U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–533PDF 2003

REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT TO SUBMIT TO THE HOUSE THE

REPORT PREPARED FOR THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF AND

DOCUMENTS ON RECONSTRUCTION/SECURITY OF POST–WAR

IRAQ; AMENDING THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

TO REAUTHORIZE OPIC; COMMENDING THE NATIONAL

ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY; AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 2004/2005 TO CARRY OUT THE CONGO BASIN

FOREST PARTNERSHIP; CONDOLENCES IN RESPONSE TO THE

MURDER OF SWEDISH FOREIGN MINISTER LINDH; AND

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE

UKRAINE MAN–MADE FAMINE IN 1932–1933

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H. Res. 364, H.R. 3145, H. Con. Res. 274, H.R. 2264,

H. Res. 372, and H. Res. 356

SEPTEMBER 25, 2003

Serial No. 108–49

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international

( —relations 
(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

AMO HOUGHTON, New York 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

NICK SMITH, Michigan 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

CHRIS BELL, Texas 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

DANIEL FREEMAN, Counsel/Parliamentarian 

LIBERTY DUNN, Staff Associate 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

MARKUP OF: 

H. Res. 364, Of inquiry requesting the President to transmit to the House 

of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of 

this resolution the report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled 

‘‘Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned’’ and documents in 

his possession on the reconstruction and security of post-war Iraq ................ 2

H.R. 3145, To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to reauthorize 

the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and for other purposes .......... 37

Amendment to H.R. 3145 offered by the Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of California .................................... 44

H. Con. Res. 274, Commending the National Endowment for Democracy for 

its contributions to democratic development around the world on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the National Endowment for Democracy ............................................................................................. 48

H.R. 2264, To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to 

carry out the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP) program, and for 

other purposes ...................................................................................................... 51

H. Res. 372, Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives 

in response to the murder of Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh ............. 57

H. Res. 356, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding 

the man-made famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932–1933 ....................... 60

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Letter dated September 25, 2003 from General Richard B. Myers, Chairman, 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department of Defense to the Honorable Duncan 

L. Hunter, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

and Chairman, Committee on Armed Services ................................................. 5

Letter dated September 25, 2003 from the Honorable Duncan L. Hunter 

to the Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations ........ 6

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde: Prepared statement on H. Res. 364 .................. 7

The Honorable Robert Wexler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida: Prepared statement on H. Res. 364 ................................................. 9

The Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California: Prepared statement on H.R. 3145 ............................................... 46

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Tom Lantos: Prepared statements on H. Con. Res. 274, H.R. 

2264, H. Res. 372, H. Res. 356 ............................................................................ 65

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Prepared statement on H.R. 2264 ..................................... 66

The Honorable Ron Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas: Prepared statement on H. Res. 364 ........................................................ 67

The Honorable Barbara Lee: Prepared statement on H.R. 3145 ......................... 67

The Honorable Betty McCollum, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Minnesota: Prepared statement on H. Res. 364 ............................................ 68

(1)

REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT TO SUBMIT TO THE HOUSE 

THE REPORT PREPARED FOR THE JOINT CHIEFS OF 

STAFF AND DOCUMENTS ON RECONSTRUCTION/SECURITY 

OF POST–WAR IRAQ; AMENDING THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961 TO REAUTHORIZE OPIC; COMMENDING 

THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY; AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 2004/2005 TO CARRY OUT 

THE CONGO BASIN FOREST PARTNERSHIP; CONDOLENCES 

IN RESPONSE TO THE MURDER OF SWEDISH FOREIGN 

MINISTER LINDH; AND EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE 

HOUSE REGARDING THE UKRAINE MAN–MADE FAMINE IN 

1932–1933

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1 p.m., in Room 2172, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. Pursuant to 

notice I now call up H. Res. 364, ‘‘Resolution of Inquiry requesting 

the President to transmit to the House of Representatives not later 

than 14 days after the date of adoption of this resolution the report 

prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled ‘Operation Iraqi 

Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned’ and documents in his possession on the reconstruction and security of post-war Iraq,’’ for purposes of markup and move its adverse recommendation to the 

House. 

Without objection, the resolution will be considered as read and 

open for amendment at any point, and the Chair yields himself 5 

minutes for purposes of a statement. 

[H. Res. 364 follows:]
2

1

IV

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 364

Of inquiry requesting the President to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of this resolution

the report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled ‘‘Operation

Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned’’ and documents in his possession on the reconstruction and security of post-war Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 9, 2003

Mr. WEXLER (for himself, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mr. MEEKS of

New York, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. LEE, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. EMANUEL,

Mr. FARR, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. WATSON, Mr.

DELAHUNT, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. KUCINICH,

Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. BERMAN, Mr.

TIERNEY, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BELL, and Mrs. MALONEY) submitted the

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed

Services, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

RESOLUTION

Of inquiry requesting the President to transmit to the House

of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date

of adoption of this resolution the report prepared for

the Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled ‘‘Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned’’ and documents in his

possession on the reconstruction and security of postwar Iraq.
3

2

•HRES 364 IH

1 Resolved, That the President is requested to transmit

2 to the House of Representatives not later than the 14th

3 day beginning after the date of adoption of this resolution

4 the report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled

5 ‘‘Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned’’

6 and documents in his possession on the reconstruction and

7 security of post-war Iraq.

Æ
4

Chairman HYDE. On September 9, 2003, H. Res 364, a resolution 

of inquiry, was introduced requesting the President to transmit to 

the House of Representatives the ‘‘report prepared for the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff entitled ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons 

Learned’ and documents in the President’s possession on the reconstruction and security of post-war Iraq.’’ This resolution of inquiry, 

the third such resolution concerning Iraq that this Committee has 

considered in the last few months, consists of two parts. 

First, the resolution seeks access to the report prepared for the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled ‘‘Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic 

Lessons Learned.’’ It is my understanding that the requested document is not yet in the form of a report, but is in the form of an 

initial briefing document which will in turn be followed by a comprehensive written report at a later date. This briefing and report 

are major undertakings that will entail hundreds of interviews, a 

large number of which are still ongoing. The briefing and report 

are very much works in progress and exist today in draft form only. 

I think it is important for all Members to take a special note that 

the product ‘‘Lessons Learned,’’ has been issued routinely by the 

Defense Department following every major conflict involving our 

Armed Forces. This is an extremely important document and provides essential guidance for future conflicts. It is presently nowhere 

near completion and it would be a disservice to those who must 

fight our future wars to rush the process of compiling the lessons 

learned. Once those lessons learned are completed, the Defense Department routinely makes them available to the House and Senate 

Armed Services Committees and to all Members under appropriate 

security conditions. I hope common sense will prevail in this matter. 

You have before you a copy of a letter from the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff. As you can see from this letter, once the briefing is final, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will provide 

a complete, unredacted copy of the classified briefing to the Committee of primary jurisdiction, the House Armed Services Committee. After the briefing is completed and submitted, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will receive the follow-up written 

report at a later date, which also will be submitted to the House 

Armed Services Committee. 

[The information referred to follows:]
5

Chairman HYDE. Chairman Hunter has written a letter to this 

Committee, a copy of which is also before you, informing us that 

the Armed Services Committee will, in turn, grant, under appropriate security conditions and House Rules, access to any Member 

of the House who wishes to review the briefing and the follow-up 

report. 

[The information referred to follows:]
6

Chairman HYDE. Second, the resolution seeks access to ‘‘documents . . . on the reconstruction and security of post-war Iraq.’’ 

This is extremely if not fatally vague and is a broad request for 

documents lacking totally in specificity and it becomes virtually impossible to support this request. 

The Armed Services Committee plans to continue its weekly 

oversight briefings by Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff concerning these issues. I repeat, a weekly briefing is conducted by DOD and the Joint Chiefs in the Armed Services Committee available to all Members of the House. 

Therefore, since I believe this resolution is premature insofar as 

the first document is concerned, and vague and unworkable as far 

as the second request is concerned, that is why I move to report 
7

this resolution adversely, and I urge my colleagues to support my 

motion. 

And I now recognize Mr. Wexler. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hyde follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

H. RES. 364

On September 9, 2003, H. Res. 364, a resolution of inquiry was introduced requesting the President to transmit to the House of Representatives the ‘‘report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned’ and documents in the President’s possession on the reconstruction 

and security of post-war Iraq.’’

This resolution of inquiry, the third such resolution concerning Iraq that this 

Committee has considered during the last few months, consists of two parts. 

First, the resolution seeks access to the report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff entitled, ‘‘Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned.’’ It is my understanding that the requested document is not yet in the form of a report, but is in 

the form of an initial briefing document which will in turn be followed by a comprehensive written report at a later date. This briefing and report are major undertakings that will entail hundreds of interviews, a large number of which are still 

ongoing. The briefing and report are very much works in progress and exist today 

in draft form only. 

I think it important for all Members to take especial note that the product, ‘‘Lessons Learned’’, has been issued routinely by the Defense Department following 

every major conflict involving our Armed Forces. This is an extremely important 

document and provides essential guidance for future wars. It is presently no where 

near completion and it would be a disservice to those who must fight our future 

wars to rush the process of compiling the lessons learned. Once these lessons 

learned are completed, the Defense Department routinely makes them available to 

the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and to all Members under appropriate security conditions. I hope that common sense will prevail in this matter. 

You have before you a copy of a letter from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff. As you can see from this letter, once the briefing is final, the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff will provide a complete, unredacted copy of the classified 

briefing to the committee of primary jurisdiction, the House Armed Services Committee. After the briefing is completed and submitted, the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff will receive the follow-up written report at a later date, which also 

will be submitted to the House Armed Services Committee. 

Chairman Hunter has written a letter to this Committee, a copy of which is also 

before you, informing us that the Armed Services Committee will, in turn, grant, 

under appropriate security conditions and House Rules, access to any Member of the 

House who wishes to review the briefing and the follow-up report. 

Second, the resolution seeks access to ‘‘documents . . . on the reconstruction and 

security of post-war Iraq.’’ This is an extremely vague and broad request for documents, and the lack of specificity makes it virtually impossible to support the request. 

The Armed Services Committee plans to continue its weekly oversight briefings 

by the DOD and JCS concerning these issues, which it has conducted since the start 

of Operation Iraqi Freedom. These briefings have been and will remain open to all 

Members of the House. 

Therefore, since I believe this resolution is premature insofar as the first document is concerned, and vague and unworkable as far as the second request is concerned, and that is why I have moved to report the resolution adversely. I urge my 

colleagues to support the motion.

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to 

join me in supporting House Resolution 364, a resolution of inquiry 

requiring President Bush to release to Congress a report drafted 

for the Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled ‘‘Operation Iraqi Freedom Lessons Learned,’’ which provides a detailed assessment of the Administration’s wartime strategy and post-war planning in Iraq. 
8

According to media reports, this internal evaluation presents a 

comprehensive analysis of the Administration’s post-war strategy. 

The report was compiled from a series of interviews with high 

ranking military officials, including now retired Army General 

Tommy Franks. 

On September 3, The Washington Times disclosed the existence 

of this classified report labeled ‘‘Final Draft.’’ The media reported 

that the evaluation highlights a flawed and rushed war planning 

process that limited the focus for preparing for post-Saddam Hussein operations. 

The report further states, and I quote:

‘‘Three grades were awarded for wartime strategy employed in 

Iraq. The Administration’s post-war planning and search for 

weapons of mass destruction received the lowest grade, which 

the assessment qualified as falling short of expectation and 

needs. The extent of the planning required was underestimated 

and insufficient U.S. Government assets existed to accomplish 

this mission.’’

Mr. Chairman, like many of our colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle, I voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. 

But as Congress debates President Bush’s $87 billion supplemental 

request, it is imperative that we fully understand the perspective 

of our military officials on the ground. It is also incumbent upon 

Congress to analyze the Administration’s post-war strategy so that 

we may improve reconstruction efforts in Iraq and better ensure 

the security of our troops. In fact, this was the intention of those 

who drafted this report for the Joint Chiefs, including the Marine 

Corps’ General Gordon Nash, who stated that the value in collecting these lessons learned is that we will save lives, save money 

and improve our Armed Forces. 

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask this Committee, how does Congress help save lives if we don’t have the report? How does Congress improve the capability of our Armed Forces if we don’t have 

the report? How does Congress approve an additional $87 billion 

for Iraq if we don’t have the report? 

As it stands now, Congress lacks the necessary information to 

make an informed judgment on the reconstruction and stabilization 

plans for post-war Iraq. As a result, Congress is abdicating its responsibility to our Armed Forces, to the American people, and to 

the Constitution. 

Mr. Chairman, you referred to General Myers’ letter sent just 

this morning to Congress stating that this report is still in draft 

form and will be provided to us when it is complete. But how do 

you explain to the American people that the report was complete 

enough for the Pentagon to give a copy to Secretary Powell and 

Under Secretary Armitage but not to Congress? How do you explain to the American people that someone in the Pentagon saw fit 

to give the report to The Washington Times, a report that was complete enough to be stamped ‘‘Final Draft,’’ but not complete enough 

for Congress? 

Mr. Chairman, it has been over 6 months since the Joint Chiefs 

initiated this report, 3 months since a draft was handed over to 

DOD and approximately 1 month since it was given to The Wash-
9

ington Times. This is more than ample time for the Pentagon to 

have given Congress this report. I appreciate General Myers’ offer 

to provide the report at an uncertain date, but this report is useless to Congress if we have already voted on the $87 billion for 

Iraq. 

No more excuses, Mr. Chairman, not while our brave troops are 

dying. No more stonewalling, not while our troops are dying. We 

need a plan for Iraq, Mr. Chairman. We need to follow the advice 

of our military personnel on the ground in Iraq and learn some lessons. This is why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 

to join me in requiring the President to release this report. The 

clock is ticking. Windows of opportunity in Iraq are closing and the 

American people demand answers, without which support our efforts in Iraq will collapse under the weight of uncertainty and fear. 

Now more than ever Congress has an obligation to ask questions 

and it is the President’s duty to provide answers before it is too 

late. 

Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wexler follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT WEXLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

H. RES. 364

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 

364, a resolution of inquiry requiring President Bush to release to Congress a report 

drafted for the Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled ‘‘Operation Iraqi Freedom Lessons 

Learned,’’ which provides a detailed assessment of the Administration’s wartime 

strategy and post-war planning in Iraq. 

According to media reports, this internal evaluation presents a comprehensive 

analysis of the Administration’s post-war strategy. The report was compiled from a 

series of interviews with high ranking military officials—including now-retired 

Army General Tommy Franks. 

On September 3rd, the Washington Times disclosed the existence of this classified 

report labeled ‘‘final draft.’’ The media reported that the evaluation highlights a 

flawed and rushed war- planning process that limited the focus for preparing for 

post-Saddam Hussein operations. 

The report further states, and I quote, ‘‘Three grades were awarded for wartime 

strategy employed in Iraq. The Administration’s post-war planning and search for 

weapons of mass destruction received the lowest grade, which the assessment qualified as ‘falling short of expectation or needs’ . . . The extent of the planning required was underestimated. [And] insufficient U.S. government assets existed to accomplish the mission.’’

Mr. Chairman, like many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I voted for 

the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. But as Congress debates President Bush’s $87 billion supplemental request, it is imperative that we fully understand the perspective of our military officials on the ground. It is also incumbent 

upon Congress to analyze the Administration’s post- war strategy so that we may 

improve reconstruction efforts in Iraq and better ensure the security of our troops. 

In fact, this was the intention of those who drafted this report for the Joint 

Chiefs, including Marine Corps Major General Gordon Nash, who stated that the 

value in collecting these lessons learned is that we will save lives, save money and 

improve our armed forces. 

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask this committee—How does Congress help save 

lives if we don’t have the report? How does Congress improve the capability of our 

armed forces if we don’t have the report? How does Congress approve an additional 

$87 billion dollars for Iraq if we don’t have the report? As it stands now, Congress 

lacks the necessary information to make an informed judgement on the reconstruction and stabilization plans for post-war Iraq. As a result, Congress is abdicating 

its responsibility to our armed forces, to the America people and the Constitution. 

Mr. Chairman, you referred to General Meyer’s letter sent just this morning to 

Congress stating that this report is still in draft form and will be provided to us 

when it is complete. But how do you explain to the American people that the report 
10

was complete enough for the Pentagon to give a copy to Secretary Powell and Undersecretary Armitage, but not to Congress? How do you explain to the American 

people that someone in the Pentagon saw fit to give the report to the Washington 

Times—a report that was complete enough to be stamped ‘‘final draft,’’ but not complete enough for Congress? 

Mr. Chairman, it has been over six months since the Joint Chiefs initiated this 

report, three months since a draft was handed over to DOD, and approximately one 

month since it was given to the Washington Times. This is more than ample time 

for the Pentagon to have given Congress this report. I appreciate General Meyers 

offer to provide the report at an uncertain date, but this report is useless to Congress if we’ve already voted on the $87 billion dollars for Iraq. 

No more excuses Mr. Chairman—not while our brave troops are dying. No more 

stonewalling, not while our troops are dying. We need a plan for Iraq, Mr. Chairman. We need to follow the advice of our military personnel on the ground in Iraq 

and learn some lessons. This is why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 

to join me in requiring the President to release this report. 

The clock is ticking, windows of opportunities in Iraq are closing and the American people demand answers—without which support for our efforts in Iraq will collapse under the weight of uncertainty and fear. Now, more than ever, Congress has 

an obligation to ask questions, and it’s the President’s duty to provide answers before it’s too late.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield for a question? 

When you mention final draft, I haven’t worked in the Executive 

Branch on such documents. Anything that says draft isn’t it still 

a draft and not a final document? So you are asking for something 

that is not a final document to be released? 

Mr. WEXLER. Well, the same so-called final draft was sent to The 

Washington Times. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Isn’t a final draft still a draft form and not 

a final document? 

Mr. WEXLER. Well, it was final enough. I am not going about—

final enough for the Secretary of State. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is my question. 

Chairman HYDE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for 5 minutes. And will the gentleman 

yield to me? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will. 

Chairman HYDE. I thank you. The last thing in the world I 

would want to do would be to ascribe political motivation for anything that anybody does in this Committee, the last thing I want 

to do. However, as long as we are quoting media as our sources, 

there are some media today that say:

‘‘Representative Robert Wexler is so anxious to see a secret 

Joint Chiefs of Staff report that he is forcing two committees 

to vote on whether the House should formally request a copy. 

One thing he has not done is just asked for it. Wexler spokesman Lale Mamaux said Wednesday that her boss did not relay 

his desire to the White House, the Pentagon or the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff before he and 40 other Democrats filed a resolution of inquiry to request on behalf of the entire House to see 

‘Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned.’ ’’

The report, as we are told not by the media, but the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is not ready. We are led to believe that 

the final briefing document will be completed by mid-December and 

will be provided to the House Armed Services Committee at that 

time and thus through that channel available to us. So if the gen-
11

tleman really is interested in the information and not some lesser 

ignoble motive——

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, will you yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time and I will be happy to 

let Mr. Wexler answer that. But let me say that I sympathize with 

the motive of trying to get the information out on every issue we 

deal with. I am not sympathetic with secrecy in government unless 

it is absolutely necessary. And this type of evaluation is not absolutely necessary that we keep it secret, but it is necessary that our 

government has a legitimate time period to complete a draft and 

to talk about it and to—I mean having worked in the Executive 

Branch—I have seen these things as a final draft and there are a 

lot of changes between the final document and what is labeled the 

final draft. And, of course, the Chairman has indicated, as Duncan 

Hunter has indicated, that we will get to see it when it is finally 

approved as the point of view of our Chiefs of Staff. 

Mr. Wexler, I would yield the balance of my time to you. 

Mr. WEXLER. My only motive, Mr. Chairman, is to have the report in whatever form it currently is in the hands of Congress so 

we can use and deliberate the information as we deem fit. But I 

want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for pointing out to the Committee the article on the front page of Congressional Quarterly

today because, as you may be shocked to learn, Mr. Chairman, the 

article is dead wrong. And you may recall that at a meeting of this 

Committee with Secretary Armitage, I asked him about the report. 

I did so specifically and I not only asked him about Congress and 

whether he had the report and then—I don’t think I can go into 

it, because I think that was a classified report—but then amazingly 

in the afternoon after our meeting, that same report that apparently was not sent to the State Department was then stated later 

in the afternoon in a press release that was sent out by the Pentagon that they actually provided it to the State Department. So 

if we are going to start talking about motive, my motive is one simple motive: This Congress deserves a report about post-war Iraq, 

whatever it says, good, bad or indifferent. We are going to vote on 

$87 billion. We ought to know just make an informed decision. If 

that is partisan, so be it. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul. 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am glad we are having 

the debate. I think this is important because it makes one important point and that is that Congress indeed does have authority 

and prerogatives over this issue, either financing it and it certainly 

has the prerogative over the issue of war. As most of you will recall, many months prior to the war I was strongly opposed to it and 

I was strongly opposed to the process because we did not declare 

war and we did not tell the President not to go to war. What we 

did last fall was we transferred power to the President to make his 

own decision, and I thought that was wrong procedurally, but also 

I thought it was ill-advised to go into Iraq. 

But this resolution isn’t exactly what I would draw up and I 

think the Chairman makes a very good point about the second part 

of the resolution asking for documents that are vague. I just don’t 

think that is feasible. But I don’t think that should distract from 

the effort for some of us to get a handle on things, the expenditures 
12

and the process and the policy. The Executive Branch doesn’t operate in a vacuum, and I don’t quite understand why Congress over 

the years, over the decades have been so anxious to transfer their 

responsibilities to the Executive Branch, and that is why I think 

this debate is very important and we should talk about coming together on asking for more information. I think that is legitimate. 

For instance, I would like to know how many Iraqi civilians have 

been killed. And that might be bad PR or something, I don’t know 

why, but generally in past wars, we have known this. 

Chairman HYDE. Would the gentleman yield? Has the gentleman 

asked that question at the weekly briefings by the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff and the Department of Defense? 

Mr. PAUL. No, I haven’t. 

Chairman HYDE. Then I would suggest you do. 

Mr. PAUL. It is available most weekly? 

Chairman HYDE. Those are weekly briefings and you are certainly welcome. 

Mr. PAUL. I want to know if that number would be available. 

Chairman HYDE. I would say if it is not available, I would be 

very surprised. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have resources to get that. 

Mr. WEXLER. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. PAUL. I will be happy to yield. 

Mr. WEXLER. I would be happy to accept an amendment from the 

gentleman that stated that this resolution was limited to the report 

prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I would be happy to accept 

that and to put aside what is referred to by the Chairman as a 

vague request. 

Mr. PAUL. Okay. I am not about to make that amendment, but 

I am still quite willing to talk about the principle of the Congress 

having more oversight. For instance, not knowing the details of 

how many civilians have been killed—there are a lot of reports in 

the paper. And if the large number is true, 50,000—we never hear 

the correction coming from the Administration—this may be one of 

the reasons why there is a great deal of resistance in Iraq that we, 

at least the Administration, didn’t anticipate, and I think that is 

very important. 

But once again, I think the point I am trying to make is that we 

in the Congress should not be so anxious to give up so much of our 

responsibility and our authority and our prerogatives over very, 

very important issues such as war. And therefore I hope maybe I 

can give us some more thought about thinking and working with 

somebody coming up with something to get more information because I think there are still a lot of questions, there are a lot of 

hearings, even including today there will be a hearing with 

Bremer. So hopefully we can get more information. But I think it 

is very important and I may well take advice from the Chairman 

and find out how much information I can get. 

It is just that this war has been treated somewhat differently. In 

other wars we have heard about the deaths and the civilian deaths 

and the destruction, but we do need to know an awfully lot more 

and why we are charging the people in this country to first, you 

know, destroy the infrastructure of a country and then we ask 

them to rebuild at the same time our own infrastructure is in 
13

shambles and we have unemployment growing. Yet we are worried 

about unemployment over there. 

Chairman HYDE. Does the gentleman know of any previous war 

where there have been more newsmen embedded with the troops? 

Mr. PAUL. I would like to make a comment about that because 

that concerns me. 

Chairman HYDE. I am sorry. Go ahead. 

Mr. PAUL. I will answer the question. Probably not, but that 

doesn’t reassure me because that to me was a sign that the situation was monitored more closely than ever before. 

Mr. CHABOT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman HYDE. Without objection. 

Mr. CHABOT. Just one point, Ron, and I have the utmost respect 

for your positions most of the time, but just one statement that you 

made I think ought to be clarified. You mentioned about we go in 

and destroy the infrastructure of the country. I don’t think that is 

what happened. Inevitably there was some infrastructure that 

would have been damaged but I think we went out of our way to 

avoid power plants and all kinds of things. And although there was 

some damage, much of the damage that we are going to be repairing was the damage that was caused by 30 years of a corrupt totalitarian regime from the dictator Saddam and what he inflicted 

on his country and people. So I don’t think it is damage from the 

United States that really needs to be overcome. 

Mr. PAUL. Would the gentleman yield? I think you made a good 

point and I don’t think it is totally and completely accurate, but a 

lot more people have less electricity over there since the bombing 

occurred than occurred prior to it. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I believe the subject of this resolution is very important. I am 

a strong believer that studying the past is an absolute prerequisite 

for making the right decisions in the future. 

Since it was reported publicly that the Defense Department had 

prepared a lessons learned document that dealt with various aspects of our operations in Iraq, I along with many of my colleagues 

throughout Washington have been interested in obtaining access to 

that information. Our interest, Mr. Chairman, is not sheer curiosity. Congress must be involved in overseeing closely all of our activities in Iraq and in learning from lessons. It is wholly appropriate for us to obtain information prepared by some of the best informed members of the U.S. military in order to evaluate what role 

Congress can play in improving our efforts both today and in the 

future. 

I therefore regrettably must disagree with my esteemed friend 

and colleague, the Chairman, and urge my colleagues to vote 

against the motion to report this resolution unfavorably. I think 

this Committee is entitled to obtain this report. I think the Department of Defense has all the capability of speeding up the preparation of this report, and I hope that the mid-December date can be 

moved up so that within the next week or 10 days we can obtain 

the report. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
14

Chairman HYDE. Thank the gentleman. Is there anyone else who 

wishes to speak? 

Mr. Janklow. 

Mr. JANKLOW. Mr. Chairman, a report that discusses the problems involving the mix of active and reserve forces, the deployment 

of troops, problems with special operations forces, problems with 

finding bombing targets, attracting the whereabouts of friendly 

troops and joint service warfare involve things that deal with the 

protection of the existing forces that we have in that theater of operations. It also involves the strategic abilities of the United States 

Armed Forces. The report that we get should be a final, complete, 

thorough and well researched document and not something that at 

this point could not just give aid and comfort but may work against 

the interest of the strategic military interests of this country at the 

present time. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Menendez. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first, 

I cannot let go a serious concern that I want to voice early that I 

do not believe that it is the proper decorum to question the motives 

of any Member in the pursuit of their exercise of their function of 

their office and not only as a Member of this Committee, but as the 

Chairman of our caucus. In the debate days ahead, there are those 

in the majority who will question our motives or our patriotism and 

think that is going to silence us. They are desperately wrong. 

Chairman HYDE. Would the gentleman yield? Would you extend 

the same protection to the President? 

Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to extend any protection to 

anyone who deserves it in the context of a public policy debate. The 

last thing I want to do is to ascribe political motives in opposition 

to this resolution in terms of hiding the Administration’s fiasco in 

what may very well have been a major policy blunder. I don’t ascribe that anyone who may oppose this resolution is doing it simply 

to protect the President at the cost to America’s interest. 

So I don’t particularly care for ascribing to any of our Members 

questionable motives. They have the right to pursue and we have 

the right to debate and we have the right to know. The American 

people have a right to know whether this Administration had an 

effective plan in place before they started this war. It is that simple. And all this resolution does is require the President to send 

to Congress any documents relating to post-war planning, including 

a copy of a report drafted for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And that 

report that The Washington Times has marked ‘‘Final Draft’’—well, 

The Washington Times can have it, but those of us who represent 

hundreds of thousands of people and collectively millions of Americans in this country cannot have it? It is in fact highly, highly objectionable that we cannot have this opportunity. If the press can 

have it, then surely we can have the opportunity as well as the 

American public. 

What we do know about the Administration’s post-war planning 

right now is very little, but that which we know shows us that 

post-war planning helps explain the disastrous situation in Iraq 

today. That poor planning is part of the reason that blackouts 

plagued Baghdad and that the Administration had to scrap its en-
15

ergy strategy in mid-July. We know that according to media descriptions of this secret report, senior military officials gave the 

planning for post-war Iraq the lowest rating on their scale, the lowest rating. And according to the same media reports the planners 

simply didn’t have enough time to put together a good plan for reconstruction. 

No wonder that plan isn’t working. No wonder our soldiers now 

face a guerilla war that this Administration failed to predict. No 

wonder this Administration throughout their original plan last May 

had to start over. And no wonder possibly that we have such opposition to release this post-war planning to the American people and 

to the Congress. But if the post-war planning was rushed, if the 

post-war planning was flawed, then the Administration should be 

held accountable. It was this same Administration that urges to go 

directly into war. It was this same Administration that would not 

wait any longer for the U.N. to act. It was this same Administration that didn’t have time to build a true international consensus 

and a true coalition so that our troops and our taxpayers wouldn’t 

have to share the entire burden of the war in Iraq. Yet it turns out 

that this same Administration, that was in such a rush to go to 

war, may not have taken the time to effectively plan for post-war 

Iraq. And it is the same Administration that now comes to Congress asking for an additional $87 billion without a clear plan for 

the future. 

Only yesterday, Secretary Rumsfeld told our colleagues in the 

Senate that the Administration does have a detailed plan for recovery, but that it is complicated and not readily absorbable or communicated through the television and the sound bite or a bumper 

sticker. The American public wants to see the detailed plan and is 

smart enough to understand whether their money is being used to 

effectively protect our troops. And the American public deserves to 

know whether or not this Administration had a well thought out 

plan for post-war Iraq. 

That is all Mr. Wexler is attempting to do, and I urge my colleagues to support his inquiry. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say that as 

we are all making decisions each week on one of the most momentous issues that we are grappling with, it seems to me we would 

benefit from the favorable recommendation of the request by Mr. 

Wexler and getting an opportunity to review the draft report. I 

have huge respect for the Chairman and I don’t want to talk about 

whether or not anybody is political in this regard, but I am one of 

the people who voted against authorizing this war because of some 

of the same elements that are now being tragically played out each 

and every day in Iraq. 

Now I am not prepared to judge whether those who say the Administration was purposefully deceptive with the public and with 

some Members of Congress or whether we just simply were victimized by poor planning and poor intelligence or whether there is just 

an unfortunate circumstance of events. But there has been a steadily shifting pattern of rationale in dealing with the facts. We have 

had the members of the U.S. Government who at the outset accurately estimated the economic costs and the requirement of troop 
16

deployment being denied and dismissed by others in the Administration. And I note with interest that both these two spokespeople 

are now ex-government officials. 

We are in a situation now, and I am mindful of what Mr. Rohrabacher said about how these reports have a way of changing from 

the time they are final draft. Lots of things happen within the 

machinations of an Administration. Absolutely the case. And I 

think that is one of the reasons why we ought to look at this final 

draft report, because we have seen with this Administration a pattern of pressure on government agents and officials who have tried 

to give the American public the truth, whether it is global warming, where all of a sudden the EPA is forced to delete references 

to it. My colleagues from New York can cite chapter and verse 

where the EPA was forced to give information from the White 

House that we now know was not substantiated about the quality 

of the air in New York City immediately after 9/11. We have seen 

a pattern of pressure on government officials either to discredit 

them or to force the reports to be rewritten. 

I think we ought to see this final draft report. I think the last 

time we had a discussion like this, Mr. Chairman, I tried to make 

the point that the truth will come out whether we get it from BBC 

or The Washington Times or tragically from historians, the truth 

of this chapter will come out. The point is whether we will get the 

truth soon enough to inform our decisions to do a better job doing 

our job. And I think any objective review of what has happened 

this last year would suggest that if anything, Congress has been 

too lax, too accepting, not aggressive enough to deal with the problems of planning the consequences, whether it is in the Middle 

East or North Korea. I think a small step will be to approve Mr. 

Wexler’s proposal. If The Washington Times can get the draft, it is 

going to come out. I think we would be far better served as would 

our constituents if it comes out sooner rather than later. 

I appreciate the courtesy and yield back any remaining time. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Hoeffel. 

Mr. HOEFFEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this resolution. I congratulate Congressman Wexler for bringing it up. He is 

absolutely right. We need this information and a whole lot more before we vote on the $87 billion request the Administration has 

made for spending in Iraq. I would say to my friend Mr. Paul we 

are not going to get the information he wants, I am afraid, before 

we cast that vote. The Chairman tells us we will get this report on 

strategic lessons learned by mid-December. I am sure that the 

President will want to vote on his Iraq supplemental well before 

mid-December, and we will not have the information we need to 

make an informed judgment. 

We really need three things from the Administration and we 

have needed them all along. The first is we need the President to 

level with the American people and tell us about timetables and 

costs and his vision for what comes next and what he is trying to 

achieve and how he thinks he can achieve it. And giving this report 

to the Congress would be part of that process of leveling with the 

Congress and the American people that I believe is so desperately 

needed. 
17

Secondly, we need a plan. We need to know how and when we 

can internationalize both the security and the reconstruction in 

Iraq, how that is going to be accomplished, what the future costs 

of reconstruction may be, what the timetable is for achieving that 

and how we can bring our friends in to help make that happen. We 

also need to know how we are going to get the Iraqis back in 

charge. That is everybody’s goal to put the Iraqis back in charge 

of Iraq. 

Well, what is the plan and how do we know it has been accomplished? If the United Nations won’t step up to the plate and we 

have to be there by ourselves, when will we know when we have 

achieved our goals, what standards will we use, what is the plan? 

If the United Nations will step up to the plate how do we make 

that happen? 

And thirdly, we need an exit strategy. It is all part of the same 

requirement. How do we know we have succeeded? When can 

America bring our troops home? We clearly can’t leave a vacuum 

in Iraq. I voted for the military authority. Many voted no but we 

all agree we can’t leave now. But when will we know when we can 

leave? What is the plan? What is the exit strategy? How much 

more than $87 billion are we going to need? 

Chairman HYDE. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. HOEFFEL. I will be happy to. 

Chairman HYDE. I think the gentleman is very legitimate and 

they ought to be answered and will be answered. Again, I suggest 

that Members who really want the information rather than for 

some other reason, attend the briefings every week by the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. However, there are 

questions and there are questions. I don’t recall anyone asking 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor how long is this 

going to take and what is it going to cost, Mr. President, and nobody knew. And the same situation applies here. And I thank the 

gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I can tell 

you I have attended a couple of those weekly briefings and Members of Congress learn very little at those weekly briefings by the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, and they certainly don’t provide the answers 

to the kinds of questions that I am raising here. And I would respectfully suggest to the Chairman that the questions that he says 

were not asked of Franklin Delano Roosevelt are not the questions 

I am asking after we have won a military victory and now we need 

to know what comes next, how long will we stay and how will we 

know we have succeeded. 

The Chair has expressed an interest in a modern day Marshall 

Plan. And many of us, myself included, have talked about a modern day Marshall Plan. But that is not the way that we are moving 

forward here. The Marshall Plan here was put together with requiring countries to plan for their future, to do the kind of strategic 

planning that could benefit from American investment. That is not 

happening here. If it is happening, Congress doesn’t know about it. 

We are being asked to give another $87 billion with no end in 

sight. 

And I would ask the Chairman of this Committee, I would hope 

that he would be more aggressive in finding out information. I 
18

think that is the role of the International Relations Committee. I 

am disappointed that the Chairman is opposed to this resolution. 

We should be asking for more information, not allowing the Administration to push things off. They may never put the word ‘‘Final 

Draft’’ or ‘‘Document’’ on that report. 

Chairman HYDE. Would my friend yield one more time? I hope 

the gentleman will attend Mr. Bremer’s testimony at 4 o’clock 

today and ask those very questions. 

Mr. HOEFFEL. I will be here. 

Chairman HYDE. If I have anything to say, the gentleman will 

have adequate time. 

Mr. HOEFFEL. That is a good deal. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Burton, the gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. BURTON. I want to follow up, Mr. Chairman, on the point 

that you made. There have been numerous briefings. The Secretary 

of Defense has been over here. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff has been here. Members of this Committee have been at those 

briefings. There are questions that are allowed to be asked and it 

astounds me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to infer that information is being kept from them when all 

they have to do is go to the briefings. And if they have 10 questions, have 10 different Members ask the questions and they will 

be answered. I don’t think the Secretary of Defense or the head of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff is going to do anything to try to hide 

things from them. Quite the contrary, I think they will be as forthcoming as possible to make sure we don’t have this kind of debate. 

It is unfortunate that a secret document was leaked to The 

Washington Times, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the Defense 

Department is not keeping things from this Committee. It is a matter of Members coming to the briefings and asking the questions. 

If they ask the questions I am sure they will get the answers. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Bell. 

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that my friend 

Mr. Paul is correct when he points out that we all have questions 

and we should all have questions, a lot of questions have been 

raised. And in order to move forward in a prudent fashion from 

this point forward, we are going to need answers to those questions. And the suggestion has been made that my friend Mr. 

Wexler should have simply asked for the information and I would 

venture to guess that that sort of request would have been met 

with the same level of enthusiasm that his resolution has received 

from the Chair here today. We need this information and we need 

it as fast as we can possibly get it. 

The Administration has obviously been way off its mark on its 

estimate on Iraq. We were not welcome with open arms as we were 

told we would be. U.S. soldiers continue to die from guerilla attacks 

on an almost daily basis, and the price for reconstruction continues 

to climb and climb and climb. 

Having read the media accounts on the Pentagon’s report that 

we are talking about today, and I think it is appropriate given the 

earlier statements to talk about media accounts, it has become 

clearer why the Administration has been so far off the mark simply 

because they didn’t choose to listen. The Administration didn’t listen to Lawrence Lindsey when he told them that the price of recon-
19

struction would be $100 billion or more. In fact they fired him. The 

Administration didn’t listen to Army Chief of Staff, General 

Shinseki when he said that this mission will require at least 

200,000 troops. In fact they fired him as well. 

When our most respected military leaders were telling the Administration what the mission in Iraq would require, their advice 

fell on deaf ears. Now the Administration is asking for Congress to 

approve an $87 billion supplemental for reconstruction in Iraq 

without giving this body and the American people the overall big 

picture. We need a full accounting of where the billions of dollars 

Congress just appropriated for this mission went. We need to know 

exactly where the money we are being asked to spend now is going 

to go and we need to know the total cost of reconstruction moving 

forward. If we are ever going to get a clear sense of what our plan 

for an exit strategy is, we need to know what mistakes were made 

from the very beginning. 

Releasing the Pentagon report is a first step in that direction and 

I applaud my friend from Florida, Mr. Wexler, for offering this 

timely and critical resolution of inquiry and I encourage all of my 

colleagues to support it. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. Gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I align myself with the remarks of Mr. Burton. I would simply say that I 

think there is great danger in starting to politicize this situation. 

I think Congress needs the information. That is why I called both 

the White House and the Department of Defense yesterday. They 

said as soon as the report is done it is going to be made available 

to Congress and that satisfies me. That makes this resolution more 

partisan and more political than it should be, and with that I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. I thank the Chairman. The President is asking Con- gress, as we know, for $87 billion more in Iraq. This brings the 

total expenditures close to $160 billion. The American people aren’t 

getting answers. They are asking us over and over in our mail and 

our town meetings. My friends on the other side seem to suggest 

that information is only forthcoming if we only ask. This is the 

third time at least this year that we have asked formally for answers. 

In January Ron Kind and I were joined by over 100 colleagues. 

Ron Kind voted against the resolution in October. I voted for it. We 

were joined by over 100 colleagues in asking a series of questions 

to the President. We wanted to be sure the President would allow 

the U.N. weapons inspectors to continue their work and that all 

diplomatic options be exhausted before he started a war, but the 

President never answered that letter. He didn’t have to. We now 

know he had decided to go to war a long time before that. 

In February, 38 Members of Congress asked for answers a second time when I introduced H.J. Res. 24. This resolution would 

have required the President to answer the very same questions we 

continue and our constituents continue to ask today, 6 months 

later. What was the United States’ plan just before we went to 

war? What was the United States’ plan for achieving long-term so-
20

cial, economic and political stabilization of a post conflict Iraq? 

What are the full costs associated with the continued occupation of 

Iraq? What are the anticipated short-term and long-term effects of 

reconstruction on the United States’ economy and on the Federal 

budget? 

My friends on the other side of the aisle who say they are so 

forthcoming with information, the leadership on the other side of 

the aisle killed the bill. The President gave us and this Congress 

no answers, gave the American people no answers. But the answers to these questions, they are leaking out, but they are all too 

slowly leaking out. 

First, it is obvious there was very little post-war planning even 

though most of us in this body on this side of the aisle asked for 

that information. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield for a question? 

Will you be here at the hearing later on this afternoon? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, I will. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Won’t you get a chance to ask those questions? 

Mr. BROWN. I will. But I have wondered what the answers have 

been the last 6 months and why the President didn’t tell us and 

tell the American people a little bit about the post-war construction 

and reconstruction, because obviously they didn’t have much of a 

plan. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Some of us are very sympathetic with the 

points you are making, and I believe all the information needs to 

be out. I am not sure whether or not this reflects a policy of the 

Administration or just how long it takes government to act. 

Mr. BROWN. Reclaim my time. It didn’t take them long to react 

when it came to going into Iraq with no planning. I think it is more 

an error of commission rather than omission. I think that is pretty 

obvious when you look at what Secretary Rumsfeld said when he 

said the overall costs would be under $50 billion, dismissing his, 

‘‘baloney estimates that it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.’’

My friend from Texas, Mr. Bell, outlined some of those com- ments. Larry Lindsey said it would be $100 to $200 billion. The Administration scoffed and then they fired him. Mr. Wolfowitz assured lawmakers that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction. And when the Administration did give us some estimates 

they were disastrously underestimated. 

With Mr. Wexler’s resolution now for the third time this year we 

are asking for answers. The report we are trying to obtain details 

a war plan that has been formulated as early as more than a year 

ago. The Washington Times, perhaps the most pro-Bush newspaper 

in the country, says the report reveals deficiencies in the planning 

process. 

Congress gave the President the first blank check when it authorized the war resolution in October. Congress gave the President the second blank check when we voted for the Iraq war supplemental. Now the President is asking for another blank check of 

$87 billion. And my friends on the other side of the aisle said we 

will give you answers. It may not come until December, after the 

vote, but we will get answers. 
21

The point is, Mr. Chairman, we want these answers before the 

vote. The American public wants to know how we are going to 

spend this $87 billion. The American public wants to be able to 

compare how much we are spending on Iraq electricity generation 

and transmission versus how much we are spending on our own infrastructure, electricity infrastructure. The American people want 

to know how much we are going to spend on school construction in 

Iraq and they want to know about the President’s budget and 

school construction here. They want to know the same about police 

protection versus what we are spending on police protection in this 

country. 

We deserve those answers as Members of Congress. More so, the 

American public deserves those answers. That is why we should 

support the Wexler inquiry and oppose the Hyde motion. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady from Virginia, Ms. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I normally don’t speak 

but I will make it quick, but I couldn’t let it go by. As a Member 

of the House Armed Services Committee, I am at all those briefings 

and I have to tell you I haven’t heard these questions asked in 

those briefings, and I really believe you could get the answer. If 

they don’t have it, they will give them to you later in writing or 

what have you. 

Unfortunately, right now I am missing an Armed Services briefing by Secretary Wolfowitz and General Abizaid and Ambassador 

Bremer. And I would like to suggest that some of the comments 

that have been made that we were not received with open arms 

like we were told, I would like to strongly suggest that any Member of Congress who has not been to Iraq that they go over there 

and that they visit the people, and they may find some contradiction between what the media reports and what is actually there. 

And I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentlelady for that information. 

Mr. Delahunt from Massachusetts. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the Chair for yielding and I do support 

the resolution. I think that there is something that we have missed 

in terms of the discussion, and that is what process has the Administration instituted in terms of the post major combat phase. There 

was the Garner plan and now we have the Bremer plan, and there 

are significant differences. I would like to know for one what occurred from the time that the initial plan, the Garner plan, was articulated and what caused that thinking and what actually goes on 

within the Administration in terms of that process because I do not 

see a coherent process in terms of the post-war phase. 

I dare say, in terms of the Wexler resolution, it would be interesting, I believe, for this Committee and the American people to 

contrast whatever differences there may be between the final draft 

and the final report and what were the changes that were made 

and how were they achieved. 

You know, my colleagues, we are creating an historical record 

that I think is very important in terms of future policy decisions 

by Administrations and the responsibility of this particular Committee. 
22

Now the issue of politics has been raised. There is as much criticism being levelled by some prominent Republicans about the postwar phase as there are Democrats. 

I am sure everyone here is familiar with the op ed piece that was 

drafted and written by Senator Lugar. He was extremely critical of 

the Administration. 

It was Senator Hagel that described the Administration’s relationship with the Congress and his perception of that relationship 

as seen from the White House as one that Congress amounted to 

little more than a nuisance. 

Please look at this in terms of our institutional responsibility to 

reveal what went on, establish a correct and accurate historical 

record; and I would encourage my colleagues to support the Wexler 

resolution. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just in quick response, I attended a number of briefings and 

classified briefings, et cetera, particularly before the war where I 

was told we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. We 

have yet to find them. Where I was told that there was in fact an 

imminent danger. That is yet to be seen. Where I was told that we 

knew exactly what we were going to do. That is what I was told 

pursuant to questions that were asked in private briefings, all of 

which proved not to be true. We don’t know. 

Here we are now. We still don’t know whether weapons of mass 

destruction—when I had witnesses come before me to testify that 

we knew exactly where they were and that we were going to get 

them and that the inspectors that were looking for them were incapable of doing it because they were being blocked. But that was 

the motivation for us going there. Yet here we are now, and I don’t 

know what I get out of those briefings. I will attend the briefing 

today, but my past history shows that they have not been accurate. 

So what I simply want to know, to be able to see and to have 

access to is what information that they have. Because clearly they 

are not sharing it with us. I would like to see the documents to see 

what the plans are, as Mr. Delahunt said, so that I can make an 

evaluation of what is going on. It is my, I believe, duty and responsibility as a Member of this House to do just that, not just to accept 

that this is what we are going to do. Spending the people’s money, we have got $87 billion now being 

requested. I have no idea what took place with the money that—

the $76 or the $79 billion that we appropriated for. There is yet 

be an accounting for that money. 

I have a responsibility as far as the constituency that I represent 

and the people of these United States to spend their money in a 

proper manner. At a time when we are sprouting down in debt and 

everything else, we have got troops over there that we have got to 

protect, we have got to figure out—I have got to be able to make 

an educated decision. 

Obviously from the briefings that we have had in the past, I was 

not able to get the information or the correct information, or at 

least, I would like to know that they didn’t have the correct information. At least they can admit that they didn’t have the correct 

information but they made a judgment anyway. 
23

We need to know what the facts are. The American people deserve to understand what the truth is. Because, as far as I am concerned, credibility has been lost with reference to these briefings. 

Credibility has been lost with reference to this Administration. And 

I cannot just go based upon a whim or a word of someone that we 

can just now give and appropriate this money. 

I was told by many at these hearings that people would be running around with American flags, and it would only take us weeks 

or months to resolve this issue. Weeks or months, that is all it 

would take. It wouldn’t be a big thing. That was the impression I 

was left with. 

And here we are. We don’t know where we are, when we are 

going to get out and what is going to happen. 

What I see is, you know, for me and my age—I turn 50 today—

I am smelling Vietnam all over again, because there are records 

that are coming out today about Vietnam and how the government 

changed things then. So I want to make sure on my watch—the 

camera of history continues to roll—that on my watch I have got 

all the information that I can possibly get so that when they review 

history someone won’t come back and say, well, you just did not 

have the proper information, you didn’t get the right answers, you 

didn’t do anything. 

The only way we can do it is by supporting—or the first step of 

doing it is by supporting Mr. Wexler’s resolution. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HYDE. The Chair wishes the gentleman a very happy 

birthday—very happy, extremely happy, terminally happy. 

The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Just this morning I had the wonderful privilege and honor of 

going to Bethesda Naval Hospital where I visited with Lance Corporal Alejandro Fernandez, a constituent of my congressional district. Alejandro is a Lance Corporal, a very proud Marine, not 

happy to have been wounded but very happy to have done his 

share for this country for the opportunity that this country gave to 

his refugee family. 

He was injured in Operation Iraqi Freedom, was about to undergo his 16th operation since being wounded. His mom Rosa has been 

at his side for 51⁄2 weeks at Bethesda at great personal sacrifice, 

but the pride that he feels to be in the service of our country is 

stronger than ever. 

He said, I am proud of what I did. I am proud of what my unit 

did. I would go back there tomorrow and do it again. 

It is because of young men like Alejandro Fernandez that Congress has on a regular basis held briefings with Administration officials, with everyone at every level in every agency where we have 

had the opportunity to ask all of these probing questions that are 

being brought out today regarding our activities in Iraq. Just as 

Lance Corporal Alejandro Fernandez had his duties and his responsibility, so have we in the United States Congress. 

That information and those notices have gone out to all Members 

of this Committee. We have held joint hearings with the Senate 

and with different Subcommittees to remind our colleagues. We 

have sent notices and e-mails and faxes. This Committee, in fact, 
24

has held approximately 20 hearings, markups, briefings, classified 

sessions between the Full Committee and different Subcommittees 

on Iraq since early March. The Joint Chiefs have held about 30 

briefings during the same time period. Other Committees have also 

exerted their oversight responsibilities. 

So there is truly no reason for any Member that is deeply interested in this issue to argue that the Administration is not making 

it official or information available to the United States Congress, 

nor that Members have not had an opportunity to ask why—to 

delve further into these important issues. 

Mr. HOEFFEL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I will be glad to yield. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentlelady. 

Do you feel confident that you know what our exit strategy is? 

Do you feel confident that you know what the timetable is? Do you 

feel confident that you know what the additional costs will be? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Reclaiming my time, not only do I feel confident, but I feel that we, more importantly, are going to have the 

opportunity to ask every Administration official that you would like 

to have before you, you will be given that opportunity to ask. You 

will be given that opportunity today at 4:00 if you do not feel comfortable. Next week, there will probably be three more briefings 

and hearings and classified sessions in which we will be able to ask 

those questions. 

Mr. HOEFFEL. Would the gentlewoman yield? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And these have been the ongoing questions 

that we have had, as I say, in the dozens. So I would hope that 

after those 40 more briefings that we have had—perhaps the Member has been present at those 40 sessions. I don’t know. I don’t 

take attendance. 

But certainly we have an oversight responsibility, just as 

Alejandro has the responsibility in Iraq. He fulfilled his duty, and 

we fulfill our duty by asking those probing questions. And I think 

it behooves us to ask them—if you believe that you do not have 

enough information, I think of course you should ask, and you always will have that opportunity. Our Chairman will always give 

you that opportunity. I will be glad to yield. 

Mr. HOEFFEL. I don’t want the right to ask the questions. I have 

got that. I want the answers. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Reclaiming my time. And they will give you 

as much information as they have. They would like to have a perfect situation in a war where you know the outcome, where you 

know what is going to happen tomorrow, where the enemy gives 

you his battle plan, where you know where they are going to operate next. Unfortunately, it is not a drama series on television. It 

is real life. 

You can ask people like Alejandro Fernandez whether they are 

proud to be in that theatre of operations, whether they are proud 

of their service, and whether they have faith in this Administration 

and whether they have faith in their commanders. And many of 

them I know will tell you yes. I have faith also in our Commander 

in Chief; and, more than that, I have faith in our Chairman, that 

he has given this Committee and all of the Members of this Committee ample opportunity to ask those important questions which 
25

must be asked and demand answers to those important questions. 

And we will continue to demand that. This Committee is not shirking its responsibility whatsoever. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady’s time has expired, but I would 

hope when the gentlelady is holding those hearings you can get 

some answers on the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis, a 

lot of unanswered questions on those, too. 

Ms. Lee of California. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, let me just say I would strongly support this resolution, 

and I want to thank Mr. Wexler for his efforts in drafting it and 

for bringing it before our Committee today. I want to thank him 

for his leadership and really trying to just provide this Congress 

and the American people information that they really deserve to 

know. 

As of yesterday, 304 Americans have died in Iraq, and over 1,200 

have been wounded. Now that is according to DOD figures. Over 

half of these deaths have occurred after the so-called end of the 

war. This is just one more sign of the deeply flawed planning process we are witnessing in this really growing, unbelievably huge 

quagmire. 

Another sign of just how wrong things are going is the $87 billion second installment that Congress is being asked to pay without 

being given a clear accounting of how the first $78 billion was 

spent or of what the final price tag might be or of when Americans 

might expect their troops to come home. 

The American people are being asked to pay for another $87 billion to finance the cost of the Administration’s foreign policy doctrine of preemption, and the mission is changing, and it is changing every day. First, of course, it was weapons of mass destruction; 

and then, of course, regime change was in that. I am not sure if 

that was the second goal or part of the first goal. Then, of course, 

it is now the war on terrorism. 

When will this end? This war is siphoning tens of billions of dollars away from a badly failing economy right here at home and 

into, of course we know, no-bid contracts for a handful of corporations. 

Now I believe that the American occupation of Iraq is really a 

disaster, and now of course the Joint Chiefs of Staff have commissioned this report that we are trying to receive a copy of today 

which this resolution is asking for. We want to see this report. I 

have been to many of these briefings also; and, quite frankly, the 

information presented in the briefings oftentimes is on CNN even 

before the briefing ends. None of that information that has been reported as a result of The Washington Times receiving a copy of this 

either draft preliminary report or whatever it is stamped, none of 

that information that the press has been reporting has been in any 

of these briefings. So how can The Washington Times be privy to 

a report that the United States House of Representatives cannot be 

privy to? 

With an $87 billion installment payment due, Congress has every 

right to know what lessons we need to know and what lessons have 

been learned. We have certainly seen mistakes that have been 
26

made, a war that we really didn’t have to have and an occupation 

that is poorly planned. 

So what are the lessons learned? 

According to press accounts, this report to the Joint Chiefs concludes—and this is press reports that we have to rely on. That is 

the point. The press reports conclude that the Administration’s 

post-war planning reconstruction effort and the search for weapons 

of mass destruction are rated as, ‘‘falling short of expectations or 

needs.’’ Now that is what the press tells us, but we want to see this 

report to see what else it says. 

With Americans dying almost every single day, with the costs 

skyrocketing and really with no exit or transition strategy in sight, 

this is information the Congress must have before voting on the 

supplementals. 

Americans have the right to know why in many communities our 

infrastructure is in shambles, yet how resources can be found on 

a moment’s notice to spend billions in Iraq for reconstruction efforts. Americans want to know how billions of dollars can be found. 

I mean, where is this money? People want to know how these billions can be found for housing and health care and education in 

Iraq when there are budget cuts in many of our communities in 

these same areas. We need these badly needed resources also, and 

the American people need to really know how money can be found 

and how it is being used. That is just basic. Taxpayers are paying 

for this.

So, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that this resolution is premature. In fact, I believe that it is very timely and long overdue. 

And, again, according to the media reports, a copy was obtained by 

The Washington Times. So it is really about time that Members of 

Congress have access to this report. Short of that, I believe that we 

are abdicating our responsibility, because we need to make prudent 

decisions based on information. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. I would just advise the gentlelady that The 

Washington Times says The Washington Times got the report. The 

Washington Post has never conceded that. 

Mr. McCotter. 

Mr. MCCOTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start 

with an observation I find rather ironic, is that we expect the Administration, from which we have heard has been nothing but mistaken and duplicitous, to somehow issue a report that will be frank 

and honest about how they have been mistaken and duplicitous. So 

I find that rather contradictory. 

It seems to me that the lessons that need to be learned for me 

were things I learned a long time ago. I am not a Baby Boomer, 

so maybe I have some distance from Vietnam, but it seems clear 

to me that the Iraqis have learned lessons in the last war that 

America lost, and that was Vietnam. And it seems that, at the 

time, Ho Chi Minh and his council of advisers believed that that 

war cannot be won militarily in Vietnam, that it will be won psychologically in the streets of America, that eventually if you delayed long enough and inflicted enough pain on American soldiers 
27

abroad that the American public would lose the stomach and bring 

them home. And that was proven to be correct. 

What we face today is we are in a war on terrorism, which I also 

believe is a war for civilization. We have a theatre called Iraq in 

that war. Within this theatre we have passed the major military 

conflict phase, and we have now entered the guerilla phase, which 

I believe is the Iraqi-Saddam Hussein’s regime attempt to drag us 

into the myriad of circumstances we faced in Vietnam. In short, I 

don’t believe Baghdad was a surrender. It was a tactical retreat. 

While this is occurring and we are still at war within that theatre and within the overall war itself, the reconstruction effort is 

beginning. We are trying to help reconstruct a country while we 

are in the middle of a war with that country with handful of extremist elements. That was not done in Germany. That was not 

done in Japan, and there is also something very important to remember, is that as Secretary Rumsfeld has pointed out, we are not 

nation building for the Iraqi people. We are facilitating nation 

building for themselves. 

So the timetable and the goals and the money that will be spent 

is not entirely within our hands. We cannot enforce a timetable on 

the Iraqi people, for they control their own destiny in their own 

hands. And what we will do if we demand timetables and explicit 

instructions and details is we will begin building benchmarks for 

the terrorists, for the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime to 

target, to make America lose its willpower to facilitate the Iraqi 

people. We will be the strategic retreat, and we cannot be the strategic retreat, because if we do, if we leave Iraq now hanging in the 

lurch, we will guarantee that all the wonderful infrastructure improvements we hear so much about with those $87 billion, we will 

have the best front parlor when the barbarians are at the back 

door. I personally would rather see this through and build a peaceful Iraq in their backyard. 

I yield my time. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Watson of California. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want you to consider 

the remarks I am going to make as my search for truth. Everything 

I will say, it is a search for truth, because that is who I am. That 

is what I am about. 

So it has been a year since the President began pressing to invade Iraq. At the time many of us called upon the President to 

fully account for the cost of his planned war. It is plainly evident 

that the President was not forthcoming with the American people 

or with us here in Congress. 

I heard something about the ‘‘imminent danger’’ of weapons of 

mass destruction. Imminent, that is the key word. In search of 

truth. So the American people were not told about the cost of this 

war. Neither were we. 

We now know that $154.5 billion, the Administration will in 

short spend in Iraq, is just a down payment on a bill of goods that 

the House Budget Committee Democratic staffers say could rise to 

as much as $400 billion over the next few years. Let’s search for 

truth. 
28

The continued reluctance of the world community to support the 

United States in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq underscores 

the dire predictions of the Budget Committee. 

Let’s get the truth. It is equally evident that the Administration 

has not been forthcoming with the American people in calculating 

the resources in terms of planning, manpower and money needed 

to prepare Iraq for the return to a civil society. 

The current situation our troops face in Iraq is every bit as dangerous, in fact more dangerous than the situation United States 

troops faced during the period of so-called major hostilities, the 

shock and awe. And I believe the strategy on the part of Saddam 

Hussein was to allow us to come in and do shock and awe and then 

get us in a guerrilla war afterwards. 

The rising loss of American lives in Iraq alone demonstrates the 

relevance and importance of this bill—or this resolution, H.R. 364, 

and the fact that this Administration has refused to provide all 

pertinent information to Congress and the American people. 

I have attended every one of the classified hearings. By the time 

they get to me, the bell goes off, well, we have to go to vote or it 

is too late. I have never been able to ask Rumsfeld a question and 

get a straight answer. Searching for the truth. If somebody can tell 

me how to do it, I would like you to sit next to me in the next classified hearing. I will be here. I have never gotten a straight answer 

from anyone, even close. 

So we need more information if I am going to vote on the $87 

billion. We need to know what the plan is. I do not accept, oh, it 

will come by and by, because they told us there were weapons of 

mass destruction. My question was why don’t you tell the inspectors where they are and let them find them? 

So you see, I search for the truth. Maybe you don’t, but I do, and 

so how will we proceed to reconstitute a civil society and in particular how does the Administration plan to spend any additional 

dollars in Iraq, which is estimated to be costing Americans $1 billion every week? Is this not true? 

So this resolution is an important step in providing that information that I need to make a decision, because I go home like you do, 

and my constituents who have seen us close down a community 

clinic want to know why we are going to build one in Iraq when 

their own hometown does not have one. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from California. 

Ms. WATSON. That is what usually happens. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. It was our pleasure. 

Mr. Schiff of California. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The remedy of a resolution of inquiry is a truly extraordinary remedy that is seldom used 

and even more seldom successful, and it is extraordinary I think 

for good reason, but I think in the case of the resolution of inquiry 

before us today that there is good reason to approve this resolution, 

and I would like to address a couple of points and in particular respond to some of the objections that have been raised by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. 
29

The most important reason why I think the resolution is necessary is the very important conclusions contained within the report. If the press account is accurate, the report states that weapons of mass destruction elimination and exploitation planning efforts did not occur early enough in the process to allow CENTCOM 

to effectively execute the mission. The extent of the planning required was underestimated. Insufficient U.S. Government assets 

existed to accomplish the mission. That is one of the important conclusions of this final draft according to press reports. 

Second, the interagency process such as between the Pentagon 

and State Department was not fully integrated prior to hostilities. 

Another key point. 

Third, that capabilities fell short of expectations or needs in the 

area of the mix of active and reserve forces and the troop deployment to the region. 

These are all extraordinarily important issues, and those of us 

that have attended—and I have attended, I think, almost every 

briefing that we have had on this subject through the Armed Services Committee, or this Committee. These are extraordinarily important items, and also for those of us that have been to Iraq and 

talked with the commanders and with the ground-level troops 

about rotations and troop levels. 

Now, it has been maintained that we have had plenty of hearings 

on this, and that is true. We have all had the opportunity to ask 

questions. That is not the issue, though. The issue is—and the reason why I think there is such importance behind this request is not 

that we haven’t had the opportunity to ask the questions we have 

nor that we haven’t gotten answers. We also have. The problem is 

the answers we have received are not the same answers in this report. 

How many of you have heard someone from the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff or behind the Administration say that the weapons of mass 

destruction elimination and exploitation planning did not occur 

early enough in the process? How many of you heard the Administration acknowledge that the interagency process between the Pentagon and State Department was not fully integrated prior to hostilities? How many of you heard acknowledgments from the Joint 

Chiefs about inadequacies in troop deployment and the mix of active and reserve forces? 

I have not heard these acknowledgments or criticisms or self-reflections from the Administration. That is why this is so essential, 

not that we haven’t had the opportunity to ask. We have, but we 

have not received these answers. 

Now, what is the significance of the fact that this is a final draft? 

The objection was made that this is not the final report, this is just 

the final draft and we should wait till a final report is done. Well, 

I think that part of the concern for many of us is that too often 

the final report has failed to recognize the concerns of those on the 

staff below the final vetting. If we look in the intelligence area, the 

most graphic example, my guess is that the intelligence reports, 

the staff-level reports had a different flavor to them than the ultimate conclusions that we heard either in the State of the Union, 

or in representations to Congress. And sometimes you learn more 

from the draft than you do from public consumption copy. 
30

Now, I understand that this report will ultimately be made available to the Armed Services Committee, and the question I would 

like to leave on that I would pose to the Chairman, we have an $87 

billion request before the Committee. It is extraordinarily important I think that we have this information in the context of this 

request, and what I would like to pose is will we have an opportunity to be able to question the Administration on this report and 

on the draft report prior to this Committee or the Members of this 

Committee having to vote on the appropriation? 

And I would yield to the Chair or yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. LEACH [presiding]. Let me say to the gentleman I cannot 

speak for the Chair. I am in his place for the moment. Clearly that 

is a series of questions you can commence asking this afternoon. 

Whether or not this is the appropriate party to ask, I don’t know. 

I share the gentleman’s concern. I think they are very fair questions, and I would personally be hopeful that the appropriate opportunity would be provided. 

One of the awkwardnesses of this dilemma is that, as you know, 

there is a commitment to share it with the Armed Services Committee and all Members of Congress. On the other hand, it is on 

a classified basis, and so that is a dilemma we as Members of Congress always face, and so whether all of the questions are appropriate in public session or classified session, you know, is a challenge. I am confident there will be classified briefings possible. 

Whether you will get the response you want, as you know, as some 

Members have expressed that there is an opaqueness in response 

that sometimes comes to define events and so I can’t speak with 

surety but I am sure there will be the opportunity to ask questions. 

Whether the responses will be adequate will be up to the gentlemen to assess themselves, but I will pass on to the Chairman the 

possibility that the Committee might hold a fuller hearing on the 

subject. But that will be for the Chairman to determine. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the Chair. 

Mr. LEACH. Mrs. Napolitano, you are recognized. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In listening to all 

the comments from my colleagues, I believe more strongly than 

ever that only by studying and being able to have access to all the 

information can we truly make informed decisions. I strongly support this resolution, House Resolution 364. 

I get questions in the district, Mr. Chairman, from individuals 

who are asking us for information that we do not have, we are not 

privy to, that—and I truly have not attended all the meetings. I 

have attended a few, but I can tell you from this humble servant, 

I understand very little, because there is very little given to us. I 

can read it from the newspaper faster than I can get it from those 

sessions. 

So I would concur, I believe that we need to learn what those lessons are so that we don’t go through them again, and I strongly 

urge and regrettably differ with my esteemed friend and colleague, 

the Chairman of the Committee, that this motion should go 

through, and be voted favorably. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 
31

Chairman HYDE [presiding]. The gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. 

Berkley. 

Ms. BERKLEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you all know, I 

voted in favor of the resolution. I went back home, strongly supporting the resolution. I went on all of my radio talk shows and my 

television shows explaining to my constituents why I voted to give 

the President authority to go into Iraq. I don’t believe that failure 

is an option. I am not demanding timetables or any information 

that is going to jeopardize our troops in the field, but I am very 

uncomfortable with the information that we have received. I have 

attended most of the classified briefings. I couldn’t swear on a 

stack of Bibles that I attended all of them, but as many of my colleagues have stated before me, I go home at night and I turn on 

CNN and I learn just about as much, if not more, from watching 

TV than I do by sitting in those so-called classified ‘‘your eyes only, 

give your beeper, give your cell phone, sign an agreement that you 

are never going to breathe a word of what they say,’’ and I walk 

out of there scratching my head. 

I am not looking for information to attack the Administration. I 

am looking for information that will justify my vote and keep me 

on the path that I started to continue supporting this effort. 

My job as a Congresswoman is to vote based on accurate information. I think that is all of our jobs, and I haven’t been here all 

that long, but it is just unconscionable to me that Congress isn’t 

up in arms demanding to know everything possible with this war 

so that we can go back to our constituents, and not only speak with 

authority, but be able to vote with authority and conviction as well. 

There was a similar request a number of months ago regarding 

the intelligence information, and we—the Chair, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, were against this, saying that the Intelligence Committee was going to get all the briefings and everything 

else. And as an added bonus, we could all go off to the fourth floor 

of the Capitol and see all the information that we could possibly 

want to see. 

So I said, well, that is a pretty good deal. So I went up to the 

fourth floor. I had never been there before, and I asked the gentleman at the door when I gave him my cell and my beeper and 

everything else that there were so many boxes of information. The 

wealth of information that I was given made it impossible to read 

or impossible for me to figure out, and I think that was a deliberate attempt to keep information from us. 

I would like to know what is in that report. I think it is important, and whether it is called final draft, almost final draft, final, 

it is important that we get this information so that we can decide 

for ourselves and vote in a meaningful way. 

Also if I could, I have a great affection for the Chairman. We 

feign a lot of civility here, and people say my wonderful best friend 

from Nevada and the gentlelady and this, but the reality is that 

I do have great respect and great affection for the Chair, but I felt 

very uncomfortable at the beginning when, Mr. Chairman, you 

read that article about Mr. Wexler. I would hate to think that if 

I was going to introduce a resolution that somebody would read 

something like that about me that attributed negative motives to 
32

what I do in Congress, and I would hope that that couldn’t and 

wouldn’t ever happen again. 

And I thank you, and I say that with the greatest of affection. 

Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentlelady, and I receive her admonition in the best of spirits. As I said, the last thing I would do 

would be accuse anybody on this Committee of a political thought, 

ever. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Yes, but I thought you were tongue in cheek when 

you said that, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. We are getting down to the witching hour. We 

have another bill after this, and then—we do have another bill, and 

we have at 4 o’clock with Mr. Bremer, who will answer face to face 

such questions as you choose to put to him. 

In any event, the next speaker is Mr. Payne of New Jersey. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. I guess I am bewitched. We are reaching 

that hour. Let me say that I would like to certainly support this 

resolution. I think it makes a lot of sense. I think that we have 

heard and I am very pleased that I had the opportunity to have 

two 12-hour days of debate in opposition to the preemptive strike 

and giving the authority to the President to do what he wanted to 

do. I think that I was clear in my decision before the debate and 

was clear and very happy as I reflect on my vote of opposing the 

preemptive strike, because we were in imminent danger of weapons 

of mass destruction that could reach our shores at any time. 

I think that it was a disservice done to the American people to 

mislead them to believe that if we destroyed Baghdad and did 

away with Osama bin Laden, that we would not have to worry 

about—Baghdad and Saddam Hussein, that we would not have to 

worry about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. And I think that is 

why so many Americans were so supportive of going into Iraq, because the feeling was that because the Administration made the argument that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda 

are all one and the same and if we do away with Saddam Hussein, 

Osama bin Laden would disappear. It was lies. We sent out wrong 

messages. People had a false feeling of security by doing away with 

the leadership of Iraq that that would have therefore an impact on 

al-Qaeda. 

Al-Qaeda is our number one enemy. It has been that way right 

along. They are the ones that are on our shores, and we diverted 

the Americans’ attention to someone else who we decided we wanted to have a regime change. Hans Blix and the fellows were looking 

around for these weapons of mass destruction. We had no-fly zones. 

We had all kinds of manned and unmanned satellites. We knew everything that was going on. Yet and still we led the American people to believe that we were in imminent danger. I think it was a 

disservice to the American people. When will it ever end? I would 

like to know what did they know and when did they know it. 

Before my time expires, I think that I would be—even though I 

have a lot more to say, I will yield the balance of my time to Mr. 

Wexler for any concluding remarks. 

Mr. WEXLER. I thank Mr. Payne, and I would simply like to offer 

an observation as to where we are after this debate, and I applaud 

the fact that I believe this Committee has engaged in a very worthwhile debate. And after all of the expressions are stated, essentially 
33

where we are is that the vote that will be taken is a vote that determines whether or not the Congress will receive the report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff within the next 2 weeks, or 

whether we will receive it—if Chairman Myers is to be held to his 

word, which I have no reason to think otherwise—whether we will 

receive it in December. 

We all know that this Congress is likely to be in recess in December, probably the bulk of January. So the question is whether 

this Congress will get to consider what may be the most illuminating report prepared not by Democrats, not by some Democratic presidential campaign, not a political report, but an internal 

report from our military analyzing what our strategy is in Iraq. Are 

we going to have the benefit of that report and the analysis before 

we vote on the $87 billion supplemental request? Or are we going 

to have it at the end of the year, at best, when essentially, at least 

in terms of the next 4 months, all of the decisions will have already 

been made? 

I will respectfully argue that this institution and the American 

people are served best if we have that information in classified 

form now before we vote so that we all can make the most informed decision possible. I thank Mr. Payne for yielding. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And there being no amendments pending, the question occurs on 

the motion to report the resolution, H.R. 364, adversely. All in 

favor, say aye. Opposed, no. 

The Chair is in doubt. The Clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach. 

Mr. LEACH. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes aye. 

Mr. Bereuter. 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey. 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton votes aye. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes aye. 

Mr. Ballenger. 

Mr. BALLENGER. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ballenger votes aye. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. 

Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes aye. 

Mr. King. 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Aye. 
34

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes aye. 

Mr. Houghton. 

Mr. HOUGHTON. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Houghton votes aye. 

Mr. McHugh. 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes aye. 

Mr. Paul. 

Mr. PAUL. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Paul votes aye. 

Mr. Smith of Michigan. 

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Michigan votes aye. 

Mr. Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pitts votes aye. 

Mr. Flake. 

Mr. FLAKE. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes aye. 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mrs. Davis votes aye. 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes aye 

Mr. Weller. 

Mr. WELLER. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes aye. 

Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes aye. 

Mr. McCotter. 

Mr. MCCOTTER. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes aye. 

Mr. Janklow. 

Mr. JANKLOW. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Janklow votes aye. 

Ms. Harris. 

Ms. HARRIS. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris votes aye. 

Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes no. 

Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes no. 

Mr. Ackerman. 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega. 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. No. 
35

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne votes no. 

Mr. Menendez. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Menendez votes no. 

Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown votes no. 

Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes no. 

Mr. Wexler. 

Mr. WEXLER. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler votes no. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel votes no. 

Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt votes no. 

Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes no. 

Ms. Lee. 

Ms. LEE. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes no. 

Mr. Crowley. 

Mr. CROWLEY. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley votes no. 

Mr. Hoeffel. 

Mr. HOEFFEL. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hoeffel votes no 

Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Blumenauer votes no. 

Ms. Berkley. 

Ms. BERKLEY. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes no. 

Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mrs. Napolitano votes no. 

Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes no. 

Ms. Watson. 

Ms. WATSON. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes no. 

Mr. Smith of Michigan. 

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Michigan votes no. 

Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes no. 

Mr. Bell. 

Mr. BELL. No. 
36

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bell votes no. 

Mr. Hyde. 

Chairman HYDE. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hyde votes aye. 

Mr. BEREUTER. I would like to vote aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bereuter votes aye. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes aye. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? 

The CLERK. You are not recorded. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McHugh votes aye. 

Chairman HYDE. The Clerk will report. 

The CLERK. On this vote there are 24 ayes and 20 noes. 

Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The motion to report adversely is adopted, and without objection staff is directed to make 

any technical and conforming changes. 

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, can we have additional views? 

Chairman HYDE. Yes. Pursuant to the rule, you certainly may. 

I think it is 3 days—it is 2 days, I guess, I am informed by the 

Parliamentarian. 

The next item on the agenda is H.R. 3145, ‘‘To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to reauthorize the Overseas Private Investment Corporation,’’ for purposes of a markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House. Without objection, the bill 

is considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and the 

Chair recognizes Mr. Bereuter for 5 minutes for purposes of a 

statement. 

[H.R. 3145 follows:]
37

1

I

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3145

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to reauthorize the Overseas

Private Investment Corporation, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 23, 2003

Mr. HYDE (for himself and Mr. LANTOS) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to reauthorize

the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and for

other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Overseas Private In5 vestment Corporation Amendments Act of 2003’’.

6 SEC. 2. ISSUING AUTHORITY.

7 Section 235(a)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of

8 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2195(a)(2)) is amended by striking

9 ‘‘2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2007’’.
38

2

•HR 3145 IH

1 SEC. 3. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

2 (a) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—Section 235(a)(1)(B)

3 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.

4 2195(a)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsidy cost’’ and

5 inserting ‘‘subsidy and administrative costs’’.

6 (b) NONCREDIT ACCOUNT REVOLVING FUND.—Sec7 tion 235(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22

8 U.S.C. 2195(c)) is amended—

9 (1) in the first sentence—

10 (A) by striking ‘‘an insurance and guar11 anty fund, which shall have separate accounts

12 to be known as the Insurance Reserve and the

13 Guaranty Reserve, which reserves’’ and insert14 ing ‘‘a noncredit account revolving fund,

15 which’’; and

16 (B) by striking ‘‘such reserves have’’ and

17 inserting ‘‘of the fund has’’;

18 (2) by striking the third sentence; and

19 (3) in the last sentence, by striking ‘‘reserves’’

20 and inserting ‘‘fund’’.

21 (c) PAYMENTS TO DISCHARGE LIABILITIES.—Section

22 235(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.

23 2195(d)) is amended—

24 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘Insurance

25 Reserve, as long as such reserve’’ and inserting
39

3

•HR 3145 IH

1 ‘‘noncredit account revolving fund, as long as such

2 fund’’; and

3 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘or

4 under similar predecessor guaranty authority’’ and

5 all that follows through ‘‘subsection (f) of this sec6 tion’’ and inserting ‘‘or 234(c) shall be paid in ac7 cordance with the Federal Credit Reform Act of

8 1990’’.

9 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

10 235(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.

11 2195(f)) is amended—

12 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘insurance

13 and guaranty fund’’ and inserting ‘‘noncredit ac14 count revolving fund’’; and

15 (2) by striking ‘‘Insurance Reserve’’ each place

16 it appears and inserting ‘‘noncredit account revolv17 ing fund’’.

18 (e) BOARD OF DIRECTORS.—Section 233(b) of the

19 Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2193(b)) is

20 amended in the second paragraph—

21 (1) by striking ‘‘officials’’ and inserting ‘‘prin22 cipal officers’’;

23 (2) by inserting ‘‘whose duties relate to the pro24 grams of the Corporation’’ after ‘‘United States’’;

25 and
40

4

•HR 3145 IH

1 (3) by striking ‘‘an official’’ and inserting ‘‘one

2 such officer’’.

3 SEC. 4. INVESTMENT INSURANCE.

4 (a) EXPROPRIATION OR CONFISCATION.—Section

5 234(a)(1)(B) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22

6 U.S.C. 2194(a)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or any

7 political subdivision thereof’’ after ‘‘government’’.

8 (b) DEFINITION OF EXPROPRIATION.—Section

9 238(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.

10 2198(b)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, a political subdivision

11 of a foreign government, or a corporation owned or con12 trolled by a foreign government,’’ after ‘‘government’’.

13 SEC. 5. LOCAL CURRENCY GUARANTY.

14 (a) LOCAL CURRENCY GUARANTY.—Section 234 of

15 the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2194) is

16 amended by adding at the end the following:

17 ‘‘(h) LOCAL CURRENCY GUARANTIES FOR ELIGIBLE

18 INVESTORS.—To issue to—

19 ‘‘(1) eligible investors, or

20 ‘‘(2) local financial institutions,

21 guaranties, denominated in currencies other than United

22 States dollars, of loans and other investments made to

23 projects sponsored by or significantly involving eligible in24 vestors, assuring against loss due to such risks and upon

25 such terms and conditions as the Corporation may deter-
41

5

•HR 3145 IH

1 mine, for projects that the Corporation determines to have

2 significant developmental effects or as the Corporation de3 termines to be necessary or appropriate to carry out the

4 purposes of this title.’’.

5 (b) DEFINITION OF LOCAL FINANCIAL INSTITU6 TION.—Section 238 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

7 (22 U.S.C. 2198) is amended—

8 (1) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘and’’ after

9 the semicolon;

10 (2) in subsection (f), by striking the period at

11 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

12 (3) by adding at the end the following:

13 ‘‘(g) the term ‘local financial institution’—

14 ‘‘(1) means any bank or financial institu15 tion that is organized under the laws of any

16 country or area in which the Corporation oper17 ates; but

18 ‘‘(2) does not include a branch, however

19 organized, of a bank or other financial institu20 tion that is organized under the laws of a coun21 try in which the Corporation does not operate.’’.

Æ
42

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the OPIC legislation, as you may know, colleagues, the reauthorization expires very 

shortly. The OPIC is a self-sustaining Federal agency. It provides 

assistance to American businesses in developing countries where, 

in fact, there is no commercial credit or financing or capital available or where insurance is needed for the businessman to conduct 

operations. 

When I say OPIC is self-sustaining, it has had a net profit in 

each year of their operation. For the last fiscal year, the net profit 

was $110 million. The current reserves are substantial. Indeed, 

OPIC’s projects have generated $65 billion in U.S. exports and created an estimated 254,000 American jobs. 

Based on United States development and foreign policy priorities 

in fiscal year 2004, OPIC will place special emphasis on the following areas: Small business; Russian and Central Asia, including 

Afghanistan and Pakistan; sub-Saharan Africa; Mexico; and, on a 

sectorial basis, housing. 

I have looked at the cumulative historical data for their activities. I find that a growing amount, in fact, has gone to sub-Saharan 

Africa—not as much as they would like or I know various Members 

would prefer. The number of projects going to small businesses last 

fiscal year was 69 percent for 31 projects. It is not that these were 

absolutely minuscule projects assisting American small business 

families and their employees because in total volume of dollars last 

year, it was a little over 22 percent. 

This is a very important agency for American businesses. It is 

not foreign assistance. It is not aimed primarily at developing countries and assisting them. OPIC makes sure that American businesses are able to operate in some of the business climates that 

would not otherwise draw commercial credit or finance. OPIC has 

taken the right steps to try to diversify the kind of assistance it 

provides and focused primarily on some of the poorest countries in 

the world. 

For those reasons I think it is important that we reauthorize the 

OPIC legislation, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like 

to identify one element that I would like to work with the Chair 

and the Ranking Member. I am somebody who has historically supported OPIC. I think there has been some significant progress 

made. I appreciate some of the report language that deals with 

their environmental responsibilities. I think there is real progress. 

I have consulted with OPIC about the possibility of amending 

their charter to have an environmental representative on the 

board. I think they would welcome it, Mr. Chairman, but I didn’t 

get a chance to get that back in writing, and I would respectfully 

just mark this as something that may be offered in the form of a 

friendly amendment that might be able to help smooth the passage 

of this through the House and ultimately the reauthorization. And 

it is offered in the spirit of somebody who both cares deeply about 

the environment, appreciates some of the progress that has been 

made, but I think this would be something that would institu-
43

tionalize a practice that would be beneficial, and I just wanted to 

signal it. 

Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Absolutely. 

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Does the gentleman have an amendment or is he prepared to do it on the Floor? 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would like to work between now and when 

it gets to the Floor. 

Mr. BEREUTER. As the gentleman describes it, I would be pleased 

perhaps to be a cosponsor of the amendment on the Floor. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I will follow up. 

Chairman HYDE. I would like to assure the gentlemen of my interest in working with him, too. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bereuter. 

Chairman HYDE. Very well. 

Ms. Lee. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman HYDE. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

[The information referred to follows:]
44
45

The CLERK. Amendment by Ms. Lee: Add at the end of the bill 

the following——

Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the 

amendment is dispensed with. The Chair accepts the amendment, 

finds it to be in addition to the bill, and if the gentlelady doesn’t 

mind short-cutting extended discussion, prolixed discussion, we will 

be happy to accept her excellent amendment. 

Ms. LEE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for accepting the amendment. I think this will just enhance OPIC’s really 

major kind of goals that they seek to accomplish in terms of the 

inclusion of additional businesses, specifically small, minorityowned, women-owned businesses, and I yield the balance of my 

time. Thank you for accepting the amendment. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friends Mr. 

Blumenauer and Ms. Lee. I strongly support both of their amendments, one yet to be born, and I request permission to submit my 

prepared statements. For the sake of saving time, I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lantos follows:]
46

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

H.R. 3145

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for scheduling today’s markup of the Overseas 

Private Investment Corporation Amendments Act of 2003. 

The reauthorization package we have before us is sound. Not only does the bill 

reauthorize OPIC through September 30, 2007, but it reflects a comprehensive, bipartisan compromise between the Committee, OPIC, and all of its stakeholders. 

I am particularly pleased that our package will address the concerns, shared by 

a number of our Members in recent years, about the effectiveness of OPIC safeguards to ensure that its projects support the interests of American workers, protect 

the global environment and support human rights. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your willingness to work with us to address these concerns. The report language we have agreed upon directs OPIC to establish a robust and independent accountability mechanism on these matters, which 

in the long-term will broaden Congressional support for this important institution. 

I know you share my hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can get this bill to the floor 

in the near future. Swift action by the Committee and the House is necessary as 

the deadline for OPIC’s current authorization expires September 30, 2003.

Chairman HYDE. The Chair appreciates the gentleman’s remarks 

as always. 

Are there any further amendments? 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have decided not to—I have 

worked out an arrangement with your staff, and I have decided not 

to put my amendment forward. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. We are running out of gold medals here today. 

The question occurs on——

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Crowley. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I won’t take the 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to walk out of here with a gold medal at some point. I would just 

like to state for the record that I was contemplating an amendment 

dealing with the BTC pipeline route from Azerbaijan to Turkey 

that would bypass the country of Armenia, literally go around it in 

order to build that pipeline, using OPIC in that process and American taxpayer dollars to support that pipeline and attempt to circumvent the Armenian people and its country. 

The most direct way to build this pipeline would be a straight 

pipeline from Azerbaijan, its capital of Baku to Ceyhan in Turkey. 

A straight line would lead it directly through Armenia, but because 

of the politics of that region, the Azerbaijanis and the Turks have 

an embargo against Armenia, and we are agreeing to that embargo 

in some ways by having this pipeline built not through Armenia 

but around it. 

It has been estimated that a pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan that 

traverses Armenia would save approximately $600 million over the 

current proposed route. If they went through Armenia, it would actually be less expensive. American taxpayers are being asked to 

help cover hundreds of millions of dollars in increased costs for the 

BTC oil pipeline route that would bypass the more economic and 

commercially viable route through Armenia. If the Caucasus region, in my opinion, is to move forward, we must ensure that all 

countries move forward together at the same time. Choosing favor-
47

ites in the Caucasus will not promote regional stability, economic 

integration and peace. 

And I, Mr. Chairman, had the opportunity to be in Armenia at 

the end of August, and I understand our relationship with Turkey 

is an important one. And I support them as an ally, but taking note 

of the situation which Armenia finds itself in today, it is an isolated country, landlocked. Two countries on either side of it have 

an embargo against them. The country of Georgia to its north is 

politically unstable. Their only course is to trade through Iran, 

which we look down upon. It is an isolated country. They need help 

and support from this country, and I believe that here is an opportunity to highlight the circumstances that Armenia finds itself in 

today. 

It is unfortunate that they build this pipeline around it, but I 

think that it needs to be noted that I believe it is wrong, and I 

think many in this Committee believe it is wrong as well. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman. 

If there is no further discussion, the question occurs on the motion to report the bill, H.R. 3145, favorably as amended. All in 

favor say aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The motion to report 

favorably is adopted, and without objection——

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Bereuter. 

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to register 

that I hope to have report language that the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member may consider. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Without objection, staff is directed 

to make any technical and conforming changes, and without objection the bill will be reported favorably to the House in the form of 

a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the 

amendments adopted here today. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to request consideration of the following bills under suspension of the rules, H. Con. 

Res. 274, commending the National Endowment for Democracy; 

H.R. 2264, to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 

2005 to carry out the Congo Basin Forest Partnership; H. Res. 372, 

expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives in response to the murder of Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh; 

and House H. Res. 356, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the man-made famine that occurred in 

Ukraine in 1932 and 1933. 

[The information referred to follows:]
48

1

IV

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 274

Commending the National Endowment for Democracy for its contributions

to democratic development around the world on the occasion of the

20th anniversary of the establishment of the National Endowment for

Democracy.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 9, 2003

Mr. HYDE (for himself, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. COX, Mr. KIRK, Mr. ROYCE, Mr.

SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. PITTS, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. HOUGHTON, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr.

PAYNE, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mrs. LOWEY, and

Mr. MENENDEZ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Commending the National Endowment for Democracy for

its contributions to democratic development around the

world on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the

establishment of the National Endowment for Democracy.

Whereas November 22, 2003, marks the 20th anniversary of

the establishment of the National Endowment for Democracy (hereinafter the ‘‘Endowment’’), a bipartisan nongovernmental institution that promotes democracy

around the world;
49

2

•HCON 274 IH

Whereas through the National Endowment for Democracy

Act (22 U.S.C. 4411 et seq.), signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 22, 1983, Congress

has made possible the funding of the Endowment’s worldwide grant programs;

Whereas 2003 also marks the 20th anniversary of the National Republican Institute for International Affairs

(which was subsequently renamed the International Republican Institute (IRI)), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), and the Center for

International Private Enterprise (CIPE), all of which

joined the Free Trade Union Institute (which was subsequently renamed as the American Center for International Labor Solidarity) to form the four affiliated institutions of the Endowment;

Whereas the Endowment and the affiliated institutes have

supported grassroots programs to build democratic institutions, spread democratic values, encourage free market

institutions, and promote political parties, worker rights,

independent media, human rights, the rule of law, civic

education, conflict resolution, political participation by

women, and many other essential components of civil society and democratic governance in emerging and transitional democracies, nondemocracies, and war-torn societies;

Whereas the programs carried out or funded by the Endowment have made significant contributions to the efforts of

democratic activists to achieve freedom and self-governance around the world;

Whereas the Endowment, through the Journal of Democracy,

the International Forum for Democratic Studies, the

Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellows Program, and the
50

3

•HCON 274 IH

World Movement for Democracy, has served as a key

center of democratic research, exchange, and networking,

bringing together thousands of democracy activists, scholars, and practitioners from around the world; and

Whereas the spread of democracy throughout the world, to

which the work of the Endowment has contributed significantly, has enhanced the national security interests of

the United States and advanced democratic ideals and

values throughout the world: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress—

3 (1) commends the National Endowment for De4 mocracy for its major contributions to the strength5 ening of democracy around the world on the occa6 sion of the 20th anniversary of the establishment of

7 the Endowment; and

8 (2) endeavors to continue to support the vital

9 work of the National Endowment for Democracy.

Æ
51

1

I

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2264

To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to carry out

the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP) program, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 22, 2003

Mr. SHAW (for himself, Mr. ROYCE, and Mr. HOUGHTON) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 2005

to carry out the Congo Basin Forest Partnership

(CBFP) program, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Congo Basin Forest

5 Partnership Act of 2003’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds the following:

8 (1) The tropical forests of the Congo Basin, lo9 cated in the Central African countries of Cameroon,
52

2

•HR 2264 IH

1 the Central African Republic, the Democratic Re2 public of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, the

3 Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, and Sao

4 Tome/Principe, are second in size only to the trop5 ical forests of the Amazon Basin.

6 (2) These forests are a crucial economic re7 source for the people of the Central African region.

8 (3) Congo Basin forests play a critical role in

9 sustaining the environment—absorbing carbon diox10 ide, cleansing water, and retaining soil.

11 (4) Congo Basin forests contain the most di12 verse grouping of plants and animals in Africa, in13 cluding rare and endangered species, such as the

14 lowland gorilla, mountain gorilla, chimpanzee, and

15 okapi. These plants and animals are invaluable for

16 many reasons, including their genetic and bio17 chemical information, which could spark advances in

18 medical, agricultural, and industrial technology.

19 (5) Logging operations, driven by a growing

20 global demand for tropical hardwoods, are shrinking

21 these forests. One estimate has logging taking out

22 Congo Basin forest area at a rate of twice the size

23 of the State of Rhode Island every year.

24 (6) The construction of logging roads and other

25 developments are putting intense hunting pressure
53

3

•HR 2264 IH

1 on wildlife. At current hunting levels, most species

2 of apes and other primates, large antelope, and ele3 phants will disappear from the Congo Basin, with

4 some becoming extinct.

5 (7) If current deforestation and wildlife deple6 tion rates are not reversed, the six countries of the

7 Congo Basin most immediately, but also the world,

8 will pay an immense economic, environmental, and

9 cultural price.

10 (8) The United States has an interest in seeing

11 political stability and economic development advance

12 in the Congo Basin countries. This interest will be

13 adversely impacted if current deforestation and wild14 life depletion rates are not reversed.

15 (9) Poorly managed and nonmanaged logging

16 and hunting threatens to do to the Congo Basin

17 what it did to West Africa, which lost much of its

18 forest and wildlife through over-exploitation.

19 (10) Purged of wildlife, some Congo Basin for20 ests already are ‘‘empty forests’’.

21 (11) In an attempt to conserve the forests of

22 the Congo Basin, the region’s governments convened

23 the Yaounde (Cameroon) Forest Summit in March

24 1999.
54

4

•HR 2264 IH

1 (12) In September 2002, Secretary of State

2 Colin Powell launched the Congo Basin Forest Part3 nership (CBFP) in Johannesburg, South Africa. The

4 CBFP promotes the conservation and sustainable

5 use of the region’s forests, for example, by working

6 to combat poaching, illegal logging, and other

7 unsustainable practices, and giving local populations

8 an economic stake in the preservation of the forests,

9 including through the development of ecotourism.

10 (13)(A) The United States contribution to the

11 CBFP will focus on conserving 11 key landscapes in

12 6 countries—Cameroon, the Central African Repub13 lic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equa14 torial Guinea, Gabon, and the Republic of Congo—

15 identified at the Yaounde Forest Summit as being of

16 the greatest biological importance to the region.

17 (B) The United States will fund field-based ac18 tivities within these 25,000,000 acres that aim to

19 support a network of 27 national parks and pro20 tected areas and well-managed forestry concessions.

21 (C) In this way, the work will build on existing

22 United States efforts, including those of the Central

23 African Regional Program for the Environment

24 (CARPE) of the United States Agency for Inter-
55

5

•HR 2264 IH

1 national Development, which will implement the

2 CBFP.

3 (14) The CBFP has broad international finan4 cial support, including from non-African govern5 ments, the European Commission, the International

6 Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and nu7 merous nongovernment organizations.

8 (15) A dramatic step toward conserving Congo

9 Basin forests has recently been taken by Gabon. In

10 September 2002, President Omar Bongo announced

11 the creation of 13 national parks, representing over

12 10 percent of Gabon’s surface area. Previously,

13 Gabon had no national park system.

14 (16) With the CBFP and other initiatives,

15 there exists unprecedented momentum for the con16 servation of Congo Basin forests.

17 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

18 (a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appro19 priated to the President to carry out the Congo Basin For20 est Partnership (CBFP) program $18,600,000 for each

21 of the fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Of the amounts appro22 priated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations

23 under the preceding sentence for a fiscal year,

24 $16,000,000 is authorized to be made available to the

25 Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment
56

6

•HR 2264 IH

1 (CARPE) of the United States Agency for International

2 Development.

3 (b) AVAILABILITY.—Amounts appropriated pursuant

4 to the authorization of appropriations under subsection (a)

5 are authorized to remain available until expended.

Æ
57

1

IV

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 372

Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives in response

to the murder of Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 17, 2003

Mr. LANTOS (for himself, Mr. HYDE, Mr. BEREUTER, and Mr. WEXLER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

International Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives

in response to the murder of Swedish Foreign Minister

Anna Lindh.

Whereas Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh was brutally

attacked by an unknown assailant on the afternoon of

September 10, 2003;

Whereas Ms. Lindh died the next morning after undergoing

surgery performed in a desperate attempt to save her life;

Whereas Ms. Lindh’s murder is an attack on the freedoms

and tranquility enjoyed by the people of Sweden;

Whereas Ms. Lindh was elected to the Swedish Parliament in

1982, was appointed Minister of the Environment in the

government of Prime Minister Goran Persson in 1994,

and rose to the post of Foreign Minister in 1998;
58

2

•HRES 372 IH

Whereas Ms. Lindh demonstrated dedication to the causes of

human rights and environmental responsibility as a leader in the Swedish Government;

Whereas at the time of her death, Ms. Lindh was campaigning for Sweden to adopt the European common currency in a referendum which took place just a few days

after her murder;

Whereas Ms. Lindh was widely recognized as an advocate of

freedom and peace in Europe and throughout the world;

Whereas this is the second time the Swedish people have suffered the loss of a respected national leader as Prime

Minister Olaf Palme was murdered in a similar manner

in 1986; and

Whereas such senseless acts of violence are a threat to democracy and to civilized society wherever and whenever

they occur: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) expresses its deepest sympathies to the peo3 ple of Sweden and the family of Swedish Foreign

4 Minister Anna Lindh following her tragic and un5 timely murder;

6 (2) condemns all senseless acts of violence

7 against public officials;

8 (3) urges the President to provide all appro9 priate assistance that may be requested by Swedish

10 law enforcement officials as they pursue the perpe11 trator of this heinous act; and
59

3

•HRES 372 IH

1 (4) expresses the solidarity of the people of the

2 United States with the people of Sweden and the

3 Swedish Government at this difficult time.

Æ
60

1

IV

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 356

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the manmade famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932–1933.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 5, 2003

Mr. HYDE (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, and Mr. LANTOS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

International Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the man-made famine that occurred in Ukraine in

1932–1933.

Whereas 2003 marks the 70th anniversary of the height of

the famine in Ukraine that was deliberately initiated and

enforced by the Soviet regime through the seizure of

grain and the blockade of food shipments into the affected areas, as well as by forcibly preventing the starving population from leaving the region, for the purposes

of eliminating resistance to the forced collectivization of

agriculture and destroying Ukraine’s national identity;

Whereas this man-made famine resulted in the deaths of at

least 5,000,000 men, women, and children in Ukraine

and an estimated 1–2 million people in other regions;
61

2

•HRES 356 IH

Whereas the famine took place in the most productive agricultural area of the former Soviet Union while foodstocks

throughout the country remained sufficient to prevent the

famine and while the Soviet regime continued to export

large quantities of grain;

Whereas many Western observers with first-hand knowledge

of the famine, including The New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty, who was awarded a Pulitzer

Prize in 1932 for his reporting from the Soviet Union,

knowingly and deliberately falsified their reports to cover

up and refute evidence of the famine in order to suppress

criticism of the Soviet regime;

Whereas Western observers and scholars who reported accurately on the existence of the famine were subjected to

disparagement and criticism in the West for their reporting of the famine;

Whereas the Soviet regime and many scholars in the West

continued to deny the existence of the famine until the

collapse of the Soviet regime in 1991 resulted in many

of its archives being made accessible, thereby making

possible the documentation of the premeditated nature of

the famine and its harsh enforcement;

Whereas the final report of the United States Government’s

Commission on the Ukraine Famine, established on December 13, 1985, concluded that the victims were

‘‘starved to death in a man-made famine’’ and that ‘‘Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide

against Ukrainians in 1932–1933’’; and

Whereas, although the Ukraine famine was one of the greatest losses of human life in the 20th century, it remains
62

3

•HRES 356 IH

insufficiently known in the United States and in the

world: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that—

3 (1) the millions of victims of the man-made

4 famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932–1933

5 should be solemnly remembered and honored in the

6 70th year marking the height of the famine;

7 (2) this man-made famine was designed and

8 implemented by the Soviet regime as a deliberate act

9 of terror and mass murder against the Ukrainian

10 people;

11 (3) the decision of the Government of Ukraine

12 and the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament)

13 to give official recognition to the famine and its vic14 tims, as well as their efforts to secure greater inter15 national awareness and understanding of the famine,

16 should be supported; and

17 (4) the official recognition of the famine by the

18 Government of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada

19 represents a significant step in the reestablishment

20 of Ukraine’s national identity, the elimination of the

21 legacy of the Soviet dictatorship, and the advance22 ment of efforts to establish a democratic and free
63

4

•HRES 356 IH

1 Ukraine that is fully integrated into the Western

2 community of nations.

Æ
64

Chairman HYDE. All Members who wish may place statements in 

the record, and without objection——

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Reserving the right to object—and I won’t object, and 

I take note of the fact that you said that we can place statements 

in the record. I just want to very briefly say that I certainly support all the resolutions. The National Endowment for Democracy 

certainly has done wonderful work. It also is important the House 

take note of the man-made famine in Ukraine and certainly the 

murder of the Swedish Foreign Minister. 

I just want to very briefly comment on the resolution about the 

Congo Basin Forest Partnership, because the Wildlife Conservation 

Society, also known as the ‘‘Bronx Zoo’’ in my home county of the 

Bronx, is a founding partner of the Congo Basin Forest Partnership. They have done wonderful work, the Wildlife Conservation 

Society. They helped conceive and established a partnership, and 

they are planning to implement one-third of the Partnership’s current funding. 

So I just want to very quickly say that they have done a wonderful job, And they save wildlife and wildlands through careful 

science and international conservation, education and management 

of the world’s largest system of urban wildlife parks led by the flagship Bronx Zoo. They manage more than 350 conservation projects 

in 53 countries around the world and including more than 120 

projects in 20 countries across sub-Saharan Africa. 

I will submit the statement and remove my objection. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s full statement will appear in 

the record. Without objection, it is so ordered, and the Committee 

stands adjourned with my thanks. 

[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(65)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

H. CON. RES. 274

Mr. Chairman, I support H. Res. 274 and urge all of my colleagues to support it. 

The National Endowment for Democracy has been incredibly successful during it’s 

twenty year mission to promote democracy throughout the world. 

With each new wave of democracy since its establishment, the Endowment, and 

its institute partners, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, among others, have been at the forefront each time. 

Together, they have seeded the new fertile soil in Eastern Europe and Latin 

America, which have bloomed into regions where democracy, not tyranny, now dominate. 

Democracy is often the precursor of and is also inextricably linked to the development of human rights and personal freedom, causes that I have championed for my 

entire life. 

Recognizing this, NED has not only pushed forward democracy but has supported 

human rights activists on every continent, with financial grants, with personal 

awards, and tremendous moral support. 

All of us should express our profoundest gratitude for the men and women who 

have worked tirelessly to support these goals, which are central to the success of 

U.S. foreign policy goals in this era of change. 

I am proud to have co-sponsored this resolution with my good friend, the Chairman of the Committee, and I urge all my colleagues to support it. 

H.R. 2264

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H. R. 2264 and urge my colleagues to vote in 

support of it. 

I want to thank Secretary of State Colin Powell and Congressman Clay Shaw for 

making the preservation of the Congo River Basin a priority. The Congo River and 

its tributaries make up the most extensive network of navigable waterways in Africa and carry a volume of water second only to the Amazon River. 

The massive canopy forests are home to an amazing array of wildlife including 

the lowland gorillas and other endangered species. The yet untapped plant bio diversity may hold genetic and biochemical information key to medical and agricultural technologies to transform Africa’s future. 

Mr. Chairman, the stewardship of the Congo River Basin is the joint responsibility of Central African countries and the international community. Together, we 

must end the deforestation and wildlife depletion and support the appropriate use 

of forest resources. 

I support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of its passage. 

H. RES. 372

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H. Res. 372 and urge my colleagues to do so 

as well. 

I am grateful to my lead cosponsors, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Wexler, and Mr. Bereuter and 

the other 26 cosponsors who are supporting this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, many of our colleagues on this Committee will remember our 

meeting a year ago with Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh. We had an extraordinarily pleasant and lively discussion of international issues. We disagreed on some 
66

issues and agreed on others, but I believe all of us found her to be a charming and 

intelligent person. 

At the NATO Summit in Prague last November, my wife Annette and I enjoyed 

her company again at the state dinner given by President Vaclav Havel. 

As my colleagues know, just a few days ago Anna Lindh was murdered by an assailant in a Stockholm department store. 

Her untimely and tragic death was a shock to her countrymen in Sweden and to 

all who know her and have worked with her since 1998 when she began her service 

as Foreign Minister. 

Her death was a blow to the peace-loving people of Sweden. The shock had an 

even greater impact because former Swedish Foreign Minister Olaf Palme was murdered on a Stockholm street in 1986 in a similar and still unsolved murder. 

Mr. Chairman, House Resolution 372 expresses the condolences of the House to 

the family of Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, condemns all such senseless acts of violence against public officials, and expresses our support for the people of Sweden 

at this difficult time. 

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H. Res. 372, and I urge my colleagues to do so 

as well. 

H RES 356

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this resolution, and urge my colleagues to do 

so as well. 

I would first like to commend the Chairman for introducing this timely resolution 

which exposes Stalin’s atrocities against the Ukrainian people. We must never forget that Joseph Stalin killed more citizens of the Soviet Union through his inhumane and misguided policies than any foreign invader. 

I also want to give commend my friend and colleague from Michigan, Sandy 

Levin, for introducing a similar resolution. 

The Ukrainian people have sustained incredible suffering and loss in the 20th 

Century. While the official estimates of the number of Ukranians killed during famine are in the five million range, the unofficial estimates go as high as seven million. 

The Soviet government deliberately confiscated grain harvests and prevented 

Ukrainian rural population from leaving the area by sealing the borders. 

This was done to force the Ukrainian rural population into collective farms and 

to destroy any national aspirations the Ukrainians might have for independence. 

The Soviet Government successfully hid this famine from the West and only after 

the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 have we obtained access to documents 

confirming the deliberate and premeditated nature of this famine. 

Mr. Chairman, again I commend all my colleagues who have enabled our consideration of this resolution, and urge my colleagues to support its passage. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

H.R. 2264

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

H.R. 2264 authorizes the Administration’s Congo Basin Forest Partnership. The 

Africa Subcommittee held a hearing on this initiative in March; this authorization 

stems from that hearing. 

The tropical forests of Central Africa’s Congo Basin are a key economic resource 

for an estimated 20 million people. These forests play a critical role in sustaining 

the environment. The Congo Basin contains the most diverse grouping of plants and 

animals in Africa, including rare and endangered species. These plants and animals 

are invaluable for so many reasons, including their genetic and biochemical information, which could spark technical advances in medicine, agriculture, and industry. 

This is all threatened, though, as Congo Basin forests are coming under growing 

pressures. Ten years ago, these forests were virtually untouched. Today, logging operations are shrinking these forests. One estimate has logging taking out Congo 

Basin forest areas at a rate of twice the size of Rhode Island every year. Meanwhile, 

the construction of logging roads is putting intense hunting pressure on wildlife. At 

current levels, most species of apes, large antelope, and elephants will disappear 

from the Congo Basin, with some becoming extinct. 

Last September, Secretary of State Powell launched the Congo Basin Forest Partnership in Johannesburg. This Partnership is focused on eleven key landscapes in 

six countries. It aims to support a network of national parks and protected areas 
67

and well-managed forestry concessions. The Partnership is working to combat illegal 

logging and poaching and other unsustainable practices, and to give local populations an economic stake in the preservation of the forests, including through the 

development of eco-tourism. This is a true partnership, with European and other 

countries making financial contributions to it. 

I should note that the most dramatic move toward conserving Congo Basin forests 

has been taken by Gabon. Last year, President Omar Bongo announced the creation 

of 13 national parks. Previously, Gabon had no national park system. There is real 

African ‘‘buy-in’’. 

Conservation isn’t easy. What Americans take for granted, Yosemite and Yellowstone and our magnificent national park system, took great foresight and political 

commitment to make a reality. We led the world. It will be a major challenge to 

establish and maintain effective regimes to control logging and hunting in the 

Congo Basin. But with the Partnership, the U.S. is bringing its unique experience 

and talents to these efforts. I’d ask my colleagues for their support of this forwardlooking initiative. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RON PAUL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

H. RES. 364

Mr. Chairman: I understand the intentions of the minority side in bringing up 

this resolution and I strongly agree with the desire and demand for more comprehensive Congressional oversight of the war on Iraq and its aftermath. However, 

I intend to vote with the majority to report this resolution unfavorably. I will vote 

this way because what could have been a useful and appropriate demand for certain 

specific information on the war on Iraq, its planning, and aftermath unfortunately 

has been turned into a rather pointless political ploy on the part of the minority 

side. It is a shame, as this is yet another missed opportunity for Congress to assert 

its Constitutional oversight responsibilities. 

The problem with this resolution is that it is at the same time too specific and 

too broad. The demand for access to the Joint Chiefs of Staff report, ‘‘Operation 

Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned,’’ is a legitimate one, but we have already 

been informed that this report will be made available to interested Members—as 

has the material requested by the two previous resolutions of inquiry which have 

come before this Committee thus far this year. The demand for ‘‘documents in [the 

president’s] possession on the reconstruction and security of post-war Iraq’’ is an unrealistically vague political move at the expense of a proper need for Congressional 

access to information produced by the Executive Branch relative to the war on Iraq. 

Were this a request for delivery of specific documents or groups of specific documents relative to this topic, I would likely have voted to report this resolution favorably. 

We will soon consider the administration’s request for another $87 billion dollars, 

much of it to fund our continued occupation of Iraq. This on top of $79 billion dollars 

we appropriated earlier this year. Yet we have been provided little real information 

on what the administration plans to do with this money, we have been provided 

with no exit strategy from what is in enormously expensive—and I believe ultimately futile—attempt to remake Iraq and perhaps the entire Middle East in the 

image of the United States. So while the minority side complains—appropriately—

over the administration’s refusal to provide a detailed plan for how it intends to 

spend the tens and ultimately hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars, they have 

yet to express any reservations about the enormous expenditure itself. They have 

yet to complain about billions for health care and job training and nation-building 

in Iraq. Until the real issue is addressed—that our policy toward Iraq was mistaken 

from the beginning and that no amount of treasure or American lives will make a 

failed policy work—I will be forced to conclude that resolutions like this are meant 

only as political maneuvers at the expense of real and legitimate concerns over our 

continued occupation of Iraq. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARBARA LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

H.R. 3145

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 
68

Mr. Chairman, let me just begin by saying that I support this bill and OPIC’s mission to encourage the expansion of U.S. business investment in developing countries. 

OPIC has supported a number of innovative projects that have helped to improve 

infrastructure and stimulate growth in developing countries, while correspondingly 

helping businesses here at home to grow and prosper. 

While OPIC conducts a number of different outreach programs in order to make 

U.S. businesses aware of foreign investment opportunities that it can support in developing countries, it does not currently collect information on just exactly what 

kinds of businesses are participating in its investment, financing, and procurement 

programs. 

As a result, Congress is unable to exercise its oversight authority to ensure that 

OPIC conducts outreach programs that draw in our traditionally underutilized minority and women owned businesses that want to participate in development 

projects overseas. 

I’ve talked with a number of these businesses that operate in my district in California and throughout the country, who say that they have head little, if anything 

at all, about opportunities for foreign investment through OPIC. 

I’m appreciative that under the leadership of Dr. Peter Watson, OPIC has moved 

to do a better job reaching out to minority and women owned businesses. For example, at my invitation, Dr. Watson will be appearing tomorrow during the Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference at an issue forum that I am cosponsoring entitled ‘‘New Opportunities for Africans and African Americans in International Markets.’’

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BETTY MCCOLLUM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

H. RES. 364

Due to a scheduling conflict on September 25th, I was unable to vote on a motion 

by Chairman Hyde to report adversely to the House H Res 364, of which I am a 

cosponsor. Had I been present, I would have voted ‘‘No’’. 

I was also unable to vote on the following series of bills approved by the House 

International Relations Committee. Had I been present, I would have voted ‘‘Yes’’ 

for Unanimous Consent agreements to approve each of the following:

• H.R. 3145, to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to reauthorize the 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

• Representative Barbara Lee’s amendment to HR 3145, adding a section regarding minority- and women-owned businesses.

• H. Con. Res. 274, Commending the National Endowment for Democracy for 

its contributions to democratic development around the world on the occasion 

of the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the National Endowment for 

Democracy;

• H.R. 2264, To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to carry 

out the Congo Basin Forest Partnership;

• Res. 372, Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives in response to the murder of Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh; and

• H. Res. 356, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding 

the man-made famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932–1933.

I ask unanimous consent that this statement be inserted into the record at the 

appropriate place.

Æ