Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 27 (Tuesday, February 13, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 13, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1492-H1562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just recently adopted, I
call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) disapproving of the
decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more
than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

H. Con. Res. 63

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That--
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to
support and protect the members of the United States Armed
Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and
honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President
George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more
than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 157, debate
shall extend not beyond midnight on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, or
Wednesday, February 14, 2007, with 12 hours of debate commencing on
Thursday, February 15, 2007, in each instance equally divided and
controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their
designees.
Pursuant to section 2 of the resolution, on each demand of the
majority leader or his designee after consultation with the minority
leader, it shall be in order to debate the concurrent resolution for an
additional hour, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader
and minority leader or their designees.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner) each will control 5 hours.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we entered today and we will be,
for the next 4 days, involved in the most serious of discussions.
It is a heavy responsibility for any Member of Congress to determine
whether or not to send our people in harm's way for the purposes of
defending freedom. We should consider that with great solemnity and
with great care. The reason for the extensive period of debate is
because we believe that all Members of Congress ought to have the
opportunity to express their view.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished Speaker of this House, Nancy Pelosi of California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding and the solemnity with which he introduced this debate.
My colleagues, in a few weeks the war in Iraq will enter its fifth
year, causing thousands of deaths, tens of thousands of casualties,
costing hundreds of billions of dollars, and damaging the standing of
the United States in the international community. And there is no end
in sight.
The American people have lost faith in President Bush's course of
action in Iraq, and they are demanding a new direction.
On January 10, President Bush proposed deploying more than 20,000
additional combat troops to Iraq. This week we will debate his
escalation.
In doing so, we must be mindful of the sacrifices our military
personnel are being asked to make in this war and the toll it is taking
on them, on their families, and on our veterans. Each one of us must
determine, in a

[[Page H1493]]

manner worthy of their sacrifice, whether the President's proposal will
make America safer, make our military stronger, and make the region
more stable.
As this debate begins, let us be clear on one fundamental principle:
we all support the troops.
In this bipartisan resolution that is before us today, it clearly
states: ``Congress and the American people will continue to support and
protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving
or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq.'' We honor the
service of our troops by asking the difficult questions about this war.
As Republican Senator Robert Taft of Ohio said 2 weeks after Pearl
Harbor: ``Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of
any democratic government.''
And just 10 days ago, President Bush told House Democrats: ``I
welcome debate in a time of war . . . I do not believe that if you
don't happen to agree with me, you don't share the same sense of
patriotism I do,'' the President said.
In the spirit of responsibility to our troops and the patriotism we
all share, let us consider whether the President's escalation proposal
will lessen the violence in Iraq and bring our troops home safely and
soon.
From the standpoint of the military, the President's plan must be
evaluated for its prospects for success. It is based on a judgment that
the way out of Iraq lies in sending more troops in. Our experience in
Iraq has proven just the opposite. Four previous troop escalations have
resulted in escalating levels of violence.
And as with any military action, the President's plan must also be
evaluated on the additional burdens it will place on our troops and
military families who have already sacrificed so much, the impact it
will have on the already dangerous state of our military readiness.
Our military has done everything they have been asked to do, and they
have performed excellently. But in order to succeed in Iraq, there must
be diplomatic and political initiatives.
There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraq's
neighbors diplomatically, and there has been no sustained and effective
effort to engage Iraqi factions politically. The Iraqi Government has
failed to honor promises made last year when the constitution was
adopted by failing to propose amendments to include all sectors of Iraq
in the civic life of the country. As a result, today we are confronted
by little political accommodation, hardening sectarian divisions,
ethnic cleansing by neighborhoods, and waves of refugees burdening
neighboring countries.
After the Members of this body, this House of Representatives, have
fully debated the President's escalation proposal, we will have a
straight up-or-down vote. In a few days, and in fewer than 100 words,
we will take our country in a new direction on Iraq. A vote of
disapproval will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation which
will be coming to the House floor.
Friday's vote will signal whether the House has heard the American
people: no more blank checks for President Bush on Iraq. Our taxpayer
dollars must go to protect our troops, to keep our promises to our
veterans, and to provide for the safety of the American people.
In light of the facts, President Bush's escalation proposal will not
make America safer, will not make our military stronger, and will not
make the region more stable; and it will not have my support.
I urge my colleagues to support our troops and vote ``aye'' on the
bipartisan Skelton-Lantos-Jones resolution before us today
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our Republican
leader, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Florida for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today we begin an extended debate on a resolution
criticizing the latest effort by American forces to win in Iraq.
There is no question that the war in Iraq has been difficult. All
Americans are frustrated that we haven't seen more success and that we
haven't seen it more quickly.
But war is never easy and almost never goes according to plan. Al
Qaeda and their supporters in the region have been steadfast in their
efforts to slow us down and frustrate our efforts to succeed. But
because they cannot defeat Americans on the battlefield, al Qaeda and
terrorist sympathizers around the world are trying to divide us here at
home.
Over the next few days, we have an opportunity to show our enemies
that we will not take the bait.
It is fitting that yesterday was President Abraham Lincoln's
birthday. And not since the dark days of the Civil War has our homeland
been a battlefield. Lincoln's leadership preserved the Union through a
turbulent age that threatened to undo the American experiment. His
belief in the promise of the United States, a promise enshrined in the
Declaration of Independence that stated for the first time in history
that all men are created equal, this is what drove him to pursue
victory.
Surrounded by personal and political rivals, Lincoln could have given
up. He could have recalled the Union forces and sent them home. But he
didn't.
I think we need a similar commitment to victory today.
The battle in Iraq is about more than what happens there. This is one
part of a much larger fight, a global fight against Islamic terrorists
who have waged war on the United States and our allies. This is not a
question of fighting for land or for treasure or for glory. We are
fighting to rid the world of a radical and dangerous ideology. We are
fighting to preserve and defend our sacred way of life. We are fighting
to build a safer and more secure America, one where families can rear
their children without the fear of terrorist attacks.
Lincoln famously said in 1858 that ``a house divided against itself
cannot stand.'' I believe, as Lincoln did then, that we must choose
sides on a very critical issue. Then it was whether we should abolish
the evil institution of slavery. Today it is whether we will defeat the
ideology that drives radical Islamic terrorism. Will we do what it
takes to stand and fight for the future of our kids and theirs? Will we
commit to defending the freedoms and liberties that we all cherish? Or
will we retreat and leave the fight for another generation? These are
the questions with historic implications that will be answered this
week.
Many of my friends across the aisle think this is exactly what we
should do, give up and leave. This nonbinding resolution is their first
step towards abandoning Iraq by cutting off funding for our troops that
are in harm's way.
And we know what al Qaeda thinks when America retreats from the
battlefield. They think that we can't stomach a fight. This is why they
haven't been afraid to strike us whenever and wherever they have had
the opportunity to do so.
This war didn't start in Iraq. This war didn't start on 9/11. The war
began with the Iran hostage taking in 1979, went on for well over a
year. Then on October 23, 1983, the suicide attack on our Marine
barracks in Beirut occurred, killing 241 American servicemen and
injuring 60 others. On February 26, 1993, was the first World Trade
Center bombing that killed six people and injured more than 1,000
others. On June 25, 1996, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were
bombed, killing 20 and injuring some 372 others. On June 7, 1998, the
Kenya embassy bombing killed 213 people and injured 5,000 more. And on
June 7, 1998, the Tanzania embassy bombing killed 11 people and 68
others were injured. On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole was attacked; 17
American sailors killed, 39 other sailors injured.
We all know what happened on September 11, 2001, when 3,000 Americans
died for no other reason than they were Americans.
Do we really believe that if we pack up now, if we abandon Iraq and
leave the country in chaos, that our enemies are just going to lay down
their arms and leave us alone?

{time} 1245

For too long, world leaders responded to terrorism by retreating and
just hoping for the best. In a post-9/11 world, this is no longer an
option.
God forgive us that it took such a loss of life to open our eyes, but
our eyes are open. We are engaged in a global war now for our very way
of life.

[[Page H1494]]

Every drop of blood that has been spilt in defense of liberty and
freedom, from the American Revolution to this very moment, is for
nothing if we are unwilling to stand up and fight this threat.
We didn't start this war. They did. Now we have got a duty to finish
it, and, for the sake of our kids and theirs, to win it.
The nonbinding resolution before us today criticizes the new strategy
for succeeding in Iraq implemented by General Petraeus. It
``disapproves'' of the strategy before it even has a chance to begin.
The general's goal is to stabilize the Iraqi democracy, deny the
terrorists a safe haven and ensure stability in the region. It is a
prudent strategy that puts the performance of the Iraqi Government
front and center.
I can't guarantee that this plan is going to work. I hope it does.
Republicans have put forward a complementary bill aimed at helping it
succeed. But I again can guarantee you this: If we cut off our funding
for the troops that are in the field and we abandon Iraq, as many
supporters of this nonbinding resolution want to, the consequences of
our failure will be catastrophic.
Last year, Osama bin Laden issued this warning to the United States
regarding the war in Iraq. He said, ``I would like to tell you that the
war is for you or for us to win. If we win, it means your defeat and
disgrace forever.''
Now, think about this for a moment. Al Qaeda knows what the stakes
are and it issued all of us a challenge. Now, tell me, what message
does it send if we are afraid to meet that challenge? What message are
we sending to North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and other enemies of freedom
around the world? If we abandon Iraq, regional stability is going to be
jeopardized. Iraq will become a fertile breeding ground for radical
Islamic terrorists. Without a central government or other stabilizing
force, Iraq's neighbors will be compelled to enter Iraq to protect
their own interests. The consequences will be devastating and could
easily lead to regional war.
If we abandon Iraq, the instability, coupled with the damning image
of another American retreat, will embolden Iran and Islamic militants
and endanger Israel. Iran's leaders and terrorist groups have made it
clear of their intentions to wipe Israel off the map. We would be
leaving a staunch ally in the Middle East with nothing but chaos and
instability separating them from their greatest enemy.
If we abandon Iraq, those who seek weapons of mass destruction will
know they have nothing to fear from a fearful America. Neither al
Qaeda, North Korea or Iran are going to give up their quest for weapons
of mass destruction if they know they are free to pursue these weapons,
secure in the knowledge that America doesn't have the stomach to stop
them. We will be leaving for our children, and theirs, a vastly more
dangerous world.
During the Cold War, we took some small comfort in the idea of
mutually assured destruction, that the Soviet Union wouldn't attack us
because we could retaliate with equal devastation. There is no such
comfort in a world where terrorist gangs roam free. It is the nature of
our enemy to fight us wherever and whenever they can. Whether it is in
Asia, in Africa or elsewhere, al Qaeda has supporters and sympathizers
throughout the world. They have the ability to strike us at any time
with their lethal force across the globe.
Right now, we are fighting them in Iraq. The battlefield is the most
visible part in the global war against these terrorists, but it is but
one part. If we leave, they will just follow us home. It is as simple
as that. We cannot negotiate with them. We can't reason with them. Our
one and only option is to defeat them. And this nonbinding measure
before us today will only embolden them.
Now, it is important for this body to debate the important issues of
our day. Last summer, the House held an extended debate on the war in
Iraq and the global war on terror which gave all Members an opportunity
to go on record. We worked closely with our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle to draft the language of that resolution, and I
believe that we had a productive debate.
What we are dealing with here today isn't even a resolution to debate
the war itself. It is a nonbinding resolution attacking a single
strategy in the prosecution of a much larger war. ``Nonbinding'' means
nonleadership. It is not accountable, and I don't think it is the right
message for our troops.
This is a political charade, lacking both the seriousness and the
gravity of the issue that it is meant to represent. And, as I said
before, the question before us today isn't actually in this resolution.
I think it is much more fundamental. The question is, do we have the
resolve necessary to defeat our terrorist enemies? Will we stand and
fight for the future of our kids and theirs?
As President Eisenhower once said, ``History does not long entrust
the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.'' Does Congress have the
fortitude to do what needs to be done? Our soldiers do. The men and
women of our military are the greatest force for freedom that the world
has ever known. They are brave, they are committed and they can win
this fight if we ask them to. I think the big question is, will we
support them?
My colleagues, the world is watching. The question is, how will we
respond
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of
the time available to this side be jointly managed by the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the chairman
of the International Relations Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I speak today with a heavy heart. I am deeply saddened
as I take the floor this afternoon; saddened because we find ourselves
embroiled in a conflict in Iraq, a conflict that is involved with
insurgents that we failed to acknowledge or recognize, a conflict that
is overlaid by sectarian violence between the Shiite Muslims on the one
hand and Sunni Muslims on the other.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great American tragedy. The mission of this
Congress is to urge the change of course.
We are here today because of a series of irretrievable strategic
mistakes. Let's understand the goal of this resolution: number one, to
fully extend our support to those in the uniform of the United States.
I have been on the Armed Services Committee now throughout the years,
and more recently as its chairman, and I cannot tell you how proud I am
of those who are in uniform, whether they be deployed in the Middle
East or somewhere else in the globe or here in our country. We must let
them know, and this resolution does let them know, that we fully
support them, as well as their wonderful families.
The second part of this resolution deals with the Presidential
decision to increase our troops by 21,500. However, it is not clear
what support troops are needed. The Pentagon says 2,500 support troops.
The Congressional Budget Office says 13,000 minimum. But whatever it
is, we find ourselves not seeing a change in strategy, as was promised
by the administration and the White House, but just another tactic that
had been used before, an increase in troops. No more, no less. We are
here to say that is not a good idea.
The series of irretrievable mistakes is a serious list: the skewed
intelligence we received from the Defense Department Office of Special
Plans; the postwar phase of conflict that did not have sufficient
planning; not enough troops, as pointed out by General Eric Shinseki,
the former Army Chief of Staff; allowing the uncontrolled looting and
the breakdown of law early on after the occupation began; the dismissal
of the Iraqi Army, rather than giving them a paycheck and a shovel or
having them do security work that is important to the stability of that
country; the deBathification, that put so many thousands of Iraqis out
of business, out of work, including thousands of school teachers. The
administration has consistently refused to adjust its overall strategy.
I take no pleasure in this, but it is a moment of ``I told you so.''
On September 4, 2002, and again on March 18, 2003, I sent letters to
the White House

[[Page H1495]]

predicting some of the deadly outcomes we are experiencing today, and I
warned against a jagged ending to the conflict. While there is a
peacefully elected Iraqi Government, it is a government so divided
along sectarian lines it has not been able to accomplish even the most
basic steps needed for national reconciliation. And now we have the
President's plan for a troop increase, which is a tactic that we do not
approve.
The President's plan will embroil our troops even more deeply into
the sectarian conflict. Put together hastily, it is insufficient as a
requirement for success. Forty percent of all of the Army equipment of
our country is either in Afghanistan or Iraq. The readiness of our
troops is in peril. We are stretching the Army and the Marine Corps to
the breaking point. That is where we are, and basically it is because
of the conflict in Iraq.
Today is an opportunity for us to express our support for the troops
and to say it is not a good idea to increase the troop level in Iraq
because it has been tried unsuccessfully before.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our Republican
whip.

{time} 1300

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
resolution. General Petraeus said a resolution like this would
discourage the troops. The Secretary of Defense said a resolution like
this would embolden the enemy. This Congress should be doing neither of
those things.
What this resolution will not do is take a position on what we should
do as we face the challenge of our generation.
President Johnson was criticized a generation ago and still today for
choosing bombing sites in Vietnam. He was the Commander in Chief; yet
he should have left those tactical choices to the military.
But his actions made imminently more sense than this. It is hard to
imagine a group less capable of making tactical decisions about
specific troop deployments than 535 Members of Congress.
The resolution today is about the exact number of troops. Will the
one tomorrow or next week be a vote on which block in Baghdad to target
or which car to stop?
And, of course, today what we debate is a tactic in the greater fight
we are in. The new commanding general determined this surge is the
right course of action. The Iraq Study Group was supportive of ``a
short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize
Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S.
commander in Iraq determines that such a step would be effective.''
Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that the current situation in Iraq
cannot continue. That is why the President has advanced a new way
forward.
Actions do have consequences, and this resolution the Democrats
advance today is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote for the
current strategy because it is a vote not to change that strategy. The
current strategy is not working, and as a southwest Missourian told me
yesterday, We are there. He went on to say, It really doesn't matter
how we got there or what we thought. We are in a fight that won't stop
if we leave.
The fact of the matter is that Congress does have the power to end
the war if it has the political will to do so.
Almost 24 years ago, in November of 1983, the Congress voted to
withdraw from Lebanon by March of 1984. Many of the proponents of this
resolution voted then, who were Members of Congress then, voted to
leave. They lost 153-274, but the message was sent, and we left anyway,
and when we left, the myth of American weakness began to take hold in
al Qaeda.
The language of this nonbinding resolution does not tackle the tough
issues of war. It tries to have it both ways: disapproving the tactics
but supporting the troops. It does not say we will fund the troops in
the future or not fund the troops. It does not say we will supply the
troops in the future or not supply the troops. This resolution just
says enough not to say anything at all.
America should see this move for what it really is, a political first
step to cutting off funding to the dangerous mission our troops face.
The truth is, we are in a war against a hostile and ferocious enemy
that will stop at nothing. Imagine how this debate this week bolsters
those radical terrorists whose sole goal is to destroy America because
we disprove, as no society ever has, the dogma of religious
totalitarianism that they use every day to recruit followers and
funders and suicide bombers.
Our diversity, our ability to live together, and the prosperity and
vitality that are the result have produced the enemies we face today.
As long as we live as we do, they must be wrong.
This week, the Congress will send the signal to those enemies and to
those who fight to protect us from them that America has the will and
indeed the courage to continue fighting these Islamic totalitarians or
that we do not take the consequences of failure seriously
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding.
I must begin by reacting to the two distinguished Republican speakers
who preceded me. The distinguished Republican leader recited movingly
and accurately terrorist outrages across the globe. Those terrorist
outrages make the passage of our resolution all the more urgent and all
the more imperative. We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We are
attempting to referee a religiously based civil war which saps our
strength and destroys our fabric as a society.
As to the distinguished Republican whip, may I say this resolution
does not make tactical decisions. It reverses a mistaken course. The
administration is recommending an acceleration of the wrong course. Our
resolution reverses that course.
Mr. Speaker, it is too late to go back and make right all that has
gone wrong in Iraq, and clearly carrying on with more of the same will
do no good. But the administration has yet to learn that you cannot
unscramble an omelet. Instead, it is trying to add to the mix another
21,500 men and women who deserve better than that.
In pursuing its policies in Iraq, the administration cannot
unscramble and undo its many mistakes: buying into rogue and flawed
intelligence; disbanding the Iraqi Army; conducting mindless and
extreme de-Baathification; permitting the early looting and destruction
and violence; allowing the growth of a government based on hate-filled
sectarianism; allowing waste, fraud and abuse in the use of U.S.
taxpayer funds; and on and on ad nauseam and ad infinitum.
While we all hope that the goal of a quiet and stable Iraq will be
achieved under General Petraeus, I am deeply skeptical. It will be
incredibly difficult, if not impossible. The place is just too much of
a mess.
Our continued heavy presence in Iraq has not forced Iraqi leaders to
take the requisite actions on power-sharing, resource-sharing, and
national reconciliation. In fact, it has done the exact opposite. They
have made minimal and cosmetic efforts in the knowledge that we will
fill the gaps.
In the meantime, there are so many other fronts, globally and here at
home, on which we might have made much more progress if we had not been
fixated these last 4 years on Iraq. Domestic and foreign problems have
festered while we invested blood and treasure in Iraq. As our Iraq
problems have mounted, our commitment and ability to resolve other
pressing issues have vanished.
Last November, the American people sent a loud and unmistakable
message. With the announcement of an escalation of the war in Iraq, it
is obvious that the administration did not get it. So we are trying one
more time.
The resolution before the House is the second chance for this
administration to hear a strong and clear message on Iraq, one it
ignores at its peril and at ours as a country.
The majority of Congress wants de-escalation. The majority of the
American people want de-escalation. Many Republicans throughout the
Nation, and even our Republican colleagues in this Congress, want de-
escalation. Poll numbers show that the Iraqi people want the United
States to gradually withdraw, and Prime Minister al-

[[Page H1496]]

Maliki has indicated in virtually every way that he can that he, too,
opposes the surge.
But the administration wants escalation. So it is going its own way,
nearly alone.
There is a clear-cut policy difference here, Mr. Speaker. It is
reflected simply and unambiguously in our resolution. Those of our
colleagues who oppose escalation should vote for the resolution. Those
of our colleagues who stand with the administration in supporting
escalation should oppose it.
Along with 52 hearings on Iraq in the House and the Senate over the
past 5 weeks, this resolution represents the first phase in a long
overdue process of congressional oversight of the war in Iraq. It is
not the last phase. Congress will be dealing with the Iraq issue for
months to come, in fact, for as long as it takes to end this nightmare.
But this simple resolution will establish the first marker. Those who
want to draw down the U.S. presence will be on one side of that marker.
Those who want to take further steps into the quagmire will be on the
other.
Mr. Speaker, we are throwing our soldiers into the midst of a civil
war, particularly those whom we are sending to Baghdad. It is utterly
unrealistic and grossly unfair to expect soldiers straight out of Iowa,
Alabama, or California to be able to differentiate between Iraqi Sunnis
and Iraqi Shias, much less to be able to tell at a glance which of
these groups are with us and which are against us. But that is exactly
what we are asking them to do, and we are asking them to do it in an
urban terrorist setting and to do it without any linguistic or cultural
background.
The first sentence of the recent National Intelligence Estimate tells
us everything we need to know on this issue: ``Iraqi society's growing
polarization, the persistent weakness of the Iraqi security forces and
the Iraqi state in general, and all sides' ready recourse to violence
are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence
and political extremism.''
Every day we read another article illustrating the impossibility of
the situation into which we have inserted our brave men and women. One
day, we read how the Iraqi Army is infested with militia members.
Another day, we read that countless members of al-Sadr's violently
anti-American Mahdi Army have actually been trained by U.S. soldiers
unaware of the trainees' true affiliation. On yet another day, we read
that U.S. soldiers cannot even tell their Iraqi counterparts the object
of their joint military missions for fear that the mission will be
compromised.
This weekend, we read an interview with a U.S. soldier who
acknowledged that he had no idea whatsoever whether an arrest he
witnessed by Iraqi security forces was justified or merely another
instance of sectarian revenge.
Mr. Speaker, Iraq is a hall of mirrors, and the administration has
utterly lost its way. More troops will not help. The United States
wants Iraq to be a state based on the rule of law, but too many Iraqis
prefer score-settling, chaos, and civil war. We cannot create a stable
Iraq when the Iraqis themselves do not seem to want it.
Let us not leave our finest young men and women literally stranded in
an Iraqi maze. Let us make this resolution the first step on their
journey home. We must begin a reduction in force at the fastest
responsible rate possible, consistent with the safety of our troops.
And then it will be time to rebuild our battered military and, just
as importantly, rebuild the battered reputation of the United States.
For the sake of our troops and our national interests, I strongly
support this resolution and urge all of my colleagues to do likewise.

{time} 1315

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to Mr. Putnam of
Florida, the Republican Conference chairman, such time as he may
consume.
Mr. PUTNAM. I thank my friend from Florida for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this resolution because,
unfortunately, it is anything but resolute. In one legislative breath
it offers support for our troops, but then expresses disdain for the
mission they have been asked to carry out. And then, I must admit I am
surprised, after all the tough talk we heard from the other side, this
is a rather toothless 97 words. The resolution does nothing to help win
the war, but it doesn't do anything to help stop it either, which
allows the majority to offer its support and withdraw it too.
Now, the majority has surely studied its constitutional law, and
knows that the most direct way that it can affect current strategy is
to cut off the funds necessary for winning this war. So why are we not
having this week a real vote, a real up-or-down vote on funding our men
and women in harm's way? Actually, the Congress has had one up-or-down
vote, it was up only, when the Senate unanimously confirmed General
David Petraeus as our commanding officer in Iraq. General Petraeus, who
took over just last Saturday, literally wrote the book for the Army on
counterinsurgency strategies. And now, after unanimous Senate approval
and just days into his command, the House is prepared to pull the rug
out from under him. If that is not a mixed message, then what is it,
Mr. Speaker?
Indeed, it is a shame that the majority has brought to the floor such
a narrow, nonbinding resolution that misses the bigger picture, because
this is so much larger than what is going on in any given neighborhood
in Baghdad.
It is easy enough to go back and list all the disappointments we have
had in Iraq; it is easy enough to wring our hands about any one
particular tactic. But it is like focusing on one jungle, on one atoll
on the march to Tokyo over 60 years ago. The very nature of our enemy
requires us to look at the bigger picture. The harsh reality we have
encountered in 5\1/2\ years since militants attacked us on American
soil is that its intricate web of terror is utterly global.
Today, al Qaeda operates in over 60 countries, with members in the
hundreds and supporters in the hundreds of thousands and perhaps even
millions. This is the case even after the tangible successes that we
have had.
More than three-quarters of al Qaeda's known pre-9/11 leaders have
been captured or killed, more than 4,000 suspected al Qaeda members
arrested, and more than $140 million of its assets seized from over
1,400 different bank accounts worldwide. And after having accomplished
all that, the majority would have us consider a resolution that puts us
one day closer to handing militant Islamists a safe haven the size of
California. And when ideological militants achieve their objectives,
history tells us that they don't settle, that they only attempt to
expand their reach even further. And that means following us home.
The consequences of failure in Iraq read like a far-fetched war game,
but I assure you they are quite real: the inevitable incursion of
Iranian and Syrian combatants into the country, the threat to peaceful
Arab states, and the further emboldening of Hamas and Hezbollah.
So we have arrived at one of those muddy historical crossroads. Will
we continue to take the fight to the enemy, or will we fall back and
hope that the enemy does not follow us home? That question is one that
we must continue to ask ourselves, even if it is much larger than the
narrow scope of this resolution, this resolution that was born of what
has become an overly politicized debate.
Time was, politics stopped at the water's edge; but no longer, it
seems. A discussion of this nature should be about more than political
labels and single tactical issues. It should be about the consequences
for future generations.
The history of free peoples divides itself as neatly as it can into
generations for a reason: because it aspires to celebrate the
contributions made by that group of people who consciously join
together to vanquish a common enemy. If we do not join together now to
defeat this insidious foe, then it will almost certainly fall to our
posterity do so. And they will have a much larger concern than any one
troop deployment in any one city. They will be tasked with rebuilding
the lasting damage that was done to America's resolve this week. They
will look back upon this discussion and seek to understand what we were
thinking when, with just 97 words, we considered shrinking from this
critical moment.
The poet Robert Frost once wrote that, ``The best way out is always

[[Page H1497]]

through.'' We doggedly seek the way through. Success in Iraq, security
for our allies, and everlasting victory for freedom. This week's
discussion should be about the way through, not the way back
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan, a veteran of the Second World War, Mr. Dingell.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could rise in support for the
administration's policy. I wish it made sense. I wish it was in the
best interests of this country to support that policy.
It has been now 4 years since the first American soldier entered the
deserts of Iraq, and about 4 years since the President has declared
victory. Since then, more than 3,100 Americans have been killed, 24,000
and more have been wounded, and anywhere between 40,000 and 100,000
Iraqis have died.
You know, I am proud and grateful that I could have the privilege of
serving my country and making some small offering to its success in
time of war. I understand how important it is we support our troops
there. They have done a magnificent job, and everyone in this Chamber,
including this speaker, support them fully. It is regrettable, however,
the leadership in Washington that has been less than stellar.
Unfortunately, the veracity of this administration and the respect in
which it is held on these matters ranks somewhere around that great
fantasist Baron Munchausen, the teller of fantastic tales.
I am against this plan, if it can be called such, because it is just
more of the same policies and programs that have consistently failed
for 4 years. I am against this surge because it will not make Americans
safer, because it will put more American lives at risk, because it
continues to neglect the battle in Afghanistan, and because it
completely disregards the necessary diplomatic and political
recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group.
Twenty-one thousand is too many to kill and too few to succeed. And,
more importantly, that number is going to be sent over there away from
the adventures that we are confronting in Afghanistan and the troubles
that we are seeing in that place, and we are going to send people over
there without adequate preparation, proper equipment, and training.
Vice President Cheney has told us that insurgency is in the last
throes. Mr. Speaker, the national Intelligence estimates said that
fanatical terrorism has now, and I quote, ``metastasized and spread
across the globe.''
At each possible turning point, the toppling of Saddam Hussein's
statue, the dissolving of the Army, the creation of the Iraqi
Constitution, the vote for the constitution, the Parliamentary
elections, the capture of Saddam, the death of Zarqawi, the Bush
administration has told us that victory is at hand. And yet the killing
goes on and seems to have risen to new levels and new evidence of risk.
I don't believe that we can any more condone this long train of
failure which has brought us so little success and such tremendous
sacrifice in blooded treasure. It is time that we recognize that our
troops are in the middle of a civil insurrection or a civil war. It is
time that we recognize that we must turn this situation now over to the
Iraqis. The matter will be decided by the Iraqis, not by us. It will
not be decided militarily, but rather politically, by the people in the
area, and not by Americans who are coming increasingly to be viewed as
intruders and to be less liked and less supported.
I know that commentators and defenders of the administration will
assert that Iraq is too important, too vital to our national interests
to be debated or criticized. I happen to think the debate in this body
on matters of great importance is the reason that we exist, and it is
time that we speak on behalf of the American people to tell this
administration: ``Find a new mechanism to prevail in this matter. Find
a new way to spend our lives and treasure. Find a new way to see to it
that we prevail and that we make this country safe,'' because it is
clear that this is not going to happen with the current policy as
exemplified by this administration.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I hope that the
country will see to it that the President finally hears the message
that his policies are failed, it is time to make changes, and that we
have to do so in the interest of the United States and world peace
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield as
much time as he may consume to Mr. Hunter, the ranking member of the
Armed Services Committee.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution by the Democrat leadership sends a
message to three parties: America's enemies, America's friends, and
America's troops. And I think it is going to be received by friend and
foe alike as the first sound of retreat in the world battle against
extremists and terrorists.
Mr. Speaker, we are not stopping anything with this resolution. In
fact, the Big Red One is already moving its first brigade toward Iraq;
the 82nd Airborne, America's all-American division, is already in Iraq.
In fact, the Second Brigade is already in their sector in Baghdad. As a
matter of fact, in the Baghdad plan, which reinforcements are serving,
all nine sectors now have American and Iraqi forces in place and
operating. So you are not stopping anything; you are simply sending a
message, and it is the wrong message. Because this Nation has been for
the last 60 years involved in spreading freedom, and it is in America's
interest to spread freedom. Nobody would say that it is in our interest
or it is not in our interest, for example, to have a free Japan on that
side of the Pacific, or to have a free El Salvador in our own
hemisphere, or to have those nations which were behind the Iron
Curtain, nations like Poland, now standing side by side with us in
Iraq. It is in our interest to spread freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I have been here before. A lot of us have. I remember in
the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was standing up to the Russians in Europe
and the USSR was ringing our allies in France and Germany with SS-20
missiles, and the President of the United States moved to offset those
missiles with Pershing IIs and ground-launched cruise missiles, and you
had from the left a call that this was going to start World War III.
And you had pundits throughout this country, as a matter of fact
somebody showed me an old headline the other day, ``Better Red Than
Dead,'' which emanated from that debate and that action.
But we stood tough, we offset the Russians, we showed strength, and
at some point the Russians picked up the phone and said, ``Can we
talk?'' And when we talked, we talked about the disassembly of the
Soviet Empire.
In our own hemisphere, when we went in and helped that fragile
government in El Salvador and stood up a little shield around that
government, we had people saying that is going to be the next Vietnam
for the United States. Well, it wasn't a Vietnam for the United States,
and Salvadorans are standing with Americans now in Iraq. In fact, I
think we have got people who died of old age waiting anxiously for the
next Vietnam.
Now we are in a different part of the world, and it is a tough
mission, and moving freedom and spreading freedom in that part of the
world is very, very difficult. And I would just say to my colleagues,
my friends who have talked about the smooth road not taken, how we have
made mistakes; if we just kept that Iraqi in place of Saddam Hussein's,
somehow things would be better now. Saddam Hussein's army had 11,000
Sunni generals. Now, what are you going to do with an army with 11,000
Sunni generals whose mission is to stabilize a population which is in
the majority Shiite?

{time} 1330

A lot of people have said we should have had 200,000 to 300,000
troops in country. Now at the same time they would say we have got to
put an Iraqi face on this occupation. How do you put an Iraqi face on
the occupation with 200,000 or 300,000 Americans in country?
The facts are, there is no smooth road. This is a tough and difficult
road. Our military planners have come up with a strategy. It involves
nine sectors in Baghdad with Iraqi troops to the front and with backup
American battalions behind them, mentoring them, giving them advice,
and in many cases stiffening their spine.

[[Page H1498]]

Now, there is no guarantee of success. But this is a first time. I
think we should check our history, and my friend, Mr. Skelton, I think
you should check our history and see if this Congress has ever, after a
military operation is already in place, is already moving forward, the
Big Red One is already moving out. The all-American division, the 82nd
Airborne, already has troops in place in combat, in the city, that we
retroactively say, you know, we don't support this. The only message
that can possibly send to the rest of the world is a fractured message.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to end with a comment, with a quotation from
Douglas MacArthur in his farewell speech at West Point. I thought it
was appropriate for these times. He talks about the American soldier,
and he says this, ``Their story is known to all of you. It is the story
of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the
battlefields many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded
him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures;
not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of
the most stainless.
``His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In
his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that
mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man.
He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's
breast.''
Mr. Speaker, our soldiers are engaged in combat right now. The worst
disservice that we can give to them is to retroactively blast and
degrade the mission that they are currently undertaking. There is no
good role, there is no good purpose that is served by this.
So I would ask all my colleagues, let us get behind not only our
troops, let us get behind their mission. Let us vote ``no'' on this
resolution.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a
Korean War veteran, recipient of the Purple Heart, recipient of the
Bronze Star, Mr. Rangel.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I didn't come down here, my colleagues, to
talk about General MacArthur, but I guess I knew of him better than
anyone in this room.
General MacArthur was called out of Korea. He was the commander of
the entire Armed Forces there, and left us in the Second Infantry
Division completely surrounded by the Chinese in November of 1950. The
last I remember, he was called back by the Commander in Chief, Harry
Truman, for defying his direction. So with all due respect to the great
late general, this is hardly a time to talk about what soldiers have to
do when they defy authority.
I want to thank those who have given us an opportunity today to
express ourselves under question of life and death. Very few people
have this responsibility, yet those here in this House, you didn't get
elected to do this, but today you have to decide whether or not you
want this war to continue and how many people have to die before it is
stopped.
You here talk about me supporting a draft, but I challenge anyone to
tell me that their feelings about this war in Iraq would not be
different if they thought that their loved ones, their family, their
community, would be placed in harm's way.
Whether you are for or against the war, or no matter how you voted,
when you see the casualties mounting up, when you visit the hospitals
and see young dedicated people without their skulls, their faces, their
legs, their arms, you don't have to know any of these kids to start
crying. But if you have children and grandchildren, and your
imagination allows you to believe that they would be included in the
21,000, and no matter how many times they go, there has to be a feeling
that maybe this is the last chance I have, you have to have a different
feeling if you are not dealing with someone else's children.
Now, people would say these kids want to fight. I mean, they are
different from most kids. They volunteered. They want to do it.
It is strange how most of them sought the $40,000, $30,000, $20,000
bonus or sought educational benefits, or don't come from families that
are affluent in this country. It is strange that you never heard the
President of the United States or the Secretary of Defense ever make a
plea to the patriotism of America to say, Give me your young, your able
body, give me your patriots, we have a war to fight. You have never
heard that.
Oh, no, we applaud those who enlisted, but there has never been a
plea out there for America to make sacrifices. A country at war, and
the President doesn't ask people to sacrifice anything.
Well, my son in the Marines got out of the Persian Gulf. He is out,
and he too enjoyed the GI Bill. But recently I attended a funeral in my
district of a young man who died in Iraq, and I have gone to others,
and the family was outside, and they pled with me, please, Congressman,
tell them our son was a hero. Please, Congressman Rangel, we thank you
that you are here, salute my son, please.
I have gone to these funerals before. Most of these young men and
women were marines. So I was so used to seeing this blue uniform with
the red stripe. The family actually walked me to the coffin, and my
knees buckled. Why? Because as sensitive and as passionate I am about
the loss of life, instead of seeing a brown-skinned Dominican in a
marine outfit, I saw a soldier about 20 years old. I saw a soldier of
about 20 years old in an Army uniform, not a Marine uniform. Guess
what, he looked just like me.
I ask my colleagues to try to figure, if you were involved as an
individual, as a kid, or your family was involved, that this great
country and this great Constitution has given you the right, right in
your hand, to determine who lives and who dies. You cannot make a
mistake in supporting this resolution, it is not going to hurt our
beloved warriors, it is going to help our country, it is going to help
them, and it is going to make us proud one day to be able to say, when
asked, What did you do when this was going on in the world, and your
Congress was asked?
You would be able to say, There was a resolution. It may not have
been a profile in courage, but I supported it, and I am proud that I
did
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he
may consume to Mr. King of New York, the ranking member of the Homeland
Security Committee.
Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the opportunity to take part in this
debate, which as my friend from New York (Mr. Rangel) said, isn't this
a historic debate? It is part of our job. It is our obligation. It is a
legal obligation; it is a moral obligation to be heard on this most
pressing issue of our time.
I would also add at the outset, when we have talked about those who
died in Iraq, and all of us go to the wakes of those who were killed in
our district. Just the other day, if we are talking about the quality
of the type of person, where they come from and who was killed in Iraq,
there was a young man who was actually in what used to be the heart of
my district, very affluent area, Manhasset. He was a graduate of Duke
University, all-American Lacrosse player, was offered a scholarship to
law school, but he turned it down to go in as an enlisted man, as an
Army Ranger.
He served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he was killed on his
third tour of Iraq. His family was proud of what he did, what he
accomplished, what he stood for. I think it doesn't really add to the
level of debate to somehow be suggesting that those who go to Iraq
because they cannot be anywhere else or somehow it is all driven by
economic need, he was a young man with everything in front of him.
He had all the opportunity in the world, and he went, and he joined
the Army, went in as an enlisted man, died as a sergeant, and he was on
his third tour in Iraq. So I think it is important to put that in the
Record. Also, I know there are any number of Members in this body who
have had members of their families serving in Iraq.
I think if we are going to talk about the gentleman from New York who
wants to bring back the draft, we can have that in a separate debate.
But I don't think it should be part of this debate.
Now, when this debate was actually scheduled, I actually thought it
would

[[Page H1499]]

serve a constructive purpose. But as I look at the resolutions being
offered, if I could really, I guess, quote from Senator Lieberman of
Connecticut, rather than a resolution, it is really a resolution of
irresolution.
It is inherently contradictory, because it pledges support to the
troops but also at the same time washes its hands of what the troops
are attempting to do. I have heard speaker after speaker get up here
today and say the new policy cannot work. The new policy is more of the
same. This is the President's policy. He hasn't gotten the message from
the American people.
Well the fact is, this policy is strongly supported by the new
commander in Iraq, General Petraeus. As was pointed out, the Senate
unanimously approved the appointment of General Petraeus by a vote of
81-0. Now, for people to come here today and say this is an inherently
flawed policy, this is a policy that cannot work, this is a policy that
is doomed to failure, to me, after General Petraeus has said that he
believes the policy can work, that he supports the policy, is to attack
directly either the credibility or the competency of General Petraeus,
and that is a terrible message to be sending to our troops.
Actions do have consequences. I don't doubt the good faith of anyone
on either side of the aisle when it comes to supporting the troops. The
fact is, often you have to think beyond what the actual words are
saying and realize the consequences those words have. For instance, my
good friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who I have
actually traveled to Iraq with in 2003, where we met with General
Petraeus and others in Mosul and with others and troops in Baghdad, he
said that Iraq is a mess, and we have to end the nightmare.
Does anyone really think by Americans pulling out the nightmare is
going to end, that the Middle East will become stable if we leave?
Certainly al Qaeda doesn't believe that. Certainly the mullahs in Iran
don't believe that. And also our allies don't believe that.
Again, what are the consequences of our actions? Are we saying just
draw down for the sake of drawing down? I heard the distinguished
Speaker of the House of Representatives say our goal is to get our
troops home.
Well, I would say our goal should be to have our troops come home
after we have achieved a goal, a goal of at least a stable Iraq, an
Iraq which is able to protect its borders against Iran, and an Iraq
which is able to prevent al Qaeda from setting up a privileged
sanctuary in Iraq, and an Iraq which is able to create a situation in
the north where the Kurds and the Turks are not fighting with one
another.
So these are all serious issues that have to be addressed. I regret
to say this resolution does not address it in any way. If anything, it
is a serious step backward.
Now, also we have heard that we have to listen to the polls. We have
to listen to what public opinion has to be at any particular time.
Well, if anyone wants to go back and look at the polls, in 1952,
President Truman's popularity rating was 22 percent. War in Korea was
amazingly unpopular, and yet today he is acknowledged as one of our
greatest Presidents, and the war in Korea is looked upon as an
absolutely indispensable step in the defeat of communism, because they
drew the line in Asia at the 38th parallel.
I know my good friend Mr. Rangel served in Korea, he was wounded in
Korea, and he performed valiantly in Korea. That war now is looked upon
as one of the linchpins of the Cold War strategy, which, again, brought
down the Communist menace.

{time} 1345

Also I tried to research this. I am not aware of any time in the
entire history of our country where the United States Congress has
adopted a resolution questioning a particular battlefield strategy.
Like him or not, and I certainly support him, but the President is
our Commander in Chief. I said the same thing when President Clinton
was our Commander in Chief, and I was serving in this body at that time
when there was tremendous criticism directed at him.
But the fact is, the President, no matter where he or she happens to
be from, is the Commander in Chief. And we are at war. It was a war
that was authorized by this Congress. And we should not be, I do not
believe, setting the precedent of adopting resolutions questioning
specific strategies.
Should we have adopted a resolution in the winter of 1944, 1945,
questioning President Roosevelt's strategy in allowing the intelligence
failures that brought about the Battle of the Bulge? We can go step by
step. Certainly President Lincoln, during the Civil War when strategies
were changed throughout the war and finally resulted in a victory.
Also we have to realize that the war in Iraq is part of an overall
war against Islamic terrorism. As the former chairman of the Homeland
Security Committee, as ranking member of the Homeland Security
Committee, certainly we see that this is an enemy which is overseas and
it is here. It is an enemy which is plotting every day to find ways to
attack us.
I know later the distinguished ranking member of the Intelligence
Committee will also speak to this part of the issue. But the fact is,
we do not live in vacuums. We cannot isolate battlefields and silos and
say this is Iraq, this is Afghanistan, and this is the Twin Towers.
The fact is, we are talking about actions having consequences. And I
have been very critical of the Republican Party for 1983 when I believe
we precipitously withdrew from Beirut. That had consequences. I was in
this body when we precipitously withdrew from Somalia. I was also in
this body when the Twin Towers were attacked the first time in 1993 and
we took no action, or Khobar Towers when a constituent of mine was
killed in 1996. We took no action.
The USS Cole in 2000 when we took no action. In 1998 the attacks on
the African embassies, where we took very limited action. All of those
had consequences. In fact, now we see after September 11, 2001, we find
the historical record where Osama bin Laden said that when we saw that
the United States was willing to withdraw from Somalia, how that
emboldened Islamic terrorists throughout the world, how that showed
them that we did not have the staying power, we did not have the guts
to stick it out.
Listen, those who are really putting it on the line, those who have
the guts are the men and women of the battlefield in Iraq and
Afghanistan. But also we as elected officials have to show some courage
and not just give in to the zeitgeists, not just give in to the latest
public opinion poll or to the latest election, because quite frankly we
were not elected to win elections; we were elected to show leadership
and to do what has to be done.
When future generations look back at this, will they really say that
we helped the struggle against Islamic terrorism by pulling out of
Iraq, by not continuing that fight? Does anyone really think that that
will not embolden al Qaeda, that that will not embolden Iran? Can
anyone honestly say that?
And so I believe that what disappoints me about this debate and this
resolution is we are treating Iraq almost like it is a pinpoint. It is
one issue standing by itself, and it is not. It is part of a mosaic; it
is part of a worldwide struggle. As someone who lost more than 100
friends, neighbors, constituents on September 11, I have seen firsthand
the evils of Islamic terrorism.
As ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, I know how
there are forces in this country who would take action against us. I
know the connections between forces in this country and forces
overseas. It is no secret. It should not cause us any confusion as to
why al Qaeda wants us to lose in Iraq.
It should not cause us any confusion as to why al Qaeda encourages
the enemy against us in Iraq, and in fact has al Qaeda in Iraq itself
fighting against us.
So now we come to the question of, with our troops committed there,
with this being an absolutely essential part of the war against
terrorism, what do we do? I agree that there is a consensus that the
current policy has not been successful. There have been successes, but
the policy itself has not been fully successful.
That is true in almost every war in which America has been engaged.
It was certainly true during World War II, it was certainly true during
Korea, and even take a war like Kosovo, which is

[[Page H1500]]

probably almost as antiseptic as a war could be, even though every war
when anyone's life is on the line is brutal and deadly.
But from a strategic point of view, we are talking about it should
have been a simple war. We ended up bombing a Chinese embassy in
Belgrade. So, I mean, mistakes are made. And for us to say because
mistakes are made we should redeploy our troops, which really is a
euphemism for withdrawal.
We are sending signals to the world. We are sending signals to our
troops, we are sending signals to our allies, we are sending signals to
our enemies. On the one hand if we are unanimously confirming General
Petraeus who supports this policy, and on the other hand we are saying
we know the policy cannot work and we are actually going for the first
time in American history going on record opposing a particular
strategic policy, then I would say, where are we getting this from?
People say that this is just the same policy as we have had all
along. General Petraeus says it is not. And I do not believe it is. Can
I guarantee the new policy will work? No, I cannot. But I have met with
generals, I have met with military experts, and they give good reasons
why it can work. And there are people of very good faith on the other
side who say it will not work.
But as I look at this, our commander, who is looked upon as the
expert in counterinsurgency, who is the general who has certainly
achieved the most in Iraq, and anyone who has been to Mosul knows the
job that he achieved there, if he says this policy should work, and can
work, then I believe we have the moral obligation, we have the legal
obligation, and we have the obligation to history and for our children
and grandchildren that we not undercut General Petraeus, that we not
tell our troops we do not have faith in their ability to carry out the
mission which General Petraeus says can be carried out, and we do not
embolden our enemies by saying just wait this out a few months, wait it
out a few months and you will get it, wait us out a few months and we
will pull out like we did in Beirut or Somalia.
We cannot allow that message to be sent. The burden is on us. And if
we fail in this mission, and the mission I believe of standing with our
troops, standing with our commander in the field, and standing with the
policy that the overwhelming majority of Congress voted for in 2003,
and also the pledge that all of us made on September 11, 2001, then we
will have failed in our obligations as Members of the United States
Congress and failed in our obligation to our oath of office to do what
has to be done, which should be done, which is essential if we are
going to win the war against Islamic terrorism.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I find it rather interesting, Mr. Speaker, that those who oppose this
simple, straightforward resolution tend to confuse a permissive war
with a necessary war. The goals of the insurgents in Iraq are far
different from the terrorists that had their genesis in Afghanistan.
Let us not be confused between the two conflicts or their origins or
those against whom we fight.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a veteran of the Korean War, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman, Mr. Skelton, and I
stand proud today with my fellow veterans in the House of
Representatives to register our opposition to the President's plan to
escalate the war in Iraq and to show our support for our men and women
in uniform.
Now, last November 7 the American people sent a clear message to
Congress and the President: we must end the war in Iraq. Now after
nearly 4 years of bloodshed, death and destruction, Congress is likely
to go on record as opposing the plan for escalation of this war.
No longer will Congress stand by while the President wages a war that
defies logic, common sense and human decency. This week we shall take a
stand. This week, we tell this administration enough is enough, stop
ignoring the American people, stop ignoring your generals. And by the
way, I include to the gentleman from New York two speakers ago, General
Colin Powell, no less agrees with us.
Stop ignoring the foreign policy experts. Stop wasting American lives
and resources on this disastrous and unnecessary conflict. This week's
debate on this resolution represents an important turning point in
public dialogue about Iraq. And so I welcome it, but it is not enough.
The escalation must be stopped, and we cannot let the momentum against
the war subside after we deal with the escalation.
Our priority must remain ending the fighting and dying in Iraq. We
must end the senseless deaths of servicemembers like marine Tarryl Hill
of Southfield, Michigan, who only last Wednesday died when his vehicle
drove over a bomb in Fallujah.
Tarryl Hill was 19 years old. He had joined the military to help
finance his education to become a chemical engineer. I do not want to
see one more promising life like his extinguished on the altar of this
administration's arrogance. The loss of Tarryl's life brings to mind
the bereavement of another patriot from Flint, Michigan, Lila Lipscomb,
whose 26-year-old son, Michael, died in Iraq in April 2003, when his
helicopter was shot down.
A member of a military family, Ms. Lipscomb initially believed
President Bush when he told the Nation that war was necessary for our
national security. But her son's letters from the front lines and his
tragic death showed her that he should have never gone to Iraq.
I need to spend a little time explaining my opposition to the troop
surge, which is simply even more of the same. This policy is going in
precisely the opposite direction recommended by the generals who get
transferred if they do not agree.
It would simply expose GIs to more intense door-to-door fighting, in
the vain hope that in the meanwhile the Iraqis will miraculously
reconcile with us still being in their country.
The real and underlying question is how we remove ourselves from this
quagmire. As I have emphasized many times, our Constitution gives
Congress the central role in decisions of war and peace. Last fall the
American people spoke loudly with their votes. We should be here
showing the voters that we heard them and that their trust was well
placed.
The ultimate, unequivocal authority of the Congress is the power of
the purse. And so we must use it. Supporters of the President's failed
Iraq policy have argued that using Congress's spending power to end the
war means that we do not support the troops. It is beyond absurd to
suggest that those of us who favor ending funding for the war would
simply abandon the troops in the field without equipment and the
supplies they need.
Cliches about supporting the troops are not really about our service
members' best interests. The true purpose of these accusations is to
distract us from the fact that we are bogged down in an unwinnable war
that threatens to drag on for years, if not decades. Keeping our troops
out of harm's way, especially when war is unnecessary, is the best
possible way to support them. The American people understand that
marching ahead blindly into oblivion is no way to support our troops.
That is why they have asked us to end this war.
Mr. Speaker, the administration continues to live under the illusion
that it can salvage its reputation by achieving a military victory in
Iraq, when it is clear that diplomacy is the most effective means at
our disposal. The recent National Intelligence Estimate reflecting the
collective judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies only confirms what we
have seen in the daily headlines for almost a year. It concludes that
the civil war has reached an intensity that is ``self-sustaining'' and
that there are no Iraqi national leaders with the ability to stop it.
No wonder the administration stalled completion of the NIE until after
the election and the President's presentation of his latest proposal.
Most of the American people know that there is only one way to
proceed in Iraq. We must begin the phased withdrawal of American troops
in the next 4 to 6 months and conclude it within the year. Redeploying
our Armed Forces does not mean ``cutting and running.'' On the
contrary, we suggest continued and extensive involvement in the region
through renewed diplomacy, a regional conference and reconstruction
that is free from fraud and abuse. This sensible path is the only one
that can lead us to victory.

Announcing the Passing of the Honorable Charlie Norwood

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by House leaders
that our colleague, Congressman Charlie Norwood, has passed away. I
would

[[Page H1501]]

ask our colleagues to join me as we rise in a moment of silent prayer
for Charlie.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues and visitors.
Congressman Norwood was a proud Vietnam veteran, and his service to
our Nation will be sorely missed. Mr. Deal will soon come to the floor
to make a statement on behalf of his State's delegation.
With that, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to Mr.
Hoekstra, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

{time} 1400

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear of the purpose of today. We face a real
test of what this House of Representatives stands for and who we, as
Representatives, really are.
Do any of us really believe that the resolution in front of us today
is a serious piece of legislation? Does it properly recognize all of
America's military and other national security professionals who defend
us day and night? What of the hundreds of folks in the Intelligence
Community that are ignored in this resolution, who each and every day
are working hand in hand with our Armed Forces trying to achieve
success in Iraq?
Does this resolution discuss or force a debate on the really tough
issues of who it is that hates America and others so much that they are
willing to kill innocent men, women and children? Again, this
resolution comes up short.
What is the threat, and how should America respond? That is the
debate that we should be having on this floor. This resolution is all
about staying the course. It says, Support our troops and don't engage
in new tactics; just keep going down the same path. That is not good
enough.
There are people who hate us enough to want to kill. I speak of
militant Islam's hate for America, a hate that extends to others,
including Muslims. And these militant Islamists kill, they kill
violently and indiscriminately, but this resolution is silent on the
threat that we face as a Nation, and it is silent on how we should
respond.
Who are these radical Islamists, and what should America's response
to this threat be? We face this on a global basis. What is America's
response to jihadism? How will America win this war against this
calculating enemy? And how will America lead the world once again in
the face of such a ruthless threat?
The resolution that we are debating today simply asks, Do you support
America's fighting men and women, and do you support or oppose a tactic
in a battle that is only one front in the war with these military
jihadists who are bent on the destruction of the infidel America and
others around the world.
Let me say to my colleagues that I don't believe I am wrong in saying
that this debate is really about whether or not America is a great
Nation that leads in the face of difficulty. Nor do I believe that I am
wrong to question what actually happens when this debate and vote are
over. Have we really helped the American people understand the threat?
What message do we send to our troops in harm's way? And what is it
that the American public needs to understand so that it can better
understand the challenges that we face? My own answer, Mr. Speaker, was
that we need to understand the consequences of failure. We need to
fully understand the nature of the threat that is posed now, and
moreover in the future, if we fail in the larger war against militant
Islam.
Mr. Speaker, let me outline some things about this very real threat
to our very existence that needs to be known by the American public
and, indeed, this body. This is not a global war on terror. I have
never liked that term, I don't know why we keep using it. This is a
global war with jihadists. We are not at war with a tactic, we are at
war with a group of militant Islamists who hate us and who hate much of
the rest of the world. What is a jihadist, other than someone or some
group so full of hate that they are willing to kill?
I have a passion for understanding this threat. And thanks to a great
deal of superb research done by many experts on the subject, in
particular the author Mary Habeck, we have been enlightened as to who
these individuals are, and perhaps also get an insight into the
question of why do they hate, and why do they hate so much that they
are willing to kill.
I can tell you that these militant Islamist jihadists are a fringe
element of Islam who have very specific ideas about how to revive
Islam, return Muslims to world power, and how to deal with their
enemies. They are committed to a violent overthrow of the existing
international system, and to its replacement by an all-encompassing
Islamist state, the Caliphate.
Mr. Speaker, in studying this threat, this militant Islamic jihadist
threat, we must also understand why Iraq is such an important element
of their war against the West. This is where the letter from al Qaeda's
number two leader, Zawahari, to the late al Zarqawi outlining the
Islamic Caliphate that would stretch from Indonesia across the Middle
East and Africa is instructive. In that letter, Zawahari outlines a
four-stage plan to create this religious empire.
Stage one. ``Expel the Americans from Iraq.'' Expel them in defeat. I
fear that this debate may be the first step in that process.
Stage two is to create an Islamic religious government in the old
Mesopotamia, that is, Iraq, developing it and supporting it ``until it
achieves the level of a Caliphate,'' until it fills the void stemming
from the departure of the Americans.

Step three is to extend the jihad way to secular countries
neighboring Iraq. The jihadists will attack heretic Muslims, as they
define them.
And stage four is the clash with Israel, because Israel was
established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
Let's be clear about this. This jihad is about them. It is about
their god, their religion, before it becomes anything about anyone or
anything else. That's right, it is about them before it is about us.
The militant jihadists believe that Islam worked well for over a
thousand years, spreading a true gospel, a unified society that
followed the Shari'a, a law handed down by God. They believe that the
modern world has forsaken that pure religious life, and they believe
that only in a Caliphate governed by the Shari'a is the way to return
to that pure life.
This is the world that they now want to recreate and force on the
rest of the world. That is why they are fighting and that is why they
are killing. They see today's world as one where unbelievers, the
United States, Japan and others, dominate politically, culturally,
militarily and economically. This directly assaults their religious
beliefs, as in effect, much if not all of the world is controlled by
unbelievers, unbelievers who must be destroyed, including secular
Muslim states in the region.
To illustrate, let me quote from Osama bin Laden's Fatwa. Listen to
what these people tell themselves and each other: ``There is no more
important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the Holy Land, no
other priority, except Belief, could be considered before it. There is
no precondition for this duty, and the enemy should be fought with
one's best abilities. If it is not possible to push back the enemy
except by the collective movement of the Muslim people, then there is a
duty on the Muslims to ignore the minor differences among themselves.
Even the military personnel who are not practicing Islam are not
exempted from the duty of jihad against the enemy.''
It should be clearly understood that a central tenet of jihadists'
beliefs is the belief that God is one; he has no equals, he has no
partners. This is important. If one believes that God is one and all
that matters of rule giving or law making belongs to him, no human
being, no government could make laws or alter the Shari'a laws of God.
This would be, for all intents, setting oneself up to be the equal of
God. Herein lies the problem that these militant Islamists have with
the West and secular Muslim countries. This belief is applied equally
to infidels and Muslim heretics.
The bottom line is that any government or order of law other than
Shari'a is illegitimate. This belief, in their minds, justifies the
killing of heretical

[[Page H1502]]

Muslims and non-Muslims alike. This is not recent thinking. A prominent
early 20th century Egyptian Muslim ideologue named Hasan al Banna
professed this point about Muslims and nonMuslim heretics. He stated,
quote, we will not stop at this point, but we will pursue this evil
force to its own land, invade its western heartland, and struggle to
overcome it until all the world shouts the name of the Prophet and the
teachings of Islam are spread throughout the world. All religion will
be exclusively for Allah.
He went on to say that this violence would not be to avenge wrong
suffered, nor to kill the unbelievers, but to save mankind from its
many problems. Are we starting to get a picture of who the enemy may
be? It is also important that jihadists' interpretation of Islam is
they will reject any system of laws not based on Shari'a.
Democracy. Why do they hate us? Democracy, he claimed, is the
ultimate expression of idolatry, giving reason for the hatred of
Western values. This is about them, it is not about us.
Al Banna is not the only studied ideologue. Another name, Sayyid
Qutb, wrote, ``Islam has a mandate to order the whole of human life,
and that the Western idea of separation between religion and the rest
of life is, quote, a hideous schizophrenia that would lead to the
downfall of white civilization and therefore its replacement by
Islam.''
Qutb maintained that political and religious ideology of the jihadist
is derived directly from the Koranic argument that God, unique and
without partner, is the only being of sovereignty. Therefore, the only
role for national leaders is to implement God's laws. This gives the
jihadists their belief that attacking secular or Muslim heretic
societies is justified. Qutb basically justified all-out warfare on all
of these societies.
Where does that leave us today? It leaves us with a discussion that
should be much deeper than the resolution that is in front of us. The
resolution in front of us is a shallow political document.
Let me return to Osama bin Laden's Fatwa against the West. Let me use
his own words. In calling on all Muslims, he says, ``The explosions at
Riyadh and Al-Khobar is a warning of this volcanic eruption emerging.''
To further his murderous goals, bin Laden then went on to outline the
terrorist approach to his holy war to by saying, ``It must be obvious
to you that due to the imbalance of power between our Armed Forces and
the enemy forces, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted, i.e.,
using fast-moving light forces that work under complete secrecy; in
other words, to initiate a guerrilla warfare where the sons of the
nation, and not the military forces, take part in it. And as you know,
it is wise, in the present circumstances, for the armed military forces
not to be engaged in conventional fighting with the forces of the
crusader enemy, unless a big advantage is likely to be achieved and
great losses induced on the enemy side. That will help to expel the
defeated enemy from the country.''
He goes on, ``Therefore, efforts should be concentrated on
destroying, fighting and killing the enemy until, by the grace of
Allah, it is completely defeated. The time will come, by the permission
of Allah, when you will perform your decisive role so that the word of
Allah will be supreme and the word of the infidels will be the
inferior. You will hit with iron fists against the aggressors.''
The modern words of bin Laden alone do not adequately explain the
current militant Islamic threat to the United States and its friends
around the world. Again in their own words, this quote from a senior al
Qaeda leader, quote, Islam became to be the only hope in jihad under
the banner of Islam to become a solution for all of the enemies of
America and of those weakened nations, even to the leftist and peace
groups in the Christian world. Whoever follows the writings of some of
the Western authors will find that some of them started to declare,
through their writings, about the American tyranny, that there is no
hope to face America other than through the armed Muslims. To the
extent that in one of the demonstrations that included hundreds of
thousands against globalization and war in Italy, the demonstrations
carried a picture of bin Laden placing Che Guevara's hat on it, drawing
him to be a Che Guevara look-alike. They wrote under his picture,
``anti-American.'' Through this action they expressed that the symbol
of today's Islamic jihad is the only solution to face America.

{time} 1415

Mr. Speaker, here is the true threat to America and the West: this
militant Islamic jihad, a jihad that spans the globe, including attacks
in Bali; in Spain; the United Kingdom; in the Philippines; in Kashmir;
in Kenya; in Jordan; Israel; Nigeria; and, yes, in the United States
and Iraq. What is not being discussed is this global problem, this
threat to peace and stability everywhere in the world. Why, I ask, is
the focus so keenly on Iraq as the problem, the only problem for us to
debate? Iraq is not the problem. It is but one front in this larger
war. The American people are not being well served by our leaders and
the media that are solely focused on the conflict in Iraq. This is but
a single front in a much larger war.
Mr. Speaker, let me close with these final thoughts about the
militant Islamic threat we face not only in the front in Iraq but,
indeed, around the world, including here in America.
There is a fundamental clash of civilizations at work here. There is
a fundamental belief by the jihadis that Islam must expand to fill the
entire world or else falsehood in its many guises will do so. This
belief includes their facts that democracy, liberalism, human rights,
personal freedoms, international law, international institutions are
illegal, illegitimate, and sinful. Democracy, and in particular the
United States democracy, is the focus of their wrath because it is
considered the center of liberalism. This is not an enemy with whom we
can negotiate. We must contain them and defeat them.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us does not address this threat, a
real threat to our very existence. We are at war, and I fear we don't
even know that we are under attack. This myopic resolution does not
recognize or address that threat.
I urge my colleagues and the House to vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Moment of Silence Observed in Memory of the Honorable Charlie Norwood

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we
recognize the Members of the Georgia delegation to make the sad
commentary on Congressman Norwood's passing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moran of Virginia). Is there objection
to the request of the gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
On behalf of my colleagues from the State of Georgia, it is with
great sadness that I announce that our colleague Charlie Norwood passed
away at approximately 12:45 today.
Charlie was a great Member of this body and a friend to all.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this body observe a moment of silence
in his memory.
Amen.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, once again my friends on the other side of
the aisle are attempting to confuse the conflict in Iraq with the war
against terrorists and has their genesis in Afghanistan, trying to put
it all in one basket. That is not the case. Anybody can have their own
opinion, but, Mr. Speaker, they may not have their own facts.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California
(Mr. Thompson), a gentleman who is a Vietnam combat veteran of the
173rd Airborne Brigade.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
recognizing me for time.
Mr. Speaker and Members, as a combat veteran, from the bottom of my
heart, I say thank you to the brave men and women who have served in
Iraq, each with great distinction.
Our troops have done an outstanding job. They have done all that has
been asked of them and more. They have performed with the utmost
professionalism, making all of us very proud.
Now, I believe it is past time that we start bringing these brave men
and

[[Page H1503]]

women home. They should be home with their families, not in the middle
of Iraq's civil war. Moreover, we shouldn't be sending more troops into
Iraq's civil war. Some of our servicemembers have been on two, three,
and even four tours of duty in Iraq already.
This escalation would put too much strain on our military and not
just our troops. Much of our military's equipment is damaged. It will
take years and billions of dollars to repair it and replace it. Nearly
every Reserve and National Guard member has been mobilized. The
escalation is in no one's best interest.
Two weeks ago I joined with my colleague Patrick Murphy from
Pennsylvania, a decorated Army captain who served in Iraq, to introduce
binding legislation to begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of
Iraq. Our bill, which has already attracted 20 co-authors from both
sides of the aisle and has a companion bill in the Senate, provides a
practical and comprehensive strategy for ending our military
involvement in Iraq. It sets a firm deadline for phased redeployment of
our troops beginning May 1 with all combat brigades out by March 31 of
2008. It provides a concrete plan for shifting security
responsibilities to where they belong: with the Iraqis.
I have visited with our troops in Iraq, and I have talked to those
who have been training the Iraqi security forces. They have told me
that the U.S. troops have finished their job and that Iraq needs to
step up and start securing their country. Americans cannot continue to
do it for them.
Our bill recognizes that the President's escalation plan is a
continuation of his failed ``stay the course'' slogan and it would not
allow the increase of troop levels without congressional approval.
Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot win the peace in Iraq. The
Iraqis must be the ones to do that. Our bill recognizes this reality
and creates a surge in diplomacy, not troops, by creating a special
U.S. envoy that will help build relationships between Iraq and their
neighbors. Our bill is a strategy for success in Iraq and is the best
way to bring our brave men and women home as quickly and safely as
possible.
While I strongly believe that today we should be debating and passing
our binding solution, H.R. 787, I know that this week's debate is the
first real debate we have had on Iraq in more than 4 years. In this
week alone, we will more than quadruple the amount of time given to
debate this war since it began.
Thank you, Speaker Pelosi, for bringing this important matter to the
floor. This resolution is a critical step in getting our men and women
out of this ugly mess, a full blown civil war in Iraq. I support
today's resolution, which joins with the American people in sending the
President a loud and clear message that escalation is not the answer.
We need to focus on getting our troops out of Iraq as safely and
quickly as possible and making sure that the Iraqis step up and assume
the security responsibilities for their country.
I also rise to tell those who have served, those who are serving in
Iraq today, and their proud families thank you. Your Nation thanks you
for your great service to our country.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In this debate on Iraq, we must always be aware that the remarks are
not to be confined only to the American people. Our words will be heard
not just by our friends but by our enemies also. They are watching to
see what America will do. No weakness of ours, no internal political
struggle will go unnoticed.
The suicide bombers, the leaders of al Qaeda, the rulers of Iran,
many others are listening, seeking encouragement for their fellow
extremists, listening for signs of our defeat.
We know from many sources that al Qaeda, the terrorists in Iraq, and
our enemies planning further attacks on us closely follow what is said
and what is done in the United States and use that knowledge to help
them calculate their next steps against us. They routinely cite
statements by U.S. sources as validation of their strategy to defeat
America.
Let me quote Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of the Islamic jihad,
who said that talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel ``proud.'' He
said: ``As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud, very proud from the great
successes of the Iraqi resistance, this success that brought the big
superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal.''
They are looking for concessions of defeat, signs of weakness, and it
is within this context that we embark on this debate today.
The question before us concerns not the past but the future. Where
should our country go from here? We are not merely debating a
resolution, but we are deliberating on our Nation's future.
The war in Iraq is but a part of a far larger struggle, a global
struggle, the struggle against Islamic extremist militants. As in the
Cold War, our current struggle is one of survival. The enemy does not
mean merely to chase us away. The goal of the Islamic extremist
radicals is to destroy us. If we run, they will pursue. If we cower,
they will strike.
The choice before us is this: Do we fight and defeat the enemy, or do
we retreat and surrender? We must not fool ourselves into believing
that we can accommodate our enemies and thereby secure their
cooperation. We should not believe that the enemies' demands are
limited and reasonable and thus easily satisfied or that we can find
safety by withdrawing from the world. This strategy has been tried in
the past with catastrophic consequences.
Neville Chamberlain genuinely believed that he had brought ``peace in
our time'' by washing his hands of what he believed to be an isolated
dispute in what he termed ``a far-away country between people of whom
we know nothing.'' That country was Czechoslovakia, and Chamberlain's
well-intentioned efforts to withdraw Britain from the problems in that
far-away region only ensured that an immensely larger threat was
thereby unleashed.
The threat of Hitler did not appear suddenly out of a vacuum. The
challenges that we face today thus have been building for many years.
We experienced the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
The destruction of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of
the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole
in 2000, and then most dramatically the attack on our Nation on 9/11.
As these attacks built over the years, we did little in response. Our
enemies came to believe that they could strike us with impunity and
that we would shrink from our responsibilities, from defending our
interests, that we would not stand up for our very own survival. They
felt safe in planning for larger attacks.
Now our fight is truly one of global proportions. Some may not want
to believe it. The terrorists, however, are certain to believe it. As
stated by senior al Qaeda leader al Zawahiri, `` . . . Jihad in Iraq
requires several incremental goals. The first stage: expel the
Americans from Iraq. The second stage: establish an Islamic authority
or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level
of a caliphate, over as much territory as you can, to spread its power
in Iraq.''
He continues: ``The third stage: extend the jihad wave to the secular
countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what
came before, the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only
to challenge any new Islamic entity.''
These are the words of al Zawahiri, not my words. And this al Qaeda
leader went on to say: ``The whole world is an open field for us.''
What then are the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal and surrender?
The terrorists, our mortal enemies, will have demonstrated that they
have defeated us, the strongest power on Earth. They will have proven
that our enemies only have to make the cost too high for us and that we
will give up. The result would be an extraordinary boost to their
morale and standing in the world, resulting from such a historic and
momentous accomplishment on their part. They will become heroes in the
minds of millions. They will be inundated with recruits, with
financing, with support of all types.

{time} 1430

And they will be eager to go after us.

[[Page H1504]]

A leader of the terrorist organization Islamic Jihad recently said of
an American withdrawal from Iraq, ``There is no chance that the
resistance will stop.'' He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would
``prove that resistance is the most important tool and that this tool
works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step
in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United
States.''
These are his words, not mine.
We know that the terrorists would draw these conclusions because they
have done so before when we recoiled in the face of terrorist attacks.
In bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of Jihad and other statements, bin
Laden repeatedly pointed to America's weakness being its low threshold
for pain. As evidence, he pointed to the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia
in 1993 because of casualties from attacks by al Qaeda and its allies.
Bin Laden said, ``When tens of your soldiers were killed in minor
battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu,
you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your
dead with you. The extent of your impotence and your weakness became
very clear.''
These are bin Laden's words, not mine.
We witnessed the consequences of Somalia and the ensuing inaction.
However, the implications for withdrawal and surrender in Iraq could be
even greater. There would be an intensification of the violence.
As the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq recently affirmed, ``If
Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this
estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a
significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in
Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have
adverse consequences for national reconciliation.''
Iraq would become, as one of my Democratic colleagues said in
December of 2005, a ``snakepit for terrorists.''
Sunni Arabs throughout the Middle East would certainly view the
resulting situation as a Shiite victory in Iraq and, in turn, as a win
for the regime in Iran. Neighboring countries would likely seek to
prevent Iranian domination of Iraq and the region by providing
financial and other support, including potentially troops, to anti-
Iranian factions.
It would be interpreted as a defeat of the U.S. and would thus
strengthen rogue regimes in Syria and Iran. Iran would be free to
expand its influence throughout the Middle East, including its long-
term effort to dominate the Persian Gulf and the world's oil supply.
Iran's sponsorship of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and
Hezbollah would likely increase, thereby ensuring the murder of
countless civilians and a further destabilization of countries in the
region and indeed beyond.
Let us not forget that Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, twice attacked in our
own hemisphere, in Argentina, in the mid-1990s. Let us not forget that
in 2002 a court case in the United States found that one of two men
were convicted of financing Hezbollah of $2 million in illegal activity
here in the United States and that last year an individual from Detroit
was charged with supporting Hezbollah financially and was described by
the United States Attorney in the case as a ``fighter, recruiter and a
fundraiser.''
Let us not forget that Iran is a nation believed to be pursuing
nuclear weapons, and thus leaving the region vulnerable to Iranian
domination, and that would have grave consequences for the U.S.
security priorities.
Surrendering Iraq over to the terrorists would erode the trust of the
U.S. in that region and affect our critical regional interests in the
entire neighborhood. Our allies, such as Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain and
Egypt may become reluctant to continue their cooperation with us, which
currently includes providing access to their facilities, logistical
support that we need to protect our interests in the region.
The damage would not be confined, however, to the Middle East. Our
enemies would be encouraged to join forces in a coalition to directly
challenge the United States and expand their efforts to undermine us
and our allies.
It is already happening. Venezuela's strongman Hugo Chavez is openly
forming an alliance with Iran, and recently called on Iran and
Venezuela to join forces to ``finish off the U.S. empire,'' quoting
him.
Let us consider the consequences of withdrawing and surrendering Iraq
to Islamic militant extremists. As James Woolsey, the former Director
of the Central Intelligence Agency, has emphasized, ``We have to do our
damndest to win this thing, in spite of the history of mistakes in
tactics and strategy. The stakes are too high to do otherwise. The
whirlwind we will reap if we lose means that we owe it to the world and
to future generations to do everything humanly possible to avoid giving
the Islamists the encouragement they will certainly obtain if they
win.''
Mr. Speaker, this is not just an abstract policy discussion for me.
This is a subject close to my heart. My stepson Doug and his wife
Lindsay are both marine pilots who served in Iraq alongside many other
brave Americans. They understand the consequences of defeat. They
recognize the deadly enemy that we are facing.
Lindsay will soon be deployed to Afghanistan, in just a few weeks,
where, depending on our actions in this Chamber this week, she could
face a more deadly enemy. All of us, all of us long for a world in
which the mortal challenge of Islamic militant extremism does not
exist. But that world is a fantasy, and that is the world that this
resolution seems to address.
Many times in our history we have met with great challenges, and many
of them seemed insurmountable. And yet every time we rose to face them,
and we prevailed. We are faced once again with an overwhelming
challenge, that of Islamic militant extremists focused on our
destruction and on world domination. There is no path backward, there
is no retreat, because that will only bring disaster.
I am saddened that some in this Chamber have felt the need on this
floor to characterize the decision of our young men and women to join
the military as being motivated by money, by bonuses and by other
financial benefits, rather than their patriotism.
My stepson Doug and my daughter-in-law Lindsay are both college
graduates. Doug is a graduate of the University of Miami. Lindsay is a
graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and has a master's in English. They
have many, many opportunities they could have pursued. They chose to
serve their country, because they and many others are patriots. They
did not do it for bonuses. They did not do it for money.
Let us not just support our troops. Let us support their mission. And
their mission is to defeat the Islamic extremists.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, during his 20 years of service to this
country, the gentleman to whom I am about to yield earned two
Distinguished Flying Crosses, two Bronze Stars, the Soldiers Medal and
other awards. A Vietnam combat veteran serving two tours as an assault
helicopter pilot, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Boswell).
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the
time. I appreciate being part of this discussion today.
Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help but be somewhat taken by Mr. Rangel's
comments about the lack of urgency and the lack of sacrifice in our
country because of what is going on with our troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and I can say to you, whoever is listening or watching,
wherever you are, when I go through my communities, my towns, I sense
the same thing. Where is the sense of urgency and where is the sense of
sacrifice?
I will tell you where it is. When you go to see the troops off, to
see their families, to see them, then you know where the sacrifice is.
Then you know where the urgency is, to be there when they go back the
second or third time, and, as some have said, the fourth.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, a
resolution in support of our troops who are serving with distinction in
Iraq, and opposing the President's call for escalating the troop levels
in Iraq.
As a two-tour combat veteran of the Vietnam conflict, as Ike said, as
an assault helicopter pilot, I, like many others in this body, know
firsthand of the

[[Page H1505]]

everyday sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform serving in
Iraq. And, I might add, if I could, I know the sacrifices of their
spouses and children. Branded on me always will be the reminder of my
children when I had to leave, and they wondered if their dad would come
back. You can't forget that. And it is happening to our troops
repeatedly. More than 3,100 have given the supreme sacrifice. Over
20,000 have been injured, many of them very severely.
This resolution recognizes our brave men and women for performing
their mission to the best of their ability. All Members of this body,
all Members of this body stand foursquare behind their efforts.
As one Member of Congress who voted in support of the Iraq war
resolution in 2002, I recognize the pretext for going to war was based
on faulty, misleading, misinformation. I cannot reverse that vote, but
I can no longer acquiesce to a failed and tragic military exercise in
Iraq.
Two months ago, Generals Casey and Abizaid stated they did not
support the increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq, and recently
President Bush maintained that that military policy with regard to Iraq
would be determined by our military leaders. However, last month,
President Bush ignored his top military advisers and called for a
20,000-plus increase in U.S. troops in Iraq.
I and others have been pressing the administration to level with the
American people on the status of the Iraqi Security Forces being
trained and ready to defend their Nation. If the Iraqis are trained and
ready, reportedly over 300,000, as we have been told, it is time to
begin now a planned phased withdrawal of U.S. troops. Sending more U.S.
troops to Iraq does nothing to enhance the Iraqis' training. It only
places more U.S. forces into harm's way to become additional targets of
the Iraqi civil war. This failed policy must stop. We can support our
troops in the field and oppose this escalation of U.S. forces.
The sectarian civil war violence in Iraq is increasing, and U.S.
troops are becoming an increasing target of the various tribes and
factions. We cannot continue to place ourselves in the middle of this
civil war. It is time to insist that the Iraqis resolve their own civil
war. We must insist and allow the Iraqis to defend their own Nation.
The Bush administration stated that Iraq Security Forces are trained
and ready in sufficient numbers to do the job. Again, they stated over
300,000 trained and equipped.
Therefore, I believe now is the time to oppose any further escalation
of U.S. troop levels and now begin the planned, phased withdrawal of
U.S. forces. I regret today's resolution is nonbinding. We need to
begin addressing this matter in real substantive legislation. I urge
all of my colleagues to support this resolution and to work in unison
to bring our troops home.
Mr. Speaker, you know what we do best? You know what we do best? I
will bet everybody who is paying attention intends to file their income
tax April 15. We do best when we are under pressure to get it done.
I think it is time to say to Mr. Maliki, you know what? You have got
your government in place. You have got your chance for democracy. It
has been given to you. We went in there and Saddam is gone. He is
history. You have got your chance. It is up to you. Now, you have got
your problems, but you have got your government and it is in place. You
have your problems, but you have to work them out. We cannot come in
there and settle a civil war. And that is exactly what is going on.

{time} 1445

We were, like you were there and I was with you in the White House,
14 months ago when they said to the President, the Vice President,
Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rice and General Pace, if you have got at
that time, 14 months ago, if you have got over 200,000 troops trained,
equipped and in field, then what is your plan to bring our troops home?
And just like now, silence fell in the room.
Now, the claim is over 300,000 trained and equipped in the field and
we are not bringing ours home. So we should say to Mr. Maliki, you have
got to do it, pick something, whether it is oil fields or pick
something and say starting next week or the week after you are
responsible for their security because we are going to bring our troops
out and bring them home and we are going to take them to Baghdad, put
them on airplanes and fly them home. You have got to do it. It is yours
to do and we hold you responsible to do it.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time that has been
consumed and the time remaining on each side, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) has used 1 hour, 3 minutes, having 3 hours and 57 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has used 45
minutes, leaving 4 hours and 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. SKELTON. Then subject to the Chair, I wish to recognize more than
one speaker in a row on our side.
I yield, Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Boyd), a gentleman who is a Vietnam combat veteran, rifle platoon
leader of the 101st Airborne Division.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from Missouri, is
it your intent to keep going or will you come back to the Republican
side? Mr. Boyd and I are lucky enough to be in the same committee, and
I think we are probably working under the same time constraint, if we
could go back to the Republican side. That is what I wanted to ask you,
after he speaks.
Mr. SKELTON. That would be fine.
Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you.
Mr. BOYD of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, chairman of the
House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, for giving me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my fellow veterans to express strong
opposition to sending more than 20,000 additional United States troops
to Iraq, and I rise in strong support of the underlying resolution that
we are debating today.
Mr. Speaker, when thinking about our political and military situation
in Iraq, I often reflect on my own service in Vietnam and my thoughts
there as a person, when I served there as a young man in uniform
proudly defending the ideals on which America was built.
I often think, how is it different today? How is today's soldier in
Iraq different than soldiers 40 years ago in Vietnam? I think there are
some differences, but there are obviously many striking similarities.
Obviously, our soldiers today have communications technologies and
other war-fighting technologies that are far superior to what we had 40
years ago in Vietnam. Soldiers now have access to a 24-hour news cycle
that we did not have in the 1960s.
But, Mr. Speaker, what is the same, what is exactly the same, is the
fact that our soldiers are trained and equipped to accomplish the
mission given to them by their political leaders in Washington. They
are trained to execute this mission and to the best of their ability,
without any thought to whether that mission is right or wrong, or even
whether that mission is well thought out. Clearly, this is very similar
to what we experienced during Vietnam.
When I served in Vietnam, we were trying to execute a mission that
was impossible to do because our political leaders had given us a
poorly defined mission that we could not win militarily.
Our brave men and women serving in Iraq rely on us, their political
leaders, to develop a winning strategy, and it is very clear that we
are not winning in Iraq by any standard of measurement that you might
want to use.
I returned from my service in Vietnam at the height of the anti-war
sentiment; and let me tell you, there was no worse feeling than coming
home after a tour of duty to find that you had come home to an American
society that was not grateful and was not behind you.
I want to make sure that our sons and daughters serving in Iraq today
do not experience what we experienced 35, 40 years ago. The American
people and their leaders in Congress all support the men and women
executing the outlined mission. These men and women who have fought and
defended our country should be proud of the job they have done, and we
all are proud of them.
However, we should have learned from the mistakes our political
leaders made in Vietnam and not make those mistakes again.
The problems we are having in Iraq have nothing to do with our troops
and

[[Page H1506]]

their ability and their training and their equipment. Our problem is
with our policy.
The men and women serving in Iraq are counting on their political
leaders to develop a successful strategy in Iraq, and interjecting more
young American men and women in uniform into the crossfire of an Iraqi
civil war is simply not the right approach.
The warring factions in Iraq have been at odds since the death of
Muhammad in 632 A.D., and the United States military is not going to
solve an Iraqi political problem, a problem that has existed between
the Sunnis and the Shias for more than 1,400 years.
Past troop surges aimed at stemming the violence in Iraq have failed,
and continuing to deploy more American troops will not bring us any
closer to a self-governed Iraq.
We have been training and equipping Iraqi security forces for almost
3 years. We have 325,000 trained, conducting security operations there.
The continuing presence of large numbers of American troops in Iraq
only postpones the day when Iraqis will have to assume responsibility
for their own government. Ultimately, it is incumbent upon the Iraqis
to make peace and promote democracy in their own country.
With 140,000 of our troops in Iraq, the war in Iraq is exhausting our
resources, resources that we, our people, are demanding that we have at
home to solve some of our domestic priorities such as health care and
education. And those resources are not only dollars; they are human
blood.
Again, I stand here today to oppose the Iraqi troop surge because all
evidence suggests that it is not a path to victory in Iraq and will
only put more Americans in harm's way.
Ultimately, the debate today is about one thing, the men and women
that proudly wear the uniform and the best way to take them out of the
center of an increasing sectarian conflict and civil war in Iraq.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to Mr. Kingston
such time as he may consume, a member of the Defense appropriations
subcommittee.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for
yielding, and Mr. Speaker, I thank you.
I want to say this, that if the troops in Baghdad watched what
Congress was doing today, they would be outraged. Fortunately for us in
the Free World, they do not sit around and watch C-SPAN and what silly
politicians do. They live in a real world where there are real bullets.
This resolution, on the other hand, is not real. It is a political
whip check designed for press releases. It is nonbinding.
The Democrat National Chairman, Howard Dean, famously said: ``The
idea that we are going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just
plain wrong.''
Speaker Pelosi called the war ``a grotesque mistake.''
So if the situation in Iraq is so hopeless, and unwinnable, why are
we messing around with nonbinding resolutions? If the war is a lost
cause and there is no longer an American interest, why do we not just
go ahead and get out of there now? It is not worth another life or
another dime.
Conversely, if the cause is worthwhile, should we not fight to win?
Nonbinding resolutions, Mr. Speaker, are great for the Democrat club
back home, but for those of us who serve in Congress, we are the law of
the land. We are elected to pass laws, fund wars and influence
policies. Our opinions, as expressed in nonbinding resolutions about
what should happen in Sudan or Israel or Cuba, they are appropriate,
but when it comes to American soil, our job is to pass real legislation
and make real laws. We do not have to vent our frustration. We can
change policy.
This week's resolution is just a cover-your-rear-end political design
to give the legislative branch a chance to say I told you so. But, Mr.
Speaker, as you know, like it or not, a real vote is coming.
It is coming in the form of the fiscal year 2008 supplemental bill.
In that supplemental resolution, $5.6 billion is designed to pay for
21,500 new troops in Iraq. All Members will have a chance to vote on
that supplemental bill; and as you know, an amendment can be offered to
delete the $5.6 billion. A ``no'' vote would be against it, and a
``yes'' vote would be to say we are against having the troops there and
we are not going to pay for it. That is what is real.
I think in November the electorate made an adjustment. They did not
like what the Republican House was doing, and I certainly understand
that. I think we did fail on many levels to deliver the products which
we promised we would deliver to the people. But the Democrats are in
the same situation. It was an anti-war fever that swept so many of them
into office, but here we are with a nonbinding resolution.
Now, I understand that it is frustrating. I serve, as you do, on the
Defense Committee; and as you know, many times we do not get all the
information that we want. We have heard, as Mr. Boyd said, general
after general after admirals after captains telling us we do not need
more troops in Iraq, and now they are saying that they do. We have also
heard the President say the decisions for military changes in Iraq will
be made in Baghdad, not in Washington, DC, and I hope that is the case
with this situation.
I am very frustrated about it, but one thing we have been told
unequivocally by those same generals and admirals and Secretaries of
the Navy and Army and Secretary of Defense and today from the
ambassadors from Jordan and Egypt is that if America withdraws from
Iraq at this time, it is sure to bring chaos and destruction. That will
lead to a full-scale sectarian war which could lead to a division. It
could be so chaotic that the United States of America would have to
return to Iraq in larger force numbers than we have now. It could lead
to Iraq becoming a nation state controlled by terrorists or terrorist
sympathizers and that would be in control of the third largest oil
reserve in the world.
Now, we have seen what Mr. Putin and Hugo Chavez down in Venezuela
are doing with their petro-dollars and all the anti-American ill will
they are spreading around the globe. Would you really want to empower a
bunch of terrorists with those kinds of oil revenues?
Then the other thing we are told is if you pull out immediately or
quickly what happens to U.S. credibility abroad? As we are dealing with
China, who very recently shot down a satellite, we are very concerned
about that. North Korea, we are at the negotiating table with them
right now. And Russia seems to be slipping away from democracy and
going back to some of its older ways that we are worried about. As I
have just said, Hugo Chavez is spreading bad street money all over
South America, which is not a good sign.
And then finally, Mr. Speaker, if we pull out, what does it say to
the American servicemen who have already lost their lives? Hey, sorry,
we did not mean it; your sacrifice was not worth us gutting it out, if
you will.
You know, it is interesting, the President has been criticized for
``staying the course,'' and he is no longer staying the course. Who is
supporting staying the course by a ``yes'' vote to this nonbinding
resolution, but the Democrat leadership and the Democrat Party.

{time} 1500

If you are saying it is a lost cause but we support you, how are you
saying, no, we are not going to send recruits? It doesn't make sense.
You just can't have it both ways. This is staying the course. The
President no longer wants to stay the course. He is saying let's plus-
up the numbers, let's divide Baghdad nine different ways. And that is
something the RAND Corporation has called for as it has studied the
history of nations that have insurgencies. Subdividing the areas is an
effective way to fight insurgencies. The President has said let's go
into al Anbar province; let's go into Sadr city. Those are changing of
the course.
Mr. Speaker, a ``yes'' vote is a vote to stay the course; a
nonbinding resolution is an insult to those who are in harm's way. If
you truly believe that the war is a lost cause, why mess around with a
nonbinding resolution? A ``no'' vote to this is a vote for change, and
I believe it sends a stronger signal to the troops that we support you
and we are sending new recruits to help you finish and complete this
job.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 6

[[Page H1507]]

minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, my fellow Blue Dog, Colonel
Tanner, a Vietnam Navy veteran, retired colonel of the Tennessee Army
National Guard.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here with the other
Democratic Members who are veterans to talk about this resolution.
I want to start off by saying what Allen Boyd said. I was on active
duty during the Vietnam years. The problem here is not the troops; the
problem is the competency of the civilian leadership that has gotten us
into this mess.
This resolution supports our troops and calls for a different
strategy by our civilian leadership with respect to Iraq.
When I was on active duty when I was in the military, I followed
orders. That was my job. My role here in Congress as I see it is to try
to help formulate some sort of competent civilian leadership and
strategy so the troops can be successful. We have not seen that in 4
years. The war began in Iraq in March of 2003. Since then, we have lost
3,124 people dead and over 23,000 wounded, and it is not a bit better
today than it was the day we started.
The war has cost Americans almost $400 billion, with another request
for $285 billion more, with no end in sight. Competent civilian
leadership for our men and women in uniform on the diplomatic and
political fronts must be demanded by Congress and the American people
if we are to properly honor the sacrifice of the dead and the wounded
and their families.
Instead, what do we have? We have unbelievable reports that the
Pentagon can't identify 170,000 guns issued to the Iraqi forces in
October of 2005; some of our soldiers buying their own body armor; up-
armored Humvees sitting in Bosnia or Herzegovina while we needed them
in Iraq. And David Walker, the Comptroller General, says he believes
that almost 30 percent of the money spent over there has been wasted,
stolen, or otherwise unaccounted for.
I think any patriotic American ought to come to this floor if he or
she has the opportunity and ask questions about the incompetency of the
Pentagon and civilian leadership thus far.
I believe any viable Iraqi strategy to be successful must contain
clearly defined goals to hold the Iraqi leaders accountable for their
own security. Mr. Boswell, a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, said as much
earlier.
Our men and women in uniform have performed magnificently. They have
completed every task assigned to them. But impressive military might
alone is not enough if the Iraqi people cannot or will not make
progress in securing their own country and establishing a civil
democracy.
Western-style democracy works because we have a theory called
separation of church and state. When people don't go to the same
church, they nonetheless can get together Monday through Friday and
build a civil society and get along with each other. If these folks are
unwilling or unable to do that for philosophical or psychological
reasons, then we can only try to force a square peg into a round hole
for so long. It has been going on for 4 years, and they are seemingly
incapable. And I say that what we need to do is rethink our strategy
and that a pullback to the perimeter is preferable to prolonging a
costly and deadly military strategy toward a political goal that is out
of reach.
Whether or not this new strategy works, I am glad to see that General
David Petraeus will be commanding our men and women on the ground. He
has proved himself a strong military commander, and I wish him well. It
is not his strategy that I question.
Here is why this resolution is important to me: not only do the
majority of the Iraqis in every poll that has been taken over there say
they will be better off if we leave or get out or pull back, or however
one wants to talk about it, but what it is doing in Iraq to our effort
in Afghanistan. I am going to be leading a delegation to Brussels next
Saturday to talk about Afghanistan. We are losing our momentum in
Afghanistan because of the Iraqi whirlwind that is sucking everything
into it in terms of our military supplies, our military approach, and
so forth. Almost everyone who has looked at this situation agrees, from
the Baker-Hamilton Report to everybody else, that we need to radically
change our strategy.
Listen to these words from the Council of Foreign Relations. They
say: ``The United States' interests in the Middle East and Persian Gulf
region can be more effectively advanced if the United States disengages
from Iraq. Indeed, the sooner Washington grasps this, the sooner it can
begin to repair the damage that has been done to America's
international position.''
Speaking of Afghanistan, they also say: ``Iraq is siphoning off so
many resources that we could end up failing in Afghanistan as well.''
The report warns that Iraq is all consuming and makes it difficult for
the United States to address other priorities.
That is exactly what we are talking about here, a different strategy
for Iran, for our troops to be successful; an accountability from them
as to their own security, so that we can concentrate with 26 other
nations in NATO who are helping us fight the war in Afghanistan, a war
that we can win, a war that we must win, and a war that is every bit as
important if not more so in the war on terror than Iraq ever was.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a veteran of
the U.S. Navy.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I proudly stand today with fellow
veterans as the House debates the most damaging, costly, and divisive
course of U.S. military involvement since Vietnam.
At a naval station in California, I treated combat veterans returning
home from Vietnam, many with severe physical and psychological wounds
like PTSD and the effects of agent orange. After Vietnam, America swore
there would never be another tragic military misadventure, but that is
exactly what is happening in Iraq.
The American people want this Congress to end the war and to bring
our soldiers home now, not 2 years from now at the end of this
President's term. That is what the American people elected Democrats to
do in November.
What we do this week is a miniscule little step. Step two will come
when we get to appropriations next month.
We have to get out of Iraq. We have to get out now, not 2 years from
now. We are killing them, they are killing us, and nothing is getting
better. And the reasons we started this whole war have turned out to be
false. The American people know this, and today they are watching our
debate. They will judge our actions.
Getting U.S. soldiers out of Iraq has been my top priority since they
were sent there 4 years ago under false pretenses. And the new claim by
the President that escalating the war will reduce the violence is just
another attempt to mislead the American people. It is a lot like Lyndon
Johnson sending the bombers into Cambodia and Laos. They don't accept
it. The American people don't accept it and they won't.
Those who claim we cannot leave Iraq without causing chaos ignore
reality.
I ask to insert in the Record a piece by Retired Lieutenant General
and Reagan administration NSA Director William Odom that decisively
debunks this argument.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 11, 2007]

Victory Is Not an Option

(By William E. Odom)

The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly
delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions
from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees
it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-
American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of
producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the
consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is
a declaration of defeat.
Its gloomy implications--hedged, as intelligence agencies
prefer, in rubbery language that cannot soften its impact--
put the intelligence community and the American public on the
same page. The public awakened to the reality of failure in
Iraq last year and turned the Republicans out of control of
Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members are
still asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the
war soon.
Perhaps this is not surprising. Americans do not warm to
defeat or failure, and our politicians are famously reluctant
to admit their own responsibility for anything resembling
those un-American outcomes. So they beat around the bush,
wringing hands and debating ``nonbinding resolutions'' that
oppose the president's plan to increase the number of U.S.
troops in Iraq.

[[Page H1508]]

For the moment, the collision of the public's clarity of
mind, the president's relentless pursuit of defeat and
Congress's anxiety has paralyzed us. We may be doomed to two
more years of chasing the mirage of democracy in Iraq and
possibly widening the war to Iran. But this is not
inevitable. A Congress, or a president, prepared to quit the
game of ``who gets the blame'' could begin to alter American
strategy in ways that will vastly improve the prospects of a
more stable Middle East.
No task is more important to the well-being of the United
States. We face great peril in that troubled region, and
improving our prospects will be difficult. First of all, it
will require, from Congress at least, public acknowledgment
that the president's policy is based on illusions, not
realities. There never has been any right way to invade and
transform Iraq. Most Americans need no further convincing,
but two truths ought to put the matter beyond question:
First, the assumption that the United States could create a
liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about
everything known by professional students of the topic. Of
the more than 40 democracies created since World War II,
fewer than 10 can be considered truly ``constitutional''--
meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly
accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a
generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim
political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic
fissures like those in Iraq.
Strangely, American political scientists whose business it
is to know these things have been irresponsibly quiet. In the
lead-up to the March 2003 invasion, neoconservative agitators
shouted insults at anyone who dared to mention the many
findings of academic research on how democracies evolve. They
also ignored our own struggles over two centuries to create
the democracy Americans enjoy today. Somehow Iraqis are now
expected to create a constitutional order in a country with
no conditions favoring it.
This is not to say that Arabs cannot become liberal
democrats. When they immigrate to the United States, many do
so quickly. But it is to say that Arab countries, as well as
a large majority of all countries, find creating a stable
constitutional democracy beyond their capacities.
Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country
together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is
to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than
a century to get over its hostility toward British
occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored
supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S.
occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity
toward the United States. Even supporters of an American
military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and
only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from
winning. Today the Iraqi government survives only because its
senior members and their families live within the heavily
guarded Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and
military command.
As Congress awakens to these realities--and a few members
have bravely pointed them out--will it act on them? Not
necessarily. Too many lawmakers have fallen for the myths
that are invoked to try to sell the president's new war aims.
Let us consider the most pernicious of them.
(1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible
aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon.
Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now
fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable!
Undoubtedly we will leave a mess--the mess we created, which
has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers
gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next
breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath,
a civil war, a terrorist haven, a ``failed state,'' or some
other horror. But this ``aftermath'' is already upon us; a
prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.
(2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence
from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of
the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy
in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq
and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put
Shiite groups in power--groups supported by Iran since Saddam
Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of
Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now
supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war
inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will
confront this contradiction helps explain the administration
and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to
Iran.
Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in
Vietnam: widen the war into Cambodia and Laos. Only this
time, the adverse consequences would be far greater. Iran's
ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not trivial. And the
anti-American backlash in the region would be larger, and
have more lasting consequences.
(3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-
Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened
Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have
remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its
strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial.
After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing
role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the
Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive
in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to
question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-
Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is
the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.
(4) We must continue to fight in order to ``support the
troops.'' This argument effectively paralyzes almost all
members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a
litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid
pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting
we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has
anybody asked the troops?
During their first tours, most may well have favored
``staying the course''--whatever that meant to them--but now
in their second, third and fourth tours, many are changing
their minds. We see evidence of that in the many news stories
about unhappy troops being sent back to Iraq. Veterans groups
are beginning to make public the case for bringing them home.
Soldiers and officers in Iraq are speaking out critically to
reporters on the ground.
But the strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing
the war is the implication that the troops are somehow
responsible for deciding to continue the president's course.
That political and moral responsibility belongs to the
president, not the troops. Did not President Harry S Truman
make it clear that ``the buck stops'' in the Oval Office? If
the president keeps dodging it, where does it stop? With
Congress?
Embracing the four myths gives Congress excuses not to
exercise its power of the purse to end the war and open the
way for a strategy that might actually bear fruit.
The first and most critical step is to recognize that
fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way
to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition
for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away
the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy
our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant to
collaborate with us in Iraq and the region.
Second, we must recognize that the United States alone
cannot stabilize the Middle East.
Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are
actually destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using
sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening
``regime change,'' using the hysterical rhetoric of the
``global war on terrorism''--all undermine the stability we
so desperately need in the Middle East.
Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. It must be a stable
region, not primarily a democratic Iraq. We must redirect our
military operations so they enhance rather than undermine
stability. We can write off the war as a ``tactical draw''
and make ``regional stability'' our measure of ``victory.''
That single step would dramatically realign the opposing
forces in the region, where most states want stability. Even
many in the angry mobs of young Arabs shouting profanities
against the United States want predictable order, albeit on
better social and economic terms than they now have.
Realigning our diplomacy and military capabilities to
achieve order will hugely reduce the numbers of our enemies
and gain us new and important allies. This cannot happen,
however, until our forces are moving out of Iraq. Why should
Iran negotiate to relieve our pain as long as we are
increasing its influence in Iraq and beyond? Withdrawal will
awaken most leaders in the region to their own need for U.S.-
led diplomacy to stabilize their neighborhood.
If Bush truly wanted to rescue something of his historical
legacy, he would seize the initiative to implement this kind
of strategy. He would eventually be held up as a leader
capable of reversing direction by turning an imminent, tragic
defeat into strategic recovery.
If he stays on his present course, he will leave Congress
the opportunity to earn the credit for such a turnaround. It
is already too late to wait for some presidential candidate
for 2008 to retrieve the situation. If Congress cannot act,
it, too, will live in infamy.

Chaos, not democracy, has taken root in Iraq, and chaos will continue
to take U.S. lives until we act in our best interest and order our
people out of harm's way.
News accounts continue to remind us that our soldiers don't even have
the proper body and vehicle armor. We cannot adequately protect the
soldiers already serving, but more were ordered in anyway. If you want
the most basic reason to vote to oppose escalation, it is that we
haven't properly equipped the troops already in Iraq, and we are not
doing any better by the troops we are sending in now.
Just being on the record against the President's escalation of this
war is not enough. The only way to diffuse the violence in Iraq is to
defund the war in Iraq. Congress has the power to control the funding,
and we have the responsibility to exercise the power vested in us by
the Constitution. That is what the American people elected us to do. We
must exercise our constitutional power as a co-equal branch of
government and do what the President is unwilling to do: bring our
soldiers home.

[[Page H1509]]

When appropriations for Iraq come to the floor, I intend to offer an
amendment based on the 1970 Hatfield-McGovern appropriations amendment
to end the war in Vietnam. It will be an amendment to provide funding
to protect our soldiers as we bring them home in a planned, safe, and
orderly way, and to prohibit taxpayers' monies from being used to
continue or expand the war in Iraq. This will provide a transition for
the Iraqi security forces using a benchmark that matters: the date when
U.S. troops will be out of there.
The Iraqis can't help themselves until we get out. Right now, almost
anything constructive that Iraqis do is seen as collaborating with the
United States occupiers. We have to get out of the way so the Iraqis
can solve their own problems. We can't help; we just make good targets.
So I want to encourage everyone in the House to vote for this
resolution. I want to make it the biggest, strongest, clearest vote
that we can get to let the President know for the second time, he
ignored the election, that the Congress says ``no.''
I know that many Members of the Republican Party are as distressed as
I am about Iraq, and I admire their courage in standing up to their
President. Every veteran, including myself, in this House and in this
Nation is very proud of our soldiers. They have done what we have asked
them to do. It is time for new orders to be issued. It is time to end
the U.S. role in the Iraq civil war. It is not a war on terrorism; it
is a civil war. And bring our soldiers home. We can begin to do it
immediately. That is what I advocate and that is what the American
people expect from us.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to yield such time as
he may consume to Mr. Burton of Indiana, the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, and a long-time veteran on leading
the fight against Islamic jihadists.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, those who don't profit from
history are destined to make the same mistakes over and over again.
When I knew this debate was going to take place, I went back and
started having my staff go through all the newspapers they could find
prior to World War II criticizing Winston Churchill for his stand
against Hitler and the build-up in violation of the Treaty of
Versailles of Nazi Germany, and nobody listened. And as a result of
nobody listening, 62 million people died. Not 1,000, not 10,000; 62
million people died. You ought to read these articles. They are very
interesting. He was maligned; he was criticized. They said he should be
run out of Parliament. And, of course, once the war started, he became
Prime Minister and one of the greatest men of the 20th century.

{time} 1515

We are in a world war now against terrorism. I know my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle said this isn't a world war, this is a
civil war. But if you look at the record, since 1983, there have been
numerous attacks, numerous attacks, on the West. There have been
attacks at the World Trade Center in 1993. There was attacks in 1994;
the Khobar Towers in 1996; the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in
1998; USS Cole in 2000; the September 11, 2001 attacks which brought
this country into the war; the London bombings in 2005 and countless
other attacks. This is not confined just to the Middle East. These
people want to spread their venom throughout the world.
Now, if we pull out of Iraq, what does that do? Everybody knows right
now that the President of Iran wants to expand his sphere of influence.
He is sending terrorists across the border from Iran into Iraq. He is
helping Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Let me read to you a quote from him. He said, ``Israel should be
wiped off the map'' and that ``anybody who recognizes Israel,'' anybody
who recognizes Israel, ``will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations'
fury.'' And they have been involved in terrorist attacks. They are
trying to build a nuclear bomb right now, and they are watching us on
television as we speak, make no mistake.
Iran and the terrorists are watching, and they are thinking, my gosh,
the will of the American people is waning, and we are going to turn
tail and run. We are going to pull out.
This isn't Vietnam. Vietnam was a country, Cambodia and Laos are
countries in southeast Asia. This is a world war. They have attacked
the United States of America. It was a worse tragedy than that which
took place in Hawaii in 1941 when they attacked Pearl Harbor, and now
they are trying to develop a nuclear bomb.
If we pull out of Iraq, you may rest assured that Iran's sphere of
influence will grow, and the fear of Iran throughout the Middle East
and the world will grow. They will not back down from their development
of a nuclear weapon and a delivery system that can reach not only the
Middle East and Europe, but the entire world.
What I am trying to say now is if we start pulling out and looking
like we are turning tail and running, we are likely to be in another
huge war in the years to come. I don't know whether it will be 2 years,
5 years or 10 years, or quicker than that. But if they develop a
nuclear weapon, and they see that we are weak, and we are pulling out,
they are going to push like they have been pushing, and they will push,
and they will push, and they will push until we have to go into a war
that is much greater than what we face today.
There is a lot at stake right here, right now. My colleagues, I
think, are being very myopic. They are not looking at the big picture.
This is something that I think all of us ought to think about.
You know, we all have kids, and we all have grandkids, and we all
have friends who are fighting in Iraq right now. We know young men who
have gone over there and sacrificed, lost their arms and legs and have
died, and it is tragic, it is a horrible thing. World War II was
horrible.
Every war was horrible. When you see people dying, in combat, you can
hardly stand it, because you know how their families and they feel,
those who survive.
War is hell. But sometimes it is necessary. If you don't stand up to
a bully or a tyrant, then they will push, and they will push, and they
will push until you have to fight. If you wait too long, the fight is
so severe that you really get hurt. It is better to whip them at the
beginning than to wait until later on when the cost is much, much
higher.
Lord Chamberlain went to Munich in 1938. He signed a peace agreement
on Herr Hitler's terms, gave the Sudetenland to him and said, Hey, if
you don't go into Poland or Czechoslovakia, we'll let you have it. All
we want is peace, peace in our time.
He came back, and he had given the green light to Adolf Hitler
because he appeared weak, and the allied forces appeared weak, they
were dismantling their weapons and their military, and he said, They're
weak. We can do whatever we want. So he started World War II, and 62
million people died.
We are in the same situation today, in my opinion, with the radical
terrorists and Iran. We need to let them know that we are going to be
firm, and we are going to stand up to whatever they throw at us right
now so that we don't face a major Holocaust down the road. I really
believe this. I am not just saying this as a political speech. I am not
saying any of my colleagues are just making political speeches now,
today. I really believe what they are saying.
But I am convinced after studying history and watching what happened
in the past, that if we don't deal with this problem now, we will deal
with it later, and the costs will be a heck of a lot more than it is
today, and it may involve millions and millions of lives. Can you
imagine what would happen if a nuclear weapon was launched in New York,
California or someplace else in this country? Can you imagine?
Can you imagine a Holocaust if a nuclear war broke out involving Iran
throughout the world, not only in the Middle East? This is what I think
we face right now. Deal with them now, let them know we are going to
stand firm, Iraq is going to be a democracy. We are not going to let
Iran or any of the terrorists prevail, and we are going to stop a
Holocaust in the future.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) first and only Iraq war veteran to
serve in this body, a Member of the 82nd Airborne Division, who
received the Bronze Star and his unit received the Presidential Unit
Citation.

[[Page H1510]]

Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate it.
Mr. Speaker, I take to the floor today, not as a Democrat or a
Republican, but as an Iraq war veteran who was a captain of the 82nd
Airborne Division in Baghdad.
I speak with a heavy heart for my fellow paratrooper Specialist Chad
Keith, Specialist James Lambert and the 17 other brave men I served
with who never made it home.
I rise to give voice to hundreds of thousands of patriotic
Pennsylvanians and veterans across the globe who are deeply troubled by
the President's call to escalate the number of American troops in Iraq.
I served in Baghdad from June of 2003 to January of 2004. Walking in
my own combat boots, I saw firsthand this administration's failed
policy in Iraq. I led convoys up and down Ambush Alley in a Humvee
without doors, convoys that Americans still run today because too many
Iraqis are still sitting on the sidelines.
I served in al-Rashid, Baghdad, which, like Philadelphia, is home to
1.5 million people. While there are 7,000 Philadelphia police officers
serving, like my father in Philadelphia, protecting its citizens, there
were only 3,500 of us in al-Rashid, Baghdad.
Mr. Speaker, the time for more troops was 4 years ago, but this
President ignored military experts like General Shinseki and General
Zinni, who, in 2003, called for several hundred thousand troops to
secure Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, our President, again, is ignoring military leaders,
patriots like General Colin Powell, like General Abizaid and members of
the bipartisan Iraq Study Group who oppose this escalation.
But most importantly, Congresses in the past did not stand up to the
President and his policies. But today I stand with my other military
veterans, some who were just elected, like Sergeant Major Tim Walz,
Admiral Joe Sestak and Commander Chris Carney. We stand together to
tell this administration that we are against this escalation, and that
Congress will no longer give the President a blank check.
Mr. Speaker, close to my heart is a small park on the corner of 24th
and Aspen Streets in Philadelphia. This is the Patrick Ward Memorial
Park. Patrick Ward was a door gunner in the U.S. Army during Vietnam.
He was killed serving the country that he loved. He was the type of guy
that neighborhoods devote street corners to and parents name their
children after him, including my parents, Marge and Jack Murphy.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you, how many more street corner memorials are we
going to have for this war? This is what the President's proposal does.
It sends more of our best and bravest to die refereeing a civil war.
Just a month ago, Sergeant Jae Moon from my district in Levittown,
Bucks County, was killed in Iraq.
You know, a few blocks away from this great Chamber, when you walk in
the snow, is the Vietnam Memorial, where half the soldiers listed on
that wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not
work. It was immoral then, and it would be immoral now to engage in the
same delusion. That is why sending more troops in the civil war is the
wrong strategy.
We need to win the war on terror, and reasonable people may disagree
on what to do, but most will agree that it is immoral to send young
Americans to fight and die in a conflict without a real strategy for
success. The President's current course is not resolute, it is
reckless. That is why I will vote to send a message to our President
that staying the course is no longer an option.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for a new direction in Iraq. From my time
serving with the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq, it became clear that
in order to succeed there, you must tell the Iraqis that we will not be
there forever. Yet, 3 years now since I have been home, it is still
Americans leading convoys up and down Ambush Alley and securing Iraqi
street corners. We must make the Iraqis stand up for Iraq and set a
timeline to start bringing our heroes home.
That is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor, with Senator
Barack Obama and fellow paratrooper, Congressman Mike Thompson, of the
Iraq De-escalation Act, a moderate and responsible plan to start
bringing our troops home, mandating a surge in diplomacy and refocusing
our efforts on the war on terror and Afghanistan.
Mr. Speaker, our country needs a real plan to get our troops out of
Iraq, to protect our homeland and to secure and refocus our efforts on
capturing and killing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. There are over
130,000 American servicemen and women serving bravely in Iraq.
Unfortunately, thousands more are on the way. An open-ended strategy
that ends in more faceless roadside bombs in Baghdad and more street-
corner memorials in America is not one that I will support.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he
may consume to Mr. Pence, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the
Middle East and South Asia, whose minority staff director, Greg
McCarthy, setting up the posters, is an Iraq war veteran and a marine
as well.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I thank the ranking member for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the concurrent resolution
for the House, and I do so from a position of a humble public servant,
one who has not served in Iraq in uniform, as our previous speaker did,
and others have who are in this Chamber at my side, but as one who has
been there. I rise as one who is charged with public responsibility as
the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee.
While this resolution before the Congress today and this week, while
this resolution expresses support for our troops in Iraq, the heart of
the resolution is a statement of disapproval of the President's so-
called surge of troops in Iraq, and I cannot support it.
I see Iraq, as others have eloquently stated, as the central front in
the war on terror. I rise today in opposition to this resolution out of
a fundamental sense that we have a moral obligation to finish what we
started, to confront the enemies of our way of life, and to support our
duly elected Commander in Chief as he makes those decisions that he
deems necessary and appropriate to achieve those ends.
Let me say from the heart, for a moment, my reasons for supporting
this troop surge. A few days before President Bush addressed the
Nation, he invited a handful of Members of Congress down to the West
Wing of the White House. I must tell you that I had my doubts about
this troop surge. In all four of my trips to Iraq, I had heard
consistently from our military commanders over the past several years
that a large American footprint in Iraq was actually counterproductive
to our goals.

{time} 1530

But August and the aftermath of 2006 changed all of that. All of that
advice predated an extraordinary increase in violence that commenced in
the late summer of last year, when it became clear to all of us in this
body, and to freedom-loving people around the world, that our strategy
and tactics on the ground in Iraq were not working.
Now, I took that skepticism and that counsel into the Cabinet room of
the West Wing, and there I heard the President describe a new strategy
and new tactics. For all of the world to have read the newspaper
accounts, Mr. Speaker, I would have assumed the President was simply
sending more troops for more troops' sake. But that was not the case.
Despite what the previous speaker on this floor suggested, this is a
new strategy. It is a new way forward. It is an effort on the part of
the President to embrace an increase in troop strengths in Baghdad that
was initially recommended by the Iraq Study Group, and more on that in
a moment.
But let me say that I believe this new way forward, this new approach
ought to be given a chance to work. I believe to oppose the President's
new strategy in Iraq is to accept the status quo. And the headlines of
the last 24 hours should tell every man and woman of good will in this
Congress that the status quo in Iraq is not acceptable.
Now, earlier I mentioned that the approach of a troop surge in
Baghdad was first recommended by the Iraq Study Group. I am quite
struck, Mr. Speaker,

[[Page H1511]]

that the previous speaker who is a freshman Member of Congress from
Pennsylvania spoke, as many have in the Democrat majority, quite
glowingly of the report of the Iraq Study Group. And I admire this work
product greatly.
A bipartisan work authorized during the last Congress, James A.
Baker, III, former Secretary of State, Lee Hamilton of Indiana, a
former chairman of the House International Relations Committee bringing
together a bipartisan group of wise counselors developed the Iraq Study
Group report.
While I do not agree with every aspect of it, particularly those that
talk about having a dialogue with terrorist states in the region, there
is much that recommends the American people to the Iraq Study Group.
And again I site in evidence the gentleman from Pennsylvania's glowing
reference to that report just moments ago.
Now, let's look, if we can, at what the Iraq Study Group has to say
about the idea of a troop surge in Iraq. I would offer very humbly, and
maybe startling to some who are looking in, Mr. Speaker, that the very
words ``troop surge'' comes from the Iraq Study Group's
recommendations.
Allow me to quote from page 73 of the book that is available in book
stores all over America. The Iraq Study Group said: ``We could,
however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat
forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping
mission if the U.S. Commander in Iraq determines that such steps would
be effective.''
Let me emphasize that again. The Iraq Study Group that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and many in the majority have heralded as an
important work that provides us with a vision for going forward says:
``We could, however, support a short-term redeployment of surge of
American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad.''
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what President Bush called for in
January. And it is precisely that which Congress this week is poised to
reject in a nonbinding resolution. I submit to you today that if the
Iraq Study Group is to be cited again and again by the majority as
source authority, and a fount of wisdom, and I believe it is, then
let's be clear about the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.
It is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that a short-term redeployment or
surge of combat forces in Baghdad will solve the present crisis and
impasse that we face. It simply is a strategy to quell violence with
Iraqis in the lead, to create the conditions of stability whereby a
long-term political solution can be achieved.
Now let me say, Mr. Speaker, it was my great hope that the resolution
before us today would have come to the floor under procedural rules
that allowed for amendments. For my part I spent much of last evening
offering an amendment, along with others, that would state that it is
the sense of Congress that we should not take any action that would
result in the elimination or reduction of funds for our troops.
I rise today not to complain about procedure, but to say, Mr.
Speaker, I regret that this newly minted majority could not do as the
Democrat chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee appears
prepared to act.
My amendment that was offered, similar to others, has nearly
identical language to a resolution being offered by the distinguished
Senator Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. And both
of us agree that Congress should affirmatively state that it will not
cut funding to the troops.
I deeply regret that we were not able to make that declarative
statement today. And let me say with great respect to the chairman of
this Armed Services Committee, who needs not to hear from me about the
deep respect I have for him, that I have to believe that somewhere in
his heart of hearts, knowing his extraordinary record of service to
this country, that he may well have hoped for a stronger statement as
well.
While the Democrat resolution before us expresses the hope that
Congress and all Americans will continue to support and protect our
brave men and women serving in Iraq, it does not take the next step to
show tangible support for our troops in the nature of funding. And let
me say this with great sincerity: there is a fundamental difference
between pledging to support and protect our troops and pledging not to
cut off the funding for our war in Iraq.
It is a specious distinction, and one that is not lost on our
colleagues in the Senate. I would submit to you that words have
consequences, and ``support'' and ``protect'' do not assure the
American people that we will continue to fund our troops in the field.
I believe the American people understand this point, Mr. Speaker. A
poll cited this morning in USA Today shows that even though a majority
of Americans are opposed to the surge of troops in Baghdad, a majority
also oppose cutting off funding for the troops.
The American people do not want Congress to defund this war in the
majority, even if they are concerned about the course and direction the
war is taking. And Congress should tell the troops and the American
people that it will never use the power of the purse to accomplish
policy ends in the field of battle.
With this I close. Listening to this debate today and to the
opposition to the surge being espoused by the Democrat majority, I have
begun to wonder a very simple question: What if it works? I have made
it clear that I support the surge and the President's new strategy.
My good friends on the Democrat side of the aisle and, as has been
said, some Republicans have made it clear that they oppose the surge of
forces in Iraq. And that is their right, and if it is in their heart,
it is their duty. And at this moment, it appears that a majority of
Americans are with the majority in this Congress.
But what if? What if they are wrong? What if you are wrong? What if
the surge and the new leadership of General Petraeus and the courage
and bravery of American men and women in uniform and the sacrifices of
Iraqis in uniform succeed in the coming months?
You know, it is a snow day back in Indiana today, Mr. Speaker. And my
kids are even home watching this on TV. I give my kids some pretty
basic advice sometimes. One of the pieces of advice I give my kids when
they are facing challenges, I say to them, you know, people don't like
losers, but they like quitters even less.
And I think we ought to reflect on that old maxim as we come upon
this decision today. If this new strategy in Iraq succeeds in the
coming months, what will those who vote for this resolution say? The
truth is, we must fight and win a victory for freedom in Iraq. The
truth is we have no option but victory.
In their hearts the American people know this, and the American
people are willing to make the hard choices to choose victory. Courage.
Courage is the key in this moment.
C.S. Lewis wrote that courage is not simply one of the virtues, but
the form of every virtue at the testing point. Courage then is the
answer, not recrimination and retreat. We are at a moment when the
American people and the Members of this body will take a stand. This is
a moment for courage. Our brave men and women in Iraq exhibit courage
and uncommon valor every day.
It is my hope and prayer that we in this House might follow their
lead and show them that such courage resides here as well. Let's vote
down this resolution and find it within ourselves to lead the American
people by bringing forward the resources and the support necessary to
see freedom within Iraq.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution and to
call upon my colleagues to make a commitment to protect our troops and
to bring them home as quickly and safely as possible.
Mr. Speaker, the American people and Members of Congress were
deceived. Every reason we were given for invading Iraq was false.
Weapons of mass destruction, not there. Saddam Hussein working hand in
glove with al Qaeda, not true.
I ask you, if the President had gone to the American people and said,
we must invade a country that poses no imminent threat to us and
sacrifice thousands of lives in order to create a

[[Page H1512]]

democratic government in Iraq, would we have assented? I think not.
As the President now says to us that we should continue indefinitely
to expend American blood and treasure to support one side in a
sectarian civil war, should Congress continue to consent? I think not.
We need to say enough already. Enough with the lies and the deceit and
the evasions, enough with the useless bloodshed.
We must protect our troops and ensure their safety while they are in
Iraq. But we must not send more troops there to intervene in a civil
war whose outcome they cannot determine.
And we should set a swift timetable to withdraw our troops from Iraq
and let the contending Iraqi factions know that we will not continue to
expend American blood and treasure to referee their civil war.
Only if faced with the reality of imminent withdrawal of American
troops might the Iraqis strike a deal with each other and end the civil
war. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the administration has botched the
handling of this war. They stood by as Baghdad was looted, they failed
to guard ammunition depots, they disbanded the Iraqi Army, they
crippled the government by firing all of the competent civil servants
in the name of debaathification, and they wasted countless billions of
dollars on private contractors and on God only knows what with no
accounting.
And all this while they continued to deny resources to the real war
on the real terrorists. They let Osama bin Laden escape.

{time} 1545

They allowed the Taliban to recover and to reconquer. They allow our
ports to remain unprotected from uninspected shipping containers, and
they let loose nuclear materials remain unaccounted for, waiting to be
smuggled to al Qaeda to be made into nuclear weapons.
And why does the President want more troops in Iraq? To expand our
role from fighting Sunni insurgents to fighting the Shiite militias
also. Of course, when we attack the Shiite militias, they will respond
by shifting their targets from Sunnis to American troops. American
casualties will skyrocket, and we will be fighting two insurgencies
instead of one.
I believe the President has no real plan other than not to ``lose
Iraq'' on his watch, and to hand over the whole mess to a successor in
2 years. He will ignore anything we do that doesn't have the force of
law. That is why this resolution must be only the first step.
In the supplemental budget we will consider next month, we should
exercise the only real power we have, the Congressional power of the
purse. We will not cut off the funds and leave our troops defenseless
before the enemy, as the demagogues would imply. But we should limit
the use of the funds we provide to protecting the troops while they are
in Iraq and to withdrawing them on a timetable mandated in the law. We
should provide funds to rebuild the Army and to raise our readiness
levels. We should provide funds for diplomatic conferences in case
there is any possibility of negotiating an end to the Iraqi civil war.
And we should provide funds for economic reconstruction assistance. But
above all, we must use the power of the purse to mandate a timetable to
withdraw the troops from Iraq.
We must use the power the people have entrusted to us. The best way
to protect our troops is to withdraw them from the middle of a civil
war they cannot win and that is not our fight.
I know that if we withdraw the troops, the civil war may continue and
could get worse. But this is probably inevitable no matter how long our
troops remain. And if the Iraqis must fight a civil war, I would rather
they fight it without 20,000 more Americans dying.
Yes, the blindness of the administration is largely to blame for
starting a civil war in Iraq, but we cannot end it. Only the Iraqis can
settle their civil war. We can only make it worse and waste our blood
and treasure pointlessly.
So let us pass this resolution, and then let us lead this country out
of the morass in Iraq so that we can devote our resources to protecting
ourselves from the terrorists and to improving the lives of our people.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina, United States Army veteran, Mr. Etheridge.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran, as you have heard, of the
United States Army, myself, I strongly support our troops, our veterans
and their families. Let me state at the outset that our troops have
done everything that has been asked of them to do. They have done it
well. Exceptionally well, I might say.
More than 34,000 from North Carolina have been deployed on Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. And more than 5,000 are
currently over there now. More are preparing to go back to the desert
once again.
I am tremendously proud of all the troops from North Carolina and
across America who have laced up their boots, followed their orders,
and done their duty. They are our heroes, and we salute them.
Regardless if one terms the President's announced change in policy a
surge or an escalation or an augmentation, the so-called new plan can
be summed up in four words: more of the same.
I myself have traveled to Iraq twice. And after I returned last year
I said the administration must change from this failed policy.
Specifically, I said that we need more burden-sharing support from
other countries, more communities and countries in the region, because
the whole world has a tremendous stake in a stable Iraq and a peaceful
Middle East.
This administration's arrogant disregard for our international
partners has destroyed U.S. alliances that were decades in the making.
Those alliances saw us through the darkest days of the cold war when
the very existence of our country hung in the balance. Yet, this
administration tossed them aside like yesterday's news.
It is a sad tragedy to witness the forfeiture of America's moral
standing in the world and the abandonment of diplomacy as an effective
asset for America's interests.
We need to bring all the parties to the table and discuss cooperative
action to secure Iraq's long-term stability and a peaceful Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, I voted to give the President the authority to topple
Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq because he said it presented a ``grave
and gathering threat to America.''
The President said Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass
destruction and intended to use them against America.
The President said Saddam was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden's al
Qaeda terrorists. I took the President of the United States of America
at his word. We have learned, to our great regret, what that was worth.
Now the President wants to send 21,000 more troops to Baghdad.
Republican Senator Arlen Specter called the new deployment ``a snowball
in July.'' An outgoing commander of the Central Command, with
responsibility for Iraq, told the Senate last November, and I quote,
``I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution
to the problem. I believe the troop levels need to stay about where
they are.''
And the former Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, John Warner, a decorated marine and former Secretary of the
Navy, said last month, ``I feel very strongly that the American GI was
not trained, not sent over there, certainly not by resolution of this
institution, to be placed in the middle of a fight between Sunni and
Shiia and the wanton and just incomprehensible killing that is going on
at this time.''
Mr. Speaker, I have voted for every defense bill and war funding
legislation that Congress has passed for Iraq. I am very concerned
about the state of readiness of our American Armed Forces.
As the Representative for Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, I know
that America's military and our military communities have many unmet
needs, while the war in Iraq continues to consume more and more public
dollars, with no end in sight.
In conclusion, I rise in support of this resolution with no joy in my
heart, but with solid conviction in my soul. The failure of this
administration has gone unchecked and unchallenged by the Congress of
the United States for far

[[Page H1513]]

too long. We need a new direction in Iraq.
The question before Congress is this: Is more of the same in Iraq an
acceptable policy? The answer is no.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he
may consume to Mr. Royce, the ranking member of the International
Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee, obviously an expert
in this field.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lynch). The chair is trying to address
an imbalance in the time for debate.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I very much agree, and we have been
doing that approach. There are some time restraints from some of our
Members, and so it necessitated this change, but we have been making
sure that the Democrats could get their members in.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. ROYCE. I will begin my remarks by saying that I hope that these 3
days of debate, Mr. Speaker, are characterized by civility and respect.
Without doubt, this is the most difficult issue that we will confront
in this Congress.
Iraq is terribly complex. The stakes for our national security are
great, and the sacrifice in American lives and the loss of Iraqi lives
have been very painful.
This is a war unlike any other we have fought, and it has been
vexing. All of us, supporters and opponents of this resolution alike,
Republicans and Democrats, all Americans, have a vital interest in our
Nation succeeding in helping to build a stable Iraq and defeating
Islamist terrorism. That is the challenge of our time.
As we have heard, mistakes have been made. There is no doubt about
that. I have been dismayed by some of them: the lethargy in training
Iraqi troops, the inability to meter oil and protect civilian
infrastructure. But we can't allow this to cloud our strategic
judgments.
To my mind, this resolution, indeed our struggle in Iraq, can be
boiled down to two questions: Are Iraq and the global struggle against
Islamist terrorism separable? And is Iraq hopeless? The answer to both
questions is no, which leads me to a ``no'' on this resolution.
The rationale for this war has changed, whether we like it or not. We
are now fighting for stability and moderation against the Islamist
terrorism that is now host in Iraq.
Our Civil War didn't start out as a battle against slavery. It was a
fight to save the Union.
We started out fighting Saddam and to stop what the majority of this
House believed was his weapons of mass destruction program. We are now
fighting Islamist terrorism. It is a different and more daunting fight,
but the consequences of our success or failure are no less critical
because the stakes of this battle have changed.
Let there be no doubt about this: Defeat in Iraq will be a terrible
blow to our national security. It will psychologically boost the
Islamist terrorists who we are fighting there and elsewhere.
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reported Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to
Osama bin Laden, has declared Iraq a focus for al Qaeda. That
declaration is more than words.
While not all fighters in Iraq are jihadists, many are. Some have
wrongly denied that here on the House floor today. Jihadists are coming
from all over the world. The report reads, ``They will seek to expel
the Americans and then spread the jihad wave to the secular countries
neighboring Iraq.'' Chaos in Iraq will allow for more terrorist safe
havens there.
The 9/11 Commission stated that every policy decision we make needs
to be seen through the lens of terrorist sanctuaries. My colleagues, I
would ask if we are doing that.
And that report stated that if Iraq becomes a failed state, it will
go to the top of the list of places that are breeding grounds for
attacks against Americans abroad.
We saw what happened when Afghanistan descended into chaos. Al Qaeda
emerged out of the ruin to strike America on 9/11. That is the type of
threat we are facing today, which will be supercharged if Iraq fails.
We have to confront the potential disaster scenario in the region
that U.S. failure in Iraq could bring, which would be worsening strife
which could engulf the entire region, sparking a wider war in this
resource-rich area.
Saudis have warned that they are prepared to aid Sunni militias.
Jordan could move troops into Iraq's western desert to serve as a
buffer. The Turks are increasingly worried about the independent
Kurdish movement. Iran could move to secure the oil fields to the
south.
In describing the consequences of continued decline in Iraq, the Iraq
Study Group wrote, ``Such a broader sectarian conflict could open a
Pandora's box of problems, including the radicalization of populations,
mass movement of populations, and regime changes that might take
decades to play out.''
This is the powder keg that is Iraq today. The status quo is nasty.
But the consequences of failure, while unpredictable, is far worse.
So to the second question: Is Iraq hopeless? I can understand why
many Americans may feel that way. Every day there are horrific car
bombings, the sectarian violence has intensified. We will hear many
assessments that Iraq is hopeless in this debate.
No one is going to argue that success is guaranteed. But arguments
that we have no chance of bringing stability on the ground in Iraq are
also extreme arguments.
Are the forces of chaos so strong, and are the forces of stability
and moderation so weak as to doom with certainty our efforts?
But I have spoken with too many people in the field, people with some
optimism, that I am not ready to conclude that with certainty. And I
don't think this House should reach that conclusion.

{time} 1600

And that is my read of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group which, while
recognizing the grave challenges, spoke of improving the process for
success. The fact that the consequences of our defeat would be so great
also leads me to persist.
Let's consider more about the implications of defeat. Look at
neighboring Iran. Most Americans remember the 1979 Iranian takeover of
our embassy in Tehran. That led to 444 days of captivity for our men
and women. Unfortunately, relations with Iran have only worsened since.
Iran today is a state sponsor of terrorism. It aids Hezbollah, and it
backed this terrorist group's war on Israel this summer. With Iranian
backing, Hezbollah is the A Team of terrorism, running highly
sophisticated operatives worldwide, including here.
Some terrorism experts consider Hezbollah to be a more challenging
foe than al Qaeda. Iran is backing the insurgents fighting our men and
women in Iraq. Iran is also storming ahead with a nuclear weapons
program.
The embassy takeover was a big morale boost for Islamist terrorists;
some trace the beginning of Islamist terrorism to that embassy
takeover. The shattering of the Iraqi state in our hands would be that
1979 morale boost magnified. It would also prove the way for tremendous
Iranian influence in the region.
We must face our responsibility to the Iraqi people. Yes, we have
given them 4 years to come together; it has been beyond frustration
that they haven't. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died during this
time. What happens if we leave or operate without the manpower our
military leadership says it needs? I don't think anyone believes that
the carnage won't be several times what we have seen.
We often hear calls to intervene in countries for humanitarian
reasons. Some would like our military to go to Darfur in Sudan. Maybe
we should take decisive military actions to stop that genocide, but
what about trying to finish a job where we have already made a huge
military commitment, knowing full well that Iraq's withdrawal would
lead to a brutal humanitarian crisis?
We also often hear from some about how unpopular our country is
worldwide. This is said to greatly harm our influence and interest. And
there is truth to that. Just wait if our withdrawal precipitates a
horrific scale of ethnic cleansing. Is that the Iraqi legacy we want? I
am not ready to concede the inevitability of this.
It is very important that our Nation be united. Our success depends
upon it.

[[Page H1514]]

We need to be sowing discord among the enemy, not ourselves. We have
had successes against Islamist terrorism worldwide.
This resolution states that Congress disapproves of the January
decision of the President to deploy more troops to Iraq. The bipartisan
Iraq Study Group panel, but one month earlier, said it could support a
short-term redeployment of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad.
This resolution goes in the opposite direction.
I have heard the argument about why this resolution isn't a retreat,
but it is a nonbinding rebuke of the President's tactics, that it
doesn't cut off funding. That may be the case on paper, but the
symbolism is far greater. I don't see how opposing our professional
military's call for more troops at this pivotal time is anything but a
signal of permanent retreat. It is also congressional micromanagement.
The war is horrible. The easy thing would be to just say out. But we
can't wish away the Islamist terrorists will take great strength from
our defeat. That is what they are saying. These individuals in groups
are as persistent as they are brutal. They must be fought and defeated.
So let's not give these forces a win on the floor of the U.S. House.
I ask my colleagues to think through these implications and vote down
this resolution
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca), former paratrooper with both the 101st and 82nd
Airborne Divisions.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent
Resolution 63.
I thank the Armed Services Committee chairman, Mr. Skelton, for
carrying this legislation in support of our military troops and
opposing the President's plan to send at least 21,500 more troops to
Iraq.
I speak today as a proud veteran who served in the United States
armed service as a paratrooper in the 101st and 82nd Airborne Division.
As a veteran and as a Congressman, I voted against this war in year
2002 because no one could convince me why we had to be there in the
first place. I was tormented with this decision. I talked to many of my
constituents. I called the bishop in my area. I couldn't see what
invading Iraq had to do with securing the homeland. No one in the
administration could convince me that there were weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. But we sent our troops there anyway, without
proper training or proper equipment.
This administration was in such a hurry to invade Iraq that we sent
our military in there with defective body armor and Hummers that
couldn't withstand the roadside bombs. In fact, before Congress made
any appropriations for an Iraq invasion, the President took $600
million from our troops in Afghanistan and sent it to Iraq.
The administration has refused to listen to its own generals, to
Congress or to the American people. They just do what they want.
After September 11, I was willing to do anything to make our country
safe, like all of us. We came together in a bipartisan way. I believed
in fighting terrorists in Afghanistan was the right thing to do, but
the current situation in Iraq proves what we have been saying all
along, that the Iraq war has not and will not make America safer.
Instead, it is costing the American taxpayers $200 million every day.
The money that we spent in Iraq could have sent 17 million high school
students to college. Can you imagine, 17 million students going on to
college right now that we could have provided assistance to, or paid
for 6 million new school teachers, reduced the student ratio, funded
the No Child Left Behind Act, or help with Katrina. But more money has
been spent on this war, and yet it is costing us money for those that
are losing their lives right now.
Over 3,000 men and women have given their lives for this war, and
over 23,000 are coming home wounded or disabled. Mr. Speaker, over
10,000 of these troops are so severely wounded that they will never be
able to serve again. Let me tell you, and you have to look at them,
never able to serve again.
Now the President wants to send 21,500 more troops to the most
dangerous part of Iraq. Why? Why are we sending our troops to fight in
another country's civil war? Mr. Speaker, this isn't a strategy for
success. This is a desperation attempt by the administration who can't
admit that they made a mistake. They made a mistake, and they need to
admit it. And the sooner we come to this realization, the better off
this country will be. As a veteran, I understand that sometimes war is
necessary, but as a veteran, I also know that war should always be the
last resort because war means someone's sons and daughters won't come
home. That means separating parents from their children, leaving their
homes, someone making a sacrifice.
In my home State of California alone, we have lost 325 men and women
in Iraq. Back in my home district, we have lost 10 outstanding young
men. It just breaks my heart. Mr. Speaker, you don't put the American
families through this kind of pain unless you are sure, beyond any
shadow of doubt, that there are no other options. The President had
failed to convince me in 2002, and I am still not convinced to this
day.
I say let's support this resolution. Let's bring back our men.

General Leave

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 63.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection
Mr. SKELTON. I yield the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, to my
friend, my colleague, the gentleman from California, the chairman on
the Committee on Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lantos). I ask unanimous consent
that he be allowed to control the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Missouri for
yielding.
I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the
Foreign Affairs Committee, chairman of our Europe Subcommittee, my
friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Wexler).
Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Speaker, today I stand with the American people in support of
this resolution and in opposition to the President's escalation of the
Iraq war. I stand in opposition to a President that failed the American
people by initiating an ill-conceived war; an administration that
misled the Nation, vulnerable after 9/11, into believing that Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; an administration that
invented links between Baghdad and al Qaeda; that ignored the views of
the intelligence community, while convincing Americans that our brave
soldiers would be greeted in Iraq as liberators; an administration that
assured us that Iraqi oil money would pay for the reconstruction; and
that through military force, rather than diplomacy, we would cultivate
American values of freedom and democracy in Iraq.
The American people know that they have been taken down a false path
by this administration, down a spiraling path of war under false
pretenses into a quagmire with a President who will not change course,
even in the face of a growing civil war. This resolution sends the
President an unequivocal message that he must change direction of this
war.
How did we arrive in this desperate situation? From the top down, the
President, the Vice-President and the Secretary of State have
manipulated evidence, broadcast half truths, and doctored intelligence
through an orchestrated effort to smear and destroy those who have
opposed their policies. Just last week, in a scathing report, the
Defense Department's Inspector General concluded that the Pentagon took
inappropriate action by advancing conclusions that were not backed up
by the intelligence community.
The American people have judged the actions of this President, they
see this war for what it is, and they spoke clearly in November,
stating loudly that we must end our disastrous Iraq policy. Yet this
administration continues its defiant disregard of the views of the
American people. Not the voice of the American people nor the
conclusions of the Iraq Study Group have

[[Page H1515]]

budged this administration from its stubborn and misguided path. And
now, the President is doubling down on a bad bet that risks the lives
of thousands more American soldiers on a misguided plan that ignores
the recommendations of our military commanders on the ground.

{time} 1615

Unbelievably, President Bush has already tried twice the strategy of
escalation. It failed both times. To try again is to act in blind
faith, ignoring the facts, ignoring the experts, ignoring the will of
the American people, and, worst of all, ignoring the terrible
sacrifices that will undoubtedly be endured by our soldiers and their
families.
Mr. Speaker, our troops must be redeployed from Iraq. Instead of a
surge of American troops entering Baghdad, there should be a surge of
American soldiers back into every town and every city across our
Nation. For our troops who have given so much in Iraq, for our military
families whose lives have been shattered by this war, it is time to
bring them home.
How do we honor our brave men and women? How do we honor over the
3,000 who died, and thousands more who have been maimed? Instead of an
escalation, we should honor these soldiers by bringing them home and
giving them the best health care, the best mental health support that
they have justly earned.
I applaud Congress for taking a stand on this war. I only wish we
were voting on a binding resolution that mandates a redeployment of
troops and cuts off funding for this tragic escalation. Each month we
remain in Iraq, 100 more American soldiers die, hundreds more are
maimed, and $5.5 billion is spent.
Mr. Speaker, we have endured 4 years of a failed Iraq policy, longer
than we were in World War II, longer than we were in the Korean War,
and we can afford no more blank checks for this President.
Today I stand with the American people, our soldiers in Iraq, with my
fellow Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle in strong
opposition to the President's escalation in Iraq and in support of our
redeploying our troops and reversing, most importantly, our Nation's
failed strategy in Iraq.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in vigorous opposition to this
resolution. With all due respect to my colleagues across the aisle,
this resolution does not outline a new strategy for how we move forward
in Iraq and it will have absolutely no impact on the current strategy.
Furthermore, it is the wrong signal to send to our allies in the region
and the wrong signal to send to our troops, those brave, courageous men
and women in uniform who have performed magnificently and done
everything that we have asked them to do.
This nonbinding resolution addresses a tactic, not an overall
strategy; a tactic that the President of the United States as Commander
in Chief has full constitutional authority to move with.
Now, I respect my colleagues across the aisle, and I know we all want
to see a disengagement of our troops from harm's way in Iraq. But I
would submit that disengagement must be done under favorable
circumstances in the interests of our national security. There is no
other alternative.
Let's look at what would happen with a failed policy in Iraq. Iraq is
on the verge of anarchic fragmentation. There are 27 ethnic groups in
Iraq. It is not as simple as a Sunni versus Shiia conflict. There are
other splinter groups using violence for their own designs.
Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq will lead to unprecedented violence,
spilling over into neighboring countries such as Jordan, Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia, and we will see Shiia uprisings in Lebanon and Bahrain,
which have significant Shiia populations. Jordan is already facing
massive numbers of refugees coming across the border, putting strain.
And Iranian influence is growing. The regime is intent on gaining
hegemony in the region, exerting its influence widely throughout the
Middle East and controlling oil and gas reserves to use the money to
further fuel terrorism. Al Qaeda will consolidate a base to work from
in western Iraq to perpetrate further transnational terrorism, and
Turkey will be compelled to cross borders to deal with separatist
groups.
America, dear America, will lose support of its vital allies in the
region and our reputation will suffer immensely for a very long period
of time, much longer than what we saw after the Vietnam conflict.
It is clear to me that security and political reconciliation in Iraq
run parallel, and without halting the spiral of violence,
reconciliation within Iraq will not occur. Without halting the spiral
of violence, our allies in the Persian Gulf and the broader Middle East
will be forced to deal with their own political disruption, rather than
starting multilateral dialogue that is so essential for a longer
standing peace throughout this entire region, whether we are talking
about the Palestinian issues, Lebanon, Iraq or Iran. Our allies in the
region, particularly, need political cover. I have heard this from
numerous Arab Ambassadors whom I have had many conversations with.
The ground must be laid for multilateral diplomacy. It will not occur
during a spiral of violence. Our allies in the region have given
commitment that they will help with Iraqi military training, police
training, as well as rebuilding of Iraq and further resources, once the
stage is set with security and a move toward reconciliation.
So, if we are going to be responsible in this body, there are
questions we really need to ask if we are going to formulate a strategy
and work with this administration for a winning strategy in Iraq. The
questions that need to be asked are these: What are the benchmarks for
its Iraqi military? What are the benchmarks for the Iraqi Government,
for reconciliation and for internal reform in Iraq? What are the rules
of engagement for our troops who will be going over there to assist in
this Baghdad security operation? What resources are available? What
manpower and personnel are available to our State Department and USAID
to help and assist in the reform and reconciliation process so that we
can create the groundwork for diplomatic resolution? And as we look at
a clear holding bill, who is going to do the holding? Who is going to
do the building? These are questions that a responsible Congress should
be asking, not whether or not to support this surge.
The American people voted for change. This resolution offers nothing
to shape a new strategy on how to move forward successfully in Iraq.
The American people deserve more from Congress, and, by God, our troops
deserve more from this Congress.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett), a member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, over the next 2 to 3 days, Members of Congress will come
to the well and they will talk about the Iraq resolution. They will
talk about troop levels and spending and funding and security,
training, strategy, a lot of different things in a lot of different
ways, with valid arguments on both sides. But I want to boil it down to
something simple, something that I understand, something that means
more to me than some of the things I mentioned.
There is a gentleman from my district, a Major Rick Simmons, a native
of Pickens, South Carolina, an Eagle Scout, a Citadel grad. From time
to time he has written me letters concerning different issues in Iraq.
He is in Fallujah right now.
He wrote me a letter dated 5 February, 2007. It is a rather lengthy
letter, but I want to read you one sentence from this letter:
``This is not Bush's war, it is my war, and it is the war of every
volunteer here because we know how high the stakes are for this
country.'' ``My war.'' That is what he says. ``This is my war.''
Rick, first to you and all your comrades over there, I say thank you
and God bless you. I pray for you every day. But I want to tell you
something, son; it is my war too. It is my war and my children's war
and my children's children's war.
This is our war, ladies and gentlemen. This is the greatest enemy
that we have ever faced in my lifetime, Mr.

[[Page H1516]]

Speaker. And when I raised my right hand and put my left hand on the
Bible, it was to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies. And it was to protect the protectors, the
protectors of liberty, the protectors of democracy, the protectors of
freedom. And if it takes a troop surge and a funding stream that is
guaranteed, I will do everything I can to ensure the protectors have
everything they need.
There is only one way out of Iraq, Mr. Speaker. There is only one way
out of this war. Victory. Victory. I urge my colleagues to do the right
thing and I urge them to vote against this resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to a
new member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my neighbor from Northern
California, Ms. Lynn Woolsey.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, I am a member of the Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq
Caucus, and I have been working to bring our troops home since before
we sent them there.
Mr. Speaker, the decision to send more brave Americans into the Iraq
grinder is an act of staggering arrogance for the President. Nearly
two-thirds of our people think this is a deeply flawed, tragically
misguided policy. They get it, Mr. Speaker. They can see that more
troops won't stop the sectarian violence, because it is our very
military presence that ignited this sectarian violence in the first
place.
The human cost in Iraq has been devastating. By some estimates,
several hundred thousand Iraq citizens have died, died for the cause of
their own so-called liberation. No wonder a majority of Iraqis want the
occupation to end.
As the late columnist Molly Ivins put it, ``Iraq is clearly hubris
carried to the point of insanity. It is damn hard to convince people
you're killing them for their own good.''
I hope that an overwhelming vote in favor of this resolution will
compel the President to rethink his Iraq policy. But, if not, this body
will have no choice but to take further steps. Ultimately we must do
more than send a message. We must send a convoy of military planes to
bring our troops home.
Together with my colleagues, Congresswomen Lee and Waters, I have
offered a plan to end the war once and for all. Our bill is H.R. 508,
the Bring Our Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act. H.R.
508 would complete a fully funded military withdrawal from Iraq within
6 months of enactment, because our military and their families have
given enough for this policy that is only increasing the terrorist
threat and doing damage to our national security. The bill would
accelerate the training of Iraqi Security Forces during that 6-month
period. And because Iraq is not yet ready to defend its people against
thugs, insurgents and militias, our bill calls for an international
stabilization force to help keep the peace in Iraq. But it would stay
only for 2 more years and would deploy only at the request of the Iraqi
Government.
Because we have already poured enough of the people's money down this
sinkhole, H.R. 508 would prohibit any further funding to deploy U.S.
troops, but would provide the resources for a safe withdrawal of all of
our U.S. military personnel and contractors.
The proposal would also provide for humanitarian aid and major
investments to rebuild Iraq's physical and economic infrastructure,
because taking our troops out of Iraq doesn't mean abandoning Iraq.

{time} 1630

We can and we must go from military occupier to reconstruction
partner.
Our proposal expressly prohibits the construction of U.S. military
bases in Iraq because it is that kind of permanent occupation that
fuels the rage and anti-American jihadists in the Middle East.
Iraq should belong to the Iraqis, and that includes Iraq's resources.
So under the terms of our bill, the United States would forfeit any
proprietary claim to Iraqi oil.
Finally, H.R. 508 guarantees full health care funding, including
mental health benefits, for U.S. veterans in military operations in
Iraq and other conflicts. It is the least, the very least, we can do to
express our gratitude and repay their sacrifices.
Mr. Speaker, we must never, ever forget what war does to bodies, to
minds, to families, to communities and to the human soul. The victims
of war are not pieces to be moved around on a chess board. They are our
fellow citizens in a global village that gets smaller every day. They
are our brothers. They are our sisters. They are God's children and
have as much right to human dignity as you or I.
The one thing I desperately hope we have learned from the Iraq
nightmare is that we must find more sensible, humane ways to keep
America safe and resolve global conflict because, if we do not, given
the kinds of weapons that are available today, I fear that we are
putting the entire planet on a path toward destruction.
I fear most of all for our children. ``War,'' said Martin Luther
King, Jr., ``is a poor chisel to carve out tomorrow.'' Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow belongs to our children. So, for their sake, we must find
alternatives to war. We must protect America by relying not on our
basest impulses, but on the most honorable and humane of American
values, our love of freedom, our desire for peace, our capacity for
global leadership, and our compassion for the people of the world.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to my
friend from Georgia, a new member of the Foreign Affairs Committee (Mr.
Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. It is indeed
an honor to stand before this House as a very proud member of our
Foreign Affairs Committee under our distinguished Chairman Lantos and
also to stand as our co-chair of our Democratic Group on National
Security, as well as a voting member of the NATO parliament.
I have been to Iraq. I have been to Afghanistan, been to Pakistan,
been to Kuwait. I have been there with our soldiers and our generals,
and what I am about to say is based upon my experience in this whole
arena.
Now, a lot has been said and I think it has been misguided, very
unfortunate. So allow me, if I may, to state for the record exactly
what this resolution does.
There has been talk up here about this resolution is here to cut
funds. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no Democrat in
this Congress who would dare cut the funds from our soldiers who are in
harm's way, and any Member that continues to say that is doing a
disservice to this Congress and to the people of the United States.
This resolution does not say we are pulling out troops. We know the
situation in the Middle East. We know this region is vital to our
interests. The issue here is not pulling out troops. The issue here is
a vote, up or down, on a policy that says two things, 57 words. Allow
me to read them to you.
It says that the ``Congress and the American people will continue to
support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who
are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq.''
Then it says: ``Congress disapproves of the decision of President
George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than
20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.''
That is what it says. Those two things. Let us not mislead the
American public anymore, certainly not on what we are going to vote on
here today. I stand as a proud member who has cosponsored, who supports
this resolution 100 percent because of four important reasons.
The first reason is that this 21,500-man escalation, number one, is
deceiving in and of itself, when we know from the CBO account that it
is not 21,500. It is more like 48,000 when you put the support troops
involved. I am here to tell you, this is a dangerous strain on an
already overstrained military.
Let me share with you what the National Security Advisory Group is
saying. It says this: nearly all of the available combat units in the
U.S. Army, Army National Guard, Marine Corps, have been used in the
current operations. Every available combat brigade from the active duty
Army has already been to Afghanistan or Iraq at least for a 12-month
tour, and most are now in

[[Page H1517]]

their second or third tours of duty. There is a strain here, and some
are on their fourth tours of duty.
Approximately 95 percent of the Army National Guard's combat
battalions and special operations units have been mobilized since 9/11,
and there is very little available combat capacity remaining in the
Army National Guard.
All active duty Marine units are being used on a dangerously tight
rotation schedule, but here is another.
We often forget that these are soldiers with families, with mothers,
with fathers who are out there, separated from their children. Listen
to this. This is why we are against this 21,500, or 48,000, surge.
Between 2001 and 2004, divorce rates among active duty Army officers
have tripled, and rates among Army enlisted soldiers have gone up.
Let me conclude by saying this: on the bleached bones of many great
past nations and civilizations are written those pathetic words, ``too
late.'' They moved too late. The American people are watching us and
they are hoping and they are praying that we not move too late, and let
us get our young men and women out of this crossfire of a civil war
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), the Chair of the
Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, Iraq is just one battlefield in this
multigenerational struggle against radical Islamist jihadists, but it
is a very important battlefield.
This is the beginning stage of a multigenerational worldwide struggle
that will last throughout our lives and likely our children's lives.
It is hard to accept that the safety and security that most Americans
felt in the 1980s and the 1990s was just a smokescreen while the
Islamist extremists planned and carried out a one-sided war in other
parts of the world.
On September 11, we saw the unthinkable: airplanes flown into
buildings, thousands of innocent people killed, and the killers
claiming that this was done because God desired it. Some people still
do not understand how anyone could rationalize such disgusting acts.
For the past few years, and specifically in the past month, I have
joined with some of my colleagues to learn about the true nature of the
threat that we face from this jihadist ideology. This ideology is
preached by the likes of Osama bin Laden, Moqtada al-Sadr, Hassan
Nasrallah, and the ayatollahs in Iran.
Our presence in Iraq did not make us vulnerable to these killers.
There were many previous worldwide attacks before America was attacked
on September 11 and before we entered Iraq.
We face this threat because we refuse to succumb to live in a world
where women cannot speak, as I speak now, without risk of death. We
face this threat because we seek a world where people of all religions
and races and sexes are entitled to the same rights. We cannot retreat.
If we pull out, there is no doubt that Iraq will become a safe haven
for al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups to plan and carry
out attacks on unbelievers or infidels. How do I know this? Because
they tell us. They told us before 9/11, but we did not pay attention.
They tell us all the time that they will not stop until all lands from
India to Morocco and Spain to Russia are governed by radical Islamic
law.
In 1938, Adolf Hitler told us what he was going to do, and we refused
to pay attention. We cannot afford to repeat that historical mistake.
This is not a Democrat and Republican issue. Our security is an
American issue, and I hope we are going to start to act as Americans,
like the American people expect us and want us to do.
We must understand that we are fighting the first battles of a war
against radical Islamist ideology that will be waged for the next 50,
maybe 100 years.
Mistakes have been made and more mistakes will be made in the future.
War is never easy; nor is it predictable. But if the people of the
United States understand the true nature of the threat that we all face
and Congress realizes that this war against jihadism will be fought in
various forms around the world for at least the next 50 years, then we
can make informed policy decisions that will help us in the future.
We must plan now for the future. We need to unite as a country behind
this struggle against radical Islamic jihadists.
It is downright irresponsible to tell our troops that we support you
but do not support the mission that you are fighting. What message does
that send to our troops? It may score political points, but it hurts
our troops who are over there fighting to defend us and our right to be
here and speak freely.
This resolution does not deal with the larger problem of radical
Islamic jihadists. So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote. We must support
our troops in the field by supporting their mission. I support our
troops wholeheartedly and believe their mission is just and necessary
for the security interests of our country.
The world our children and grandchildren will inherit will be a
better place because we had the courage to stand up today to fight
these battles.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), a senior member of the Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Armed Services
Committee and a member of the Board of Visitors of the United States
Naval Academy, I rise today to express my unwavering support for the
men and women who wear the uniform of our proud Nation and to make
clear my staunch opposition to putting more of these men and women in
harm's way in Iraq.
In the absence of a clear and meaningful strategy for success, it is
time to extricate our troops out of this civil war and redeploy them
out of the occupation of Iraq.
Back in 2002, I joined my colleagues in the Congressional Black
Caucus in formulating a brief and succinct statement of principles
regarding the Iraq war. Within these principles we expressed our clear
opposition to a unilateral first strike action in the absence of clear
evidence of an imminent threat to the United States. We further stated
that any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the region would
be costly and would likely require a long-term commitment of our troops
and treasure.
Today, it is very clear that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has
provoked sectarian divisions in the Iraqi society that are now
expressed daily through violence on a staggering scale. It is also
clear that our efforts to stabilize Iraq has, indeed, required the
massive commitment of both lives and taxpayer dollars that we
predicted.
What was not clear then but is clear now is that this administration
had no definite plan for achieving our stated objectives in Iraq.

{time} 1645

The administration had lofty rhetoric, but no strategy for creating a
stable democracy that could be our partner in the war on terror.
Mr. Speaker, I raise these points to remind our Congress that from
the beginning of this war there have been voices raised not in
opposition to our President but in demand of a strategic approach to
the growing threats we face, opposition and demand of an honest
assessment of what could be accomplished with military force, and in
demand of a clear purpose for why we send our troops into harm's way,
our young men and women, the future of our Nation into situations where
they may seriously be injured or killed. These are the very points that
the resolution before us today demands.
I have no illusions about the danger inherent in the growing number
of nations that may soon have the capability to construct weapons of
mass destruction. To the contrary, I am convinced that maintaining the
peace in this increasingly dangerous world has become a precondition to
our continued survival.
The question is, given the situation in which we find ourselves in
Iraq and given that our primary consideration must always be the
security of our Nation, is sending additional troops into action most
likely to stabilize that nation and the region? Is it the action most
likely to cause Iraqis themselves to take the essentially political
actions that only they can take to create a government capable of
governing? Is

[[Page H1518]]

it the action likely to initiate the reconciliation between Sunni and
Shiite, and the most recent National Intelligence Estimate says is
critical to reducing the violence in Iraq?
I have seen no compelling evidence that the answer to any of these
questions is ``yes,'' and many of our top military commanders have
testified that sending 21,500 more United States forces to Iraq will
not create a path to success.
Our forces have done all and more than we have asked them to do, and
their families have been patiently sacrificing for 4 long years. The
voters spoke in November, and we as Members of Congress of the United
States do not have the right to remain silent. We cannot allow more to
be asked of our soldiers now if their mission is not clear. The
President has no plan likely to produce victory. And if, as the
National Intelligence estimates suggest, the Iraqi forces and the
government are not capable of being partners in their own
reconstruction, I urge my colleagues to support our troops by
supporting this resolution.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to Dr.
Weldon of Florida, a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address H. Con. Res. 63, disapproving of the
decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007 to deploy
20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
This resolution essentially has, by my interpretation, three
sections. It has the first section, which speaks in support of our
troops; and then it has the second section, disapproving of the mission
of 20,000 of the troops, which is a little bit of an inconsistency. We
are saying we support the troops, but we don't support what you are
trying to do.
But the most important part of this resolution is the third section
shown here in white. There is nothing there. No plan.
So the authors of this resolution are essentially saying, we don't
approve of the President's plan but we have no plan to deal with this
challenge.
Ladies and gentlemen, we won the war in Iraq. What we are struggling
to win now is the peace, establishing a peaceful government that can
run this country. And we have very determined opponents seeking to make
sure that chaos reigns in that country and we do what this resolution
is leading us to do, which is essentially to leave.
Indeed, a senior member on that side of the aisle recently said in
the press that, ``This is the bark, and the bite is coming.'' We
supposedly support the troops, but what is next is no funding for the
troops; that this Congress under this new leadership is going to
exercise the power of the purse and cut off the flow of money.
But, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, this is not Vietnam. The
war in Iraq in not going to go away. It is going to continue to be a
problem. If we do withdraw our troops, as many in this room want us to
do, the war on terror will continue.
We had a meeting today with the Ambassador from Jordan and the
Ambassador from Egypt asking us not to withdraw; that we have to stay
and persist and to try to establish a peaceful regime there. And they
have their reasons, because they know this is a component of the war on
terror. And the war on terror is a bad term; it is a war on radical
fundamentalist jihadist Islam. And these jihadists are not going to
stop coming at us. Indeed, since over the last 4 years, there have been
attack after attack after attack in Bali, in Spain, in London, and they
are going to keep coming after Western interests, because their goal
and their agenda is to defeat the West, to defeat everything we stand
for, and to ultimately establish a global fundamentalist Islamic
regime.
I oppose this resolution. I am going to vote against it, and I
encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the
same. The President's plan was recommended to us in the Iraq Study
Group. It is amazing, many of the people who are saying they are going
to vote for this supported the Iraq Study Group, and the Iraq Study
Group recommended many of the components that are in the President's
plan. We need to give this time to work. I know the American people are
losing patience in this conflict, but I also know the stakes in this
conflict are huge. And if we fail, the consequences could be huge to
the region, they will be huge to the world, they will be huge to the
American people and our children and our grandchildren.
So I strongly encourage a ``no'' vote on this resolution
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Meeks), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, there is a concept from the
people of West Africa called Sankofa. Literally translated, it means,
``It is not taboo to go back and fetch what you have forgot.''
Today, I want to use the premise of Sankofa and go back to some of
the things that have occurred in the recent past with regard to Iraq so
that we can learn from those lessons. In order to know where we need to
go in Iraq, we have to evaluate what missteps have been made. That is
our responsibility.
As we look at the last 5 years, the President has shown no accuracy
on the challenges we face in Iraq. While our soldiers are courageously
carrying out their orders, it has become apparent that military action
to bring security to Iraq has reached its limitation, but our President
insists on escalating military force.
I recall over 4 years ago hearing the President and the
administration push for war with talk about a smoking gun that would
come in the form of a mushroom cloud. The administration pulled on the
emotions of the public while our Nation was still in shock from 9/11.
Our President pushed for war with arrogance. ``Bring it on,'' he said.
Coalition of the willing. Deck of cards. Freedom on the march. Mission
accomplished. A plan for victory. Those are just some of the promises
that have been made, but the administration has not been able to make
good on those promises. It is fair to say that the President has
defaulted on a promissory note.
Today, the question before us is can the President make good on the
promise of security in Iraq with an escalation of the combat operation.
All of the facts point to a strong ``no'' on that question.
After reviewing all of the facts, I saw that increased troops did not
work in the spring of 2004, when troop levels were raised by thousands,
but this did nothing to prevent the continued uprising, and April of
2004 was the second deadliest month for American forces. I have heard
from generals, former Secretaries of State, and a bipartisan
commission, all saying that escalation will not work. I am vehemently
opposed to the escalation of the Iraq war and its open-ended commitment
to a failing effort.
The President only accepts the advice of those who agree with him.
After months of threats and a long military build-up, the United States
attacked Iraq on March 19, 2003. The administration cut short U.N. arms
inspections after a war-sanctioned resolution failed by a wide margin
to gain support in the U.N. Security Council. Because the President
could not get the U.N. or the world public in support of an invasion,
he developed his unilateral preemptive doctrine.
The President has had generals tell him that this war should end and
an escalation is not the answer; but when he gets advice he doesn't
like, he simply fires the generals.
He has had a commission of experts advise him that a diplomatic
political effort with all of Iraq's neighbors would be the most
effective way to enable the U.S. to move its combat forces out of Iraq
responsibly. However, the President did not like that advice, so he has
chosen to simply ignore it.
When the President needed Congress to approve military action against
Iraq, he cared about the perspective of the Congress then. As Congress
begins to conduct oversight of the combat operation, the President
wants to ignore the voices of dissent that come from this very body.
The cameras of history are rolling, and I hope and pray that at the
end of this debate history can record that this body, starting with
this resolution as a first step, has taken the appropriate action to
end a morally wrong war that threatens to irreversibly stain the fabric
of Congress if we do not exercise our constitutional authority and our

[[Page H1519]]

patriotic responsibility to balance the President's power.
To move forward and bring security to Iraq will require a bipartisan
effort; it will require dialogue with Congress, dialogue between
Congress and the administration, and dialogue and diplomacy between
Iraq and all of its neighbors, as the Iraq Study Group wisely
recommended. I am reaching across the aisle to my colleagues who also
believe that military action has its limitations and a diplomatic
offensive will bring a new and critical approach to secure Iraq.
This war has created deep humanitarian crisis in Iraq and a deep
political crisis in the international system. Based on all that has
happened leading up to this war and since its commencement, I cannot in
good conscience support any escalation of military force in Iraq. But I
plan to move forward with a strong push for a diplomatic effort to a
problem that military action simply has not been able to solve.
Some ask what will happen in Iraq if we leave, but the more
fundamental question is, what will happen to Iraq and the United States
if we stay.
Dr. King, when speaking on Vietnam once said, ``A time comes when
silence is betrayal. That time has come for us in relation to
Vietnam.'' I echo those sentiments today. If Congress is silent while
the President escalates the war in Iraq, we betray the American people,
we betray the American soldiers, and we betray our constitutional
responsibility.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes
to Mr. Wolf of Virginia, the ranking member of the State and Foreign
Operations appropriations subcommittee.
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, we are a coequal branch of government. We do
not work for the President or the administration; our job is to
thoughtfully consider the issues before us, and to work with the
President and with the administration. When we agree, it is our
responsibility to work together for the best interests of our country;
and where we cannot agree, however, we have an equal responsibility to
make the case of why we disagree, and offer responsible and thoughtful
alternatives. This resolution does not meet that test.
Some may say that is what we are doing in the House this week,
disagreeing with the President and offering alternatives to the plan.
This resolution fails. There is no plan offered.
Certainly the resolution before us includes a statement on which we
all unequivocally agree: support for our brave men and women in the
Armed Forces who are serving or who have served in Iraq.

{time} 1700

Yet it also includes a statement of disapproval on the plan for Iraq
offered by the President, a statement of disagreement to which, again,
no alternative is offered. If we disagree with the President's plan, we
should be offered reasoned, responsible alternatives. Instead of
speaking today as Democrats or Republicans, we should come together,
speaking as Americans who are seeking to answer the questions of how to
move forward with success in Iraq.
Under the process today, we have only one option from the other side
of the aisle. Is that what the American people expect from this House?
No. The American people expect more. What is so amazing to me and in
this Congress, you voted, this Congress voted and passed legislation
last year that set our country on a course to find our way forward in
Iraq. We have to look no farther than the report of the bipartisan Iraq
Study Group to find a way forward, a new approach for Iraq, an approach
that can bring us victory.
That is what we should be considering today. The recommendations of
this distinguished group can bring us to a consensus and unite the
Congress and the Nation on Iraq. I have been to Iraq three times, and
since there, I continue to be deeply concerned.
So when I came back from my third trip, I offered this idea of an
independent bipartisan commission we called fresh eyes on the target,
and many Members on your side have been hailing it, yet you would not
permit this to come up for a vote. Why would the Rules Committee shut
down something that many of you ask for over and over? And there are
Members on my side who don't like it, but it is the only balanced plan.
This legislation was set up, the 10 Members, bipartisan, five
Republicans, five Democrats, Jim Baker, former Secretary of State; Lee
Hamilton, who served here and has probably, quite frankly, forgotten
more about this issue than any Members on your side or any Members on
my side. A 10-0 decision, Leon Panetta, Ed Meese, whose son will serve
with General Petraeus, they came up with this idea.
Yet the Rules Committee has shut this down not to permit a vote. They
worked for more than 8 months supported by expert working groups, and
senior military advisors in the areas of the economy, reconstruction,
military, security and political development. The study's report was
issued on December 6 and was hailed, but yet it is not permitted to
come up for a vote.
Because of the importance of this group, I introduced a sense of
Congress resolution in support of the recommendations. I asked the
Rules Committee late last night to make my resolution in order to be
considered during the debate. By doing so, I believe the House will be
working to meet our responsibility as political leaders to seek a
bipartisan consensus on the issue of war and peace.
But the request, not on my behalf, but on behalf of the American
people, was turned down by the Rules Committee. Believe me, just for a
second, maybe our side at times treated you wrong; but, believe me, you
are getting to be a fast learner, because every time you seem to speak
over here, the Republican side of the aisle is shut down from offering
anything. This is the major issue of war and peace. Can you imagine if
this were 1937 or 1938 or 1939 in the House of Parliament, and it was a
resolution like this with Nazi Germany pouring over Europe, there would
be some resolution, and everyone else, Churchill would have been shut
out because he wanted to offer something constructive to make a
difference.
Let me read from a letter penned by Jim Baker and Congressman
Hamilton. There is no magic formula, they said, to solve the problem of
Iraq. They basically say there are actions to take. The political
leaders need to establish a bipartisan approach. They go on to make the
report, the consensus report as to work that they have done. We
recommend their report, and then they end by saying, ``Yet, U.S.
foreign policy is doomed to failure--as is any course of action in
Iraq--if not supported by a broad, sustained consensus.'' Then they go
on to say how dangerous this is.
I ask you, why? Why couldn't we get a vote? Why couldn't the American
people get a vote on something that many on your side may not like, but
most do, and some on my side may not like, but most do, and I ask, this
body ought to be voting on the Iraq Study Group to show the American
people that we can be successful
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Ackerman), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and
chairman of the Middle East Subcommittee.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the coalition of the willing no longer is.
If those who are no longer with us are against us, then we have lost
the support and the admiration of the entire world. Those of us who
came of age in the sixties believing that war is the ultimate breakdown
of civilized process have done the unthinkable. We trusted our
leadership when we should have questioned more.
We gave war a chance. We called upon our sons and daughters entering
the prime of their young lives to step up, as had generations before
them, to defend our freedom and our liberty against an Iraqi nuclear
threat that did not exist. Our young people did not disappoint. They
answered the call, have been fighting bravely and ferociously, putting
their lives on the line every day for going on 4\1/2\ years.
They followed the orders of their officers right up to the Commander
in Chief, and a grateful Nation, indeed, can ask no more. They did not
disappoint. But it is we who let them down, tragically. We are reminded
that the President is the Commander in Chief, and, indeed, he is. He
sent them to fight and die in a war based on a

[[Page H1520]]

faulty and tortuously shifting premise. That we, in our positions of
great trust, were misled and then misplaced our trust, does not excuse
us.
He sent them to fight in a war without equipping them properly, and,
as many generals believe initially, in insufficient numbers. With an
abundance of prayers but inadequate plans, he sent them to fight
international terrorists; but, instead, they are mired down, enmeshed,
and are being slaughtered in someone else's sectarian and deadly civil
war while the real terrorists prepare to retake Afghanistan.
Six years ago I voted with the President. He is our President. I did
not want him to fail. His failure is our country's failure, and that is
not acceptable. But here is where we are. We have lost the support of
even those in the region who wanted Saddam's demise. We have not found
the real terrorist, Osama bin Laden.
We have lost the support of the coalition of the willing. We have
lost the support of our major allies. We have lost the prestige and
admiration of the world. We have lost our credibility. We have lost the
confidence of the American people. And we have lost over 3,000 precious
lives of our bravest patriotic and promising young citizens. I voted
with the President, and I was wrong, but I know I was wrong.
Grown-ups know that not every story has a happy ending regardless of
good intentions. I am afraid this is one such story. I am afraid we
have been led into a dead-end chasm from which there is no easy escape.
Under the administration's leadership, everything has gone wrong. So
what do we do now? Do we compound the disaster?
Perhaps we can learn from the great Iraqi poet, Omar Kyayyam, who in
the Runaiyat wrote:
``The Moving Finger writes; and having writ,
Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.''
Mr. Speaker, sending 20,000 additional troops is not a change of
plans, it is merely an escalation. About one out of every 40 people we
send to Iraq comes home in a casket. As an old math teacher, I can tell
you by extrapolation that sending 20,000 more brings home 500 more
dead. Little else changes.
This vote is, indeed, nonbinding. It is but the little boy in the
crowd yelling, ``The emperor has no plan.'' Mr. Speaker, managing
failure is unpleasant, but reinforcing it is criminal. Vote for the
resolution so that we might help the President to avoid compounding
this disaster.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield the 5 minutes to Mr.
King of Iowa, I would like to yield 15 seconds to Dr. Gingrey of
Georgia to make some remarks.
Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the gentlelady yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in response to our articulate friend from the State of
New York, in regard to his comment, we have given war a chance. I would
just say to him, you have. We have given war a chance, and we have not
given victory a chance. This is not the time to pull the rug out from
under those who have given their lives for their country.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to
Mr. King of Iowa for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady for yielding this time, and
I appreciate very much the privilege to address you, Mr. Speaker, and
the message that is coming, at least from our side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I take us back to how do we identify this enemy that we
are fighting? So I looked back through some of the history. In 1783, we
made peace with Great Britain. The Revolutionary War, for combat
purposes, was over. 1784, American merchant marines were being attacked
in the Mediterranean by Barbary pirates.
In 1786, two diplomats, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, went over
there to meet with them, and their idea was, we will be able to talk
them into peace. Well, they talked to them all right, and the
representative of the Barbary pirates, Mr. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja,
responded to them, and this is in the Congressional Record from Thomas
Jefferson's report.
He asked him, why do you fight us, why do you attack us, why do you
kill us? We have done nothing hostile towards you. His answer was, It
is founded on the laws of our Prophet. It was written in the Koran. All
nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners,
that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they
could be found and to make slaves of all they could not take as
prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure
to go to Paradise.
I take you back to today. We call our marines leathernecks. The
reason for that is they wore a heavy leather collar to diminish the
odds that they would be beheaded by this enemy who has, to this day, at
least fairly recently, is still beheading marines. That is how this
started.
Now, we are in a war. Von Clauswitz wrote that the object of war is
to destroy the enemy's will and ability to conduct war. That means take
away their munitions, take care of their armies, destroy them if you
can. But in the end, whatever you might do doesn't break their will.
You have to destroy their will. There is nothing going on on this side
of the aisle that is diminishing the will of our enemy.
I will tell you, they will interpret it as encouraging the will of
the enemy. I would point out this quote from Moqtada al Sadr. I heard
this over al Jazeera TV when I was in the Middle East, actually in
Kuwait City, waiting to go into Iraq the following morning, June 11,
2004. He said, ``If we keep attacking Americans, they will leave Iraq
the same way they left Vietnam, the same way they left Lebanon, the
same way they left Mogadishu.''
June 11. Where does he get this from? Well, he gets part of it from
General Jeaps' book in Vietnam, the successful general there. They
understand, as I heard to my own shock and sorrow, a World War II
veteran said to me on one of the days we were honoring him, We haven't
really won a war since World War II.
Think about what that means. Think about what that means to our
enemies who are encouraged by this kind of debate and this kind of
behavior. We must have the resolve. I point out also our casualties. We
have lost 2,534 brave, patriotic Americans in hostile action. We have
lost 591 to accidents within that theater.
The loss in American lives as a price to be ready between Desert
Storm 1 and the beginnings of Operation Iraqi Freedom, that 10 years,
was a little over 5,000, averaging 505 a year. There is a price to be
ready, and they pay that price. Those lost lives are every bit as
precious to us.
I listened to the debate over on this side of the aisle. A brave
American, former admiral from Pennsylvania, stated that he believes his
job now is to come in and help manage a successful conclusion to the
war.
Well, I want to compliment Judge Louie Gohmert, who had the urge from
the bench, to legislate from the bench, and realized that his
constitutional responsibility, if he wants to legislate, is to run for
Congress. So now we have Representative Gohmert in Congress actually
legislating instead of legislating from the bench.
I would submit my question to the gentleman from Pennsylvania: Do you
really think your job is to come here and micromanage the war? Do you
really think that is constitutional? Regardless of that question, do
you think it is wise?
How would you like it if Congress made a decision that you really
only needed one destroyer in your task force, or you get along without
the submarine or maybe you only needed half the supplies on your supply
ship?

{time} 1715

That would be micromanagement that I think he would raise a powerful
objection to. And so I would point out that here on the floor of this
Congress when we had Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister of Iraq,
speaking from that very podium behind me, July 26, 2006, a short half a
year ago, he said, ``The fate of our country and yours is tied. Should
democracy be allowed to fail in Iraq and terror permitted to triumph,
then the war on terror will never be won elsewhere.''
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here and to be part of this debate.
I wanted

[[Page H1521]]

to congratulate the bipartisan way in which this resolution was brought
before this House with two Members of the Armed Services Committee, the
chairman, Ike Skelton from Missouri, and Republican Member Jones from
North Carolina, and also Chairman Lantos of the Foreign Affairs
Committee. I congratulate them in their leadership.
At a recent send-off of troops being redeployed from my home district
in Missouri, I told the families that I would work in Congress to bring
their loved ones home safe, sound and soon. However, this proposed
military escalation flies in the face of that intention.
As we enter the fifth year of this mismanaged war in Iraq, with an
ill-defined plan, it is irresponsible to think that an escalation is in
the best interests of our troops. The Bush escalation plan is yet
another indication that the President has failed to listen to the
American public, military experts, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and
Democrat and Republican Members in this Congress.
Even General Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, said, I am
not persuaded that any surge of troops in Baghdad for the purposes of
suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war will work.
It is my solemn responsibility to act on behalf of Missouri
constituents and their overwhelming desire for change. I am proud to
see the new Congress has begun to systematically analyze the
President's proposal regarding the war in Iraq.
Since the beginning of the year, we have already held 52 hearings in
this Congress about the war in Iraq. Evidence this new Democratic-led
Congress is exercising real oversight and demanding accountability on
the Iraq war. We will continue to ask the tough questions about the
President's plan, continue to insist on a new direction while always
putting our troops first.
We have the best military in the world, and we owe our troops a clear
mission. Our men and women in uniform have done their job two and three
times over, and our civilian leadership must provide a clear,
achievable objective so they can come home soon.
This Congress has a grave duty to listen and take action. Recently,
the mother of a young soldier being deployed back to Iraq told me,
Congressman Carnahan, I am one of those mothers who is against the war
in Iraq, but my son volunteered to serve his country. Please be sure
they get the support and equipment they need to come home quickly and
safely.
That mother's heartfelt request is a powerful example of our national
unity and resolve to support our troops and oppose this escalation
policy that is not making the Iraq Government more self-reliant. In
fact, it is using us further as a crutch.
It is not making the Middle East region more stable. In fact, many of
our military leaders say our very presence there is fueling the
insurgency, and it is not making our country safer. Today, the House
begins a detailed deliberation on House Concurrent Resolution 63, which
is only the beginning of this Congress's oversight of the President's
strategy in Iraq.
This straight-forward resolution plainly expresses our support for
the brave men and women who are currently serving or who have served in
the Armed Forces. In my home State of Missouri, over 27,000 men and
women have been deployed to serve in Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraq Freedom since September 2001.
It is our duty as Members of Congress to ensure they have the
necessary training, equipment, resources and support while in harm's
way and when they return home.
When debate concludes this week, it is my firm hope that the result
will be a bipartisan vote reflecting both our unwavering support of our
troops and the reality that a fourth U.S. escalation is the wrong
direction for our country.
As the new majority, we have the opportunity to develop a
comprehensive and commonsense solution to enable us to protect our
troops, maintain our obligation, and end this conflict as quickly as
possible. We stand ready to provide real peace of mind for the American
people by securing our homeland and changing course in Iraq.
Great change is possible when this Congress acts in unison with the
American public. In the weeks and months ahead, this Congress will act
in a bipartisan way to carefully and thoroughly examine the President's
proposals and pass decisions through hearings, debate and oversight
using all tools available to change the direction of this war.
Most importantly, we will continue to support our troops in hopes of
de-escalation of the war and escalation of the political solution for
Iraq. Working together, Mr. Speaker, great change is possible.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a member of the Anti-Terrorism
Caucus.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I
rise in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 63, the resolution
that calls on us to disapprove of the increase in troops in Iraq. I
rise to oppose it, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to carefully reflect on what we are doing.
This debate may benefit the American people. This resolution will
undoubtedly harm America and harm our troops. Every American wants our
troops home. Every American wants this war over. But it is not that
easy. You cannot just wish this war would end and believe it will go
away as a problem for America. Life is never that easy.
Let us begin with the text of the resolution. Make no mistake about
it, it is very brief, and all of us should have read it. It is two
sentences long. It essentially says: stay the course. A resolution
which says, we oppose increasing troops, but we support our current
troops is a resolution that says, stay the course.
It is not a resolution that says withdraw. That might be a morally
defensible position, because perhaps we should withdraw, at least some
believe. It is not a resolution that says, put in more troops. It is a
resolution that says, adding more troops is wrong, but we support those
that are there.
That is a resolution to stay the course. I would suggest no American
believes we should stay the course. I would suggest that the RAND study
and the Army's manual on counterinsurgency both suggest that staying
the course is wrong. Indeed, it is a recipe for failure. Both RAND and
our own counterinsurgency manual say, if anything, we should have
between 400,000 and 450,000 troops there.
So why would we support staying the course? Now, we all know that
many of us, and I included, wanted a change in strategy in Iraq. My
colleagues on the other side called for a change in strategy. This
surge is the change in strategy.
Indeed, and I am mystified, and I am glad some of my colleagues today
have made the point, this is the change in strategy, at least one of
them, recommended by the Iraq Study Group. I thought my colleagues on
the other side supported that. It seems to me that there is also an
important flaw in this debate.
My colleagues say that this is a nonbinding resolution. I would
suggest to you that when you are at war, and when the United States
Congress acts with regard to that war, it is not nonbinding. The world
is watching. The world is watching every word that is said on this
floor.
I believe we have a moral duty to finish what we began. Earlier on
the floor, my colleagues have mentioned that many leaders in the
region, in the Middle East, have begged us not to leave. They have
begged us to stay at least long enough to stand up the Iraqi Government
so that it can defend itself. They have implored us not to leave.
Let me give you their words. They have said, because they opposed our
originally going in, the coalition came uninvited, it should not leave
uninvited. They are making the point that we have a duty to finish this
effort. They have talked about analogies. They pointed out that a heart
surgeon who begins a heart surgery is not entitled, halfway through the
surgery, to say, you know what, I am tired, I want to leave.
On the other side of the aisle many of my colleagues have said this
is hard. Indeed, it is hard. But that is not a justification for
leaving. The best analogy I heard was one that said, this is like
stepping on a land mine, where you put your foot on it, but you know
that if

[[Page H1522]]

you lift your foot off it will blow up. We have put our foot on a land
mine in Iraq. But if we lift our foot off before the Iraqi Government
can defend itself, it will blow us up, and it will blow them up.
You cannot wish this war away. And so I would suggest this resolution
is binding. The world is watching. Our allies, if we abandon Iraq, will
never trust us again. But why do they want a nonbinding resolution?
Because they do not want to accept responsibility.
The President does not have that choice. He has responsibility. Those
who oppose this war have a duty to take a stand, one side or the other.
If you oppose the war, then seek withdrawal. If you do not, then do not
undermine our troops. Because make no mistake, this nonbinding
resolution hurts our troops.
Let me just conclude with this point. In the midst of an ongoing war,
it is impossible to support the troops and oppose the mission. Let me
make that clear. The world is watching. Our enemies, al Qaeda, and the
radical jihadists who hate us and want to kill us are watching. If we
tell them we oppose the mission, we are encouraging them. They have
guns, rockets, and missiles pointed at our troops. This resolution is a
grave error. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), who is a member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee and chairman of the Higher Education Committee.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res.
63. The State of Texas has a proud history of military service.
Thousands of Texans have fought with distinction in every conflict this
country has entered.
Hundreds of my constituents are currently serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan. They are willing to leave behind their families and
friends to risk their lives in service to their country. Many will
never return home. Many will come home maimed and injured.
I want to read the names of the young people from the 15th District
of Texas who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan: Darrell
Shipp, Benito Ramirez, Javier Marin, Julio Alvarez, Gary Moore, Tomas
Garces, Mark Anthony Zapata, Juan Calderon, Christopher Ramirez, Dustin
Sekula, Juan Garza, James Kesinger, Mitchell Mutz, John Russell,
Quinton Gertson, Christopher Kilpatrick, Tina Priest, and Daniel
Galvan.
I know how much their families and friends have grieved at their
loss. I have spoken to their parents and spouses and have attended many
of their funerals. We are all so very proud of their military service
and know they did their very best.
However, as an elected Representative of the United States
Government, I have a responsibility to make sure that the sacrifices of
these brave men and women were not in vain.

{time} 1730

I have a responsibility to see that more Americans will not be
sacrificed unnecessarily. I have supported the funding to give our
military the body armor, the equipment and training they need, and I
will continue to see that they have whatever they need. But I will not
support an administration policy that puts more troops in harm's way,
with no apparent end in sight and with no clear goals on how to win the
fight.
In 2002, I stood in this well and I spoke on that resolution giving
the President permission to go to war, and I voted against going to war
with Iraq because I didn't believe we had all the information we needed
on Iraq's nuclear capabilities and weapons of mass destruction and its
support for terrorism. I was concerned that the President had not
convinced the 39 countries who had supported us in the previous war
with Iraq. I was disappointed that the President did not have an exit
plan after we defeated Iraq. And I was disappointed that the President
would not put in the budget what we were going to spend on that war.
No one denies that Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator who brutally
oppressed his people, and I am glad that the Iraqis are free of this
tyranny. But the Bush administration did not have accurate information
then, and I don't believe they have an accurate picture of the
situation today.
Our troops are now caught in the middle of a civil war between
religious groups that have hated each other for centuries. There is no
defined enemy and no clear battle lines.
The task of imposing and growing democracy in a place where it has
never been is not the job of our military. It must come from the
political will of the Iraqi people. Only the Iraqis can decide whether
they want to put aside centuries of discord and come together to create
a stable, democratic country where the rights of every group is
recognized. The Iraqi Government must take responsibility for its own
future.
After more than 4 years, the U.S. is not safer because of our efforts
in Iraq. By dividing our resources, we have allowed the Taliban to
reemerge in Afghanistan and have given al Qaeda a strong foothold that
it never had before in Iraq. Syria and Iran have gained influence
throughout the entire region.
We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars at the expense of
critical programs at home like education, health care and homeland
security. Our military is severely strained with troops on their third
and fourth tours of Iraq. Units are being deployed, either understaffed
or with new personnel, that has decreased unit cohesiveness,
proficiency and morale. Equipment is worn out and our readiness to deal
with an additional crisis is in jeopardy.
Unfortunately, most of his generals disagree. The distinguished
members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group disagree, and more
importantly, the American people disagree.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 63 and
opposing the President's decision to send more troops to Iraq.
We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars at the expense of
critical programs at home like education, health care and Homeland
Security. Our military is severely strained with troops on their third
and fourth tours of Iraq. Units are being deployed either understaffed
or with new personnel that has decreased unit cohesiveness,
proficiency, and morale. Equipment is worn out and our readiness to
deal with an additional crisis is in jeopardy.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, before I turn over our segment of the
debate to Mr. Hoekstra of the Intelligence Committee, I would like to
recognize our last speaker for our segment, Mr. Shuster of
Pennsylvania, a member of the Anti-Terrorism Caucus, for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, ``So they go on in strange paradox, decided
only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift,
solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.'' The words of Winston
Churchill on the eve of World War II ring true today as clearly as they
did decades ago describing our state of affairs.
I am disappointed with my colleagues in the majority. They spent the
time and effort solidifying their caucus against the war in Iraq. They
devised a number of plans to withdraw our troops. They made Iraq the
focus of their agenda in November and not staying the course their
slogan. However, they stand today, as Churchill said, resolved to be
irresolute in their position on Iraq.
The resolution we debate in the House today is based on flawed logic.
The resolution states that Congress supports the efforts of our troops
in mind but not in body. The fact is, this resolution is framed upon
the idea that the current state of affairs in Iraq is beyond recovery
and should be abandoned.
Instead of offering any real alternatives, the Democrats have drafted
a nonbinding resolution that rejects the President's plan to reinforce
our troops and give the Iraqi Security Forces the assistance they need.
This resolution does not bring us one step closer to victory. This
resolution does nothing more than reinforce the status quo.
This resolution does show the American people that yet again, the
Democrats, for all of their rhetoric, have no plan, no alternative to
fight the threat of Islamic jihad. They instead have chosen, amazingly,
to simply stay the course.
I will be the first to admit that, despite the outstanding jobs that
our troops on the ground have done, progress in the war is slow and
frustrating. We overthrew a violent despot, only to see a new and
dangerous threat emerge. But we can not be fooled into thinking that by
leaving Iraq this threat will melt away.
By the very admission of the Islamic fundamentalists we fight, this
war is

[[Page H1523]]

only part of a larger power play to consolidate power and form a
jihadist Islamic state in the center of the Middle East.
In a speech released this month, Ahman Zawahiri praised al Qaeda's
master plan for Iraq. He asked Allah to consolidate Iraq so that it
unites all our Muslim brothers in Iraq and sets up an Islamic state
which will proceed to liberate Jerusalem and take steps towards
reestablishment of the Caliphate.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is a grave mistake for us to not take our
enemy at their word. The jihadists do not want peace. They want
capitulation. We ignored their threats in the 1980s and they bombed our
Marine barracks in Beirut. We ignored their rhetoric in the nineties
and they bombed the World Trade Center and our embassies in Africa. We
ignored their threats in the days leading up to September 11, and our
world was changed forever.
Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards described this
resolution best when he compared it to a child standing in a corner,
stomping his feet. This resolution may draw headlines, but it will not
change a thing.
We have one Commander in Chief, not 435 separate executives. What the
Congress does have is the power of the purse and the ability to cut off
the funding for the war. Let's be honest. This resolution is the first
step in that direction.
If cutting off funding is the Democrats' plan, and I believe it is,
then let them state it openly. They are no longer the voice of the
opposition in Congress. They are the majority, and they have an
obligation to govern. It is time for them to create a plan, a real
course of success. The American people are waiting.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the
Representative from California, Diane Watson, senior member of the
Foreign Affairs Committee.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, the escalation of the conflict in Iraq is an
exercise in futility. It has been 3 years now since the President
declared that our original mission was accomplished in Iraq.
And then the President let victory escape from our grasp. He confused
the toppling of Saddam Hussein with accomplishing the mission.
But there is a more important question being raised here on the House
floor. It is an issue which has confused our mission in Iraq from the
beginning. And it is the preposterous argument that Iraq is part of the
war against al Qaeda.
The al Qaeda attack on America killed almost 3,000 innocent Americans
in New York, at the Pentagon, and in a field outside of Shanksville,
Pennsylvania. We pursued al Qaeda into Afghanistan, dislodged the
Taliban and cornered Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora. We had al Qaeda on
the run. We had the world united against terror and in favor of freedom
and democracy.
But then the President switched his focus at a critical time. He
dismissed the factors which had brought success in Afghanistan, a just
cause, clear evidence, and a community of nations, and instead pursued
his Iraqi adventure based on faulty intelligence and employing a
strategy rejected by his own Army Chief of Staff and numerous other
generals.
Thus, the President gave al Qaeda breathing room; he let them
regroup, because he lost focus on the war on al Qaeda, to wage war on
Iraq. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouped.
Iraq is not the central front in the war on al Qaeda. Iraq is a
distraction from the war on al Qaeda. Each day we spend in Iraq is a
day we are not working to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice.
Whatever happened to Osama bin Laden? Why aren't we looking for him?
We have a direct connection to 9/11. The families of those who
perished on 9/11 are still waiting for an answer.
This escalation is an appalling display of our weakness. We are
sending only 21,000 combat troops to Iraq because, after stretching our
military thin for 4 years, that is all the troops we have available at
the moment.
The President cannot tell us what victory is or when he hopes to
achieve it. What is really our goal in Iraq? What are we trying to
achieve? And are we going to leave this mess for the next President?
Today, Iraq is consumed by civil war. Her neighbors, including our
allies, Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey, are overwhelmed with refugees, and
Iran is strengthened and emboldened. If that is not already
destabilized, then the word truly has no meaning.
The occupation itself is what is destabilizing Iraq. The occupation
is placing Americans on the killing fields. The occupation undermines
American prestige and authority, and the occupation in Iraq makes it
harder to defeat al Qaeda.
The military battle is over. Our only hope is to change course, to
acknowledge the reality that we have lost the military struggle in
Iraq. Only then can we reengage with a strategy to give us a political
victory.
We must remove our forces and move forward with a political and
diplomatic strategy to engage both our allies and our adversaries in
the region. This will mean talking to Iran, not capitulating to Iran.
Even at the height of the Cold War, Reagan was willing to talk to
Moscow. Until we are willing to engage with Iran, our friends in the
Middle East, who fear Iranian dominance as much as we do, will not
believe we are serious about confronting the Iranian threats.
Last, and most appalling, is the desperation accusation that we are
going to cut off funds for our troops. Simply not true.
This attack is especially galling when it has been a Republican
Congress and a Republican President who, for 4 years, left our troops
vulnerable, without proper equipment, without proper armor, and in an
effort to fight this war on the cheap.
I will never vote to leave our troops without the support they need.
But neither will I vote to continue down a path that is putting them at
needless risk.
Vote for this bill.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 6 minutes to my
colleague from Alabama, who recognizes the danger of believing that we
can negotiate with al Qaeda and bin Laden, Mr. Everett.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the
Intelligence Committee, my friend from Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 63,
the Democrats' nonbinding resolution that does nothing to improve the
outcome of the war, but does much to hurt the war against terrorism.
The resolution claims they support the troops. However, regardless of
what the previous speaker said, they refuse to protect the money our
troops must have while they are in harm's way.

{time} 1745

If we wanted to have a meaningful debate on the real issues facing
this country, we would take up Congressman Sam Johnson's bill that
opposes any effort to cut off or restrict funding for our military.
But that is not the debate we are having today. Instead, we are
debating a nonbinding resolution that, in my mind, can only hurt our
troops who are on the battlefield as we speak, and this resolution can
only give comfort to those who wish to kill Americans.
Making Iraq a secure place is difficult because of deep-seated
religious and ethnic divisions. This is highlighted by the murderous
acts of Saddam's dictatorship that killed so many thousands. In
addition, al Qaeda and local terrorists along with hostile foreign
governments, including Iran, have both encouraged and funded the
current violence in the hopes that Iraq will not follow the path to
democracy. They must not be allowed to succeed.
Any American lives lost in the defense of our Nation is one too many.
Yet we must not turn from our task of defeating terrorism before the
job is done. President Bush is the Commander in Chief and intends to
reinforce American troop strength by 21,000 soldiers to help Iraq's new
government finally control violence and restore order. While I believe
the decision to increase troop strength in Iraq could have been made
much sooner and in greater numbers, it today presents the only viable
option to bringing order to the country and laying the foundation for
Iraqi Government control of that nation's security.
Iraq's government is taking new steps to control the violence from
all ethnic groups and made it clear that

[[Page H1524]]

our abandoning them at this stage would guarantee failure for democracy
in Iraq. And it would ensure a tremendous setback in America's battle
to deny terrorism a foothold and give them more chances to continue to
kill Americans. Pulling back now with no viable plan to stabilize Iraq
would be a disastrous action. This sentiment was expressed in the most
recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the NIE is the intelligence community's
most authoritative written judgments on national security issues and is
designed to help us develop policies to protect U.S. national security
interests. Specifically, this report states: ``Coalition capabilities,
including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential
stabilizing element in Iraq.'' In addition, it goes on to say: ``If
coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this
estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a
significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in
Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have
adverse consequences for national reconciliation.''
While America must not be in Iraq indefinitely, we should not leave
without ensuring that the terrorists that are there are put down. To do
otherwise would be terribly shortsighted and would ultimately embolden
our terrorist enemies who have made no secret of their desire to
continue to kill Americans.
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and Intelligence
Committee, I have monitored the developments in the war on terrorism,
including those in Iraq. I met with President Bush in the White House
to discuss the military mission in Iraq shortly after he outlined his
strategy for Iraq in early January. We explored what would happen in
Iraq, the Middle East, and America if we withdrew from the fight before
Iraq's democratic government is strong enough to maintain the peace.
Our conclusion was that Iraq would become a sanctuary for terrorists
and a base from which they could launch future attacks against
Americans.
Some Members have tried to claim that the war in Iraq has nothing to
do with the war on terrorism. That is the only way they can justify
this nonbinding resolution, and that is pure nonsense.
We have the greatest military on the face of the Earth, one that no
other military dare stand before lest they be destroyed. The only thing
that can defeat us is the lack of will. And may God help us if we lose
the will to defend this great Nation against terrorism.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California, Hilda Solis, member of the Energy and Commerce Committee
and Vice Chair of the Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 63.
I am a strong supporter of our service men and women and strongly
committed to finding a reasonable and responsible resolution which
includes a redeployment of our troops. However, a responsible
resolution does not include the deployment of more of our brave service
men and women to Iraq. Sixty-six percent of Americans oppose the
President's escalation plan to send additional troops to Iraq. They
believe, as I do, without a new policy to secure the peace and
stabilize Iraq, further escalation will do nothing but unnecessarily
risk the lives of more U.S. service men and women.
There are currently 135,000 U.S. troops courageously serving in Iraq.
At the direction of our government, they left their fathers, mothers,
brothers, children, and wives. This war is having, as you know, a
significant impact on their families and our communities.
In the district that I represent, the 32nd Congressional District of
California, we have lost 13 sons to combat. Note the photograph that I
have here on display. This includes Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez
from the city of Duarte in the San Gabriel Valley, who bravely served
our country despite not even being a U.S. citizen. I was able to meet
his parents. They were very humble individuals who spoke only Spanish
and proudly stated that their son served their country with honor. It
breaks my heart to think that this was only one servicemember, only one
of the more than 3,000 families that have been through this since the
war started almost 4 years ago.
The past 3 months, as you know, have been the deadliest months in the
war in over 2 years. While Latinos make up 12 percent of the U.S.
population, they make up 17 percent of the service men and women in
combat in Iraq, and 11 percent of those have already been killed. U.S.
casualties are now more than 3,100 and more than 23,400 service men and
women have been wounded in action, and nearly half of those wounded
will not be able to lead a normal life because of severe injuries,
permanent disabilities, and post-traumatic stress syndrome. Yet many of
these service men and women will return to Iraq for a second, third,
and maybe even a fourth tour.
The President's proposal to escalate ignores the real needs of our
troops and the grave reality of this situation. Three times in the past
2 years the number of U.S. troop levels have increased in Iraq. Three
times this approach has failed. And during Operation Together Forward,
additional troops were sent into Baghdad because of an increase in
sectarian violence. U.S. military spokesman General William Caldwell
stated that the increase was a failure and had ``not met our overall
expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence.''
Even the commander of the U.S. Central Command in Iraq has testified
that top military commanders in Iraq do not believe that increasing the
number of troops is the right approach. He stated, ``I do not believe
that more American troops right now is the solution to this problem. I
believe that the troop levels need to stay where they are.''
Increasing the number of U.S. troops is not a solution. The increase
does nothing to improve long-term security and end sectarian violence.
Our country needs a policy to secure and stabilize Iraq and one that
constructively engages in diplomacy and partners with our neighboring
countries and the region to create a stable and peaceful nation, not a
blank check to send more men and women into harm's way. We need a
policy and a plan to put the welfare of our service men and women first
so they can come home, rejoin their families, and receive the care they
deserve. They should include adequate services for returning service
men and women, including culturally competent care, mental health care
for veterans, housing and education.
We need a plan to ensure that U.S. tax dollars are not going to war
profiteering and fraud, such as the $1.4 billion that has been somehow
charged by Halliburton. I strongly believe that this is possible, but
it will require courage, cooperation, and leadership on the part of all
my colleagues. Let me say to my colleagues that I support our troops
and the war on terror. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq is not the war on
terror.
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to support and protect our sons and
daughters who are serving, as these young people have served us so
well. I will do so by voting for this resolution and by supporting
their redeployment.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 5 minutes to my
colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the co-Chairs of the Iraq Study Group, former Secretary
of State James Baker and former House Foreign Affairs Chairman Lee
Hamilton, wrote late last year: ``There is no magic formula to solve
the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to
improve the situation and protect American interests.
``Many Americans are dissatisfied,'' they go on to say, ``not just
with the situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate
regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach
to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly
war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric
and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The President
and Congress,'' Baker and Hamilton go on to say, ``must work
together.''
``The President and Congress must work together.'' ``Our country
deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric.'' Good advice,
especially when we are in the middle of a war to

[[Page H1525]]

help a suffering people living in a tortured land striving to
matriculate from dictatorship to democracy.
Like many Americans, Mr. Speaker, I too have serious questions about
this war, especially its cost in human life. I too am impatient and
want our men and women brought safely home as quickly as possible.
But with so many Americans and Iraqis and coalition forces at risk,
it is important to ask what message a nonbinding surge disapproval
resolution with no force of law might have on a troop surge already
under way and what message do we send to our troops, our allies, and
our enemies. Will it demoralize even a little, maybe a lot, those brave
Americans who have put their lives on the line so that others may be
free? Will it undermine the resolve, commitment, and solidarity of
those nations that have stood with us against the hate and murder of
the extremists? And how will our enemies regard passage of this
resolution? With celebration? Will they step up their already far too
robust campaign of terrorism, murder, and suicide bombing?
If the Democratic leadership wants to stop the surge or the war
itself, bring a measure to the floor to defund it. The debate on
defunding the war and, most certainly, the vote would have predictable
clear-cut consequences. The President can't spend money on a war he
doesn't first get from Congress. But by offering what is essentially a
sense of the House resolution, the weakest, least effective way of
driving home a point because it compels nothing, I am concerned that
the House this week may, unwittingly, significantly hurt the morale of
our warfighters while empowering the hate mongers. Surely no one in
this Chamber wants that.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green), member of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee and Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on Health.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
allowing me to speak.
I rise today in support of this resolution. The President's
escalation, or surge, as he calls it, is not a strategy that will quell
the violence in Iraq.
We have heard for too long that change in Iraq is just around the
corner, and we continue to spend billions of dollars and have taken
thousands of U.S. casualties.
I supported our goals to bring democracy to Iraq, voted for the Iraq
resolution, and voted for the billions of dollars to support that
effort. And I will not vote to cut funding for our troops while they
are in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan.

{time} 1800

They are doing their best with a very flawed plan, and that doesn't
come from just Gene Green saying it. I heard it less than a year after
we went there, from e-mails that parents forwarded me.
Our goals were great in Iraq. The plan was not. The administration's
plan has not worked since the first year. It is time we send a strong
message to the President that we no longer support the administration's
strategy.
President Bush addressed the Nation on January 10 of this year to
announce his plans to send an additional 21,500 soldiers and marines to
Iraq. This move ignores advice from the military and has been tried
before without success.
General John Abizaid, former commander of the Central Command,
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on November 15,
2006, that he and General George Casey, the Corps Commander, and
Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey all agreed that more troops were not
needed. The White House is continuing with the same flawed strategy to
pacify the country that has not worked, and adding another 20,000
troops will not make it work.
March 19 of this year will mark 4 years since we went into Iraq. May
1 will mark 4 years since the President declared ``mission
accomplished.'' But we turn on the news today and still see headlines,
``Car Bombers Kill 60 in Baghdad,'' ``Four More American Soldiers
Killed in Gunfight With Militia.''
We have made great strides in Iraq, but we are now trying to police a
war between sectarian armies. Our troops have performed all that has
been asked of them, and according to the National Security Council's
analysis, we have achieved many of our initial objectives: removing
Saddam Hussein from power, assisting Iraq with a constitution and free
elections, and helping establish democratic institutions.
It is time for the Iraqis to take control of their own country and
that we begin bringing our troops home. This is in the best interests
of our military, the Iraqis and our national security.
Our forces cannot indefinitely sustain the demands we currently are
placing on them. Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace acknowledged last
week when testifying before the House Armed Services Committee that
nondeployed U.S. forces are not sufficiently equipped, echoing similar
concerns expressed recently by Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker and
Lieutenant General Steven Blum, chief of the Pentagon's National Guard
Bureau.
The Guard, nationwide, is only equipped to about 30 percent of their
needs. Units are taking equipment with them into theatre and being
forced to leave much of it for other units to use when they come home.
It will cost about $25 billion to reequip the National Guard and
Reserves to pre-Iraqi war levels.
We cannot continue to send troops to Iraq for 12-month deployments
every other year and expect to maintain a well-equipped and experienced
fighting force with high morale.
This resolution expresses the beliefs of many Members of this House
that sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq is not in our Nation's
interests and not a solution for the violence in Iraq. The solution is
for the Iraqi Government, the elected government, to do what they need
to do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my colleague from
California (Mr. Issa), a member of the Intelligence Committee
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be modified at page 1, line 6, after the word ``Iraq'' to include
``personnel from the United States Intelligence Community who are
serving or who have served bravely and honorably worldwide to counter
radical jihadists.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kaptur). The previous question has been
ordered without amendment.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, does that mean that unanimous consent cannot
be offered?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question has been ordered, to
adoption of the concurrent resolution without intervening motion.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, further point of inquiry. My understanding
is that a unanimous consent request is always in order separate from
the rule. Is that not correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not correct. Under the present
circumstances the Chair is constrained not to entertain an amendment to
the resolution.
Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, that makes it very clear that in fact even if there is
no objection to including the brave men and women who operate, often
without weapons, who operate behind enemy lines, who in fact are part
of our Intelligence Community, they cannot be included in this
resolution. It is a sad day when democracy does not even include that
which there is no objection to from being considered.
Notwithstanding that, Madam Speaker, I think it is extremely
important that we deal with the limited strict language we have been
offered, and, in the spirit of that strict language, I must oppose it.
I must oppose it because in fact on a strict basis this resolution, if
heeded by the administration, says stay a failed course of action.
Madam Speaker, it is amazing that the election very clearly told us
in November that the American people were not comfortable with the
conduct of this war; that in fact on both sides of the aisle, people
were calling for a bolder vision, a vision that was more aggressive
diplomatically and militarily. In fact, two Presidential candidates,
Senator Hillary Clinton and,

[[Page H1526]]

in fact, Senator McCain, are and have been saying we should have had
more troops early, we should have more troops now. It is amazing that
in fact the one thing this resolution is saying is stay the course,
make no changes.
Further, regardless of what my Democrat colleagues would say today,
the next step after ``Mr. President, we will not send more troops,''
is, ``Mr. President, we will not send more tanks; Mr. President, we
will not send further personnel and intellectual gatherers to
understand our enemy; Mr. President, we won't send more translators;
Mr. President, we cannot and will not support more body armor; Mr.
President, we will not support this war on terror throughout the
region.''
Those are the next steps, because you can't simply say, as this
resolution tries to, stay the course. Do nothing. No increases, no
decreases. Support the troops, but send them no more.
That makes as much sense as telling the people at the Alamo, stay the
course. That wasn't the right solution at the Alamo. At the Alamo they
should have either increased their forces so that they could have
sustained the bombardment, or withdrawn.
We, in fact, are in a position where the President has made a
multitude of new initiatives, one of which includes additional troops
to help relieve those tired troops, to help bring the force level up to
a level similar to exactly what Presidential candidates on both sides
of the aisle were clamoring for just a few weeks ago and throughout the
election.
Madam Speaker, one of the other things that just amazes me, today I
took a little time and I checked out how many Members of Congress
served in the military. It turns out it is less than one-third. I
checked out how many Members went to Iraq in the previous Congress. It
turns out less than one-third.
The fact is that we are considering a resolution as though we were
General Petraeus, a man who was unanimously confirmed in the Senate
just a few days ago, and deployed to support and defend our troops and
this effort, who is solidly convinced that we have to do more and do it
better and who is there to do it and was unanimously confirmed.
In closing, Madam Speaker, only here, with less than one-third of the
Members having gone and seen what is going on in Iraq, less than one-
third having served in the military, even at a minor level of
lieutenant or captain or private, have the hubris to say that we have
to not add, not subtract, just keep the exact same number that we and
the American people believe is not getting the job done. That is
exactly what this resolution is claiming to do. We are not given an
alternative in any way, shape or form.
So, Madam Speaker, there is no choice on either side of the aisle.
Whether you believe we should have more or we should have less, nobody
believes that we should stay the exact course with no change, and that
is what this is asking for.
So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to realize that
in fact this resolution calls for the one thing that the American
people most object to, and that is unchanged staying the course at this
level. The American people called on us in November to do something
bolder, to bring peace in the region, and I call on you to vote down
this resolution just exactly to do that
Mr. CARNAHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, this debate marks the beginning of the end of the ill-
conceived, mismanaged and ultimately failed war in Iraq. The war in
Iraq was launched on the basis of false and misleading intelligence
about a nonexistent nuclear weapons program. When the inspectors looked
for nuclear weapons in all the most likely places, there was nothing
there. When they looked in all the unlikely places, there was nothing
there. When this was reported to the world, the world said ``don't
invade.'' But when this was reported to the President of the United
States, he chose to invade Iraq. In other words, the President did the
opposite of what the evidence would dictate.
Here we are, 4 years after the invasion. The American people looked
at the facts on the ground in Iraq and voted in November to de-
escalate. The generals looked at the situation and said de-escalate.
The Iraq Study Group analyzed our options and said we should de-
escalate.
So what has the President of the United States decided? After all the
evidence, he has chosen to escalate the war. Once again, our President
is doing the opposite of what the evidence and common sense dictates.
Our troops continue to fight heroically to prevent Iraq from sliding
into anarchy, but they are losing ground to a deep emotional cycle of
religious strife and revenge that goes back 14 centuries. Our soldiers
cannot be beaten on the military battlefield, but neither should they
be faulted for failing to drain a political swamp.
The American people are now speaking out with one clear voice, in
frustration and in anger, demanding change, demanding a new direction
in Iraq. But the President isn't giving us a new direction. All he has
to offer is more of the same, an escalation of our troop presence in
Iraq. And this escalation ignores the recommendation of the bipartisan
Iraq Study Group, which said that all combat brigades not necessary for
force protection could be out of Iraq by the beginning of 2008.
This week, we have a choice: We can say no to the President's failed
war in Iraq, we can say no to the President's escalation, and we can
say no to the unnecessary loss of another American soldier, marine or
airman; or we can once again vote to stay the course and to continue on
with this failed policy.
Many Americans have expressed frustration that the resolution we vote
on this week is a nonbinding resolution, and I understand that
frustration. On January 9, Senator Kennedy and I introduced companion
bills in the Senate and House to block President Bush's new plan to
escalate troop levels in Iraq. Our legislation would prevent the
obligation or expenditure of a single dollar to increase the number of
troops in Iraq unless Congress affirmatively voted to do so.
But I would not dismiss this resolution's importance simply because
it is nonbinding. Twenty-four years ago, this House took up another
nonbinding resolution when it first debated my nuclear freeze
resolution. We passed the nuclear freeze on the floor of the House. It
was nonbinding and it never passed the Senate. But it nevertheless
changed the course of this Nation's nuclear weapons policy. It did so
because of the pressure it put on the White House to change, and it was
followed by binding legislation that halted tests of anti-satellite
weapons, cut funding for Star Wars and cut in half the plan size of the
MX missile force.
That is why I fully understand why some Republican Members have
simultaneously denounced this resolution as silly and unserious, and,
at the same time, have tried to prevent its passage. Why are they
afraid of a nonbinding resolution? Because this resolution exposes the
lack of support in the Congress for the President's escalation scheme.
The administration's failed strategy has already ended any chance of
a successful short-term outcome. The just-released, deeply pessimistic
National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq simply confirms this situation.
We are in the middle of a sectarian religious civil war in Iraq, and
the presence of our troops is preventing the Iraqi people from taking
responsibility for their own security and for their own political
solution that must follow.
This war should never have been fought, period. It was a mistake, the
American people know it was a mistake, our military leaders know it was
a mistake and a bipartisan majority in the United States Congress know
it was a mistake.

{time} 1815

Let's pass this resolution and send a strong signal to the Bush
administration that it is time to stop the escalation, bring this war
to an end, and bring our troops home. I urge adoption of this
resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kaptur). Please state your parliamentary
inquiry.

[[Page H1527]]

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Does this resolution include any provisions expressing
support for the members of the United States intelligence community
serving inside of Iraq?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the pending
measure.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. When would it be appropriate to ask for unanimous
consent to correct this oversight in this resolution that only
addresses support for our armed services, but as the ranking member of
the Intelligence Committee, I feel that it does a great injustice to
the hundreds of people in the intelligence community who are not
recognized for their service in Iraq?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would look to the majority manager
of the concurrent resolution for any proposal to alter it.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Would it be appropriate at any time during the debate
on this resolution to ask for unanimous consent to modify this
resolution to address the significant oversight in the underlying
resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would only entertain such a
request at the instance of the majority manager of the concurrent
resolution.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the Chair
With that, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from the
State of Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to be a member of the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Our chairman, Mr. Lantos, has
scheduled for March a hearing to discuss the different proposals
relating to the handling of the war in Iraq. He has promised a lot of
time for debate on all the different bills introduced in the House of
Representatives, ranging from those that call for us to pull out of
Iraq immediately, to those that demonstrate our presence there as part
of a larger war, not against a nation, but against a movement, Islamic
jihadis. They are everywhere and are responsible for attacks in India,
Jordan, Israel, England, Egypt, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Russia,
Spain, Turkey, the Gaza, Morocco, Pakistan and in the United States and
Iraq.
Chairman Lantos wants to make sure that all sides are heard, that all
possible alternatives are given an airing. But that is what is missing
in the bill that the Democratic majority has given us this evening: it
can't be amended. Can you imagine three days of debate without the
opportunity to amend a bill? That implies the Democratic leadership
believes they have a monopoly on truth and fear input from other
Members of Congress.
The bill we are debating today condemns the infusion of up to 21,000
more troops in Iraq. However, at a time when we should be excited about
a new proposal calling for a major shift in our policy on Iraq, the
bill we are debating condemns it. This proposal taps as its new leader
Lieutenant General David Patraeus, who should be given an opportunity
to succeed. Confirmed unanimously by the Senate, he has extensive
knowledge of other wars and military conflicts and has resolved that
America can achieve a favorable result in Iraq.
The new policy is a shift in the rules of engagement and calls upon
the Iraqis themselves to step up in responsibility and achievement. A
Washington Post story dated January 12 of this year with the byline,
``Withdrawals could start if Iraq plan works: Gates,'' repeats the
words of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testifying before the Senate
Armed Services Committee on January 11, Gates said: ``If these
operations actually work, you can begin to see a lessening of the U.S.
footprint both in Baghdad and Iraq itself. Then you could have a
situation later this year where you could actually begin withdrawing.''
Isn't that what Americans want, a plan of action with a new focus,
stabilizing Iraq and bringing our troops home? But that plan is not
being debated today, and that is why I am going to vote against this
resolution.
We live in extremely dangerous times. We know Iran is developing
atomic weaponry. We also know that six other Arab nations are actively
seeking atomic technology, according to the International Atomic Energy
Agency. The stakes are onerous. That is why America's men and women in
uniform not only deserve our support in the field, but also here in the
House of Representatives, by allowing their opinions to be voiced
through their Members of Congress. It is the least we can do for them.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California, Maxine Waters, Chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise as Chair of the 76-member Out of
Iraq Caucus, and I will be followed by many other members during this
hour. I rise in support of our troops and in support of this resolution
opposing the President's escalation of this war.
Madam Speaker, I support this resolution, hoping this will be a first
step in ending this war and reuniting our troops with their families
and loved ones. This is an unbinding resolution. The real test for this
Congress is going to be whether or not we will continue to fund this
war.
For nearly 4 years, our troops have served bravely and admirably in
Iraq. Unfortunately, the President and his administration have decided
to pursue a political agenda when it decided to push for an invasion of
Iraq. The President ignored the advice of dozens of experts inside and
outside the government about invading Iraq. For example, the
administration ignored the intelligence community's opinions about the
status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The
administration also ignored recommendations about the number of troops
needed to secure Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussein. In
addition, the President and the administration ignored warnings about
the difficulty and danger of occupying Iraq and that Iraq would likely
break down into sectarian violence.
In short, the administration ignored everything that conflicted with
its plan to invade Iraq. Unfortunately, no one has borne the burdens of
the administration's Iraq narrow agenda more than our troops and their
families. The decision to escalate the war, to send more than 21,000
additional troops to Iraq, will only increase the burden on our troops.
Many of the troops serving in Iraq have served two, three, even four
tours of duty. And of course the failed Iraq policy has resulted in the
death of 3,109 U.S. troops, including 325 from my own State of
California, and injury of more than 23,000 others.
Madam Speaker, many experts believe that the President's latest plan
will not work, and early indications support that conclusion. About
5,000 troops have arrived in Baghdad since the President announced the
plan in January, yet the violence and devastation in Iraq is
increasing. It is estimated that more than 2,276 Iraqi civilians have
died so far this year and that more than 1,000 Iraqi security forces
and 33 U.S. servicemen have died in just the past week. We are sending
thousands more troops to Iraq in what is now known to be a civil war.
Sending more troops to Iraq is not the answer. The key to stabilization
is bringing our troops home and renewing our commitment to diplomacy.
This resolution is the first step in reining in this President and
his misguided policies. However, as many have noted, this is, again, an
unbinding resolution. I look forward to working with my colleagues on
the war, spending bills that will be considered in the coming months to
enact meaningful changes to this failed policy and to finally bring our
troops home. The future of the entire Middle East is at stake.
The President does not appear to understand or appreciate the
situation in Iraq is deteriorating each day. We are losing; however, we
can win. And we will win by using leadership to engage and unite rather
than attempting to overpower and conquer. Who are we fighting? The
Sunnis, the Kurds, the Shias? Who are the insurgents? Some Sunnis, some
Shias, some Kurds? Who are the terrorists? Shias, Sunnis, Kurds,
Syrians, Iranians? Who are we fighting? I don't think our soldiers
know, and I am not so sure this administration has really given the
kind of deep thought and consideration as to who we are really
fighting.

[[Page H1528]]

Diplomacy is the only answer. Today, we must oppose this escalation.
However, I have no choice but in the final analysis to oppose continued
funding of the American taxpayers' dollars to the war giant whose
appetite cannot be satisfied, but in the interest of peace, must be
denied.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I think we need to ask
ourselves several questions: Does this resolution make America safer?
Does this resolution send a message to our allies that draws them
closer to us? Does this resolution encourage our troops, or does it
discourage our troops?
We heard about de-escalation and when that might be appropriate, when
it may not be. But I can tell you that this resolution does not
accomplish de-escalation. In fact, it does not even support the troops
on their way as we speak. It only supports the troops who have served
or are currently serving.
Madam Speaker, in my conversations with constituents, with soldiers,
with those closest to the situation, they see hope, they see hope in a
change of strategy. We know that the status quo is not what we need to
do, and that is why a change in strategy is certainly in order.
I don't pretend to be General Patraeus, and I hope that none of us
pretend to know more about the situation than General Patraeus.
I am concerned when we hear that this resolution is the first step
for cutting funding. Why don't we just put that resolution up right
now? We can save a lot of time; we can send a more direct message. Is
that the appropriate thing to do? I hope that you will join me in
voting ``no'' on this resolution because I support our troops and their
mission.
Mr. CARNAHAN. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York, Jose
Serrano, member of the House Appropriations Committee.
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. This is, indeed, a very solemn occasion; and anyone
watching this debate, either on television or in the gallery, should
understand that we take very seriously what we say here today. We may
disagree on what the final outcome should be, but we do take it very
seriously.
And I take it seriously as I recall a funeral I attended, it seems a
long time ago, for a member of the Armed Forces, Luis Moreno, who was
killed in Iraq. I remember that rainy morning, leaving the church on
the way to the cemetery, the pain and the sadness that took place in
the whole community, the pain and the sadness that engulfed a family
and everyone who was there.
We took seriously the loss of that life, and we honor every day the
fact that he was sent to that battlefield and he gave his life for that
particular cause, which we discuss today.
We are here in his honor to say that we have to make sure that we no
longer continue to escalate this war which was presented to us, it
seems again, a long time ago based on, at the minimum, false
information, and at most, sadly, lies presented to this Congress.

{time} 1830

We have to make sure that no further loss of life takes place. So
much has been said today about supporting our troops. Well, I know of
no greater support than to bring them home tomorrow morning.
I know a lot of people will say, if you bring them home, Iraq will
become a mess. Well, has anyone noticed that Iraq is a mess?
Well, if you bring them home now, Iraq will become a country in a
civil war. Has anyone noticed that Iraq is involved in a civil war?
The question is, will we wait for more Americans to lose their lives
and more to be wounded?
When I say that we were given bad information or possibly lied to, we
were told at that time, I remember, how the weapons of mass destruction
were stored in Iraq and that we had to get them before they got us, and
how there was a link between al Qaeda and September 11 and Saddam
Hussein. And now, even the administration and its ardent supporters
agree that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and September 11,
there was no link between al Qaeda, there was no link between any of
that that we were told; and we still haven't found the weapons of mass
destruction. It was simply a desire to take us to where we shouldn't
be. And in the process, we really blew it.
I was in New York City on September 11; I was not with my colleagues
here. It was election day in New York, primary day, and I was there in
New York on that day for some local elections. I lived through that
moment, and I know how painful that was. But beginning with September
12, the world was with us. Every country was supportive of what we were
going through. It always amazed me that countries that live with
terrorism on a daily basis thought that, for some reason, the attack on
us was in many ways even bigger than the attacks on their own country,
and they supported us. We could have taken that goodwill and used it
for positive things throughout the world. What did we do? We totally
lost the goodwill by going and invading a country that had nothing to
do with September 11. And so now, the same people who supported us no
longer support us.
What we are doing here today is exerting a constitutional right. This
is not a political exercise, this is not a legislative exercise, this
is Members of Congress saying that it is our right to oversee the
President and to stop him whenever we can when we know that any
President, any administration is making a mistake.
Now, how has this administration been able to keep us supportive in
some ways up to now? By doing something which is really sad, by
questioning our patriotism. And so tonight and tomorrow and for the
next couple of days more will question our patriotism. But I ask you,
isn't a true patriot he or she who is not holding back to question the
actions of his country even during wartime? Isn't that the true patriot
who is willing to say, even during wartime, stop it now, stop the
madness before it goes any further and before we lose more of our young
people?
And so we gather here after 3,109 losses, after 23,000 wounded
soldiers saying we have to stop it now, and we have to vote for this
resolution.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. At this point in time, I would like to yield 5\1/2\
minutes to a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also a member
of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, Mr. Fortenberry from Nebraska.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, when I left home this week for
Washington, my 6-year-old Kathryn became very sad. See, she has big,
beautiful brown eyes and they welled up with tears at the prospect of
my leaving again for Washington. And she said to me, Daddy, why do you
have to be a Congressman? And I thought of the words of the
Revolutionary War author Thomas Paine when he said, ``I prefer peace;
but if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children
can have peace.''
Madam Speaker, this is a pivotal moment for our Nation and a very
grave, solemn policy debate. We cannot afford to allow the ups and
downs of the daily news cycle set the course for our deliberations. The
stakes in Iraq are simply too high.
During last year's debate on Iraq, I emphasized that this war is
different from wars of the past. There is no front, no lines of
demarcation, no clear enemy in distinct uniforms. This is a war that
invades tranquil time and space without warning, carried out by those
who hide among populations seeking to exploit the vulnerable for
ruthless, ideological purposes.
We have never before waged a war in an era of globalization, in an
age when technology eviscerates the concept of distance, magnifies our
losses, trivializes our accomplishments, and places our adversaries in
a far better position to leverage our freedoms, particularly the
freedom of speech, against us. These are the complexities we face now.
Madam Speaker, I submit that our choices now stand to determine not
only the future of the Middle East but the very future of civilization.
We can point fingers and blame each other, or we can think
constructively together.
So what are our choices? The National Intelligence Estimate
categorically rejects an arbitrary or precipitous U.S. troop
withdrawal. The result

[[Page H1529]]

would be horrific chaos, a humanitarian disaster, destabilizing the
entire Middle East, emboldening the geopolitical aims of Iran, and
leading to a much less peaceful world in very short order.
The conflict in Iraq is dangerous, risky, and complex. And we can all
agree that our troops are doing an outstanding job, and so are their
families who bear the biggest burden in their absence.
I submit that our time and energy as leaders of this Nation should be
focused on new, clear military and geopolitical strategies.
First, Iraqis must fight for their own country now. They must lead in
the battle for Baghdad now.
Over the past several months I joined colleagues in urging the
President to deploy trained Iraqi troops into the heart of the battle
for Baghdad, and I am pleased to see that this recommendation is now
under way. However, I remain concerned about exposing our forces to
unnecessary danger in the sectarian violence of Baghdad. As best we
can, our troops should remain in support and training roles. I also
believe that it is prudent to send reinforcements to our marines in
Anbar province who are achieving good success against al Qaeda elements
in collaboration with Sunni tribal leadership.
Second, we must engage responsible members of the international
community, particularly the pan-Arab world, to assume a unified and
decisive role in neutralizing the forces of chaos and helping secure
stability and peace throughout the Middle East.
Third, we must provide meaningful congressional oversight. And I
commend Chairman Lantos for taking this lead in the House Foreign
Affairs Committee and for his commitment to a substantive and reasoned
debate in this regard.
I would have liked to have had the opportunity to support a
constructive bipartisan initiative drawing upon the substantive
resources like the Iraqi Study Group to enhance congressional oversight
and set out meaningful benchmarks to measure progress toward the
stabilization of Iraq and the drawdown of our troops.
While it would be politically easier for me to vote for this
resolution, I cannot. I see no useful purpose in supporting a
nonbinding resolution that may have the unintentional consequence of
undermining our efforts while our troops remain in harm's way.
Madam Speaker, this resolution, while wrapped in the mantle of
supporting our troops, does not point to a credible way forward in
Iraq. I believe I would make the same decision if a Democratic
administration were struggling with similarly arduous challenges. If we
flinch now, regardless of the goodwill behind our motivations, if we
are perceived as weak and divided and eager to throw up our hands in
frustration, we will pay a heavy price. And every nation that counts
upon us as a friend and ally will also pay a very heavy price. None of
us wants to see the repeat of the last helicopter out of Saigon.
I urge my colleagues, let's find constructive ways to get the job
done
Mr. SKELTON. May I make an inquiry, Madam Speaker, of how much time
has been consumed and how much time remains on each side, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 2 hours, 28
minutes. The gentleman from Michigan has 2 hours, 15\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The great Chinese strategist and thinker once wrote that war should
not be begun unless the end is in sight. Sadly, that admonition of Sun
Tzu was not adhered to in this war in Iraq.
Let me bring us back to what we are all about today. We have been
hearing discussions ranging from both ends of the football field. This
is a very simple, straightforward resolution.
The first part of it is: We fully support the American troops. And I
am going to say, Madam Speaker, we are so proud of them. They are
volunteers, they are professionals, they understand the word duty.
And, secondly: We do not agree with the troop increase of 21,500, for
the simple reason it has not worked in the past, for the simple reason
it is going to cause somewhere between 2,500 and 13,000 support troops
to support that effort. And, consequently, it is not a well-thought-out
tactic. And despite the fact that some wish to call it a strategy, it
is a tactic, and there is a large difference between the two.
Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to a member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee as well as the Budget Committee, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution supporting
our troops and disapproving the President's plan to escalate the war in
Iraq.
More than 4 years ago, the resolution to support a war in Iraq came
before this House. After careful consideration of the evidence and
arguments put forth for a unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq, I
decided I could not in good conscience vote for that resolution.
My ``no'' vote against the President's plan for war in Iraq is one of
my proudest moments in Congress. I didn't believe the case where war
had been made. There was no real evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. The administration's arguments about al Qaeda
connections with Iraq were specious, and its attempt to link Iraq with
the tragedy of 9/11 was shameful.
I was deeply concerned about the effects of preemptive war on
America's standing in the world, and equally worried about the
ramifications for the greater Middle East, a region of great importance
and even greater fragility. And I had strong concerns about the
administration's preparation for the aftermath of a war in Iraq. The
administration was completely focused on waging war and not on winning
the peace.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, all of those concerns have been borne
out. There were no WMDs, no al Qaeda connections, no 9/11 link. It was
all trumped up evidence by an administration consumed with toppling the
dictator in Iraq. Today, Iraq is in civil war, the Middle East is even
more unsettled, and our standing in the world is at a low point. The
international support given to America after 9/11 was squandered and
will take years to repair the damage. And, as a Nation, we are even
less secure today than we were the day we invaded Iraq. I point this
out only because it is critically important to know where we have been
if we want to know where we should be going.
This resolution gives voice to the deep, deep opposition here in the
Congress and throughout the country to the President's plan for
escalating the war in Iraq.

{time} 1845

I speak for the vast majority of my constituents on the central coast
of California when I state my unequivocal opposition to this
escalation. The administration's plan looks like more of the same
failed policies that got us here in the first place. It is a plan based
more on hope than on fact, buttressed by hysterical rhetoric. It is a
plan opposed by numerous military leaders and experts. It is, quite
frankly, simply not believable.
The recent National Intelligence Estimate makes it perfectly clear
that the President's grand plan is just never going to work. The
resolution here before us puts Congress on record against the
proposition that success will come only after more troops are thrown
into battle.
The other objective of this resolution is to remind everyone that
opposing the war in Iraq, and especially opposing the President's
escalation, is consistent with supporting our troops. Our men and women
in uniform have done everything we have asked them to do and so much
more. Over 3,000 have made the ultimate sacrifice. More than 20,000
others have been injured, so very many of them seriously.
Let no one doubt the bravery of our troops and the support that I and
my colleagues who are opposed to this war have for them. I am eternally
grateful for the sacrifices our men and women in uniform and their
families are willing to make every single day. They continue the long
distinguished line of soldiers, sailors and airmen that have kept our
country and so many others free from tyranny and oppression, but their
service is due more than heartfelt appreciation and flowery words from
politicians.

[[Page H1530]]

Their sacrifice, their service, is owed responsible leadership from
those civilian leaders with whom power ultimately rests, and that is
where our soldiers have been let down. This administration has taken
arrogance, stubbornness and incompetence to new heights. It ignored the
advice of military experts leading up to and throughout this war.
It stocked reconstruction teams with political hacks, and it brushed
off the indisputable reality of Iraq in a meltdown. It dismissed the
considered opinion of the Iraq Study Group, the Congress, most
importantly, the American people.
Make no mistake, the failure of the war in Iraq lies at the highest
levels of the White House and at the desks of the Pentagon's civilian
leadership, and the cost of that failure is borne by our troops, their
families and the Iraqi people. It is time for the administration to
stop obfuscating the conditions on the ground in Iraq, stop the charade
about so-called new plans that will finally bring success in Iraq.
Madam Speaker, it is time to stop the war in Iraq. Support the
troops. Indeed, bring them home.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize
my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, today tens of thousands of our young men and women are
serving in uniform heading for Iraq. More are headed there as we speak.
They will do what American soldiers do. They will serve our Nation with
courage and pride, and for that they deserve our deep gratitude.
Today in the House we are engaging in a debate on a resolution that
declares their military and humanitarian missions failed. I have seen
this resolution described in the press as symbolic, toothless and
meaningless. I couldn't disagree more. Our consideration of this
resolution, the words spoken on this floor, carry great meaning and
weight.
The actions of this body have consequences. When Members speak, the
world listens: our friends, our allies, our rivals, our enemies and
future enemies alike. What are they hearing?
I remember just 2 weeks ago, during the Super Bowl, seeing the video
of our troops in Baghdad watching the game. Our soldiers watched that
game. Every Member on this floor should know with certainty that our
soldiers surely are watching this debate, and so are their families,
and so are our enemies and so are the loved ones of those who made the
ultimate sacrifice in their service to our Nation.
Instead of showcasing the best partisan rhetoric and working for
political advantage, we should be working together with our Commander
in Chief to honor their service and commitment, to find a way forward
in Iraq that protects our Nation and results in a stable Iraq that can
govern and protect itself.
I know that none of us are happy with the progress of the war. I know
that the American people are struggling with this war. I struggle too.
I am reminded that we have been sent here by our constituents to
exercise our best judgment and to bring our experience to bear on the
most pressing issue facing our Nation, the global threat of a radical
Islamic fundamentalism.
Last week in the House Appropriations Committee on Defense, on which
I serve, I asked the chiefs of staff of the Army about the consequences
of failure in Iraq. I was reprimanded for getting off topic. But that
is the topic. That is the point. Withdrawal from Iraq will have
consequences, both immediate and in the seeds of future conflicts.
What will Congress do if we leave Iraq to flounder and descend into
chaos, and how will we handle the next challenge laid before us, for
there will be others. Do any of us doubt the determination of forces
who are counting on our failure, on our resolve? This is the most
fundamental question that confronts us, not solely the question of
troop reinforcement that is already under way. Our answer to this
question will be the legacy, not just of this President, but of all of
us in this Chamber.
Over 35 years ago I served with the Army in Vietnam. While I never
much advertised this fact, I was proud to serve, even as my father,
then a Member of Congress himself, was subject to many personal attacks
on the home front from those who opposed the Vietnam War.
Like many soldiers then, I wanted to do my time and come back safely.
I promised myself one day that if I had the chance, I would be a better
person, a better elected official, for that military experience. I
promised myself that I would never let our soldiers down wherever they
might be.
Madam Speaker, we are Americans first, and as Republicans and
Democrats, we need to come together to work on solutions in Iraq and
the Middle East. We are a Nation at war, lives are on the line, and we
could do much better than this resolution.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Northern Virginia, a member of the Appropriations Committee,
Congressman Jim Moran
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I would like to paraphrase a
poem that Rudyard Kipling wrote upon the death of his son in World War
I that seems particularly apt to the war in Iraq:
When they ask why the young men died
Tell them it's because the old men lied.
Madam Speaker, when the White House announced 4 years ago the U.S.
military would attack Iraq under the guise of the global war on
terrorism, there wasn't one single uniformed military officer who
believed that Iraq was part of a global war on terrorism. Saddam had
had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.
Saddam wasn't harboring any al Qaeda cells that did attack us. In
fact, they understood that starting a new war would distract us and
limit us from accomplishing our immediate need to eliminate Osama bin
Laden. Saddam was a vicious, secular, despotic dictator, but he saw al
Qaeda as a threat to his control, and al Qaeda viewed Saddam as an
enemy of their religious extremist world vision.
The U.S. Intelligence Community knew that there was no clear evidence
that Saddam was a threat to the United States. There was no failure of
our professional Intelligence Community, but there was an abysmal
failure of our political leadership.
So how did we get to this point? First we were scared with the threat
of Saddam's arsenals or weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda training
camps, an Iraqi meeting with the 9/11 hijacker, mobile labs, aluminum
tubing, yellow cake uranium. But there were no weapons of mass
destruction, Madam Speaker.
The training camps didn't exist. Mohamed Atta never met an Iraqi
agent in Prague. The White House knew, before they informed us about
the mobile labs, that our experts had determined that they were not in
any way related to chemical or biological weapons. Likewise, the
aluminum tubing was bogus information. Well before the so-called yellow
cake uranium from Niger was cited as evidence at an attempt at nuclear
armament, our Intelligence Community had informed the White House that
it was a hoax.
Yet we were told repeatedly by the President and the Vice President
that Saddam was a threat to global stability, that there was a direct
connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and September 11. We were told in
the buildup to the war that our troops would be greeted by the Iraqis
as liberators, being offered flowers in the streets. This was
propaganda that the State Department warned the White House not to
believe, but they nonetheless peddled it to the Congress and to the
American people.
We were told that to liberate Iraq was to spread freedom and
democracy, to keep oil out of the hands of potential terrorist-
controlled states. We were told that the war would pay for itself with
Iraqi oil revenues. Yet all we have done is to finance our enemies, the
insurgents and Iranian Shiia interests.
After Baghdad fell, we were told that America had prevailed, that the
mission was accomplished, that the resistance was in its last throes,
that more troops were not needed. As things went from bad to worse, we
were told of turning point after turning point, the fall of Baghdad,
the death of Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a
provisional government, the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution,
an Iraqi Government, elections,

[[Page H1531]]

purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam, all excuses for
triumphant rhetoric while the reality on the ground continued to
worsen.
We were told, as they stand up, we would stand down. We would stay
the course. Now we are told that there is a new course, but it is in
the same misguided direction. Falsehood after falsehood unravels each
day, with the morning paper reporting even more deaths.
Now the American people are being asked to put 20,000 more sons and
daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives into the line of
fire, and into the dead zone between the sectarian sides of a civil
war. A message was sent to President Bush on November 7, 2006. This
surge of more troops into Iraq defies the will of the American people.
But this is a new Congress. We will no longer be cowed by leaders
using 9/11 as a political ploy against sensible people who oppose the
administration's failed Iraq policy. Today for the first time since the
war began, Congress will go on record opposing the President's failed
Iraq policy. Some will argue that it is a nonbinding resolution, that
it will not have the impact of a law, that it will not stop a roadside
bomb or bring a single soldier home to their family. But the President
understands what this resolution means. It is the beginning of the end
of this wrong war of choice
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from
New York, a member of the Intelligence Committee, roughly 1 minute for
every foot of snow that his community has recently received.
Mr. McHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very roughly, you owe me a few.
Madam Speaker, listening to this debate tonight, it becomes obvious
that kind of like life itself, those of us in Congress have moments of
high drama and great importance, and by any measure, the date this
evening and tomorrow and the days that follow and, most importantly,
the vote that will attend it, is just such a moment.
I would observe, Madam Speaker, in the now nearly 231 years that this
great Union has endured, this House has encountered few sessions
demanding greater honesty, greater selflessness, and greater wisdom
than that of occasions of war. And as I said, this is such a time.
But this debate really does stand alone. It is unique over the more
than two centuries and three decades of our history, because from my
study at no time in this Nation's history has the Congress considered
the matter before us this week. The question of shall we resolve, in a
nonbinding resolution, that this House disagree with a mission, duly
designated by the constitutional authority vested in the President, as
Commander in Chief, in the conduct of the war, that this same Congress,
in an earlier session has, in fact, expressly endorsed.
I have listened today with great interest. I have enormous respect
for all Members on both sides of the aisle. But I have heard about how
wherever they are, many Members tonight will go to the well when they
ultimately vote and try to send the President a message, try to signify
to the administration that this war has not been conducted in the
appropriate way. It has not achieved the objectives that we all felt
were possible, in fact, absolutely necessary at its outset.

{time} 1900

I would say, Madam Speaker, I understand that perspective; not only
understand it, in many ways I strongly share that perspective. But I
have to argue the fact of the matter is, for all of the good intentions
we have here tonight, the negative aspect of such an action is going to
far outweigh, far outweigh whatever good it might attempt to achieve.
The reality is, if this message is heard at all at the other end of
Pennsylvania Avenue, it is going to speak in whispers. Whispers. But in
other lands, in other continents, in other cities, far, far away, when
this resolution comes before us, and if it is passed, it is going to
crash like thunder. In places like Ramadi and Basra, from Baghdad and
beyond, friend and foe alike are going to hear something far different
than what we intend.
They are going to hear that through this vote we have abandoned the
Iraqi people. They are going to hear that America has forsaken this
struggle. They will hear that we disavow our military objective in
Baghdad really before it has meaningfully begun, and most importantly
in the shadows where our enemies lurk, in places like Tehran and
Damascus, the message will fail where its authors intend, but it will
succeed very, very mightily where they wish it would not.
Madam Speaker, for all of the good intent embodied in this proposal,
it will not bring a single soldier home sooner. This vote, no matter
what the tally, no matter what this board shows as to green and red at
the end of the day, will not shorten this conflict by a single month,
not by a week, not by a day. It will not change the course of a single
battle. It will not even alter a pebble that lies on the battlefields
in which those struggles will be fought.
It will, however, say to the insurgents, the Saddamists, the radical
Islamic militants and their patrons that time is on their side. It will
say that America has no stomach for this fight. And somewhere in a cave
in Afghanistan, or in a hut on the Afghan-Pakistan border, Osama bin
Laden is going to smile.
His words of a failure of America will be that much closer to
reality. As he has said: ``The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad, the
seat of the caliphate rule.'' They keep reiterating that ``success in
Baghdad will be success for the United States, failure in Iraq the
failure of the U.S. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their
wars and a beginning to the receding of their Zionist crusader tide
against us.''
Those are bad messages, Madam Speaker. But I would suggest
respectfully to all of my colleagues for all the wrong messages this
resolution will send to our enemies, nothing it contains will be more
devastating than what it says to our troops, to our military, those
brave men and women in uniform who answered the call to arms, issued
not by some ephemeral entity, but by us, by this Congress.
And how do we say through the resolution we are considering here
today, we support your needs, but we reject your mission? We allow for
your deployment but we shun the premise of your departure? And what do
we say to the wife or husband? How do we respond to the father or the
mother or the loved one of the next warrior lost in battle who asks,
why did you oppose through that resolution the job they were sent to
pursue but did absolutely nothing from preventing them from going from
the outset?
That is the tyranny, and I have to say it, Madam Speaker, that is the
folly of the resolution before us for all its lack of practical result,
for the fact that this resolution will do absolutely nothing. Never has
this Congress in its history of war considered an action of such
dramatic consequence.
Now, it is said during the Civil War that the great Southern general,
Robert E. Lee, was really tired, and I think we can all relate to this,
of the criticism, the second-guessing that was directed at his
leadership through the major newspapers of his time.
And he observed, Apparently all my best generals had become
journalists. Today, tonight, I think it can be fairly said of some,
apparently all of our best generals have become Congressmen. My
colleagues, we are not generals. The Constitution of this great Nation
does not provide for 535 Commanders in Chief, yet that is the reality
lost in the proposal that we are considering this night in this week.
But I would suggest, instead of being diminished by that fact,
instead of being lessened by what we are not, we need to be empowered
by what we are. And I say to my colleagues tonight on both sides of the
aisle, we indeed have a grave responsibility in this matter. But it
does not lie in nonbinding resolutions that send wrong messages to our
troops and absolutely wrong messages to our enemies. It rests in the
authorities vested in us by the Constitution of this great land, the
power to fund or not all matters of government, especially war.
Like all of us here tonight, I want this war to conclude. I represent
the 10th Mountain Division, the most deployed division in the United
States Army. I was there 3 weeks ago. I know the pain. I know the
suffering. And like all of you, I am frustrated by the path we have
traveled to this point, and I am troubled by the course that apparently
lies ahead.

[[Page H1532]]

And we can, we must have, a different approach, one that especially
places responsibility for success where it rightfully lies, and I have
heard my colleagues tonight speak about that, with the Iraqi people. I
propose an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that will
just do that, require the Iraqis to step forward, to stand up, to stop
the talking, and to begin to act.
It will fully fund the needs of our troops and provide for us, the
Congress, the rightful role and expedite an opportunity to review the
Iraqis effort and to judge the progress of this new mission in Baghdad.
These things have to be done. But this resolution, in my judgment, in
my judgment, is what must decidedly not.
This weekend I took the time to reread John F. Kennedy's Pulitzer
Prize-winning work ``Profiles in Courage.'' And in those pages our
martyred President spoke: ``In no other occupation but politics is it
expected that a man will sacrifice honor, prestige, and his chosen
career on a single issue.''
My friends, this is such a moment. I accuse nobody in this Chamber,
Madam Speaker, of any kind of transgression, honorable people, good
people. We will disagree, as I expect they will on this and other days,
but I do plead that every Member in this House vote on this resolution,
not for themselves, not for gain or posture through politics, not
because of their alleged attention to public opinion, because it is
right.
We can do better. We must. But this resolution is not the path to
that objective.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My friend from New York, a fellow member of the Armed Services
Committee, Mr. McHugh, a good friend, I must agree with him on one
comment that he made when he said, I am troubled by the course that
lies ahead.
Madam Speaker, I am very troubled about the course that lies ahead.
That is what we are about this evening. We have seen an irretrievable
strategic mistake made in Iraq that put us where we are. And
consequently it brings us to this point where we express our concern
and disagreement with the increase in troops in this crucial time in
Iraq and allows us the opportunity to say thank you. We are proud of
you, each of you who wears the American uniform.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rush), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
(Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, I raise today to voice my support for this
resolution. For too long now, under a Republican-controlled Congress
and a Republican-controlled Senate, the President has been given a free
hand and a blank check to conduct this war in Iraq, for far too long
without any oversight, for far too long without any accountability from
this the equal branch of government, this U.S. Congress. Madam Speaker,
and because of the Republicans' unwillingness and the Democrats'
inability to question the President or his administration about the
conduct of this war, we now find ourselves embroiled in a civil war on
a foreign soil.
We are not seen as liberators. We are seen as an occupying force on a
foreign land. We are seen as an occupying army by the Iraqi people.
Madam Speaker, we are trapped in a deadly situation where American
soldiers and Iraqi citizens are targeted for murder, mayhem and
maiming.
Many of our top generals and experts in this field have testified
that the American troop presence is the biggest, largest, most
provocative catalyst to the violence in Iraq. The Iraqi people are very
suspicious of this administration and the motives of this President.
And they do not view foreign soldiers in their cities, in their towns,
in their homes as something that they desire.
So if the Iraqi people no longer want us in their country, and if the
military objective, which was supposed to be the toppling of Saddam
Hussein has been achieved, then why do we still have hundreds of
thousands of our troops there?
Why on Earth are we sending more troops to this unstable and volatile
area when it is obvious that the solution to this problem is not a
military one, but a political one?
Madam Speaker, if we want to get out of this hole, then we must first
stop digging. It is well past time for this President to finally
understand that he cannot solve the world's problems with brute force,
the American military, and our boys' and girls' lives. We must begin a
serious and political and diplomatic effort in this region to hold the
Iraq Government responsible for protecting its own people and to
solicit comments from Iraq's neighbors as well as our friends and
allies around the world to help stabilize Iraq and to rebuild that
devastated country.
The Iraqi people do not want to see more American troops coming into
their homes and into their cities. They want their chosen, duly elected
leaders to step up to the plate and to protect them as they were
elected to do. And they want their foreign occupiers to leave their
homeland.
Madam Speaker, this is not hard to comprehend. Would we not want the
same thing if a foreign military came and occupied our cities, our
States, our Nation, our homes?
This war is draining American resources and stretching our military
to the point where we will be unable to protect ourselves against any
real threat to our national security. We know that to date over 3,000
American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq, and more than $500
billion has been appropriated for this unjust and this misguided war.
Yet dispute these costs, neither the American people nor this
Congress has been given a reasonable explanation or reasonable grounds
for keeping American troops in Iraq to do the job that Iraqi soldiers
should be doing for themselves.

{time} 1915

Madam Speaker, because of our grave missteps, our enormous
miscalculation, the situation in Iraq has steadily declined. And there
is no evidence that increasing the number of American soldiers at this
point will do anything other than provide more targets to the Iraqi
insurgents and make the situation in Iraq even more volatile.
Madam Speaker, after being wrong on so many counts time and time
again, I believe the stakes in this war are too high for us to continue
to put blind trust in this administration. The world in which we live
deserves more
Madam Speaker, I am against this troop surge because the American
people and the Iraqi people want truth surge. They want strategy, not
more of the same.
It is the job and the responsibility of this Congress to reflect the
will of the people who have put us here, and demand that the
Administration bring an end to this ill-fated war, not escalate it.
Believe me, Madam Speaker, it brings me no pleasure to have this
debate and publicly disagree with the President, but my solemn oath to
my constituents, as well as my conscience and integrity prevent me from
doing anything less.
It is time for us to end our occupation in Iraq. I urge all of my
colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 63.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Hinchey, the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, as a veteran of the United States Navy, I
am very, very honored to be a Member of this House of Representatives.
And today I am very proud and pleased to stand here in support of this
very important resolution, which needs to be adopted as the final first
step of this Congress in dealing with this unjust, illegal, unnecessary
invasion of Iraq and the subsequent disastrous occupation.
In October of 2002, when the resolution authorizing this invasion
came to the floor, 133 Members voted against it. 127 Democrats and six
Republicans voted against it. Most of us voted against it because we
knew that the so-called logic or rationale that had been presented by
the administration was untrue, that there was no connection between
Iraq and the attack of September 11, that there was no evidence that
there were chemical or biological weapons left in Iraq, even though we
know that previous administrations of this country had supplied those
weapons.
We knew that the rationale presented for the development of a nuclear
weapon in Iraq was completely falsified. The documents were forged.

[[Page H1533]]

On the 19th of March, this administration carried out an illegal,
unnecessary, unjustified invasion of Iraq. We will soon mark the fourth
year of that action. In all of that time, this Congress has done
nothing significant or substantial to stand in the way of the illegal,
unjustified actions of this administration, in spite of the fact that
they have caused the death of now more than 3,000 American servicemen
and women, more than 23,000 physically injured, unknown numbers
psychologically injured, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians
killed.
In spite of all of that, and in spite of the fact that, increasingly,
every Member of this Congress has begun to understand with greater and
greater clarity, how the information was falsified, how what the
Intelligence Committees told the White House, the Department, the State
Department, and others in this administration, had been twisted and
distorted and turned around purposely and specifically to carry out
this disastrous invasion and subsequent occupation, nothing has been
done.
The previous leadership of this Congress failed to step forward and
take any kind of action against this administration. And we hear people
on this side of the aisle, tonight, speaking against this resolution
saying it doesn't do anything significant. It doesn't do enough.
Well, let me tell you something. This is the first step of a new
majority in this Congress taking the right kind of action on the basis
of our obligations and responsibilities under the Constitution to stand
up to the actions of this administration and to put this country back
on the right track. Not just in the case of what is going on in Iraq,
even though that is so terribly disastrous, but the consequences here
in our own country, the intimidation of people, the internal spying,
the elimination of habeas corpus, all of the impingements on the
American Constitution, based upon the culture of fear cultivated
purposely by this administration for their own personal and political
objectives. No one in the previous leadership, no one in the previous
majority, stood up to this administration in any kind of a constructive
way.
So, if you want to correct the failures that have existed in this
Congress since that resolution came to the floor and since the 19th of
March in 2003, when this administration carried out that illegal,
unnecessary and unjustified invasion, then you will support this
resolution, recognizing that it is the first important step taken by a
new majority here in this Congress to deal with the consequences of all
of that falsehood.
If you fail to do so, you will continue to leave the door open for
further violations of law and constitutional principles by this
administration, perhaps next in Iran, because that may be the next
illegal step of this administration.
If you want to make up for what you failed to do, if you want to do
the right thing for this country, for our people, and for our military
personnel, please, support this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kaptur). The Chair would like to
announce that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 2 hours,
5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra) has 2 hours, 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield the balance of my
time to the gentlelady from California, who is a member of the Armed
Services Committee and chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee,
Mrs. Tauscher. I ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control
the time from this moment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and the chairman
of the House Armed Services Committee for yielding time.
At this time I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, as we debate this nonbinding resolution
on Iraq, the administration is preparing for the next war in Iran. We
are losing our democracy to war, massive debt, fear and fraud. The
American people need Congress to surge towards the Constitution, surge
towards the truth.
Now, some call this resolution a first step. I would like to believe
that Congress will respond to the will of the American people expressed
in the November election. They expect us to take real action to assert
our constitutional power, to take America out of Iraq by refusing to
provide any more funding for the war. That is our right. That is our
duty. We have a duty to restrain an administration which is conducting
an illegal war. We have a duty to hold to a constitutional accounting a
President and a Vice President who led us into a war based on lies.
I led the effort against the Iraq war resolution.
Madam Speaker, I ask to include into the Record an analysis of the
President's war resolution which was given to Members of Congress back
in October of 2002. It pointed out that there is no proof that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction, anything to do with 9/11, anything to do
with al Qaeda's role in 9/11. It is not as if Congress had no idea the
war was based on untruths.
Now we must tell the truth, not just about the escalation, but about
the occupation. We are illegally occupying Iraq. We attacked a nation
which did not attack us. We must recognize the wrong that has been done
and move to right it.
Instead of debating the end of the war, Congress is ironically
preparing to give the war a new beginning. Some have made it clear long
before this particular resolution that they will continue to fund the
war by approving the upcoming supplemental appropriation, even though
money exists to bring the troops home now.
When we equate funding the war with supporting the troops, we are
dooming thousands of young Americans who are valiantly following the
orders of their Commander in Chief. If we truly cared about the troops,
we would not leave them in the middle of a civil war. If we truly cared
about the troops, we would not leave them in a conflict for which there
is no military solution.
The war is binding. The resolution is not. This resolution will not
end the war. It will not bring our beloved troops home. It will not
even stop the administration from sending more troops. That is because
this resolution is nonbinding.
The war is binding. The resolution is not; 3,100 U.S. troops are
bound in death; 650,000 innocent Iraqi civilians are bound in death.
The war is binding. The resolution is not. American taxpayers are
bound in debt. The war could cost $2 trillion. We are borrowing money
from Beijing to fight a war in Baghdad. Worse, each and every time
Congress votes to fund the war, it votes to reauthorize the war. There
were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but there are weapons of
mass destruction at home. Poverty is a weapon of mass disruption. Lack
of education is a weapon of mass destruction. Poor health care is a
weapon of mass destruction. We must find and disarm those weapons of
mass destruction which threaten the security of our own Nation. But
Congress must first take responsibility.
The Federal Court has made it abundantly clear that once a war is
well underway, Congress' real power is to cut off funds. Funding the
war is approval of the war.
The American people are waiting for us to provide real leadership to
show the way out of Iraq. My 12-point plan responds to that demand.
This plan, drafted with the help of experts in international
peacekeeping, specialists with U.N. experience and veteran military
advisors, creates a peace process which will enable our troops to come
home and stabilize Iraq.
Here are the elements of the Kucinich plan.
First, Congress must deny any more funds for the war.
Second, the President will have to call the troops home, close the
bases and end the occupation.
Third, a parallel peace process which brings in international
peacekeepers must begin. That is third.
Fourth, move in the international peacekeeping and security force and
move out U.S. troops. Peacekeepers will stay until the Iraqis are able
to handle their own security.
Fifth, order U.S. contractors out of Iraq.
Sixth, fund an honest process of reconstruction.
Seventh, protect the economic position of the Iraqi people by
stabilizing

[[Page H1534]]

prices in Iraq, including those for food and energy.
Eighth, create a process which gives the Iraqi people control over
their economic destiny without the structural adjustment policies of
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
Ninth, give the Iraqi people full control over their oil assets, with
no mandatory privatization.
Tenth, fund a process of reconciliation between the Sunnis, Shiites
and Kurds.
Eleventh, the U.S. must refrain from any more covert operations in
Iraq.
And twelfth, the U.S. must begin a process of truth and
reconciliation between our Nation and the people of Iraq.
There is a way out. Congress should stand for that. And we will have
an opportunity to do it once again in about 6 weeks

Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq

(By Dennis J. Kucinich)

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression
against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States
forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its
people in order to defend the national security of the United
States and enforce United Nations Security Council
resolutions relating to Iraq;
Key Issue: In the Persian Gulf war there was an
international coalition. World support was for protecting
Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq.
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq
entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement
pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other
things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them,
and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors,
United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led
to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical
weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and
that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program
that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than
intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Key Issue: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed
nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said
that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were
destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a
published report in the Washington Post, the Central
Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on
Iraq's WMD capabilities.
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the
cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons
inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which
finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on
October 31, 1998;
Key Issues: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors
always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United
States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the
United States then launched a cruise missile attack against
Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a
military strike, the U.S. continues to thwart (the
Administration's word) weapons inspections.
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing
weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United
States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of
its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to
take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution
and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations'' (Public Law
105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national
security of the United States and international peace and
security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material
and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by,
among other things, continuing to possess and develop a
significant chemical and biological weapons capability,
actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting
and harboring terrorist organizations;
Key Issues: There is no proof that Iraq represents an
imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A
``continuing'' threat does not constitute a sufficient cause
for war. The Administration has refused to provide the
Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is
a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to
possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear
weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence
connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11.
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in
brutal repression of its civilian population thereby
threatening international peace and security in the region,
by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi
citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American
serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully
seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Key Issue: This language is so broad that it would allow
the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there
is no material threat to the United States. Since this
resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related
violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since
the resolution cites Iraq's imprisonment of non-Iraqi
prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to
attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or
may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with
all requests to destroy any weapons of mass destruction.
Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and Kuwait agreed to
bilateral negotiations to work out all claims relating
to stolen property and prisoners of war. This use-of-force
resolution enables the President to commit U.S. troops to
recover Kuwaiti property.
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its
capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction
against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its
continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the
United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate
former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of
occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged
in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council;
Key Issue: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it
have the capability to attack the United States. The ``no
fly'' zone was not the result of a UN Security Council
directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States,
Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned
by any Security Council resolution.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing
responsibility for attacks on the United States, its
citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred
on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Key Issue: There is no credible intelligence that connects
Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those
events by assisting Al Qaida.
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other
international terrorist organizations, including
organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American
citizens;
Key Issue: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist
groups in Middle East, is an argument for focusing great
resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the U.S. to
launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq.
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11,
2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the
acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international
terrorist organizations;
Key Issue: There is no connection between Iraq and the
events of 9/11.
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to
use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current
Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a
surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces
or provide them to international terrorists who would do so,
and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the
United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine
to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Key Issue: There is no credible evidence that Iraq
possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has
successfully concealed the production of such weapons since
1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the
capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In
the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of
biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the
willingness to use them against the United States Armed
Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible
information which proves that Iraq has provided international
terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678
authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United
Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent
relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain
activities that threaten international peace and security,
including the development of weapons of mass destruction and
refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
687, repression of its civilian population in violation of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and
threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in
Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 949;
Key Issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations,
including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN
resolutions.
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has
authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces
pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678
(1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council
Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674,
and 677'';
Key Issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations,
including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN
resolutions with military force.
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that
it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as
being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military
Force Against Iraq

[[Page H1535]]

Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of
its civilian population violates United Nations Security
Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat
to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf
region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the use of all
necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 688'';
Key Issue: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology
of the international process, and contrasts the current march
to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution
asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries
authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition
to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking
Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN
Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN
resolutions.
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)
expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy
of the United States to support efforts to remove from power
the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a
democratic government to replace that regime;
Key Issue: This ``Sense of Congress'' resolution was not
binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic
means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse
the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it
endorse assassination as a policy.
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the
United States to ``work with the United Nations Security
Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to
``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making
clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be
enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be
met, or action will be unavoidable'';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the
war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international
terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of
mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under
the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council
resolutions make clear that it is in the national security
interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war
on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of
force if necessary;
Key Issue: Unilateral action against Iraq will cost the
United States the support of the world community, adversely
affecting the war on terrorism. No credible intelligence
exists which connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to those
terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. Under international law, the
United States does not have the authority to unilaterally
order military action to enforce U.N. Security Council
resolutions.
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the
war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and
funding requested by the President to take the necessary
actions against international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or
harbored such persons or organizations;
Key Issue: The Administration has not provided Congress
with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the
events of 9/11.
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to
continue to take all appropriate actions against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations,
including those nations, organizations or persons who
planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks
that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons
or organizations;
Key Issue: The Administration has not provided Congress
with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the
events of 9/11. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence
that Iraq has harbored those who were responsible for
planning, authorizing or committing the attacks of 9/11.
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution
to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of
international terrorism against the United States, as
Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization
for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Key Issue: This resolution was specific to
9/11. It was limited to a response to 9/11.
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States
to restore international peace and security to the Persian
Gulf region;
Key Issue: If by the ``national security interests'' of the
United States, the Administration means oil, it ought to
communicate such to the Congress. A unilateral attack on Iraq
by the United States will cause instability and chaos in the
region and sow the seeds of future conflicts all other the
world.
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization
for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq''.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to--
(a) Strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable
to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) Obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
Key Issue: Congress can and should support this clause.
However Section 3 (which follows) undermines the
effectiveness of this section. Any peaceful settlement
requires Iraq compliance. The totality of this resolution
indicates the Administration will wage war against Iraq no
matter what. This undermines negotiations.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be
necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) Defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Key Issue: This clause is substantially similar to the
authorization that the President originally sought.
It gives authority to the President to act prior to and
even without a U.N. resolution, and it authorizes the
President to use U.S. troops to enforce U.N. resolutions even
without U.N. request for it. This is a violation of Chapter
VII of the U.N. Charter, which reserves the ability to
authorize force for that purpose to the Security Council,
alone.
Under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
``The Security Council shall determine the existence of any
threat to the peace . . . and shall make recommendations to
maintain or restore international peace and security.''
(Article 39). Only the Security Council can decide that
military force would be necessary, ``The Security Council may
decide what measures . . . are to be employed to give effect
to its decisions (Article 41) . . . [and] it may take such
action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to
maintain or restore international peace and security.''
(Article 43). Furthermore, the resolution authorizes use of
force illegally, since the U.N. Security Council has not
requested it. According to the U.N. Charter, members of the
U.N., such as the U.S., are required to ``make available to
the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a
special agreement or agreements, armed forces . . .''
(Article 43, emphasis added). The U.N. Security Council has
not called upon its members to use military force against
Iraq at the current time.
Furthermore, changes to the language of the previous use-
of-force resolution, drafted by the White House and objected
to by many members of Congress, are cosmetic:
In section (1), the word ``continuing'' was added to ``the
threat posed by Iraq''.
In section (2), the word ``relevant'' is added to ``United
Nations Security Council Resolutions'' and the words
``regarding Iraq'' were added to the end.
While these changes are represented as a compromise or a
new material development, the effects of this resolution are
largely the same as the previous White House proposal.
The U.N. resolutions, which could be cited by the President
to justify sending U.S. troops to Iraq, go far beyond
addressing weapons of mass destruction. These could include,
at the President's discretion, such ``relevant'' resolutions
``regarding Iraq'' including resolutions to enforce human
rights and the recovery of Kuwaiti property.
Presidential Determination.--
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in
subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to
such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but
no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and
the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination
that--
(1) Reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to
lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) Acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with
the United States and other countries continuing to take the
necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed
or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days,
submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this
joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of
planning for efforts that are expected to be required after
such actions are

[[Page H1536]]

completed, including those actions described in section 7 of
Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report
described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of
any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to
the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War
Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a
single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section
3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by
this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Do any of us really believe that the resolution in front of us today
is a serious piece of legislation?
Does it discuss or force a debate on the really tough issue of how
big this conflict is?
Who is it that hates America and others so much that they are willing
to kill innocent men, women and children?
Again, it does not do that. There are people who hate us enough to
want to kill. I speak of militant Islam's hate for America, a hate that
extends to others as well, including Muslims. And these militant
Islamists kill. They kill violently and indiscriminately.
Who are they?
What should America's response to this threat that we and others face
on a global basis be?
What is America's response to jihadism?
How will America win this war against this calculating enemy?
How will America lead the world, once again, in the face of such a
ruthless threat?
What is a jihadist, other than someone or some group so full of hate
that they are willing to kill?

{time} 1930

I have a passion for understanding this threat. These Islamic
jihadists are a fringe element of Islam who have very specific ideas
about how to revive Islam, return Muslims to world power, and how to
deal with their enemies. They are committed to a violent overthrow of
the existing international system and to its replacement by an all-
encompassing Islamic state, the caliphate, as it is called.
This is more than just about Iraq. It is a much bigger problem. It is
also clear that this jihad is about them, their god, their religion
before it becomes anything about anyone or anything else. That is
right, it is about them before it is about us. And that is why this
resolution comes up so short because it does not address all of these
issues.
Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to my colleague from California
(Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
You are right. A big problem, big issues, and this resolution doesn't
address them.
What does it do? It basically says that the military leaders have a
suggestion that we have reinforcements that they believe may improve
the situation, help us get a victory in Iraq. Now, they can't guarantee
that. The President can't guarantee it. Nobody can guarantee it. But
what does this say? It says we are not going to do that. Okay, fine.
But what are you going to do instead?
This resolution, by rejecting the only plan on the table, basically
is saying stay the course, keep the status quo.
I don't think the status quo has been working. I think we know we
have to make some changes in strategy and whatever. We have to make
something work. But this basically says we will take the only plan that
is out there and reject it. We won't do it.
So my question would be what do you do instead? What do you do to
ensure that we don't have a genocide in Iraq on the scale of what is
going on in Darfur? If you don't want to do this plan, what do you do
to ensure that terrorism does not grow and flourish in Iraq and that
then they come to attack us on our soil again, which they haven't done
for 5 years? What do you do to protect our troops?
I think these are a lot of questions that we have, Mr. Hoekstra,
which is why just saying no to the only plan that is on the table won't
do it. It is kind of like a football game: the coach and quarterback
call a play, and they are in there, and then someone runs into huddle
and says, No, we are not going to run this play.
What play are we going to call?
We don't have a play.
So the quarterback gets under the center. The center snaps the ball,
and nobody goes anywhere. Nobody knows what to do because there is no
play, there is no plan. That will fail.
This simple status quo resolution is not the solution.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman. I think he has made some very good points about what we
don't see in this resolution. We don't see a discussion of what the
global threat is from these jihadists who hate democracy, who hate
other heretic Muslim states, who want to establish this caliphate that
spreads throughout the Middle East, spreads into Europe, across Africa,
into Asia. It lacks the concept of putting it into a bigger picture.
There is no alternative plan. Really, if you vote for this
resolution, what you are voting for is you are voting for stay the
course. Support the troops; don't try a new strategy or tactic. Just
stay the course. And it also does not deal with what the potential
consequences may be of that failed strategy.
Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to my colleague from Arizona
Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And I have listened to his eloquent words today about the radical
threat we face.
I have a fundamental question for the other side. I thought our
colleague from New York did a superb job of acknowledging the good
intentions of every Member of Congress involved in this debate and the
good intentions of the majority. I share his frustration with the
progress of the war to date. I share the comments made by my colleagues
on the other side who are unhappy at how we got here. But I think that
misses what I believe is the essential question we confront now, and
that is, where do we go from here? What will this resolution do? And I
would suggest that that is a question that has not been examined in
this debate. I would suggest that many would like to wish this war
would go away, that many would like to believe that if the United
States withdrew its troops from Baghdad and withdrew its troops from
Iraq that somehow Iraq as a problem would go away.
But, Mr. Chairman, you have made the point over and over and over
again today: this isn't about Iraq.
I would ask my colleagues on the other side can they name a single
jihadi leader, a single radical Islamist, who has said if they prevail
in Iraq, if we will just leave Iraq, that this will end, that they will
no longer desire to conquer the world, that they will back away from
all of their rhetoric about attacking all Westerners everywhere? And I
suggest you can't name anyone like that.
Let me read you just a few quotes to make this point. Ayman al
Zawahiri, we all know who he is, a well-known jihadi leader: ``It is a
jihad for the sake of God and will last until our religion prevails.''
Not until we abandon Iraq, but until their religion prevails.
``The entire world is an open battlefield for us,'' he goes on to
say. ``We will attack everywhere until Islam reigns.'' Ayman al
Zawahiri does not say we will attack until the war in Iraq ends, we
will attack until Americans pull out of Baghdad, we will attack until
they are no longer in the nation of Iraq. He says, ``We will attack
everywhere until Islam reigns.''
Again al Zawahiri: ``The jihad in Iraq requires several incremental
goals. The first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq.'' Note that that
is only the first stage. ``The second stage: establish an Islamic
authority or emirate. The third stage: extend the jihad wave to the
secular countries neighboring Iraq.'' It will not end.
If your resolution, if a resolution tonight, could end this war and
bring our boys home and our girls home and make the world safe, I would
be the first to vote for it. But it won't.
Osama bin Laden says it clearly: ``Hostility toward America is a
religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . I am
confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called
superpower that is America.''

[[Page H1537]]

We are on notice. I think we have to take them at their word. It
isn't about Iraq. It is about our confrontation, a historic
confrontation, with radical jihadists who seek to kill us
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the
gentleman from Arizona stated it very well. When we talk about the
jihadists, they believe that the modern world has forsaken that pure
religious life. They believe only in a caliphate governed by shiria law
and that is the way to return to that pure life. That is the world they
now want to recreate. And as they recreate it, they want to force it on
the rest of us.
Madam Speaker, I would like to now yield to my colleague, Mr. Saxton.
Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Hoekstra for yielding.
I would just like to build on something that Mr. Shadegg said. He
said, in essence, that this subject is so important because it goes so
much further than Iraq. And as a member of the Armed Services
Committee, I try to keep close tabs on where our soldiers and sailors
and marines and airmen are deployed. And it may surprise some on the
other side of the aisle, but perhaps not, to know that we have troops
deployed in Southwest Asia in five countries; we have troops deployed
in Europe in quite a few countries, several countries; in Central Asia
we have troops in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan; in
Southeast Asia we have troops deployed in the Philippines, Thailand,
and Indonesia; in South America in Colombia, Brazil, Argentina,
Paraguay, and Guantanamo Bay; and in 19 countries in Africa, all in
support of the war on terror.
And as Mr. Shadegg mentioned a few minutes ago, it has been clearly
stated that Iraq is the first battleground chosen to make their stand
and clearly stated that all of these other places where we have sent
troops, not because we have extra troops to send somewhere, not because
we have extra taxpayer dollars that we are trying to get rid of or
spend, but because every one of those countries exhibits a piece of
geography where there is a threat related to the global war on terror.
So a vote for this resolution is a vote, perhaps, of goodwill on the
part of those who will eventually in a few days vote for it, but it
won't end this war. It won't end the desire of the Islamists to take
advantage of various situations and, as Mr. Hoekstra mentioned, achieve
their goals.
And so this is a broad war. This is a war where it will be years and
perhaps decades to bring to a conclusion. And the worst thing we can do
is to send messages that we are not serious about carrying out our
duties in defense of this generation and, as I will point out later,
future generations of Americans.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, with that I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield myself 20
minutes. And at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to my good
friend and neighbor in California, the gentlewoman from Oakland,
Representative Barbara Lee of the Appropriations Committee.
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her
leadership, for yielding, for her deep commitment to our troops and to
our country.
As a daughter of a proud veteran of two wars, I know personally that
we have a moral obligation to support and protect our brave men and
women on the ground in Iraq. However, there is no reason for us to
stand behind the President's plan to escalate his failed policy in
Iraq. In fact, Madam Speaker, the American people are way ahead of us.
A USA Today/Gallup poll released just today shows that 60 percent
oppose this escalation, 63 percent favor bringing our troops home by
the end of 2008, and last November the American people soundly rejected
the President's failed policy in Iraq at the voting booth. You would
think that the President understood what all this meant. After the
election he continued his listening tour on options for Iraq, but it
seems that he wasn't hearing what the American people were saying.
The Iraq Study Group actually indicated and said very clearly that
there was no military solution to this mess. And rather than heed the
call of military experts, advisers, and the American people, the
President offered an even worse plan: put more troops in harm's way in
Iraq. This just doesn't make any sense.
That is why this no-confidence resolution puts the administration on
notice: end the occupation and bring our troops home. However, if the
President doesn't change course, we must go further. This war has
undermined our credibility and standing in the world. It has cost too
many lives and injured too many of our troops. This war has cost too
many Iraqi lives. This war has cost us nearly half a trillion dollars,
and the costs keep mounting. The chaos in Iraq that the President set
in motion has further destabilized an already precarious balance in the
Middle East.
We must take steps to use the upcoming supplemental appropriations
bill to set in motion an end to this terrible and misguided war and
bring our troops home from Iraq.
To that end I support fully funding the safe withdrawal of our troops
from Iraq over a 6-month period, and I will work with my colleagues to
do this. Additionally, along with Congresswomen Woolsey and Waters, we
have introduced H.R. 508, the Bring our Troops Home and Sovereignty of
Iraq Restoration Act.

{time} 1945

This bill would completely fully fund military withdrawal from Iraq
within 6 months, while ensuring that our troops and contractors leave
safely, and accelerate the training of Iraqi Security Forces. And we
would make certain that our veterans, who have given us so much,
receive the health and mental health benefits that they deserve.
Our bill would remove the specter of an endless, and that is what
this is right now, it is an endless occupation, by preventing the
establishment of permanent military bases. Our very presence in Iraq is
fueling the insurgency, and our troops have been the targets of this
civil war.
Madam Speaker, these are the best and the safest ways to end this
occupation. But it really didn't have to be this way. Imagine for a
moment what would have happened had Congress adopted my substitute
amendment to the authorization to use force against Iraq in October
2002. We would have allowed the United Nations inspectors to finish
their job. We would have discovered what we all know now as fact, that
Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, and, as then, there
was no connection between the horrific events of 9/11 and Iraq. Iraq
did not attack us, as many are trying to continue to convince the
American public that it did. Iraq did not attack us 5 years ago.
The bottom line is that Iraq also would not be a war-torn country as
it is today, and, again, the world is less safe. And if this wasn't
enough, over the last several months the President has been saber-
rattling on the issue of Iran. We must not go down the same path and
end up in another unnecessary, dangerous, costly and disastrous
preemptive war with Iran. This notion of the ``axis of evil'' and
preemptive war is very, very dangerous.
Madam Speaker, the stakes are too high. We need to stop digging
ourselves deeper into this hole. Escalating this war and expanding this
war does nothing in terms of our national security. It puts us more at
risk. Iraq was not a haven for terrorists as it is now. Again, Iraq,
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, there was no connection, and we have to
dispel that notion so the American people know the truth.
So, rather than end this war today, we are saying let's just for
today at least take one step and stop the escalation and expansion, and
we will be back to talk about how we are going to begin to bring our
troops home, and bring them home within 6 months
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee.
Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California. I
rise today in strong support of this resolution.
Recently at a town hall meeting that I had, a man approached me,
pulled out a picture of his son, said that he had just died in Iraq 6
months ago. His wife won't come out of the home. He said, ``I want you
to promise me that when you go to Washington, you will do everything
you can to make sure that this never happens to another family.''

[[Page H1538]]

Three days later, I called the family of Senior Airman Daniel Miller
of Galesburg, Illinois, who lost their son to a roadside bomb explosion
outside of Baghdad 2 weeks prior to when he was supposed to be coming
home. I hope and pray I don't ever have to make another phone call to
another grieving family. That is why I come to the floor this evening
in strong opposition to the President's decision to deploy 21,500
additional troops in Iraq, and I strongly support this resolution.
The current situation in Iraq is grave, and it is rapidly
deteriorating. The sectarian conflict is the principal challenge to
stability in Iraq, and caught in the middle of this civil war are
approximately 140,000 of our bravest troops. Over 3,000 troops have
already lost their lives, while over 22,000 have been wounded.
Our current strategy has not made significant impact on reducing the
violence. In fact, December 2006 was the third deadliest month since
the war began. The cost of this war, both in the number of lives lost
and the amount of dollars spent, has had a profound effect on Illinois
and my congressional district. Out of the 3,128 deaths, 95 have been
from Illinois, and eight soldiers from the 17th District.
But not only will an increase in troop levels not solve the
fundamental cause of violence, it places us at a great disadvantage
here at home. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the troop
surge could require as many as 48,000 troops and as much as $27
billion, which is five times the amount of the President's request of
$5.6 billion. Also the U.S. military will be forced to deploy many
combat units for their second, third, and even fourth deployments in
Iraq, and extend the redeployment of others.
Currently as we sit in debate on this resolution, 16,000 single
mothers are serving in Iraq. This troop surge would only extend the
time their children are left at home alone, with their mother or their
father.
Since the military is already short thousands of vehicles, armor kits
and other protective equipment, a troop surge threatens the readiness
of our forces. In fact, if you saw the paper recently, a soldier was
quoted saying he had to go to the junkyards to dig up pieces of rusted
scrap missile and ballistic glass so they could armor the vehicles and
make them combat ready.
While only a first step, this resolution is a good start. It does not
give up on our troops or declare defeat in Iraq, but offers a new
forward direction towards a nonpartisan goal of bringing our troops
home safely, quickly, and securing stability in the region.
Already, this Democratic-led Congress has had 52 oversight hearings
on various issues related to this war, and many of my colleagues have
introduced several bipartisan measures that promote political and
diplomatic engagements.
A person this evening said, Where do we go from here? I would
strongly suggest that this administration try something it hasn't tried
yet: diplomacy. It can work. You just have to have the courage to try.
In the coming weeks, I am hopeful that Congress will consider a
comprehensive measure such as H.R. 787, the Iraq War De-escalation Act,
of which I am a cosponsor. In addition to requiring the responsible
redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq and allowing basic force
protection, it launches a comprehensive regional and international
diplomatic initiative. I am thoroughly convinced that the only way we
will attain peace in this region, in Iraq, is through diplomatic
initiatives.
This legislation also makes the Iraqi Government responsible for
their own destiny by establishing benchmarks concerning Iraqi military
readiness to police their own country without United States assistance.
Finally, as a veteran myself, I also hope as we move forward we will
adequately prepare for the return of thousands of new veterans. Our
number one priority should be to fully fund the cost of veterans health
care and PTSD benefits.
This administration's budget calls for cutting prosthetics by $2
million and severely cuts funds to the VA at a time when it is
proposing an increase in troop levels. Without full funding for the
Department of Veterans Affairs, our veterans are left without the
services they were promised when they pledged to defend this Nation.
Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support this resolution as the first of many steps towards
bringing our troops home and securing our success in Iraq. As I told
the gentleman at my town meeting, I promised him I would do everything
I could so this would never happen again. That journey begins this
evening
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee.
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank
Speaker Pelosi for providing what we never had in the last session, and
that is ample opportunity to fully discuss Iraq, where we are and what
we ought to be doing about it.
I have always been told that when you start with a faulty premise,
you will inevitably reach a faulty conclusion. And the rationale given
for entering the war was faulty. There were no weapons of mass
destruction, no connection to 9/11. Therefore, we never should have
invaded Iraq in the first place.
But then after the invasion, the occupation of Iraq has been
tragically mismanaged. Civilian military leadership ignored the advice
of senior commanders on requirements for preventing chaos in the
aftermath of the invasion. As a result, our extended presence in Iraq
continues to worsen the situation, not only in Iraq, but in the entire
region.
Terrorist incidents continue to flare up around the world, from
England to Spain, from Indonesia to Jordan. Chaos and intolerance in
the form of civil war now has secured a deadly grip on Iraq. The policy
of escalation has failed, and failed again, to loosen that horrendous
grip. The Iraqi people want us to leave, and so do the American people,
especially those in my congressional district, and especially those
that I encounter at churches, schools, synagogues, town hall meetings
and on the street.
Madam Speaker, democracy and self-government cannot be imposed on
Iraq by any foreign power, including us, the United States of America.
Our troops have done everything we have asked of them, even when we
have failed to equip and protect them. The problem does not lie with
our troops, but with the distorted world view of this administration
and the military and diplomatic doctrine of preemptive war as a
solution to global political problems.
We must do everything possible to protect our troops and we must do
everything in our power to take care of them when they return home.
It is impossible, Madam Speaker, to build a coalition against
terrorism by attempting to unilaterally impose these doctrines on the
international community. We cannot undo the many mistakes which have
been made in Iraq. And when our national interests have been so
distorted, when we have so lost our direction, it is the historical,
moral, and constitutional responsibility of this Congress to set us
back on course and on the right track.
It is time to recognize that we are enmeshed in an unending, vicious
circle of escalating violence, rather than a force for peace, and that
is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 508, which would bring the force of law
to end this war.
Today we have before us a nonbinding resolution, most likely
insufficient to end the occupation. But it can help to move us in the
right direction and set us on the right path. Therefore, I support this
resolution, because it reflects the will and interests of the American
people, and I trust that this administration will abandon demagogic
calls for constantly changing notions of success and victory and awaken
to the world of reality.
Madam Speaker, it is time, it is past time, to bring our troops home.
I am told that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over
again and expecting different results. This resolution sets us on the
right course, gives us the right direction. I urge its passage.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my
neighbor and colleague from California (Mr. Honda).

[[Page H1539]]

{time} 2000

Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from
Northern California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Like so many of my colleagues, I stand here today in opposition to
President Bush's surge in Iraq.
We should not have attacked Iraq in the first place, and we
definitely should not escalate things further. The initial evidence for
the war was flimsy at best, and realizing that, I voted against the
authorization for war.
The most recent evidence that the President has presented in support
of this surge is even less credible, and I urge my colleagues to
prevent the President from throwing more gasoline onto a fire that is
already burning out of control.
When I speak to veterans of the Iraq war, I become infuriated by
their tales of the destruction that this President's policies have
wrought in that country. Nor can they fathom why their Commander in
Chief insists on squandering the strength of the greatest fighting
force in the history of the world.
While Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule was a rogue state and an
affront to American values, today Iraqi citizens are forced to endure
even more severe and deadlier situations.
There is no indication that Iraq was a center for international
terrorism prior to President Bush's adventure there. Now, as a result
of his irresponsible actions, it undeniably is.
Over 3,000 brave American service men and women have lost their lives
in Iraq in addition to the 100,000 or more Iraqis who have been killed;
25,000 American soldiers have been injured.
For what, Mr. President? For what? You have yet to answer this simple
question, and I suspect this is because you do not have an answer.
There is not, nor can there be, a credible answer to this utter folly.
Each Member of this House has tales of constituents whose lives will
never be the same because of the Iraq war.
In the aftermath of 9/11, one of my constituents joined the Army out
of a deep sense of patriotism. One day while on patrol in Iraq, his
tank drove over an explosive device, sending the vehicle 10 feet in the
air. He survived but suffered severe brain and spinal injuries. For his
bravery, he was awarded the Purple Heart, multiple commendations and
other medals.
After completing a service to his country, he returned home to resume
his life with his wife and newly born triplets.
Upon returning to work, however, he found that he had difficulty
concentrating as a result of his head injury. He was diagnosed with
traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.
As a result of the strain that the President's policies are placing
on the Veterans Administration, he, like so many of my constituents,
was unable to receive a change in his benefit allowance in a timely
manner. So that he could continue to live in dignity, local officials
and media had to put out a call for donations to pick up where his
government failed him.
This brave man expected that his sacrifices would be repaid with the
generosity that America promises to our veterans. Instead, he
encountered a system that is overextended and ill equipped to help him
when he needed it. Other constituents have told me that when they try
to call the Veterans Administration they have to wait on hold for over
2 hours before they can talk to a human being.
Is this how we should treat those who put their lives on the line for
our country? The Veterans Administration recently testified that it
needs a 13 percent increase in funding to address rising costs and
increased demand, but the President's budget proposes less than half of
that.
And now the President wants to further escalate the strain on our
already over-extended system by sending more soldiers off to Iraq? I am
outraged and I cannot mince my words. This is a national shame. This is
not how America repays its valiant heroes.
Madam Speaker, we must stop this madness. This surge, this escalation
will fail just as past surges have.
This conflict requires the diplomatic and political solution, not
just simply sending more troops into the fight. We cannot allow this
President to shatter the lives of more of our best and brightest. It is
time to bring our troops home.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Al Green of Texas). Members are reminded
to direct their remarks to the Chair
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I understand we have until 12 o'clock to
complete this part of the debate?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
Mr. Speaker, in my office I keep a photo of about a dozen Kurdish
mothers whose bodies are strewn across the hillside in northern Iraq,
holding their babies, killed in mid-stride where they were gassed to
death by Saddam Hussein. As I listened to some folks in this debate
talk about what they consider to be an immoral war, an illegal war, an
occupation that is not consistent with morality, I harken back to that
picture and the thousands of people that it represents, and I harken
back also to the exhuming of mass graves with, again, mothers shot in
the back of the head with a .45-caliber pistol by Saddam Hussein's
executioners and with their little babies similarly with holes in the
back of their skulls.
Mr. Speaker, this operation in Iraq is indeed a moral operation. It
represents the goodness of the American people.
I am also reminded of something that lots of folks and the Vice
President talked about, and that is the goodness that we have brought
with the 3 million-plus babies who have been vaccinated, with the
hundreds of schools and hospitals that have been built, and with all
those expectant mothers that were given prenatal care by the Americans
so that their children would be born in a healthy fashion.
But, Mr. Speaker, I recall that in 1984 Ronald Reagan very eloquently
asked the American people to support him in bringing freedom to the
people of El Salvador. I remember his speech; and in his speech, he
harkened back to another American who had appealed to us in bringing
freedom to another part of the world, which was at that time
endangered, and that was Greece in 1947.
The communists were very close to victory in Greece, and Harry Truman
appealed to the American people in a joint session of Congress. He said
the free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining
their freedoms. If we falter, we may endanger the peace of the world,
and we shall surely endanger the welfare of this Nation.
Now, we have no guarantee of victory in Iraq. There is no battle plan
that comes with a guarantee of victory, but I will tell one thing that
is very clear: what is happening in Iraq and our efforts in Iraq are
connected and are watched by every terrorist in the world, and that
connection is established and travels as fast as the speed of electrons
in this age of television and technology and high-paced, fast media and
the Internet. They see what we are doing.
And that connection, Mr. Speaker, was made when the Beirut bombings
occurred against the Marines in the Marine barracks in Beirut. In fact,
I think Mr. Skelton was with me. We were over there very shortly before
those bombings occurred.
They are connected and the terrorist world watched very closely when
there was no response to that. They watched very closely when there was
no response in the Khobar Towers, with respect to the Cole and
extremely anemic response with respect to the bombings in the embassies
in Africa.
Now we are undertaking an important and difficult mission; and, Mr.
Speaker, I pointed out before that at least one brigade of the 82nd
Airborne is already in place in Baghdad, now engaged in the operation,
and we have a brigade of the Big Red One moving now toward the theater.
I believe we have right at 4,000 members of the 82nd Airborne now in
country in Iraq, and we have Iraqi soldiers and Americans engaged in
the nine sectors of the city already undertaking this operation and
this plan that has been developed by our warfighting commanders.
The idea that we are here, poised to retroactively condemn an
operation that our soldiers are already carrying out, is, to my mind,
remarkable. There is not going to be any force in effect with respect
to this vote that will take place shortly that will do anything but
send the wrong message to America's

[[Page H1540]]

allies, and I think you have seen comments by some of our allies over
the last several weeks with respect to the message that we send out. We
are interesting people are we not, Mr. Speaker. We send out messages
with all the electronic gadgets in the world to convey the messages to
the entire world, and then we say, you know, we really did not mean
what you take our statements to mean and we really did not intend to
give anybody the wrong message that we still support the troops.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have got a number of great members of the Armed
Services Committee that I want to yield to, and I want to come back
later and talk a little bit later about this war against terror and the
centerpiece that is Iraq and the centerpiece of that which is as
planned.
You know, I was thinking there was a statement once that in a little
hut in Central America when we were standing up to the Communists and
we were providing a shield for El Salvador, while that fragile
democracy stood up, there was a hut in El Salvador which reportedly had
the writing on it, Thank God for Ronald Reagan. I am wondering if some
trooper in the 82nd Airborne, in the 2nd brigade of the 82nd Airborne
may write on a wall in Baghdad, maybe on Friday when we take this vote,
This is the day in which the American Congress condemned the mission
that we are carrying out today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lend my strong support to this
bipartisan resolution supporting our men and women in uniform and
opposing the President's decision to send more troops into Iraq.
Last year, Congress united across party lines to say loudly and
clearly, the year of 2006 must be a year of significant transition in
Iraq. Rather than chart a new course, the President is proposing more
of the same. His actions will only deepen America's involvement in
Iraq's civil war.
Instead of acknowledging the facts on the ground, instead of
listening to the combatant commanders and the Iraq Study Group and
instead of hearing the American people's call for change, the President
has once again chosen to stick to his failed policies, and now he has
raised the risk by insisting more U.S. troops head to Iraq.
It has been 4 years, Mr. President. The American people have every
right to expect a change of course in Iraq, and it is your
responsibility to them and our men and women in uniform to stop
fighting Iraq's civil war.
As General Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency
under President Reagan, wrote this weekend, unless Congress speaks up,
and I quote, we may be doomed to 2 more years of chasing a mirage in
Iraq and possibly widening the war to Iran. We cannot let that happen.
Sending more U.S. troops to Iraq will not stabilize it or the region as
a whole. As the latest National Intelligence Estimate makes clear, Iraq
is becoming more polarized and violent, not less. Sending more American
troops to Iraq without stronger Iraqi leadership will only lead to
further chaos.
My consistent opposition to this troop surge is built upon years of
hearings in the House Armed Services Committee, congressional briefings
and five trips to the region, including three to Iraq, witnessing the
war firsthand and speaking with our troops and commanders on the
ground.
I have watched the President plead his case to the American people,
trying to justify why more troops will save his failed policy; but I am
consistently disappointed by the stubbornness exhibited by an
administration that has failed every step of the way.
I have stated from the beginning of the war that the Commander in
Chief has the responsibility to define a well-articulated mission that
has the support of the American people and an exit strategy to bring
our troops home sooner and safer. He has neither.
Top military commanders in Iraq, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and
the American people all agree that sending more troops to Iraq will not
end the civil war. They understand the Iraqi Government needs to take
responsibility for securing their own country, and we should
immediately begin a strategic redeployment of U.S. troops in
conjunction with diplomacy that forces Iraq's neighbors to step up as
regional, responsible partners.
If the President sidesteps the Congress, he does so at his own peril;
and, sadly, it is the men and women of our Armed Forces and their
families who will pay the highest price.

{time} 2015

I believe it is grossly irresponsible to send more troops to Iraq
when only two thirds of our Army's up-armored Humvees in Iraq and
Afghanistan have been fitted with the latest anti-IED protective kits.
That is over 4,000 Humvees without the right equipment.
General Pace has indicated that all armored vehicles will not be up-
armored until July, well after the President's surge has occurred.
This is why I am an original cosponsor of the Meehan legislation that
requires the President to ask Congress for an up-or-down vote if he
plans to raise troop levels in Iraq and why I am proud to support this
legislation today.
I will continue to challenge the President to abandon his flawed
troop surge policy, and I urge my colleagues to support this important
resolution. We owe it to our troops and to our conscience.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself just 30 seconds, and I would
like to just make one note. That is, if we add the 21,500 troops that
are already partly in Iraq, these reinforcements to the 138 who existed
before the movement started, and we allow for the troops who are
rotating home, we will have fewer; we will have 157,000 troops in Iraq,
according to DOD. That is fewer than the number of troops that we had a
year ago in December. That is the state of this so-called surge; fewer
troops than we had last year.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I would yield such time as he may consume
to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) who, for a
number of years, chaired the Terrorism Subcommittee and is now the
ranking member.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for
yielding me this time.
I rise in opposition to the resolution that will be voted on Friday.
And my statement, as clearly as I can, says why.
Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the funeral of an old friend who
passed away after a wonderful, productive 90 years of life. His family
and friends gathered at the church to celebrate his life and to
remember his accomplishments. During World War II, he served as a
member of the Army Air Corps.
Near the end of the service, two Air Force sergeants unfolded and
refolded an American flag, and then caringly presented it to my
friend's widow saying, ``On behalf of the President of the United
States, the United States Air Force, and a grateful American people, I
present this flag in honor of your husband's service to his country.''
Mr. Speaker, we survive as a nation today in large part because of
the selfless service to our country by a great many Americans just like
my friend. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, members of the Coast
Guard, and members of the foreign service organizations have been
supported by the American people and by American resources and funding.
Because we are once again involved in a war which threatens our
country, we find American military personnel are again deployed to many
parts of the world. Last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Peter Pace listed the long list of countries where our forces are
deployed and are present to help protect us as part of the global war
on terror. Earlier tonight, I read from that list. There are 70
countries where Americans serve abroad in support of the global war on
terror. We don't send them there because we want to send them off to
some far off part of the world for no good reason. There are threats
there, threats like al Qaeda, threats like Hezbollah, threats like the
Quad groups that are funded by Iran.
This is a unique and historic struggle for a number of reasons. Chief
among them is that our enemies are both state and nonstate actors. They
are lethal and deadly. Fortunately, the great citizens of this country
have responded. Americans have volunteered in large numbers to work,
defend, and fight to protect our way of life. Yet,

[[Page H1541]]

today some among us would question whether we are on the right track.
And I think they are on the wrong track.
As many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know, I have
devoted much of my career in Congress to studying and understanding
this enemy. I must say that I believe I have developed some
understanding of them, and so I would like to take a few minutes here
tonight to share some thoughts and some facts about them. You simply
cannot discuss or understand our situation in Iraq without first
addressing some of the fundamental and important questions about the
enemy.
Who is he, or who are they? How do they work to achieve their goals
on the battlefield? How do they work to achieve their international
objectives? What is our record against them? And what is at stake?
First of all, who are they? Members of al Qaeda and Hezbollah, the
Quads forces, and other similar terrorist groups' view of the world is
based on an extreme ideology, an ideology that is far more extreme than
most Middle Eastern people want or support. I certainly can't speak for
the citizens of the Middle East, but it seems clear to me that in the
opinion of the great majority of citizens and residents of the Middle
East, both Muslim and non-Muslim, that this is an extreme ideology
which they feel they should reject. And they do.
The extremists are groups of individuals who do not believe in any
form of secular government, and will go to seemingly any lengths to
sabotage others who try to establish secular or representative free
types of governments. Their tactics run the gamut from sermonizing to
mistreatment to capture, torture, and death, often by beheading. Their
leaders are male and assign subservient roles to females. Their
ideology holds that members of society, both Middle Eastern society and
otherwise, who do not share their same radical beliefs are assigned to
a subservient role or simply eliminated. They are members of
organizations who state openly and repeatedly, ``Death to the non-
believers, death to America.'' They say it every day. This, in short,
is what they are about.
Perhaps there are some of us here in Congress who don't take these
people seriously. I do. And I am glad Franklin Roosevelt took Hitler
and his people seriously as well. It is much the same.
Twenty years ago, while on my second trip to Israel, it was 1987 to
be exact, I came across an article about Hamas. In 1987, I had never
heard of them before; they were a brand-new group. So while I was
there, I asked about them. And I learned much about Hamas, but also
about other groups that we hear about today, groups like Hezbollah and
the Islamic Jihad, other groups that existed at the time. And I will
always remember getting back on that airplane to come home. I thought,
``Today these people are a huge problem in the Middle East, and I bet
it won't be long until they are a huge problem in the U.S.'' They are
today.
The second thing I would like to talk a little bit about is how they
work to achieve their goals on the battlefield. It is kind of unique,
certainly unique in history. Their radical ideology breeds an
unconventional strategy of violence, and they are not to be
underestimated. This is the method to their violence:
They have recognized that it is difficult or impossible for them to
achieve their goals through conventional warfare strategies and
techniques. They have instituted as a substitute a four-stage process
that replaces traditional warfare, at least traditional warfare as we
know it in the West. Their strategy is well laid out and planned; it is
called insurgency. Four steps.
First, they work quietly to gain the support of the population
through social, charitable, and ideological groups and organizations,
schools, hospitals, charities. They gain the support of the people.
Second, now that they have developed some strength in organization,
they begin to develop strength in unconventional warfare capabilities.
Unconventional warfare capabilities, terrorism, if you will, until
their ability exists to severely harass their enemy, usually the
superior legitimate force, the government of whatever country they
happen to be operating in. This is often the traditional or newly
created government, just like the one that we are dealing with in Iraq.
And in this way, they build popular support through unconventional
warfare successes as well as through charities.
Step three. They develop the ability to reconsider the danger of
counterattack posed by the stronger legitimate force or government, and
the ability to fade away temporarily into the population until the
pressure is off so they can come back and fight again, all the time
getting stronger, all the time carrying out their work through the
charities and the schools and the hospitals, and the terrorist acts
against their enemy.
Finally, the fourth step, they develop it over time, the conventional
capabilities that are necessary to be used against the stronger
traditional force with the objective of defeating the legitimate
government.
If that sounds familiar, it should, because it is exactly what is
happening in Iraq. This is the traditional four-step insurgency process
first used in China by Mao in the 1920s, and in Vietnam during the
1960s and 1970s.
Studying this concept, one can apply it to various theaters around
the world in the global war on terror and identify various stages in
various theaters in many places in the world. I believe, for example,
Hezbollah in Lebanon has worked its way nearly to the fourth stage of
the insurgency process. Other groups like al Qaeda in Iraq are
following the same course elsewhere.
The third thing I would like to talk about a little bit is how they
work to achieve superiority strategically internationally. Let's look
at the process, the process that fosters the doubt that some citizens
in the U.S. have today. That is why we are here tonight. Some people
doubt our capabilities. And this is the type of thinking that brings us
here tonight. This is the doubt that fuels the desire to disengage, to
pretend that the danger doesn't exist, to discuss, as we are here today
or tonight, solutions to limit our success and move toward
disengagement.
The enemy has demonstrated a strong understanding and some success
internationally in developing this unconventional strategy of warfare.
It has evolved something like this:
In the early 19th century, armies met each other on the battlefield,
frontline to frontline. We all remember looking at those old movies of
wars in the 19th century. Warriors were trained in techniques aimed at
defeating their foe's frontlines so as to prevail on the battlefield.
There was little thought, planning, or training given to reaching
beyond the frontlines in battle, much less to strike directly at
central governments. Today, this strategy of warfare is called first-
generation warfare.
Then, during the 20th century, specifically during World War I and
World War II, two new generations of warfare evolved. During World War
I, armies were trained to carry out tactics not only against frontlines
but also against logistical supply lines. The intent was to damage the
enemy's ability by reaching back beyond the battlefield frontline. This
is called second-generation warfare.
World War II brought about third-generation warfare by using tactics
to reach even further behind the lines to attack the industrial
production facilities of the enemy's central governments.
Finally, the most recent evolution, strategic and tactical execution
of warfare, designed as fourth-generation warfare. The goal, to destroy
the determination of the enemy's decisionmakers to continue the fight.

{time} 2030

Today's decisionmakers are the citizens of Europe and the rest of the
West, including, of course, the United States and the decisionmakers of
the United States Congress. Unconventional tools have been used by al
Qaeda through fourth-generation warfare and other groups to convince
the decisionmakers to discontinue the effort. Unconventional tools such
as the Western media, terrorist acts such as those on 9/11, and
unconventional warfare such as killing Shiia citizens, Sunni citizens
and coalition military participants with IEDs and car and truck bombs.
Through the media, every one of these acts which is reported has an
effect and carries a message intentionally to discourage
decisionmakers,

[[Page H1542]]

and that is precisely the plan. That is precisely why we are having
this debate tonight.
That brings us to the debate today. Often American decisionmakers
have been convinced through fourth-generation warfare used by al Qaeda
and used by other groups, Shiia militias, Sunni insurgents, to convince
some here to vote to discontinue necessary efforts in one of the
central theaters of the global war on terror, Iraq, and hence convince
us not to provide the level of national security so important to the
citizens and children and future generations of the United States of
America.
Fourth, let me talk about understanding the consequences of
withdrawal and our record. Withdrawal under fire is unacceptable and
history is replete with examples of harmful consequences in doing so.
Lebanon and Somalia are two examples where we presently face increased
threats to our national security as a result of previously ill-timed
withdrawals.
As a result of the U.S. withdrawal in Lebanon, for example, after the
Marine barracks bombing in 1983, the country, Lebanon, even today
remains a terrorist hotbed. The withdrawal strengthened Hezbollah. It
contributed to years of civil war in Lebanon. It diminished U.S.
prestige in the region and influence throughout much of the world.
The lingering question: Could the U.S. have prevented the rise of
Hezbollah and the influence of Tehran with sustained engagement in
Lebanon? We will never know.
In 1993, we withdrew our forces from Somalia after a failed military
operation in Mogadishu. A decade later an Islamic militia with ties to
al Qaeda has controlled that country and is responsible for
destabilizing the entire Horn of Africa. We didn't know it at the time.
We decided to withdraw. It was a mistake. This radical movement briefly
shows signs of regaining lost ground in Somalia, even today.
At the very least, Somalia remains a dangerous, ungoverned place, and
the lingering question, could the United States have prevented the
spread of radicalism in the Horn of Africa with a sustained engagement
in Somalia, but we withdrew.
Further evidence of failure to respond to terrorism emboldened al
Qaeda. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed. No response. In
1996, Khobar Towers were bombed. No response. In 1998, the U.S. Embassy
bombings in Kenya and Tanzania took place. No response. In 2000, the
attack on the USS Cole took place. No response.
Result? September 11. We are not alone. The Soviet Union and Israel
both paid heavy prices for implementing a precipitous withdrawal on two
separate occasions. The Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989
and left behind the conditions of anarchy and warlordism, which
ultimately led to the rise of the Taliban and provided safe haven for
al Qaeda.
Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 resulted in an empowered
Hezbollah, weakened Lebanese moderates failed to keep peace. The best
example was Hezbollah's naked aggression this past summer in delivering
unbelievable attacks against Israel's civilian population. As one
commentator has put it, this is from Victor Hanson in the National
Review Online, December 1, 2006, ``By not responding to a decade of
prior attacks in East Africa, New York, Saudi Arabia and Yemen and
withdrawing precipitously from Lebanon and Mogadishu, we gave the fatal
impression that terrorists could strike the U.S. with near impunity.''
That is what we are talking about doing now in Iraq.
The lesson here is obvious. We must remain engaged until we complete
our mission. Finally, what is at stake? It is clear that al Qaeda and
other groups constitute a serious threat to the citizens of the U.S.
for this generation and, even more importantly, for the future
generations. Our enemies have demonstrated significant success in
carrying out activities to the detriment of the citizens of the U.S.
They have successfully attacked numerous targets overseas, mostly
with explosives, and have used missiles known as jumbo jets to attack
New York City and Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon, and they have used
explosives in terror operations in Afghanistan, and even more
successfully in Iraq to pit the minority Sunni population against the
Shiia. They fueled the insurgency and have cost Sunni, Shiia, as well
as the lives of U.S. soldiers.
Our choices may be difficult. It is not easy to be at war. It is even
harder to stay at war, but it is clearly proven by history that we must
not abandon the missions in the war on terror nor in the Iraqi theater.
We have seen the results of the precipitous withdrawals. It would be
unconscionable to vote and to do other than to support the
administration's plan.
Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman yield briefly?
Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman
Mr. HUNTER. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding briefly. I
want to thank him for his statement and just clarify the record, while
he has got some time, if I could.
Mr. Speaker, my good friend from California, the gentlelady, made the
remark, as I understand it, that the Iraq Study Group did not agree
with the President's so-called surge. I just would point to the
statement that the Iraq Study Group published in their report. They
said we could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of
American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training
and equipping mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that
such steps would be effective.
We also rejected the immediate withdrawal of our troops because we
believe that so much is at stake. So the Iraq Study Group did state
that they would support a surge to effect the stabilization of Baghdad,
and it is in the nine sectors of Baghdad with Iraqi battalions to the
front, American battalions backing them up, that this operation is
taking right now. So it appears to me that the President is, in fact,
following and is on common ground with this recommendation by the Iraq
Study Group. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. If the gentleman will yield, I just wanted to respond,
since you were so nice to quote me.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is, as we all know, the Iraq Study Group had a
very comprehensive strategy, but it was a radical departure from what
the President is proposing today in this surge. I think there was some,
you know, 70-plus recommendations in the Iraq Study Group, including
shifting the mission to training of the Iraqi Security Forces and a big
emphasis on diplomacy. So I don't think it is fair for the gentleman to
cherry-pick a paragraph out of what the Iraq Study Group says.
But with all due respect, I will tell you what the Iraq Study Group
recommended is not what the President is doing now. Frankly, the
President has rejected the Iraq Study Group recommendations, and I
think that to suggest that he is going along with the Iraq Study Group
recommendations is really not correct.
Mr. HUNTER. I would just say to my friend from California, he is
consistent with the Iraq Study Group to the extent of 21,500 troops,
which has been described by your side of the debate as very substantial
and such an important thing and such a major thing that it should be
stopped. So that, obviously, is not an inconsequential aspect of the
Iraq Study Group's statement.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Well, yielding myself some time, I don't disagree with
you, but one recommendation out of some 70-odd does not make the Iraq
Study Group what the President is doing.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I am going to yield myself 25 minutes, and
at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, the
chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Costello.
Mr. COSTELLO. I want to thank my friend from California for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Skelton bipartisan
resolution opposing President Bush's policy to send 21,500 additional
troops to Iraq. I do so because I am strongly against escalating the
war in Iraq.
This is not so much a policy as it is a hope that additional troops
will somehow make right the long list of poor decisions by this
administration regarding our involvement in Iraq. Putting 21,500 more
soldiers on the

[[Page H1543]]

ground only gives President Bush little more time to resist the
conclusion that the vast majority of Americans have already reached,
and that is that the events in Iraq have moved beyond our ability to
impact them in a meaningful way militarily.
It is important to note that we have reached this point not because
of some failing of our men and women in uniform who continue to make
sacrifices. Indeed, our respect and admiration for our troops is
matched only by their bravery. Regrettably, but not unpredictably, the
plan for postwar Iraq woefully was inadequate, and the Bush
administration, instead of taking responsibility for its failings,
continues to insist that victory is just around the corner. It is not.
A civil war is raging in Iraq, and our troops are caught in the
crossfire.
The grand designs of the Bush administration are not attainable now,
if they ever were. It is time to admit it and move forward. This is not
to say that we should abandon the region. Far from it. The United
States must continue to work with countries of the Middle East and of
the world to stabilize Iraq and its neighbors.
I have said for months that I believe the best way to get the rest of
the world to take responsibility for what is happening on the ground in
Iraq may be to remove our troops, and I am convinced that this is the
necessary course of action now. We can maintain a strong presence in
the region, but we cannot make the hard political decisions that the
Sunnis, Shiites and others must make to save Iraq, and then they will
not make them as long as our military is there.
Let me just reemphasize that. We cannot make the hard political
decisions that the Sunnis and Shiites and others must make to save
Iraq, and they will not make them as long as our military is there.
Mr. Speaker, the American people do not support sending more troops
to Iraq. In fact, the American people want us out of Iraq, and the
people of Iraq want us out as well
Mr. Speaker, I commend the sacrifices and service of our men and
women in uniform, and I commend Chairman Skelton for bringing this
bipartisan resolution to the floor of the House. I urge my colleagues
to support the bipartisan resolution.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 6 minutes to my
friend and colleague from California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our
extraordinary troops and oppose sending over 20,000 additional U.S.
forces into the middle of Iraq's violent sectarian conflict. I oppose
the President's plan because it will not end the insurgency, halt
military activity, or accelerate our departure from Iraq. The plan is
not a strategic change.
Rather, it is the continuation of a failed policy. When Congress
voted to authorize the use of military force, I voted ``no.'' I felt at
that time that we had not exhausted all diplomatic avenues and that
unilateral action would have a grave effect on our strategic position
in the world. More significantly, it could undercut the broader long-
term war against Islamic extremism. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, many of these
predictions have come through. We now find ourselves in a position
where only grim choices remain.

{time} 2045

The war in Iraq has indeed strained our military, drained taxpayer
dollars and damaged our credibility in the international community. As
a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have heard from a
number of administration officials and academic experts on the way
forward in Iraq. And many of these experts have warned against
increasing the number of troops.
Last November, General Abizaid told Congress that an increase in U.S.
troop levels would only delay the ability of Iraqis to take the lead.
Mr. Speaker, what changed between November and today? Even the most
ardent proponents of the troop increase acknowledge that to work all
pieces must come together.
First, the military must be able to quell sectarian and insurgent
violence. And then if the violence subsides long enough for a window of
opportunity to open, the economic and political components must be
executed flawlessly.
Even if our forces are successful in reducing violence in the short
term, assurances cannot be given that other parts of the government
will be able to address the economic and political components of the
President's plan.
Well, the track record of the administration and the Maliki
government make it hard to believe that such a plan will bring real
results. One of the most egregious errors of our entire experience in
Iraq has been the failure to put trained experts in critical civilian
positions.
To accomplish this new mission, civilian agencies have been asked to
send several hundred experts to Iraq to carry out the plan. However,
the military has reported that because of hiring delays, DOD will have
to assign their own personnel because U.S. civilian agencies are unable
to fill the much needed positions.
Mr. Speaker, it should not be the role of the military to rebuild
nations on their own. We should have been leveraging our talented and
experienced Federal workforce all along. Many of my colleagues have
already discussed key issues such as readiness and equipment levels,
but two of the greatest concerns I have with the President's plan are
the effect on our volunteer force and the strategic risk that is
created by putting more military assets into Iraq.
By adding more troops, the administration leaves our Nation with
fewer resources to deal with Afghanistan and future contingencies. Will
we be able to respond if our military is needed elsewhere? With more of
our troops bogged down, will our allies around the world continue to
have faith in our ability to respond to extremist and military threats
around the globe?
We must answer these questions. But I have not heard satisfactory
responses from the President or military officials. Mr. Speaker, I also
oppose the surge because the present administration has not
sufficiently answered questions about the impact on military personnel.
For those in the military, this war hits close to home every day.
While we have asked few Americans to sacrifice during this conflict,
servicemembers and their families continue to face the uncertainty of
repeated deployments, injury and in some cases the death of a loved
one. They deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I told President Bush that veterans in my district have
said, ``We are a military at war, not a Nation at war.'' And military
leaders agree. Mr. Speaker, if we truly want to create a situation
where we can withdraw our troops, we need to escalate our diplomatic
efforts and call on Iraq's neighbors to help the Iraqi Government make
the tough political decisions needed to reduce the violence.
We must not give in to the President's diversion, but develop a
multipronged strategic plan the American and the Iraqi people deserve
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support
of this resolution that supports our troops, but oppose the President's
escalation plan. My opposition to this war has been clear and
consistent. The night before I voted against the Iraq war resolution in
October 2002, I stated on this floor that Congress should not grant the
President power to pursue a war in Iraq for three reasons.
First, Iraq was not an imminent threat to the safety and security of
America, something we now know to be true. There are no weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq.
Secondly, we were acting without real international support. And we
now know that our unilateral action proved to be disastrous to our
standing in the world community.
Finally, I questioned whether the President had an exit strategy.
Now, 4\1/2\ years later, it is clear that President Bush did not have
and still does not have an exit strategy for our troops.
Even though I voted against the invasion, I never dreamt that the
President's policies and course of action would be as disastrous as
they have been for Iraq, for the gulf region and for America.
Americans went to the polls in November to send a clear message to
Congress and to the administration. They

[[Page H1544]]

are against this war and they want a successful exit plan. Americans
see that we are spending 8 to $10 billion a month to fight this war,
while in our own country we have 47 million Americans without health
care insurance and our national debt is almost $9 trillion.
Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues and I hear the American people
loud and clear. They want oversight of this war. They want to know the
hard facts of the situation on the ground in Iraq, instead of the rosy
picture the Bush administration tries to paint. They want
investigations of and an end to the shady contracting in Iraq that has
given away billions of American dollars without so much as a receipt.
They want assurances that our troops will be protected.
Mr. Speaker, even though it was a mistake of titanic proportions to
initiate this war, now that Iraq has been destabilized, what are we to
do? The answer cannot be more of the same, because what we are doing is
failing to have a positive impact. Our troops have performed the
difficult missions given to them in Iraq with courage.
Congress and the American people will continue to support them and
provide them with every resource they need. 320 soldiers from my home
State of California have died in this war. We can never repay our debt
to their faithful service and the sacrifices made by their families.
The failure in Iraq is not a failure of our fighting men and women.
It is a failure of command, a failure of political leadership. We must
provide our troops and their families with a new exit strategy instead
of a new deployment.
The civil war in Iraq is not the product of ad hoc, spur-of-the-
moment individual violence. No. It is organized and it is a strategy of
various political and sectarian factions in Iraq. Putting our troops in
the middle of these warring factions will not end the violence. It will
only put our troops in the middle of it. That notion is borne out by
the fact that more than 60 percent of the Iraqi public believes that it
is a good thing to attack and kill Americans stationed in Iraq.
Proponents of the President's escalation plan act as if the United
States has but two options: one, increase the American troops at great
cost, both in human lives and financial; or, two, do nothing. But those
are not the only choices. We must step up our diplomatic efforts in the
region as recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
Americans should call upon neighboring states in the Middle East to
take strong measures to avoid a spread of the conflict beyond Iraq. As
Iraq disintegrates into sectarian violence, her neighbors must insist
that the factions within Iraq halt their civil war.
We need to remind the countries in the region that stability in Iraq
is vital to their interests. If they want to avoid having this war
spill out across the Middle East, they must step up their diplomatic
efforts. With the help of the entire region, we can push the Iraqis to
help themselves.
Iraqi security forces must be trained in a faster pace so they can be
responsible for their own country. There is no guarantee of success in
Iraq, nor is there a clear definition of what success might look like;
but we do have a moral obligation to make our best efforts to diffuse
the chaos the war has created. The solution must be a political and a
diplomatic one.
Unfortunately, the President refuses to pursue the diplomatic options
endorsed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and his own military
advisors. As we saw today with the welcome news that diplomatic efforts
have led to the de-escalation of tensions in North Korea and an
agreement to abandon their nuclear weapons ambition, a conflict is not
always the right answer to world challenges.
Even General Abizaid, the outgoing top commander of the U.S. forces
in Iraq, does not believe an escalation will increase our chances of
American success. The American public has long been ahead of Congress
in their opposition to this war.
I am here today to tell the American people that they are being
heard. I stand with the majority of Americans who say they have had
enough. In the coming weeks and days, Congress will give the
President's plan the scrutiny the American people expect and our troops
deserve. It is time to bring this war to an end and time to support
this resolution
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my friend and colleague.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, America begins the fifth year of war in Iraq.
I am pleased that Speaker Pelosi has scheduled such a thorough debate
of the most important moral and political issue of the day. The war in
Iraq was misguided from the outset, even illegal, and has been
mismanaged consistently ever since.
The resolution we have before us today puts Congress on record
opposing the escalation of troops in Iraq proposed by President Bush
and expressing our steadfast support for our troops.
Let me say at the outset that I intend to vote for this resolution.
It is an important first step. The President's escalation of forces in
Iraq is worse than the stay-the-course strategy so clearly rejected by
Americans. If we pass this resolution, we will be doing more than
repudiating the President's disastrous policy. We will for the first
time be putting Congress on record in a way that will allow us to bring
this war to an end for Americans.
Mr. Speaker, U.S. Armed Forces who are serving in Iraq are heroes.
They are the most finely trained and dedicated group of patriots any
leader could want. But they now find themselves mired in the middle of
intense violence, based on sectarian, political, social and cultural
factors dating back 1,000 years.
The situation in Iraq cannot be solved militarily. Pretending
otherwise only puts our soldiers, marines and others in greater danger.
I have visited them in theater, in Iraq and other countries in the
region and, yes, at Walter Reed Hospital here in Washington.
I have met with their families in New Jersey. The quality of these
men and women, their earnest wish to serve their country makes this
situation all the more tragic.
Mr. Speaker, they were sent to Iraq irresponsibly and in ignorance by
leaders, sometimes improperly equipped, and are now asked to achieve an
impossible mission. There is no way for us to resolve militarily the
emerging multifaceted civil war that is engulfing Iraq.
When he ordered the invasion of Iraq, President Bush unleashed forces
he did not understand and could not control. As the most recent
National Intelligence Estimate attests: ``The term civil war does not
adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which
includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence and al Qaeda and Sunni
insurgent attacks on coalition forces and widespread criminally
motivated violence.''
Whenever American forces leave Iraq, there will not be a stable
American-style liberal democracy. Prolonging the occupation of Iraq
whose stability has only declined by any measure as our presence goes
on increases the costs we incur in lives, dollars, and international
prestige.
No one will look back and say, if only the American military stayed a
little longer. No, historians will look back and ask what took Congress
so long to recognize a disaster and do something about it. Extracting
American troops from this quagmire will dry up support for the various
insurgencies operating in Iraq, and encourage other nations to take
part in the process of stabilizing the country and promote the domestic
processes necessary for long-term stability.
Given all of those factors, the burden should not be on those who
believe that American forces should be withdrawn. The burden should be
on those who want to continue this endeavor to show any compelling
evidence that is worth sending more Americans to kill and to be killed.
Sending more troops should require the same high standard of evidence
that should have been met to go to war in the first place.

{time} 2100

But the President and, I am sorry to say, the previous Congresses did
not apply that high standard. Some of us said 4 years ago that there
was not evidence sufficiently compelling to send Americans to kill and
to die. After the President went to war anyway, I called for withdrawal
early.

[[Page H1545]]

Now, Congress must establish standards that we failed to set,
standards of intelligence and evidence, standards of diplomacy,
standards of legislative oversight, so that we do not go to war or
escalate wars based on ideology rather than evidence, bravado rather
than humility, patriotic fervor rather than patient diplomacy.
Congress failed in its constitutional role to exert a check and
balance on the Executive. With this resolution we begin on a new
course, under new legislative leadership. We will audit the books. We
will review the procedures for detaining prisoners, for engaging
civilians, for conducting intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for President Bush to catch up with the
American people. The American people understand that American forces
should not remain in Iraq to try to quell a civil war they cannot
control. The American people understand that we must refocus our
attention on our real interests. If the President did not, let us show
at least that we do and pass this resolution.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and
colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Al Green of Texas). Before recognition,
the Chair announces that the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher)
has 1 hour and 17 minutes, and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter) has 1 hour and 18 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the debate taking place here in the House
this week is long overdue. We are approaching our fifth year of this
war, and this is the first time Congress is debating the strategy
President Bush wants to implement in Iraq.
Congress can no longer stand on the sidelines, and the President has
to know that to escalate the war in Iraq is simply not acceptable. We
have lost too many American lives, seen too many soldiers seriously
injured and spent too much of our hard-earned taxpayer money for no
good reason. I am proud of my vote against the initial Iraq war
resolution, and see this resolution before us tonight as the beginning
of the end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to commend our troops
for the valiant work they have done over the last 5 years. I am
thinking of them when I voice my strong opposition to the President's
plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.
The President hopes this troop escalation plan will secure Baghdad
and reduce the sectarian violence that is ripping the country apart.
But there is no evidence to support those hopes.
In fact, on four different occasions the President increased troop
levels in Iraq, and every time these plans failed to calm the violence
in Iraq. Last summer the President moved more troops into Baghdad and
said that he hoped to see some results in a matter of months. By
October, General William Caldwell had publicly stated that the surge
was a failure and the operations had ``not met our overall expectations
of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence.''
Additional troops are not going to make a difference because there
simply is not a military solution to the war in Iraq. The devastating
sectarian violence is going to continue, but our troops should no
longer be asked to serve as referees in a battle between religious
sects that have been fighting for centuries.
Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
claim that if you speak out against the President's proposal, you are
not supporting our troops, and this is nonsense. And if they listened
to the troops, they would know that not even a majority of our troops
support the President's plan. According to a poll conducted by Army
Times, a weekly newspaper popular with Active Duty and retired Army
personnel, only 41 percent of our troops support the President's plan.
But they will do whatever is asked of them, regardless of whether or
not they agree with the command.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the war, our troops fought without
the body armor they needed to protect themselves against improvised
electronic devices. It now appears that the military doesn't have the
protective equipment needed to properly outfit the troops the President
plans to send to Iraq. According to the Army, it lacks not only armor
kits for soldiers, but also trucks and vehicles needed to accommodate
any escalation in troop levels. Lieutenant General Steven Speaks, the
Army's deputy chief of staff for force development, said any additional
units of troops sent to Iraq would have to share the trucks assigned to
the units now there.
Do supporters of this plan really believe this Congress should allow
the President to move ahead without properly investigating whether or
not our troops will have all the necessary protective equipment they
need?
Mr. Speaker, we also need to realistically look at the distraction
that the Iraq war is causing in the overall war against terror. While
the administration and the Pentagon focus their attention on Iraq, the
war in Afghanistan has been forgotten. The Taliban has significantly
grown in strength in Afghanistan, and America needs to focus its
attention there, the source of the attacks on 9/11.
Mr. Speaker, I opposed this war from the very beginning, and want to
see our troops home. The President should be putting forth a plan for
withdrawal from Iraq, not escalation. I am willing to vote to cut off
funding for the escalation. I have voted against the Iraq supplemental
appropriation bills to send a message that we need to end U.S. military
involvement in Iraq. With this resolution, we begin the process of
getting out of a place where we should never have been from the
beginning.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes to just make a
brief response to a couple of statements that have been made.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Holt referred to our wounded folks in Walter Reed as
tragic. They are not tragic. They are American heroes, and they are the
people who have bought the freedom that allows us to have this debate
today.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield some time to three unusual
Americans on the Armed Services Committee who all have had sons serving
in the Iraq theater. The first gentleman is the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Kline), whose son has been a helicopter pilot in Iraq,
as much time as the gentleman wishes to consume.
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, of course I rise today in strong
opposition to this resolution.
It occurs to me, Mr. Hunter, that I need to thank you not only for
your service, but for your son's service in the Marine Corps. It is one
of those little twists of those things that I served my whole life in
the Marine Corps, and my son is serving in the Army. You served in the
Army, and your son is serving in the Marine Corps. And I don't know if
we will ever untwist this. But I thank you and him for his service.
Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this resolution will have us believe
that this resolution supports and protects our military personnel while
criticizing the President for changing course.
We have listened to several speakers today who, like me, served in
Vietnam and witnessed firsthand the micromanagement of the war from
Washington. Ironically, they stand here today endorsing the same
incompetent policy of interference. Instead of President Johnson
choosing bombing targets, however, we have 535 legislators dictating
General Petraeus's reinforcement levels; yes, dictating his tactics. It
was wrong in 1967, Mr. Speaker, and it is wrong in 2007.
I notice that the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services
Committee has risen several times today to point out his belief that
what the President is doing is not a change of strategy, it is a change
of tactics. And I would say to my good friend, that great gentleman
from Missouri, that if that is right, if this is tactics, then in fact
this resolution is trying to do just that, micromanage the tactics of
this war.
If congressional micromanagement were the only problem with this
resolution, I would still argue vigorously for its defeat. But it is
not the only problem. Understanding the purpose and intent of this
resolution, its proponents have revealed their true intentions in the
course of this debate. They intend for this resolution to be the first
step on the path to defunding our troops, withdrawing them, and
allowing Iraq to become a chaotic, ungoverned space that will act as a
training ground for al Qaeda and the radical jihadists that we are at
war with.

[[Page H1546]]

Though few in the West knew it, a new war had already begun during my
days as commander of Marine aviation forces in Somalia. In the intense
battle in the back alleys of Mogadishu that inspired the movie
``Blackhawk Down'' and the bombing of vulnerable U.S. embassies in
Tanzania and Kenya captured America's attention briefly, but it took an
unprecedented attack on our homeland for the country to realize what
Islamic extremists had long known: The United States was at war. And I
think Mr. Saxton did a very thorough and eloquent job of explaining the
length and nature of this war. Every country was now a potential front
and every city a battlefield in the enemy's war against Zionist
crusaders and nonbelievers. Whether by design or not, Iraq has become
the front in not only a physical war of attrition, but in the war of
wills between free societies and Islamic jihadists who seek to destroy
them.
The proponents of this flawed resolution prefer to ignore reality.
They believe that repeating the mistaken belief that Iraq is not a
central front in the war against Islamic jihadists will make that
perception real. Unfortunately for those who hold this belief, the
enemy, our enemy has a say in the matter. Al Qaeda's second in command,
al-Zawahiri, in December 2006, made it quite clear where al Qaeda
stands. In a video posted on jihadist Web sites, al-Zawahiri sent a
clear message: ``The backing of Jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq today is
to back the most important battlefields in which the crusade against
Islam and Muslims is in progress. And the defeat of the Crusaders
there, soon, Allah permitting, will have a far-reaching effect on the
future of the Muslim Ummah, Allah willing.''
We have heard repeatedly that al Qaeda and the jihadist terrorists
understand that Iraq is the central front in this war against radical
Islam. Thankfully, the U.S. military leadership has also recognized
this fact.
In his recent testimony before the Senate, General David Petraeus was
asked if he believes that Iraq affects the overall war on terror. His
response was clear and unequivocal: ``I do, sir.''
Clearly, there are elements of the greater al Qaeda network of
international extremists that want something very different than most
Iraqis want, and want something very different in that region and in
the world.
Many mistakes have been made as our military, unparalleled in
conventional strength and maneuver, has changed strategy and tactics to
fight the counterinsurgency battle. In response to the frustration at
the lack of progress felt by those in Iraq and at home, the American
military demonstrated its greatest strength: the ability to adapt to
new conditions on the ground and develop new strategy.
To those who have lived and studied the art of military strategy and
tactics, the plan we debate this week, developed by American commanders
in Iraq and here at home, represents a fundamental shift. In a study
updated last week, Anthony Cordesman from the nonpartisan Center for
Strategic and International Studies, declared that, ``Much of the
criticism of the new Bush approach has been unfair. The new strategy is
considerably more sophisticated and comprehensive than the details the
President could fit into his 20-minute address,'' or, I might add, Mr.
Speaker, than I can include in this 10-minute address, ``presuming it
combines political, military and economic action in ways that do offer
a significant hope of success.''
But rather than acknowledge the comprehensive nature of the new
Baghdad and al-Anbar security plan, opponents prefer to ignore the
pleas of General Petraeus to provide him with the troops necessary to
turn the security situation in Iraq's capital city around. Instead,
they pat him on the back, wish him ``Godspeed'' in his endeavor, and
then promptly move to deny him that which he has requested and needs to
succeed. As a Vietnam veteran, I cannot in good conscience watch as
Congress once again undercuts the morale of those in uniform.
I will not stand idly by and watch others resurrect the ghost of that
painful conflict, and we have heard it resurrected many times this day,
Mr. Speaker, without acknowledging the slaughter and humanitarian
disaster that resulted from the fall of Saigon. And it was a
humanitarian disaster. Millions died. Just as in 1974, decisions we
make today in this body will have consequences for entire nations and
generations to come. History stands ready to judge the wisdom of this
body, its ability to learn from past mistakes and its ability to
comprehend the ramifications of its actions. In spite of countless
warnings, I fear we will come up short in the eyes of posterity.
Opponents call for the administration to heed the advice of its
generals, only to reject the commanders' pronouncement when such states
are at odds with their own misguided perceptions. They criticize the
``cherry-picking'' of prewar intelligence, and then proceed to do just
that, while reading the most recent National Intelligence Estimate,
choosing to ignore the dire warnings of the Intelligence Community's
most authoritative written judgments on national security issues.
But to those who criticize this new security plan and offer no
solutions for success, only demands for capitulation, we must demand
that they answer a vital question they choose to ignore: What will
happen if the Iraqi Government does not succeed and we withdraw
prematurely?
One critic of the administration's handling of Iraq, a very vocal
critic, and a man who I knew and admired throughout my Marine Corps
career, retired General Anthony Zinni, the former commander of Central
Command, spelled it out bluntly when he noted that, ``We cannot simply
pull out, as much as we may want to. The consequences of a destabilized
and chaotic Iraq sitting in the center of a critical region in the
world could have catastrophic implications.''

{time} 2115

The recent National Intelligence Estimate was even more specific in
its analysis. If the United States were to withdraw rapidly, the Iraqi
security forces would likely collapse, neighboring countries might
intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and
forced population displacement would be probable; and al Qaeda in Iraq
would attempt to use parts of the country to plan increased attacks in
and outside of Iraq.
It seems pretty clear to me, Mr. Speaker, what we are debating here
is success or failure.
Let us not support that catastrophe. Let us not promote a
humanitarian disaster which is almost unimaginable. Let us support
success in Iraq. Let us support the new commander in Iraq and give him
what he needs to succeed in this mission.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my
friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
(Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution
expressing disapproval of the President's decision to escalate the war
in Iraq.
During the past 4 years, I have embraced, stood by, and prayed with
Wisconsin families as they said their last goodbyes to their brave sons
and daughters and husbands and wives. Those fallen soldiers have served
with the utmost loyalty and courage, trusting decision-makers in
Washington, the President, his administration, and this Congress to do
the right thing. Like almost all of my colleagues, I have visited with
wounded troops at Walter Reed and at home and joined with families and
communities to send troops off to war and to welcome them back home.
All of them, all of them, the dead, the wounded, the deployed, the
returned, and their families, deserve political leaders who will make
decisions worthy of their enormous sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, we have
fallen well short of that goal, and we will only honor their sacrifices
when we acknowledge this and end the war.
I want to review just some of the things that we now know. We all
know that this is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. We all know
that Iraq posed no imminent danger to America that would justify what
this administration called a ``preemptive'' war. We all know that Iraq
had nothing to do with the tragic September 11 attacks that our Nation
suffered. We know that few in the world stood with America as we
undertook this nearly unilateral war. And we now know that our war in

[[Page H1547]]

Iraq has diverted our attention and our resources from efforts to
combat terrorist threats to our Nation.
And beyond that, we know now that worldwide resentment of our
military presence in Iraq has become a central recruiting tool for
terrorist organizations worldwide. Therefore, we know that this war
continues to make America less safe and more vulnerable.
What else do we now know? We now know that the planning and execution
of this war was wrought with enormous miscalculations. We know that
more than 3,000 American servicemembers have lost their lives in Iraq,
and we know that between 56,000 and 61,000 Iraqi civilians have been
killed since the war began. And based on polls released Monday, we know
that 68 percent of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of
this war.
Mr. Speaker, I was among the first group of House Members to speak
out against the prospect of going to war in Iraq, and I voted against
authorizing the use of force in Iraq; and as an early and consistent
critic of the war, I understand the importance of offering a new course
in Iraq. We must bring an end to our military occupation and replace it
with a program of humanitarian relief, rebuilding political
stabilization, and diplomatic engagement. We must participate in a
robust regional diplomatic effort, including direct discussions with
Syria and Iran, to promote stability in Iraq. And I think that this
effort will be well received by Iraq's neighbors because regardless of
whether these countries are close allies of the United States or not,
Iraq's neighbors have more to gain if Iraq is stabilized and more to
lose if it is not.
We must also heed the advice of many, including the Iraq Study Group,
and acknowledge that other conflicts in the Middle East require our
attention and leadership if the region is to achieve lasting stability.
Therefore, we must also initiate a new push for Arab-Israeli peace. I
believe that Congress has not only the right but the responsibility to
assert its constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government in
overseeing the conduct of this war and bringing it to an end. In doing
so, I believe all options, including using the power of the purse,
should be on the table.
The United States is the lone superpower in the world today. And
along with that awesome power comes responsibility to humankind.
America's reason for maintaining its superpower status must be to
export the best of our democratic system of governance and the hope of
the American Dream to the rest of the world. But these cherished ideals
cannot be exported through force. We must teach and lead by example
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution expressing
disapproval of the President's decision to escalate the war in Iraq.
During the past 4 years I have embraced, stood by, and prayed with
Wisconsin families as they said their last goodbyes to their brave sons
and daughters, husbands and wives. Those fallen soldiers have served
with the utmost loyalty and courage, trusting decision-makers in
Washington--the President; his administration and this Congress--to do
the right thing. Like almost all of my colleagues, I have visited with
wounded troops at Walter Reed and at home, and joined with families and
communities to send troops off to war and to welcome them back home.
All of them, all of them--the dead, the wounded, the deployed, the
returned, their families--deserve political leaders who make decisions
worthy of their enormous sacrifices. Mr. Speaker, we have fallen well
short of that goal, and we will only honor their sacrifices when we
acknowledge this and end the war.
I want to review just some of the things that we know. We all know
that this is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. We all know that
Iraq posed no imminent danger to America that would justify what this
Administration called a ``pre-emptive'' war. We all know that Iraq had
nothing to do with the tragic September 11 attacks that our Nation
suffered. We know that few in the world stood with America as we
undertook this nearly unilateral war. We now know that our war in and
occupation of Iraq has diverted our attention and our resources from
our multi-faceted efforts to combat terrorist threats to our Nation and
its allies. And beyond that, we now know (based upon last year's
declassified intelligence estimates) that worldwide resentment of our
military presence in Iraq has become a central recruiting tool for
terrorist organizations worldwide to increase their ranks. Therefore,
we know that this war continues to make America less safe and more
vulnerable as long as it persists.
What else do we now know? We now know that the planning and the
execution of the war following our invasion were wrought with enormous
miscalculations. We now know that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars
have been lost or squandered through no-bid contracts, lack of
accountability measures and lack of Congressional oversight under the
previous Republican majority. We know that more than 3,000 American
service members have lost their lives in Iraq. We know that between
56,000 and 61,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war began.
And, based on polls released Monday, we know that 68 percent of
Americans disapprove of the President's handling of the war in Iraq and
72 percent of Americans believe that things are going badly in Iraq.
The situation in Iraq today has variously been called an all-out
civil war or more simply a state of chaos.
For years many Americans, including many members of this Congress
from both parties, gave this war a chance. It is time for this
administration to give peace a chance. It is time for the President to
pay attention to the vast yet still growing majority of Americans that
want us to get out of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I was among the first group of House Members to speak
out against the prospect of going to war in Iraq. I voted against
authorizing the use of force in Iraq, and as an early and consistent
critic of the war, I understand the importance of offering a new course
in Iraq. Many of my colleagues have introduced bills that would
redeploy our troops in a responsible manner within a reasonable time
frame, while focusing on aggressive diplomatic efforts to stabilize the
Middle East. A number of these bills and resolutions establish concrete
benchmarks for the Iraqi government. It is long overdue for this
Administration to start paying attention to these alternative
proposals, that chart a new course in Iraq. I believe that we must
redefine our mission in Iraq. We must bring an end to our military
occupation and replace it with a program of humanitarian relief,
political stabilization,and diplomatic engagement. We must participate
in a robust regional diplomatic effort, including direct discussions
with Syria and Iran, to promote stability in Iraq. And I think that
effort would be well received by all Iraq's neighbors, because
regardless of whether these countries are close allies of the United
States, or not, Iraq's neighbors have more to gain if Iraq is
stabilized and more to lose if it is not.
We must also heed the advice of many, including the Iraq Study Group,
and acknowledge that other conflicts in the Middle East require our
attention and leadership, if the region is to achieve lasting
stability. Therefore, we must also initiate a new push for Arab-Israeli
peace.
I believe Congress not only has the right, but the responsibility, to
assert its constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government in
overseeing the conduct of this war and bringing it to an end. Our
Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress the power to declare war
and to raise and support armies. If Congress is given the power to make
wars, we must also exercise our power to end wars. In doing so, I
believe all options, including using ``the power of the purse,'' should
be on the table.
The United States is the lone superpower in the world today. Along
with that awesome and unprecedented power comes responsibilities to
humankind. America's reason for maintaining her superpower status must
be to export the best of our democratic system of governance and the
hope of the American Dream to the rest of the world. But these
cherished ideals can't be exported through force. We must teach and
lead by example.
Mr. Speaker, while I support the resolution, I strongly believe
Congress needs to do more to represent the will of the people and
pursue all options that would lead to an end to this occupation and
this war.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 10 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) and note that he has a son who has
served as a U.S. Marine in Iraq.
(Mr. AKIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, we come here today, we have spent most of the
day on this, to discuss a resolution. It has two parts. The first says
that we support our troops, and the second says that we are opposed to
the mission that the troops are sent on.
Now, the problem with the resolution is that it is self-contradictory
right up front. If we were going to say we are supporting our troops,
we would give them body armor. We would give them up-armored Humvees.
We would give them tanks. But would we withhold the most important in
our arsenal and that is other American fighting men and women? So to
say that we are going to support our troops, but we are not

[[Page H1548]]

going to send them any reinforcements is on the face of it
contradictory. Could you picture Davy Crockett at the Alamo looking at
his BlackBerry, getting a message from Congress: Davy Crockett, we
support you. The only thing is we are not going to send any troops. I
am sure that would really be impressive to Davy Crockett.
The second problem with this resolution is that it really misses the
job of what Congressmen should be doing. Look, I am an engineer by
training. If we are about to make a mistake or we are doing something
wrong, I am open minded to my Democrat colleagues saying to me, Todd,
we are going down the wrong path. That is a bad idea. You should do it
this way instead. I was always trained that if you are ready to
criticize somebody, you at least offer an alternative. But the problem
with this nifty little resolution is that it says we support the
troops, but we are not going to give them any reinforcements, and then
it is blank. There is no recommendation. There is no leadership. They
are just saying we are going to stand on the sidelines and say, It
won't work. But don't we owe our soldiers something positive, something
specific, a positive recommendation?
The Democrats have been elected to majority. That means leadership.
That means if you have got a better idea, put it on the table; but if
you don't, shut up and don't undermine the morale of our troops and
encourage our enemies. That isn't very helpful.
Now, I have heard people talking about the fact that this is a civil
war. This isn't a civil war. If we leave, it will be what is a real
civil war. Right now there is a lot of ethnic clashing and violence,
and what is that caused by? Guess what, terrorists. They said they are
doing it intentionally. They blow up a holy place of the Shias, and the
Shias react and they go shoot up a bunch of Sunnis, and so, yes. But
who started all of this? Well, of course, it is the terrorists. It is
their intention. And do we think if they can destabilize Iraq by
fomenting strife between racial groups that they won't take the same
strategy to the other barely stable nations in the Middle East, nations
where you have a Sunni leadership and a Shia majority? Are they not
going to do the same? Or are you going to say, oh, but it is a civil
war, so we can wash our hands of it, it is nothing to worry about?
Now, we had the ambassadors to Egypt and to Jordan, and they pleaded
with us today, do not rapidly withdraw your troops. So we started to
ask, well, what would happen if we were to do this? Well, nobody knows.
But there is one thing we can kind of assume. All the way through
history, the history of mankind, whenever there is anarchy, it lasts
but a short time; and it is immediately filled with some kind of very
strong dictator. Now, do we think that the dictator is going to be a
moderate, reasonable sort of guy, or if we pull out of Iraq
immediately, is it not likely that we are going to get an
Islamoterrorist dictator? I think that that makes at least some sense.
So then now what do we have? Now we have Iraq with the oil money
supporting it, with this crazy dictator spreading this same kind of
radical Islam all over the Middle East. That is a minimum for the
scenario of what we are potentially looking at if we rapidly withdraw.
Now, it seems to me that all of us, as Americans, need a little bit
of a direction check. And I think sometimes when we need direction, it
is helpful to look at the people who came and founded this great Nation
before us. And so I go back to a question that I ask audiences, not
only school kids but adults. I ask them, What is it that makes America
so unique and so precious? If you take America like an onion and take
all the outer layers off, when you get down to the heart, what makes us
who we are as a people? And invariably I hear the word ``freedom.'' But
that is not quite sufficient because it isn't quite complete. You see,
the people at Tiananmen Square, those little kids in college, wanted
freedom, but they greased the treads of Chinese tanks. Just because you
want freedom doesn't mean you can have it.
There was more to what our Founders understood, and they set it forth
before we embarked on our first war as a Nation eloquently in our
Declaration of Independence. It says: ``We hold these truths to be
self-evident.'' Rather flowery language. Any idiot should know this:
``That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these is Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness.'' And our job in government is to protect those God-given
rights. It is not just an idea; it was a conviction. People say ideas
have consequences. Many idiots have ideas, but an idea that you die for
has consequences. And this idea was powerful. It is the engine that has
driven America. It has guided us in times of war because we will say,
yes, we believe there are certain fundamental God-given rights that all
people are given.
And that is what I taught my son when he was a little kid. Here he is
with the Marine Club, just a little guy, saluting Old Glory with a
whole bunch of little kids in some motley uniforms they bought from the
used equipment store for military services. Here he is posing just as
proud as can be. Founder of the Marine Club, taught, taught that there
are some things in this world that are worth dying for, and those
convictions are the fact that God gives us life and liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. And I believe America still believes that.
There is the little marine. He has grown up now. That is the cache of
terrorist arms that was found in Fallujah. That is the gang that he had
the proud opportunity to lead as a second lieutenant in Fallujah
because he believes that there is nothing particularly strange for us
to be fighting terrorists.
Why would it be so odd for us to fight terrorists? What do terrorists
believe? They believe that you blow up innocent people. What do we
believe? That life is a gift from God.

{time} 2130

What do terrorists do terrorism for? To take your liberty away, to
compel you to do something you don't want to do, to make women into
slaves, to take away people's freedom, to take away your liberty. That
is what terrorism is for, and that is fundamentally against the idea
that God made people to be free. That is why he fights.
That is why America has always fought. There is nothing weird or
unusual about this. Is it worth fighting terrorists? Is it worth
risking your life for freedom? I taught my son yes. When I went over to
visit him, together we reaffirmed what we were doing in Iraq.
What? Is it so unusual that we have a debate about whether we should
be going to war or not? That very first war was over the Declaration of
Independence. There was a gentleman from Virginia who said, What has
there been in the conduct? But perhaps maybe we could adjust his words.
What has there been in the conduct of the terrorists that gives us
any room for hope? The terrorists say the only good Jew is a dead Jew,
the only good Christian is a dead Christian. That doesn't leave you a
lot of room for negotiation.
If we want to stay free, we must fight. Millions of Americans that
are armed in the holy cause of liberty are invincible by any force
which the terrorists may send against us. A just God presides over the
destinies of nations. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be
purchased at the price of the terrorists running the world? Forbid it,
Almighty God.
I know not what course others may take, but as for me, and as for my
son, we will choose liberty.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend,
colleague, and neighbor from California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the young men and women who joined the
Armed Forces after 9/11 out of a sense of duty and love for our country
are just like my son Michael, who joined the military because of those
terrible attacks. I am proud and heartened by their commitment to
service and patriotism, just as I am proud of my own son's commitment,
and I am concerned about their safety and well-being, just as I was
about Michael's when he was in the service.
When I talk about supporting our troops, it is not rhetorical, it is
personal. And it is with great sadness and steely resolve that I stand
up here tonight on the issue of Iraq and the President's plan to
escalate that conflict. I am saddened because the misguided and
mismanaged conflict has become a tragic disaster and a genuine

[[Page H1549]]

threat to Mideast stability and global security. The escalation will
cause more violence in the Middle East and will weaken our Nation.
I am resolved, because it is our duty as the Congress of this great
Nation to check and balance the power of the President on any issue we
believe harmful to this country. This administration insists on finding
a military answer rather than changing this failed approach and
pursuing the diplomatic and political solutions necessary to bring an
end to the violence.
Unfortunately, the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq will
not bring success there, nor make the United States more secure. In
fact, the proposal means a further distraction from the mission in
Afghanistan and the need for a tougher, smarter approach to the global
war on terrorism. The President's proposal puts more U.S. lives at
risk, further stretching the readiness of our ground forces and
increasing the drain on our Treasury.
President Bush's plan is opposed by military experts, by Republicans
and Democrats in both Chambers of Congress, and by the vast majority of
our country. That is why I rise in strong support of the resolution
under consideration in this body.
The resolution has two straightforward provisions: continuing support
for those American soldiers who have served or are currently serving in
Iraq; and disagreeing with the President's plan to escalate the
conflict.
Supporting our troops is my top priority, not just because it is our
duty and responsibility, but because it is personal to me and my
family.
Recently the Washington Post reported that the Marine Corps and Army
brigades that would be sent to Iraq under the President's plan are
short of body armor, vehicles, and other important equipment. That
shows just how desperate the President's misguided plan is. Military
action should never be executed in desperation.
We must transfer the responsibility for establishing and maintaining
law and order on the streets of Iraq to the Iraqis. Training those
Iraqi units must be done outside of Iraq. This will mean more troops
trained more quickly and will lessen the likelihood that Iraqi army and
police turn to dangerous militias and death squads.
The members of our Armed Forces who have served in Iraq have done so,
bravely and honorably. Unfortunately, the President's strategy in Iraq
has not matched the commitment with which our troops have served in
that country.
We must begin a responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq on
a public timeline that makes sense, while pursuing political and
diplomatic solutions. Yet the President has steadfastly refused to
engage in the political and diplomatic efforts necessary to bring a
resolution to the violence in Iraq.
Both Republicans and Democrats agree that we need a new direction in
Iraq. I will continue to push for that new direction while always
putting our troops first.
This resolution is an important first step. I stand with resolve in
opposing President Bush's plan for an escalation in Iraq

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Al Green of Texas). The Chair will
remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the
House and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of
proceedings or other audible conversation is in violation of the rules
of the House.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the discussion on Iraq that is
taking place in this Chamber, across this country, in classrooms,
coffee shops, living rooms and across back fences. This resolution asks
whether the House of Representatives believes with regard to the war in
Iraq that doing more of the same is a correct strategy to adopt.
Since this war began, 3,125 American soldiers have died and 23,417
have been wounded. There have been over 100,000 Iraqi casualties and
nearly $500 billion has been spent. We have tried troop surges before
in this war and we have seen the results. In November of 2004, the
United States increased the troop levels by approximately 18,000. And
guess what happened? Insurgent attacks went up by 17 percent. Did that
surge work? No.
In June of 2005, we increased troop levels again, this time by 21,500
troops. Guess what happened? Insurgent attacks went up 29 percent. Did
that surge work? No.
If we allow to surge troop levels again, by how much can we expect
insurgent attacks to rise this time? Einstein once suggested that
insanity is doing something over and over and over again and expecting
different results.
Mr. Speaker, I voted against going to war in Iraq, but ever since the
President committed our first soldier, I have done everything in my
power to support our troops and give them equipment to keep them safe.
Our warrior soldiers have done everything we have asked of them and
more, and I remain committed to our troops until the very last soldier
leaves Iraq, and I will do whatever it takes to protect our soldiers.
But putting an additional 37,000 American troops in harm's way when
there hasn't been a change in strategy is not how we as a country
support our troops.
Last November, the American people spoke loud and clear. They said
that the current tactics in Iraq weren't working and they don't support
more of the same. An escalation of troops will not quell the violence,
but will lead to increased violence, more American casualties and a
further destabilized Iraq.
There is a moment when wisdom requires change, and I believe that the
time has come to say enough is enough. America's military involvement
in Iraq needs to draw to a close and it is time for the Iraqi people to
assume control over their own country.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this
resolution.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, to complete this triad of veterans' fathers,
fathers of sons who have served in Iraq, is Joe Wilson, whose son Alan
has received the Combat Action Badge for service in Iraq and the
Palmetto Cross, which is a high award for the National Guard in South
Carolina, and who has a son in the Signal Corps, Julian, a doctor in
the Navy, and a son Hunter, a well-named son, Hunter, in the ROTC.
The reason I am going through these members of the Wilson clan, Mr.
Speaker, is because inspired by his wife Roxanne, all these young men
are serving in the military, and if the Wilson family does not re-up,
we are in trouble.
I yield such time as he may consume to the great gentleman from South
Carolina, Joe Wilson, to follow that wonderful presentation by Mr.
Akin.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Congressman Hunter, for your
leadership for our troops and for your son's service in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our men and women serving in
the United States Armed Forces and in opposition to House Concurrent
Resolution 63, a resolution that claims to support the troops but
opposes reinforcements. To truly support our troops, we must provide
the equipment and sufficient personnel requested by their commander,
General David Petraeus.
I believe that we must triumph in the global war on terrorism, that
victory in Iraq is the only option, and that America's survival is at
stake. My convictions are deeply derived from personal experience and
from historical perspective.
My concerns have been developed as a member of the Armed Services
Committee, through which I have visited Iraq six times, as a 31-year
veteran of the Army Reserves and Army National Guard, and as the proud
parent of an Iraq veteran.
Less than a year after the war in Iraq began, my eldest son, Captain
Alan Wilson, was deployed across Iraq, where he served honorably for 1
year. Alan worked for young girls to be able to attend schools. He has
been a trusted military advisor to me regarding life on the front lines
in Iraq. Alan today continues to serve in the South Carolina Army
National Guard.
In addition to Alan, my younger three sons are also in the military.
My wife Roxanne and I appreciate their dedication to protecting
American families.
The decision to support continued efforts in Iraq is not one I made
lightly. In the end, however, it is the only viable solution. Retreat
is not an option.

[[Page H1550]]

Defeat is not an option. There is no end but victory.
I was truly transformed by September 11th, and I live with its
ramifications every day. I sincerely believe we are faced with fighting
the terrorists overseas today, or we will face them in the streets of
America tomorrow.
The attacks of September 11th were not isolated, random events. Our
enemy is highly intelligent, well financed, and committed to the
destruction of our freedoms.
Terrorists have declared war on the American people. We have a choice
of opposing them overseas or fighting them again here in America. The
concept that America's retreat in Iraq will bring an end to sectarian
violence and terrorist activity in the region ignores history.
Premature retreat will embolden the enemy and make us more vulnerable
to attacks.

{time} 2145

We have seen it happen before. Withdrawals from Beirut and Mogadishu
led to the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the 1998 embassy bombings
across Africa, the 2000 bombings of the USS Cole and ultimately
September 11, 2001.
Al Qaeda has openly stated Iraq is the central front in the war on
terrorism. Osama bin Laden himself has said, ``The issue is big and the
misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for
the whole world is this third world war. I say to you that the war will
be won either by us or by you. If it's the former, loss and disgrace
will be your lot for all eternity, and, Allah be praised, this is the
way the wind is blowing. If it is the latter, you should read the
history books. We are a nation that does not remain silent over
injustice, and we will seek blood vengeance all lifelong. Not many days
and nights will pass before we take blood vengeance, like we did on 9/
11,'' end of quote of Osama bin Laden.
We ignore bin Laden's words to the peril of American families.
All of this is not to say that Members of Congress do not have an
obligation to question foreign policy. As elected public officials, it
is our duty to do so. If by conscience one disagrees with our
direction, he or she has a responsibility to put forth an alternative
plan.
An alternative plan, however, is not what we are debating today.
Instead, the Democrat leadership has put aside 36 hours of debate for a
resolution that provides no substantive solutions.
Our men and women in uniform deserve better. Their families deserve
better. These men and women deserve to know that America supports them,
that Congress will provide requested equipment and personnel, and that
we are all committed to their victory.
There is no magic bullet, no cure-all pill, but the fact remains that
we must endure. The stakes are too high, the consequences of defeat too
catastrophic. As men and women elected to represent our constituencies
and provide for their well-being, it is our responsibility to look out
for the safety of American families.
In conclusion, God bless our troops. We will never forget September
11. Our thoughts and prayers are with the late Congressman Charlie
Norwood, his wife, Gloria, his family, his staff and his constituents.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 6 minutes to my
friend and colleague from Tennessee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Cooper).
(Mr. COOPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I disapprove of the President's January 10
decision to surge 20,000 new troops into Iraq. I urge my colleagues to
support the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, although the President says that the 20,000 new troops
constitute a change in his strategy, all I am seeing are a repeat of
the same failed policies of the past. America has sent additional
troops to Iraq before, several times, without result. America has tried
to work with the Maliki government, and it has not been very
successful.
Mr. Speaker, we have to admit that this approach is not working. The
President himself has admitted that his patience is running out with
the Maliki government. It is really just a question of whether Congress
should try to force President Bush and Vice President Cheney to change
course now or whether they will do it several months from now. I say
that the time for change is now.
It is true that Congress has no business micromanaging a war. No one
here in Congress is Commander in Chief. It is also true that we must
not shirk from our responsibilities to support our brave men and women
in uniform, and we need to support the brave Iraqis who have stood with
us and the good people of the region, but we do deserve a better
strategy. More of the same is just not good enough, either for our
soldiers or for the good people of the region.
President Bush, we have to admit, has shown a distressing
stubbornness regarding Iraq. Although former Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld offered to resign twice due to his own embarrassment
with his failures, President Bush refused to accept his resignation for
years, and finally only accepted it the day after the last election.
Colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that if the President had
accepted that resignation earlier, not only would Pentagon policy have
been different; the core of the war might well have been different.
I think that the President needs a nudge now, and this resolution
will offer it. True, it is nonbinding, but that is a good thing.
Congress is not cutting off money for the troops, nor should we. We are
sending a message to the President.
Now, I will admit that it is a shame that we do have to do it this
way; but on this issue, the President has refused to heed the advice of
so many of his own top generals, of his own father, of the Iraq Study
Group, of our few remaining allies, or of the leadership of this equal
branch of government. It is also a shame that today in America there is
a widespread fear that the President could even be establishing the
preconditions for war with Iran. Regardless of that situation, I hope
that this resolution will curb any reckless behavior.
Finally, why is a change in strategy necessary now? Iraq appears to
be descending into a civil war that neither Congress nor the Pentagon
predicted. Defense Secretary Gates has described no less than four
separate conflicts going on in Iraq today. That has led stalwart
Republicans like Senator John Warner, the former chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, to question whether the 2002 authorization to
use force in Iraq is even still valid today. American influence in the
region has substantially diminished, while the influence of Iran has
increased. It is time for a change.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the original judgment of CENTCOM commander
General Abizaid who testified before Congress not long ago, and he
said, ``I do not believe that more American troops right now is the
solution to the problem. I believe that the troop levels need to stay
where they are.''
General Abizaid went on to say, ``I met with every divisional
commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all
talked together. And I said, `In your professional opinion, if we were
to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our
ability to achieve success in Iraq?' And they all said no.'' That is
quoting General Abizaid.
Mr. Speaker, I would have been more inclined to support the President
if he had asked for a much larger number of troops or for a sacrifice
on the part of all Americans who do not have a loved one in our
military. Such proposals would have led me to believe that the
President was considering a serious change in strategy, but the
President has not recommended either.
Instead, he has consistently violated the so-called Powell doctrine
by not waging war with an overwhelming military force, a clear
objective, or a defined exit strategy. From the beginning of this
conflict, we have skimped on the number of troops, the equipment for
our soldiers, the commitment of our allies. It is simply too late to
add on a few thousand more troops now.
Our brave troops and their families in the all-volunteer military
have carried the entire burden of this war. Wall Street and Main Street
have not been asked to help. Where are the war bonds to pay for this
war? We have not even tried to pay for it. We have borrowed most of the
money from nations like

[[Page H1551]]

China. Policies like that do not make the Nation more secure.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, Congress has already given the President
more time to fight this war than it took to win World War II, more
money than was spent in Korea and Vietnam, and the unfettered use of
the finest military in history. We are spending more on our military
than every other nation in the world combined, and yet we are bogged
down in a Third World country embroiled in its own civil war. At this
point in time, it is not unreasonable for Congress to say enough is
enough. Voters certainly said so clearly in the last election.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to respond to
my friend from Tennessee.
Let me just point out that we are spending roughly 4 percent of GDP
on defense at this point. President Ronald Reagan spent 6 percent.
President John Kennedy, 9 percent. Operations in the war against terror
are not bankrupting this country.
With respect to the group of allies that the gentleman called our few
remaining friends, I am reminded that there is a number of them like
Poland and Moldavia and Herzegovina and Georgia and Bosnia and
Azerbaijan and Armenia and Albania, lots of little countries that used
to be behind the Iron Curtain or in the case of El Salvador, in what
was called by the Democrat Party the unwinnable war in Central America
in Salvador, those countries, which themselves were the beneficiaries
of an American policy of expanding freedom are standing with our
country in this operation in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert), who is a member of the Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
resolution offered by the majority expressing the disapproval of
President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops
to Iraq.
This resolution, in my opinion, is nothing but politics. Opposition
to a plan is not a plan. This resolution is using our service men and
women in a debate that does not address policy. If this was an earnest
debate about the administration's proposal, then the majority would
have offered a bill that answers two pertinent questions: What is
success, and how do we achieve it?
Instead, we stand here debating a bill that opposes sending
reinforcements to Iraq. There are no amendments allowed, and there is
certainly no plan offered in this bill.
In fact, this debate is incredibly ironic since many of those on the
other side of the aisle were calling for more troops not too long ago.
Once again, the debate was not about success, but about opposition to
the administration's vision.
Let us talk about policy. First, nostalgic thoughts and longing for
the times before the U.S. entered Iraq are not useful nor can they be
used as a vision for the future. We are in this war. We must win.
Anything less than an honest discussion on how to proceed forward is a
disservice to this Nation and to our military.
Second, if our policy is to support a stable Iraq, then we must
employ a strategy to achieve that goal. The President and our military
commanders have stated that in order to fulfill that policy objective,
Baghdad must be secured. In order to secure Baghdad, the Iraqi security
forces need more American troops to reinforce their operations.
President Bush agreed to this on the condition that the Iraqis lead the
fight and that the Iraq Government take more responsibility for
securing their country.
If the majority party disagrees with this policy objective and the
strategy to achieve it, then I ask them, what is their policy
objective, and how do they plan to achieve it? I have yet to hear a
consensus from my friends on the other side of the aisle on what they
believe our policy should be. They certainly cannot suggest that this
resolution even faintly resembles a plan or vision for a successful
resolution to the current conflict.
I will tell you what the debate is. It is a sound bite. It is a quick
and easy way to feed the defeatists in this country. More than anything
it is a disappointment. The majority would rather score political
points than have a real discussion on the most important question of
this generation, how to win the war against our enemies and keep our
country safe.
We should be asking ourselves, what would failure in the Middle East
mean?
Our enemies have stated that they believe that Western Civilization
is rotten to the core. Unless we get out of the Middle East entirely
and convert to Islam, we will always be their enemy. In chapter 2 of
the 9/11 report, the authors answer what the terrorists want from
America:
``To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda's answer
was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and
end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture.''
Al Qaeda is closely watching Iraq, sending fighters and weapons and
doing most everything in its power to bring about an American retreat.
If we leave Iraq before it is secure, what will that do to our enemy,
an enemy who has already stated that they seek to destroy us not for
being in Iraq but for being in the Middle East and for being non-
Muslim?
An American failure would bolster al Qaeda and every other terrorist
organization in the world. It would give them a reason to believe that
they can win and that it could give them confidence so they could
surely breach our shores one day. It would let them believe that their
plan, a plan to destroy Western culture for its godlessness, is
correct.
As 9/11 taught us, warfare is no longer limited to the enemies within
our region. Geographic boundaries and long distances do not keep us
safe.

{time} 2200

An enemy encouraged by a retreat in Iraq will be close to our heels.
That is exactly why we must stay and confront our enemies.
So how is this enemy, who is at a military and financial
disadvantage, seeking to win? They simply studied a little American
history. Both Osama bin Laden and al-Zarqawi have referenced the
Vietnam conflict in forming their strategy to defeat us.
Many in this body often rush to compare this conflict with Vietnam,
and in one respect it is very similar: both enemies understood the way
to victory was through American politicians. If they can weaken the
American political will, they knew they could achieve victory. The
majority often invokes the number of our war dead as the reason to
leave or the fact that this conflict has gone longer than our
involvement in World War II. These arguments play right into the hands
of the enemy and their propaganda machine.
What people don't seem to understand is that we cannot fall into the
trap of comparisons, or we risk losing sight of what our men and women
in the Armed Forces need from us: they need our support. They need a
coherent policy and strategy that does not make politics the long pole
in the tent.
Courage to do the right thing is not always easy. I will not abandon
those who have fought and given their lives in this conflict. I will
not abandon the Iraqis who long for peace. Instead, I support the
President's call for more troops. I believe it is the right thing to
do. It is illogical to say you support the troops that are there, but
not the reinforcements that they need.
In closing, I would like to remember those who have lost their lives
to the acts of terrorism:
The Beirut embassy and Marine barracks bombing in 1983; the bombing
of Pan Am 103, 1988; the first bombing of the World Trade Center in
1993; the bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires
in Argentina in 1994; the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia
1996; the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998;
the bombings of the USS Cole in Yemen in the year 2000; the attacks on
New York City and the Pentagon, September 11, 2001; the Madrid train
bombings, March 11, 2004; the London bombings, July 7, 2005.
Do not doubt that if they were given the chance, our enemies would
come in this Chamber tonight and kill us all.
This resolution is not a solution. It is nothing but doubt, fear, and
weakness. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution and
stand up for victory.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

[[Page H1552]]

Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by setting the record straight. I have
heard my friends on the other side talk about this resolution as
calling for withdrawal, as calling for retreat. There is nothing in
this resolution that says withdraw; there is nothing in this resolution
that says retreat; there is nothing in this resolution that says exit.
What this resolution says is that we support our troops, and we do
not believe that it is a good idea to add 20,000 more troops to a
policy that has not worked.
In October of 2002, I voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. I
believed then, as I believe now, that the Middle East is a dangerous
place and that you have to use a combination of hard power and soft
power to help change the trajectory of the Middle East from a place
that teaches kids how to blow things up to a place that teaches kids
how to put things together.
In January of 2005, I visited our troops in Iraq, and I remember
sitting with General Casey and asking him, How many foreign fighters
are here and how many insurgents? And at that point, January 2005, the
General said, Congressman, there are about 500 foreign fighters and
there are about 5,000 insurgents. And so what to do? We committed more
force to try and solve that problem.
And then I went back to Iraq in April of 2006, 15 months later, and I
asked General Casey, How many foreign fighters are there and how many
insurgents? And General Casey said, Congressman, there are 5,000
foreign fighters, there used to be 500, now 5,000; there used to be
5,000 insurgents, now there are 20,000 insurgents. And so what did we
do? We threw in more force.
And now a year after that we stand here debating a resolution on
whether we should commit another 20,000 troops to a mission that is
poorly planned, from a military that has been strained by that poor
planning and that is ill conceived.
Now, I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker. If the President of the
United States asked me to support additional troops into Afghanistan
tonight to find Osama bin Laden, who by the way was the one who killed
over 100 of my constituents, or to stop the resurgence of the Taliban,
which by the way was the group of people who really gave aid and
comfort to the enemy, I would vote for that tonight. I absolutely would
vote for that tonight. But this decision by the President to put 20,000
more people into Iraq is the wrong number at the wrong place at the
wrong time.
Mr. Speaker, during this debate I have heard my colleagues talk about
the messages that we are sending our troops and how it will affect
their morale, and I have an obligation as somebody who supports our
military to suggest that if we had given our troops up-armor for their
Humvees, Kevlar for their vests, night-vision goggles that work, and
consistent rotations, their morale would be much better.
Our troops are not afraid of democracy being waged on the floor of
the House of Representatives. And, in fact, on the chance that our
enemies are listening to this debate, let me suggest that this debate
doesn't give aid and comfort to our enemies. It tells our enemies what
democracy is about. So for our enemies who may be listening: welcome to
democracy. This is what it sounds like, this is what it looks like, and
this is what we are willing to fight for.
What our servicemembers deserve to hear is the truth. What they
deserve is a government that confronts reality rather than simply
hoping for the best. So here is the truth, Mr. Speaker: somewhere
between those who believe that we can stay the course in Iraq
indefinitely and those who believe that we should leave Iraq tomorrow
is the painful truth. The truth is that neither of those options will
work.
Now, if you agree with me that that is the painful reality, then you
are left with a hard choice: add 20,000 troops to continue the
administration's ineffective plan, or try something different. 20,000
additional troops to Iraq, or rebuild our readiness here at home to
deal with the growing challenges of Iran or naval expansion in China or
genocide in Darfur or the other dangers in the world. Hold the Iraqi
Government accountable for accelerating the training of their troops,
or continue hoping for the best while putting the burden on the backs
of 20,000 more U.S. troops.
Let me make two other points. The gentleman who preceded me, my
friend from California, said, what do you have to offer? We have
offered ideas; we have offered ideas from day one. The problem has been
the stubborn resistance by the administration to listen to our ideas.
I have been advocating with my friend from California (Mrs. Tauscher)
a status of forces agreement in Iraq, so that we would send the message
that we are not occupiers, that we don't want to be there for one day
longer than we need to be. The administration has rejected that.
I have been advocating with my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney)
a one-for-one resolution. I and others have been advocating a formula,
a one-for-one formula that says that for every Iraqi security force
that stands up an American will be redeployed.
So we have provided ideas. And I want to once again offer a
bipartisan invitation to my colleagues to work with us, because whether
this resolution passes or not, the war is not going to end the next
day. We still have many challenges ahead, and we are going to have to
work together.
And, finally, Mr. Speaker, let me make a point about some of the
characterizations that we have been listening to. As a Democrat, I know
that there is not a single Republican who wakes up in the morning
wanting this war to last for one day longer than it has to last. And in
the same spirit, I am offended by anyone who would suggest that there
is a Democrat who gives aid and comfort to the enemy, who wants us to
be defeated, who wants us to lose. That is not what we are about.
We need to end the sound bites and the partisanship and the war rooms
off the floor of the House that tell people what to say, and begin
formulating effective policy for the troops that are listening to us
tonight.
I visited my VA hospital yesterday, and I saw men and women in
wheelchairs and gurneys. It didn't say Republican or Democrat on those
wheelchairs and gurneys. When the time came, they went to fight for us.
Our obligation is to stand by them, not with sound bites, not with
policies that haven't worked before, but with new ideas for a stronger
country.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to my
colleague, my good friend who just spoke, Mr. Israel.
Let me just make a couple of points. With respect to up-armored
Humvees, when we entered this administration, the Humvee is a successor
to the Jeep, it is a tactical vehicle, we had 1,200 up-armored Humvees.
That was in the year 2000. Today, we have got 15,000 up-armored 114s,
plus thousands of Humvees that have the so-called MAC kits which are
also protective armor kits.
We had virtually no body armor in the year 2000. I don't believe we
had a single set that was available for any line units in any American
division in the world. Today, we have over 400,000 of those.
I just want to make a point, if there are American moms and dads, and
we have had a few who have thought that their sons and daughters were
going to Iraq without body armor, I have said, Call me personally at
the office, and I have not had a single phone call in 2 years. So they
have plenty of body armor.
And, lastly, I just want to make one other point with respect to what
America has, because there has been an implication I think throughout
the debate that we are stretched too thin, that others may attack us,
may take advantage of the fact that we have deployments in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Since the year 2000, we have more than doubled the
precision firepower of this country. That means the ability of this
country, and Republicans and Democrats have supported the funding that
has done this; but if any country in the world should think they are
going to take advantage of an America that is, in their estimation,
stretched too thin, the precision firepower, that means the ability to
send a smart weapon on target to thread a goal post at many, many
miles, has more than doubled since the year 2000. And so no country

[[Page H1553]]

that feels that there is that implication in our situation in Iraq and
Afghanistan should bet their life on it, because they will lose.
Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to Mr. Cole, the outstanding
gentleman from Fort Sill.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about the
challenges we face as a Nation, and to urge the Members of this House
to confront those challenges honestly and forthrightly.
As I do, I remind my colleagues that this House is not a debating
society. It is not a place to merely score political points or
rhetorical points. It is a place where we should confront the issues
that face our country and then act accordingly. This responsibility
rests not just with the Members individually, but with the majority
especially. We come to this floor not just to speak, opine, and orate.
We come here to set policy, to legislate and, most importantly, to act.
This resolution the majority, the Democrats, put before us today
presents us with a choice; but after we make that choice, nothing will
happen, nothing will change. We will have chosen to state our opinion,
but we will refuse to act on that opinion. Some will see this as a
tragedy; some, Madam Speaker, will see it as a farce.
This resolution is not serious. It is a political ploy rather than a
principled position. It is sound and fury that signifies nothing. It is
a cruel joke on those who sincerely want to leave Iraq before our
mission is finished, and it is an affront to those of us who wish to
succeed in Iraq. But while this politically motivated resolution
achieves nothing, it does have real and lasting consequences. Passing
this resolution will embolden our enemies, it will discourage our
friends, and it will disappoint our troops. It will raise questions
about our seriousness as a legislative body to anyone who actually pays
attention to our proceedings, and it will lead our enemies to question
our resolve and it will leave our men and women in uniform wondering
why we are sending them on a mission in which we do not believe, but
lack the political courage to cancel.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and disappointed that the majority party
would bring a resolution to the floor which condemns an action directed
by our Commander in Chief and his military advisers yet which neither
forbids that action nor offers an alternative course.

{time} 2215

If the majority party, the Democratic Party, was being honest with
their supporters and with the American people, they would have a
straight up-or-down vote on whether or not to fund the initiative
ordered by the President. This is the way in which we should approach
our constitutionally defined responsibility in regard to war and peace.
Madam Speaker, I have often voiced my respect for my Democratic
colleagues on the floor, and as individuals I do respect and admire
them. However, I neither respect nor admire the manner in which their
leadership has chosen to frame the issue which they now place before
the House. My friends on the other side of the aisle have abdicated the
responsibilities of being in the majority.
They do not want to legislate. They do not want to act, they just
want to state an opinion. But they are stating it in a fashion that
will lead many to question our sincerity as Members of this House and
to doubt the effectiveness of the institution which we all love, and
they are now privileged to lead.
Madam Speaker, the majority in this body has the responsibility to do
more than just criticize. So, I ask, what is their plan? We don't know.
How will they achieve a stable Iraq? They won't say.
It is time for Democrats to step up and answer these questions. It is
easy to second-guess the decisions of former Congresses and the
President. It is easy to reconsider one's support and the support many
in this Congress and in their majority have voiced in the past of
placing additional troops in Iraq. But, what is easy isn't always right
and certainly not in this case.
Let there be no mistake. Our soldiers are engaged in combat this very
minute. Our military commanders have voiced support for the mission
that they have been asked to complete. General Petraeus, our commander
in Iraq, supports the surge of forces. Indeed he says he needs these
additional troops to succeed. Moreover, the declassified National
Intelligence Estimate makes clear the disaster that would result from
failure in Iraq.
Madam Speaker, let us consider what will happen if the Democrats are
successful in undermining the mission and the objectives of the surge.
What would it mean? What effect would this have on our forces? What
would be the implications for our Nation and the region?
Well, Madam Speaker, at a practical level, it would certainly mean
that our enemies would know they have weakened the will and resolve of
the American people. They would take this as a lesson and a guide for
the future. At a tactical level, it would likely increase the level of
insurgent activity aimed at destroying our forces. Additionally, it
would also mean that, lacking reinforcement, our current forces would
be stretched even further.
Strategically adopting this resolution would undermine the
credibility of the United States. It will make the region more chaotic
and dangerous than it is today. I remember many Members of the majority
party calling for an increase in the size of our force in Iraq not so
long ago. I remember numerous statements by Members from the other side
of the aisle that said the alternatives to success were too horrible to
contemplate. They were right, but now those concerns seem to be no
longer operative.
I am under no illusions that we face an easy road ahead in Iraq.
Quite frankly, it is the greatest challenge our Nation has faced in a
generation. However, the alternative to showing resolve in Iraq is
defeat in the central front in the war on terror. That will be
disastrous for the Iraqis, threatening for our friends in the region,
and dangerous for the security of our own country.
That is why this resolution is so disturbing. Democrats want to have
it three ways. They want to criticize the President's plan, offer none
of their own, and then refuse to let our side of the aisle offer a
proposal for consideration by this body. A nonbinding resolution is no
plan for the future. It is a plan for the next election.
In the next few days, I will continue to engage in this debate and
outline what I believe to be the real challenges and choices that we
face, and why we must support the surge in forces. I hope that in this
debate my side persuades my colleagues to reject this resolution.
But if they are not persuaded, then I hope they will have the
political courage to act, as opposed to just talk; that they will
legislate as opposed to just debate. I hope they will discharge their
duties as a majority by laying out and enacting their strategy, as
opposed to merely criticizing the President and complicating a
dangerous situation faced by our forces in the field
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining
on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlelady from California has 47\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 33 minutes
remaining.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield myself as much
time as I may consume.
I was interested in my colleague, the last speaker's questions, the
question about why do we have a nonbinding resolution and does it have
any significance. I should say, no one should minimize the significance
of this resolution. Passage by a bipartisan majority of the House of
Representatives of this resolution opposing the President's plan to
escalate the war in Iraq would be a major turning point in the war
debate.
Despite the fact that it is nonbinding, passage would have enormous
significance. This bipartisan resolution is serving as the basis for
the first real debate on the President's flawed Iraq war policy since
the war began nearly 4 years ago. Last November, the voters sent
President Bush a loud and unmistakable message about Iraq, but the
President didn't listen.
As his announcement of an escalation of the war showed, passage of
this bipartisan resolution is a second

[[Page H1554]]

chance for the President to hear a strong, clear message that cannot be
ignored. Passage of this bipartisan resolution will send another clear
message: No more blank checks for the President on Iraq.
In addition, passage of a nonbinding resolution opposing the
President's escalation plan is only the first step in the Congress,
demanding a changing of course in Iraq. When this resolution containing
fewer than 100 words passes, we will take the country in a new
direction in Iraq. A vote of disapproval will set the stage for
additional legislation, which will be coming to the House floor.
Furthermore, what is surprising, as I see my colleagues from the
other side trot forward one after another, I have to remind them that
in their 12 years in the majority, House Republicans passed hundreds,
hundreds of nonbinding resolutions, including in very similar
situations.
For example, on October 30, 1995, the House Republican leadership
brought to the floor and passed H. Res. 247, a nonbinding resolution
repudiating President Clinton's pledge to deploy up to 20,000 troops to
Bosnia as part of a peacekeeping force. I will remind my colleagues,
Kosovo is about to be declared independent because the United States
and NATO countries interceded and stopped the genocide there. That is a
perfect example of wrongheaded policy that Democrats were able to put
forward.
Madam Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in
appreciation of our troops' exceptional service and sacrifice, and to
voice my opposition to President Bush's plan to send more forces into
what amounts to a civil war.
As a former member of the House Armed Services Committee and a new
member of the Intelligence Committee, I recognize that our next steps
in Iraq present one of the greatest security decisions our Nation has
faced in decades.
The Iraq Study Group called the situation grave and deteriorating and
said it requires a new approach. I agree. We can all conclude that an
unstable Iraq, torn by sectarian conflict, would lead to continued
violence and civilian casualties, provide combat training opportunities
to those who would do us harm, and pose increased challenges to the
region.
Yet I disagree with President Bush's misguided belief that sending
more Americans into combat will solve the problem.
Our military has served valiantly for nearly 4 years, particularly in
some very challenging and nontraditional missions, in some cases for
which they were never trained. However, we have done all that we could
do militarily to help the Iraqi people, and their problems no longer
require a U.S. military solution. The underlying causes of violence are
primarily political and must be addressed in that framework. Sending
more troops would simply be a continuation of the same failed strategy.
In October of 2002, I expressed my concerns that President Bush's
approach to Iraq could have dangerous ramifications in the region and
America's own efforts in the war on terrorism. For those reasons and
many others, I voted against authorizing use of force against Iraq, a
war that was mismanaged by civilian leadership from the start.
Now, to address our troops' lack of protective gear and up-armored
Humvees, I supported legislation to provide additional funding for
proper equipment, as well as other efforts to assure our forces would
be safe and effective. Now, however, we can best support our troops by
changing our mission in Iraq and adopting a new strategy that reflects
the realities on the ground. The Iraqis must now take the lead in
providing for their own security, and we must reduce our presence to
let them do so.
The President's claim that by adding 21,500 additional combat troops
we can force a greater stability in Iraq is an argument that ignores
some basic truths. Not only have past surges of U.S. forces proved
unnecessary in reducing sectarian violence among Iraqis, but the
addition of more troops would further inflame anti-American sentiment
and turn popular opinion even more against us in our efforts. We have
no proof that another surge would lead to a different outcome than in
the past, but we do know that it would have negative consequences.
Now, perhaps of greatest concern is the impact of the surge on our
military readiness. The President's estimate of 21,500 more combat
troops does not count the additional 15,000 to 28,000 support troops
that would be needed, spreading our military even more dangerously
thin.
Madam Speaker, we have asked much of our forces, included repeated
deployments, and a surge will only exacerbate that problem. Operations
in Iraq have also taken their toll on our equipment.
According to the Government Accountability Office, 40 percent of the
Army's and Marine Corps' equipment is now located in the Central
Command theater of operations. Our National Guard/Reserve units are
underequipped to deal with emergencies, and we have depleted our
preposition stocks, which we need to respond quickly to other
contingencies.
Now, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee in January,
General Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, noted that an increase
in forces in Iraq would increase our strategic risk and possibly lead
to slower and less effective response to another potential threat.
Madam Speaker, sending more troops to Iraq is a dangerous gamble with
our national security, and we need a new approach. A number of experts,
including the Iraq Study Group, had made important recommendations, and
they must not be ignored.
It is clear that the President's plan for escalation would harm our
national security and ignores the will of the American people. I urge
my colleagues to support this resolution so that we can promote a new
strategy for Iraq and bring our troops home.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, let me just respond to my good friend from
Rhode Island, he is a great friend of mine and a former colleague on
the Armed Services Committee, the estimate that has been given, that
has been bandied around, that we would need some 20,000 support troops
to support the 21,500 troops that are involved in the President's plan,
some of whom are already in theater, has been rebutted by DOD, which
said it is not 1 for 1 support to line troops, it is about 1 in 10,
which in the estimate that they gave us was about 2,000 to 2,300, not
20,000 support troops.
Using that number, even with the 21,500 troops that are involved in
the Baghdad plan, adding them to the 138 that we have right now, still
brings us to a number that is lower than the 160,000 that we had
December a year ago. I know that number has not been absolutely
resolved, but I would just tell my friend that I believe it is going to
be much lower than the number that has been put out there.
To my good friend from California, who talked about the Kosovo vote
and the resolution to disapprove it, my recollection is that vote was
undertaken before troops were moved. In this case, the 82nd Airborne is
not already over the line in Iraq, but they actually have a brigade
deployed in this operation, and the Baghdad operation that is being
undertaken right now has a combination of Iraqi troops and American
troops in each of nine sectors.
Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he would like to take to Mr.
Conaway from Texas, who is a gentleman that represents a great base at
Fort Hood.

{time} 2230

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding me this time. Let
me correct that record just a bit. I have got the area just west of
Fort Hood. So I have got a lot of civilian contractors and retirees and
active duty personnel who live in my district, but serve in Fort Hood.
Mr. HUNTER. I will stipulate that the gentleman would like to
represent Fort Hood.
Mr. CONAWAY. Absolutely. I certainly would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for this time tonight.
I am opposed to this nonbinding resolution. This is a vehicle that
the majority is using to bring us to this debate tonight. The
resolution is pretty

[[Page H1555]]

simple in its language. It simply says that Congress disapproves of the
decision President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to
deploy more than 20,000 additional troops, U.S. combat troops to Iraq.
It says this twice, in the preamble and then once again in the
resolved.
It also says once that Congress and the American people will continue
to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces
who are serving or who have bravely and honorably served in Iraq. We
must assume, of course, that, because it is not stated, that Congress
and the American people will also support and protect those additional
troops that are headed into harm's way who will serve in Iraq, even
though the resolution disapproves of the decision that sends those
young men and women into harm's way.
The majority knows that this resolution will pass. They would not
have brought it to the floor if their leadership had not be assured
that they had the minimum 218 votes needed to pass this resolution.
Since passage is assured, we have to ask, why this language? Why
something so like this, that simply says what they are against, as
opposed to something that is perhaps more meaningful, like what you are
for.
It allows those who would vote in favor of this, and like I said I am
quite confident it will pass, to set themselves up in that very
enviable position to say I told you so if things do not go exactly as
planned. And no plan in war has ever done that. So our colleagues who
vote in favor of this resolution will be in that position to be able to
say I told you so across a variety of circumstances.
I do not believe that either side of the aisle believes that it is
the role of this or any other Congress to tell the President how not to
deploy 20,000 troops. I believe there is another reason for this
language. One explanation may be that it sets the stage for something
that will really have an impact on the War in Iraq, the way that war is
being fought, and I think that has to do with the power of the purse.
In spite of the language that says we will continue to support and
protect our troops, I believe we will see in the not too distant future
attempts by the majority to cut off funding for this war. I think we
got a preview of this tactic last week when we passed the continuing
resolution which cut $3.1 billion in spending for military quality of
life projects and infrastructure that is needed to support the various
BRAC decisions.
A lot has been made as to whether or not this debate will have an
impact on the morale of our troops. Last week in a hearing with the
Armed Services Committee, General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff told us, as well as Bob Gates, that this debate in and of itself
will not directly hurt or harm the morale of the young men and women
who are fighting this fight.
I think that is generous. But what Pace did tell us was that if this
Congress begins to cut funding, cut financial support, begin to go back
on the promises made to those young men and woman, that that will in
fact have a deleterious impact on the troops' morale and their families
who serve here. I think that the debate tonight and the next 4 days
will have a direct impact on the families who support these young men
and women, who allow them to do what they do on behalf of this country.
And that is certainly is regrettable, if that support is hurt and
harmed, and that hurt and harm is then transmitted to our young men and
women who are fighting this fight every single day.
I also do not believe it is the role of 535 independent contractors
that make up the House and Senate to become five-star generals and make
decisions on how to fight this fight or any other war. I do believe it
is our job to look as far into the future as we can, and make decisions
and then pass laws that lead this Nation.
I do not know of anyone who believes that a failure in Iraq is in our
national interest. Both sides have been saying this. There are no good
results for such a failure. General Petraeus has listed out a couple of
the possibilities that he talks about. One is that sectarian groups
would begin to stake out turf. This would generally involve ethnic
cleansing. The humanitarian suffering that would go on while that was
happening is totally unacceptable
He also mentions that international terrorist organizations might
gain control of Iraq, and therefore use their bases in Iraq to further
their interests.
The disruption to the oil markets and the impact that that will have
not only on our economy but economies around the world would certainly
occur if we have a failure in Iraq.
None of these guesses as to what would happen for failure in Iraq,
that failure would almost automatically happen with an untimely
withdrawal of our troops, none of them are positive, none of these
scenarios make Iraq a safer place, none of them make the Middle East a
safer place, and they certainly do not make America and the United
States safer.
There are no guarantees, of course, that any plan will work. But
telling the President what not to do is clearly not in the interest
interests of moving this debate forward. My personal view of that
future that I spoke about is that the effort in Iraq is a major part of
the overall global war against Islamic Jihadists. Other Members have
eloquently stated tonight that this war will last for decades.
I take very seriously the threats that the Islamic Jihadists have
made and are making to kill Americans and to hurt American interests. I
do not understand why they take these positions, but I certainly
believe them when they tell us they are coming to hurt us.
This fight, this global war against Islamic Jihadists is really a
fight for the heart of Islam. We must begin imploring moderate Muslims
to stand against those few who seek to hijack the religion, and who are
prosecuting this fight.
Let me preface my next remarks by saying that I am a Christian, and I
believe that God is always in the business of changing men's hearts,
and that the hearts of these Islamist Jihadists can be changed by the
God I serve. But short of that, I believe we have only two choices,
either we lock these people up forever or we kill them.
That is pretty harsh for a Christian to say, but those are our only
options. I don't believe we can compromise with them and I don't
believe they will compromise with us. I don't believe that they will
alter their beliefs to peacefully coexist with us.
So we are in a fight that will last for years and for decades. There
is no guarantee as to how this fight is being prosecuted and how we win
this fight, I just know that we cannot lose it. And this resolution
tonight does not move that process forward in a positive way.
We are in a long and hard struggle to protect freedom and liberty
here and around the world. We are blessed by men and women who are
willing to risk everything to defend you and me every minute of every
day.
This resolution does not help in that struggle. And I urge my
colleagues to vote against it.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and
colleague, the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, this is a very important debate. Four
long years and we are searching our souls. We have sent our finest and
our bravest soldiers on a mission that made no sense from the
beginning. Our Nation was attacked by evil people who trained in
Afghanistan.
We have a right to go into Afghanistan to remove the terrorist
training camps. As a matter of fact, we should be working even harder
there to make sure our Afghanistan mission does not fail. We must not
allow the Taliban and other terrorist groups to control Afghanistan
again.
However, we are unable to give Afghanistan our full attention because
our President has led us into a war with Iraq. Why? There are no Iraqis
on the plane that day. The Iraqis had no weapons of mass destruction.
And they never asked us to come to their country. They do ask us to
leave, though. And yet we will not leave.
The President will not listen to the Iraqis. The President will not
listen to the American people. The President will not listen to the
world. But Congress will. We are ready to go in a new direction and say
no to the President, and no to his plan to escalate this war.
I was a military spouse. I am very, very proud of my husband's
service. I am also on the Armed Services Committee. I know our troops
need our support and they have it. But troops also

[[Page H1556]]

need to know that their leaders will make sure that their mission is in
the best interests of the United States before they are asked to go
fight and die for their country.
I watched a young soldier walk down a ramp on the way to Iraq. He was
looking at all of us, and we were looking hard back at him. And I think
most of us had the same thoughts in our hearts, that we could not look
him in the eye and tell him that his mission was so essential to the
security of the United States and the freedom of the world that he had
to go and he had to die if necessary.
Why could we not tell him that? Because the mission had changed.
Several times the President told us why we were there, and it was
always a different reason. The mission had changed. And therefore the
soldier looked confused and we certainly felt confused also, because we
could not tell him why we were there.
I wanted to run up to him and tell him I support you, I support you
by making sure that you never get sent to a war against unless we know
why you are there.
What is this talk I have heard tonight about freedom and liberty?
This talk of glory that I heard on the floor. This romanticized
language, this talk about Davy Crockett. There is no Davy Crockett in
Iraq. Our troops need clear-eyed leaders, not this romantic rabble that
we have been hearing. This war has cost us. We have paid a terrible
price.
Our military troops are strained. Yes, they are strained. Their
families are strained. Our brave soldiers have died or they have been
injured. The Iraqis have lost their lives. They have lost their
society. They have lost their infrastructure. They are losing their
middle class who are moving to other countries to keep their children
safe.
Their people are fleeing from their own country. We are wary, they
are wary, the world is now more dangerous. Iraqis were polled and the
majority of them said they wanted the Americans to go home and let them
work out their problems. For 4 years the administration and its
supporters here have made no plan for them to do that.
Now they ask us on this side of the aisle what our plan is. This is a
strange question. But it shows how confused this administration's
supporters are, if they are looking to us and ask us what our plan is.
They have been offered plans. They even commissioned a plan, and they
do not follow any plans. The President follows his own way.
We have offered plans. They will not listen. I for one want the
United States to succeed in this world. Therefore, I am going to listen
to all of the generals who have pled with the President and pled with
the President's supporters in this administration to do the right thing
here.
But the President does not listen. Now, I am going to vote to tell
the President that I am against his escalation.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time. I appreciate him letting me go out of order. I am not a member of
his committee. But when my committee has time on Thursday night, I am
hoping to be able to attend the memorial service for our comrade,
Charles Norwood, whom we lost today.
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak against H. Con. Res. 63. I think it is
a mistake. It is the first step of this new Congress, the first step
this new Congress is going to make towards cutting off the funding for
our troops.
You do not have to take my word for it. Yesterday's CQ Today, a
magazine widely read up here in Washington, and I am quoting, ``It is a
foot in the door toward limiting military involvement in Iraq. The
Democrats want to do this by the Congressional power of the
checkbook.''
Further in the article it says, ``Democrats are well on their way
toward planning more aggressive measures in an attempt to force
redeployment beginning by blocking funding, and ending in the
supplemental spending request.
And then finally, Democrats said, ``The resolution would just be a
first step in the process that could result in a reduction or
reconditioning of funds slated for our troops in Iraq.''
Well, we do not have to go too very far back in our past to see the
consequences of that type of action. When I was in Iraq in August of
2005 General Casey told myself and a group of us who were there that
there is no group in the world that can stand up to the American
military. In fact, the only organized body in the world capable of
defeating the American military was the American Congress.
I believe he was right. The CRS has done a report for this Congress,
a report for Congress about restrictions of military operations in
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia and Kosovo, funding and non funding
approaches. I reference particularly, I urge my colleagues, this is
easy to download from the Internet on the CRS, simply type in Cooper-
Church amendment, and you will get this well-researched product.

{time} 2245

It details the Mansfield amendment, the Cooper/Church amendment of
1970 and 1973, the Cranston amendment, the McGovern/Hatfield amendment.
It also talks about the funding for Somalia. In fact, in this House, in
1999, when President Clinton was President, a bipartisan group in this
House came together to defeat a motion to block funding for the troops
in Kosovo. So congressional actions regarding funding do have a real
world impact.
And I would submit that much of the chaos that ensued after we left
Vietnam, and I would include the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in that
chaos, I would include the militant jihadist takeover of our Embassy in
Iran in that chaos, much of that ensued because of congressional action
that was taken on the floor of this House in cutting off funding for
our troops.
And I am not a big one on process. I haven't been here that long. I
don't know that I understand process all that well. But why in the
world would we not allow a vote or even a motion to recommit on, say,
Sam Johnson's bill, H.R. 511. Sam Johnson's bill, a simple two-page
bill that details all of the fine things done by our troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and ends with this simple paragraph: Faithful support of
Congress. Congress will not cut off or restrict funding for units and
members in the Armed Forces that the Commander in Chief has deployed in
harm's way.
Wow, that is pretty simple. I don't understand. I frankly, do not
understand why this House could not vote on this simple measure
submitted by my fellow Texan, Sam Johnson, a legitimate war hero in his
own right. I simply do not understand why we wouldn't have an
opportunity to vote on that bill or offer it as a motion to recommit
before we vote on the resolution.
And the resolution itself, it is a shame that we weren't offered a
chance to amend the bill, to amend the resolution, to perhaps make it
better. I urge people to go on line and read it for themselves. It is
only two lines. It is not a very heavy lift to read this particular
piece of legislation.
Line 1, Congress and the American people will continue to support and
protect Members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or
who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq. That is sentence one.
Remarkable for what it leaves out. What about a comma, and who will
serve? Would it be so wrong to include those individuals who will serve
in whatever time is left in the country of Iraq, to include them in as
being worthy of our support in Congress?
Line 2 is so vague as to almost defy description. Line 2 reads:
Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush,
announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional
troops.
Well, would 19,995 troops be okay? Would Congress then not cock an
eyebrow to say we don't like that either? Well, what does that second
statement actually, what point are we trying to make by that second
statement, other than we don't support the Commander in Chief, we don't
support the mission, and as a consequence, you do have to ask if we
support the troops.
Now, we are all sent here in Congress, we are all elected by 600- to
700,000 people, back in our districts, back in our States, to make hard
decisions. We are not sent here to read the polls, stick our fingers in
the wind and then decide which direction to go. We are not sent here to
shift tactics because we think we may become more

[[Page H1557]]

popular back home if we do that. I fully recognize that by voting
against this resolution, I put myself in jeopardy of reelection, and I
am willing to do that because I believe a vote for this resolution puts
my country's fate in significant jeopardy for decades to come.
Now, I was not here when this House voted in October of 2002 to give
the President the power he needed to deploy the troops. But I have
always voted for funding for the troops. And I appreciate so much the
chairman standing up here and offering his telephone number to any
family who is concerned whether or not their loved one will have access
to body armor in Iraq.
I remember those first hearings when I came here in March of 2003, we
were instructed on how quickly our men and women in the field could get
into their chemical suits. This was an object of great concern to
everyone in this body. In fact, most of us sit on top of a chair which
has a gas mask underneath it, just in case we need to leave this body
in a hurry because of the deployment of chemical weapons. We were all
concerned about chemical weapons back in 2003.
Now, I have made five trips to Iraq, and I know that what is reported
on our television news services here in the States is not always
accurately reflective of what is happening on the ground back in Iraq.
I referenced Dr. Norwood a moment ago. My last trip to Iraq was in July
of 2006. Dr. Norwood, Chairman Deal and I, and Gene Green from our
Health Subcommittee went over to see the status of health care for our
troops. I was very impressed with what I saw that day.
But, Madam Speaker, I think everyone in this body has to answer two
fundamental questions on this resolution before us: Is it in our broad
national interest to win this fight? The second question: Can we
prevail? Can we provide a modicum of security in the country of Iraq?
Can we provide a modicum of sovereignty in the country of Iraq? For me,
the answer to those two questions is yes. Yes and yes. And I recognize
that people of goodwill can disagree about these issues. But if your
answer is no, and no, then please stand up, show some courage.
This is a nonbinding resolution, for crying out loud. Even a
Democratic Presidential candidate said it is equivalent to standing in
the corner and stomping your feet.
We have heard a lot about moral obligations tonight. Well, I would
submit that we have a moral obligation that if we can't answer both of
those questions in the affirmative, bring the troops home now. Don't
wait till April. Don't wait till September. If we haven't the resolve
to see this thing through, or if we no longer feel that it is in our
broad national interest to continue this fight, why in the world would
you ask any man or woman to continue to serve in that country under
those conditions?
It is our moral obligation to ensure that our troops know our
intentions and they know that we are going to provide continued support
for them, and that continued support, whether it is bullets for their
gun, whether it is the M-16, whether it is the Humvee, or whether it is
reinforcements, we are going to continue to provide the things that the
generals on the ground say they need for their men and women to get the
job done.
When the President invited me down to the White House right before
his Oval Office speech, he asked me what the constituents in my
district would say. And I said, Mr. President, it is pretty clear. My
constituents would say to you, if they were standing here today, fight
the war or bring the boys home.
The rules of engagement sometimes, frankly, I don't understand. If we
capture someone in Sadr City and we get a call from the Prime
Minister's Office and we have got to take him back and let him go, that
doesn't make sense, good sense, if you are fighting a war.
Well, it looks as if a lot of those restrictions have been removed.
In fact, on the Drudge Report on Fox News earlier this evening they
broke the story that Moqtada al-Sadr is now living is Iran. That is a
good thing. That reflects the change in tactics on the ground brought
to you by our men and women who are fighting for our freedom abroad.
Madam Speaker, I suggest that we commit together to support the
future, the future support of our troops in the country of Iraq, or
simply get them out of harm's way now. Again, Moqtada al-Sadr has fled
to Iran.
I think we can prevail. I think it is in our broad national interest.
I think the price of defeat is simply too steep, not just for us today,
but for generations in the future.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Herseth). The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, would it be wrong to propose an amendment
that would ask that we add support for troops that will be in harm's
way in the future in line 1 of this bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would entertain such requests only
from the majority manager of the concurrent resolution.
Mr. BURGESS. Well, then I would call on the majority manager of the
concurrent resolution to consider adding future support for our troops,
or those troops who will be in harm's way in the months to come.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I am happy today, right now, to yield 5
minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
This afternoon I went to Walter Reed and I visited some injured
soldiers. One of them was from my congressional district in the State
of Utah; had a number of serious injuries. He has been in intensive
care at Walter Reed for about 3 weeks now. His wife was there with him.
There were pictures of his 2-year old daughter plastered up all over
the wall. His daughter is back in Utah with a set of grandparents.
I wish everyone could have the experience of going and meeting the
soldiers and the families. They inspire me, and they also tell me how
serious this issue is about putting people in harm's way, because the
lives of that family are changed forever based on these severe injuries
that this soldier undertook.
With regard to the situation in Iraq, our military personnel have
done everything we have asked. We can never thank our troops enough,
and we owe them. We have an obligation to them to give them the best
opportunity for success.
The problem is that we have never really stood here and talked about
a strategy for success. A successful strategy has to be comprehensive.
That is what has been needed from the outset of the conflict in Iraq,
and it is still needed today as Iraq descends into civil war.
A strategy for success in Iraq requires more than a military
strategy. We have the most powerful military in the world, without a
doubt. If military might alone could succeed, we would be done by now.
The situation in Iraq has always required a more comprehensive
effort. We need a plan for political and diplomatic and economic
success.
Now, just a couple of months ago, Congress was actually handed just
such a strategy in the report from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The
report was put together by some of the greatest statesmen, diplomats
and military minds of our generation. This was a bipartisan group led
by former Secretary of State James Baker and former 9/11 Commission
Chairman Lee Hamilton. These venerable men and women painstakingly
considered all the available options. They talked to military
strategists, generals, Iraqis and each and every type of individual who
might hold the key to a way forward. They acknowledge that each
recommendation of the Iraq Study Group carries its own risk factors.
But in the end, this bipartisan group unanimously endorsed a plan to
move forward. And in doing so, they rejected the overly simplistic
discussion that seemed to dominate the 2006 election season when the
primary options that were discussed were either stay the course or cut
and run. In fact, the Iraq Study Group report provides reasoned
arguments against both of these options.
As for staying the course, the Iraq Study Group states that, and I
quote, ``The longer the United States remains in Iraq without progress,
the more resentment will grow among Iraqis who

[[Page H1558]]

believe they are the subjects of a repressive American occupation. As
one U.S. official said to us, `Our leaving would make it worse. The
current approach without modification will not make it better.' ''
As for an immediate withdrawal, the Iraq Study Group states that if
we left tomorrow we would simply leave an immense power vacuum in Iraq.
The results would have devastating effects on the global economy, the
region and the Iraqi people themselves. And specifically, the report
says that ``a premature American departure from Iraq would almost
certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration
of conditions.''
Now, the resolution we are debating right now addresses the proposal
to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by just over 20,000.
Let's remember that the Iraq Study Group specifically took a hard look
at the surge option. In discussing the merits of a surge the Iraq Study
Group report said that a surge ``might temporarily help limit violence
in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the
violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to
another area.''
Furthermore, many generals and other military strategists have
roundly criticized the surge strategy.
Now, I have long believed that the lack of independent, accurate
assessments of our progress has hampered our efforts to secure Iraq and
assist in its reconstruction. I strongly believe that the U.S. cannot
linger in making the important policy and strategic decisions
recommended in the report.
That is why we need to follow the recommendations of the Iraq Study
Group report. U.S. forces should be redeployed from combat missions to
support functions. Our troops should be supplementing the Iraqi Army.
And at the same time, we have to move forward on the economic
development front and the political front and the regional diplomacy
front.
The resolution we are debating today is very simple. We support our
troops and we oppose the surge strategy. I will vote for this
resolution.
As I said before, our troops have done everything we have asked of
them. Their performance is a source of great admiration and pride for
everyone in America. At a minimum, we owe them a new approach and a
thoughtful approach to the situation in Iraq and the pursuit of a
comprehensive strategy for success.

{time} 2300

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may
consume to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, first of all, I think that I speak for all
of our colleagues and all of us here in paying tribute to the 137,000-
some-odd American men and women who are fighting in Iraq, the 25,000 or
so that are fighting in Afghanistan. We are here to do what we can to
honor them. We are trying to express our patriotism. We are trying to
do what we are obligated to do by standing up here.
The notion that it is our patriotic duty, our obligation to sit
silent and to do whatever the President thinks is best and blindly walk
in that direction, that is not the way to honor the troops that are
there. I can imagine the challenges that they face every single day,
and would the message going back to them be most appropriate that just
as often as they wake up in the deserts of Iraq trying to figure out
why people are shooting at them and what they can do to stop it, they
should know that every single day we here in Congress are trying to
think about ways to make their mission safer and make it more possible
for them to accomplish their mission and to extract them as soon as
possible. We pray that they are successful. Although I strongly oppose
the President's initiative, that I am going to vote ``yes'' on this
resolution, I pray that they are successful. I pray we don't lose
another life. We want them to be successful. But it is not enough just
to be silent and to be prayerful. We also have to act.
Some in this Chamber have objected to this resolution because what it
seeks to do is to do two things: one is the thing that I have done
already, which is to pay tribute to the troops, something we all share
in doing; and two is begin on a path of oversight. It is not surprising
at all to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle have such a
difficult concept with this idea of doing oversight over something the
President proposes. They have done no oversight over how the money has
been spent over there, and so as a result, we found out in the first
month of the Democratic Congress that a $12 billion pallet of currency
was delivered to Iraq and promptly disappeared. We had hearings last
week that showed that even Mr. Bremer and officials on the ground from
the administration have no idea where $12 billion disappeared to. So it
is not surprising that my Republic friends have a difficult time
figuring out what it is we are doing here. We are doing oversight, and
we are going to do more of it.
We are doing oversight over the equipment that the troops had. This
weekend there were stories coming outside of Iraq that Iranian-built
armor-piercing projectiles were being used in roadside bombs. It
reminded us again that the troops had been sent there without
sufficient hardware, without sufficient protective gear, without
sufficient armor-plated vehicles to be able to do their job. We are
going to do oversight on that as well.
And I have to say that as part of the oversight that we are doing
today, we are doing oversight on how the troops are being used. And let
us not kid ourselves. The troops have done a remarkable job. They have
done just about every single thing we have asked. They brought down a
dictator. They set up a trial. They allowed a government to be stood
up. They built roads and bridges. They have done an extraordinary job,
and we in this House support them in that work.
But now what is their mission? Their mission is essentially to stand
in the middle of a shooting match of the worst order. It is not over a
patch of land. It is not a shooting match over what a border is going
to be. It is not a shooting match even over oil. It is a shooting match
of the most ingrained type between Shia and Sunni that goes back
hundreds of years. Are our troops going to solve that conflict with
20,000 troops or 40,000 troops? I don't believe so. And even worse, I
believe it is an untenable mission to be giving them. They are
essentially in a schoolyard where everyone wants to fight.
And I have to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, over
and over and over again today I have heard this dynamic being described
that if we were to leave or to support this resolution, we would let
down our allies, we would embolden our enemies, and we would betray the
Iraqi people. In fact, this policy does all of those things. Let us
look at it.
What does this policy say to our allies? Well, it says to our allies
in Afghanistan we are not going to devote the resources there necessary
for you to do the job. This isn't an abstract notion. You can watch it
happen every single day. So long as we have 140,000 troops or 130,000
troops in this shooting match largely in Baghdad, we are watching as
Afghanistan slips further and further back into the hands of the
Taliban.
We have heard, for example, from our so-called ally the Saudis, and
what have they said? They have been most telling. They said recently,
well, to you, the citizens of the United States, if you pull your
troops out, we are going to be forced to put resources in to support
our Sunni brethren. So the Saudis have said if the American troops
leave, we are going to have to jump in on the side of our Sunni
brethren in Baghdad. What does that say? What does that say? That says
they will jump into a blood-letting, but they won't come in now to help
us stabilize Baghdad. They have argued, essentially, that the only
reason they are not involved is our troops are. Some ally. Some message
we are sending to our ally Saudi Arabia. What they are saying is, You
had better keep your boys dying because otherwise we are going to have
to send ours in.
That is exactly what we want. We want them to send they resources in.
We want them to take ownership of this.
And the same is true with Egypt and other allies in the region. They
have said to us, You had better keep doing what you are doing, Mr.
President. We are getting exactly the wrong message.
And I have also heard my colleagues speak frequently today about

[[Page H1559]]

emboldening our enemies. Well, it seems like just about anything
Democrats propose is emboldening our enemies.
Let us take a closer look at this. Is Iran truly upset about what is
going on in Iraq? Are the Iranians truly wringing their hands every day
saying, Boy oh boy, I hope the United States does not pull out of
there? No. They have never been happier with this existing policy.
Their worst elements, their worst Shia elements, are crossing over the
border practically at will, joining the fight. The President of the
United States himself has said it. I have heard people here on the
floor say it. They like this confrontation that is going on. They want
it to be like this.

But they are happy for another reason, and I say this particularly to
my friends on the other side of the aisle. They are happy because I am
truly concerned about the threat that Iran poses not only to the United
States but to the world. Do you think we are in a position right now
with our military stretched so thin that if we needed to act against
Iran, we could? No. Our engagement in Baghdad, adding more and more and
more troops, has stretched us thinner and thinner and thinner. And the
most happy people in the world are the tyrants in Iran because they
know they can get away with just about anything. And if you think I am
wrong about that, take a look at the war back last year on the northern
border of Israel. Hezbollah felt completely unencumbered, which is
essentially, as we all know, an agent of Iran. They felt completely
unencumbered again just to attack a democracy in the region because
they knew that all of us were stretched entirely too thin to be able to
respond. So this notion that we are going to send the wrong message to
our enemies is completely wrong.
Do you know what would send the right message to our enemies, I say
to my colleagues? You take some of those troops out of Baghdad, you put
them on the Iranian border. That is how you send them a message. You
get them out of the shooting match, but you keep them in the
neighborhood. You keep them right on the border of Iran and you say, We
don't need 140,000, but we are going to make sure you don't export any
more problems. We are going to seal off the schoolyard.
And, finally, I have heard it said that this will be an abandonment
of the Iraqi people. Well, ladies and gentlemen, there is no element
here that I am more disappointed with, and I think I speak virtually
for all of us. Our troops are in there trying to create stability in
Iraq, and for some reason, overwhelming numbers of Iraqis say that they
think it is okay to shoot at our troops. It is outrageous. It is
outrageous. Our troops are in there trying as best they can to build
this country, put it back together, and the Iraqi people over and over
again are saying, You know what, it is kind of okay when I read stories
about snipers shooting at our troops.
The Iraqi people have to have a moment where they confront the
reality of the situation. Everyone agrees, I think, and whenever I say
that, I hear someone come to the floor and think that everything is
going just fine in Iraq, but just about everyone agrees that the Iraqi
people themselves ultimately have to take responsibility for their own
country.
Are we creating an environment that is more likely to happen or less
likely to happen? Well, there is no sign that it is happening; so the
de facto response to my own question is that it is not happening. But I
would argue that every time we stand up and put additional troops in,
we push the Iraqi people further from the point where they have to
confront that they have to take control. Might it be messy? Yes. Might
it even be bloody? Yes. But one thing is for sure: up to now the Iraqi
people have simply said, We are not going to. We don't have to. We have
got our boys from the United States of America, and now we have another
20, 30, 40,000 that are going to be rolling into town.
My colleagues, I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle
complain, and I have to say, present company excluded, it sounded a
little like whining most of the day. I have heard, well, we need more
choices. I have heard we need more bills. I have heard we need more
language. There are going to be plenty of opportunities to confront
these issues, but today my colleagues have to confront the choice in
front of them. Sometimes in this job you have to say ``yea'' or
``nay.'' And this week what you have to say ``yea'' or ``nay'' on is a
resolution that is exquisite in its simplicity. It says two things and
two things only. It says we support the troops. We are going to keep
them safe. We are going to keep them secure. We are going to do
anything that they need to show our support. And, two, we disapprove of
the way the President wants to increase the number of troops going
there. That is it. You are going to get to vote on other things later
on because we are not done. Many of us believe very strongly that we
need major tactical changes, and I know Mr. Murtha has a plan. The Blue
Dog Caucus has a plan for more transparency. There are going to be
plenty of choices. You are going to get oversight.
I know it has been years, I say to my colleagues, since you have seen
any around here, but you are going to get it. But today what we have is
a simple proposition. It is the same proposition that is being
discussed in coffee shops, in church socials, in corner stores all
around this country, and that is: Do we support what the President is
doing by increasing our engagement rather than reducing it? That is
what this is about. And all of the foot stamping and all of the
complaining and all of the whining, I want another bill, I want
different language, I want to deal with something different, I want a
hug, well, for the time being this is the choice that you are
confronted with.
If you believe that this surge is the right policy, you have a simple
vote. You can vote ``no.'' If you believe that you don't want to
support the troops, and there is no one like that, you can vote ``no.''
But this resolution is the beginning of finally starting to do what the
American people are thirsting for, and that is this Chamber is a place
where we stand up and say whether we support these things or not.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to take a couple of minutes to answer a couple of things that
my friend said.
First Mr. Weiner said, ``We aren't done.'' Madam Speaker, that is one
thing that I am worried about. He said that we want more choices, more
bills, more language. Not this Member. I will settle for a ``no'' on
this resolution. I haven't asked for more bills, more choices, or
different language.
And the problem with this resolution, the gentleman said this is a
very good resolution because it is very clear, very concise, and gives
us clear choices. This resolution retroactively condemns an action that
has already been taken. That is the movement of reinforcements into the
theater. You already have the 82nd Airborne in the theater. That is
part of the reinforcing force. They are already in there. You already
have a brigade from the 82nd Airborne in one of the nine sectors right
now, operating, boots on the ground as we talk. So you aren't
prohibiting the President from sending reinforcements.
He said that American forces are being stretched thinner and thinner
and thinner.
We have 2\1/2\ million Americans in uniform. We have roughly 138,000
before the surge. Now a little more than 140,000 counting the ones that
are already in country. When they are in country and the support troops
are there and less the troops who will be rotating home at that point,
you will have at the high point, we are told by DOD, about 157,000
troops. That is less than we had a year ago in country, I would say to
the gentleman. So that is not a huge surge.

{time} 2315

He stated that we are going to be drawn thinner, and I quote,
``thinner and thinner and thinner.''
So you have about 160,000 troops, a little less than that, max. That
is not 10 percent of the 2.5 million persons who are presently wearing
the uniform of the United States.
Secondly I will say to my friend, I want to say to folks who listen
to this debate, because this statement about us being drawn thin and
therefore being susceptible to problems and being vulnerable is a
message that has come up several times in this debate.

[[Page H1560]]

We have more than doubled the precision firepower of this country
since the last administration, that is the Clinton administration. You
have more than doubled the precision firepower. That means the ability,
if people should give the United States a need to respond militarily,
the ability to send precision systems that can explode right straight
through goalposts at long distances and handle lots of stuff.
Now, the gentleman is very concerned about Iran. I share that
concern. And I share the concern the gentleman has about the centrifuge
activity and the proposed centrifuge activity that Iran has discussed
and may at some point develop with the aid of the Russians and the
Chinese.
I would just remind the gentleman that those precision systems, that
doubling of the precision firepower that we now have, is probably the
right medicine if we should have to keep the military option open and
on the table with respect to Iran. So we will watch them as they try to
walk down this road to developing a nuclear weapon.
Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I honor the gentleman for his mastery of
the numbers. Perhaps you can enlighten me, what is the number of
Reserves that are in country now?
Mr. HUNTER. We have been up as high as 40 percent National Guard and
Reserve, and that is a deliberate policy of the United States. When we
went to war in Vietnam, the Guard and Reserve for practical purposes
stayed home. And we said from here on out, when we go to war, we go to
war with what is known as a total force.
So you have a Reserve element that goes to war. If you were over in
Iraq, as the gentlelady has been there a number of times, you will see
Reservists flying C-130s, doing a lot of support missions, and you have
National Guard units on the ground.
Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will yield for a further question, are
there any there doing second or third tours of duty?
Mr. HUNTER. Certainly. I can tell the gentleman, my son has done two
tours of duty. There are a number of people that have done that.
Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will further yield, is it not your view
that that has a dramatic toll only those families and communities who
are not regular army who are there as Reservists and are being called
back tour after tour? You don't think that is stretching those
communities thin?
Mr. HUNTER. I will just tell the gentleman, in the MOSs that our
folks sign up for, especially the aerial supportive MOSs, that is
always out there, that they are going to have to go, because where the
armed services go, where the active folks go, let me just finish my
answer to the gentleman. He asked me a question. I am going to ask
answer it.
If you are in a supportive service that involves things likes aerial
refueling, C-130 work, which is the workhorse of the U.S. military, you
understand when you go in, you are going to be making probably multiple
tours. If you join the U.S. Marines right now, the recruiter tells you
as you sign up, you can be guaranteed that you will go to Iraq.
I would say to the gentleman another thing: Knowing those things, we
are meeting all of our enlistment goals in the Guard and Reserve. So
the active duty people who are undertaking multiple tours are coming
back and reenlisting. And knowing that, knowing that you are exposed to
multiple tours, we have more people signing up for the Guard, for the
Reserve.
And interestingly, I will tell the gentleman, the place where we have
had problems with recruiting in the last year from the information I
have seen is the Naval Reserve, which doesn't do tours in Iraq. But the
combat arms have multiple tours.
Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the
gentleman very much. I think what you have just described is a military
stretched thin, my friend. I think when you have people in the Reserves
doing three tours, that are being taken away from their communities, I
think that is a military stretched thin.
Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, I will just tell the gentleman this:
There is a difference between people in specialties spending more time
doing multiple tours, and I will say to him again, almost all Marines
know that they are going to do multiple tours, either in country or on
the so-called float, which is the deployment around the world, because
they are the 9/11 force for this country. So that is something that
people do.
That is a far cry from not having enough firepower to respond to an
Iranian crisis. We still have tons of firepower to respond to an
Iranian breakout or surprise, a technological surprise, with respect to
development of nuclear systems.
Madam Speaker, if the gentlewoman from California has more speakers,
I will enjoy listening to them, and I will reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my
friend and colleague from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).
Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the
resolution before us that disapproves of the President's recent
announcement to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops
to Iraq.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am committed to
supporting our troops and making sure that they have the resources they
need. I always have and I always will. There is no debate about
supporting our troops. This resolution clearly and unequivocally states
that both the Congress and the American people support our valiant men
and women in uniform. Our troops have been and are continuing to do an
excellent job, and they deserve our support.
Yet, overall, our military is being stretched thin, and now we face
the prospect of not only sending over 20,000 more combat troops into
Iraq, but also another 15,000 troops on top of that, at minimum, to
support those troops, with additional military police, intelligence
units and supply function personnel. In fact, the Congressional Budget
Office estimates that it might take even more troops than that. So
reality is that we are now looking at a total of 35,000 or more troops
actually involved in this potential surge.
We need to be moving toward a successful conclusion in Iraq; not with
a timetable, but with definite benchmarks of accountability that are
meant to ensure that the Iraqis are taking control of their own
security and future. The Iraqi army, the national police and the local
police in Iraq must take responsibility for their own country and
communities, and only by lessening the American footprint in Iraq will
we empower the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their own self-
governance and ultimately their own destiny.
Is not just my opinion or the opinion of some here, it is exactly
what General John Abizaid, our U.S. Commander said, when I visited Iraq
and when he testified before Congress.
We cannot continue to increase troop levels in Iraq at the expense of
allowing the Taliban to come back into power in Afghanistan. The Global
War on Terrorism is exactly what the name says. It is a global war, not
just an Iraqi war, and we cannot let our troop strength be so focused
on what is becoming a civil war in Iraq that we lose focus on threats
that face us elsewhere in the world.
Previous surges have not solved the problems in Iraq. Let us not be
fooled into thinking that this one will.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I have got one speaker left here, Mr. Franks of
Arizona, but let me just say one thing before he speaks. I appreciate
the debate. I think we have had a good discussion this evening.
I wanted to say one thing about Charlie Norwood. He passed away. He
was a Member of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. I was a member of that
brigade. I had a very average tour, a very easy tour in Vietnam. I did
nothing special. But Charlie Norwood was a real hero who won the Combat
Medical Badge and two Bronze Stars in Vietnam.
I thought to commemorate Charlie, I have got my copy of General
Douglas MacArthur's farewell speech that I quoted earlier, and let me
just quote a paragraph about duty, honor and country that Douglas
MacArthur thought so represented the fighting man in this country.

[[Page H1561]]

He said these of words, duty, honor and country, ``They teach to be
proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in
success; not to substitute words for action; not to seek the path of
comfort, but to face the stress and spur of difficulty and challenge;
to learn to stand up in the storm, but to have compassion on those who
fall; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have a
heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never
forget how to weep; to reach into the future, yet never neglect the
past; to be serious, yet never take yourself too seriously; to be
modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness; the
open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength.''
I think that largely represented our great friend Charlie Norwood.
Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. I certainly add my own
feelings toward the words that you just spoke on behalf of Charlie
Norwood. None of us know when we have to step from this floor for the
last time. This man, while he was here, maintained a sense of honor. He
was always committed to doing those things that would bring better hope
to future generations. He was honorable among us, and we can certainly
salute that kind of brotherhood that he represented to all of us.
I certainly pass along my own condolences and also congratulations to
his family, because in a sense Charlie Norwood's dreams were fulfilled
in that he dreamed to be a statesman, and he certainly rose to that
occasion in every way.
I suppose it is in a sense a little bit of a statement to all of us
that the brief moments that we have here should be spent debating those
things that would truly make a difference, not only for this
generation, but for whatever generations remain to America.
Madam Speaker, tonight I think that is what I would like to talk
about. There is an old Indian Iroquois quote that says that the secret
to the universe is in the true naming of things, and as we debate
tonight, it is easy for us to see each other as the opposition or as
the enemy.
I think tonight, if all else should fail us, we must consider who the
real enemy here is. This one is a little different than those that we
faced in the past, because even though there are parallels, this is an
ideology. This is not just a group of people that we face in Islamic
jihadism. It is an ideology that I believe has the seeds of danger in
it for the entire human family.
I think it becomes very, very important for us all to understand that
one thing, because in a sense right now the battle that goes on across
the world related to terrorism is a battle between those who are deeply
committed with their lives to the destruction of the Western World on
one side of the equation, and on the other side of the equation the
opposition is largely asleep, and I think that nothing represents a
greater danger to us than not only knowing what we face, but being
completely oblivious to its potential.
I believe that the ideology of jihad has the ability and even the
propensity to germinate and one day threaten the entire human family.
And even though America is engaged in some type of fight against
terrorism and jihadism in nearly 70 countries across the world, whether
we realize it or not, in the eyes of the leaders of jihad, Iraq is the
frontline of that conflict, and it becomes profoundly important that we
recognize it from their perspective, because in any ideology, one must
understand that to grow, it must somehow take root and resonate in the
hearts of the potential recruits.
One of the things that causes this ideology to grow is a sense of
victory on the battlefield, and leader after leader in the jihadist
movement have said that Iraq is critical to the survival of their
ultimate goal.

{time} 2330

I know that we have faced dangerous ideologies before. There are a
lot of people who have parents and family members that faced the Nazis
down in World War II, and yet just a cursory glance at history helps us
understand that the parallel here is real.
There was a time when the Nazis were just a bunch of lunatics riding
bicycles across France, and nobody paid much attention to them. They
spewed a hate and a sense of superiority over their fellow human beings
and even a sense of being willing to subordinate the innocent life of
others for their own ideology. We did not pay much attention to them
until it began to grow and the fires of this ideology began to spread
across Europe.
In the final analysis, the Western world and people of freedom did
not wake up until this thing had become a monster, and when we finally
did engage it, the ensuing war was so difficult and so horrible that at
the end of the day, 50 million people had died.
I will just say this, Madam Speaker, Winston Churchill warned us in a
way that I think is pretty profound. He said, If you will not fight,
then you can easily win without bloodshed. If you will not fight, then
your victory will be sure and not too costly. You may come to the
moment when you will have to fight and all the odds against you with
only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse moment.
You may have to fight when there is no hope for victory because it is
still better to perish than to live as slaves.
I submit in the ideology that we face tonight that is the equation
that is before us.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to rise to close this debate from our side and say how
impressed I have been by the debate that I have heard today. It has
been about 11 hours. We are going to have tomorrow and debate on Friday
and Thursday, and this is the first real serious debate we have had
about the President's policies in Iraq since the vote in October of
2002.
This week the House is considering a bipartisan resolution introduced
by Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, Tom Lantos of California,
and Walter Jones of North Carolina, which supports our troops and
opposes the President's plan to add 21,500 more combat troops in Iraq.
People have talked quite a lot tonight about the size and the scope
of the resolution, but it is elegant and it is certainly spare in the
fact that it is about 100 words, but it is significant because of what
it says.
The resolution is very straightforward. It says:
``Resolved by the House of Representatives that:
``(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and
protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving
or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
``(2) Congress disapproves of the decision by President George W.
Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000
additional United States combat troops to Iraq.''
Those supporting this bipartisan resolution strongly support our
troops and our veterans. Let us be clear on this one fundamental
principle. We are honoring the service of our troops by asking the
difficult questions about this war. In conducting this debate, we must
be ever mindful of the sacrifices our military personnel and their
families are making during this war and the toll it is taking on them
and their families and our veterans. Each Member must determine for
themselves, in a manner worthy of our troop's sacrifice, whether the
President's plan will succeed in making Iraq more stable.
I, for one, do not believe it will, and I strongly believe and hope
that my colleagues will support this resolution and the debate that is
coming forth in the next 2 days
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, scripture tells us, ``David consulted with
the captains of thousands and hundreds and with every leader.''
Throughout the war in Iraq, the President has failed to adequately
consult with the American people and their Congress or other countries
in the region whose best interests are also served by a stable Iraq. He
has long recognized that staying the course in Iraq is not working, yet
he stubbornly stays the course.
The Congress has a duty to make sure once sent into harm's way for
good cause, our troops are equipped and supplied with everything
necessary to accomplish a given mission. The Congress has an equal duty
to change or end a given mission, when circumstances, realities and
rationales demand it.
We in Congress want to work with him to bring our troops home from a
more stable

[[Page H1562]]

Iraq. We should not only ensure that the people are given a full
accounting of what the President is expecting of our troops in the
coming months, and how much it will cost our Treasury, but we must also
demand accounting of what the war in Iraq has cost the U.S., and our
men and women in uniform, over the last four years.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand today with my fellow
veterans in the House of Representatives to register our opposition to
the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq and to show our
support for our men and women in uniform.
Last November 7th, the American people sent a clear message to
Congress and the President: we must end the war in Iraq.
Now, after nearly four years of bloodshed, death and destruction,
Congress is likely to go on the record as opposing the plan for
escalating the war. No longer will Congress stand by while the
President wages a war that defies logic, common sense and human
decency. This week, we shall take a stand. This week, we tell the
administration: ``Enough is enough. Stop ignoring the American people.
Stop ignoring your generals and retired generals, including Colin
Powell. Stop ignoring the foreign policy experts. Stop wasting American
lives and resources on this disastrous, unnecessary conflict.''
This debate represents an important turning point in the public
dialogue about Iraq, and so I welcome it. But it is not enough. The
escalation must be stopped, but we cannot let the momentum against the
war subside after we deal with the escalation. Our priority must remain
ending the fighting and dying in Iraq.
We must end the senseless deaths of service members like Marine
Tarryl Hill of Southfield, Michigan, who died only last Wednesday when
his vehicle drove over a bomb in Fallujah. Tarryl Hill was just 19
years old. He had joined the military to help finance his education to
become a chemical engineer, but instead he became the 120th serviceman
from Michigan to die in Iraq. I don't want to see one more promising
life like Tarryl's extinguished on the altar of this administration's
arrogance.
The loss of Tarryl's life brings to mind the bereavement of another
patriot from Michigan, Lila Lipscomb of Flint, whose 26 year old son
Michael died in Iraq in April 2003 when his helicopter was shot down. A
member of a military family, Ms. Lipscomb initially believed President
Bush when he told the nation that the war was necessary for our
national security. But her son's letters from the front lines and his
tragic death showed her that he never should have gone to Iraq.
I need not spend much time explaining my opposition to the troop
surge, which is simply even more ``more of the same.'' This policy
takes us in precisely the opposite direction recommended by the
generals and the experts. It would simply expose GI's to more intense
door-to-door fighting, in the vain hope that, in the meanwhile, the
Iraqis will miraculously reconcile.
The real and underlying question is how we remove ourselves from this
quagmire. As I have emphasized many times, our Constitution gives
Congress the central role in decisions of war and peace. Last fall the
American people spoke loudly with their votes. We should be here
showing the voters that we heard them and that their trust in us was
well placed.
The ultimate, unequivocal authority of the Congress is the power of
the purse. We must use it. Supporters of the president's failed Iraq
policy have argued that using Congress' spending power to end the war
means that we don't ``support the troops.'' It is beyond absurd to
suggest that those of us who favor ending funding for the war would
simply abandon the troops in the field without the equipment and
supplies they need. Every piece of legislation proposing cutting funds
for combat operations would require the spending necessary to bring the
troops home safely.
Cliches about supporting the troops are not really about our service
members' best interests. The true purpose of these accusations is to
distract us from the fact that we are bogged down in an unwinnable war
with no end in sight. Keeping our troops out of harm's way, especially
when war is unnecessary, is the best possible way to support them. The
American people understand that marching ahead blindly into oblivion is
no way to support our troops. That is why they have asked us to end
this war.
Madam Speaker, the administration continues to live under the
illusion that it can salvage its reputation by achieving a military
victory in Iraq, when it is clear that diplomacy is the only effective
means at our disposal. The recent National Intelligence Estimate
reflecting the collective judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies only
confirms what we have seen in the daily headlines for almost a year. It
concludes that the civil war has reached an intensity that is ``self-
sustaining'' and that there are no Iraqi national leaders with the
ability to stop it. No wonder the Administration stalled completion of
the NIE until after the election and the President's presentation of
his latest proposal.
Most of the American people know that there is only one way to
proceed in Iraq. We must begin the phased withdrawal of American troops
in the next four to six months and conclude it within the year.
Redeploying our armed forces does not mean ``cutting and running.'' On
the contrary, we suggest continued and extensive involvement in the
region through renewed diplomacy, a regional conference and
reconstruction that is free from fraud and abuse. This sensible path is
the only one that can lead us to victory.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution
157, further proceedings on the concurrent resolution will be postponed

____________________