(Mr. Lamborn asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Lamborn: Madam Speaker, time is running out to send our troops the funds and resources they need to continue their critical mission in Iraq. It is time to pass a porkless supplemental bill aimed at victory rather than defeat.
The National Intelligence Estimate released in January warned of the perils of an early troop withdrawal stating, "If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq."
Many on the other side of the aisle urge Congress to heed the other warnings in this document, yet they willfully ignore this particular warning. They prefer a strategy that would tie the hands of our military commanders on the ground, removing our troops and continuing a defeatist policy of cut and run.
It is obvious to me that Washington Democrats would exploit our troops to make a political statement rather than work in a bipartisan fashion to provide our brave men and women in uniform the funding they need.
Madam Speaker, it is time we vote a clean supplemental to give our troops the support they must have.
(Mr. Butterfield asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. Butterfield: Madam Speaker, it is absolutely correct: 4 years ago President Bush stood before this sign declaring "Mission Accomplished," but today he insists on staying the course. To accomplish our own mission, President Bush needs to listen. He needs to listen to the retired military generals who support the approach of this Congress.
Retired MG Paul Eaton said, "This bill gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi Government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group.
LTG William Odom said, "The bill gives the President a chance to pull back from a disastrous course, reorient U.S. strategy to achieve regional stability, and win help from many other countries, the only way peace will eventually be achieved."
Major General Montano said the bill "not only reflects the thinking of the Iraq Study Group but puts teeth to the phrase of 'supporting our troops."'
Madam Speaker, the President needs to listen. He needs to listen to these retired generals.
And, Mr. President, I will not address you directly, but I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to allow me to say that the bill will be on his desk this afternoon.
(Mr. David Davis of Tennessee asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. David Davis of Tennessee: Madam Speaker, here we are again. Another week has gone by, and we are still discussing the Iraq emergency supplemental. The Democrats were successful in forwarding a strategy of cut and run, knowing the entire time their strategy would be vetoed by the President.
It is an ill-conceived idea to state you support the troops on the one hand while on the other hand you push forward with legislation that you know has no chance of gaining the President's support. I believe the Democrat leadership owes the American people an explanation of why they would do this.
Time is up and the Democrats need to come back to the realization that our troops don't deserve to be caught in the political mess between the radical left and the rest of the Democrat Party. It is time for a clean supplemental to come to the floor so that we can send the President a bill that supports our troops without handcuffing our generals and withdrawing our troops before this critical mission is complete.
(Mr. McDermott asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McDermott: Madam Speaker, 4 years after the banner was unfurled, these are the missions that have been accomplished by the President:
America is more divided than at any time since the Vietnam War. The Iraq Government has before it a sweetheart deal that benefits Big Oil that the U.S. brokered behind the scenes. Read Josh Holland's investigative piece on alternet.com;
America is increasingly isolated in the Arab world, and countries that looked up to America now look out or look the other way. Read Rami Khouri's commentary published in the April 19 issue of the Daily Star in Lebanon;
The number of Pentagon contractors in Iraq who are profiting in the spoils of war, raking in vast sums of U.S. taxpayer money, nearly equals the number of U.S. soldiers. Read "Iraq War: a Nice Little Earner" in the Asia Times newspaper dated April 19;
Americans are so fed up with the President's state of denial that they returned Democratic majorities to the House and Senate last November. Read the April 26 editorial in my hometown newspaper, the Seattle PI: "Iraq: Keep Speaking Out."
Missions accomplished? All but the most important one: getting U.S. soldiers out of Iraq.
That is the will of the American people and the mission of the new Congress.
(Mr. Mahoney of Florida asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. Mahoney of Florida: Madam Speaker, on Sunday in a speech at Miami Dade College, the President said to graduating students, "One of the great strengths of America is that the most important issues are decided by the will of the people."
Today, on the fourth anniversary of "Mission Accomplished," the President is faced with a choice: either listen to the will of the American people to refocus our strengths to win the war on terror by signing the emergency supplemental bill or continue to send our brave men and women into harm's way to police a religious civil war.
Madam Speaker, today the President will decide if he will veto our bill and, in doing so, deny critical funding for our troops and for our veterans. His veto will let our troops down by not giving them the rest, the equipment, and training they need.
Madam Speaker, today all Americans need to pray for our President. We need to pray for wisdom. We need to pray that he listens to his advisers, his generals, the Iraqi people. And, most importantly, we pray that he will listen to the will of the American people.
(Mr. Smith of Nebraska asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. Smith of Nebraska: Madam Speaker, it is my hope that we can come together and agree on an Iraq emergency supplemental that provides the resources our troops need without tying the hands of our generals and forcing them to adhere to unrealistic timetables.
Last week in a Chicago Tribune editorial, they stated: "President Bush will veto the war spending bill approved by Congress this week because it contains a timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. He is right to do so."
With a new commanding general on the ground and the surge strategy still ramping up, our troops deserve this chance to make progress, and we are starting to see signs in Iraq that things are modestly improving.
I urge my colleagues to support a clean supplemental and to encourage patience as we heard 4 years ago before we even went to Iraq that this would be a long time coming, that our ultimate goal in accomplishing victory in Iraq would take some time. We need to listen to those comments, and, again, I urge patience.
(Ms. Sutton asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. Sutton: Madam Speaker, the American people have demanded a new direction in Iraq, and last week this Congress voted to put an end to the administration's failed stay-the-course policy.
The President should support our troops and sign this responsible bill instead of issuing veto threats that continue to ignore the reality of our troops' being caught in the middle of a civil war. It is ironic that we are expecting the President to veto this bill to bring our troops home 4 years to the day after he declared the job done in Iraq. It is time for accountability from the administration and from the Iraqi Government.
Our bill provides what the American people are demanding and what our troops need: a responsible policy that funds our troops, demands accountability from the administration and the Iraqi Government, and supports our veterans.
The President should listen to Congress. Sign this bill, take the funding, and accept accountability.
(Mr. Walberg asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. Walberg: Madam Speaker, time is running out to send our troops the funds and resources they need to continue their critical mission in Iraq.
The new congressional majority ensured the veto the President promised by submitting a supplemental loaded with pork and a timeline for retreat on our commanders in the field. Now it's time to pass a clean supplemental.
The National Intelligence Estimate released in January warned of the perils of an early troop withdrawal, stating: "If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq."
Many on the other side of the aisle urge Congress to heed the words in this document; yet they stare blindly at it as they force a strategy of retreat and defeat. This leads me to believe that the new congressional majority would rather use our troops to make a political statement than work in bipartisan fashion to give our brave men and women in uniform the funding they need.
It's time we vote on a clean supplemental and give the troops the support they deserve.
(Mr. Shuster asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. Shuster: Madam Speaker, our enemies are listening, and they are planning on our actions today, just like the North Vietnamese did decades ago. And don't believe me, but listen to the words of Colonel Bui Tin, who served on the general's staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal in 1995, he drew some important parallels to the debate today. When asked how the North Vietnamese intended to defeat America, Colonel Tin responded, "by fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam." He went on to quote Ho Chi Minh, who said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out." Colonel Tin said the American antiwar movement was essential to their strategy. He said it represented the conscience of America and the conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor.
Through protests, America lost its ability to mobilize a will to win. That is what this supplemental does here today. Let's listen to the past and not repeat its mistakes. Let's pass a clean bill and give our soldiers what they need to win.
(Ms. Solis asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. Solis: Madam Speaker, I would just like to say that there has been a lot of talk about Democrats cutting and running and not helping our troops. Well, I would like to clarify the record on my own behalf.
Just a month ago, I had an opportunity, with four other Members of Congress, to visit Iraq, to visit our soldiers. I met with many, many platoons and individuals representing my State of California. We are there working hard. We need to support those troops.
Indeed, many of them said that they have been on their second and third tours. They were exhausted. They wanted to come home and see their families. One young man told me he hadn't even seen his child, who had been born 18 months already. Several of them told me that they did not have adequate equipment. And I said please explain that. "Well, ma'am, we don't have light bulbs." "What do you need light bulbs for?" "We need light bulbs for our vehicles. When we go into town and we are checking for explosive devices, we have vehicles that are not adequately equipped."
In addition, with the escalation going on right now, they are having to share their equipment with the troops that are coming in. That is shameful. That is what this administration has done to our troops.
Democrats are asking for a signature on the supplemental because we care about those troops and we care about the benefits that they deserve.
(Mr. Pascrell asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. Pascrell: Madam Speaker, 1,460 days ago, we had lost 139 troops, brave men and women, in Iraq. 1,460 days later, Sergeant Michael Hullender from my district, from Little Falls, New Jersey, died on Saturday when an IED detonated near his patrol. He is one of 3,214 more troops that have died since supposedly major operations would cease.
The President made the Iraqi people believe that a new day of democracy was dawning and that brighter times lay ahead. Even the reconstruction of Iraq has gone awry. Even the reconstruction has been bought by the filthy hands of contractors who are concerned only for profit.
The President made the American people believe that the war was over, that the thousands of sailors who stood on the deck of that aircraft carrier that day were coming home soon. They did not.
The President has an opportunity to mend his ways this afternoon. Let's see what he does.
(Mr. George Miller of California asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. George Miller of California: Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, in a few minutes, the President of the United States will veto the legislation to hold the Iraqi government responsible and accountable for the benchmarks that they promised their citizens and the citizens of this country. Tonight, after 24,000 U.S. soldiers have been wounded, 3,212 have been killed, and the country has descended into a bloody civil war, what we now see is the basis on which the President told this country he wanted the surge in the escalation was that he would hold the Iraqi government responsible.
In January, he said he would hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks as announced, and that if no progress is made, they would lose the support of the American people. The fact is that no progress has been made, and the Brookings Institute has shown us that situation.
What we see now, as Secretary Rice says, that the administration believes that holding the Iraqis accountable to these benchmarks that they establish as the price of the surge "doesn't allow us the flexibility and creativity we need to move forward."
You can be creative all you want but unless the Iraqis know that there are consequences, and that is what this legislation said, that if you can't reach these benchmarks, if you can't establish a civil society, then we will withdraw our troops.
Right now, under President Bush's proposal under Secretary Rice's proposal, what we see as the only people paying the price are the American soldiers. Those are the only people paying the price tonight.
Today marks a sad anniversary for this, country.
Four years ago today, President Bush declared that the mission in Iraq was accomplished and that major combat operations in Iraq were over.
Since that time, 24,270 U.S. soldiers have been wounded, 3,212 have been killed, and the country has descended into a bloody civil war that we cannot stop nor should we referee.
It is time for America to redeploy it's troops from Iraq.
That's why today, Congress sent a bill to the President's desk that would do just that: to redeploy from Iraq.
It's what a majority of the American people want, and it's what a majority of the United States Congress wants.
But instead of ending the war, the President is pursuing a war with no end in sight.
He refuses to hold the Iraqi government accountable for the benchmarks it promised to achieve: to establish a government supported by its people that can provide for its own security.
In January, the President said that "If the Iraqi Government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people."
Well Mr. President, the Iraqi's have not followed through, and your war has lost the support of the American people and a majority of the United States Congress.
According to a study by the Brookings Institute, there has been "no progress thus far" achieving the administration's benchmarks.
Yet, despite the President's promise in January to "hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it has announced," the administration has flip flopped.
On Sunday, Secretary Rice said the administration believes that holding the Iraqis accountable "doesn't allow us the flexibility and creativity that we need to move this forward."
You can be creative as you want, but unless the Iraqis know that there are consequences to not living up to their end of the bargain, American Soldiers, taxpayers will continue to make all of the sacrifices and bear all the costs. And that is unacceptable.
Optimism is not a strategy. Ignoring the facts and misleading the country is not a path to victory.
It is time for the Iraqi's to be held accountable, and to take charge of their own country.
And it is time that the President yield to the will of the Nation, and end our occupation of Iraq now.
(Ms. Lee asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Ms. Lee: Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago, President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, in front of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished," and told us that a major combat operation had ended. Since then, 3,200 United States troops have died in Iraq, and almost 25,000 have been wounded, and countless Iraqis.
The President has said that he will veto a bill very shortly that sets a goal for ending the occupation of Iraq signaling his insistence on an open-ended commitment to a failed policy. Rather than change course, the administration offers only increasingly desperate rhetoric about victory and surrender.
The fact is, you cannot win an occupation just as there is no way that the United States can win a civil war. The American people recognize that this failed policy is making our Nation and the world less safe, even if the Bush administration refuses to recognize this.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are squarely behind our efforts to end the occupation of Iraq and to bring our troops home, and history will record the President's veto of those efforts with the same ridicule as it does his remarks 4 years ago.
(Mr. Bishop of New York asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. Bishop of New York: Mr. Speaker, the Country Reports on Terrorism released by the State Department yesterday indicate that terrorist attacks increased by 25 percent last year, and more than 40 percent more people were killed. In these most dangerous times, this tells us we can't afford to take our focus off the global war on terror. Still, exactly 4 years after the President proclaimed mission accomplished aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, his failed Iraq policy persists in overextending our armed forces and in refusing to compel Iraq to take responsibility for their own security and future.
Today, when the President vetoes withdrawal provisions supported by a majority of Americans, he places another's obstacle in the way of what should be our priority mission, winning the global war on terror. We know the administration's stay-the-course policy in Iraq is a failure. We know it has taken our eye off the war on terror.
Now we have the numbers to back up that statement and the proof we need to stop the President from compounding this Nation's single greatest foreign policy mistakes. I encourage my colleagues to consider the hard and irrefutable evidence by the State Department, thereby advancing our withdrawal from Iraq.
(Mr. Stearns asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Stearns: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the Senate gave overwhelming unanimous consent for General Petraeus to implement his strategy in Iraq. We all agree, on both sides of the aisle, he is the best we have. In fact, he has written a manual dealing with terrorists.
So why do the Democrats want to withdraw funds to support him starting the first of July? Even as we speak, the troops have to reallocate funds and prioritize their missions, because they don't have the full funding. In fact, they will run out of money shortly. So why do the Democrats not allow General Petraeus to do his job? General Petraeus intends to report back in September with a complete report on how we are doing. That is a very short amount of time, in fact, 5 months away.
He deserves a chance, and he deserves full funding for this Congress through the fiscal year 2007. So I urge Congress, after the President vetoes this bill, to come back and give a clean bill so that the President can get full funding for our troops, at least through fiscal year 2007.
The Speaker pro tempore: Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Woolsey: Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to commemorate an important event in the ongoing occupation of Iraq. On May 1, 2003, 4 years ago today, President Bush, the Commander in Chief, strode across the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared that the United States mission in Iraq was accomplished.
Mission accomplished. Mission accomplished? I don't think so. Let's review what has and what has not happened in Iraq since May 1, 2003.
American troops were not met in the streets with flowers as welcoming liberators. Instead, they've met with sniper attacks and IEDs. 3,351 American servicemen and women have given their lives, and nearly 25,000, probably more, have returned home seriously wounded.
This administration has hidden the caskets of those who have perished, and forced the wounded to rehabilitate in mold-infested, rotting facilities. Are those actions of a grateful Nation? Does this mean mission accomplished?
What about the weapons of mass destruction? Where are they? Nobody knows. Even former head of the CIA, George Tenet, is now backing away from his "slam dunk" comment.
Yellow cake? Aluminum tubes? Al Qaeda ties to Saddam? An ousted CIA agent and a jail term for a senior administration official? It is as if this administration has been living in Alice's world of Wonderland.
The mission is yet to be accomplished. An accomplished mission would have brought peace and democracy to the Iraqi people. Neighborhoods would be free, not walled off, and a bomb would not have been set in the Iraqi Parliament building.
Estimates range upward from 50,000 Iraqis killed and tens of thousands of refugees fleeing to neighboring countries like Syria. This is not how to promote peace and democracy.
Let's see. Thousands, tens of thousands of refugees, and the United States allowed 7 or 8 Iraqi refugees into our country last month. We've made all those refugees happen, and we are doing nothing to help them.
It takes a small protection force to go to the market in Baghdad, and the Secretaries of State and Defense must make surprise visits to Iraq because their security might not be insured otherwise.
So I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, what mission was accomplished? The destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure? The mass exodus of the educated and wealthy from Iraq? The mission of alienating the United States on the global stage? The rise of hatred in countries who might have been our ally?
This is unacceptable, and the American people know it. They sent that message loud. They sent it clear last November, and it echoes unheard in the White House.
What is clear, Mr. Speaker, is that this mission is not accomplished. The ultimate mission to be accomplished is to bring our troops home. Then we can say, "Mission Accomplished."
