Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania: Madam Speaker, the situation we are facing in Iraq right now is serious. The resolution we are debating here tonight, unfortunately, is not.
Everyone agrees the situation on the ground is unacceptable. To make it right, we need leadership, resources, and resolve. What we don't need is 36 hours of time trading speeches on a nonbinding measure, a measure that imparts no new policy, offers no new alternatives, and commands no real effect.
Most of the speeches I have heard this week are about the war. On that subject, there is plenty of room for disagreement. But the resolution before us isn't about the war, it is about a specific tactical question: the number of troops we need to deploy to finish the job.
I can't think of a group that is less qualified to make strategic and tactical decisions on the ground than 535 Members of Congress, sitting 6,000 miles away on Capitol Hill. Congress shouldn't be in the business of micromanaging war tactics.
Should we debate the war in Iraq? Certainly. Can we disagree about its goals and purpose? Absolutely. But decisions on the ground need to be determined by our military commanders on the scene, and not public opinion polls.
Of course, the other responsibility of Congress is, when it comes to wars, the power to fund them. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I take that responsibility seriously. But if my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and in the full House think the war is a lost cause, if they think that sending more troops to help secure Iraq is the wrong strategy, they shouldn't hesitate to cut off the funding for the operation. I wouldn't support that measure, but at least it would be a measure of genuine intent, not a two-paragraph statement on military tactics we have on the floor this week.
Mistakes have been made. But this is a mission that is consistent with our vital interest and worthy of our support. I don't believe President Bush has prosecuted this war flawlessly, and, frankly, I don't believe he has always particularly been well advised. But this strategy of reinforcement is not always supported by the President, it is supported by the military and the political leadership of Iraq.
People have to understand something. We are facing an enemy like no other we have faced before, an ideological enemy driven by hate, not reason; an enemy for whom there can be no rest until the freedoms and values that define our civilization are destroyed.
Victory is the only outcome that can be accepted. But the resolution we are debating on the floor this week was not written with ultimate victory in mind; it was written in expectation of defeat. And, unlike some of my colleagues, I am not willing to concede to defeat.
So many families have sacrificed so that we can be successful in Iraq, and they are willing to sacrifice even more. To cut support for them now would be unforgiveable.
You know, Mr. Speaker, watching the debate on the floor this week, my thoughts keep going back to the Loudon family who live in my district.
Their son Christopher, a member of his college ROTC program, was deployed to Iraq after graduation and came home this fall in a flag- draped coffin.
Their son Nicholas is a West Point graduate I nominated to the Academy, who served with his brother in Iraq, and he is heading back to Iraq this weekend for another tour of duty.
Their son Jonathan, their youngest, and another one of my Academy nominees, is going to West Point this fall. The Loudon family had great concern over whether to send their third and youngest son to West Point. In the end, they were swayed by their son's commitment to serve his country and their shared belief that his mission is one worth fighting for.
If the Loudons can remain strong and committed in the face of the most difficult circumstances any family can endure, why can't Congress?
I have gotten other calls from families in my district. One mother called this week to tell me that her son, a young man named Nathan Stone whom I nominated to West Point in 2001, is currently serving in south Baghdad, sweeping the city, going door to door, risking his life so the Iraqis can live their lives with a basic security. And do you know what he told his mother to relate to me? He told her that they are making a difference, they are seeing progress. They need help, they need these troops, and they will be excited when they get them.
If First Lieutenant Stone believes that these additional troops are vital to him completing his mission in Baghdad, that tells me a lot. And if the Loudons can send their youngest son to West Point knowing that he may some day be called into service himself, that tells me all I need to know.
Mr. Speaker, no one likes war. No one wants our troops to be in Iraq one minute longer than they have to be to ensure the mission is accomplished. Reasonable people may disagree on strategy, but this resolution is not about alternative viewpoints. There are no different courses offered, no suggestions, and no responsibility taken.
I stand with the Loudon family and Lieutenant Stone, and vote opposed to this resolution.
Mr. Smith of Washington: Madam Speaker, I yield 5½minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFazio: I thank the gentleman.
We are debating a simple, straightforward resolution. Clause 1 says, "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."
Every Member of Congress, despite outrageous allegations from the Republican side of the aisle from some, fully supports our troops and wants them to have the best equipment available to accomplish this mission. The disagreement is over the strategy that determines their mission.
The Republicans don't want to have a debate over that strategy. They are trying to conflate support for the troops with support for the President's failed stay-the-course strategy dressed up with a little bit of escalation.
But as President Theodore Roosevelt said during World War I, standing by a President, whether right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, it is morally treasonable to the American public.
Supporting the troops doesn't require supporting the failed policies of this President and his administration. The Republicans don't want to debate the conduct of the war and the future strategy in Iraq. The former Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra, wrote a letter to his colleagues saying, "This debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can or cannot win militarily. If we let the Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."
So change the subject. Make things up.
There is a massive propaganda effort on the part of many Republicans to distract and dissemble. They have trotted out the tired and thoroughly discredited catch phrase, "If we don't fight them there, we will fight them here," invoking the specter of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. However, U.S. intelligence agencies, including military intelligence agencies, have refuted that claim that the conflict in Iraq is driven by al Qaeda. It is not. The violence is driven by a civil war primarily between the Iraqi Sunnis and Shias in a 1,400-year- old conflict, and our troops are caught in the middle of that civil war. The recent National Intelligence Estimate definitively put that issue to rest. The Iraqi Sunnis and Shias have no interest in or capability of attacking the United States.
Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and their Taliban allies are still alive and active on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, thanks to the Bush administration and the massive diversion of our troops and resources from Afghanistan to an unnecessary war in Iraq. We do need to reinforce our troops in Afghanistan in order to end, once and for all, the threat posed by al Qaeda and the Taliban leadership.
Our Nation and our troops were led into the war in Iraq by the distortion of intelligence, dissembling by the President, and senior members of the administration. It is time for the truth. The Bush administration has saddled our troops with a failed strategy in Iraq. It is that failed strategy that hurts our troops, not the words of those of us who have pointed out the obvious failures by this administration.
I don't believe there is a level of U.S. troops that could stabilize Iraq at this point and resolve these underlying ages-old sectarian conflicts.
The President remains optimistic. However, optimism is not a strategy. Staying the course and repeating the failures of the past is not a new strategy. Vice President Dick Cheney, despite the grim National Intelligence Estimate acknowledging the civil war in Iraq, dismissed suggestions that Iraq is a disaster, saying, "The reality on the ground is that we have made major progress." Vice President Cheney.
Optimism, stay the course, and delusion and denial, those do not serve our troops well. We need a real change in strategy.
A better strategy is to announce a time line negotiated with the Iraqi Government to bring our troops home over the next 6 months to a year.
The administration has always set time lines for political developments in Iraq, for the elections, for the drafting of the constitution. The administration argued such time lines were necessary to focus the energy of Iraq's leaders and to force compromises. We need to do the same on the military side. Negotiating a time line for bringing home U.S. troops with responsible parties in the Iraqi Government would boost the Iraqi Government's legitimacy and claim to self-rule, and force the Iraqi Government to take responsibility for itself and its citizens. Negotiating a withdrawal timeline and strategy with the Iraqi Government could more than possibly anything else improve the standing of the Iraqi Government in the eyes of its own people, a significant achievement in a region where the standing of rulers and governments is low, and it could also abate the insurgencies of both Sunnis and Shias. Too many Iraqis view us as an occupying force. Large majorities of both Sunnis and Shia want U.S. troops to withdraw, and approve of attacks on our men and women in uniform.
The U.S. must engage, despite the reluctance of this administration, in robust diplomacy with all factions in Iraq, except the foreign terrorists and domestic al Qaeda elements and work with Iraq's neighbors in an effort to bring about political reconciliation among Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. Our troops have done all that has been asked of them in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein is dead. His allies are on the run or in prison. The threat from WMDs is nonexistent. The war that has been authorized by Congress is won. The troops should come home. Congress should not authorize U.S. troops to referee a civil war in Iraq.
Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
(Mr. Hulshof asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Hulshof: Madam Speaker, on November 19 of 1863, President Abraham Lincoln rose on the platform at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, following a 2-hour oration by Edward Everett, and gave a brief but very eloquent discourse that has become a prominent part of our country's heritage. At the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery he acknowledged, "The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is, for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced."
Can we find some poignancy today in those simple words uttered 7 score and 4 years ago? What is the unfinished work that confronts this body politic, and more to the point, does this resolution promulgated unilaterally by the majority advance the cause for freedom for which 3,000 of our countrymen have given the last full measure of devotion?
For all of these rhetorical meanderings that have occurred lo these many hours, the responsibility for the current state of affairs in Iraq rests squarely with the majority of Members who serve in this Congress of the United States. Back on December 17, 1998, do you recall House Resolution 612 which declared in pertinent part, "Resolved, by the House of Representatives that . . . the Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power' and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."'
I note that the gentleman who just spoke, along with 400 other Members of the Congress, supported that resolution as the policy of the United States, and thereafter in October of 2002, Congress, both the House and the Senate, approved the resolution approving the use of force and military action necessary to effectuate that policy of regime change.
Now, deposing the former dictator, in relative terms, was the easy part, yanking him from his hiding place, a hole in the ground. He eventually stood trial in the dock as a common accused, was judged by his countrymen according to the rule of law, and held to account for the brutality of his many crimes.
A second policy objective, promoting a democratic government has been the harder path, but though difficult, is it no less important? As my friend and colleague, my classmate from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) so passionately and persuasively annunciated yesterday, America has vital national interests in Iraq.
Does anyone argue the contrary? Can we not all agree that we must deny al Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq? Do we not further agree that Iraq must not be the source of instability in the Middle Eastern region?
Well, if we can agree on these points, can the majority make a legitimate case that this resolution accomplishes either of those important interests? President Bush recently nominated General David Petraeus as the new Commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq. Widely known as a brilliant tactician in the area of counterinsurgency, General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the other body.
Today, however, the majority desires to deny this extremely capable commander the means to accomplish his objective. Isn't it incumbent upon us, as Lincoln urged, to remain dedicated to the task remaining before us? Haven't many in this body expressed frustration that the Iraqi Government has put limitations on the rules of engagement of our troops in our field, not allowing our military to hunt down the enemy because insurgents had escaped to a safe haven in a region deemed off- limits by the Iraqi Government?
Well, isn't the majority party doing exactly the same thing half a world away with this resolution? Isn't denying military additional reinforcements deemed necessary by our generals in the field hampering our last best chance for success?
Two nights ago I was moved by the quiet eloquence of the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) when he made the simple yet ironic observation: At no time in our Nation's history has this House considered a public rebuke of a sitting Commander in Chief for the manner in which a war has been conducted that Congress itself has authorized.
On that score alone, I find this resolution breathtaking in its audacity. If I may be allowed to paraphrase the Great Emancipator, it is true, the world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but the world will never forget what we do here.
I urge rejection of this resolution.
Mr. Smith of Washington: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. Farr: Thank you for yielding.
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair tonight.
I would like to thank the new leadership in the House tonight for the opportunity and the time to allow this body and the Members of this body to go on record about the President's war strategy.
Of course I would prefer that we were debating my bill, H.R. 413, which would rescind the authority that we gave the President to invade Iraq back in October of 2002. I voted against this war then, and I will continue to do so now.
We just cannot thank, though, our leadership. We have to thank the American people, the people that went to the polls in November, who voted for a change and a new direction for this country. You, our constituents, voted for this change, and now you are witnessing the historic debate on the President's policy in Iraq.
This resolution that we are voting on is very simple. It has two sections. The first section affirms our support for our troops who are serving and have served in Iraq.
The second section expresses disapproval over the deployment of 21,000 combat troops in Iraq. These two simple statements aren't legally binding. But they are binding promises to the American people who voted for us to change the direction. Promises are important. When soldiers and their families go to war, our government promises to support them, and that we should.
Just think, if we made the same promise to the school children when they go to school, that we would protect them from school violence and fully support their efforts to get an education, and that we should.
Just think, if we made that promise to provide health care for 47 million Americans who are without health insurance today, and that we should. The promise and the list of promises goes on and on, many unmet domestic needs that are not getting attention because of the war in Iraq.
Some say this resolution is meaningless. I disagree. It is a promise, and promises are important.
If we can support our troops and we can support the teachers who are educating their children, we can support the health care providers that are caring for their loved ones.
By voting for this resolution, we are making a promise to the American people to change United States' policy on the war. This resolution doesn't end the war, but it begins a new direction.
This is the first time that we have said "enough is enough" to the President. It is a good start. If we go on record in opposition to troop surge, we can express our disapproval to the country's addiction to oil and to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. We can express our disapproval of the policy that keeps homeless people on the streets, that keeps one in six American children living in poverty, and allows our skies and oceans to continue to be polluted.
So to the American people, I thank you. I thank you for getting involved, because when you do, politicians respond. You have empowered us to chart a new course for the war in Iraq, and I am proud to cast my vote for this resolution.
Today we are keeping our promise to the people, for what we do for our brave troops, we can do for all of God's children. Yes, Mr. President, we can tell you that you are wrong.
In closing, I think what this debate is about is to wake up the world. America is coming back. It is coming back with the most powerful force on Earth, the energized electorate. This resolution is a breath of fresh air in our Nation's Capitol. It is time to get out of Iraq, it is time to lead.
Thank you, Speaker Pelosi, for bringing us this far in just a few short weeks.
Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
Mr. Pickering: Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
As we look back through our Nation's history, and we look back at all the great chapters, there were moments, decisive, critical moments, where our Nation could have given up, or given in, could have withdrawn, could have surrendered, and those moments that make us most proud are those chapters in our history where we did not give up, retreat, surrender.
If we had a mission, we completed it. If we look to Lincoln's message at one of those turning and tipping points in our history at Gettysburg, when this Nation was in the midst of its bloodiest civil war, Lincoln said, We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this Nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom.
We have a new Nation trying to grasp its first breath of freedom, to form a more perfect union of freedom and equality and democracy.
Lincoln's second inaugural address: With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness and the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Today I took a couple on a tour of this great Capitol, and we walked into the Rotunda under the magnificent dome, the place where if you put the Statue of Liberty, it would still have room within that dome.
The dome was finished and constructed during our Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was questioned during that time, Shall we devote our time and our resources and the labor to the completion of the dome, or should that go to the war effort? And Lincoln said, No, that is a symbol of our union, and we will complete the work of the dome.
When Lee met Grant at Appomattox, it is said that Lee's first question to Grant was, Have they finished the dome yet? They had just finished it in the spring of 1865.
Today that dome defines and symbolizes the strength of our Nation and of our democracy. Many in the world probably thought during that time that we would never survive, and the real question for many of us today as a Nation at war that is spiraling in civil war, can that civil war end? Can a nation be unified? Could the hatred and the violence be stopped and then reconciliation bring unity?
There are many on the other side who believe that it is futile, that all civil wars will never end, that these ancient hatreds will not stop. But if we look to our recent history in Bosnia, there was a President of the other party who stood and said, We can intervene. We will give our military and our diplomatic resources to bring about an end to civil war.
He was successful, and history judges him well for that. To be honest, many on this side of the aisle did not stand in support of that President at that time. But our Nation remembers and are glad that we had a leader who intervened and brought stability to a critical region of the world, and new democracies emerged.
We started this effort together after 9/11. We all remember standing on the steps and singing "God bless America." We can remember going to the cathedral, the National Cathedral, and praying for our guidance and for our unity. We authorized the war together. We adopted a policy of regime change together, overwhelmingly.
And now, 4 years later, when it is difficult and grave doubts rise, will we give up, or will we complete the work and finish the work in which we can be proud?
Lieutenant Joshua Trapp, who flies Apache helicopters in Iraq, deployed this spring after his marriage to Elizabeth of only 3 weeks. He now believes and hopes that he can complete his mission.
I rise today in Joshua Trapp's name, and all of those other Mississippians who have given their lives, that their life may not have been in vain, and that their mission may be supported in this body in this time and this place and that it is a chapter we in this place will remember as we age and grow old that we did not walk away, retreat, surrender, but we finished the mission.
Mr. Smith of Washington: Madam Speaker, I would just first observe that none of these soldiers who died in Iraq, no matter what happens from this point forward, died in vain. No soldier who dies fighting for his country and his comrades dies in vain, regardless of the politics. I hope we would all understand that.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. Maloney of New York: Madam Speaker, for almost 4 years the administration has been saying, just give us more time, just give us more money, our plan will bring peace. And now they are saying, we need more troops, 48,000 of them. But we have already had four troop increases since we went into Iraq and none of them have brought stability.
Tragically, this war has cost more than 3,100 American lives, 143 from my home State of New York, and thousands of Iraqi lives, as well as more than 20,000 injured American soldiers who will carry their wounds for the rest of their lives.
The bipartisan Hamilton-Baker Commission called for a different approach. They said: "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." As Mr. Hamilton said: "The current approach is not working. And the ability of the U.S. to influence events is diminishing."
The commission called for greater use of diplomacy. And the commission's report stated clearly that we must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops in Iraq. They warned that doing so would continue to stretch our troops too thin, hampering our abilities to simultaneously face other threats in the world.
It would severely affect America's army readiness, and it would not give the Iraqi Government the incentive needed to help bring security. If this assessment is so clearly in opposition to a long-term deployment in Iraq, why is the administration doing the exact opposite?
They are calling for a bigger commitment of troops, for more expenditure of lives and treasure with no end in sight. They speak of victory, but what is victory? Was it finding weapons of mass destruction? There were none. Was it a nuclear weapons program? There was not one. Was Iraq an imminent threat to our security? We were told it was, but in fact it was not.
They claimed that they would exhaust all options before taking military action. But they did not even wait for the weapons inspectors' final report. Was our goal to impose democracy on the entire Middle East? The war has inflamed and destabilized the region. Whatever their justification, they have embarked on a policy that is dragging America into the mire of another country's civil war.
In this civil war we don't know who's shooting. We just know that all sides are shooting at us. We also now know that there was no al Qaeda connection in Iraq before we invaded. The Pentagon's Inspector General has reported that Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's Under Secretary, cooked intelligence reports to make a case to go to war based on al Qaeda. It is tragically ironic that now by invading we have actually made Iraq fertile territory for al Qaeda recruitment.
Madam Speaker, on top of their rush to war and their insufficient planning, their mismanagement is legendary. They initially estimated that the war would cost 50 to $60 billion. But by the end of this year, Congress will have spent about half a trillion dollars, ten times the original estimate.
Last week, we had a hearing on $12 billion that was airlifted into the war zone and now $8.8 billion is unaccounted for, completely missing. Madam Speaker, how much mismanagement and misdirection can this country tolerate?
In November, Americans voted for a new direction for the war, a new direction for Congress. I rise in support of this new direction and against this escalation in Iraq.
Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).
Mr. Tiberi: Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution this evening.
The resolution we are debating this evening is a nonbinding resolution. It has no effect of law. It does nothing to change our direction in the war on terror. For those who oppose the war, this resolution does nothing to end it. For those of us who would like to debate the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, this does nothing.
For those of us who would like to continue to show our support for the funding of the troops, it does nothing. For all of the chest pounding from the majority about a new direction or redeployment, this does nothing. This resolution could pass 435-0 and it still would do nothing.
Madam Speaker, there has been no opportunity for a free exchange of proposals this evening that could be useful in moving us forward. In fact, just this morning, one of Ohio's largest newspapers, the Columbus Dispatch, said it best in their lead editorial: "Empty gestures. Democrat's resolution on Bush's Iraq war policy is political posturing."
That says it all. Madam Speaker, your party has the majority in the House and in the Senate. Yet we have tonight before us a resolution that does not do anything. If the majority wants to exercise real leadership, let's have a true debate. Let's make real decisions, tough decisions, that is for sure, but real decisions.
Madam Speaker, let me tell you about a young marine corporal in my district. His name is Matt. Matt represents the best and brightest in America. Matt had a scholarship to go to college. He turned it down. He enlisted in the United States Marine Corps after Iraq was liberated.
Matt was on his second tour of duty just last month when he was shot. He returned home a few weeks ago. Matt will receive a Purple Heart. Weeks before he was shot, Matt sent an e-mail back to his family and friends in Ohio. In it he says: "We have done a lot of good in Iraq, but on the homefront we likely will not see that reported." Matt said he has watched his fellow marines' hearts grow heavy when they talk to their family and friends, and that this is a tough part of war and a tough part of fighting for freedom.
I spoke with Matt a few days ago as we began debate on this resolution. Matt asked me to oppose the resolution and give him and his fellow soldiers the tools and the support that they need to help Iraqis help themselves take control of their own country, and together fight and defeat radical extremists.
Matt supports the mission. Matt does not want to see his children and grandchildren going back to Iraq to handle what can and should be done now. Our constituents elected us to lead, Madam Speaker. Our brave servicemen and -women look to us for leadership. We must not disappoint them.
Matt, God bless you and your fellow troops for your great and wonderful service to our country. I will vote against this resolution, this nonbinding resolution tomorrow, and will do all I can to support you and your fellow soldiers in your mission to fight and defeat radical extremists who seek to destroy our way of life.
Mr. Smith of Washington: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee.
(Mr. Abercrombie asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Abercrombie: Madam Speaker, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee on Air and Land Forces, my overriding concern on every issue that comes before us is whether and how it supports our men and women in uniform.
Every decision about equipment, procurement, training, end strength or budget authorization must meet this test: Does it support our troops? The question before us today, increasing U.S. forces in Iraq by some 21,000 combat troops and somewhere between 3 and 28,000 support personnel fails this test in every respect.
Both the immediate and long-term effects of the war in Iraq on our Nation's military preparedness are evident and drastic. Extended deployments, premature redeployments, and sustained combat under unbelievably harsh conditions have taken a terrible toll on our forces and their equipment.
The results are an overstretched U.S. Army and Marine Corps with no fully mission-capable Reserve forces, and an urgent need for billions of dollars to repair or replace worn and damaged helicopters, tanks, other armored vehicles, including up-armored Humvees and other equipment.
I recently returned from an inspection of two of the Army's busiest repair depots in Corpus Christi, Texas, and Anniston, Alabama. What we saw there were skilled and dedicated employees working feverishly to make sure that our men and women in uniform, particularly those in Iraq and Afghanistan, have every piece of equipment they need to do their jobs and keep themselves safe from harm.
What we saw were the results of an administration's abject failure to mobilize this country's industrial base for this war of choice. Only now are we ramping up America's manufacturing capacity to fully support our troops at home and overseas.
Smugly self-righteous in its belief that U.S. troops would be targeted with nothing more lethal than rose petals, this administration has been complacent in leaving the burden of the war on the men and women of our Armed Forces, active, Reserve and National Guard. The impact of this attitude hit home for me in Corpus Christi when I read recently about the death in Iraq of a 48-year-old Army sergeant with five children.
Newspaper Columnist Dan Thomasson asked: What in the world was a 48- year-old man with five children doing in the military in Iraq? The answer is obvious, he was a member either of the National Guard or the Reserve. The Guard and Reserve are being used in a way never contemplated. Their repeated and sustained deployments turn lives upside down, sometimes permanently, and have a profound impact on families, businesses and whole communities.
Why have they been so misused? Because there is not anyone else. Because our active duty force is too small to sustain our engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan. To have acted to ensure the burden of this war would be more broadly shared, that the industrial sector would be mobilized, and the military equipment, supply and maintenance and repair systems put on a war-time footing would have been expensive and an admission of a reality the Bush administration did not want to confront.
The real and immediate concern is that forces now being deployed as part of this surge will not have the equipment they need when they get there. They will have to borrow it. We are not fully prepared to respond effectively.
The House then is considering an expression of support or opposition to another failure of leadership. Nearly 23 years ago, President Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, outlined in a speech entitled "The Uses of Military Power," six tests that need to be applied whenever combat forces are contemplated.
One: never commit forces unless the particular situation is vital to our national interest or that of our allies. Two: if we are willing to commit the force or resources necessary to win, we should commit them all.
Three: we should have clearly defined political and military objectives. Four: the relationship between the objectives and forces, size, composition, disposition, must be continually reassessed and adjusted.
Five: we must have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress. Six: the commitment of U.S. troops to combat should be a last resort. President Bush's policies have failed every one of then-Secretary Weinberger's tests.
What then are the consequences of this failure? Our troops are in peril. Our credibility is shattered and the lessons of the past are submerged in empty rhetoric and political dribble.
Make no mistake, we are engaged in a war of choice, a catastrophe conceived in ideological zeal, cloaked in misinformation and administered with breathtaking incompetence.
It is an outrage that we have not had a single policy in Iraq worthy of our men and women in uniform. This surge is yet another misstep in this tragic journey to disaster. We need to end it and end it now.
Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4½minutes to my colleague from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
Mrs. Bachmann: Madam Speaker, the morning of September 11, 2001, I was a Minnesota State senator meeting with a group of local educators at a Perkins Restaurant in Woodbury, Minnesota. Because you can't find a babysitter at 7 o'clock in the morning, I had my three daughters with me at the restaurant when I learned of the attacks. After that meeting, I dropped our girls off at school and then, together with millions of Americans, in horror I watched my television as the terror unfolded. Thousands of innocent Americans were targeted for death that morning by an evil regime of radical jihadists. Then came the challenge of explaining to our children the magnitude of the tragedy that had just befallen our Nation. As a mother, I can tell you it was one the most difficult conversations that I have ever had.
September 11 galvanized Americans. We knew without a doubt that we had an enemy, but America fought back, united. We were attacked on September 11, but the radical Islamic jihadists declared war on innocent Americans long before that morning and, chillingly, that war continues even today. Their brand of evil chooses to kill the greatest number of innocent civilians. They are a cruel enemy. They are unwavering in their resolve to seek the total annihilation of the United States of America and of our freedoms, and of our Western allies especially. They seek to destroy our friend, the State of Israel.
Today, Iraq is the central front in this war, and that is according to the radical Islamists themselves. Some in this Chamber may want to deny that fact. However, it is the jihadists who chose Iraq as the central front in the war on terror. It wasn't the United States. And we fight them on their turf. Al-Zawahiri has said many times that Iraq is one of the crucial fields in the Islamist war. The radical Islamists know that they cannot beat us with guns and with bullets alone. They can only beat us in one way, and that is if they crumple the resolve of America to fight and to win this war.
To American soldiers, I want to say to you specifically tonight, know that many of us here in the United States Congress support you and your mission. We pray for you. We love you. We appreciate you and your sacrifices on behalf of our freedoms. It is because of your bravery that we will defeat the radical jihadists. Surrender is not an option, not if our goal is the maintenance of freedom.
It is very telling, I think, that the resolution that we are debating this evening only states what those on the other side of the aisle oppose. After all these hours of debate, the American people have yet to hear a plan from the Democrats for victory in this war against terror.
I believe, and you, our troops, know that victory against the evil people who want to kill Americans transcends politics. Victory in this war means that no mother will have to explain to their children the death of thousands of innocent Americans.
American soldiers, please know that many of us in this Congress stand strong in our resolve to support you and our fight to preserve America's freedoms. On my watch, I pledge to you during this, my term in Congress, that I will stand for you, and I will vote to preserve America's freedom.
And I want to say to you this evening that it is American soldiers, Minnesotans, who are in the National Guard. It is members of the Minnesota National Guard who make up over 10 percent of this increase in troops. Minnesota is supplying over 10 percent of those troops.
I had the brigadier general of the Minnesota Guard in my office yesterday, and I asked him, What is the morale? What is the message that these troops want me to know? And he said, They want you to know that they stand ready to fight, and their morale is high.
I say thank you to the Minnesota National Guard. Thank you for your sacrifice. Thank you for your bravery. I will stand with you. Just as the Minnesotans who stood first in line in the battle to fight for our Union, it is Minnesota who is standing strong in this battle to fight. It is the battle of our time, the balance of our generation, and I stand with you.
Mr. Smith of Washington: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. Cohen: Madam Speaker, the great poet, Maya Angelou said, "When I knew better, I did better."
I am a member of the Progressive Caucus, proudly so, because I believe that we must always strive to do better to truly make progress.
A sign of intelligence and learning is to take the knowledge that we have acquired and adjust our goals accordingly. For some, it seems to be a badge of honor to stay the course, no matter what facts have come to light to contradict that course.
So what did some think they knew then, and what do we actually know now?
Some thought Iraq played a part in the attacks of 9/11. Now we know better.
Some thought that invading Iraq would not diminish our ability to continue our mission in Afghanistan, defeat the Taliban, and find Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the terrorist attacks in America. Now we know better, but we still don't know where Osama bin Laden is.
Some thought that the intelligence used by the President to lead us to war was accurate. Now we know better.
Some thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which could not be discovered by the U.N. peacekeepers. Now we know better.
Some thought that Saddam Hussein tried to purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger. Now we know better.
Some thought that we did not need the support of the free world to enter into war. Now we know better.
Some thought we would never send our troops into harm's way without proper equipment. Now we know better.
Some people thought the people of Iraq would welcome us with open arms, and that the war would be won swiftly. Now we know better.
Some thought on May 1, 2003, some 4 years ago, that the mission was accomplished. Our President told us so on an aircraft carrier in a photo-op. Now we know better.
Most importantly, we know that young Americans have heeded their country's call and have placed themselves in harm's way to serve America. There is nothing nobler than the sacrifice made by our men and women in uniform. But such sacrifice should never be secured through deception. Now we know better, and we must do better.
Early on, many of my colleagues in the Progressive Caucus did not believe all they were being told about the connection between 9/11 and the terrorists and Iraq. We were all very concerned that pursuing an invasion of Iraq would be an act of aggression unheard of in our Nation's history.
What makes America unique is we believe that our Nation is founded on the rule of law, and that is what has made our country great and why we have been respected all over the world.
Millions of Americans put faith in the administration. Many could not have imagined that such a disastrous course would be pursued without truth beyond the assurances that were given. But now we know.
We know we have lost the goodwill of many of our allies. We know we have no exit strategy. We know that more Americans will sacrifice their lives. We know that mothers, fathers, wives, husbands and children will weep. Children will be orphaned, and young people will spend their lives maimed. And for what?
We can choose enlightenment or we can choose blind ignorance. We can choose to wrap ourselves in the American flag and claim that anyone who demands answers about the reasons for sending our troops into harm's way is unpatriotic and does not support our troops.
We can choose to use the knowledge we now have, or we can cling irrationally to the President's failed policies that led us to war.
The Earth is not flat. The sun does not resolve around the Earth, and we did not go to war for the reasons we were told. I don't know what the real reasons were. Maybe we will never know. But we do know better now and, knowing better, we must do better.
That is why I support this resolution, why I support our troops, why I oppose the escalation, and why we must follow the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission and shift from the war zone to the diplomatic arena. We have gone from shock and awe to aw shucks.
And escalating this war by putting 20,000 Americans into the streets of Baghdad, ala Mogadishu, aka Blackhawk Down, is inviting a 21st century Pickett's Charge or a Charge of the Light Brigade.
May God save us if the President of the United States will not.
Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
Mr. Neugebauer: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in strong opposition to this resolution and in strong support of our troops in the mission as they fight the global war on terror.
I am really disappointed in the hollow resolution that does not match the seriousness of this issue that we are debating. It appears politics, not the safety of our Nation, is leading the way.
Not long ago, several of my Democratic colleagues were arguing we need additional troops in Iraq. But now the President and the Iraqi Study Group say, send more troops, and now the Democrats are against it.
So when they say, now that they have the ability to and the responsibility to govern, the majority has no plan for success. In fact, the only plan is to cut funding for our troops on the ground in Iraq.
Statement after statement from Members on the other side of the aisle paint a very clear picture. This week's debate is merely paving the way for future cuts in funding for Iraq. The realities of the current global conflict demand a more responsible approach from this body.
We know that terrorist enemies are patient. They are calculating, and they intend on attacking us again. They have stated that Iraq is the central front for the global jihad, yet expelling America from Iraq is merely the first step in their strategy.
We also know that leaders of the terrorist organizations have ordered their followers to extend their jihad throughout the region and the world. So it is clear that the attacks on our country and the citizens will not stop if the troops pack up their bags and return from Iraq. The terrorists will follow us back to our America.
A long list of terror attacks took place long before 9/11 and long before we entered Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein.
I, like everyone else, want our troops to come home as soon as possible. However, with shortsighted political calculations made in this body that may cause us to lose that war, terrorist groups will only be encouraged to expand their efforts.
In addition to the terrorist groups who are watching this debate and our actions in Iraq, we also know that Iran will see that America is buckling to our political reactions to this issue. Not only does Iran stand to benefit from increased instability in the region, but seeing America retreat in the face of military obstacles will only embolden that rogue regime to question America's resolve.
While we can disagree on whether to send reinforcements, we must all agree that the consequences of losing the battle on the global war on terrorism is catastrophic and far-reaching.
America must not be a Nation where our school buses, our malls, our neighborhoods, become the battlefields for the war on terrorism. Therefore, we should be saying we will not retreat, we will not back down from this fight. We should stand 100 percent behind our troops and give them the tools and support necessary to get the job done. Our security depends on it.
Unfortunately, this resolution fails on each front. This resolution does not put forth a successful strategy for victory, and the resolution does not show our troops that they have our full support.
In fact, for the last 2 or 3 days, you have not heard one solution offered by the other side. You have not heard one solution offered of what happens if the President is right. This is too important of an issue for us to be backing down from and to be having silly political debates.
To the contrary, this resolution only serves to score political points and embarrass the Commander in Chief during a time of war. It does so while, at the same time, weakening the morale of our troops. Fighting and winning the war is serious business. It requires our President, our military leaders, our elected officials to make important decisions, tough decisions. Yet making tough decisions is what the American people expect their Representatives to do.
Therefore, I call on my colleagues to reject this resolution, end the political stunts, take seriously our responsibility to govern and to ensure the safety and the security of the American people.
This has been a rock fight. This is not a place for a rock fight. This is a place for serious deliberation to make sure that we keep America safe, both today and in the future.
I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.
Mr. Smith of Washington: Madam Speaker, I would just argue, first of all, I respect the gentleman from Texas, but I have only been here for an hour and 15 minutes and I have heard countless alternatives from many Democratic speakers. May not like those alternatives, may not think they are the best course, but it is wrong to say that the Democrats have not offered alternative courses of action in Iraq. They have offered a good many.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5½minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. Kaptur: Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
With this resolution, Congress puts the Bush administration on notice we take the first step toward a course correction in Iraq that the American people voted last November.
We also put the leaders of Iraq on notice that our troop strength there will be redeploying, not escalating.
This House cannot stand by and expect our courageous troops to win the war against terrorism militarily while the Commander in Chief loses it strategically and ideologically.
Some have said passage will make bin Laden smile. They are mistaken. He is already smiling due to the devolving chaos in Iraq. He is achieving exactly what he set out to do: forcing us to destroy a nation to save it, while embroiling our military in an unending Islamic civil war of attrition that produces more terrorism and anger toward America.
Our mission in Iraq is struggling, but it is not due to a shortage of supplies or a lack of will or poorly trained forces. To the contrary, we have the best military in the world, with every dollar appropriated by this very House.
Our mission is faltering because the President misjudged the field of battle. Our troops are poised against a borderless political movement determined to mobilize downtrodden people.
That idea emboldens its adherence to confront the largest military force in the world. That idea enlists the weak to confront the powerful. It pits puritanical religious followers against kingdoms, against the superrich, and against corrupt regimes they deem to be unfaithful. And in Iraq it propels Sunni against Shia.
Despite the heroic efforts of our troops, the paradox is that the war in Iraq cannot be won in Iraq. Indeed, the war in Iraq becomes counterproductive in winning the war of ideas across the region.
We cannot ask our troops to bear the burden of winning a ground war when the President's policies have lost the idea war.
We know the truth. There were no chemical labs, as pictured here, when Secretary Powell laid out the case against Iraq before the U.N. and said there were chemical labs in Iraq. There were no such chemical labs. There was no yellow cake uranium from Niger, and there were no weapons of mass destruction.
We cannot ask our troops to win military victory when the administration's reason for invasion were falsehoods and debased our Nation throughout the world.
The intelligence was not faulty. No one should be allowed to blame this on the Central Intelligence Agency. Our intelligence community, including the CIA, tried to tell President Bush and Vice President Cheney, but they refused to listen.
Madam Speaker, though I voted for the NATO mission in Afghanistan, I spoke out strongly against the resolution authorizing President Bush to wage preemptive war against Iraq because I feared what would happen: more terrorism, not less; more instability, not less.
Since that vote I have supported our troops at every turn and will continue to support them. And I do not regret my vote against the war in Iraq, and I do not apologize for my support of our troops. But now is the time to take the first step toward course correction to redeploy them more effectively.
The roots of terrorism did not spring from Iraq. Terrorism sprang from diplomatic and political failures in undemocratic states, from an Afghanistan that was let fester after the Soviet defeat. Terrorism springs from an Iran whose Shia majority our Nation has isolated for the last quarter century and tried to throttle for the prior quarter century.
Terrorism springs from Saudi families who pay to promote the most radical form of Islam in other nations to hold onto power in their homeland, one of the most undemocratic places on Earth. Terrorism springs from the unaddressed Israeli-Palestinian standoff. Terrorism springs from a Lebanon where the Shia majority has been underrepresented in the institutions of government.
Terrorism springs from a view, fair or not, that the United States allies with the rich but not the poor across the undemocratic Islamic world. How can America stand for democracy in Iraq but not in all of the oil kingdoms and theocracies to which this Nation has been unfortunately tethered for our entire adult lifetimes?
How can we ask our troops to bear the brunt of war in the most oil rich region of the world when we have refused to become energy independent here at home?
Madam Speaker, we cannot ask our troops to bear the burden of war when real diplomacy has been absent and political coalitions for victory are missing in action. In the end, war is the breakdown of diplomacy.
Now is the time for a course correction: redeloyment of U.S. forces, benchmarks to measure strategic achievements, diplomatic alternatives such as a soft partition of Iraq enforced by the world community to quell the rising Sunni-Shia-Kurd standoff.
Chances are the violence in Iraq could continue for years to come. The danger now is that our actions to date exacerbate it and encourage this violence to spill over into Jordan, Turkey, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia.
This resolution begins to resurrect America's reputation among the freedom-loving nations of world. America has always been a nation that believes in containment, not preemption. We have always known defense, not offense, is the best war strategy. We have always been strong enough to ferret out, wait out, outsmart, and counterweight the enemy.
3,117 U.S. dead; 23,000 injured; hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead; the rejection of the world community. These facts should lead us to face a future of a new possibility.
This resolution opens that door. I urge my colleagues to vote "yes."
Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5½minutes to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. Mica: Madam Speaker, first let me say to those who question our going into Iraq, I voted to go into Iraq and I would vote the same way again. We have found 300,000 mass graves to date, and standing right at this podium, the Iraqi leader told us that Saddam Hussein slaughtered 1 million of his fellow citizens.
The question before us tonight, and what Congress is now considering, is a nonbinding resolution that makes two points. The first point is it praises our troops. The second point is it speaks against the President's decision to increase or surge our U.S. troop numbers in our current attempt to end the civil and terrorist conflict in Iraq.
Let me say at this point that I do not fault individual Members and their choice made tonight or tomorrow to support or oppose the arbitrary nonbinding resolution that is before us. I do, however, fault the failed Democrat leaders who crafted this resolution behind closed doors, written in the dark of night.
The people should know that this is not a true debate. In fact, this exercise is a 3-day politically hatched farce. In fact, this exercise is absent of any legitimate legislative process. It is also, in fact, vacant of the two options provided Congress under our Constitution: first, to declare war or, second, to appropriate funds for the conduct of war. In fact, this is a stealth resolution brought to the floor absolutely void of the democratic process; that our men and women are fighting, as we are here tonight, to preserve our freedoms at home and the rights at home and extend those rights to oppressed people abroad.
This is not Cuba. This isn't Venezuela. This is not North Korea or some Third World country. This is the Congress of the United States.
But let me congratulate the authors of what history will surely record as a very dark chapter in the conduct of the House leadership and the House of Representatives, leadership, in fact, entrusted to them by the American people.
Let me congratulate the authors on the clever wording of a resolution to praise our Armed Forces and at the same time undermine our Commander in Chief. Very clever.
I also want to congratulate the very clever timing of the floor discussion of this worthless measure that disregards the fact that American troops have already been deployed for this mission.
Congratulations are also in order for duping the public and the media into creating the illusion that Congress is really doing something about the conflict in Iraq.
And again congratulations on making people think that this is bipartisan support, that this is going to be bipartisan support for a resolution that, in fact, achieves nothing but the discrediting of a President of the United States in a time of war. So I also want to extend congratulations to the crafters of this illegitimately drafted nonbinding resolution. Your accomplishments will be lauded by Hamas, al Qaeda, touted by Al Jazeera, and highly praised by America and Bush haters throughout the world.
Ironically, I pulled this up. Google it yourself. This is tomorrow, 8:17 Mecca time, Al Jazeera: "Democrats Attack Bush War Policy," and the lead quote is from Speaker Pelosi.
Again, congratulations on your achievement.
Fortunately, though, folks, throughout history great Presidents have ignored Congress and have not wavered. George Washington was nearly recalled by Congress in the darkest hours of the American Revolution. He fought on for nearly 8 years to gain our independence and freedom. Abraham Lincoln endured untold criticism in Congress in his fight to ensure freedom for those once enslaved. Ronald Reagan never flinched in his quest to bring down the Iron Curtain and free millions. And George Bush will be remembered for freeing Iraq, giving women and the oppressed the right to vote, for conducting free elections, helping Iraq adopt a constitution, and combating terrorism and extremists.
The 110th Congress, however, will go down in history for adopting a nonbinding resolution. Think about it.
Yes, we all want our troops home. We all want our children to live in a world of peace. And this resolution will not help us achieve either of those goals.
Mr. Smith of Washington: Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
(Mr. Jackson of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Jackson of Illinois: Madam Speaker, I rise today in defense of our national security, in support of our troops, and in favor of this resolution.
This measure is a first and important step in preventing the President's ill-conceived escalation plan; reversing our present, perilous course; and ultimately bringing our brave troops home from Iraq.
Mr. President, when in a deep hole, stop digging.
But rather than searching for a way out, the President proposes to dig down deeper, plunging further into a dark abyss. Blinded by ideology and steeped in delusion, the administration's answer to the chaos in Iraq is to send an additional 21,500 troops into the middle of it.
I do not support the President's shortsighted, wrong-headed, reckless approach. And on behalf of the American people, this House must act now to stop the continuation of an ambiguous, constantly changing, open- ended engagement in Iraq.
During the last 4 years, our men and women in uniform have answered the call of duty. They have demonstrated true courage and bravery and honor. They have served our Nation valiantly, even as many civilian leaders have failed them.
I mourn the loss of 3,100 Americans who died, 95 of whom are from my home State of Illinois. I pray for the thousands who have been seriously wounded and permanently disabled. And I have voted again and again to ensure that our troops in Iraq had the body armor and the equipment that they need to protect their lives and discharge their duties.
Tragically, the war in Iraq is a case study in "mission creep." And the fact is no amount of troops can successfully complete a mission that is unclear, that is ill-defined, that is muddled and mutable.
During the run-up to the first gulf war, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, put forth eight criteria to be met for military action. Among the critical questions posed by the Powell doctrine were the following: Do we have a clear attainable objective? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our actions been fully considered?
The answer to each question when applied to Iraq today is the same as it has been since the start of this war: no, no, and no.
With the help of its author, the Powell Doctrine was shredded to bits and the mission in Iraq is adrift.
Consider this: On September 12, 2002, President Bush challenged world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly session to confront the grave and gathering danger posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. However, no weapons of mass destruction were found there.
Then President Bush shifted his justification, arguing that the war was about liberating Iraqis from a brutal dictator. But in December 2003, 4 years ago, Saddam Hussein was found and captured. He has since been tried and hanged for crimes against humanity.
After Saddam was taken into custody, President Bush claimed that the mission was to spread democracy throughout the Middle East. Yet Iraq has deteriorated into sectarian violence erupting into a bloody civil war.
Now, with the violence increasing, the President says our mission is to confront the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to face them here at home. However, according to government intelligence, the war in Iraq has helped recruit more terrorists, not vanquish them.
Madam Speaker, now is not the time to close our eyes, cross our fingers and stay the course. We cannot continue to engage in the same action and expect a different result. We should not send more of our soldiers to the desert on a mission that shifts like the sands beneath their boots.
The President's plan attempts to impose a half-baked, unworkable military solution, when Iraq needs a political one. Rather than a military escalation, this situation in Iraq requires a diplomatic and political intensification. The American military must stand down, so the Iraqi people can stand up and seek a political settlement and assume responsibility for their own future. The Iraqi government must engage in negotiations and compromises that balance the power of provincial and central governments, share oil revenues and protect the rights of every Iraqi citizen.
The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, released a report in December stating the same. They said the security situation cannot improve unless leaders act in support of national reconciliation. There is no action the American military can take by itself that can bring about success in Iraq.
As Democrats, we support our troops, but we don't support the Commander in Chief squandering billions of our tax dollars and recklessly putting our brave soldiers in the cross-hairs of someone else's civil war. I believe our domestic national security rests on redeploying our military forces from Iraq in order to build more consensus in the Middle East.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, I support this resolution opposing President Bush's failed policy of escalation. It is time to bring a responsible end to this war, to bring our troops home, and to bring them home right now.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. Capps): The Chair must remind Members that remarks in debate should be addressed to the Chair and not to the President.
Mr. Buyer: Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I recall March 6, 2003. I came to this floor and spent an hour and outlined the 17 resolutions before the United Nations in which Saddam Hussein continued his open defiance. That is what was also discussed. So what is lost from this debate is Saddam Hussein's recalcitrance unto the world. As a veteran of the Gulf War, that was ended by a ceasefire, where Saddam Hussein did not uphold his end of that agreement.
To the last speaker, he spoke about the political and economic, but in order for an infancy government to be able to survive, you have to be able to establish its political apparatus, you have to be able to give it its economic goals and a means to achieve them, but you also need to establish security.
Therein lies the President's plan. He met with the leaders of Iraq and he got some concessions from Iraq. "In fact, you will take the lead, you will work with your parliament, you will achieve these political and economic goals as we work together to establish your security." That is the plan.
The Democrats only want to focus on one small portion of the plan, which is called a surge, which is disrespectful to the plan. But it makes good politics, and that is what is disheartening to me.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
Mrs. Schmidt: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight after another long day out of disappointment--disappointed that we are not having a real debate about how we win in Iraq. We have spent countless hours in what is little more than political theater.
This body is scheduled to meet 145 days this year. Just to open our doors, we spend over $8 million for each legislative day. This debate will cost some $30 million, yet it will yield nothing but a partisan vote on a nonbinding resolution after literally hundreds of speeches designed to do no more than charge up one's own political base.
I am deeply disappointed. The people expect more from us. They expect solutions, not grandstanding. They expect both parties to work together. There will be no victory when our votes are tallied. We will have every problem we began with, but be even further apart politically.
Tonight, I believe we embarrass ourselves before our brave men and women in uniform, before the American people and before our enemies.
Mr. Smith of Washington: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. Blumenauer: Madam Speaker, after Congress has successfully completed action on the first 100 hours, we now begin a critical 100 days for the future of our engagement in Iraq, United States policy in the Middle East and our struggle against violent fundamentalism. Between now and the Memorial Day recess, 100 days for Congress to reassert itself as a coequal branch of government, as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, to change the course in Iraq.
This is a decisive moment. It is time for every one of us who would be a leader to lay our cards on the table. Each must be true to our own conscience and to the responsibility of office by letting the American people know honestly and directly what we stand for and what we would do in Iraq.
This resolution gives clear and concise voice to the desires of the American people. It expresses support for our troops and demands that we not place more of them at risk without a reason or a plan. And I strongly support it.
Along with this resolution, the Congress under Speaker Pelosi's Democratic leadership has already done more to provide oversight and accountability than Republicans over the last 5 years. We have held 50 hearings on the conduct of the war, fraud and failure in reconstruction efforts, and the outrage of our troops being sent into harm's way without the equipment they need. I applaud the efforts of our leadership on the Appropriations Committee to end the practice of giving too much to the wrong people to do the wrong thing.
However, these are only the first steps. We should not only oppose escalation of the war, but we should pass legislation to bring the war to an end responsibly. Investigations must be followed by specific and personal accountability for crimes that have been permitted in the conduct of this war.
We should use the power of the purse to ensure that funds go specifically to keep our soldiers safe, rebuild badly damaged military readiness, undertake new diplomatic efforts and support the Iraqi people, not an open-ended occupation.
For the last 2 years, I have been working with concerned citizens in Oregon to develop a responsible plan to end the war and provide the best hope for a better future in Iraq. Last month, I introduced comprehensive legislation, the New Direction For Iraq, H.R. 663, as a model for the kind of legislation that Congress should enact, and I am confident will enact.
This legislation would bring the troops home, require a comprehensive diplomatic effort, redirect reconstruction assistance, promote international efforts to disarm militias, investigate and punish war profiteering and deal with the 2 million Iraqi refugees who have been forced to flee their country, people the administration has only recently been able to recognize.
A word about Iran. It is a complex puzzle, more difficult than any of us imagine and one that poses real challenges. But as the President marches us closer and closer to a major provocation, maybe a new war, whether intentionally or not, Congress should not let itself be steamrolled or lied to, as it was with Iraq; Congress must assert itself with real diplomacy and a real strategy.
It is also time that America lived up to our ideals. No more torture, kidnapping and unauthorized wiretaps; no more lying and unnecessary secrecy; not treating the Constitution as a suggestion or using false claims about national security to score political points against those of us who have been right about this war from the beginning.
We must start treating the public like a partner and recognize that they are far ahead of the President and the Republican leadership. I am just frustrated to hear false analogies to the dark days of World War II or to the Civil War. We are bogged down in somebody else's civil war, and we have been doing it longer than World War II or the Civil War, with no end in sight, until now.
They should join us in taking this conversation to coffee shops, churches, campuses and conference rooms, working with the American people.
Over the next 100 days, I will continue to fight for a comprehensive plan that I am confident will come forward. It is in the honor of Travis Bradach Nall, a constituent of mine who was killed in Iraq the very day the President taunted the insurgents to "bring it on."
For Travis and over 3,000 of his brave comrades who have given their lives, I urge support of this resolution as a critical first step to bringing this tragic war to a close.
