Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
Mr. Lipinski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and in support of a new policy in Iraq. Up until this point, the Bush administration's Iraq policy over the last 3½years appears to be one of America's worst foreign policy blunders. More than 3,100 of our brave men and women in uniform have been killed and more than 24,000 have been wounded, many very seriously, and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent and in some cases wasted. This has resulted from the tactical mistakes, errors in judgment and other major missteps by the Bush administration.
It is painfully clear that a change in strategy in Iraq is needed now. We need a plan for bringing stability to Iraq and bringing our troops home. Unfortunately, the President's plan to add over 20,000 additional troops does not provide this, and, therefore, I must support this resolution.
I see three main flaws in the President's plan.
First, the administration has not provided convincing evidence that this surge will succeed after many similar plans have failed. After almost 4 years in Iraq, the American people are asking, why should we have faith in this plan and place more troops in harm's way?
Second, by failing to provide clear benchmarks for success or a time frame by which we can expect the surge to yield positive results, the President's plan appears to commit our country to a "stay the course" strategy with no clear end in sight. Aid should be tied to a deadline for progress by the Iraqi Government.
Third, and most importantly, the President continues to place too much emphasis on a military solution, when it is clear that force alone will not solve this crisis. Solutions must support broad international engagement to promote stability and reconstruction in Iraq and must address political, economic and religious issues.
Because of the need for such a plan, earlier this year I laid out a set of recommendations, and this week I introduced H.Res. 152 based on these. My proposal consists of three core recommendations.
First, encourage achievement of important goals and national reconciliation, security and governance by arranging a peace conference for Iraq's ethnic and religious factions, similar to the conference that led to the Dayton Accords. One venue for this would be El Salvador, which has shown a strong commitment to stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq and has gone through its own recent history of a bloody civil war and ensuing reconciliation.
But wherever and however it is done, the political, economic and religious issues must be addressed if peace and security are to be established in Iraq. And it is essential that more pressure be put on the Iraqi Government and all interested parties in Iraq to find and accept real solutions so the American forces can begin withdrawal.
The second recommendation is to seek international cooperation to develop solutions for Iraq. This should include calling an international conference that will work on putting together a peacekeeping force and setting up an international reconstruction program.
Iraq's strategic position in the volatile Middle East, its potential to become a terrorist safe haven, its large supply of oil and the great potential for a humanitarian catastrophe make security in Iraq a critical international issue. It is time for America to engage the nations of the world to encourage them to address this international crisis.
The final recommendation is to require the administration to give Congress detailed reports on the situation in Iraq so that we can make informed decisions regarding funding for reconstruction and deciding when American forces can be redeployed. This new Congress has been vigorously conducting oversight after 3½years of congressional neglect, but we must have the full cooperation of the administration.
If the recommendations laid out in my resolution are followed, I believe American troops can begin redeployment in 2007, leaving a secure, stable Iraq.
As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stated, "The search for genuine justice and peace in Iraq requires moral urgency, substantive dialogue and new direction." Unfortunately, the President does not give us this. That is why his plan is discouraging to many Americans who are weary of this war.
But no one is wearier than our troops and their families. This past weekend I spoke to a soldier who spent 13 months in Iraq and will likely be returning. He told me that it is important to make sure that we let our troops know that they have our complete support. We cannot let anything in this debate be construed otherwise. If this surge occurs even after we pass this resolution, we must continue to support our troops and pray for them every day, so that by God's grace they can succeed in their mission.
Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a former Army captain.
Mr. Gohmert: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Indiana. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, like many others here, previously I typed up different potential remarks for this debate. But as I have listened to the debate over the last couple of days, I kept hearing some things being said over and over again, and I started making notes of some of the things I just really need to address.
As the old saying goes, we are all entitled to our own opinion, but we are not entitled to our own set of facts. Facts are facts.
One of the things I have heard over and over the last couple of days, well, it goes without saying. Normally in reference to we support our troops, it goes without saying. If there is anything I have noticed since I left the bench and came to Congress is that nothing goes without saying in this House . Everything gets said and seems like gets said over and over again. Nothing goes without being said.
But let us talk about that. It goes without saying we support our troops. That has stirred up a great deal of debate and animosity at one point, and led usually into things about the lies the President told before this war, lies the President told before this war. Well, look, some of us believe in forgiveness.
I think there is still potential disagreement. Obviously we know that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He killed thousands of Kurds, gassed thousands of people. Certainly he was killing with mass destruction, but if you happen to believe really, honestly, truthfully that the President lied, then it is time to forgive President Clinton for all those lies. Forgive Madeleine Albright for all those lies. All the time, Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton told us over and over again that there were weapons of mass destruction, and if President Bush happened to have believed President Clinton and Madeleine Albright and those people that were saying there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, well, I guess they just should not have believed the Clinton administration.
But there were things that the Clinton administration could base that on, but we have got to get past that. It just seems to engender so much hatred.
I have heard people say over and over this is a historic debate because the Republicans never allowed this debate when they were in the majority. I remember having discussions like this twice in the last Congress. We voted on a couple of resolutions, and people would say one thing and then end up voting another on the resolution.
Now, I did hear one of my friends across the aisle say something I do agree with. He said he did not believe it was appropriate to tell troops they were coming home on a certain date and then change that. I agree, and a number of us have been pointing that out to those in the military and to the White House. That needs to stop. When you tell somebody who is in harm's way you are coming home on a certain date, they need to come home. We can agree on that.
But then I heard another say, we need to avoid a constitutional crisis by shocking this President into a new course of action. You shocked him into a new course of action. He said we are going to send 21,000 troops over there, 21,500. In fact, people like Harry Reid down in the Senate have been calling for that last fall, maybe even as recently as December, but oh, wait, as soon as the President calls for it, then it is a terrible thing; we cannot believe that he is doing this.
So the President has proposed something new. His commanders in the field have said we need this, and so it is being done. We have got troops already arriving and more arriving all the time.
I heard another one make reference to Vietnam, and one in indignation said, have we not learned anything from Vietnam? I would submit, I believe, Mr. Speaker, apparently not, because some people want to rewrite history; but the fact is, if you go back, the people were saying get out of Vietnam, get out of Vietnam are the same people saying this now in Iraq, and so President Nixon tried to get folks out. For all his faults, and he did have plenty, and you will not hear me say I think he was a great President because he lied, but one of the things he did try to do, he saw the polls and started trying to get people out of Vietnam.
When we started the Paris peace talks, things broke down. It was not going well. He decided to bomb North Vietnam. He went on the attack. He was carpet-bombing Hanoi, and as Sam Johnson and those who were in the Hanoi Hilton said, they were worried they might be hit by the bombs, but they were so glad, finally the United States was reacting and responding, and as Sam says, when he left, to get the chronology correct, the bombing went on. They came back to the peace talks, and we reached terms, and the POWs, most of them were coming home. Sam said one of the leaders at the prison said, you know, if you guys had just kept bombing a little longer, we would have had to surrender completely.
That was a winnable war, but people were not doing what it took to win so that we could have a good reputation. If you go look at our enemies and al Qaeda's, the rhetoric now in Iraq, Afghanistan, around the Middle East, they are saying look at what they did in Vietnam. They promised their allies they were going to stick with them.
Gerald Ford has been quoted recently. What a fine man. I hear people on both sides of the aisle at his funeral and after his death. He begged this Congress and this House please do not cut off the funding; we promised them funding even after we pulled our troops out. But this Congress said, no, we are cutting the funding, and we have been harmed ever since.
So in 1979, in Iran, they were bold enough to attack. An act of war, that is what attacking an embassy is, and I was at Fort Benning at that time. Nobody was dying to go to Iran, but everybody I knew was willing to go and die because we had been attacked, and that was the first act of war in this war involving terror, and we did not respond.
We did not respond in 1983 when our barracks were attacked and our marines were killed. We withdrew 1991, on through the 1990s. We have not responded, but I want to touch on one other thing.
I saw the majority leader come down. I saw it replayed in the wee hours this morning. I did not realize it went on, and he came down and challenged what Heather Wilson, who had left the floor, said, and ultimately said basically, that anybody that would come and say, as she did, that there might be a problem with Democrats being willing to support and fund the troops as needed, and he said to come and say anything of that nature was just not honest. I think it comes close to violating the rules if it does not, but the fact is Heather Wilson had stood right here and she had asked her Democratic friends across the aisle, look, if you are really willing to say that, if you are saying that this resolution means we will always provide everything that is needed to our troops in harm's way, let us put it in the resolution. We will have a unanimous-consent amendment, we will both agree, and it was not agreed. The Democratic majority would not agree. The Rules Committee did not agree. The Democratic leadership did not want that in there.
So, to say it goes without saying ain't the way it should be. It ought to be in print. It ought to be here said in black and white because Heather Wilson was right: if you really believe that, put it in black and white where our troops can see, and I would just in conclusion leave you with this: this resolution for what it does and does not do, it is a stay the course, stiffen the enemy, start our collapse, and you look at our friend Mr. Murtha's comments to say, that is what this starts the process for doing.
Ms. Eshoo: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
(Mr. Cleaver asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, as I began to consider the comments I would make during this debate tonight on the occupation, escalation and gravitation of the U.S. military action in Iraq, I concluded that my visit to this well must somehow echo the threat and frustration of the people who sent me to represent them in the people's House.
Tomorrow, the United States of America should begin a massive and voter-mandated salvaging operation in Iraq. Yes, as bad as conditions have gotten, there are important and valuable things that could be salvaged. A tarnished international image clings to a nation like a shadow to a human being. It follows a nation to the next world crisis. It cannot be blamed for faulty intelligence, and it spoils opportunities to influence a world desperate for direction. Henceforth, we must conduct our foreign policy in a manner which salvages our sunken international image.
Because of the way we launched a long-range military action in Iraq, our prestige among the community of nations has surely suffered. Nothing deflates as a punctured international image. We can salvage our image not only by de-escalating in Iraq but also by reestablishing desperately needed dialogue with all the sovereign nations in the neighborhood with Iraq. It takes many, many people, and not just one to put a policy together.
Now, with regard to peace in the Middle East, it has become crystal clear that the United States cannot whistle a symphony.
It will take an orchestra of many international players willing to make music in the same key. The days of the international soloist or a conductor without an orchestra are past. We must salvage our relationship with the family of nations. We must salvage what is left of our Treasury.
Mr. Speaker, for most Americans war does not pay, but it must be paid for. And, to date, we have spent billions and billions of dollars that could have been spent for valuable programs to set this Nation on the right course. We must salvage soldiers. Yes, thousands of brave young U.S. soldiers have been killed, and Iraqis are dying weekly by the hundreds. If this conflict continues, there will be only two classes of young people, one half in graves, the other half in hospitals.
Some have said this conflict will last for decades. Nevertheless, that kind of policy or lack thereof has caused young Americans to ask: Will we ever see the last of this war, or will it see the last of us?
The Kansas City Chiefs is my team. The general manager, Carl Peterson, would never go to the sports editors of the local media and admonish them not to criticize the game plan of Coach Herman Edwards, because to do so would demoralize the players. Such a warning by the general manager would be ludicrous, if not loony. Why? Because the players of the Kansas City Chiefs are professionals who cannot be so easily defamed. And, friends, neither can the men and women who form the fiercest fighting force in the history of this planet.
After all the ethnic and sectarian human butchering, after all the billions spent, after all the children of God killed, after all the maimed who have been hospitalized, after all the dissenters who have been heard, after all the purple thumbs that have been raised, the war drum still throbs, the sabers still rattle, and the blood still flows. Yet, we can salvage the soul of the Nation, even though at this hour we seem to have lost our way.
Tomorrow, this Congress must adopt House Concurrent Resolution 63 as bold and beckoning to begin salvage operations.
Mr. Speaker, as I began to consider the comments I would make during the debate on the occupation, escalation, and gravitation of the U.S. military action in Iraq, I concluded that my visit to this well must somehow echo the fret and frustration of the people who sent me to represent them in The People's House.
For more than 132 years, the steamboat Arabia lay beneath the fathoms of the waters of the mighty Missouri River. Not until Bob and Florence Howley committed their life savings to a massive salvaging operation, did the rusting of this once stately riverboat cease. Today, the salvaged cargo of this retrieved vessel is on display in Kansas City's Historic River Market. Since I first walked into the Arabia Steamboat Museum in 1992, I have become a serious supporter of salvage operations. Anything of great value that is lost or damaged is worth salvaging.
Tomorrow, the United States of America should begin a massive and voter-mandated salvaging operation in Iraq. Yes, as bad as conditions have gotten, there are important and valuable things that can be salvaged.
A tarnished international image clings to a nation like a shadow to a human being. It follows a nation to the next world crisis, it cannot be blamed for faulty intelligence, and it spoils opportunities to influence a world desperate for direction. Henceforth, we must conduct our foreign policy in a manner which salvages our sunken international image. Because of the way we launched a Lone Ranger military action in Iraq, our prestige among the community of nations has surely suffered. Nothing deflates as fast as a punctured international image. We can salvage our image not only by de-escalating in Iraq, but also by re- establishing desperately needed dialogue with all the sovereign nations in the neighborhood of Iraq. With regard to peace in the Middle East, it has become crystal clear that the U.S. cannot whistle a symphony. It will take an orchestra of many international players willing to make music in the same key. The days of the international soloist, or a conductor without an orchestra, are past. We must salvage our relationship with the family of nations.
We must salvage what is left of our treasury. Mr. Speaker, for most Americans, war does not pay, but it must be paid for. To date, we have appropriated $380 billion for the armed conflict in Iraq, and the President has requested an additional $142 billion in the FY08 supplemental. With this amount of money, we could have fully funded No Child Left Behind and the COPS program (which places badly needed police on the streets in high crime neighborhoods). We must salvage respect from our noble veterans who, today, are outraged that they are showered with praise when they are in battle but blasted with neglect when they return home. Soon enough, they will discover that the President's recently submitted budget raises fees on veterans for their health costs by $355 million in FY08, $2.3 billion over 5 years, and $4.9 billion over 10 years. Those who serve--deserve!
We must salvage soldiers. Yes, thousands of brave young U.S. soldiers have been killed, and Iraqis are dying weekly by the hundreds. If this conflict continues, there will be only two classes of young people: one half in graves and the other half in hospitals. Some have said that this conflict will last for decades. Nevertheless, that kind of policy, or lack thereof, has caused young Americans to ask, "Will we ever see the last of this war, or will it see the last of us?"
Let me address a part of this debate which has frustrated me because of its defective logic. Over and over again, many of my honorable colleagues have stood behind this distinguished desk and warned that the debate on House Concurrent Resolution 63 will demoralize our troops in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will never accept the premise that U.S. troops are demoralized by the debate in a democracy. The President's stated goal in Iraq is to aid in creating a nation where citizens and public officials can debate in a robust democracy. And then to denounce debate in The People's House as demeaning or damaging? My friends, that denigrates the democracy we so proudly extol and that our troops valiantly fight to defend. We cannot lead others to the light while we stand in the dark.
The Kansas City Chiefs is my team. The General Manager, Carl Peterson, would never go to the sports editors of the local media and admonish them not to criticize the game plan of Coach Herman Edwards because it will demoralize the players. Such a warning by the General Manager would be ludicrous if not loonie. Why? Because the players of the Kansas City Chiefs are professionals who cannot be so easily defanged. And friends, neither can the men and women who form the fiercest fighting force in the history of Planet Earth.
After all the ethnic and sectarian human butchering, after all the billions spent, after all the children of God killed, after all the maimed who have been hospitalized, after all the dissenters who have been heard, after all the purple thumbs have been raised, the war drum is still throbbing, the sabers are still rattling and the blood is still flowing. Yet, we can salvage the soul of the nation even though at this hour we seem to have lost our way. Tomorrow, this Congress must adopt House Concurrent Resolution 63 as a bold beckoning to begin salvage operation.
Mr. Buyer: I would say to the gentleman that just spoke, that in 3 years Iraq has gone from a repressive dictatorship who enslaved his people to an inclusive government chosen by a freely elected Parliament under a popular ratified constitution. That is a fact.
I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).
Mr. Inglis of South Carolina: I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we face three questions here tonight: Where are we? Where do we want to be? And how do we get there?
First, where are we? We are in phase three of a conflict in Iraq. In phase one, we overran Iraq in response to an American national security threat. We won.
Then came phase two. We were forwardly deployed; the terrorists brought the fight to us; we busted up terrorist networks. America was protected from further attacks. We won.
Now comes phase three. At best, Iraq is engulfed in a sectarian killing spree. At worst, Iraq has descended into a civil war.
So where are we? We are thankful for the incredible work of our military in winning phase one and two. We are aware, and I think all of us are aware, that only the Iraqi people can win phase three.
It is a neocon mistake to charge our warfighters with building an Iraqi national consensus. Iraqis must decide for themselves if they want to live in a unified, pluralistic, and peaceful Iraq. No amount of American military might can compel that result.
So where are we? Thankful for the successes and the outcomes that we can control; aware of the outcomes that we cannot control.
Where do we want to be? We want the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country. The President is wisely pressing them to do so. We want the Iraqi leadership to make some key political decisions that can bring reconciliation. We want them to divide up the oil fairly, to allow banned Baathists back into positions of public trust, and to develop a working model of pluralism. We want the Iraqi leadership to know that they don't have forever, and that they should settle these reconciliation questions quickly. And we want to avoid the error of nation building.
The job of the U.S. military is to crush, kill, and destroy the enemies of the United States. They are not nation builders; they are warriors, and they do their jobs very, very well.
As commanded, our military entered Iraq to destroy what we understandably believed were threats to our national security. We were successful in destroying those threats and, thereafter, in interrupting terrorist networks. Those were outcomes that we could control.
Now, we are rightly asked for inputs that we can control, but we are faced with outcomes that only the Iraqi people can control. It is right to evaluate the quality of our force's inputs, but wrong to hold them accountable for outcomes beyond their control.
Diplomats, statesmen, peacemakers, and everyday Iraqis must work to develop a path to progress, a path that has milestones along the way, and which has rewards for meeting those milestones and consequences for failure.
If the Iraqi people follow the path to progress to a peaceful, pluralistic, and unified Iraq, they will have been successful. The path may lead to something less. Any lesser outcome is the responsibility of the Iraqi people. So we want a path to progress, and we hope for the blessings of liberty for Iraq.
Now, how do we get there? The President has ordered an increase in troop strength in Iraq. He thinks a surge in troops will give breathing room for the development of a path to progress. I am concerned that a surge will have the opposite effect: that we will give breathing room to the death squads; that our servicemen and women will be caught in the crossfire; and that the surge will end right where it began. In fact, that is what happened in Baghdad in August and September of 2006.
I am concerned that a surge sends a conflicting message. On the one hand, we are telling the Iraqi leadership, "Hurry up, you don't have forever." On the other hand we are saying, "No, not to worry. We are increasing the size of the American security umbrella."
I want all Iraqi factions and all leaders of Iraqi factions to worry. I want them to see us reaching for the button that would bring down that security umbrella. I want them to imagine the click of the button and the feel of the wind from that descending umbrella.
The resolution before us isn't written the way I would have written it, but it is the resolution before us. Resolutions are the way that Congress discharges its constitutional responsibility to communicate with the President. This resolution says we disapprove of the surge. Parties on both sides have added additional and conflicting meaning to those words. In the end, I just have to vote on the basis of the words. That is why I am going to vote in favor of the resolution and express my concern about the effectiveness of the surge.
Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
Ms. Schwartz: Mr. Speaker, on Monday morning of this week I had the opportunity to recognize and honor 53 elderly widows of veterans of World War II and the Korean War.
The sacrifices of that Great Generation are legendary, and they are a reminder of the sacrifice of the current generation of our military men and women who have heeded the call to service in defense of our Nation. Their patriotism, their willingness to put themselves in harm's way, possibly to pay the ultimate price for our Nation, should give us all pause.
So, Mr. Speaker, I stand here with deep gratitude and respect for the sacrifices of all of our troops, but especially for the 3,124 Americans killed in Iraq and those tens of thousands injured.
I stand here with great sympathy for the mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, whose loss is irreplaceable. I stand here tonight firmly and strongly in support of this resolution, in support of the troops, and in opposition to the President's escalation of our military involvement in the war in Iraq.
Let there be no misunderstanding. The men and women serving our Nation in our Armed Forces will continue to receive the support they require during their training, while they are in theater and when they return home.
It is in honor of their service and the sacrifices of their family, and the love of our country that we share that I stand to make it clear that the President's plan for Iraq to escalate the number of troops and to continue his failed conduct of this war is wrong.
Escalation of this war will not make our Nation safer. Escalation of this war will not stabilize Iraq. Escalation of this war will not move us closer to bringing our troops home, and escalation of this war will not better protect Americans from those terrorists who would stop at nothing to bring grave danger to our Nation and our allies. It is for these reasons that the President's escalation of the war in Iraq is wrong.
At a time when so many current and former military leaders, as well as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, recognize the need for political, rather than military solutions to the ever increasing violence, that the President is so gravely misguided in sending more of our men and women into combat in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is the answer to a simple question: Do you believe that an escalation of this war will bring our troops home sooner, and will it help the Iraqis achieve the national reconciliation needed to bring a lasting peace to their nation? I and the majority of Americans do not think so.
We believe the facts are clear. Escalation of this war fails to address the administration's strategic and diplomatic failures. It does not move us closer to success.
What we now need to succeed in Iraq is an overwhelming political and diplomatic force, not more American combat troops. Instead, the President should be working to end U.S. combat involvement in Iraq. To do so, he must demand that the Iraqis take charge of their internal security, should demand that the Iraqi President take the lead in national reconciliation, he should engage all the regional parties to prevent this war from escalating regionally and to explore every diplomatic and political solution to end this war.
Finally, the President must be accountable for his actions to this Congress and to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, over the first 6 weeks of the Democratic control of Congress, we have begun to move our Nation in a new direction, to restore credibility and ethics in this Chamber and to put the interests of everyday Americans in the forefront. There is so much more to do, here at home, and in our relations internationally, to better ensure the security and opportunity for all Americans.
The war in Iraq overshadows all that we do. The war has already cost this Nation so much, young lives lost, greater uncertainty and instability in the Middle East, greater hostility towards our own Nation and financial costs that will take years to repay. So it is timely and right that we take action now to change direction and strategy in Iraq.
I stand with the majority of Congress in support of this resolution, in support of our troops, and in opposition to the escalation of U.S. combat troops in Iraq. This resolution sends the President a very strong message. It is our hope and the hope of the American people that he heeds it.
Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As a good listener of the gentlelady's remarks, I would think she would be in support of the President's plan. I agree with her when she was talking about what is necessary for Iraq to govern itself, but in order for this country to begin to govern itself, it also needs to have security, and the Iraqi people themselves must have a belief in the support of that new unity government.
Now, with regard to the Iraqis themselves, whom we have been training, that is, the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police force, that is exactly what the plan is. The plan is for the Iraqis to take the lead.
So the gentlelady's remarks confuse me, because as she says, I want the political apparatus to do this, but I define Petraeus' need for additional troops as an escalation. Therefore, she advocates for the status quo, and everybody knows the status quo is for failure. The remarks confuse me.
The commander on the ground of our forces in Baghdad just said on January 26, that this is about Iraqis taking charge of their own security. In order for them to do that, we have to buy them time to continue to train and for the government to become more legitimate in the eyes of the Iraqi people. Earlier what I said, the mission is to govern, sustain and defend. You have the political, economic and security necessities to accomplish that mission. I think everybody in this body is going to agree.
When I met with President Talabani in August, we talked about the establishment of the rule of law, we talked about the implementation of the national plan of reconciliation, the distribution of the oil revenue, the modernization of their electrical grid. Promoting Iraqi unity was really deep on the President's mind.
I wrote a note here after I met with him. The note I wrote was I believe the unity federal government has a real challenge. Their challenge is to convince the Iraqi political, religious and civil society leaders to compromise for a sustainable settlement to support the new federalism. That is the challenge.
So I am challenged when I hear individuals say, well, on the security apparatus, let's just get U.S. forces out of there, we'll let the Iraqis take care of this. The question is, are the Iraqis prepared to do it alone? I haven't heard anybody say they are, that they can do it alone.
The Iraqis in turn said we still need coalition assistance, and so the commanders on the ground say we need these more troops to do this. We are sending General Petraeus, our best commander, to the field.
Mr. Speaker, a father-in-law of a soldier wrote this 10 days ago: "From where I am sitting, it seems that threatening loss of funding for operations in Iraq, tying the hands of senior officers, to say nothing of the Commander in Chief, and proposing to legislate the conduct of this war, looks worse than cut and run. It feels like betrayal of the families who bear the burdens."
I can remember being in the desert in the first gulf war while this body debated a resolution on the utilization of force. I know what it was like to lose a friend in war. I shed the tears of my father when he lost buddies for his Army service in Korea.
Challenged by my own Member of Congress who voted against that resolution, I felt betrayed. While I was in the desert, I felt betrayed, so much so that I vowed while I stood at that cemetery in Lafayette, Indiana, the funeral of my friend, that I felt I still had a mission left, and it was to come help the country again.
So I ran against that incumbent Member of Congress who I felt betrayed me while I was in the desert in the gulf war. I had never run for any political office in my life. I was elected in this body at the age of 32 with so much to learn.
But I have never forgotten about the soldier, the sailor, the airman, the marine and the coast guardsman. I am so proud of them and what they do.
The world of an American soldier is more complex today than ever before, with technology, intricate rules of engagement designed to eliminate the loss of noncombatant life and a tough, innovative and savvy enemy. Our soldiers who are in the fight are watching and listening.
One wrote from Iraq 2 weeks ago: "Until victory or until the perseverance and the spirit of the American will arose, victory in Iraq is achievable by our amazingly capable and determined Armed Forces. Their effort will only be undercut by self-serving politicking and pointless impatience. If we decide we want victory, we will have it. If we quit on our effort, we will have defeat."
Contending with the complexity of today's battlefield and the ripple effects of politics 6,000 miles away, our soldiers live and measure value by simple enduring imperatives. They place a lot of value in loyalty. They count on each other, loyal to each other, to their commanders and to their oath to defend the Constitution, and their love of country helps them do their duty. A warrior bears true faith and allegiance.
Members of our Armed Forces live and die by the readiness of their buddies to express their loyalty in the conduct of faithful duty. They expect no less of their leaders up the chain, whether they wear the stripes and diamond of a first sergeant, the eagles of a colonel, or the stars of an admiral or general, or their leaders in government, both executive and legislative branches.
Yet, in response, what do we offer? The fortitude of contradiction I say. The Senate unanimously confirms a new multinational force commander, General David Petraeus, whose most compelling value is perhaps his reputation for unrivaled understanding for his clear grasp of counterinsurgencies.
Yet the authors of the resolution before us seek to deny our best commander the manpower assets he has asked for to prevail. What a disturbing contradiction. The Senate unanimously says, this is our best commander. Before they vote and say we are going to send you, he says, I need these five brigades. Then this body drafts a resolution that says, we do not think he should have the five brigades.
I suppose we have the Senate and the House now in complete contradiction. General Petraeus is a decisive man who has a decisive strategy, and he intends to reinforce our troops and root out the enemy. Aside from the gratuitous gloom that is smothering the debate on Iraq, moving in reinforced strength to destroy an enemy is a time- honored and frequently successful course of military action.
It is so especially when conducted by a capable commander. We have already agreed that General Petraeus is such a commander. Many of us know that this is what our troops yearn to do. It is what Americans yearn for us to do, prevail.
Now, lest one of my colleagues is tempted to try some contextual mischief, we all know that military victory with the right strategy is only part of the equation of success in Iraq. Real success is not a quick, easy affair. I might offer success as defined by the establishment of a stable, popularly elected government, the rise of the rule of law, and the stability necessary to foster the growth of a strong middle class.
That will take a combined and continued effort using diplomatic, informational and economic levers. But those levers cannot fully operate without security. And that is the challenge I have in listening to this debate. We in Congress have confirmed General Petraeus and sent him now into battle.
And what now do some want to do with him? They seek to turn the House floor into a cockpit of battlefield wisdom to disavow his strategy. Some may say, go to Iraq, Commander. Disregard the strategy that you talked about in the Senate. Instead use your brilliance to conduct a feckless campaign of status quo.
The resolution before us disavows the human assets our commander needs to accomplish his mission. But then it says, we support the troops. How can you say we support the troops but you don't give the commander that which he says he needs? I do not understand.
I am a colonel in the Army Reserve. I have served for 26 years this Nation. How can you say to me, Steve, I support you. I will give you the beams, the bullets, the ammo, the water. I will give you anything you need, but do not ask me for any troops and good luck on your mission. Because you do not get to ask for reinforcements. You do not even get to ask for anybody else.
As we know the Pelosi-Murtha real strategy is to slowly bleed our battlefield commander dry. They know he cannot prevail waging a campaign of the status quo. So some will slowly reduce funding for his Army in an effort for it to wither on the vine. And it to me is disgraceful.
Ladies and gentlemen, does this fit the definition of loyalty and support of members of the United States Armed Forces serving bravely in Iraq?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
Ms. Giffords: Mr. Speaker, as Members of the 110th Congress we are about to cast one of our most important votes yet. Americans in my district of southern Arizona and across the country want their Representatives to bring closure to the United States' involvement in Iraq. This vote is the first step towards doing precisely that.
A few weeks ago President Bush gave a nationally televised speech to the American people to announce his new way forward for Iraq. But it sounded strangely familiar. The President acknowledged that his policies and plans in Iraq had failed to yield the promised results, and yet his only suggestion was to do more of the same.
During my first few weeks in Congress serving on the House Armed Services Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have been listening, learning, asking tough questions. I have participated in many hours of hearings and briefings with top administration officials.
Those people include Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Congressman Lee Hamilton, co-chairman of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group commissioned by the President.
Since being sworn into Congress, I have also been reading dozens of letters sent to me by my constituents, flying home to my district almost every single weekend to meet with concerned citizens.
Recently I attended a returning warrior event in Arizona for Reservists coming back from combat. And last week I visited Walter Reed Hospital here in Washington, D.C. to speak with wounded soldiers and their families.
These collective experiences have made me more confident than ever that the global war on terror and the situation in Iraq are more complicated than President Bush seems to realize. Common sense dictates that in order for any plan to succeed it must require the Iraqi people to calm the sectarian violence and unify behind a workable political structure.
The President's plan fails to acknowledge the lack of willingness and capacity by the Iraqi political and religious leaders to achieve these necessary goals. Sectarian factions are divided more than ever. Without the serious involvement and motivation of the Iraqi people, the President's proposals to send more American troops into harm's way amounts to little more than having 21,000 more soldiers stay the course.
This I cannot support. The President should consider the views of many active and retired military generals who advised him to change his strategy in Iraq. Instead of adding more soldiers, he should instead focus on some of the best recommendations set forward by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that he commissioned.
These recommendations include keeping Iraq rapid reaction and special operation forces in Iraq to strike al Qaeda militias, setting performance benchmarks for the Iraqi Government and holding them accountable, providing economic assistance to Iraq that will help create jobs, strengthen infrastructure, and improve the Iraqi capacity to be independent and stable.
Last but not least, beginning a new dialogue with Iraq's neighbors because they need to be part of the solution. The basic message of the Iraq Study Group and other credible experts and strategists is that the situation in Iraq is a political not just a military crisis.
The President's military escalation plan without a political component is bound to fail. Along with all other patriotic Americans, I strongly support our men and women in uniform who are risking their lives to protect and defend our Nation.
Our Armed Forces must have the tools, the training and the support that they need to be successful in any mission. I have serious concerns, Mr. Speaker, that our Army, Marine Corps, along with Guard and Reserve forces are being stretched too thin.
Instead of sending 21,000 more young American soldiers to Iraq as part of that same failed strategy, the President should focus on the Global War on Terror. Failure is not an option. America must prevail against many serious threats around the world, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote to support the resolution before this body because our brave men and women in uniform deserve a strategy that honors their sacrifices. The President's plan does not do that.
Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I am now happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. Mccollum of Minnesota: Mr. Speaker, there is no more important issue facing our Nation today than the prolonged, painful, deadly war in Iraq. Next month America's courageous and determined troops start year 5 of combat operations inside Iraq.
As Iraq continues to deteriorate into a failed state of endless killing, President Bush has decided not only to stay the course but to escalate America's combat presence.
The resolution we debate tonight puts Congress in step with the American people in rejecting the President's escalation of the war. This resolution supports our troops and sends a clear message to President Bush that he is increasingly isolated in believing that Iraq's future can only be salvaged by sending more Americans into their civil war.
Let us remember that year 5 in Iraq will start with over 150,000 U.S. troops in the midst of an Iraq civil war. Year 5 in Iraq will start with 2,600 Minnesota National Guardsmen and -women who have already served and sacrificed for a year, being ordered to serve an additional 4 months of duty. Year 5 in Iraq starts with over 3,100 American troops having sacrificed their lives and nearly 24,000 troops having sacrificed their bodies.
To all of our veterans and their families, I offer my prayers, and I pledge my support in the difficult months and years ahead. With a true sense of humility and respect and admiration for their service and sacrifices, I thank you, I thank your families for what you have endured.
Our troops have always done their jobs with skill, with determination and courage. And now it is time for the elected leaders of this Nation to respond with courage and skill and forethought to the challenges presented in Iraq. It is time for the people of Iraq, the diverse ethnic groups, the religious sects, their tribal leaders, to decide for themselves whether their future is to be one of ongoing murder, revenge, civil war, or reconciliation, peaceful cooperation and security. It is time to end Iraq's dependence on U.S. troops and to fully transfer the responsibility for security and governance to the Iraqis. It is time to start the process of bringing American troops home safe, soon. It is time to bring this war in Iraq to an end. Achieving peace in Iraq will require an Iraqi political solution.
Peace requires a robust, active, tireless diplomacy from the United States, in partnership with Iraq's neighbors and the entire world community. This Congress has the opportunity and the obligation to advance a foreign policy vision rooted in the belief that Iraq's future requires shared global commitment.
Tomorrow Congress will pass this bipartisan resolution. This resolution is important because it is the second step in putting the White House on notice. The first notice was delivered to President Bush by the American people last November when they elected a new majority to Congress. The American people elected this majority because they wanted this very debate to take place, because they reject the "stay the course" status quo in Iraq.
Instead of hearing the American people, instead of acting on the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, instead of learning from his past mistakes in Iraq, President Bush decided to escalate the war.
Rather than take the counsel and the advice of experienced statesmen and trusted military leaders, President Bush acted alone and decided to escalate the war.
Now our President calls himself "The Decider." In America, the people, not the President, are the ultimate deciders in our democracy, and the people and this Congress have decided that the escalation of combat troops into Iraq is misguided. This Congress has the authority and the obligation to hold the President accountable, and this House is ready to exercise its constitutional powers.
The American people are demanding action to end this war in Iraq. Let us listen to the American people. Tomorrow let us pass this important resolution and begin the process of working together as Americans to end the war in Iraq.
Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I am now happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. Ryan of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, as we approach the final day of the debate on this resolution, I have enjoyed the debate thoroughly. I have found it humorous at times. Our friends on the other side have tried every argument they could possibly muster. They have talked about President Clinton, they have talked about Vietnam, they are trying to bring up Israel, and my friend from Indiana also mentioned the issue of consistency. And I find it funny that the pro-life, self-proclaimed pro-life party is the party that wants to keep extending the war. I find it ironic that all of the great budget hawks in the Republican Party want to throw $8 billion a month to keep going and going and going as we borrow the money from China.
But I have also found the debate, at times, disappointing, where Members of the other side have questioned our side and they have said, whose side are we on? And how can we say that we support the troops, and that we are, somehow, unpatriotic.
And I would just like to say that when the Republican Party and this President didn't send enough troops, we didn't call you unpatriotic. And when you sent our young soldiers over there without the body armor, we never called you unpatriotic.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Hodes) The Chair must remind the Members to address the Chair when speaking in debate.
Mr. Ryan of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, we never called the other side unpatriotic when they sent our soldiers over without enough body armor. And when they didn't send enough up-armored Humvees, we never called anybody unpatriotic. And now, when the next batch goes over without the proper jammers or up-armored kits, we don't call you unpatriotic.
Now we have called you incompetent. We said you are incapable, and we said you are derelict of your oversight responsibility. But never, Mr. Speaker, have we called anyone in this House unpatriotic.
Now let me speak to the resolution. This is very simple. It says two things: We support our troops and we do not support the escalation. It is very simple and here is why. We have already done this, Mr. Speaker. We have already done this. We have already tried the escalation and it has not worked. From November to January of 2005, we escalated by 18,000 troops, boots on the ground, and the number of daily attacks increased by 17 percent. From June to October of 2005, we increased by 21,000 boots on the ground, and the number of daily attacks increased by 29 percent. And from May to November of 2006, 17,000 more boots on the ground, and the number of daily attacks increased by 80 percent.
This escalation has not worked and it will not work. The number of insurgents have increased from 5,000 in 2003 to between 20,000 and 30,000 to October of 2006. So this is very simple.
And I want to make just a few more points, Mr. Speaker. One is this. With the last vote for the war, regardless of what party you were in or how you voted, we assumed that the President and the Secretary of Defense would send our troops over there with the proper equipment. But with this escalation, Mr. Speaker, we know that the 21,500 troops that are going to go over there will not have the proper Humvee kits, the up-armor for their HUMVEES. They won't have the proper jamming devices or enough of them, and they won't have the number of trucks that they need.
You now know it. So if you vote against this resolution, you are voting to send our troops over there without the proper equipment before it could be excused because we trusted the President, assumed, but now we know.
And, finally, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot over the last couple of days about the American Revolution and the Civil War and World War II. Well, Mr. Speaker, our President today is not Washington, he is not Lincoln, and he is not Roosevelt. So I think our Republican colleagues should take the advice of the Secretary of Defense, and that is you go to war with the President you have. You don't go to war with the President you wish you had.
The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair must remind the Members to address their remarks in debate to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Sometimes in the middle of debate when one gentleman refuses to yield to another gentleman, it can be for a variety of reasons perhaps, but sometimes it is because the argument is pretty weak.
So I have listened to this debate. I have not heard anybody on this side of the aisle call any of my Democratic colleagues unpatriotic. So the gentleman who just spoke protests too much. Maybe he has some deep feeling inside, has some guilt inside perhaps. I don't know. I can't speak to that. Only he can. I would be more than pleased to yield to him. I would extend the courtesy to him. But I just don't recall that at all.
As a matter of fact, I had to turn here to some staff that is with me because they are just as sensitive about this as I am and the seriousness of this debate.
The gentleman to my left is an Air Force Academy grad and he is the Air Force Reserves, and he flies C-5As right into Baghdad. He knows what that is like.
The two gentlemen right behind me, this gentleman right here, Jeff Phillips, served in the first gulf war, in the second gulf war, and has two Bronze Stars. This other gentleman over here, Jim Lariviere, served in Afghanistan and wears the Bronze Star.
So I turned to all three of these guys and I asked them, Have you heard anybody say or make someone feel as though they were unpatriotic? And the answer was "no" from these three men.
So please don't come and pollute the debate because it only makes you look silly.
The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair must remind Members to address remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, it only makes Members look silly if they pollute the debate.
One thing about war is that you have to improvise, adapt, and overcome. Right? You hear that a lot. We do it and our enemies do it, and it is extremely important.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 10½minutes to the former veteran of the Arizona National Guard, Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And just to follow up, I was going to actually begin my remarks tonight by noting the tremendous speech I thought that was given by my colleague Mr. McHugh, I believe it was the night before last, in the midst of this important debate. And I think this is an extremely important debate. Indeed, I think this is the most important debate in my 12 years in the United States Congress and I would assert the most important debate this Congress may, indeed, ever have.
But with regard to being unpatriotic, I want to make my position clear and I want to reference what Mr. McHugh said.
First, I respect every Member on the other side of the aisle, and I respect
their right to express their views. And, quite frankly, the other evening when I spoke in this debate, I said I respect and share their frustration, both at where we are in this war and how we got there.
But the gentleman pointed out that he hadn't heard anybody labeled unpatriotic. I think Mr. McHugh's comments were quite in tone with what I have heard in the portion of this debate that I have watched, and I have watched a lot. And he said, "I have listened today with great interest, and I have enormous respect for Members on both sides of the aisle." I have that respect. I have the respect for the sincerity of my colleagues on both sides of this aisle. We have, however, an important disagreement which deserves to be aired.
I think there is an important question that needs to be asked. That question is, if we do not defeat radical jihadists in Iraq, the radical Islamists with whom we are at war there now, if we do not defeat them in Iraq, then where? And if we do not defeat them now, then when?
Let me first start by making a few points about the record and setting the record straight. My colleague from Texas pointed out a few moments ago that we are each entitled to our own opinion, but not to our own facts. I would suggest that there is a fact across this Nation, an accepted fact, which is flat untrue. And it was referred to in the debate here just a few moments ago. And that is the notion that Shia and Sunni have been at war with each other for hundreds of years and killing each other for hundreds of years.
Today, the bipartisan Antiterrorism Caucus met, and we heard from an expert from Brookings, and he said that is simply not true. The notion that we are in the midst of a civil war that has gone on for hundreds of years simply is not true. It is not a fact.
What is a fact is that we face an extraordinary enemy, an enemy that hates us, an enemy that has been taught a set of beliefs that requires them to kill us; that requires them to kill all Americans, all Westerners, all unbelievers; indeed, a radical jihadist sect that calls for them to kill many Muslims and to do so without excuse. To break all law in doing so. To ignore international law in doing so.
I would call my colleagues to read this book, "Knowing the Enemy" by Mary Habeck. I read it after she spoke to the bipartisan Antiterrorism Caucus. I want to read a few paragraphs out of this book because I believe it is important to understand: "Jihadist ideologues use this generally accepted belief to argue that their interpretation of Islam is also intended for the entire world, which must be brought to recognize this fact peacefully if possible and through violence if not."
We have been told over and over and over and over again that these jihadists, the radical jihadists, hate us. In the debate earlier on this floor I asked my colleagues, I asked anyone on either side of the aisle, if you can name for me a single radical jihadi leader who has said that if America leaves Iraq, if America will pull back from Iraq, the war will end? I have asked that question on this floor at least twice, maybe three times, and nobody has taken it up. And the answer is because that is not what they want.
I listened to the debate here tonight and I respect it. As I said, I share the frustration over where we are in this war. But if you listen carefully to this debate, what you hear is: well, if we will stop, the war will end. I am afraid it is not that true. I am afraid it is not that easy. I am afraid it is not that simple. If we were to stop, the war would not end.
Listen to the words of al Qaeda, the words of Osama bin Laden, the words of Ayman al Zawahiri. Over and over and over again, they have told us that that would not be the end of the war. Indeed, it would not end their war against us.
Let me talk first about Ayman al Zawahiri. Here is his quote: "It is jihad for the sake of God and will last until our religion prevails . . . The entire world is an open battlefield for us. We will attack everywhere until Islam reigns."
Osama bin Laden: "The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries; the Islamic Nation on the one hand and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation."
Ayman al-Zawahiri again: "The jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals; expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority or amarat, extend the jihad to secular countries neighboring Iraq, and then the clash with Israel."
And last, Osama bin Laden: "Hostility toward America is a religious duty. We hope to be rewarded by God for it. I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America."
There is no end to this war simply because we choose to stop fighting. It will not go away.
Let me refer again to Mary Habeck and "Knowing the Enemy," which, Mr. Speaker, I hope you have read and all others who participate in this debate will read.
"The three main jihadist ideologues make clear a central point of the ongoing war with falsehood: That it will continue until Islam has liberated the entire world from darkness, tyranny and servitude. Jihadists thus neither recognize national boundaries within the Islamic lands, nor do they believe that the coming Islamic state when it is created should have permanent borders with unbelievers. The recognition of such boundaries would end the expansion of Islam and stop offensive jihad, both of which are transgressions against the laws of God that command jihad to last until judgment day or until the entire Earth is under the rule of Islamic law."
It would be nice if we could ask this war to go away, but it won't. So I ask again, if you do not want to confront radical jihadists in Iraq, then where? And if not now, then when?
This war did not begin in 2003. It began not in 2001 with the attack on the World Trade Center. No. We have been at war with these radical jihadists for decades. In 1979, radical jihadists seized the American embassy in Tehran and held American hostages for 444 days. In 1983, radical jihadists attacked the Marine barracks in Beirut; 241 were murdered. In 1988, they brought down Pan Am Flight 103, known as the Lockerbie bombing; 270 were murdered. In 1993, Islamic terrorists attacked the World Trade Center for the first time; six were murdered. In 1996, they attacked the Khobar Towers. I have been to Khobar Towers before it was brought down. I saw where they killed 19 U.S. servicemen. 1998, al Qaeda attacked the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. They killed 212 in Tanzania and 11 were murdered in Kenya. In 2000, the Islamic terrorists attacked the USS Cole and 17 are murdered there. 2001, they attacked New York, Washington and Pennsylvania and they killed 3,000.
This war is the heart of the war on terror, and if we do not confront them now, then when? If we do not confront them in Iraq, then where?
There have been parallels to prior wars. I would suggest that this debate is similar, very similar, to the debate that led up to our involvement both in the World War I and World War II. Men of goodwill do like not to engage in war. It would be nice to have been able to believe that Hitler would go away, and well-meaning Americans argued that we should stay out of that war. But ultimately we couldn't, because ultimately the Japanese empire attacked us at Pearl Harbor and we recognized that we had to be involved in that war.
I would suggest to you that that is where we are now, and I would suggest to you that there is no such thing when you are at war as a nonbinding resolution, and there is no such thing as a resolution that does not do damage to the morale our troops.
Let me conclude, if I might, just by pointing out that this resolution may send a message to the White House, and I understand and sympathize with the desire to do that. But the more important message it will send is to our allies around the world that America cannot be trusted, that America cannot be relied upon, that America is an ally that will leave.
Osama bin Laden has said it over and over and over again: Attack them, fight them. Ultimately they will grow weak and they will back down.
Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
(Mr. Meek of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Meek of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I am excited about being here. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. But I am going to put my prepared notes to the side here, because I don't think that is needed at this point, because we are well into debate now, Mr. Speaker, on this very issue of Iraq.
I would like to disclose to the House that I am not a member of the armed services. I have never served in a forward area. I wasn't even a member of the ROTC. But I am a Member of the U.S. Congress, and I have been federalized to come here to represent my constituents and the people of this great country.
I know sometimes we say some things on the floor that we don't really mean, and then there are some things we do really mean.
I had the opportunity to go to the White House today to speak to the President on this very issue, and I shared with him, delivered the message from the majority of the Members of this House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats that have come to this floor and said they are going to vote in the affirmative on this resolution because they don't believe in the escalation of troops.
A supermajority of the Members of the House have not served in the military. Now, do we respect and honor those that allow us still to salute one flag? You are 110 percent right as it relates to my feelings towards that. And I respect those Members who have been in the ROTC and came up through college and what have you and joined the Reserves and active duty. I trust their judgment. They have the right to say what they want to say when they want to say it.
But I shared with the President that this will pass. And he shook his head and said, "I believe it will pass too, Kendrick."
I said, "Mr. President, here is something else that we have to be together on, and there has to be some level of compromise."
Yes, this is a nonbinding resolution, but this is the first time that the President has ever had any, any, any pressure from the Congress on his original thoughts and what he says military commanders call for.
Now, since folks have been talking about who they are here on this floor and what they have done and chest beating and all, I have been a member of the Armed Services Committee. I am a member of the Ways and Means Committee now and still on Armed Services on a waiver.
I said I wanted to go back to Armed Services because we are at war and we have to make sense here in this House. We just can't say we are there and we got to stay there as long as we got to stay there, until the last insurgent says that they give up. Well, guess what? They are not going to give up. They are not going to give up, and they are not going to say, well, we are leaving. They are not going to say that.
So if our mission is to stay there as long as the last insurgent is there, so someone would not be looking at troops leaving on the plane saying we won, if that is the issue, then we have to readjust our thinking here.
Let me just share something with you. I said to the President, "Yes, this is nonbinding, but it means a lot. It sends a message to the country that we heard them last November."
You know the reason why this House is in the majority for the Democrats this time? You know why? Because the rubber stamp Republican Congress rubber stamped everything that the President sent to this House and to the Senate. And if this was about politics, I would just go home and sit and watch this debate on television and talk to my wife and tell my wife, guess what, sweetheart? The Democrats are about to gain a greater majority, because the American people are going to continue on a bipartisan way, not just Democrats, Republicans, independents, those that never voted before, will start voting because they think that we are not listening.
Now, I am going to share this also with you, what is very, very important. I said, "Mr. President, it is nonbinding, but you are going to have a supplemental that is going to come through, and there has to be language in there that speaks to the point of readiness, speaks to the point of the fact that if you say we are going to send 20,000 combat troops and 3,000 support personnel, that they have what they need to carry out the mission."
The President heard what I had to say and came right back and said, "Kendrick, do you believe for a minute that I would put troops in harm's way if the military commanders did not tell us what we had?"
Respectfully I told the President, "It has happened before." I have sat next to Mr. Ryan in the Armed Services Committee and watched four star generals answer the question, "Do you have what you need?" "Yes, we have it."
Then we went to Iraq twice. Not once. Not when somebody told me that got off the plane that came back from Iraq and said, "Kendrick, guess what." In Mosul, in Baghdad, folks getting ready to go out on patrol did not have up-armored vehicles. And I am a Member of Congress. You would think someone would bring up-armored vehicles out because they have Members of Congress there. And people are there saying, and the troops are there saying, soldiers, in the field, 18 months on the second deployment, saying, "Congressman, I know what you think, but let me tell you something: We don't have what we need."
They still do not have what they need. So I come to this floor, yes, with great passion. I was not a member of the military, but doggone it, I am a Member of Congress. I am not going to let any Member of Congress make me believe or any other Member believe that they are less of a Member because they do not have the credentials that the next person has.
What I do know is that someone woke up early Tuesday morning at 7:00 a.m. to vote for representation in this U.S. House of Representatives, and doggone it, they are going to get, and those troops are going to get it.
So tomorrow it is going to be judgment time. Either you are with going in the old direction or in the new direction.
And the only reason that I have comfort, Mr. Speaker, tonight is the fact that I know that there is going to be a bipartisan vote on that board, just like it was on the minimum wage, just like it was as it relates to prescription drugs, just like it was in cutting back interest rates on student loans. All these bipartisan votes, and this is going to follow the number of those bipartisan votes. I know that we are going to start having the kind of oversight we have to have on this war.
I do not believe that it would be a full pull out of troops, and I am not even looking for that, but I am looking for management of this war in Iraq, and I am glad that we are having this debate.
Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. Wasserman Schultz: Mr. Speaker, I am going to bring it back down a notch for a minute.
On Tuesday, I had the privilege to spend time with some of our Nation's finest. I traveled to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and talked with some of our soldiers who dedicated their lives to protect our Nation and gave their hearts, souls and bodies to the cause of freedom.
As I was driving out to the hospital, I reflected upon the changes in Iraq in the year-and-a-half since my first visit to Walter Reed. During that visit, IED was not a regular part of the American vocabulary, Mr. Speaker. Fatalities were shocking. The mounting death toll was disturbing.
Today, there are insurgent attacks almost every day. Iraq has descended into a deadly civil war, and almost every American has become familiar with the term IED and the deadly impact they have on the young men and women that we send to fight for us in this war.
The terms of war that my good friend from Indiana so well knows, the casualties, death, kidnappings, injuries, helicopter crashes, bombs, amputations, good-byes, sorrow and pain have all become commonplace.
We hear that another helicopter was shot down or that three more soldiers died today in Iraq, and soon enough we become numb to the true impact that
this war is having on our troops and their families.
These young men and women represent true honor, courage and selflessness. They also represent the incalculable cost of the war, the price tag that is not mentioned, the lives, limbs, hopes and dreams.
They are soldiers like a young man I met Tuesday who was travelling on foot with his convey when an IED exploded, and as he put it, blew him up. He had served in Iraq twice before, and on his third tour of duty, Mr. Speaker, he became a double amputee, lost his arm and leg. Clearly, his total experience will change him completely.
Another young soldier was spending time with his family when I visited. He has a 6-year-old little boy who talked to me excitedly about how his daddy was finally going to come home forever after August. He, too, had two previous tours and fell severely ill this third time. Amazingly, this soldier hopes to go over and finish his tour with his company when he is better.
As a mom of 7-year-old twins, my first thought when meeting this delightful little boy was that his dad had missed half his life so far, half his life. I could not help but worry that if we do not get it right soon in Iraq it will not be long before this little boy and my twins will be part of this conflict.
And finally, there are soldiers like the young man who shared so much with me and who sincerely explained to me that he was actually glad that he was badly injured, as opposed to his gunner, because his gunner had a wife and kids and he did not want his buddy's family to have to look into his eyes like that. He told me he wants to run for office one day, and our Nation will be better for it.
America's future depends upon this generation of Americans, but while they fight to protect our country, they are depending on us to protect them. They are counting on us, the United States Congress and this President, to have a plan, a strategy that gets us somewhere and to help get them home and not endlessly commit their lives and their families' lives to this war.
So, Mr. Speaker, today I join an overwhelming majority of the American people, a bipartisan majority of Congress and some of the President's own military leaders to raise my voice and to be the voice of the constituents, the thousands of people who I represent in the 20th district of Florida, against escalating this war in Iraq.
But more importantly, I raise my voice for my generation and for all the little boys and girls in America whose mommies and daddies are in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting for this country and for freedom.
This President owes the American people, but more importantly, these brave troops, a strategy that makes sense, that will do the job and that will help get them home. The President's policy fails that 6-year- old little boy with a heart of gold and a smile that lights up the room who only wants his daddy to come home forever.
I support this resolution because the explanation the President has given the American people is not good enough. I cannot help but think about the way this war is affecting not only my generation, Mr. Speaker, but the generations following mine. They, too, recognize the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform are facing.
Students from two schools in my district, Nob Hill Elementary and Silver Ridge Elementary, made Valentine's Day cards for the soldiers, and I got a chance to deliver them Tuesday during my visit to Walter Reed. One of these cards reads, the one right here: "Thank you for protecting our country and me. You're the best. I would never have had the guts to fight with guns anyways. You are my hero. Forever and ever. Get well very, very soon."
These young children recognize the service and sacrifice that these warriors are making. As Members of Congress, we owe them no less.
It is our responsibility to provide for the common defense, and that includes vigorous debate, informed discussion and responsible public policy.
I support this resolution because it does just that, and Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution because the gentleman from Indiana knows better.
It does not require words to question patriotism. We have had plenty of implication throughout this debate on this floor on the other side of the aisle, and death by a thousand cuts is the same as direct words. It is irresponsible and unconscionable that the other side of the aisle has questioned the patriotism of the Members who disagree.
It is Congress' job to disagree. It is our role in the system of checks and balances, as our Founding Fathers envisioned them, unfortunately a role that was absent for the last 12 years.
Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to, on my time, yield to the gentlewoman. I would like to yield to the gentlewoman on my time, since she would not yield on her time. Would the gentlewoman please identify by name a Republican who has called a Democrat in this debate unpatriotic?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Buyer: I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz: I thank you for yielding.
I was just taking my opportunity. You have had more than 45 minutes to an hour of your own time to discuss your own view, and each us would like that same opportunity. It is 12:40 in the morning. So I appreciate you yielding.
I can tell you, as I just mentioned in my remarks, that it does not require express words. By implication, there are many Members on your side of the aisle who have questioned the patriotism of any of us who disagree with the President's policy. The President's policy is inappropriate, and it is Congress' role to question to engage in vigorous oversight. That is a role that was absent for the last 12 years, and that is why the American people elected Democrats to lead this chamber on November 7 and move this country in a new direction, which unfortunately you have neglected to do.
Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have neglected to do?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz: You collectively.
Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, are you questioning my motives
Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Is it proper for one Member to try to question the motive of another Member?
The Speaker pro tempore: Even in heated debate, the Members should be more orderly in the process of yielding and reclaiming time.
Mr. Buyer: I thank the Speaker. I am thankful that the gentlewoman gave the answer to her question, and the answer was that it was implicit.
It is very easy in debate to come down and to create a straw person and then attack the straw person. If the gentlewoman has felt that way, that is completely unfortunate. But please don't say you have been called unpatriotic. That is the exchange I had with an earlier speaker. Don't accuse Republicans of such things. I am disturbed by that and very bothered.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz: Would the gentlewoman yield?
Mr. Buyer: I am more than pleased to yield to the gentlewoman.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz: Does the gentleman not understand that when words are used, that they don't actually have to be exact words to suggest a particular opinion on the part of the Member? And do you really think that it is beyond question that any of the Members on your side of the aisle as they engaged in this discussion and debate did not question the patriotism of our Members? I mean, me thinks thou dost protest too much, as the gentleman stated earlier. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Buyer: I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.
Mr. Ryan of ohio: Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Buyer: I am more than pleased to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Ryan of ohio: As I was watching the debate prior to my speech, I wrote down a quote that was stated by the gentleman from Indiana looking at the Democrats saying, How can we say we support the troops? Question mark.
Now, if that is not questioning the patriotism of our side, I don't know what is.
Mr. Buyer: Now I seek to reclaim my time, because that is a legitimate question.
As the commander in the field, if you say to the commander, "I support you." All right? What is the commander going to say? The commander says, "All right, I have a mission, and you say I support you." That means, I suppose, that I support you by making sure that you have been properly trained, that you have your uniform, that you have your ammunition, you have your helmet, you have your body Kevlar. You have what is necessary to accomplish your mission. But do you? If the commander says, "I need more troops to accomplish that mission," you say, "But you can't have those." Is that then supporting the commander?
That is why I pointed out the contradiction in that the Senate says to General Petraeus, "We agree, you are our best commander to go over there." And before they took that vote, he said, "I need those five brigades." So they passed the vote and they sent General Petraeus over.
Now we are faced with a vote that says I support the troops, I support the members of the Armed Forces.
How can we say, "I support you, but, Mr. Commander, we are not going to give you the troops"? That is the point of the question.
So please don't try to spin it into something that says, oh, you are calling me unpatriotic. That is what I think is rather peculiar.
