunnery sergeant. And master gunnery sergeants are not necessarily known for their soft-heartedness, although I think that is actually a myth. I think some of them are the softest-hearted guys. They are kind of like chocolate-covered marshmallows, tough on the outside but marshmallows on the inside. It says, few things move me to get misty but there are a few, and this one did. He saw this and described it this morning on CNN. And he wrote it down in an e-mail, what he saw. He said, Martin Savage of CNN, embedded with the 1st Marine battalion, was talking with four young marines near his foxhole this morning live on CNN. He had been telling the story of how well the Marines had been looking out for and taking care of him since the war started. And he went on to tell about the many hardships that the Marines had endured. And he told them that he cleared it with their commanders to call home, for each one of the four to call home. And he turned to the first marine next to him, a 19-year- old kid and said, Who would you like to call? And he said, Well, sir, if you do not mind, I would like to allow my platoon sergeant to use my call. I would like to give my call to him to let him use it to call his pregnant wife back home who he had not been able to talk to for 3 months. Savage was stunned. And the young man ran off to get his sergeant. And then he turned to the other three who were still there and he asked which one would like to call home first. And the marine closest to him responded, Sir, if it is all the same to you, we would like to call the parents of a buddy of ours, Lance Corporal Brian Buesing of Cedar Key, Florida. He was killed on the 23rd of March near Nasiriyah. We want to see how his parents are doing. At that, Martin Savage was close to tears and unable to speak, and all he could say before signing off was, Where do they get young men like this? I will tell you where we get them. We get them from Palestine, West Virginia and Saint Charles, Indiana; we get them from Sherwood, Oregon; Queens, New York; from Midland, Texas; from San Diego, California. We get them from Lee, Florida; from Adams, Colorado, and Mountainair, New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for letting me join him here this evening.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. There has been a lot of carping in the last few days about plans and a lot of criticism from folks who have not seen the plan and have not been briefed on the plan, do not know what the plan is but they are critical of it, and others who say, oh, well, you did not anticipate this in your plan. There is a quote I remember once from General Eisenhower. He said, ``Planning is indispensable because it gives you something from which to deviate.'' Any commander worth his salt will plan well and then will react to what is going on on the battlefield. I would be concerned if our commanders were sticking slavishly to a plan and not reacting to the things that were going on around them. The point is not the plan. The plan allows people to think through the potential problems. You cannot anticipate all of them, but they have done pretty well. And when they have not anticipated, they have relied on the ingenuity of the American soldiers to sort it out and their good commanders to give them the resources they need to get the job done. And I know that there is a war, a battle in southwest Asia and we all know there is the battle of the Potomac as well. There are people with different agendas around this town who might be upset about the Crusader cancellation or the fact that there is a Marine as the SACEUR or that there is a Marine as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff instead of somebody who is wearing a different shade of green. There is a lot of bitterness and game playing going on in this town. And, frankly, there are a whole lot of us here who do not much like it, and we do not even respect it. And I was glad that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who is a pretty taciturn Kansan, was just about as blunt and direct as I have seen him yesterday and saying exactly what he thought about this kind of arm-chair quarterbacking by folks who had either long ago hung up the uniform or were still in it and calling themselves ``anonymous sources.'' No decent officer is an anonymous source. And I was very glad to see him put some of them right and defend exactly what his plan was in collective operations going on in southwest Asia. So here is to you, the gentleman from Kansas, and thanks for standing up for what you believe in.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, the gentleman was talking about the pride our American people, and particularly our American veterans, have in our units. All of us get a lot of mail, and I love getting letters from people. I got a letter from a veteran of the 507th in the Vietnam era. It says here, ``Heather, my name is John Campbell. I served two tours in Vietnam. I was a member of the 507th Engineer Group. I was a crane operator and a dozer operator and cleared land mines, among other things. Today I am in a wheelchair, in part because of combat- related injuries. ``I am proud to have served my country, and today I am proud the men and women of our military have once again answered our Nation's call to service. I particularly feel a connection to the brave soldiers of the 507th Maintenance Group from Fort Bliss. I am certain you have seen and read the news reports of the POWs from that group now in Iraq. ``I want to let them know that I and others from the Vietnam-era 507th group support them. Enclosed is a banner I had made that says, '507th Engineer and Maintenance, Vietnam and Iraq, good luck.' I would appreciate your help in getting this banner and a message to their home base at Fort Bliss, Texas. I want to tell them, `Good luck and hang in there. We are praying for you to come home soon, and we know how rough it is. I wish I was there with you, but my wheelchair would probably get bogged down in the Iraqi desert sand.' '' Those kinds of connections and that support from the American people matter so much to our soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines who are serving all of us now in Southwest Asia. I find these letters encouraging, and also letters from troops who are over there now. I have a copy of another letter that is from a young Marine. I will not use his name, but his first name is Kent. He is with the 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment, 1st Marine Division, so he is kind of busy at the moment. He went to St. Pius High School and graduated from there in Albuquerque. His parents live in Albuquerque. He wrote a letter to them that I just thought typified the greatness and goodness of these young men and women we have serving in the military. It says, ``Hey, mom and dad,'' and this is written just before things started over there, when he was still sitting in the desert, ``Hey, mom and dad, still living the high life. If there was a worse area in the world, I don't think I want to see it. This place just keeps getting better and better, since it is right now raining. Well, I, for one, feel great and proud. I feel great and proud and I love what I'm doing. This place is terrible, the toilets are disgusting, the sleeping areas are all right, and I love it. ``I love it because I just got done talking to our wacky Iraqi, Jack. He is our local Iraqi defector who escaped to the U.S. after the Gulf War and now works as an interpreter and an intelligence source. We just had a long conversation over lunch about what we are doing here, Iraq in general, and all sorts of things. His family was tortured by the Saddam regime, and his father was killed. He said his story was way too common, and that is why he is doing what he is doing. ``I thought the most poignant thing he talked about was about the protesters and people wanting a peaceful resolution. He says that anyone wanting a peaceful resolution needs to be over here for a year or so. He said his dad, who was tortured and killed, wanted a peaceful resolution, too. It didn't quite happen. ``Anyway, he made me realize that this is where I need to be. I am, of course, coming home; but, you know, war and all. But damn, I feel like I am part of something great and truly going to help a lot of people. Is that too much of a cliche? Anyway, the point is, this place is awful and there really is no place I would rather be. Okay, that is all. I will write soon. Love you, Kent.''

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have four priorities for this budget; creating an environment for job creation, providing for the common defense, making quality health care more affordable, and improving education. I also want all these things must be done in a way that gets us back to a balanced budget within a reasonable period of time. The resolution we will pass tonight is tough medicine and doesn't do all it needs to do. I believe that this budget will create jobs and stimulate the economy. By leaving room for significant tax relief we can leave extra dollars in the pockets of millions of Americans. I support tax relief, particularly for small businesses that create jobs and I applaud the chairman for his work. During this time of war, this budget does a great job funding our national defense, both military spending and homeland security. This budget goes a long way toward making all Americans more secure. I am very concerned that even with the manager's changes, it sorely under funds our veterans programs. Inroads have been made so this budget begins to address issues regarding the affordability of Health Care. When this budget was introduced it had spending levels in Medicare that were unworkable. Because of these cuts, I felt it necessary to introduce my own amendment that was not accepted by the House Rules Committee to provide more than $375 billion additional dollars for Medicare and other Health programs over the next 10 years. Changes made in the Medicare accounts since its introduction have relieved many of my concerns. I hope that the conference report will completely fix the funding of healthcare as it relates to Medicaid. The most difficult part of this budget for me to accept is the lack of commitment to education. Just last year we passed the landmark legislation, ``No Child Left Behind.'' I feel that this budget does not meet the promises we made in that legislation. The amendment that I proposed would have increased the budget authority on education by more than $70 billion over 10 years. I urge the conferees to renew our commitment to education and fund education at least to the President's level. I will vote for this budget, but my support comes cautiously. Last year we didn't have a budget and it created great difficulty in getting the appropriations done. We need to move this process forward building on the progress we have made in the last twenty-four hours. While I will support this budget today, I will not support a conference report that does not adequately support our veterans, keep our promises on education, create jobs, and improve our Nation's health system. I ask that the conferees make these important improvements before our final vote on this budget later this year.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 76, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, Kyle is a normal second grader in New Mexico. But, when he was just nine days old, he and his family traveled to Loma Linda California for a much needed heart transplant. Every year, they make that same pilgrimage to Loma Linda for evaluations. It is 747 miles from Albuquerque to Loma Linda. The current regional transplant model with a national, government-run program results in fewer organs available to New Mexicans. While organs are shared over wide geographical areas, donated organs are sent out of state. I think this system has caused fewer New Mexicans to donate organs, and it has certainly impeded the decision of families to pursue a transplant. I applaud provisions of this bill which seek to educate the public on organ donation. It is by reaching folks one by one that awareness is raised. In New Mexico much of the public has misconceptions about this important issue. Since we have lost our transplant programs, many individuals decide that the travel distance, time, separation from family, and logistics are just too hampering. It is just too complicated and too much of a burden. We have some of the highest rates of Diabetes, Kidney disease, and Hepatitis B and C of any state, and yet our rates of transplants are among the lowest. We need hearts, we need livers, we need pancreases, and we need the ones we procure to stay close to home. I also reiterate support for the sense of Congress contained in his bill that refers to family discussions of donation. Encouraging such dialogues to take place will help make decisions early. There are 32 states in which being designated an organ donor on a driver's license carries no legal weight at all. It is by communicating an individual's desires with family members that counts. Oftentimes, it is a point of crisis in which a family must make a decision whether or not to donate a loved ones' organs. If this is talked about beforehand, the desires of each family member can be made known. It is families that are affected by organ donation, and families that should make the decisions.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington for yielding me this time. To my colleague from California I would say that what we have in common on both sides of the aisle today is that we are all moms. We all worry about child care for our kids, whether it is the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), who raised her two boys on her own, or the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and her daughter and son, or my two little bugs at home. We all care about the quality of child care where our kids are concerned. I used to operate the child care system in New Mexico as the cabinet Secretary for Children, and one of the things that was clear to me under welfare reform is that we needed adequate support for child care, for women to be able to go back to work. That means increasing the payment rates for child care. It means having child care available at odd hours and on weekends so people can do shift work. We needed to increase funds. And we have, by $2 billion, in this bill, while the number of families depending on welfare and on child care is going down. That is a good thing. Poverty has gone down in America because moms have been able to get jobs and go back to work. Now we have to focus on improving the quality of that child care, because what we are talking about is early education for the youngest American citizens, and a lot of it takes place outside of Head Start, which is the Cadillac of early childhood education in this country. So I support this bill and I oppose the substitute, and I want to commend the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) for their work over the last 2 years to focus on this problem of child care and really get something done about it.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commemorate the contributions of the thousands of women who have served in the United States Marine Corps throughout history. They celebrate their 60th anniversary today, February 13th, when the first group of women went off to Hunter College in 1943 to train as Women reservists to ``Free a Man to Fight!'' ln honor of this anniversary I enter the following proclamation into the official record of today. Whereas since its inception in 1943 to ``Free a Man to Fight'' under the leadership of Col. Ruth Cheney Streeter, thousands of women have served the Corps in every clime and place and have continued to be an essential part of the United States Marine Corps; Whereas it should be acknowledged the women who serve a grateful nation are committed to preservation of the freedoms of this Nation and serve today at the forefront of our military in almost every specialty and; Whereas it should be acknowledged that the first group of women who volunteered to serve their Nation led the way and broke the ground for all the women who serve today and are entitled to a special debt of gratitude and thanks; Therefore, let it be known that the 60th anniversary of the women who have served in the United States Marine Corps marks a milestone that a grateful Nation acknowledges as those women and the women today and those that follow will continue to pursue a course of action that serves to inspire all freedom loving people in the world. SEMPER FIDELIS!

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit for the Record how I would have voted on those measures from the week of January 27, 2003. I was in Albuquerque, NM, last week as a family member underwent surgery and unable to make it to Washington, DC. On rollcall 13, with regard to H.J. Res. 26, Honoring the contributions of Catholic schools, offered on January 27, 2002, had I been present I would have voted in favor of the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. On rollcall 14, with regard to H.J. Res. 25, Supporting efforts to promote greater awareness of the need for youth mentors and increased involvement with youth through mentoring, offered on January 27, 2002, had I been present I would have voted in favor of the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. On rollcall 15, with regard to H.J. Res. 13, , Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, offered on January 28, 2002, had I been present I would have voted in favor of the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. On rollcall 16, with regard to H.J. Res. 13, Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, offered on January 28, 2002, had I been present I would have voted for the motion to recommit with instructions. On rollcall 17, with regard to H.J. Res. 2, Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, offered on January 29, 2002, had I been present I would have voted for the motion to instruct conferees.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for her leadership on this issue. The recovery is not as strong as any of us would like, and there are people who are out of jobs through no fault of their own. While our first priority has to be to get this economy back on a strong positive note, get the recovery to be stronger so that people have jobs and have paychecks, all of us know that we need to help people over the hump from their last job to their next job because they are desperate and because they do not have the kinds of options that they may have had in better economic times. That is why we are here. That is why we are doing this. All of us have constituents who ran out of benefits on December 28, and we need to act quickly so that those benefits will not be interrupted and they will be able to make the payments on their house, pay the rent, put food on the table. The gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott) said what this really means, this vote really means, is that we just do not care. And he said it is a shame we do not care. I think it is a shame that a Member of this body would make that kind of accusation. We are here because we care and because we understand that there are real people and real lives at stake. This Congress will pass today, with the unanimous support of the United States Senate and I think with a broad bipartisan support here in the House, benefits extensions that will take us through June so that we can work on recovering this economy and get people back to paychecks but in the meantime make sure they can pay for the food to put on their table and take care of their families.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to my colleague from Illinois. I respect your feelings and your reasons for voting the way that you are going to vote when this resolution comes to a vote, and you are very honest in your expression of them. But I have to say that those who are supporting this resolution have similarly honest feelings and reasons for doing so. It bothers me a little that you are questioning the motivation of those who support this resolution, and indeed the motivations of the President and the Vice President of the United States, at least indirectly. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), also a member of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), another member of the House Committee on Armed Services as well as one of the leaders on education in this House.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Madam Speaker, it is difficult not to respond in full to the comments of the previous speaker. Those of us on both sides of the aisle who support this resolution understand the impact of war as well as the gentleman does, and we walk by with sadness not only at the Vietnam Memorial but also at the Holocaust Museum. There are risks of action, but there are also risks of inaction. We take our responsibility here tonight seriously, and we face this resolution and the situation that we cannot turn away from. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a member of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), another member of the Committee on Armed Services and an officer in the Naval Reserve and a veteran of Northern Watch as well as Kosovo. (Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, I do feel compelled to respond to one point that my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas, made. We need to make clear that the leadership and the President have not come to any Members of the body and asked them to support him as a matter of loyalty or for anything else. There are 435 Members of this body who will each come to their own decision on the justness and the rightness of this cause, and each of us will vote as a matter of conscience as individuals; and the President and leadership have not twisted our arms, or even asked us to do anything otherwise. Madam Speaker, the President has asked the Congress for the authority to use force against Iraq. This week the Congress will consider a resolution giving him that authority. I will be voting in favor of the Joint Resolution. There is a very high standard and a narrow set of circumstances that would cause me to vote to authorize the use of force other than in self-defense against an armed attack against the United States or its allies. Over the last month, I have listened to briefings and testimony, reviewed evidence, read reports and sought out independent experts to ask questions about Iraq and its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program. I believe that, if left unchecked, it is likely that Saddam Hussein will cause these weapons to be used against the American people. The effect of such an attack would be devastating. We cannot wait for him to strike first. The evidence that Iraq has and is further developing weapons of mass destruction is convincing. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas and anthrax. We believe he may have other deadly diseases he is making into weapons. Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons program before the Gulf War and is seeking to develop nuclear weapons again. Saddam Hussein's intent is more difficult to discern. I believe the evidence of his ultimate intent to use these weapons or cause them to be used against the American people is strong enough that we cannot afford to ignore it. Iraq is developing missiles that can hit neighboring states and is building unmanned aerial vehicles to spread chemical and biological agents. I am concerned that Iraq is exploring ways to use these aerial vehicles for missions targeting the United States. Saddam's aggressiveness, hatred of the United States and willingness to use chemical weapons is clearly established. Iraq has invaded its neighbors and has used chemical weapons against its own people. He is a brutal dictator and a tyrant. Being a brutal tyrant does not justify the use of force by America; the world has plenty of tyrants. But his past behavior provides context and credence to the assessment of his intent. We are a moral people. We do not covet anyone else's territory or resources. We do not seek to destroy other civilizations or involve ourselves in the internal affairs of other states. The decision to authorize the use of force in advance of any attack is a grave one which I do not take lightly. One of the defining characteristics of international relations in the twentieth century was the steadily declining legitimacy of the use of force by states other than in self-defense. This trend enhanced the stability and order of the system of sovereign states that has developed since the sixteenth century. At the zenith of our military power, wielding enormous political, economic and social influence, America must not squander our moral authority by yielding to the temptation to justify using our military power preemptively other than in highly unusual circumstances. While the current threat posed by Iraq meets that high standard, we should be careful to acknowledge just how high the standard is. Otherwise, our rhetoric and actions could be used to justify erosion of the general prohibition of the use of force by other states, undermining the stability of the system we seek to bolster. I am voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq because it possesses and is further developing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver those weapons and because I believe that Iraq intends to use those weapons against Americans. We should not go to war because another country represses its own minorities. Repression of minorities is a widespread human rights violation. We should not go to war because another country has failed to account for missing prisoners of war, as disdainful as that is. We should not go to war because another country simply possesses weapons of mass destruction. There are at least 12 states that already posses nuclear weapons, including some of our allies as well as former adversaries. Possession of these weapons alone is insufficient justification. We should not go to war because a country is trading outside of a sanctions regime. Iraq is doing all of these things. But the set of circumstances that justifies this authorization to use force is very narrow and is related to Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons program and Saddam's intent to use those weapons against Americans. There is no objection to wait for him to strike first. We have a limited right of anticipatory self-defense and we must exercise it in this case. We cannot make a clear statement about the imminence of the threat from Saddam nor is it likely we would ever be able to until it was too late. In that sense, the threats of the twenty-first century are unlike those of the past. With these weapons, imminence is imperceptible and the risk of inaction is incalculable. The joint resolution supports the President's diplomatic efforts to build a coalition to confront Iraq. Iraq has defied resolutions of the UN Security Council with impunity. The President was right to go to the UN and make the case for action against Iraq. In some respects, this current crisis is a test of the UN's continued relevance. If the UN is not willing to act collectively, we will have to build a coalition of states outside of the UN to act. This is, without doubt, a turning point for the United Nations as an institution. Our top foreign policy priority must be to win the war on terrorism. There are ninety-plus states cooperating in that effort--for the most part involving their law enforcement and intelligence services. By building international support for any action against Iraq we can minimize the possibility that any of those states will distance themselves from this cooperation. Perhaps more importantly for the long term, military action against Iraq is bound to stir opposition among some in the Middle East. It will be easier to manage resentment if we build a coalition of states, including states in the Gulf Region. While much of our attention has been focused on whether we should confront Iraq, in making my decision to support this resolution, I have also considered whether we can. Over the last year our military forces have been at increased operational tempo fighting a war in Afghanistan and defending the homeland. While Saddam's forces are considerably smaller than they were during the Gulf War, so are ours. I have been repeatedly assured by our military commanders and our civilian defense leadership that we have the forces, munitions, logistics, communications systems, spare parts, and the people it will take to prevail. They are trained and combat readiness levels are restored or being restored. I have also been assured that our military strategy will be tied to our political objective. I opposed the use of force in Kosovo because we had a military strategy that used limited air power to achieve a largely humanitarian mission to prevent door-to-door ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I have been assured that we will act with the full power of the U.S. military, giving them the force necessary to win and come home again. The Congress authorizes the President to use force if all other means fail. We do not command the military or instruct the diplomats. I hope that, faced with the military might of a united coalition led by the United States, Saddam will choose to end his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program and disarm. I hope this will not require military action, but it may. People who have served in uniform are often the most reluctant to go to war--and I am no exception to that general rule. We know the risks; we know the limitations; and we know many of the likely participants. There are great risks in this potential action. But those risks will not diminish over time. And there are also great risks of inaction. We did not choose this challenge. But faced with it, we cannot turn away. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, it is really an honor to be here this evening to share some time with the House and to explain why we are naming a building in Roswell, New Mexico, after a guy named Joe Skeen. Joe Skeen was born in Roswell, New Mexico, and he is a rancher. Most of us around here know that, because when he was the chair of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, he never let us forget it. It was not just a ranch, it was a sheep ranch, and Joe managed to put up photographs of New Mexico around the appropriations subcommittee room of sheep everywhere so no one would forget this was an appropriations subcommittee that was chaired by a sheep rancher. He purchased his family ranching operation from his grandmother, and it is currently being run by Joe and his wife, Mary, and his son, Mike. He also has a daughter, Lisa, and three grandsons. You really cannot think of Joe without also thinking of Mary. She is an absolute stalwart; a wonderful woman, one of those western women of strength who radiates warmth and friendship; the kind of woman who walks into a room and just lights up the place and lights up Joe's eyes too. You can see that still in their relationship, having been married these many years. Joe is also known quite a bit for his sense of humor around here. In fact, Tom, I think probably only Mo Udall exceeds him in his appreciation for the importance of humor in public life. It is kind of a dry, western sense of humor. He talks about being the minority leader of the State Senate in New Mexico. People introduce him that way as a proud accomplishment, and he always points out to them that at the time he was the minority leader they had their caucus meetings in the phone booth because there were so few Republicans in the State Senate. Then he began to build the Republican Party, and the representation of Republicans in the State Senate followed him. He was first elected to the House of Representatives as a write-in candidate in 1980. It was very unusual. In fact, he was only the third person in American history to ever be elected to this body as a write- in candidate. It was an extraordinary effort and an unusual time. I remember Mary telling me on that night, election night in 1980, when they got the reports in from the precincts, that it was 11 o'clock at night. The polls had already been closed since 7, but people were still waiting in line. They knew then that they were going to win. It was an unusual moment in American history, participated in by a very unusual and wonderful man. Joe has been an effective leader in and an outstanding Representative for New Mexico's Second District for over 20 years. During his time, Joe has shown his commitment to public service and to his constituents. His staff, many of whom have been with him for 22 years, talk about when he used to work in that Federal Building down in Roswell, and he would go out to take a little break and he would not be back for half an hour, an hour or more. He had found some constituent to chat with, some constituent that needed help with a Social Security check or veterans benefits. That was the kind of guy that Joe was as a public servant. During his tenure here, he has had a powerful influence in this Congress. He has served 17 years on the Committee on Appropriations. He has been a champion of States' rights and the idea that decisions made closest to the people are those that are best. He is also known around here for his sense of humor. Whenever anyone walks into his office from New Mexico, he asks about the weather. He asks whether it has rained yet. Usually, of course, the answer is no, since we do not get much rain, and Joe always says, with that perfect timing that I cannot even begin to imitate, ``You know, there are 12-year-olds in New Mexico that have never even seen rain.'' His staff is very familiar with that story, but every constituent gets a big laugh out of Joe Skeen and his appreciation for the western sense of humor. After 11 terms in the United States Congress, Joe has decided to return to his ranch, a place that he describes as being ``at the center of my upbringing and which shaped my character and its principles.'' He leaves behind a proud tradition of public service, in which he has been a positive influence on many people's lives, including mine. One of Joe's actions when he first took office in 1981 was to introduce legislation to name the Federal Building in Las Cruces after the man he replaced, Congressman Harold Runnels. I believe it is appropriate 22 years later to return the favor.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my support for the concurrent resolution in honor of Patriot Day under consideration by the House today. On this solemn day of remembrance, it is important to gather with our families, our friends, and our communities to reaffirm our love of country and our dedication to upholding the values of freedom and democracy that we hold so dear. Today, in Albuquerque and across the nation, we will take the time to honor those who faced danger bravely to save others: firefighters, police officers, and our soldiers overseas that now risk their lives to protect the freedom we enjoy. In this spirit, I will be in Albuquerque on September 11 with my family and neighbors to honor the heroes, to pray for those lost and their families, to comfort the hurting and to reassure the children.