Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair would remind all Members not to traffic the well while another Member is under recognition.
Mr. Larsen of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. Becerra: Mr. Speaker, on January 23 of this year, the President in his State of the Union address said, "This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in."
Nearly 4 years after President Bush took us to war, 4 years, that is longer than our involvement in World War II, it is fair to say that this is not the debate we expected to have, but it is the debate we must have. We owe it to our troops who have fought honorably and valiantly, and we owe it to the American people.
More than 3,100 American soldiers dead, more than 23,000 American soldiers injured, $500 billion in costs, 14,000 weapons that our Nation bought for the Iraqi Army missing, $9 billion in reconstruction funds missing. Mr. Speaker, stay-the-course has failed, and sending 20,000 more troops is no more than stay-the-course on steroids.
The American people would know this had the previous Republican Congresses exercised their oversight responsibilities to tell the American people what was going on. They would have known, for example, that we have already tried three previous troop surges. In each case, between 17,000 to 21,000 troops. Have we seen the improvement? What are things like today? Where were the hearings to find out how those troop surges went? Where are the reports? Mr. Speaker, this is a debate long overdue.
The truth is, Iraqis must take responsibility for their own future. When General John Abizaid met with commanders on the ground in Iraq, he was asked, "If we get more troops, will we succeed?" And here is what he told them: "They all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking
more responsibility for their own future." That, General Abizaid said on November 15, 2006.
U.S. troops are sitting today in the crossfire of a civil war. We have no guarantee that an Iraqi Shi'a soldier will defend an Iraqi Sunni civilian and that an Iraqi Sunni soldier will defend an Iraqi Shi'a civilian. Iraqis must decide what future they want. Only Iraqis can save Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, we need to redeploy our troops responsibly, to continue training Iraqi soldiers, and to refocus our efforts on counterterrorism. And we need a surge in diplomacy, not troops.
The consequences of stay-the-course are real. Just yesterday, President Bush exhorted our allies to help us, not in Iraq, in Afghanistan. The U.S. is sending more troops and billions of dollars more. His words were telling yesterday. Quote, "The Taliban and al Qaeda are preparing to launch new attacks." New attacks. "Our strategy is not to be on the defensive but to go on the offensive." 1,985 days since the 9/11 attacks, and Usama bin Laden remains free, and we hope to go on the offensive in Afghanistan.
Americans deserve to hear the truth and the consequences, not slogans. "Mission accomplished" wasn't true. "Stay the course" didn't work. And this new Congress will not be paralyzed by those who argue that we must stay the course in Iraq to support the troops. The troops didn't chart this course, the troops didn't ask to be plunged into the middle of a civil war, and the troops didn't under-man and under-equip.
It is time that the buck for the debacle in Iraq stops where it belongs: Here in Washington, D.C. And if the President won't accept that reality, then guess what? This new Congress, this new Democratic leadership is prepared to stop the buck here.
This is a debate we must have. This is a debate about us. Us, those of us here in this Chamber. Will we lead? Will we be responsible overseers of this war? Will we heed the call of the American people?
Today, with this vote, Mr. Speaker, we will tell our troops, our generals, our beloved people: We hear you loud and clear. It is time for a new direction in Iraq.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
Mr. Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with mixed emotions. I am proud of our troops and the sacrifices they have made in Iraq, their dedication, their perseverance and the love and support of their families here at home. I am disappointed that the strategies employed thus far have not been more successful and that our progress in Iraq has been too slow, and I am saddened that those who have drafted this resolution are offering no alternatives of their own for our mission in Iraq. Indeed, they are prohibiting consideration in this Chamber of any alternative.
Therefore, I will vote against this resolution.
I believe most Americans share the same goal for Iraq, a stable government that can serve its people, a strong security force that can protect its people, and a growing economy that can encourage prosperity for its people.
We want the Iraqis to succeed, and we want our troops to come home. There is no question and no denying that mistakes in the planning and execution of the war have led us to where we are today. Hindsight is 20/20, and we can all offer suggestions for how things should have been done differently, done better, done more effectively during the past 4 years.
But that is not what is going on in this Chamber here today. Members are being cynically asked to vote on a resolution that does not address victory or success. It does not offer a pathway toward the peace and the prosperity that are vital to the region. It simply plays politics with the war and, in so doing, does our troops and their families here at home a terrible disservice.
While no one in this Chamber or any general in uniform can guarantee the success of this new initiative in Iraq, we can safely say that not pursuing it and continuing the status quo will lead to failure. Iraq then likely would fall into further chaos and transform itself, much as Afghanistan did a decade ago, into a breeding ground for terrorists, who plot attacks not on our troops in Iraq but upon our civilians here at home.
Make no mistake, failure of the U.S. mission in Iraq will not end the war. It will only shift the battlefield. The terrorists are at war with us, whether we fight back or not.
The consequences of failure in Iraq would be as dramatic as the fruits of victory. An Iraqi government stable enough to take the lead role in providing for its own internal security will allow us to achieve our collective goal, the return of U.S. troops. Rather than being allied with terrorists, Iraq would be an ally with America and the war on terror. In so doing, it would honor the more than 3,000 American men and women who have died fighting for its freedom and countless more who have been wounded and will bear for their lifetimes the scars of battle.
The status quo in Iraq is unacceptable. We need a new strategy, new tactics, new commanders on the ground, and a new and sustained commitment from the Iraqi government that they will do more of their share.
We know that the road ahead will be difficult and that the prospects for success are dwindling. But I believe a renewed and amplified effort by U.S. forces and Iraqi troops to retain security in Baghdad may offer the best hope we have for the lasting success of the U.S. mission and for the future stability of Iraq's government. It may also be, I believe, our last chance for victory. The President knows this, and I believe the Iraqi government and its people know this, too.
It is in that spirit and with that understanding that I will vote against this resolution. Our collective prayer is for the safety of our troops, for their success, and that they will be reunited with their families here at home as soon as possible.
Mr. Larsen of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
Mr. AL Green of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I love America. America means something to me. No one loves the Constitution more than I. No one believes in the Declaration of Independence more than I. No one respects the flag and the Pledge of Allegiance more than I. No one appreciates the American soldier more than I.
So I stand here today in the well of the United States House of Representatives as a proud American who understands that it is not the Constitution that gives us or protects government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is not the Declaration of Independence that preserves the concept of all persons being created equal. It is the soldier.
It is not the Pledge of Allegiance that preserves liberty and justice for all. It is the soldier. It is the soldier who shields those who would make real the great American ideals. Regardless as to how we feel about the war, we should all thank God for the American soldier.
Mr. Speaker, our soldiers have done their job. More than 84,000 National Guard and Reservists have been deployed more than once since 2001. More than 170,000 soldiers in the Army have served more than one tour of duty. More than 23,000 soldiers have been wounded, and more than 2,200 of these from Texas were from Texas alone. More than 3,100 soldiers have died, including more than 200 from Texas.
Our soldiers have liberated Iraq from a ruthless, brutal dictator. Our soldiers have answered the clarion call for help for which too many will never come home for the holidays and far too many will never see home again.
So for this I say, God bless the American soldiers, their friends, their families, and their loved ones.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have been that friend, indeed, in Iraq's time of need. In addition to blood, sweat and tears, the American people have spent more than $267 million, not per year, not per month not per week, but more than $267 million per day on this war.
Mr. Speaker, with this money, according to CNN and the National Priorities Project, we could have hired 6.4 million public school teachers. We could have built 3.3 million public housing units. We could have insured 220 million children for 1 year.
On a more lofty level, America has helped the Iraqi people develop a constitution. We have helped the Iraqi people establish democratic elections. We have helped the Iraqis reconstitute their military and overhaul their constabulary.
Mr. Speaker, after all that we have done, more than 23,000 wounded. After all that we have done, 3,100 are dead. After all that we have done, more than $267 million per day. After all that we have done, whenever we leave, it will not be cut and run. We have helped the Iraqi people to have the opportunity to embrace freedom and democracy.
It is now time for the Iraqi people to seize upon this precious, priceless opportunity and have a free and independent Iraq, something that all the money in the world cannot buy and not even the most powerful military in the universe can impose.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot want liberty and justice for all Iraqis more than all Iraqis want liberty and justice for themselves.
If the Iraqis want government of the people, by the people, for the people, then their soldiers, not ours, must provide it. We can stay in Iraq forever and never have a free and independent Iraq, not as long as the Iraqi people engage in an uncivil war with each other. You can debate whether it is a civil war or not, but there is no debating that it is an uncivil war that they are having with each other.
Mr. Speaker, because I support our soldiers and oppose the President's policies, I will vote for the resolution.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
Mr. Gary G. Miller of California: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution condemning the President's proposal for achieving success in Iraq and overall victory in the global war on terror. We are not formulating policy today. We are not offering the President an alternative. All this resolution is saying is that we do not support our Commander in Chief, and all it is doing is emboldening the terrorist enemies we are facing today.
I am the first to welcome an open discussion about our involvement in Iraq. But, without the opportunity to consider an alternative, this is not open discussion. Why isn't this an open discussion? Because although the majority party has the authority to govern, they have no plan to lead.
For over a year, the majority party criticized the President for not making changes in his strategy in Iraq. Well, the President has made changes, and the majority party still is not satisfied.
We can all agree that our progress has not been as swift and decisive as we once hoped. We all recognize that the war in Iraq has carried on longer than we wanted and consumed more resources than we expected. However, we all knew from the beginning that it would not be easy, that the war against terror would not be a quick fight.
But when the going gets tough, it does not mean that we should give in and come home. As we cannot and must not turn back, we need a fresh approach to move forward. The President, along with his generals on the ground, have proposed a way forward. He has put forth a strategy to suppress the sectarian violence in Iraq and allow democratic reforms to take hold and economic institutions to flourish.
His plan is the only plan that provides for a way forward in Iraq. For us in Congress, it is not our job to become involved in tactical decisions that will lead to success in our mission. It is our responsibility to help shape the parameters of the mission and to conduct oversight on our progress in achieving the mission.
Republicans in Congress have proposed setting verifiable benchmarks with which we may measure our progress in Iraq. Such benchmarks will help us hold the Iraqi regime responsible for the progress made towards democracy, stability and peace in the country. We should be discussing our responsibility as oversight today, but we are not. We are left with debate on an empty and nonbinding resolution.
I am a proud cosponsor of Congressman Sam Johnson's bill to ensure that funding is not cut off or restricted for members of the Armed Forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must support every effort in our fight against terrorists. If the majority allowed us an opportunity, I would have gladly supported a vote on that bill to reaffirm that the House will not abandon our Armed Forces under any circumstance.
Whether the majority would like to acknowledge it or not, the fight we are engaged in against terrorists in Iraq is not a new fight. It has been waged for a decade. We have faced terrorists in Beirut, we have faced terrorists in Saudi Arabia, and we have faced terrorists here on our own soil on September 11, 2001.
We have learned it is absolutely essential to confront terrorists abroad before they attack us at home. Despite what some of you may say, our withdrawal will not end the terrorist threat. After all, it is they who have declared Iraq to be the central front in the struggle.
We cannot withdraw. We cannot send our troops and other allies the message that we will quit when the going gets tough. Instead, we must move forward with the operations in Iraq, with the Iraqi people, to ensure that peace and stability take hold. We must change our strategy as the situation in the field dictates. To do otherwise would be foolish.
But by maintaining our commitment in Iraq, we preserve the prospects of peace. By withdrawing, we surrender our chances of permanent stability in the Middle East.
This resolution in so many words says that we cannot be successful, and we are bound to fail. I refuse to agree. I refuse to undercut the brave work of our troops by questioning their abilities and refuse to allow terrorists to flourish and our enemies be emboldened and thereby let you, the American people, down.
Our brave men and women risk their lives to provide peace and security here at home, and we are all proud to know such patriots. These young men and women, full of promise, voluntarily defend our Nation wherever they are called.
It reminds me of a young man in my district, and I presented him with his Eagle Scout awards when he was 17 years old. It was in 2003. A little less than 2 years later than that, in 2004, I attended the funeral for Lance Corporal Abraham Simpson, who made the ultimate sacrifice in Fallujah. He was just 19 years old.
When I went to the parents of Abraham and presented a flag that was flown over our great Nation after the funeral, it was honestly one of the most moving experiences I have had, not only in my congressional career but of my life. When I looked at Abraham's father in his car, I couldn't talk. All I could say to him was, "I voted to send him there." Abraham's dad looked me square in the eye, with as serious a look as he could get, and he said, "Congressman, it was the right vote."
Like so many families across our country, the Simpson family has made a great sacrifice for our Nation. This resolution, however, says that the world, that the men and women like Lance Corporal Simpson, gave their lives for, was worthless, that America cannot be successful in the pursuit of which they nobly sacrificed themselves. I believe that we can. I know that if we stand firm in our principles and remain true to our convictions, we can succeed.
For that reason, I am going to vote "no" on this resolution.
I rise today in opposition to this resolution condemning the President's proposal for achieving success in Iraq and overall victory in the Global War on Terror.
I know I join many of my colleagues in lamenting the process by which we are considering this resolution. We are not formulating policy; we are not offering the President an alternative. All this resolution is saying is that we do not support our Commander in Chief and all it is doing is emboldening our terrorist enemies.
While the valiant men and women of our Armed Forces are fighting for freedom abroad, the majority party has cut off democracy here in the House of Representatives so that we may consider a partisan resolution.
I am the first to welcome an open discussion about our involvement in Iraq, but without the opportunity to consider alternatives, this is not an open discussion. And why is there no open discussion? Because although the majority party has the authority to govern, they have no plan to lead.
For over a year, the majority party criticized the President for not making changes to his strategy in Iraq. Well, the President has made changes, and the majority party is still not satisfied. Today, the majority party still opposes the President's strategy, but they have not offered any alternatives. They continue to criticize--destructively and not constructively.
We can all agree that our progress has not been as swift or as decisive as we once hoped. We all recognize that the war in Iraq has carried on longer than we wanted and consumed more resources than we first thought.
However, we all knew from the beginning that it would not be easy-- that the war against terror is not something that would be a quick fight, but that it would take years. As history has taught us, war is not an easy prospect and sometimes does not go according to plan.
But when the going gets tough, this does not mean that we should give in and come home. That is not the American way--that is not how America honors its commitments and carries out its obligations. And it is not how America pays respect to those who have fallen in its service.
As we cannot--and must not--turn back, we need a fresh approach to move forward. The President, along with his generals on the ground, has proposed a way forward. He has put forth a strategy to suppress the sectarian violence in Iraq to allow democratic reforms to take hold and economic institutions to flourish.
His plan is the only plan that provides for a way forward in Iraq. While the majority party proposes to stand still and do nothing, the President's plan aims to allow American forces to stand down as the Iraqi people stand up.
For us in Congress, it is not our job to become involved in the tactical decisions that will lead to success in our mission. It is our responsibility to help shape the parameters of our mission and to conduct oversight on our progress in achieving the mission.
Republicans in Congress have proposed setting verifiable benchmarks with which we may measure our progress in Iraq. These strategic benchmarks, concerning the transfer of military operations to Iraqi-led units, the development of democratic institutions and the rule of law in Iraq, and increased regional cooperation and stabilization, are important in moving forward in Iraq. Such benchmarks will help us hold the Iraqi regime responsible for the progress made toward democracy, stability, and peace in their country.
There is, however, no attempt at oversight in this resolution. Once again, all the majority party is doing is complaining without providing an alternative. We should be discussing our responsibility at oversight today. But we are not. We are left with debate on this empty and nonbinding resolution.
Troop Support and Funding
No matter what, we must support funding for our troops that are serving in harm's way--with no ifs, ands, or buts. I am a proud cosponsor of Congressman Sam Johnson's bill to ensure funding is not cut off or restricted for members of the Armed Forces deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. We must support every effort in our fight against terrorists.
If the majority allowed us the opportunity, I would have gladly supported a vote on this bill to reaffirm to our troops, our constituents, and our enemies that the House will not abandon our Armed Forces--under any circumstances. Unfortunately, Republican voices were shut out of this process and we are left to consider this empty and non-binding resolution.
All we heard on this floor for the last year was talk about bipartisanship and cooperation. The talk was about the need to be more bipartisan. Boy, we sure do have short memories. Despite the partisan atmosphere here in the House, the fact is that we have to be successful in Iraq because the consequences of our withdrawal would be disastrous.
Whether the majority would like to acknowledge it or not, the fight we are engaged in against terrorists in Iraq is not a new fight--it has been waged for decades. We have faced terrorists in Beirut. We have faced terrorists in Saudi Arabia. And we have faced terrorists on our own soil--on September 11, 2001. We have learned that it is absolutely essential to confront terrorists abroad before they may attack us at home.
If we withdraw from Iraq, we give our terrorist enemies--and they are our enemies--a safe haven from which to plan their attacks against us and our allies. Despite what some of you may say, our withdrawal will not end the terrorist threat. After all, it is they who have declared Iraq to be the central front in this struggle. If we withdraw, it will only encourage the terrorists. They will not rest until their agenda of violence and hatred is advanced worldwide. We cannot withdraw. We cannot send our troops and our allies the message that we will quit when the going gets tough.
Instead, we must move forward with operations in Iraq--with the Iraqi people--to ensure that peace and stability take hold. We must change our strategy as the situation in the field dictates. To do otherwise would be foolish. But by maintaining our commitment to Iraq, we preserve the prospects of peace. By withdrawing, we surrender our chances for permanent stability in the Middle East.
The United States has a long and proud history of championing liberty. As a Civil War history enthusiast, I am reminded of the parallels between this generation's fight against terrorism and the Civil War. Both wars brought new and grave challenges to our people and our way of life. Both struggles were fraught with opposition in the press and in Congress. But imagine what would have happened to our nation if President Lincoln did not continue the fight to preserve our union.
Just as Lincoln fought against all odds and in the face of grave danger to ensure freedom for all people and to preserve democracy, our troops are doing the same today. Just as Lincoln was successful by standing firm in his commitment to liberty and democracy, I strongly believe that we can--and will--be successful in Iraq if we are to ensure our freedom for the future.
This resolution, in so many words, says that we cannot be successful--that we are bound to fail. I refuse to agree. I refuse to undercut the bravel work of our troops by questioning their abilities. I refuse to abandon our Iraqi allies when they need us the most. And I refuse to allow terrorism to flourish and our enemies to be emboldened and thereby let you, the American people, down.
Instead, we must go forward. We must continue to support our troops and their important work in Iraq. We must tell them loudly and clearly that the American people stand with them as they fight to bring liberty and security to Iraq.
Most importantly, we must honor our troops and the memory of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom by rejecting this empty resolution. These brave men and women risk their lives to provide peace and security here at home and we are all proud to know such patriots.
As members of Congress, we all understand the responsibility we have when our nation calls our best and brightest to serve in harm's way. These young men and women, full of promise, voluntarily defend our nation wherever they are called.
One such brave young man from my district was Marine Lance Corporal Abraham Simpson from Chino, California. In early 2003, I presented Abraham with his Eagle Scout award to recognize his achievement of the Boy Scouts' highest rank. A little less than two years later, in November 2004, Lance Corporal Simpson made the ultimate sacrifice during the Battle of Fallujah. He was just 19 years old.
When I presented his parents with a flag flown over the Capitol of this great Nation, it was one of the most moving moments not only of my congressional career, but of my life. All I could say to Abraham's father was, "I voted to send him there." He looked me square in the eyes and he said, "Congressman, it was the right vote."
To honor his cousin's sacrifice, Marine Sergeant Jonathan Simpson, who had originally joined the Marines as a flight navigator, asked to be transferred so he could fight on the front lines. Jonathan Simpson was killed during combat operations in Iraq in October 2006.
Abraham and Jonathan Simpson, true American heroes, gave their lives in service to this Nation, and for that--and for all of our fallen heroes--I will always be humbled and grateful. Like so many other families across our country, the Simpson family has made a great sacrifice for our Nation, our ideals, and our freedom.
This resolution, however, says to the world that men and women like Lance Corporal Simpson and Sergeant Simpson gave their lives for naught--that America cannot be successful in the pursuit for which they nobly sacrificed. I believe we can. I know if we stand firm in our principles and remain true to our convictions we can succeed.
For this reason, I wholeheartedly oppose this empty resolution and strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mrs. Tauscher: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of debate time remaining.
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentlewoman from Florida has 10 minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from California has 14 minutes remaining.
Mrs. Tauscher: Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, there are two fundamental questions we face in voting on this resolution: First, is it appropriate for Congress to express its views on the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq? And second, is the escalation the best use of military forces in our war on terrorism?
First let me say that it is wrong for anyone in this debate to question the
patriotism of someone on the other side of that issue. That tactic was tried by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. It was wrong then, it is wrong now.
In our democracy, there is nothing patriotic about questioning the patriotism of someone with an opposing view. We all love our country; we all support our troops; and we all want to defend America from terrorism.
On the appropriateness of this resolution being before the House, I believe this debate is consistent with our Founding Fathers' deep commitment to the constitutional checks and balances of government. They chose to make the President our Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. At the same time, they chose not to give the President the authority to declare war or to fund a war. Those solemn responsibilities were given to the Congress in article I of the Constitution.
It is noteworthy that on the most solemn act of government, to put citizens into harm's way, our Founding Fathers clearly chose to put in place constitutional checks and balances on the executive branch. This resolution is a proper exercise of that constitutional principle, especially given this war has now lasted longer than America's involvement in World War II, with no end in sight. Blind allegiance to the executive branch is not a constitutional principle.
The second question before us is whether the escalation in Iraq is the best use of U.S. military forces in our war on terrorism.
After nearly 4 years of combat, two facts are indisputable: First, our service men and women have served our Nation with courage and professionalism. They and their families have sacrificed above and beyond the call of duty, and I salute them.
Second; there have been major mistakes made by policymakers in Washington that have complicated at every step the challenges our troops have faced in Iraq, dead wrong intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's involvement with September 11; rejecting General Shinseki's call to send an adequate amount of troops to Iraq in 2003, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, the de-Baathification process, inadequate armor for our troops; and the repeated assertion that the insurgency was on its last leg, despite facts to the contrary.
Given mistakes made in the build-up to this war and its management, and the enormity of this issue in terms of lives at risk and our Nation's future, it is time for Congress to give a voice to the clear majority of the American people who oppose escalation in Iraq.
Since the President has already started the escalation, I personally hope and pray that he is right, and that more U.S. troops in Iraq will lead to long-term stability there. However, in good conscience, I must express my profound concerns for this policy for several reasons.
First; I believe until the Iraqi government creates a government that is respected by Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, no amount of U.S. forces can stop sectarian violence there in the long run.
Second; I want U.S. forces fighting terrorists, not standing on street corners in Baghdad as target practice for Sunnis and Shiites locked into deep-rooted sectarian violence.
Third; I believe it is necessary to send a blunt wake-up call to the Iraqi political leaders that America has sacrificed our sons and daughters and hundreds of billions of dollars for their nation, but we will not do so forever for an incompetent government that is rife with corruption and sectarian bias. This is not a test of America's will, rather, it is a test of the Iraqi government's will to make the tough choices to ensure its nation's own future.
Fourth; with the increasingly serious situation in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda and the Taliban are resurging, we will definitely need additional U.S. troops there to prevent the kind of chaos that is rampant in Iraq.
For these reasons I believe this resolution is the appropriate and the right thing to do. This resolution will send an unequivocal message to the Iraqi political leaders that the time to end their corruption, their incompetence, and sectarian favoritism is over. When that message is truly heard, then and only then will there be real hope for stable and lasting peace in Iraq.
I urge support of this resolution.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).
Mr. Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution. I oppose the resolution not for what it says, but for what it does and what it will lead to.
As someone who enlisted at the age of 18 and spent 6 years as a member of the Air National Guard, I can tell you firsthand that this resolution will undermine our troops' morale and diminish their ability to accomplish their mission.
Passage of this resolution is also a first step towards cutting funding for our troops, and that is something that I absolutely cannot support.
Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is an important part of the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will go beyond being a disaster for American foreign policy. Failure would destabilize the country, destabilize the Middle East, and make America less safe.
The American people are well aware of al Qaeda's plans to turn Iraq into a staging area to spread global terrorism. Failure in Iraq would also result in diminished influence and credibility for America at a time when global alliances are critical to address threats from Iran and North Korea.
Mr. Speaker, this week I have been briefed by the U.S. intelligence officers, foreign ambassadors from the region, and I have reached out to many of my constituents, including Colonel John Saputo, who served in Iraq, and Colonel Lee Kitchen, who served in Vietnam. We all agree that although legitimate questions can be raised about whether this surge strategy will prove successful, the stakes are too high, the threats to America too great to walk away without giving our troops one last chance to restore order in Iraq. Passage of this resolution would deny our military leaders and our troops this one last opportunity.
Like all Americans, I want to bring our troops home safely, successfully and soon, but now is not the time for an immediate withdrawal. Now is the time to support our troops, support the values they fight for, and do everything possible to give them the best chance to succeed in their mission. This resolution does nothing to help in those efforts. In fact, it does the opposite. It is for this reason that I must oppose this resolution.
Mrs. Tauscher: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 157, and as the designee of the majority leader, I demand that the time for debate be enlarged by 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the leaders or their designees.
The Speaker pro tempore: Under the rule, that will be the order.
Mrs. Tauscher: Mr. Speaker, at this time I am honored to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. Slaughter: I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, this week on the floor, the House will provide our Nation with a clear, unambiguous answer to the most important question facing the country: Will this body side with the President's approach to the war in Iraq, or will we demand change?
Since Tuesday we have been debating President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. It is a debate that was long overdue and one which the American people and our troops risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve.
The simple reality is that two-thirds of the American public, including myself, do not trust the President's judgment when it comes to the war. It is a conflict that has been defined by mismanagement and misinformation since it began, and the results have been devastating for the Iraqi people and for our men and women in uniform.
We know that top administration officials, men like Douglas Feith, abused the public trust and misused the work of the intelligence community when making the case for the war. Since then, every piece of evidence suggests that the strategy employed by this administration has failed in Iraq. Sectarian strife in Iraq has not abated, with routine bombings that kill dozens of civilians daily. The unemployment rate in Iraq is as high as 25 percent and 40 percent. Baghdad has only a few hours of electricity per day.
Our troops have continued to pay the price of being caught in the middle of
another nation's civil war. 84 troops were killed last month, 48 more have been killed already this month.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, corruption, fraud and lack of oversight have haunted every aspect of our involvement in Iraq. Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, has uncovered $10 billion in reconstruction funding that simply disappeared once it was sent overseas. Projects critical to the rebuilding and stabilization of Iraq society have been handed out to private firms, using no-bid contracts, firms that failed to live up to their responsibilities.
To cite one example, the construction of a new Baghdad police college to train Iraqi security officers, a $75 million project of vital importance to stability, was completely undermined by a private construction company. The work was so shoddy that the classrooms it built posed a health risk to the students and had to be abandoned. That same fraud and lack of oversight for years have posed mortal risk to our soldiers.
In January of 2006, we learned that 80 percent of the U.S. Marines who had died of upper body wounds in Iraq would have lived if they had had the proper armor. A Pentagon report released last month stated once again that our troops have been sent into battle time and time again without proper armor equipment, a reality which still exists today.
This simply hasn't been a case of going to war with the army you have, as Mr. Rumsfeld said. We have faced these shortages in part because the Pentagon contracts were given to companies who weren't up to the job and couldn't meet the demands of the conflict.
A legitimate question might be, are we funding the troops or are we funding crooked contractors and Iraqi government officials? Hundreds of dollars have simply disappeared. These are borrowed dollars, ladies and gentlemen, mainly from China.
My friends on the other side of the aisle made two arguments against the resolution. They have told us that to condemn the President's surge means that this Congress is giving up in Iraq, and they told us that we cannot support the troops without supporting their mission.
Our troops have done their job in Iraq and they have risked their lives countless times, but now they are being asked to do something that no army can do, find a military solution to a political problem. If the mission we have given our brave soldiers is the wrong one, and the past 4 years prove that it is, why would we help our enemies by refusing to change course? If that mission is the wrong one, how is supporting the mission that is wrong supporting the troops? If the mission is the wrong one, then how is demanding a change giving up? Giving up means just the opposite, it means insisting on a continuing failing strategy.
This escalation of the war is the same failed strategy, all it will do is put more and more of our young men and women in harm's way. That reality has led it to be opposed by a bipartisan majority in this House. A Republican Representative recently said, "This is not a fresh approach, it is just more of the same."
The plan has been publicly opposed by numerous high-ranking generals, such as General John Abizaid, General Colin Powell and General James T. Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. He recently said that the Joint Chiefs "do not believe that just adding numbers for the sake of adding numbers, just thickening the mix, is the necessary way to go."
We need to stop this escalation and change what we are doing in Iraq. We need to promote a political solution and a diplomatic solution to the problems.
I urge the passage of this resolution.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Fossella, who represents the families of multiple victims of the 9/11 attacks on our Nation.
(Mr. Fossella asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Fossella: I thank the lady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the question before us is whether the front line in the war on terrorism moves from Baghdad back to America.
Although this resolution is nonbinding, the message it sends to our troops on the battlefield and to our enemies is crystal clear. Our words have consequences, as powerful as our actions. We must choose them carefully, for they are being listened to all over the world. And the words this Congress speaks today will send a message to both our allies and enemies about our resolve.
It is not a contradiction to support our warriors in battle and also to seek a lasting peace. That principle has guided us through tougher times than this. Indeed, it is America's gift from one generation to the next that we create a Nation that is stronger, freer, more prosperous, and more likely to enjoy God's world in peace.
To abdicate this responsibility for political expediency is a dereliction of duty and a sign of lost faith in the promise of America.
Throughout history, it has been proven that you cannot surrender the battlefield and still win the war. This war on terrorism was thrust upon us. America and other free nations were attacked by evil forces. To leave these forces unchecked would stoke the insatiable appetite of the beast. We know this because we have seen it before.
Regarding the fall of Cambodia, Henry Kissinger wrote:
Sirik Matak, who was the prime minister, was asked by then Ambassador John Dean if he would like to be evacuated, as the United States had just announced it was leaving. The prime minister responded, in part: Thank you for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion.
As for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you have the sentiment of abandoning people which have chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under the sky. But mark it well, that if I shall die here on this spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter because we are all born and we must die. I have only committed this mistake in believing in you, the Americans.
The very next day the New York Times reported the evacuation with the following headline, "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, a Better Life."
As for the Prime Minister, he was shot; and it took him 3 days to die without medical help. Every other government official and their families were executed, and one to two million Cambodians were rousted from their homes and led to the slaughter like cattle.
Is this the fate we wish to leave millions of Iraqis who have tasted freedom after decades of oppression?
Is this the fate we wish for our allies and the leaders who are nurturing an infant democracy?
Is this the legacy we choose for our airmen and our soldiers and for those heroes who have fallen?
With an open mind I have spent hours this week listening to the debate. Like many Americans, I was willing to listen to new ideas and explore a new course in Iraq. But an opportunity was wasted, because all I have heard is no from the other side. I have not heard a plan, nor have I heard a strategy.
And let me be clear. It is not my place to question one's motivation or patriotism. But I can question judgment. This resolution is either an endorsement of the status quo or a clarion call of retreat, and neither is acceptable to me or to many in this Chamber.
Some now talk about a slow bleed strategy to cut off funding for our troops. I ask, if we surrender this battlefield, which battlefield will our enemy choose next? Will it be New York? Will it be Los Angeles? Will it be Washington, D.C.? Appeasement does not work. Just look back. The World Trade Center in 1993, Somalia, the Khobar Towers, Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole and, of course, September 11, 2001.
This copy of the Staten Island Advance, my local paper, shows the faces of some of the victims, 240 on this sheet alone. These are the people I knew, and they were the people who we promised, these 240 people who left 450
children without parents because they perished because evil people attacked this country. We made a promise to them that we will never let this happen again. I ask you, do we break that covenant? Do we surrender to the beast? To that I simply respond, no.
Mrs. Tauscher: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. Wu: Fanaticism, George Santyana famously said, is "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim."
Let us measure our efforts against our aims in Iraq. After great effort, Saddam is dead. After long effort, we have established there are no WMD. We have eliminated Iraq as a threat to its neighbors. We have achieved the President's Iraq war aims.
Why are we sending 21,000 more troops there, rather than redeploying all our troops out of Iraq? Because we have forgotten our aims. Now we referee a civil war between the peoples of Iraq. The President admitted as much in his State of the Union, saying "This is not the war we entered but the war that we are in."
The use of force resolution we passed in 2002 nowhere authorizes our participation in an Iraqi civil war. It has, therefore, expired. The President must come back to Congress for reauthorization if he wishes to war further in Iraq or to extend the war to Iran.
The fact that we are in a civil war is backed up by our own national intelligence estimate, as well as my conversations with soldiers who served, serve or who will serve in Iraq.
I share with you a typical comment: "I joined the Army, and I will go as many times as they send me. But I will tell you what. These folks have been killing each other for 1,000 years. They are killing each other today and may kill each other for another thousand years. I just don't see what good we are doing there."
This loyal soldier deserves our support and our protection.
John Murtha's efforts to craft an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to protect our troops is commendable. No soldier should be repeatedly deployed to Iraq without being rested, retrained and ready. To do so otherwise is an abuse of our citizen soldiers. It is a criminal dereliction of duty. It is an abuse of power.
The Constitution gives Congress the express power to regulate the military. We must exercise this responsibility and stop the abuse of our troops by building thoughtful guidelines into our defense appropriations bills.
Some want us to believe that we must either stand aside and let the President have his way or use the blunt axe of cutting off all funding for the Iraq war. Not true. Not only does the Constitution give to Congress, not the President, the power and responsibility to regulate the military, there is ample precedent to support Congress's authority in wartime.
In the 19th century, Congress went so far as to require President Andrew Johnson to obtain the signature of General Ulysses S. Grant to any of the President's military orders before it could become valid. The President obeyed.
President Truman was forced in the Youngstown Steel case to recognize that his powers as Commander in Chief were severely limited when they undermined congressional decisions. Even though a steel strike seriously affected our ability to fight the Korean war, the Commander in Chief could not act independently of Nation's laws.
President Bush needs to learn that we are a Nation of laws and that no one in America is above the law. He needs to listen to the American people. He should heed our professional military, rather than shop for a convenient opinion.
The American people understand the challenges in Iraq are political and that no amount of military force can retrieve the situation. Only the Iraqis can solve the problems of Iraq. Our staying merely delays their day of full responsibility, and that is why this Iraqi government asked us not to escalate until, like our own generals, they were browbeaten into submission by President Bush.
We must end this war with a minimum of domestic recrimination, a maximum of motive and opportunity for the many peoples of Iraq to solve their own problems without genocide, one last chance to win the war in Afghanistan, the last known mailing address of Osama bin Laden, and we must begin the long task of rebuilding America's foreign policy on its traditional bipartisan basis.
We must forsake fanaticism and never forget our national aims.
My colleagues, this President has never had the authorization from Congress to enter a civil war in Iraq. Our mission is done. Bring the troops home.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
Mrs. Cubin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Concurrent
This proposal sends a dangerous message to the terrorists in Iraq. It informs them that they have succeeded in dividing us, that they should continue training their fighters, rebuilding their resources, and then they should attack with their full force when we leave.
There is no denying the difficulty of our current situation in Iraq. Terrible fractures exist along ethnic and religious fault lines. The need to stabilize Baghdad has never been more apparent.
All these realities are reflected in the President's new way forward, which is much more than just an increase in troop strength.
On January 10, the President changed the strategy on how we will fight this war. The President has laid out in great detail a plan for the Iraqis to take a leading role in their own security, a plan to isolate violent extremism and protect Iraq's citizens, a plan to make room for political and economic progress.
Most importantly, though, this is a plan for victory, to stabilize Iraq, to secure Iraq's democratic future, and then to bring our troops home.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Forces committee, General David Petraeus, the commanding officer in Iraq, described the implementation of the President's plan, as "a test of wills."
General Petraeus confirmed that the congressional action against the President's new plan would only encourage our enemies. Today, the will of the House of Representatives is being put to the test.
Underpinning the resolution before us today are calls to defund our military in a time of war. This proposal most certainly does not pass the test of wills. Rather, it puts us on a path to defeat.
The expulsion of U.S. troops from Iraq is critical to al Qaeda's plan to spread their deadly jihad beyond September 11, 2001, beyond Iraq's borders, and into the greater Middle East and the rest of the world.
Failing to achieve victory in Iraq will roll back the clock in the war on terror, giving al Qaeda the opportunity to establish a base in the heart of the Arab world, a place to train, rebuild resources, and plot the demise of American citizens across the globe.
A rapid U.S. withdrawal would lead to chaos, sectarian genocide, and military intervention by Iraq's neighbors.
We can, as the President has proposed, pass the test of wills and implement our plan for victory. The alternative to the President's plan is to retreat from our objectives, setting the stage for regional conflict in which terrorist agitators like al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah will thrive.
Radical Islamists have declared war on the United States. This is a harsh and striking reality. We did not choose to be put in the cross- hairs of terrorists, and yet we have been for decades.
We do have a choice, however, in whether or not we have the will to win this war. My choice is to provide for the safety of our citizens and the security of future generations. My choice is to oppose today's misguided and dangerous resolution. My choice is to vote "no," and I urge my colleagues to vote "no."
Mrs. Tauscher: Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Clarke).
Ms. Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in unwavering support of our troops. I support our troops who are stationed around the globe and, particularly, those stationed in harm's way in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why I wholeheartedly support H. Con. Res. 63 which disapproves of the President's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional combat troops to Iraq, because support of our troops means I must vote to move them out of harm's way.
This 110th Congress debate marks the beginning of the end of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq and a realignment of our strategy utilizing America's might against the war on terror.
Mr. Speaker, we now know that nothing said in justification of this war was fact. It was all fiction created by this administration to justify the unjustifiable.
Our military service men and women are doing their duty. They have accomplished their mission. They have brought Saddam Hussein to justice. Remember, "Mission Accomplished."
This administration has distracted us from the real war on terror, the war with al Qaeda. When are we going to bring Osama bin Laden to justice?
In Afghanistan, U.S. Central Command General Tommy Franks, the war's operational commander, misjudged the interest of our Afghan allies. He ran the war from Tampa, with no commander on the ground above the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. The first Americans did not arrive until 3 days into the fighting.
It is noted that Osama bin Laden slipped through the cordon ostensibly placed around Tora Bora as U.S. aircraft began bombing on November 30, 2002. More precisely, bin Laden was in Tora Bora on November 26, 2002, spoke to his fighters about the fight being a holy war, then, as quickly as he had come, bin Laden vanished in the pine forest with four of his loyalists walking in the direction of Pakistan.
Bin Laden escaped somewhere between November 28 and November 30, 2002, in Afghanistan.
Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, Department of Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, "He," meaning Osama bin Laden, "doesn't have a lot of good options." Obviously, that was false.
Further, it was reported that the administration pays bin Laden no attention, and that is evidenced by the fact that official reports no longer identify Osama bin Laden as a threat. The administration anticipated that they would have bin Laden erased by September 11, 2002. They failed at that mission.
Again, the failure of this administration to get the job done, to secure our homeland, and to get the man who masterminded the attacks upon us and continues to recruit and train al Qaeda agents is parallel to the failures of the mission in Iraq. The administration did not plan to fail; they failed to plan.
I support the men and women who put their lives on the line for our liberty. I am indebted to them, the sacrifices that they have made, and that is why I support this resolution. We must redeploy and make preparations to leave Iraq today.
As the representative of the 11th District from New York, I and my constituents deeply resent the lies and deceptions thrust upon us to justify this war by creating a distraction away from homeland security we all require as an inalienable right. The fire that I witnessed that refused to die was stamped out by the resilience of New Yorkers, Americans who believe in our democracy and the ultimate victory of good over evil.
The question I have and the question of the people from New York and the rest of America wants answered is: When will Osama bin Laden be brought to justice?
Thanks to the failed policies of this administration, Iraq is now in the midst of a civil war. Due to the lies and deceptions, the civil war in Iraq is now raging. We must redeploy our troops now. Thus far, there are 135,544 troops deployed in Iraq today.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), with whom I had the opportunity to visit his Pennsylvania troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Gerlach: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the status quo in Iraq is unacceptable, and allowing our enemies to win is unacceptable, too. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this House Democrat leadership resolution, H. Con. Res. 63, for three specific reasons:
First, the language of the resolution is essentially meaningless. Its passage will place the Congress on the side of the status quo.
I heard the Speaker say a few days ago that it is time for a "new direction" in Iraq. But where is this "new direction" in this resolution? It doesn't demand that all the troops return home. It doesn't advise the President to send more troops or even to reassign or relocate one soldier who is in the field today. It simply states, in essence, the current plan is bad. That may be good politics for some in this Chamber, but it is highly irresponsible and is certainly no way to fight a war.
If Congress wants to be a true partner in this fight, we must offer clear guidance, not mere criticism of the Commander in Chief. Unfortunately, this resolution is irresponsibly silent on what the "new direction" ought to be.
The second reason to oppose this resolution is that it is fundamentally vague and ambiguous. By only saying that Congress opposes the President's troop surge proposal of January 10, the resolution does not differentiate between the positive aspects of what the President called for on that date and the more controversial elements as well.
For example, I continue to have a tremendous concern over the President's plan for increasing our military force level in Baghdad to fight the sectarian violence between the Sunni and Shi'a factions of the Iraqi population. With the current lack of commitment of some Iraqi security forces and police forces to deal effectively with this violence, I am not confident of success of this surge into Baghdad. Nonetheless, I do think the strategy is correct in calling for additional American troops to go to Anbar Province to fight al Qaeda terrorists in that part of Iraq and to add more troops along the Iraq- Iranian border to interdict the flow of arms and more terrorists.
But, unfortunately, again, this resolution does not differentiate between these critical elements of the President's strategy and, therefore, on its face is weak and flawed.
The third reason to oppose this resolution is that it serves to undercut the morale and the support of our fighting men and women at the very time they are carrying out their orders. The President's decision of January 10 is now being implemented. Our troops are already carrying out this mission in the field.
I know of no instance in our Nation's history when Congress has passed a resolution disapproving a mission while that mission is in progress in the field. Can any proponent of this resolution come to the floor and cite a case where Congress has undertaken this type of action while a mission is already under way?
Any politician, it seems to me, who openly disapproves of an ongoing mission in the field only undercuts troop spirit and morale as they move forward, and that clearly lends support to the aims and the goals of our enemies. But don't accept my view on this. Listen to Gary Kurpius, the National Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, who states that this resolution debate is "a major distraction to U.S. forces because it does nothing to improve the morale or strength of their resolve."
So while I cannot support this resolution for these reasons, I do believe there is a "new direction" for us, as Republicans and Democrats, to unite behind and support. H. Con. Res. 45, introduced by Congressman Frank Wolf, would declare Congress's support for the numerous recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, a distinguished group of Republicans and Democrats that have set forth a plan of action deserving of administration, congressional, and public support.
Included in the group's recommendation is the call to establish milestones of success for military training, government stability, national reconciliation, which would result in Iraqis taking control of their country and allowing our troops to withdraw; number two, to create an Iraq International Support Group to work with the Iraqi government to achieve these milestones; and, three, to focus U.S. assistance on training of Iraqi police forces and military personnel with the goal of completing the training by early 2008 so American troops can return home.
Contrary to the flawed, simplistic, and purely political resolution before us, the Wolf resolution offers clear, bipartisan, and nonpolitical direction for Congress to support and to promote in this very difficult time in our involvement in Iraq. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote down H. Con. Res. 63 and for the Democrat leadership in the House to immediately allow H. Con. Res. 45 to be voted in the full House. Because the status quo in Iraq is unacceptable and victory for our enemies is also unacceptable.
Mrs. Tauscher: Mr. Speaker, I am happy at this time to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. Fattah: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
My colleague from Pennsylvania is concerned about victory for our enemies. Well, the victory for our enemies is made possible by our pursuing a failed policy.
We are creating an inevitable situation in which our country continues to lose prestige and support around the world. But, much more importantly, we are losing the precious lives of our young people; and tens of thousands have been injured.
I was over at Walter Reed. I met and visited with some of the wounded soldiers. And I will never forget the day I met Cassandra Bryant, 20 years old, who lost both her legs to an improvised explosive device in Iraq. She was in a mechanical unit that was supposedly nowhere near the front line, but, nonetheless, for the rest of her life, she will have to go without her legs. Her sacrifice on behalf of our country, if in the face of a national security threat, would be understandable, and she was prepared to even give more. But to sacrifice so much. Our young people have done it in a place in a war that we should have never fought, we should have never been in.
There was ample information and evidence that Saddam possessed no weapons of mass destruction. The international inspectors were forced out of the country when, first of all, they found none and they wanted to continue their work.
This administration rushed to judgment into a war in which we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars and in which over 3,000 young people have lost their lives. And in Philadelphia, for Mrs. Zappala and for Mrs. Jeff Coat and for other mothers and fathers who have lost their sons and daughters in Iraq, this war and this effort in Iraq, which some suggest if we would just prosecute it more vigorously would somehow overnight become a success, we need to look at the conduct of this war on behalf of our Armed Forces.
This administration has failed our troops on the ground on so many occasions. On one occasion, there was a shortage of bullets. On others, we have seen reports that they were not having access to enough long rifles. We know that they have never had, in the 4 years now, enough up-armored vehicles to be able to do their patrols. We have failed to provide the body armor and Kevlar vests that are necessary and in the quantities that are needed.
The embarrassment of the conduct of this war is only equal to the stupidity that took us to Iraq in the first place. And what we need to do is not just vote in support of this resolution but this Congress would do better if we would understand that our young men and women don't wear Democrat or Republican dog tags. They are sons and daughters of our country. They are precious. Their willingness to sacrifice on behalf of our Nation should not be taken for granted.
We should move to redeploy. Forget the question of an additional surge. Why would we want to have our young people in a situation where the only time the Sunnis and the Shiites stop killing each other is when they both are willing to turn their weapons against our young people?
We are in the middle of a civil war. Clearly, in the case of a civil war, the definition suggests that we are unwelcome visitors. We should redeploy.
And if there are needs, and I think there are, for peacekeeping and stabilization forces, we should ask some of our friendly Arab countries in the region to provide some of their troops. We provide over $1 billion a year to the Egyptian military, one of the largest in the world and the largest in the Arab world. They do joint training with our troops and have done so for decades. If there is a need for troops, let us get our young people out of the way. And since the President said we went there in part to stabilize the region for our friendly Arab neighbors, let them step forward now and secure the region.
Our young people have done the hard work. They have done the heavy lifting. They have died on the fields of battle in Iraq, and it is time for this Congress to act responsibly. Let us rise on this day and speak not just in symbol but in substance on behalf of the fighting men and women of the American military.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Culberson: Mr. Speaker, the vote today is very simple: Will America give up and walk away from the fight to preserve American civilization? Are we proud of our military and will we support them and protect them in time of war?
The people of Houston's District Seven are immensely proud of the men and women of our Armed Forces. We want our soldiers and their commanders and our Commander in Chief to know that we will always support them and to know that we will do our best to protect them, especially in time of war; and we thank them for keeping us safe and free from another terrorist attack for 1,985 days.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Houston's District Seven, I will vote no, to tell our enemies and our friends that Americans will never quit and Americans will never surrender in the fight to preserve, protect, and defend American freedom.
Mrs. Tauscher: Mr. Speaker, I am very honored at this time to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from the great State of California (Mr. Waxman), the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Mr. Waxman: I thank my good friend for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, this administration has mishandled the situation in Iraq from the very beginning.
It misled the country into a war based on false and misleading statements about the threat from Iraq.
It failed to plan for the aftermath of the military victory.
It assumed that we would be greeted as liberators, the occupation would be brief, and that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.
It sent our troops to battle with dangerous shortages in body armor and devices needed to defuse remote-controlled bombs.
It sent in too few troops to Iraq to provide security, leaving the Iraqi people to rely on their sectarian militias to give them some protection from the chaos.
It disbanded the Iraqi army and, through an anti-Baathists campaign, gave the Sunnis a sense that the U.S. was aiding the Shiites against them.
It refused to take on war profiteering, even as auditors, investigators and inspector generals unearthed massive graft, fraud and abuse by reconstruction contractors.
It alienated the Iraqi people with the shameful and criminal acts of Abu Ghraib prison.
What we now have in Iraq is a defeat. We cannot achieve the illusions of the Bush administration that we will be able to create a stable, unified, liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. Instead, we have sectarian fighting, death squads and a destabilized Middle East that threatens to be engulfed by the nightmare that we have unleashed.
The administration's mistakes have weakened our fight against al Qaeda. In fact, the war has enhanced the group's terrorist recruitment. The planned escalation in Iraq will divert more troops, resources and attention from the pursuit of Osama bin Laden's operation in Afghanistan; and we have enhanced the influence of Iran, not just in Iraq but throughout the region.
The President proposes an escalation of a failed policy. The fighting now only prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. We are trying now to mediate a civil war, which is impossible. Instead, we are being drawn into that civil war by trying to prop up
a government that, in the final analysis, cannot unite the country.
Politically, this administration has tied the faith of American soldiers to a Shi'a-dominated government that lacks the authority, the will and the manpower to stop the roving gangs and insurgent militias that have shattered Iraqi society. Instead of acknowledging these failures and embarking on a new course of action, the President gives us more of the same: Send more troops to Iraq.
We need to redefine our mission and our hopes for "success." Our goal should be to try to stabilize the situation, stop the killing, contain the violence.
We cannot do it alone, and we cannot do it militarily. We must seek a diplomatic strategy with Iraq's neighbors and the international community.
Certainly, it will take more action than just the resolution before us to bring about the policy changes that we need. The Congress must stand ready to use the checks and balances necessary to extract ourselves from the morass we face in Iraq. We can do that through more oversight, but it is also time for Congress to use the appropriations process to end this war.
We should pass this resolution and make it clear to the President that we will not stand for more of the same.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the ranking member of a subcommittee.
Mr. Gallegly: I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, my concern about the Iraq resolution offered by my friends on the other side of the aisle is what impact it will have on our troops and our mission and its consequences on our mission. How can you say support our troops when you don't support sending in the people necessary to back them up to do the job that we sent them there to do to start with?
Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker, about who the real enemy is. We are at war with the Islamic jihadists. Jihadists have vowed to destroy America, the West and all sympathizers with democracy. We are at war for our very existence against jihadists who have vowed to enslave us with a fundamentalist philosophy that rejects all human rights.
The consequences of failure in Iraq are not just failure in Iraq. Iraq's stability has direct repercussions on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and all of the Middle East. If our efforts to bring peace and stability to Iraq are successful, we will accomplish a great deal. If not, if Iraq fails, it will provide Islamic jihadists with a sanctuary similar to the one we removed from Afghanistan, only the sanctuary in Iraq would be many times worse, as the terrorists would have access to billions of dollars of oil resources to carry out their evil plans. Such a sanctuary would threaten Europe and the United States.
If we are in support of our military men and women, we must support their mission against Islamic jihadists. The alternative is defeat in Iraq and a greater threat of attack here at home.
A defeat in Iraq would not just be a defeat for the United States. It would also set back any chance for peace and stability in the Middle East. It would empower terrorists to unleash greater sectarian violence, which would draw all of Iraq's neighbors into a Sunni versus Shi'a conflict for control of Iraq.
I am also concerned about the resolution because it does not offer any alternative whatsoever that could lead to a successful outcome for the United States in Iraq. All the resolution does is to criticize the President's plan to augment our existing force in Iraq by 21,000-plus troops.
The Democratic resolution offers no other plan. It does not address what should be the right strategy or the right tactics. In effect, and I think this is the real issue, it endorses the status quo in Iraq, a position that I certainly can't support, and I hear lots of those that are supporting this say they can't support either, but they are de facto supporting the status quo by supporting this resolution.
I look forward to the majority offering a comprehensive proposal that would set forth a specific course of action. Then we could have a real debate on the pros and cons of the Democratic plan versus the President's plan to secure Iraq and defeat the terrorists in that country. Unfortunately, the resolution before us fails to do this, and therefore I can't support it. It should be rejected.
Mrs. Tauscher: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. Higgins: Mr. Speaker, as this debate comes to a close, much has been said. Certainly not everything. The House is considering a resolution concerning the Iraq war. It expresses the unequivocal support of this body for the American troops serving in Iraq and for their families. This resolution expresses opposition to the President's planned surge, escalation, augmentation. Call it what you will. But, more than anything else, this resolution opposes the administration's deeper commitment to a fundamentally and deeply flawed military strategy.
The fact is that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki lacks the authority or the will to confront Shi'a militias. To do so would result in a major confrontation with the militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr, without whom the Iraqi government has little support. These dangerous Iraqi alliances and compelling evidence of a strong Iranian alliance demonstrates how weak the National Unity Government is and how pathetically dependent we are on them for success in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve much better. Surging troop levels in Iraq was tried in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Each time, it failed to reduce violence and only served to inflame anti-American sentiment.
Under the President's plan, it is still the American troops that do most of the fighting and, regrettably, will do most of the dying. For any decent outcome in Iraq, the President has to be serious about setting and enforcing deadlines. The President needs to demand that Prime Minister Maliki stop protecting the militias and make clear there will be serious consequences if he continues to do so.
The problem in Iraq is the same as it was when the conflict started: American war planners never provided the resources to successfully create a vital and secure center from which a functioning society could evolve.
The history is clear. Modern Iraq was born out of a strong nationalist aspiration in the early 20th century. Shi'a, Sunni, Christians and Jews stood united against the British and peacefully created and coexisted in a new, ethnically diverse Iraq.
Then, Iraqis prayed at each other's mosques. Today, Shi'a and Sunni militias bomb each other's mosques with impunity. Last month, 70 college students were slaughtered by a car bomb in Baghdad. Iraqi weddings, funerals and schools are the regular targets of suicide bombers. These are called "revenge killings." They are carried out in the name of destiny and in the name of God.
Where is the outrage? Where is the condemnation for these atrocities in the Arab Muslim community? Nowhere does the Koran talk about revenge killings, violence, hate or intolerance. The Koran describes the Prophet Muhammad as the Prophet of Mercy. At the core of Islamic belief is compassion, forgiveness and tolerance: To you your faith and to me mine.
Absent the real possibility of a functioning government, a functioning society, a functioning economy, the National Unity Government of Iraq cannot succeed because it lacks legitimacy in the very eyes of those it seeks to govern. Elections and forming governments are the symbols of democracy. Legitimacy in the eyes of the governed is the substance of democracy and that of free and open societies throughout the world.
Madam Speaker, I don't stand here as a partisan. I am an American, and I want my country to succeed. I want my President to succeed, regardless of party affiliation, regardless of who he or she may be.
The fact of the matter is, we have an obligation to tell the truth to the American people at every level, militarily and politically. This strategy, advanced and sustained by this administration, has been an abject failure.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. Chabot: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to express our appreciation to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. I have met with our troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan and our wounded soldiers in Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospitals and the families of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice defending our freedoms. We thank them for their unwavering commitment to our country and believe we owe it to them to have an open and honest debate regarding our next steps in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the war in Iraq has been challenging. We are fighting a war against terrorists and radical Islamic militants who are determined to kill as many Americans as possible. They believe that killing American soldiers will drive us out of Iraq and out of the Middle East, allowing radical terrorists free rein and a base to expand their influence around the world.
These are the same radical Islamic militants who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, the Khobar Towers in 1996, the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000. We surely can't forget the slaughter of 3,000 innocent American citizens on our soil. And just last year a couple arrested in Britain planned to use their 6-month-old baby as a human bomb to destroy a civilian airliner over the Atlantic Ocean.
We must recognize that we are dealing with irrational, radical, maniacal monsters who will not respond to diplomatic niceties.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the vast majority of Americans do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, just as they do not support a never-ending deployment of U.S. forces there. They want us, they expect us, to work together and with the President to find a way to win the war on terror while bringing our troops home as soon as possible.
We should be past the point of political posturing when it comes to Iraq. Yet this resolution is more of the same, once again placing politics over policy. Instead of encouraging substantive discussion on options in Iraq, the majority has once again shut us out of the process and refused to consider any alternative to their point of view. That is truly unfortunate because this nonbinding resolution does nothing to increase the accountability of the Iraqi government or provide for our troops or even propose a new course in Iraq.
We all agree that this administration has made mistakes in Iraq. Most harmful, I believe, has been the slow pace of training Iraq troops and security forces to take responsibility for their own country. Early lapses in this area are a principal reason why our troops remain in Iraq today.
But the administration has taken action to accelerate this training and better prepare Iraqi forces. So now it is time for the Iraqi government to demonstrate that it has the ability to confront the problems facing their country, both politically and militarily. That is why it is so important that we hold the Iraqi government accountable for what they say they are going to do and require them to take the lead in securing their Nation. The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people must recognize that they, not American troops, are responsible for the future of their country.
With that being said, we must continue to support our troops and commanders on the ground by giving them the resources they need to be successful. It would be a tragic mistake to cut off funding or limit support for our troops fighting against terrorists abroad. We also must be very careful about the message we send to our allies and our enemies and, most importantly, to our troops in the field who have performed with great courage.
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group has stated that it could support a shorter redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective, and that is a quote from the Iraq Study Group report. Well, General Petraeus says that it can be effective.
Clearly, the path forward must include military and political strategic benchmarks so that we are in a position to measure the progress and commitment of the Iraqi government, but we must also be willing to give our troops, who have sacrificed so much for our Nation, the opportunity and the resources to be successful and provide the short-term support needed to achieve increased stability in Iraq.
There are serious consequences to our national security if we fail in Iraq. Cutting off funding, limiting military options or pushing for immediate withdrawal will only make our future more dangerous. It is time to stop the politics, stop the games, stop the finger pointing, and do what is best for America. Let us put partisanship aside and discuss concrete plans on how we can defeat radical terrorists and protect our Nation from those who mean us great harm.
Mrs. Tauscher: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Ross): The Democratic side has 9 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) has 13 minutes remaining.
Mrs. Tauscher: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 157 and as the designee of the majority leader, I demand that the time for debate be enlarged by 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the leaders or their designees.
The Speaker pro tempore: Under the rule, that will be the order.
Mrs. Tauscher: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a member of the Defense appropriations subcommittee.
Mr. Rothman: I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing my deepest appreciation and gratitude to the men and women of our Armed Forces, to the families of those who have died, who have been wounded or are presently in harm's way.
My prayers and all of my efforts as a United States Congressman are devoted to ensuring the well-being and support of our military, as they fight to protect our Nation, to honoring their memories, and to helping them when they return to our country.
Mr. Speaker, after we deposed Saddam Hussein and removed him from power, it became clear to most Americans and most people around the world that so much of what our President had told us about Iraq was not true. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Saddam had no intention of sending Iraqi agents to slaughter Americans on our shores, and Saddam had precious little, if any, contact with foreign terrorists or anyone else who wanted to do harm to America.
Mr. Speaker, now after nearly 4 years and the death of more than 3,100 American servicemen and -women, after more than 23,000 American men and women have been wounded, and after the United States has spent almost one-half a trillion U.S. taxpayer dollars in Iraq, I believe we have met our moral obligation to the people of Iraq.
We have given the Iraqi people an opportunity over nearly 4 years to decide whether they will live together with themselves in peace, neighbor to neighbor, Iraqi, Sunni, Shia and Kurd.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi people have not yet decided they want to live together with one another in Iraq in peace.
Our having our United States brave young men and women standing there, being shot at, being blown up is not encouraging the Iraqis to live together in peace. Not only are our troops dying and being wounded, but 80 percent of the Iraqi people say they want us to leave their country immediately.
Mr. Speaker, President Bush implies that al Qaeda will take over Iraq if we leave. In my opinion that is nonsense. Today, you have less than 1,500 al Qaeda in Iraq. Iraq has a population of 25 million people. Today, you have not only Iraqi Shiites killing al Qaeda Sunnis, you have Iraqi Sunnis killing al Qaeda Sunnis. They don't like foreigners in Iraq, whether they be Sunnis, and especially if they are al Qaeda or Americans.
Mr. Speaker, the only hope that our enemies have to destroy the United States is to have us remain bogged down in the swamp of the Iraqi civil war. Are we smart enough to pull ourselves out of that swamp of the Iraqi civil war? Or are we going to continue to allow our Nation to have our soldiers bled, our resources taken away, our equipment destroyed, taking our attention away from the other military threats and realities in this very hostile world?
I believe that the United States' vital national interests will only be served if we withdraw all of our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible for the safety of our troops being uppermost in our minds. Then we can leave several thousand in the region just in case. We can, more importantly, encourage the regional players, through diplomacy, to come together to help the Iraqis decide to live in peace.
Mr. Speaker, leaving Iraq's civil war will serve America's vital national interests by allowing us to rebuild what is now a depleted U.S. Army and U.S. Marines, a military that is not fully up to its strategic requirements to deal with all the possible threats in the world.
We need to refocus on Afghanistan and the resurgence of the Taliban. We need to be prepared militarily for the potential threats from North Korea, Iran and, yes, even the People's Republic of China.
It is also important that we take these resources that we have been spending in Iraq not only to rebuild our military but to spend the money here at home. There is al Qaeda in 60 Nations in the world. They have pledged to come to America and harm us; yet we have spent more money in Iraq since 9/11 than we have spent on our homeland security needs.
Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, that is the truth and that has to change.
Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for this resolution. Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia have an interest in stabilizing Iraq. They will not permit the destruction of that country. They are afraid of refugees coming into their countries and destabilizing their Nation.
We need to vote for this resolution and withdraw from Iraq.
