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.
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, 5½ 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 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 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 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?
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."
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.
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."
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).
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.
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 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.
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, 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.
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, 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.
