[Page: H4014]---
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 868 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 868
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 861) declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) ten hours of debate equally divided and controlled among the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one motion to recommit which may not include instructions.
[Page: H4015]
Sec. 2. During consideration of House Resolution 861 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) is recognized for 1 hour.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and insert tabular and extraneous material into the RECORD.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of House Resolution 861.
Mr. Speaker, the rule is a closed rule providing 10 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
It waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution and provides one motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions.
It further provides that, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, in the context of today's debate, I believe there are four relevant questions we must consider. First, should we have entered the war in Iraq? Second, with Saddam Hussein gone, what are the stakes in terms of our involvement in Iraq? Third, what are the chances for success in Iraq? And finally, where will the battle be won or lost? I would like to consider each of those questions in turn.
First, should we have entered the war in Iraq? I remind the Members of this House that it was official policy of the United States Government beginning in 1998, agreed to by both Houses of Congress, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We had good reason to do so. This is a person who had twice launched regional wars and took over a million lives; who pursued and nearly acquired nuclear weapons on two different occasions; who developed weapons of mass destruction and had used them against his own people; who was a state sponsor of terrorism; who had systematically worked his way out from under the restrictions applied to him by the United Nations; who had expelled weapons inspectors from his own country; who was a continuing threat; and, frankly, who had terrorized and brutalized and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein.
Second, with him gone, what is at stake in Iraq? For that I think we should turn to the enemies that we fight today. al Qaeda, they have designated this and other terrorist groups as the central battlefield in the war on terror. I quote from the chief theoretician of al Qaeda: ``Iraq is the greatest battlefield against the infidel and his native allies. It is not the American war machine that should be of utmost concern. What threatens the future is American democracy. To allow Iraq to build a democracy would represent our biggest defeat.'' So the stakes are certainly worth the effort.
Next, what are our chances of success in Iraq? Frankly, I think they are very good, for two reasons. First, obviously, the skill, the bravery, the professionalism of our own people which was demonstrated only last week when they cornered and killed al Zarqawi, one of the world's worst terrorists; but second, and we ought to note this, the Iraqi people themselves. It is they who stepped up under the most difficult of circumstances and turned out in successfully greater numbers at three different elections. It is they who, in the civil turmoil they are going through, have fashioned a Constitution, have created a permanent government. It is their leaders who run the risk of being killed every single day, and it is their people who are standing up literally by the thousands and fighting back to defend their own country and to move it forward to a hopeful and democratic future. So I think our chances of success in Iraq are good.
Finally, though, where will the battle be won or lost? Finally, Iraq is a crucial theater. What happens there with our military, what happens with the Iraqis is determinative to the outcome; but I would also suggest that the United States is itself a battlefield, a political battlefield. The real question is whether or not we will sustain the will that it takes to ultimately be successful, and that decision will be made not in Iraq but in Congress and in the United States itself.
So what we are about today is a fight, I think, that involves us on the most critical battlefield of all, the battlefield of American public opinion.
Mr. Speaker, today we may hear about the ``unfairness'' of this resolution. We may hear charges of a rigged process. Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker. The minority was asked to provide their own party substitute to this resolution, and they did not choose to do so. We were ready to make this in order in the Rules Committee. They did not do so, and we moved forward with our resolution.
Mr. Speaker, if the other side of the aisle would like to argue process rather than substance, that is certainly appropriate, and that is their privilege. They should vote against this resolution. If they disagree with the resolution in substance, they should vote against it. If they disagree with the resolution because they consider it ramrodded, they should vote against it. That is their right.
Frankly, I believe their real challenge is that they have no common unified position on Iraq as a party. Whether we are right or wrong on our side of the aisle, we do have a common position, and it is expressed in the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge those on both sides of the aisle who believe that winning the campaign in Iraq is of the utmost important in achieving success in the wider global war on terror to vote for this resolution. I believe that many Members of both parties will.
Mr. Speaker, to that end, I urge the support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we will not be having a real debate on Iraq today. It will be a pretend debate, one that will have absolutely no effect on U.S. policy. No amendments, no substitutes, no chance for Members of Congress to actually do their jobs by making thoughtful changes to the resolution.
The distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee testified before the Rules Committee that the resolution before us will at least give Members the opportunity to ``get things off our chest.''
Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in therapy. I am interested in changing this failed policy.
This process is disrespectful to the men and women of our Armed Forces, disrespectful to the people we represent, and disrespectful to the traditions of this House.
The Bush administration is trying to encourage, cajole, and sometimes even strong arm the Iraqi Government into being more inclusive, to respect the rights and privileges of the minority, to embrace the democratic process. Well, I hope the government of Iraq is not watching today, because the Republican majority certainly has no intention of teaching by example.
We are all committed to a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq. The important question remains, to achieve this goal, is the United States committed to keeping 150,000 or 100,000 or
[Page: H4016]
Under the current policy, the mission in Iraq is neverending. The resolution before us asks us not just to stay the course, but to stay forever.
The reason why so many of us, Democrats and Republicans, want to have a meaningful debate and meaningful votes on the war in Iraq is because the Bush administration has lost our confidence and our trust.
For too long this Congress has given the administration blank checks and unchecked authority. We have abdicated our responsibilities. We have not done our job, which is to legislate, to conduct oversight, and to shape the policy of this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, the reality of our policy in Iraq is one characterized by corruption, mismanagement, incompetence and self-delusion. 2,493 American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen have died since the beginning of the war, 94 percent of them since the President declared, ``Mission Accomplished.''
And despite unanimous congressional agreements against permanent military base funding, the Republican majority stripped these provisions from the emergency supplemental conference report presented to the House on Tuesday.
In the period leading up to the war, the President said, ``Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground.'' Unfortunately, we do not have to imagine that anymore. The State Department now reports that Iraq is indeed a terror haven. The very thing we wanted to prevent by going to war was actually created by the war.
Certainly the death of terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi is welcome news. We did not create Zarqawi, but it was the war in Iraq that offered him the opportunity to kill American soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians and to inflame sectarian hatreds.
But as we all know, foreign terrorists represent only 6 to 8 percent of those committing violence in Iraq. By far, most attacks are carried out by Iraqi Sunni insurgents and by the growing Shiia and Sunni sectarian groups battling each other.
The American-backed effort to arm tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and officers, coupled with a failure to curb a nearly equal number of militia gunmen, has created a galaxy of armed groups, each with its own loyalty and agenda. Sectarian violence has become almost as serious a threat as the insurgency. As former commander of U.S. Central Command General Anthony Zinni said in April, ``These militias will be a fact of life after we are gone. No one seems to have a plan for these militias.''
It is a disturbingly familiar refrain, Mr. Speaker: No one seems to have a plan.
On the ground, reconstruction is not going well. A plan to build 150 health care clinics has not resulted in much more than empty shells and uneven walls. Power blackouts remain a constant frustration. Only 19 percent of Iraqis today have working sewer connections, down from 24 percent before the war. While most Iraq reconstruction projects are way behind schedule, there is one construction effort that is right on target: the $592 million U.S. embassy, which will be the size of about 80 football fields.
The recent report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found massive corruption and mismanagement of U.S. aid. Billions of dollars have been lost or squandered through fraud and corruption, much of it by a handful of corporate contractors with special, privileged ties to the administration and a near complete lack of systematic oversight of funds.
And still, Mr. Speaker, there is no accountability for this money and no accountability for this war, not within the Republican White House and not here in this Republican House.
This is a critical point, because this debate must be about more than simply how long we will stay in Iraq.
Where is the accountability for the corruption taking place in our reconstruction projects? Where is the accountability for our troops receiving faulty body armor and other equipment? Where is the accountability for the lack of funding to provide services for all the veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who are dealing with post-traumatic stress and other needs? Where is the accountability for the creation of death squad-type militias within the Iraqi police and security forces? Where is the accountability for the abuse of prisoners and detainees which is costing the United States so much of its credibility and standing in the international community?
It is not the role of the Congress to turn a blind eye to whatever the administration wants to do. Quite the opposite. It is our responsibility to oversee every single taxpayer dollar that is being spent on this war.
The total bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan stands at $450 billion. If we stay in Iraq for just one more year, we will have spent, off budget, off the books, half a trillion dollars on this war, a debt that President Bush and the Republican majority intend to pass on to our children and our grandchildren.
Leadership, Mr. Speaker, requires courage. It requires taking responsibility. It requires accountability. It demands competence. In every single one of these areas, the White House, the Pentagon, this Republican Congress score an F for failure.
Instead, all the American people are getting is a world class PR and spin campaign coming out of the White House.
Make no mistake, H. Res. 861 requires no accountability from the White House or the Congress on the war in Iraq. It will not provide any increased protection for our troops on the ground. It will not protect our tax dollars from further waste, fraud, or abuse.
[Time: 10:45]
It won't demand direction, let alone a plan, from the President about how and when our troops will return home.
So here we are, treating the issue of war and the safety of our troops with a resolution that carries the same force of law as a resolution congratulating a sports team. Quite frankly, this process is an outrage and it should be rejected by this House.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 3/4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I remember the inexorable slide towards the absolute irrelevance of the international system during the decade of the 1990s and the first few years of this decade, Saddam Hussein having in fact purchased just about every relevant United Nations leader and world leader, in fact, even in our friendly continent of Europe, except of course for President Bush and Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Aznar. Saddam Hussein and, we must remember, Mr. Speaker, the Oil-for-Food program and its billions of dollars siphoned off to purchase world and United Nations leaders. Saddam Hussein flouted his disdain for the international community and its, according to him, silly norms, laws, and resolutions. Almost 20 of them, Mr. Speaker, he systematically ignored and laughed at.
He called in al Zarqawi of al Qaeda to Iraq, joining next door Afghanistan as a state dedicated to welcoming and fostering international terrorists. In Afghanistan, as my late father Rafael Diaz-Balart would tell me, my late father whose wisdom far exceeded his formal education of five degrees from universities in Europe and one on this continent, he would tell me, ``There in Afghanistan is the Taliban, the Taliban who torture women and who have opened that country to the training camps of international terrorists.''
And in 1993, we saw the attacks coming from those terrorists to here, to New York City, the World Trade Center, and then the bombings of American embassies in Africa, and even an attack on a United States ship, the Cole. Nothing happened. But then came 9/11, Mr. Speaker, and it became evident that we could no longer allow despots like Saddam and the Taliban to ignore international sanctions and resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council, no matter how many billions of dollars they spent purchasing world leaders.
This is, Mr. Speaker, the debate of our era. We cannot wait until international terrorism attacks us. We must
[Page: H4017]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.
Mr. SKELTON. I rise to speak against the rule. I take a back seat to no one in supporting our American military and their families. No one. But before us is a resolution that is not the fulfillment of a promise that we were given. We were told we would be able to have a debate on Iraq. That is not the case. This resolution covers the waterfront. Iraq is a singular war that we should discuss at length by itself.
You see, there are two ongoing wars: The war against terror, which has genesis in Afghanistan, and we did the right thing going in there. We are still chasing bin Laden, and some day we will get him. We toppled the Taliban. And then, of course, we went into Iraq based upon the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and we are there.
I sent two letters to the President of the United States warning about the aftermath, warning about what might very, very well happen after our national victory, and it came to pass. We have an insurgency there which is different and distinct from terrorists.
The insurgency is composed of Baathists, Fedayeen, and Sunni, who were basically in charge under Saddam Hussein. This is their attempt to knock down the government that is there and to establish their own, far from being the terrorists that we went after in Afghanistan.
Two wars. That is why this is a disingenuous resolution before us.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding time, and I rise in support of this rule and the underlying resolution.
Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a global war that we did not seek but that was brought to our shores by actions of terrorists on September 11, 2001. The global war on terror is unlike other past wars. In the past the United States fought a clear enemy state. Today we fight an enemy without borders that threatens our free way of life.
When George Washington was elected as our first President, there was a king in France, a czarina in Russia, an emperor in China, and a shogun in Japan. The American President was the only elected leader at that time. Today, countries in every continent elect their own leaders. The number of democracies currently stands at an all-time high and has been growing without interruption for some time. Freedom and self-government is on the march around the world.
Mr. Speaker, why is this important? It is important, Mr. Speaker, because history has shown that those countries who elect their leaders are less belligerent than those who do not. Democracy and freedom are a threat to the terrorist ideology, which is why they fight so hard to keep self-government from taking hold.
The Middle East is an area where democracy has faced significant challenge. It is a region where we have seen entrenched dictatorships, continued violence, and civil unrest.
In an article from the Washington Times on June 12, Mark Stein cites four separate and recent incidents that took place in Baghdad, London, Toronto and Mogadishu. He goes on to say, and I quote, ``The world divides those who think the above are all part of the same story and those who figure they are strictly local items of no wider significance.'' I believe that these events are all rooted in the same ideology, and the United States, as the leader of the free world, stands in the way of this ideology.
We must not forget the sacrifice our military is making for the security and support of our ideals. They are fighting the enemy abroad so we will not have to fight them here. We must continue to support our troops and stay focused on defeating terrorism in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 868 and the underlying resolution declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, which is essential to the security of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a global war that we did not seek, but that was brought to our shores by the actions of terrorists on September 11, 2001. The Global War on Terror is unlike all other wars. In past wars the United States fought a clear enemy state--today, we fight an enemy without borders that threatens our free way of life.
When George Washington was elected the first President there was a king in France, a czarina in Russia, an emperor in China, and a shogun in Japan. The American President was the only elected leader at the time. Today, countries on every continent elect their own leaders. The number of democracies currently stands at an all-time high, and has been growing without interruption for some time. Freedom and self-government is on the march around the world. History has shown that those countries who elect their leaders are less belligerent than those that do not.
Democracy and freedom are a threat to the terrorists' ideology, which is why they fight so hard to keep self-government from taking hold. The Middle East is an area where democracy has faced significant challenges--it is a region where we see entrenched dictatorships, continued violence and civil unrest.
In an article from the Washington Times on June 12, Mark Steyn cites four separate and recent incidents that took place in Baghdad, London, Toronto and Mogadishu. He goes on to say, ``The world divides into those who think the above are all part of the same story and those who figure they're strictly local items of no wider significance .....'' I believe these events are all rooted in the same ideology. The United States as the leader of the free world stands in the way of this ideology.
Mr. Speaker, this Global War on Terror is protecting the freedoms that terrorists seek to destroy by any means necessary. Throughout this war, the terrorists have been emboldened by weakness, but fortunately it is the brave actions of our military men and women who are proving to our enemy that America will persevere. We must not forget the sacrifice our military is making for our security and in support of our ideals. They are fighting the enemy abroad, so that we will not have to fight them here.
I am proud of the soldiers from my area in Central Washington who have stepped forward to defend our nation's security. In addition to contributing to the Global War on Terror in manpower--my district is home to the Yakima Training Center--where the soldiers of the Stryker Brigade train in settings designed to simulate real battlefield conditions in the War on Terror. They are helping to transform our military into a force that can meet the readiness demands of this new conflict.
As our troops employ the latest techniques to combat terrorism in this modern war--they clearly demonstrate the dedication and honor of military men and women before them. This has been apparent the two times I have traveled to Iraq, and when I visit with troops returning from the front.
Mr. Speaker, the Global War on Terror is not a war we sought, but it is one we must continue to fight and is vital we win. We face a clear choice today. Do we back down in the face of a determined enemy for a temporary reprieve, or do we stand firm and fight the terrorists abroad? I believe the answer is obvious. We must stand firm on the Global War on Terror.
While more work remains--thanks to our troops, America is safer. Saddam Hussein is being brought to justice and Iraq is being stabilized so that it is not a haven for future terrorist activities. We must continue to support our troops and stay focused on defeating terrorism in Iraq and around the world in order to keep American families and communities safe at home.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying resolution that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the House Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, about two centuries ago, almost, this country was facing a war that devastated it for generations. The first day, the first battle was going to be at Bull Run, not far from here in Washington, and I am sure that some Members of Congress and many other citizens of Washington packed up lunches, got in their horse and buggy, and went out to watch the fight. Suddenly, they found the Union forces
[Page: H4018]
Today, our brave Union forces are again in the field, are suffering great casualties, and what is happening today when we finally get around to talking about Iraq 4 years after it happened? We are going to have a picnic. So later today everybody will stop and go to the White House and discuss the picnic. There is something so surreal and Alice in Wonderland about all the things that have been going on around here, but let me tell you of a different time.
In 1991, leading up to the first Gulf War, this Congress had a real debate about that conflict, one that was said to be one of the best of the 20th century, because in 1991 the House was a real deliberative body. We had three resolutions to consider; actually, the minority resolution, there were two Democrats and one minority leader resolution, was the one that passed in a Democrat Congress, and every Member who wanted it had 5 minutes to speak their mind. We debated for 20 hours on that, and it was a wonderful time because we all took part in something we cared so deeply about.
Contrast that with what this Republican leadership is giving us now, a day not about policy or progress but about politics and posturing. It is a day designed to provide the majority with a chance to make cheap political attacks against Democrats in anticipation of upcoming mid-term elections at a time when Americans and Iraqis are giving their lives in one of the most brutal wars of our time.
Yesterday, an internal Republican memo was circulated outlining the party's plan of attack for today. It instructs Republicans to paint a picture of ``A Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismissed the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world.'' We are going to hear a lot of that empty propaganda today, I am absolutely sure. But how will that divisive rhetoric help our soldiers abroad, Mr. Speaker? What can it possibly have to do with the war we are fighting?
If this memo didn't show us the real motivations behind today, last night's meeting of the Rules Committee certainly did. My fellow Democrats and I had a simple request at the meeting. We asked for the rule to be an open one. An open rule would have given any Member on any side of the House who wanted to speak a chance to do so. And what is more, an open rule would have permitted Members from both sides of the aisle to present amendments to the resolution so that we could do more than just talk, so that we could try to improve the flawed policies being pursued in Iraq.
But the committee gave us a closed rule. Not one person here from either party will be able to amend this resolution. Now, why would the Republicans do this? Could it be because they are not interested in addressing the serious questions in a forthright way? There are certainly problems to be addressed. Let me give you one example.
Yesterday, I joined a group of Democrats repeating our call for the creation of a Truman Commission to oversee the Iraqi reconstruction. Rampant construction and incompetent Iraq contracting have prolonged our mission there and cost lives, with 75 percent of oil and gas and 50 percent of electricity projects remaining unfinished.
The GAO reports that $7 billion in funds have simply been lost. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, is investigating 72 cases of alleged fraud. Have Republicans dealt with these problems? They have not. They recently elected to block $1.9 billion in new reconstruction funds from being examined. They won't let Mr. Bowen and his team look at that, because he was doing the job too well. So they took the jurisdiction pretty much away from him.
I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise that today, instead of proposing serious solutions to the problems we are facing, we are being offered a ``yes or no'' vote on a resolution drowning in patriotic rhetoric and offering us an open-ended fight against an open-ended enemy.
Debate is about choice, but there is no choice here today. What we have is less like our democracy and more like a Soviet election. Americans expect real debate in their Congress. They do not expect their representatives to passively acquiesce to the assertions of a meaningless resolution based on White House talking points. And they expect their elected officials to have a meaningful discussion on the future course of the greatest challenge to our Nation in a generation.
My friends on both sides of the aisle, we can stop this sham in its tracks by voting ``no'' on this rule. I implore every Member from both parties to realize what is at stake here. If you support the rule, you are saying you don't believe our troops and their families deserve a serious debate on the war. You are saying you don't think the massive troubles of the Iraqi people deserve more than a cursory glance. And you are saying you don't think this Congress should be anything more than the President's rubber stamp. What you are saying is that this war is just a political tool to be used at elections.
My fellow Democrats and I have said a lot about the death of democracy in this House. Over the course of the 109th Congress, of 144 different rules presented by this Republican Party, only one rule that was not an appropriations measure has been made open for debate and amendable by this leadership. One. And if there was ever a rule that should be open, if there was ever a day in which democracy should breathe freely in these halls, even if just for one day, it is this rule and it should be this day.
Your vote on this rule isn't about how you voted on the war, it is about respecting the troops. It is about respecting democracy. How can we ask the fine young men and women of our Armed Forces to die so that Iraqis can have democracy and debate when we are systematically undermining those same principles here? It is unconscionable.
[Time: 11:00]
Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, I implore every Member, everyone to take a stand for the values of democracy and the values of this Nation and vote please against this rule. Defeating this rule will show our troops that we have enough respect for them in this House to have a real debate on their lives and future and of the future of the Nation that we love.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on this day of debate while we discuss the merits and perils of our involvement in the war on terror, there is one sentiment that is shared by every Member of Congress: our admiration for our Armed Forces who risk their lives each day in defense of our freedom. Within these Halls of democracy where we passionately represent our constituents, it is important to recommend that the democratic way of life that is at the heart of what we do would not be possible without the men and women of our Armed Forces.
The brave men and women of our military are often called upon to travel great distances away from their families and loved ones to fight for the freedom that all Americans hold dear. Each time one of them enters into battle, it is with the knowledge that they may be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, giving their lives to secure our great Nation.
In recognition of these heroes, we have placed a memorial display in the Rayburn horseshoe foyer featuring the name of each and every member of our forces who has fallen as a result of the current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is my hope that the many Members, staff, visitors, students, and constituent groups who visit the House office buildings each day will take a moment to stop by the memorial and reflect on the gift of freedom given selflessly by these honored individuals to every American.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules Committee.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, today's debate is long overdue. For the past 3 years, the United States has had a military presence in Iraq. In fact, when the authorization for war in Iraq was authorized,
[Page: H4019]
Even now, however, the rule put forth by the House leadership asks Members a simplistic question: Do you accept or renounce the President's vague appeal to stay the course and be patient? Such a narrow focus does a disservice to our role as representatives of the people.
The American people want to hear practical, well-thought-out ideas from their elected representatives. Today we could have had that honest, engaged and realistic debate.
I had hoped to discuss the reality of Iraq right now and how we may best help a political solution to emerge. This isn't a debate we should be afraid of. We can have this debate and can have it respectfully. But the House Republican leadership has decided to pass on this opportunity.
What should we be debating? I believe there are several things upon which all Members can agree, Republican and Democratic alike.
The first is that the United States has no desire to control Iraq's oil supply. The second is that we will not build permanent bases in Iraq. Taken together, these statements say clearly to the Iraqi people that the United States presence in Iraq is not permanent. And it says clearly to the administration that our strategy in Iraq must reflect the fact that we will not be there forever.
But, Mr. Speaker, the focus of this House must move beyond these specific details and rapidly toward our broader policies on Iraq. We all want a free, stable and prosperous Iraq, and we have an important diplomatic role to play. But ultimately, it is up to the Iraqis to achieve those goals through the political process.
The United States should continue to offer support for Iraqi security forces; and regardless of our troop deployment, the United States must maintain its responsibility to assist in rebuilding the country's economy and infrastructure.
But beginning to draw down troops stationed in Iraq can be done while keeping all of these goals in mind. I respect several redeployment proposals put forth by Members of this body for those reasons.
The President's exhortations to ``stay the course'' remain disconnected from the reality on the ground and from a sincere engagement on the policy details.
In contrast, the proposals put forth by several Members of the House were developed after much thought. The Members struggled to mold the chaos in Iraq into a workable solution that upholds the best interests of the Iraqi people and that of the American people.
These proposals and ideas deserve to come to the floor. They deserve to be debated, and they deserve a vote. Unfortunately, under the rule reported out, this will not happen. Instead, we will have a gripping session that yields no results. Congress is part of this government. In fulfillment of its responsibilities, this House should reject this rule and bring real policy to the floor.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here and I wish to address the first of the four points that Mr. Cole presented when he introduced this particular rule.
I, like the gentlewoman from California who just spoke, and those of us who were elected for the first time in the last two cycles, was not here for the 1998 debate and piece of legislation passed by 360 of our Members and signed by President Clinton which outlined our foreign policy objectives with Iraq; nor was I here for what I was told was the 17-hour debate on the vote that authorized use of force in Iraq.
Those two, in my opinion, should have been the definitive debate and vote on what our common policy would be as we move forward.
What I would like to talk to you about now is what I find most compelling, and that is the legal rationale for what we are doing in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq violated 17 U.N. resolutions, three of which demanded use of force for the violation of those. Saddam Hussein's Iraq had violated the treaty he signed with the United States. His forces were shooting at American servicemen. He put a bounty on the head of every American airman that could be brought to him. He had offered a cash bonus to every family of a suicide bomber who would blow up either an Israeli or an American at the time.
When a foreign country violates its treaty with us and shoots at our servicemen, that is a legal justification for our actions. In fact, it is odd enough that we probably have a greater legal justification for this war than any other conflict with which this country has been involved in the last 50 years.
In Korea, we went in after one U.N. resolution, not 17.
In Vietnam, we made it a national priority because of a treaty we had, not with Vietnam but with an ally, France.
We bombed Serbia and went into Bosnia, not because of a legal pretext or compelling national interest, but because our European allies asked us to assist them with their particular issue.
The quarantine during the Cuban missile crisis was an aggressive act of war that was condemned by the U.N. Secretary General and protested in dozens of cities throughout the world, but was, in my mind, not a legal act but a right act of President Kennedy.
In Iraq, what we are doing is both legal and it is right.
Every war we have had has been littered with protests. Historians tell us in the Revolutionary War a third of Americans were opposed to it and a third were indifferent.
The War of 1812, Mr. McGovern's State tried to secede from the Union.
In the Civil War, we had the greatest riots proportionately we have ever had in this country, and the Governor of New York inflammatorily said President Lincoln's goal was to kill all of the Irish.
In the Spanish American War, the Speaker of the House postwar resigned in protest.
In World War I, the Secretary of State prewar resigned in protest.
Only World War II has been atypical in those concepts of what we had.
As a history teacher, I see mass amounts of parallels with what we are doing now and what has happened in history. I don't have the time to go into any of those.
What I simply hope is for this House and this Nation is that we don't have the tunnel vision of short-term policy and we do not reject the lessons of history that will help us understand what should be the definition of our common potential future and policy towards Iraq.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I urge all my colleagues to reject this rule.
Mr. Speaker, as we embark on this debate, I believe it is important to recall the debate we had during the first Persian Gulf crisis.
In 1991, we were on the brink of war with Iraq over Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Emotions were high, and the parties were divided. We Democrats were in the majority then, and we allowed over 30 hours of debate on three different measures representing profoundly differing points of view.
I wish to repeat this, Mr. Speaker: we allowed over 30 hours of debate on three different measures representing profoundly differing points of view.
And the critical vote, Mr. Speaker, was on a proposal of the Republican minority sponsored by the Republican minority leader, Bob Michel. It was supported by some of us on the majority Democratic side, myself included, and it prevailed.
And in 1999, Mr. Speaker, as the people of Kosovo bled from the wounds of Serbian bullets, this House had a highly emotional debate over three different resolutions relating to proposed U.S. action to end the humanitarian disaster. Again, the minority was afforded an alternative which barely lost on a tie vote.
Today we are purportedly debating how to end the war, rather than whether to begin one, and an equally vital debate given the lives at stake. But the Republican leadership has thrown out all precedent and instead of giving the House a chance to work its will, they are forcing us into a charade.
Members will not be given a chance to offer amendments or alternatives to
[Page: H4020]
Mr. Speaker, I tried to work on this resolution with my good friend, Chairman Hyde, on a bipartisan basis as I always have. But the Republican leadership expanded the original draft far beyond Iraq and rejected every one of our substantive suggestions.
Mr. Speaker, this rule should allow all Members to offer their own ideas through amendments to this resolution. At a minimum, it should allow a Democratic substitute, and it should provide enough time so that every Member has at least 5 minutes to express his or her views.
Mr. Speaker, just as the Democratic majority gave Republican minority leader Bob Michel an alternative in 1991 during the first Iraq debate, our Democratic leader, NANCY PELOSI, should have the same opportunity to offer a Democratic alternative with the same chance of prevailing in this House.
Instead, the Republican leadership has turned what could have been a serious debate into a charade.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself just 15 seconds.
I want to make note for the record, we did offer the minority an opportunity for a substitute resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. And no, I will not yield. My time is very tight, and you have time to respond.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of American efforts to rid the world of terrorism and help democracy take root in a region long controlled by hostile dictators and murderous regimes.
All around the world we are working to eradicate terrorists and their organizations. Iraq has emerged as a central battlefield of this war, a battlefield where Saddam was captured in a hole and is now in jail, where Zarqawi met his demise, and where insurgents and jihadists are fighting and losing to the might and skill of coalition forces. Most importantly, it is a battlefield far, far from the shores, schools, neighborhoods, and cities of America.
[Time: 11:15]
I recently traveled to Iraq with our Speaker and was able to meet with the Prime Minister and other key government officials, as well as our U.S. commanders overseeing the operations. I was impressed by what I saw, but I was more impressed by what I heard from the servicemen and women themselves. Morale is high, and they are confident in the success of this mission.
Iraqi citizens have embraced freedom and have now voted in three national elections, each garnering wider and broader support. Iraq now has a constitution, a parliament, a president, a prime minister and a fully formed cabinet. What is more, this new government reflects a broad ethic and sectarian balance, a balance that will help ensure the needs and voices of all Iraqis are represented.
Ultimately, it is that freely elected government that is the most important success of this effort, elected leaders who are Iraqi first, and all other identities second, interested, invested in the future of their own country, of their own people. These Iraqi founding fathers face great challenges, no doubt. But what opportunity is more powerful than freedom from tyranny?
We must remain committed through patience and hard work to help this new government succeed.
I support this resolution. I support the rule that is allowing this resolution to come forward and the manner in which it was created. And I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this important affirmation of the hard work of America's servicemen and women.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, let me correct something that has been said on this floor. In the testimony before the Rules Committee, the Democrats not only asked for an open rule, we asked for a substitute. We were denied that. We were shut out. It is here in black and white in the testimony.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this war was launched without an imminent threat to our families. It endangers them more every day, creating new generations of terrorists. Radical ``know it all'' ideologues here in Washington bent facts, distorted intelligence, and perpetrated lies designed to mislead the American people into believing that a third rate thug had a hand in the 9/11 tragedy and was soon to unleash a mushroom cloud.
From the start, House Democrats overwhelmingly voted against this war. But radical ideologues rushed headlong anyway, ignoring professional military advice about the number of troops and equipment needed. One general after another has indicted this Administration for its misjudgment and mismanagement.
But now, almost 3,000 Americans lie dead, with about another 20,000 seriously injured. Every day, every single day, American taxpayers are forced to spend $229 million in Iraq, and they pay again every time they go to the gas pump. All that is in sight is an endless, civil war quagmire.
Today's resolution pins these Administration failures on the coattails of our courageous servicemen and women. Administration ineptness is falsely attached to a resolution honoring our troops.
Americans are increasingly realizing there is a better way to honor our troops than by sending more of them off to be killed. Would that there were more than a little of our troops' courage right here in Washington from those, who refuse to challenge this Administration's arrogant, myth-based policies and who choose instead to cut and run from their responsibilities.
Instead of staying the course, we need to chart a smarter course. It is not weakness or retreat to recognize the Administration offers us only an endless ``spend and bleed'' policy.
When this talkathon ends, reject this fraudulent resolution, which cannot be amended or changed, to alter this Administration's deadly pursuit of a desert mirage. Neither paper resolutions, nor more Administration arrogance will defeat terrorism.
The harm from this Administration's disastrous decision to invade Iraq was apparent from the beginning. The warnings of many, as noted in my speeches, including those given on the floor on September 22, 2002 (H6410), October 9, 2002 (H7328), and October 10, 2002 (H7772), and the contemporaneous editorial below, went unheeded.
Our Voices Must Work to Avert An Invasion
I recently voted against what is really an authorization for launching a massive land invasion and military occupation of Iraq. More important than speaking with one voice, the votes of 133 Congress members against this rush to war underscored the importance of our continuing to speak as one democracy.
I sought to give voice to the thousands of Central Texans who communicated their concerns about making the terrible weapon of war a predominant instrument in our foreign policy.
With this grave decision on war and peace though, I knew I would have to answer to more than those I am privileged to represent--I would have to answer to myself, my children and to history.
War now would only increase the danger to American families. The house-to-house urban combat that would likely result from a land invasion in Iraq would kill thousands, divert precious resources from our ongoing war on terrorism and expose our families to more terrorism from among the many who would perceive this as a crusade against Islam. From the information provided to Congress, I do have some insight into issues about which so many are understandably uncertain and fearful. No evidence has been shared to connect Iraq to the Sept. 11 tragedy, nor to show that Iraq now poses an imminent threat to American families.
As former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft said, ``Saddam Hussein is probably on Osama bin Laden's hit list.'' From Central Intelligence Agency reports, secret until last week, we know that the unfinished job of overcoming al Qaida represents the real threat. The CIA concluded that invading Iraq is more likely to drive our now separate enemies together against us and certainly more likely to make Saddam Hussein use any weapons of mass destruction that he may possess.
In addition to the cost in lives, the costs of war, to differing degrees, will touch us all. President Bush's top economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, estimated that the cost of waging this war may rise as high as $200 billion. At a time of chronic deficit spending,
[Page: H4021]
True security is more than a military second to none and effective law enforcement at home; it means working with nations to address our common security concerns. We are strong enough to defeat Iraq in combat, but we must be wise enough to rely on America's other strengths to rid the world of Saddam Hussein's danger.
No fool would trust Saddam Hussein with even one American life. Our choice is not between ``war'' and ``doing nothing'' or between ``war'' and ``appeasement.'' The prudent choice remains--first, attempt holding Iraq accountable through effective, comprehensive, international inspections.
Some of the most insightful arguments against invading Iraq were advanced by Republicans and military leaders. The first President Bush, in 1998, wrote: ``Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq . . . would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. . . . [We] could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.''
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf was even more direct: ``I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit.''
Apparently, Iraq represents only the first step in implementing the administration's recently announced ``first-strike'' defense strategy. Over-reliance on packing the biggest gun and having the fastest draw will not make us safer. Rather, it is a formula for international anarchy. A quick draw may eliminate the occasional villain, but only at the cost of destabilizing the world, disrupting the hope for international law and order, and, ultimately, endangering all of us.
President Reagan used containment effectively against another ``evil empire,'' the Soviet Union, and from Cuba to Libya, a succession of presidents has avoided nuclear Armageddon. Containment and disarmament may not end all wars, but they are clearly superior to the new ``first-strike formula'' that risks wars without end.
With the prospect of war overshadowing all of our hopes and dreams for this country and the world, we must continue to thoughtfully and respectfully voice our opposition in hopes that invasion may yet be averted.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule, H. Res. 861. I firmly believe that the installation of democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, coupled with the recent completion of Iraq's National Unity Government and ratification of a Constitution, the elimination of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and the continued success of our reconstruction efforts in these countries are tremendous accomplishments in the global war on terror.
We are at a point in Iraq where we can build on these successes. We can advance democracy and freedom and stand by the Iraqi people while honoring the commitment that we have made. Or we can withdraw, as many on the other side of appeasement are suggesting, leaving the progress we have made and the future of Iraq to chance. Just as in Europe and Japan following World War II, there is only one option, Mr. Speaker, and that is to stand by the Iraqis until their government, police, military can ensure the security of their own nation. Then, and only then, will be the appropriate time to disengage, leaving a strong ally and flourishing democracy as an example of a peaceful and free nation to others in the Middle East region.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot give in to the anti-war rhetoric which only serves to embolden our enemies, while offering little hope and little vision. Rather, we must continue to advance policies which make our Nation safer, which are responsible for the liberation of over 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has led Libya to abandon their weapons of mass destruction program, and it makes every new year worse than the previous one for the terrorists.
In this fight for the future of peace, freedom and democracy in the Middle East and around the globe, winning should be our only option.
This past Friday we heard Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq make the following statement: ``With our allies we will persevere to make Iraq a prosperous democracy in the heart of the Middle East.''
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see great hope and potential in the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, the minority party offers no hope. All we hear are ill-conceived and shortsighted strategies which threaten any chance of Iraq becoming a bastion of democracy in the Middle East.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this rule and the resolution, which sends a clear and a positive message to the new Iraqi government and its citizens. But just as importantly, Mr. Speaker, it sends a clear message to those soldiers who have been injured or killed and their families that this Congress will never break faith with them.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, this rule, which I support, will allow one of the most critical actions to date in the war on terror. Hardly a charade.
This action is not military in nature. It is entirely political. But it will determine victory or defeat as surely as any battle in Iraq.
Our troops can defeat any enemy on earth. Our volunteers, our patriots, our heroes, our warriors, under any conditions they can win if we have the will, if we have the backbone to do what is right.
That is what we debate under this rule. Do we have the will to win?
Many, not all, of the other side of the aisle lack the will to win. The American people need to know precisely who they are. If there are any on this side of the aisle who hold the same view, this will allow them to be found out as well. Then the public can decide the course of this war in November by hopefully throwing the defeatists out of office.
This debate, under the rule, is as critical a fight as any our troops could have on the battlefield. No one has any doubt our soldiers will win any fight we send them to. That is not the question. The world's doubt is entirely over the backbone of this Congress.
Because of the statements of Members of this body, not their votes, but what they say today, and of the Senate, that have given substantial propaganda assistance to the enemy, this rule, this debate is absolutely essential to preserving the victories of our troops that they have won with their blood and their lives.
It is time to stand up and vote. Is it al Qaeda or is it America? Let the voters take note of this debate.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the 173rd Airborne in 1968-69 Vietnam, I saw how the words of Senators and Congressmen undermine the hard-fought victories and sacrifices of our soldiers.
Men who today sit in Congress publicly trashed the troops on the front back then, comparing our American soldiers to the barbarian Genghis Khan.
American media overlooked decades of Communist torture and atrocity against Vietnamese civilians. I couldn't overlook it. As a dental surgeon I had to reattach the tongues cut out by Viet Cong terrorists.
Where was our media? They instead chose to focus the world's attention on isolated American failure at My Lai.
Through carefully planned international media and political manipulations, the NVA and Viet Cong were encouraged to keep fighting, regardless of their defeats in the field. American media fell right into line with the enemy's public affairs plan.
Our troops and citizens were told over and over by the press and politicians that their efforts were futile, our countless victories pointless, and every reverse, no matter how slight, disastrous.
The result of this psychological warfare was that the same Nation that had prevailed in World War II against heavy odds, numerous battle defeats, and our enemies' military parity, simply walked off the field in Southeast Asia.
It was a lesson in strategy our enemies have learned well, one that is now being used against us in Iraq.
It is of great interest to note that the same reporter who ``broke'' the story on My Lai also ``broke'' the story on Abu Grahib nearly four decades later--while overlooking the thousands of executions, beheadings, and other atrocities of the enemy.
Coincidence or planned strategy?
Same players, same actions, seeking the same result--unconditional U.S. withdrawal from a war on terror we didn't start, allowing barbarians to slaughter millions of innocent civilians, with the end result our Nation humiliated and compromised on the world stage.
The lesson we should have learned from Vietnam is that we can fight our enemies in this House by sending an unmistakable message that America will not run.
The day that our enemies in Iraq believe this, the war will be won.
[Page: H4022]
It's time for this body to start fighting for our soldiers.
The 173rd has been back in action in this war, and I will be darned if I will let what happened to us in Southeast Asia happen to these guys in the Middle East, if I can help it.
Let's finally bury the ghosts of Vietnam by committing to victory. In doing so, we greatly reduce the need for future military action, as potential enemies will no longer doubt our national resolve in a showdown.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I just recently sent 850 Oregonians off to Afghanistan to fight the resurgent Taliban and Osama bin Laden, the perpetrators of 9/11. September 14, this House, on a proud day, with one exception, voted to authorize the war in Afghanistan to take out the Taliban, take out the perpetrators of 9/11, al Qaeda. That was nearly unanimous.
But sadly, the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress distracted us onto a path of a war in Iraq 1,143 days ago. 2,497 servicemen killed, 18,490 wounded. First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then it was about 9/11. Then it was about building democracy.
But now the Republicans want to pretend that it has to do all about the war on terrorism. They mentioned al Zarqawi. The Pentagon wanted to take out al Zarqawi. They had him in their sights before the war in Iraq, and the Bush White House and DICK CHENEY wouldn't let them because it would hurt recruitment for the coalition of the willing to invade Iraq, where al Qaeda did not exist.
If you strip out the rhetoric from this nonbinding resolution, with no Democratic alternative, no amendments allowed, it is a stay the course resolution with an open-ended commitment. As the President said, a future President will decide when U.S. troops will leave.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the National Security Subcommittee of Government Reform, a gentleman who has been to Iraq on 12 different occasions, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid we will lose the war in Iraq, ... in Iraq. I am deeply concerned we will lose the war in Iraq here at home.
Our efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power and help bring democracy to the most troubled part of the world is a truly noble effort that must succeed.
Whether you believe al Qaeda was in Iraq when the war began, they are there now, and they think they can win because they believe we will leave too soon, before Iraqis can defend themselves.
True, we got their prince. Al Zarqawi is dead, but his fellow terrorists remain determined to succeed.
This resolution clearly links the war in Iraq with the war against Islamist terrorists. Islamist terrorists is exactly who the 9/11 Commission said we are confronting. If you agree, vote for this resolution and explain why. If you disagree, vote against the resolution and explain why.
I support the rule. I support the resolution. I support our efforts in Iraq, and I look forward to the 10 hours of debate.
When I ask individual Iraqis what is their biggest concern, it is not the bombings, the lack of electricity or anything else other than this. It is, and I quote, ``that you will leave us. That you will leave us before we can grab hold of democracy and defend ourselves.''
I pray we will not let them down. I look forward to the 10 hours of debate. I look forward to our being absolutely resolute in helping Iraqis have an opportunity they have worked so hard to achieve.
In just 11 months, Iraqis have had three elections that put our elections to shame. They have a new government. They only need more time to develop their security, to defend themselves and a democracy they dearly love.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately rise in opposition to this rule because I believe it is a missed opportunity for this Congress to substantively have a say in the most important issue facing our country today and that is the course of the war in Iraq, but also our strategy in combating global terrorism.
But instead of offering a real policy discussion, the Republican majority today offers a political document just before the fall elections.
My question to my friends across the aisle is very simple. What are you afraid of? Why are you not allowing any other amendment to be offered during this 10-hour debate? Why are you not allowing our side to have an alternative resolution so we can get into the very troubling aspects of this administration's conduct of war in Iraq and our strategy on global terrorism.
Many of us have grave concerns about how this administration has based its decisions in Iraq. These concerns are shared by many Americans and our constituents throughout the country today. Yes, we can kill Zarqawi, but are we defeating Zarqawiism?
Many of us today have grave doubts. Yet, instead of having an open and honest debate, we get this charade. We deserve better. The American people deserve better.
I encourage my colleagues to defeat this rule.
[Time: 11:30]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that the gentleman from Oklahoma has 6 1/4 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 1/4 minutes remaining.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I want to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on our side.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I am prepared to close whenever you are, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say simply in closing that we will not be having an open debate on Iraq policy today. No one from either side of this aisle will be allowed to present policy alternatives that will be debated and voted upon. No one will be able to offer amendments to increase accountability over the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that have been poured into this war. Just like the last 3 years, there will be no debate that might actually affect the direction of U.S. policy in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, for the past 3 years, Democrats and Republicans have come to the Rules Committee with amendments to the various defense bills that would have required greater accountability and modified our policies in Iraq. The Republican majority in this House has routinely denied these amendments the right of debate. They have routinely kept them from being offered on the floor of this House for votes. So when the Republican leadership says they have offered us a debate on Iraq, it is simply not true.
This is not what we asked for. We do not need therapy. We do not need time to get things off our chests. We need real debate and meaningful votes on U.S. policy in Iraq.
At best, the Republicans have structured a glorified 10-hour Special Order on Iraq. But let us not dignify it by calling it a debate when no Member will have the opportunity to vote on competing policy proposals.
Mr. Speaker, to our troops who are in harm's way, to their families and friends and to the American people, I offer my sincere regrets that once again the Republican-led Congress is failing to address the war in Iraq in the serious manner it deserves and has instead chosen to create this sham of a debate.
Mr. Speaker, the great British conservative Edmund Burke once said, ``A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood.'' Mr. Speaker, I wish the majority of this House would heed those words.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of my close, I simply want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle the simple fact is, despite their insistence to the contrary, our side never received a substitute amendment to consider. The Rules Committee received four amendments, none of which was a Democratic substitute. We cannot make in order what is not submitted to the Rules Committee.
[Page: H4023]
Let me say that I suspect that this procedural problem really represents the fact that there is not a cohesive alternative presented by the other side. We have watched again and again and again as the Democratic Party has struggled to come to grips with this issue and find a united position, and so far no united position has emerged.
As I pointed out in my opening remarks, we do indeed have a united position. It is one that you can agree with or disagree with, but it is a resolution that we can put forward and we can command the overwhelming majority of our Members to support. And, frankly, I hope and trust that many Members on the other side will also be supportive of that position.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. What is at stake in Iraq is the war on terror, whether or not we will be successful. That is the central battlefield of this particular moment.
Everybody on both sides agrees that removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing to do. He was an evil man, a dangerous man, a tyrant to his own people, a threat to world peace. That removal was not going to come about by accident or by internal revolution. They had indeed tried to do that. Unfortunately, they had failed. It took direct military intervention by the United States of America to rid the world of one of the worst tyrants we have seen in the second half of the 20th and the opening of the 21st centuries. Once there, the terrorists, our enemies, made this the central battlefield. And, frankly, over the course of the last 3 years, they have inflicted enormous damage on the Iraqi people.
I, for one, am enormously proud of how the Iraqis have responded to that challenge. To see a people who, in the face of terror and death and destruction, have gone out to the polls not once, not twice, but three times with ever increasing numbers of participants; to see them write a constitution in the midst of turmoil and challenge; to watch them create a permanent government; to watch that government take control; and to see their people, thousands of their people, stepping forward to defend their country and fight their enemies who are also our enemies is, frankly, an inspiring and a noble sight. I think we have a terrific chance to succeed in Iraq because of the Iraqi people, because of the valor and the skill and the professionalism of the American military.
The real battle and the real arena, as my friend Mr. Shays suggested, is here on the floor of this Congress and in the court of public opinion in the United States. If we maintain the resolve, if we maintain the commitment, if we keep our promise to the Iraqi people, we will be successful. If we do not, we not only will fail, we will strengthen and harden our enemies and, frankly, will bring dishonor on ourselves.
I am extraordinarily proud of this President. I am extraordinarily proud of this Congress with its bipartisan commitment to succeed in Iraq.
To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is, under an open rule, is it a requirement that a substitute or that substitutes be filed with the Rules Committee in order to have them debated and voted on the House floor? Because my understanding is it is not a requirement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is inquiring about the proceedings of the Committee on Rules, and it is not for the Chair to characterize those proceedings.
Mr. McGOVERN. I think I made my point, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, noes 194, not voting 16, as follows:
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
[Page: H4024]
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Burton (IN)
Capito
Carter
Cubin
Gordon
Johnson, E. B.
Lynch
Miller (MI)
Mollohan
Rahall
Rogers (KY)
Rothman
Saxton
Sessions
Taylor (MS)
Weldon (PA)
[Time: 12:02]
Mrs. TAUSCHER, Messrs. GUTIERREZ, MATHESON and BOUCHER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
END[Page: H4024]---
A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4939) ``An Act making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.''.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated by House Resolution 868 to the ranking minority members of four committees instead be controlled by the minority leader or her designees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 861) declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 861
Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;
Whereas for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States;
Whereas it is essential to the security of the American people and to world security that the United States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance;
Whereas the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists failed to stop free elections in Afghanistan and the first popularly-elected President in that nation's history has taken office;
Whereas the continued determination of Afghanistan, the United States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be required to sustain a sovereign, free, and secure Afghanistan;
Whereas the steadfast resolve of the United States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions;
Whereas the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors;
Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;
Whereas the Iraqi people, with the help of the United States and other Coalition partners, have formed a permanent, representative government under a newly ratified constitution;
Whereas the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East;
Whereas United States Armed Forces, in coordination with Iraqi security forces and Coalition and other friendly forces, have scored impressive victories in Iraq including finding and killing the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi;
Whereas Iraqi security forces are, over time, taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to secure Iraq;
Whereas the United States and Coalition servicemembers and civilians and the members of the Iraqi security forces and those assisting them who have made the ultimate sacrifice or been wounded in Iraq have done so nobly, in the cause of freedom; and
Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;
(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;
(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;
(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;
(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and
(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 868 and the special order of today, debate shall not exceed 10 hours, with 5 hours equally divided among and controlled by the chairman of the Committees on International Relations, Armed Services, the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and 5 hours controlled by the minority leader or her designee.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is recognized to control 75 minutes.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 861.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, the Speaker of the House (Mr. Hastert).
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, one of our greatest Presidents, Ronald Reagan, was fond of saying that ``Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.'' President Reagan's wise words are still true today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 861. This resolution is about more than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is about a global war to protect American ideals, and the democracy and values on which this great Nation was founded.
This resolution, Mr. Speaker, like this war itself, is about freedom. Just 12 days ago I returned from Iraq. I can tell this House that the morale of our fighting men and women there is sky high. They are not suffering from doubt and ``second guessing.'' And they are certainly not interested in the political posturing about the war that often goes on in this city. They know why they are there. They know they are liberators doing good. And they believe passionately in their mission.
It is not possible to talk to these men and women without being inspired by their courage, their determination, their professionalism and their patriotism.
I came home from Iraq believing even more strongly, that it is not enough for this House to say ``we support our troops.'' To the men and the women in the field, in harm's way, that statement rings hollow if we don't also say we support their mission.
The clarity with which our men and women in uniform understand the reason they are in Iraq is a stark contrast to some here at home who talk about this war as a ``war of choice.''
The facts are clear. America has been struck repeatedly. Despite the life-ending attacks on Khobar Towers, our East African embassies, the USS Cole and the first World Trade Center bombing, U.S. policy tended to confuse these attacks with isolated law-enforcement events. We failed to recognize them as
[Page: H4025]
The terrorists did not admire or appreciate our limited response. They did not come to the table to discuss points of political concern, and they did not de-escalate, demobilize or disappear. Our response was inconstant and limited, but their reactions were not. They plotted and they practiced, while we hoped for the best and fired an occasional cruise missile into the desert. We were wrong and we slumbered in denial.
And then came the day when terrorism slapped us in the face, awakening us to a stark reality. I remember it as a crisp, fall day. Where the clear blue sky was filled with fluffy white clouds. But that peaceful scene was transformed in an instant when planes went crashing into buildings and the clear sky turned to choking ash and soot.
I stood in my Capitol office, just a few yards from where I am speaking here today. I saw the black smoke rising from the Pentagon. The third plane had hit just across the river from this Capitol building.
On 9/11 the terrorists were not a distant threat, they were in our front yard, and they were very real and very deadly. In that moment, we were afraid. None of us had anticipated the lengths to which our enemies would go to destroy our American way of life, our ideals and our belief.
Of course, we knew that foreign terrorists had caused trouble elsewhere, maybe in Israel or in Northern Ireland, but we found it hard to imagine that they came to our shores hoping to kill tens of thousands of men, women and children, innocent, unarmed people, peacefully going about their daily lives.
[Time: 12:15]
It is hard, even now, to comprehend such enormous evil.
As we watched some of our fellow citizens leap from burning buildings to their deaths, our fear turned to anger and then anger to resolute determination.
America's response started high above a corn field in rural Pennsylvania. Brave men and women, armed with nothing more than boiling water, dinner forks and broken bottles, stood up, as Americans always do when our freedom is in peril, and they struck back.
We know from the messages they left behind that their final thoughts were for their families and their loved ones, but they also spoke of their love of their country.
``Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction.'' Perhaps the brave souls on United Flight 93 reflected Ronald Reagan's words because the generation represented on that plane, like the patriots at Concord Bridge, were not going to let freedom be extinguished, not on their watch.
We in this Congress must show the same steely resolve as those men and women on United Flight 93, the same sense of duty as the first responders who headed up the stairs of the Twin Towers.
We must stand firm in our commitment to fight terrorism and the evil it inflicts throughout the world. We must renew our resolve that the actions of evildoers will not dictate American policy. And we must decide, right here, today what kind of a Nation we want to leave for our children and their generation.
We are not alone in the fight on global terror. I cannot list them all, but they include countries large and small, rich and poor: Great Britain, Japan, Canada, Jordan, Portugal, Denmark, Mali, Latvia, Romania, Italy, Poland, South Korea. In fact, the number of countries working to defeat our common enemy continues to grow.
Pakistan, a nation that once recognized the oppressive Taliban regime, has changed its course and now works closely with the coalition to round up terrorists. Yemen, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia have also moved aggressively within their borders to fight terrorism. Libya has given up her nuclear capability.
Today, more than three-quarters of al Qaeda's known leaders and associates have been detained or killed.
There is no doubt that since 9/11 our military, as well as our law enforcement intelligence agencies, have made great strides in uprooting terrorism. Nearly a dozen serious al Qaeda plots have been stopped since September 11th. But there is good reason for ongoing vigilance because the threat is still very real.
Just recently, our neighbor to the north, Canada, foiled a terrorist plot to storm that country's parliament and one of its major television headquarters. The terrorists planned to behead those they captured.
Mr. Speaker, today in parts of the Middle East, where once oppression choked out freedom, we are now seeing democracy take root.
Afghanistan was once a safe haven for the al Qaeda terrorist network. In remote training camps, terrorists planned and practiced attacks on the United States and other freedom loving peoples. Those camps are now gone. In their place is a developing democracy with an elected President and a new Constitution that gives unprecedented rights and freedoms to all Afghans.
Just 3 years ago, Afghan women were whipped in the streets; schooling was denied to girls. Today, women have the right to vote, and two Afghan cabinet ministers are women.
In Iraq, just 3 years ago, a brutal dictator sat in palatial luxury. Unhampered by the United Nations, Saddam and his family stole the Oil-for-Food money from starving Iraqi children in order to support their lifestyle of debauchery and brutality. Schoolgirls were raped. Iraqi patriots were thrown alive into meat grinders. Unspeakable atrocities of all kinds were common, including the use of chemical weapons on Saddam's own people, the Kurds.
Saddam invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait. He harbored terrorists in his midst, and he defied 17 United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
Just a few days ago, I was listening to the radio, and a pundit remarked on the sectarian violence in Iraq. He observed that perhaps the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam. Given the unspeakable and systematic brutality of Saddam's regime, such a remark either reflects a serious misreading of history or a very naive and forgiving nature.
It might have been easier for us in America to turn our heads and look the other way, as much as the rest of the world did, but I would submit that Saddam was an evil cancer on the world. He was a threat to our country, and Mr. Speaker, America, not just Iraq, is better off today because Saddam Hussein sits in a court of law, answering for crimes he committed against humanity.
While I was in Iraq, I met with Prime Minister al Maliki as well as my counterpart, the Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament. We talked about the birth of democracy in Iraq.
I looked at the Speaker. I looked him in the eye and I said, ``Mr. Speaker, I admire you. The Iraqi people represent an ancient civilization, but your democracy is just beginning. Your challenges are great, but so too are your opportunities.''
I urged the Iraqi people to look forward and not back, to listen to the voices of reconciliation, not division, I urged them to choose unity.
They told me that they were succeeding in putting together a unity cabinet, and shortly after my return, they announced the names of the last three ministers that deal with critical security issues.
Each Iraqi official I met with, even the Iraqi Speaker, who originally viewed the U.S. presence in Iraq negatively, thanked me for the help America has given their country. He went further and urged us to stay with them while they build up the capacity to take over the task of providing security for their people.
Today in Iraq we are working together with Iraqi patriots, men and women elected by their fellow citizens.
Along with brave Iraqi soldiers and police, we are moving toward a day when the Iraqi Government on its own has the strength to protect their people, a day when our men and women, and their coalition partners, can come home.
The ``stand up'' of this new Iraqi Government, which is the fruit of three elections where Iraqi citizens held up their ink-stained fingers and resisted intimidation, brings us closer to that day.
[Page: H4026]
President Bush told us from the beginning that this road would not be easy. We have lost many American lives. And each one is precious to us.
But our fighting men and women remain committed to the effort. Active duty retention and recruiting is meeting or exceeding all objectives, and we are making progress toward our goal, but the battle is not over.
It is a battle that we must endure and one in which we can, and will, be victorious. The alternative would be to cut and run and wait for them to regroup and bring the terror back to our shores. When our freedom is challenged, Americans do not run.
``Freedom is the very essence of our Nation,'' President Reagan said in 1990 when a section of the Berlin Wall was presented to his Presidential library. America, he said, ``remains a beacon of hope for oppressed peoples everywhere.''
President Reagan also observed that freedom is not passed on at birth. It must be fought for and protected and handed on. And that is happening. Freedom is being handed on.
Our soldiers, sailors, Coast Guardsmen, airmen, marines, and our Reserves are serving proudly and bravely in harsh conditions, far from their families.
When I was in Iraq, I told them that their task was important and how proud we all were of their service. But frankly our men and women in uniform did not need to be told. In fact, it is we who should listen to them.
They know their sacrifices on foreign shores are keeping the battle against terrorists out of our cities. They know that by going into harm's way they are keeping American freedoms safe, and they know that they are helping a proud but brutalized people to throw off tyranny and stand tall once again. They know that they are liberators, not occupiers.
Our men and women in uniform know all this, and they are proud of it. It is time for this House of Representatives to tell the world that we know it too; that we know our cause is right and that we are proud of it.
Stand up for freedom. Adopt this resolution.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the media just reported the sad news that we have just reached a sad milestone: 2,500 Americans have lost their lives in the Iraq war. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask at the outset of this very important debate that the House observe a moment of silence for all those who have given the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 minutes.
All of us know, all of us understand stability in Iraq is important, not only to the United States but to the world.
It is no secret that Iraq is of particular importance because of its oil. The United States consumes 20.6 billion barrels of oil per day. Yet we produce only 5.1 billion barrels of oil a day. China is the second largest consumer, with 6.9 million barrels per day, and they produce 3.6 million barrels per day. Iraq has the fourth largest oil reserve in the world. Saudi Arabia is number one, Canada number two and Iran number three. So all of us agree Iraq is important. But how do we get to a conclusion?
Let me compare Gulf War I with Gulf War II. In Gulf War I, Kuwait was attacked by Saddam Hussein. It was a brutal attack. President Bush I immediately reacted. He sent his emissary, Secretary Cheney, to Saudi Arabia. They got an agreement from Saudi Arabia to use their land to put troops in. He immediately sent in the Airborne Division, and he immediately sent in F-16 fighters to deter Saddam Hussein. All of us knew that there was a possibility at that time that he would have complete control of the oil in the Middle East. So we knew how important it was.
Then President Bush started calling up the Reserves. He called a number of Members of Congress over to the White House, and he consulted and talked to them. I do not remember if the gentleman from Illinois was there, but there were seven or eight of us went to the White House. We talked to him about calling up the Reserves and having other people pay.
This is important not only to the United States. This is important internationally. This oil supply, this stability in the Middle East is important to the whole world, and he went to work. He called every major nation. He called Egypt, and this was no easy task for these countries to come around to decide to support the United States.
Matter of fact, President Mubarak said to me that King Hussein came to him and said if you support the United States, you will cut the throat of Saddam Hussein, and yet Egypt decided that they were going to go along with us.
Then he talked about that we needed to have a U.N. resolution, which we did have. Then we had to have a resolution in the Congress of the United States. But the big thing that he promoted was he got a coalition together, and this coalition ended up with 400,000 American troops and 160,000 coalition troops.
[Time: 12:30]
And I remember during this debate, I remember calling Secretary Cheney, calling General Scowcroft saying, you have got 250,000 troops over there, you don't need any more. Let's get this war going. And General Scowcroft said something I have never forgotten. He said, we are going to give General Schwarzkopf whatever he wants. He wants more troops, we are going to give him more troops. And Secretary Cheney called me and said we are going to have to send another 180,000 troops. We are going to have overwhelming force when we go into Kuwait.
And they did have overwhelming force. It went on for 6 months. The troops were out in the field, they trained, and when they went in they did a magnificent thing. It was overwhelming. And it was paid for by other countries. Sixty billion dollars came from other countries. President Bush I convinced other countries that they had to help pay for this because it was not only important to the United States, it was important to them, the stability in the Middle East.
Now, let me talk about the second Gulf War. The second Gulf War we had intelligence that said there were weapons of mass destruction; there was an al Qaeda connection. I believed that. As a matter of fact, I listened to the reports, and I was hesitant about the al Qaeda connection, but I believed that they had biological weapons. Matter of fact, a week or so before the war started, Ms. Pelosi, as the new minority leader, wanted to go overseas on her first trip. She wanted to visit the troops. Even though she had been against the resolution to go to war, she wanted to tell the troops she supported the troops. And anybody that votes for the Defense Subcommittee appropriations, anybody that belongs to the Armed Services Committee shows their support of the troops.
So we went over, and on our way over we stopped in Turkey. Imagine, the 4th Division was sitting outside Turkey. It was supposed to outflank the Iraqis. And the State Department asked me, okay, talk to the Turkish government about letting us go through. Now, we had the most modern division, the most technologically advanced division in the whole world sitting there off Turkey. I talked to them and I became convinced they weren't going to let us go through, even though they had voted the very day I was there, and they voted by a majority, but not the supermajority they needed to allow the United States to go through.
I went then to Kuwait and we listened to the commanders. The commanders told us that there is a red line drawn around Baghdad and if we cross the red line they are going to use biological weapons. And I believed that. I believed. As a matter of fact, they said if you cross this red line, we have already verified this by monitoring their telephones, by monitoring their cell phones. When we monitored cell phones of Saddam Hussein's headquarters they said use biological weapons. The troops believed it. They were prepared. They felt like they could go in there with protective gear, they could go in there with what they needed and the hot air, the winds, would dissipate the weapons. And, of course, they crossed the red line and nothing happened.
But I still thought there were weapons of mass destruction. I still thought there were biological weapons. I came back and we sent a team over there.
[Page: H4027]
When we go to war, we should go to war, first of all, if it is a threat to our national security. It was a threat to our national security when you talk about the first war, because it destabilized and he would have controlled all the oil in the Middle East, which is so important to the free world. The second time was no threat to our national security. Now, we didn't find that out, those of us who voted for it, didn't find this out until after we had gone to war.
The second thing is you go with overwhelming force. I talked to one of the commanders who was in a meeting with five officials; there was him, there was Secretary Rumsfeld, there was Secretary Wolfowitz, General Pace, and General Myers. And he said we recommended 350,000 troops. And as you know, they gave him a lot less troops than that. The coalition troops at the most were up to 30,000 and now they are down to 20,000.
The first war, 160,000. And the first war was all paid for. It cost us $5 billion. The reason I remember this so vividly is I was chairman of the committee at the time the money came through our committee, and we then sent it over, reprogrammed it over to the Defense Department itself. But the discrepancy that we have seen, the mischaracterization, the optimistic predictions are the problems that I have had.
Now, I sent a letter, with Duncan Hunter and a number of other people, and I said to the President, we need 100,000 more troops. Well, the President decided he didn't need 100,000 more troops. Now, imagine this, we are on the ground and we have won the war. The troops did a magnificent job, as we knew they would, but they completely miscalculated the problems that we were going to have afterwards.
Now, I talked to a tribal leader the other day in Anbar Province. He told me that, as far as he saw, the first 6 months we had occupied Anbar. Now, Anbar is the province we are having the most trouble right now. It is where Ramadi and Fallujah are. Those are the areas where there is the most contention. In the first 6 months there wasn't a shot fired. Not a shot fired. I said, let me ask you right now, what kind of progress have we made economically? No water, no electricity, no jobs in Anbar Province. Two million people.
And we talk about Saddam Hussein. Almost 900,000 people left when Saddam Hussein was there. They left the country as refugees. The time we have been there 900,000 people have left the country. They voted with their feet. The President went in the other day, he says he was glad to see democracy in action. You know where he went? The same place I go, in the fortress. In the Green Zone. That is where he went. They are afraid to go outside the Green Zone.
When I first went there, the first two or three trips I went, I could go anyplace. I drove around all over Iraq. The last time I landed at Baghdad Airport, they flew me to Anbar Province down in Haditha, and we flew so low because of the threat we had to come up over the wires in order to get down, and I didn't see a person the whole time. There were 2 million people in Anbar Province. Not one project. Not one.
I said on the floor of the House the most important thing in that first supplemental, in the $87 billion, was the $18 billion that went for reconstruction. And of course there are so many projects that haven't been finished. Now, after we sent the letter about the 100,000, and during that period of time, we asked a fella named Hamre, who was the former Under Secretary of Defense, who went over to Iraq and he did a study for the Defense Department. He came back and said, you have got 3 to 6 months to get this straightened out.
And what did he suggest had to be done? They weren't big projects. He suggested we had to have trash picked up, sewage taken care of, electricity, and jobs. Those are the kinds of things he talked about, and securing the border. Those are the things he said had to be done in 3 to 6 months, and if it is not done, it will go the other way. And all of us know what has happened. All of us know what has happened with the insurgency.
Now, let me go through why I get so distressed by the reports that I get about how well it is going. First of all, the number of daily attacks in Iraq have gone from in 2004, daily, 53 attacks in 2004, 70 attacks in 2005, and in 2006, 90 attacks a day.
Estimated size of the insurgency. Now, we are supposed to be making progress. That is what we hear. The estimated size of the insurgency in 2004 was 15,000. In May of 2005 it was 16,000. In May of 2006 it was 20,000.
This is the way I measure whether there is progress or not progress.
The amount of cash paid to families, this is an important point, to Iraqi civilians killed or maimed by the operation involving American troops went from in 2004, $5 million to $20 million.
Now, what does that mean? The problem is that all of us want to solve the problem, all of us want to have a satisfactory answer in Iraq. The problem is the way we have to operate as a military. The reason we won the first Gulf War is we were fighting a conventional force and we wiped them out. Nobody can match our military. They are the best in the world. But now we are fighting a guerilla war, and that is the type of problem that we have.
For instance, we went into Fallujah, we put 300,000 people outside their homes and only 100,000 have come back now. And when we put 300,000 people outside their home, every one of those are an enemy.
Abu Ghraib. Why did Abu Ghraib happen? Abu Ghraib happened because we had insufficient forces and untrained people and unsupervised people in that prison.
Now, what do I mean by untrained? We had one fella, who happened to be from my district, that had a court order against him because he had abused his family, and he couldn't carry a gun in Pennsylvania. And he said, I can't do this. This is against my nature. I don't know anything about taking care of prisoners. He is now in jail. But the point is he was untrained in that particular job, and even though he told them, they put him in the job. And of course we know the tremendous consequence, at the very time we went into Fallujah, at the very time we put 300,000 people outside their home.
And listen, I endorse this. I know we have to have, when we go into an area, we have to use overwhelming force. That is the way the military has to operate. But, you see, these payments from $5 million in 2004 to $20 million last year, that is because when we go into a place we kill them inadvertently. And when we kill people inadvertently we make enemies, and Abu Ghraib was the biggest public relations disaster we had since My Lai during the Vietnam War.
The number of complete or reconstructed projects, as I said, in al Anbar Province, imagine now, this is one-third of the geography of Iraq, and they have 2 million people, zero. Zero. Number of civilians who died in Baghdad last month, 1,400, in sectarian violence. What is the definition of sectarian violence? A civil war.
All of us want to end this thing. All of us want to find a way to prevail in Iraq. This is a civil war and we are caught in a civil war. There is less than a thousand al Qaeda in Iraq. They have diminished al Qaeda. But we are caught in this civil war between 100,000 Shiias and 20,000 Sunnis fighting with each other.
The average monthly U.S. war expenditure in Iraq: $4.4 billion in 2003, $5 billion in 2004, $6.1 billion in 2005, and $8 billion. The average monthly expenditure, $8 billion. Now, think what I am saying. The first Gulf War, and Duncan Hunter remembers this, they paid internationally. We paid $5 billion. He was on the Armed Services Committee. He knows what I am talking about. We paid $5 billion and they paid $60 billion. They had 160,000 troops in the first Gulf War.
Now, let me talk about the sentiment and talk about the polls taken. We all look at the polls to see what is going on. Now, the only poll taken of U.S. forces in Iraq, about 3 1/2 months ago: 72 percent of the American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within a year.
[Page: H4028]
Now, I can understand that. Let me tell you, it is hot, they are wearing 70 pounds every day when they are out there in the field, and I can certainly understand that. Forty-two percent say they do not know what the mission is. And that is devastating when they do not understand the mission.
A public opinion Iraqi poll, a segment of 18 provinces, all 18 provinces: More than half the Iraqis say they are headed in the wrong direction, and 82 percent say the economic situation is either poor or fair. Now, these are the Iraqis. Ninety percent say the security situation is poor or fair.
And who do they trust? Who do they trust for personal security? Forty-three percent trust the Iraqi police, 35 percent trust the Iraqi army, 6 percent trust the insurgents, 6 percent trust the insurgents, 4 percent trust the armed militia, and 1 percent, 1 percent trust the multinational force. In another poll taken at the beginning of this year, 47 percent approve the attacks on the United States forces, and 87 percent of the Iraqis endorse a timetable for withdrawal.
Our global image couldn't have been higher after the first Gulf War, with 80 to 90 percent of the people in the world thinking the United States did a marvelous job. We had recovered from Vietnam, finally, in the first Gulf War.
Ten of 14 countries polled said the war in Iraq has made the world more dangerous, and most of the countries rated the U.S. troops in Iraq a bigger danger to world peace than the threat posed by Iran. Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Russia, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, and Turkey all have more favorable ratings of China than the U.S.
Now, this resolution is a restatement of the failed policy of this administration, and it is no surprise that that is what this is.
[Time: 12:45]
We can't win this. This cannot be won rhetorically. We cannot sit here, stand here in an air-conditioned office and say we support the troops, say we support the policy.
I visit the hospitals every week, and the only person to visit them more than I do is Bill Young and his wife. I see these young people. I am so impressed by their determination, and I am so hopeful we can end this terrible tragedy.
When I got into this 6 months ago, I got into it because of the troops and because of the fact that I felt we couldn't do anything more militarily. We had done everything we could do militarily, and, second, because of the future of the military.
The bill we are going to pass next week, and very few people are going to vote against it, if you want to really support the troops, that is what you vote for. You vote for that legislation. That will say we will run out of money for personnel for the troops because we cut $4 billion out of the base bill by September. We will take care of that. We will find a way to do it. But the point is the base bill was cut by $4 billion.
Now let me tell you the difference in what I believe is the answer. I believe we redeploy and be ready; that is what I say. I say redeploy and be ready.
We are the targets. We are causing the problem. You know who wants us to stay in Iraq right now, the al Qaeda wants us there because it recruits people for them. China wants us there. North Korea wants us there. Russia wants us there. We are depleting our resources, just like Russia depleted their resources in Afghanistan. The same thing is happening with the United States. We will have spent $450 billion by the end of this fiscal year. Now think, the first gulf war we spent $5 billion. We have spent $450 billion.
Stay and we will pay, not only pay in dollars, in money; we are going to pay long term.
I figure it took us through the Reagan administration to pay for the Vietnam War. We had 18 to 21 percent interest rates during the Reagan administration, and the reason we did was because Lyndon Johnson, the President of the United States, said we can have butter and we can have guns, and he didn't raise the taxes he should have raised when we had the war going on.
So we continue to pay with lives lost in terms of financial treasure and more than $8 billion a month. We pay in terms of international reputation. We pay in terms of the future of our military. We stay and pay. I say redeploy and be ready.
Let me tell this one last story.
When I came out of Vietnam, they gave me this small bullet. It is a 45 caliber without any powder in it. It says: ``First Marines, everything is going to be all right.''
A month after I came out of Vietnam in 1967, Lyndon Johnson said, and I believed in the Vietnam War. I thought we were fighting communism. But Lyndon Johnson said, and they had an election, one month after I came out of Vietnam, everything was going to be all right. Do you know how many people we lost from 1967 until we pulled out? 37,000.
Rhetoric does not answer the problem. Only the Iraqis can solve the problem in Iraq. They are fighting with each other, and our troops are caught in between. I say it is time to redeploy and be ready.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I can't help but comment on my good friend Mr. Murtha's eulogy for the first gulf war. The problem we have had there is we quit too soon. We quit before the victory was secure. We left the Republican Army, we left Saddam Hussein, we just washed our hands and left. I hope we learned a lesson from that, what a mistake it was and it led to later difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, so much of what we do in this Chamber is inconsequential; but the subject of this debate is anything but trivial. Let us then be serious as life and death are serious.
The capacity to reproduce that fearful mushroom cloud which first terrorized the world in 1945 is multiplying and becoming the deadly plaything of rogue nations across the globe.
Partisans have charged the President with misleading us into war, ``misleading'' being a pale euphemism for lying. The acquisition is made more grave by the assertion that he concocted the war for purely political purposes.
By any measure this is a monstrous charge, but questions persist that must be answered if we are to honestly examine the President's rationale for intervention. It is essential to first understand the context in which the decision was made.
President Bush has cited two factors for his decision to intervene in Iraq: the first, his belief that Saddam was reconstituting his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction; and, secondly, that the Iraqi dictator was cooperating with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
The threat from Saddam Hussein stretches back much further than many of today's critics care to remember. Saddam's effort to develop a nuclear weapon began in the 1970s, centered around the nuclear reactor being constructed at Osirak.
Despite the alarming evidence of its purpose, the world casually contemplated what it saw as a distant, perhaps even benign, development.
But the luxury of inaction was not available to Israel because her leaders knew that the country was certain to be among Saddam's first targets. They also knew that the responsibility for Israel's safety was theirs alone, and that the world would do nothing to save their country if they failed to act.
So act they did, launching a bold attack in 1981, destroying the reactor complex and setting Saddam's nuclear quest back many years. But far from praising this heroic act that benefited humanity, the world community responded with condemnation, even outrage. Yet, in hindsight, is anyone so foolish as to assert that Israel should have waited for the United Nations to confirm that a threat existed, that Israel should not have taken action to destroy the reactor, even in defiance of the international community?
Had Israel not acted, the future of the Middle East and the West would likely have unfolded quite differently and far more tragically.
Unchastened by this setback, Saddam continued his aggressive campaign to dominate the region and control the world's oil supply, launching a decade-long war against Iran in 1980 during which over a million people were killed and in which he used poison gas and other means of mass slaughter.
After being beaten back from Iran, his attention then turned to Kuwait,
[Page: H4029]
Many forget that for a time that outcome was a real possibility. Much of the initial response in the world community, and in this country, was one of let's look the other way and hope for the best.
Only when the United States decided to forcefully eject Saddam from Kuwait and to assume the principal burden for doing so was the international community finally persuaded to go along. We refused to allow our fate and that of the world to be shaped by a dictator, and all sensible people are glad of it.
What we providentially discovered after that war astonished the entire world. Despite years of inspections and the best efforts of numerous intelligence services, Saddam had managed to secretly construct a massive program to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The experts estimate that he was only 6 months from an operational nuclear device. Had he postponed his invasion of Kuwait by half a year, the world would now be a much darker place.
This record of unrelenting aggression and implacable menace was the only context in which a reasonable person could view Saddam's future designs. This was the background in which the events of 9/11 occurred.
Imagine yourself as President, confronting the fact that an unknown group of terrorists had incinerated 3,000 Americans in an attack carried out by individuals who gladly committed suicide to create this horror. We had no idea how extensive their resources were, how global the threat was, who were their allies, how massive were the hidden terrorists to come.
In this context, let us consider the alternative to our intervention in Iraq: The President is presented with evidence that once again Saddam Hussein has developing weapons of mass destruction, that he once again refuses to cooperate with international arms inspectors, that he has had contact with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that he is even harboring terrorist organizations. And yet the President decides not to act. He decides to wait, to see if those same inspectors who had previously been deceived by Saddam will again give him a clean bill of health months or years in the future, to wait until our allies or the United Nations grudgingly grant us a narrow warrant to act. To wait until Saddam perhaps gives to some terrorist organization a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to detonate in some U.S. city.
To trust our fate to those who would destroy us is to die and leave no descendants.
Is it possible to imagine the storm of condemnation that would justifiably fall on a President who, by not acting, allowed Saddam to arm himself once again with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons? To allow the possibility that these might be made available to a terrorist organization, to acquiesce in the death of thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps of millions of Americans simply because the available evidence was not 99 percent, no, 100 percent certain?
For if al Qaeda had had a nuclear device, there can be no doubt it would have used it on 9/11 and we would be mourning the death of 3 million Americans, not a tragic 3,000.
Which then was the greater risk in the face of decades of evidence? To act or not to act? To trust Saddam? Who in this body is willing to assert that it is ever wise, that it is ever moral to risk the destruction of the American people? That is the context in which the decision to intervene in Iraq was taken.
Was our intelligence imperfect? In retrospect, that is obvious. But when is it ever perfect? Nor was this shortcoming uniquely ours. Every intelligence service in the world assumed that Saddam was once again engaged in developing weapons of mass destruction. After the invasion, we learned the astonishing fact that even Saddam's own generals believed he possessed them and was prepared to use them.
It is certainly worth noting that among the shrillest voices condemning our intelligence failure are many who once devoted their efforts to weakening our intelligence capabilities, who employed their energies towards imposing restrictions, cutting budgets, sounding alarms about imaginary ``rogue elephants.''
Permit me to quote from some of the most strident critics of this administration and its campaign against the terrorists.
The first is a United States Senator now serving with great distinction in the other body. And on September 23, 2001, 12 days after the events of 9/11 this Senator stated: ``The tragedy is at this moment that the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence.
[Time: 13:00]
``We are weakest, frankly, in that particular area. So it is going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this properly.'' You will find that on CBS's Face the Nation, September 23, 2001.
But this same Senator, in 1995, introduced a bill, S. 1290, that would have reduced the intelligence budget by $300 million in each of the fiscal years, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000.
Then we have a gentlewoman serving with distinction in this body, from sunny California, and in 1998 she stated, ``it is time to totally eliminate the CIA.'' Congressional Record, March 18, 1997.
On several occasions in the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet empire, a majority of Democrats in the House voted to cut the U.S. intelligence budget. Yet, following the horrific events of September 11, the chorus of voices that had previously advocated reducing our intelligence capabilities quickly reversed their theme. Even they must thank God that they had been unsuccessful in their efforts. But on this subject we hear nothing but deafening silence.
One inescapable lesson of history is that passivity in the face of a threat is an invitation to strike. The desire to run away only encourages pursuit. We are seeing that fatal approach gather strength elsewhere in the world manifested in efforts to bind the hands of those who would attack terrorism at its source. The hope is that, as with the passing of a storm, the threat will move on and blue skies reappear and that the nightmare will at last be over. But the terrible reality is by succumbing to the fear of terrorism, by doing too little in the fear that we are doing too much, we condemn ourselves to a future of unending assaults.
Other countries have learned that, however meager their contribution to their own and the world's security, however ineffectual their actions, in the end the United States will rescue them. We will make the world right again. We will defend against all threats. We, however, no longer have that luxury. If we do not take action to defend ourselves, then we are lost because no one exists to rescue us if we fail.
So, aware of its responsibilities, aware of the horrific consequences that might occur from indecision and a reliance on trust and hope, President Bush acted to remove the threat posed by Saddam. What he did is called leadership. And for doing his duty for all of us, he has been denounced by many of the same people who would have denounced him had he not acted, denounced by people who bear no responsibility, who take no responsibility, even for their own actions.
Saddam is no longer a threat to anyone. That is a salutary lesson for those around the world who watch and wait for opportunities for unopposed aggression. They now know that their invulnerability has vanished. Even more important, and almost entirely unnoticed amid the torrent of criticism focused on President Bush, is that his actions have greatly enhanced the credibility of the United States. For the next time this or any President warns a foreign despot to cease actions we believe are threatening to us, there can be little doubt that we will take decisive and forceful action, no matter how great the opposition of the world community.
No one can credibly question that this greatly enhanced credibility paid off with Libya's decision to abandon its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Qaddafi understood what President Bush's critics still refuse to acknowledge, that this administration is determined to eliminate threats to our country, both actual and potential, and if necessary, will use force to do so.
[Page: H4030]
That is in sharp contrast to the passivity of the previous administration, whose failure to react to the repeated attacks on the United States only encouraged our enemies to make further attacks. What other conclusion could al Qaeda and others have reached from our baffling inaction and response to their assaults on our embassy, on our military, on us? They were taught the false lesson that they were free to slaughter us and we would do nothing.
Incredibly, senior officials from the administration now shamelessly criticize this President for taking decisive measures to address the threat that they themselves could not be brought to contemplate. By acting first in Afghanistan, and then Iraq to remove Saddam, President Bush has rendered the need for future interventions much less likely.
It is unfortunate that the quest for political advantage and a high decibel partisanship have intruded into the national discussions of how best to address the problems we face in Iraq. But there can be no doubt that the more we appear disunited, and the more voluble our dissent into weakness, dissension and inaction, the greater the aid and comfort we give to our enemies.
The world of predictability and relative safety we once knew is gone. We are now engaged in a cruel, brutal struggle with those who would destroy us, one unprecedented in its challenge to our perseverance and courage, and one that will be fought not just in foreign lands but on our own soil.
To insist that decisions must await perfect intelligence, that the risk of action is to be more feared than the risk of inaction, that others will save us, is to guarantee our defeat. But defeat in this new and more dangerous world means annihilation. The smoking gun that some critics insist on might well be some of our cities.
We in this Chamber, our country, the entire world, owe this President not condemnation but our thanks for acting in Iraq, for refusing to wait for an avowed enemy to strike, for not temporizing and letting the forces of destruction wage unopposed their pitiless war to destroy everything we believe in.
To those faint of heart from temporary setbacks in Iraq or who seek to benefit politically from our differences there, permit me to quote from Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine wrote, ``These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service of their country. But he that stands by it now deserves the love and thanks of men and women. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered. Yet, we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.''
Charles De Gaulle once said, ``France would not be true to herself if she weren't engaged in some great enterprise.'' Our great enterprise is the defense of freedom, and may we be worthy of the challenge.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Let me comment on a couple of things the distinguished gentleman from Illinois said.
He talks about early exit. This war has gone on, Mr. Chairman, this war has gone on longer than the Korean War. It has gone on longer than World War I, and it has gone almost as long as the European War.
If I believed we were making progress, we can't win this militarily. What I am saying is to redeploy, to get our troops out of harm's way is the key. I see no progress at all in this operation. I see the opposite.
When I see, you talk about al Qaeda being encouraged by what we say. Al Qaeda has gone from 15,000 to 20,000. Incidents have gone from 50 a day to 90 a day. That is the thing that worries me. And we are not making progress. We are losing progress.
I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair reminds Members to direct their comments to the Chair.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue today, this important issue for so many Americans across the country, from my home State of Missouri. So many families such as mine have young people in uniform. But this resolution before us today is not what we requested, nor is it what we were told we would have before us to debate. We expected a resolution confined to the country of Iraq and the conflict there. That is not what the resolution is. This resolution covers the Middle East waterfront, trying to blend together the Iraqi war and the war against terrorism, which has its genesis in Afghanistan.
Mr. Speaker, these are two separate and distinct wars. We did the right thing by going into Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban, which supported and protected the al Qaeda terrorists. And then came along the discussion, the international discussion about Iraq and Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction.
We made the decision, as a country, to go into Iraq. At that time, Mr. Speaker, knowing the history and the culture of the Middle East, I sent two letters to the President of the United States, one on September 4, 2002, and one on March 18, 2003, before we went into Iraq. My letters warned against the aftermath.
They sent an Assistant Secretary of State and an Assistant Secretary of Defense over to see me and said, ``Ike, it will be all right.''
We know what happened in the aftermath insurgency because we allowed the looting, we sent the Iraqi Army home, rather than give them a paycheck and a shovel, and didn't have enough troops to quell any insurgency. And it arose. And here we are, some 3 years later.
Despite the fact that this resolution is a broad one, let's talk about Iraq, which should be the complete subject of the resolution before us.
Mr. Speaker, this Nation is at a strategic crossroads. We are spending $8 billion a month, over $300 billion on this war. And more strikingly, we are losing, Mr. Speaker, a battalion's worth of casualties killed or injured between Iraq and Afghanistan. By far, most of them are, sadly, in Iraq. And there are increasing insurgent inspired attacks.
Now, what makes this resolution so interesting is the fact that it flies in the face of the law that we passed here in the Congress of the United States and the President signed. The bill, the defense bill of 2005 said this: ``Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq.'' That is the law of our land. That is what the defense bill said last year. ``Thereby creating conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq.''
[Time: 13:15]
What does this mean to us in the long run? Well, farmers in Missouri know that the quality of the corn that they plant will bring about the quality of the corn that grows. And we find ourselves militarily eating our seed corn in the country of Iraq. Sadly, a few moments ago we had a moment of silence for the 2,500th American that sacrificed a life in that sad country. But it means eating up the equipment, and we are using equipment right and left and it is going to take 3 years to refurbish the United States Army if the war would stop today equipment-wise. There are challenges in recruiting and retention. But I have to tell you how proud I am of those young people in uniform today. But if we do not take serious thought about the phraseology that is in the law creating the condition for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, I think that we may be eating our military seed corn. And what does this mean? It means that the United States of America will be less prepared to either deter or defend an attack that might come at some future date.
This is serious business. We need to remain strong militarily. That is the way you deter problems. Should North Korea, somewhere in Asia, somewhere in Latin America, somewhere in Africa that would cause us to be involved, the question is, Mr. Speaker, would we be prepared militarily to meet that challenge?
That is why it is very important that we do our very best to take seriously the law regarding transition this year, the significant transition.
[Page: H4031]
And what will it take? It will take the Iraqi government to stand up on its own, and it is on its way there, to transfer the security problem and situation to their police force and to their military, and we have some 250,000 Iraqi military either fully trained or nearly fully trained. We have to hand the baton over to them. We as a country, whether militarily or not, cannot determine the fate of Iraq. The Iraqis have to do it themselves, their own government, their own military, and their own police force. We can be of help. We have been of help. We have been there some 3 years. I think it is time for us to seriously look at where we are, where we are going, and do our very best to keep ourselves militarily strong for those days that are bound to happen.
And, Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Members I have been in Congress 29 plus years thanks to those wonderful folks in Missouri. During that time, we have had 10 military confrontations with other countries. History being what it is reflects that, and the future may hold something similar. We hope not. But the question is will we be militarily prepared when the time comes?
The Iraq adventure needs to be looked at in light of the law that we passed last year. The calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. That is the law. That is what the Congress passed. That is what the President signed. And that is where we are.
Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the RECORD at this point my letters in full to the President, dated September 4, 2002, and March 18, 2003.
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, DC, September 4, 2002.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Thank you for inviting me to the briefing this morning. I share your concern about the continuing threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I would like to offer my assistance as the administration considers how to deal with this threat.
Before Congress can authorize any military action that might be part of the administration's plan, we must have answers to more questions than were able to be raised. at today's meeting. Our constitutional duty requires us to ensure that all implications of such action are considered in advance. The case has not yet been fully made as to what the threat is, why military force is an appropriate way of addressing the threat, and why action must occur now. In short, Congress and the American people must be clear on your strategic vision before we can authorize a specific course of action. I believe, like Clausewitz, that in strategy there is an ``imperative ..... not to take the first step without considering the last.''
Your strategy for dealing with Iraq must address the fundamental questions of the threat, the method of acting, and the timing. Furthermore, any strategy to eliminate Iraqi WMD must also address several component issues, each of which raises critical questions.
1. How to manage Iraq's transition to a stable post-Saddam regime:
As I mentioned to you this morning, this is a crucial question for administration strategy to answer in advance of any military action. I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it.
As Sun-Tzu said in the classic strategic treatise, The Art of War, ``To win victory is easy; to preserve its fruits, difficult.'' Military planners and political leaders alike knew this in World War II. Planning for the occupation of Germany and Japan--two economically viable, technologically sophisticated nations--took place well in advance of the end of the war. The extreme difficulty of occupying Iraq with its history of autocratic rule, its balkanized ethnic tensions, and its isolated economic system argues both for careful consideration of the benefits and risks of undertaking military action and for detailed advanced occupation planning if such military action is approved.
Specifically, your strategy must consider the form of a replacement regime and take seriously the possibility that this regime might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to civil unrest and even anarchy. The effort must be to craft a stable regime that will be geopolitically preferable to Saddam and will incorporate the disparate interests of all groups within Iraq--Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd. We must also plan now for what to do with members of the Baath party that continue to support Saddam and with the scientists and engineers who have expertise born of the Iraqi WMD program.
All these efforts require careful planning and long-term commitment of manpower and resources. The American people must be clear about the amount of money and the number of soldiers that will have to be devoted to this effort for many years to come.
2. How to ensure the action in Iraq does not undermine international support for the broader war on terrorism:
In planning for military operations in Iraq, we cannot ignore the lack of international support to date. Pre-emptive action against Iraq is currently vocally opposed by many of our allies and friends throughout the world and particularly in the Middle East.
When we are seen as acting against the concerns of large numbers of our friends, it calls into question the ``humble'' approach to international relations you espoused during the presidential campaign. More than that, it has several potentially damaging long-term consequences. First, it risks losing the large number of partners needed to prosecute the global war on terrorism. To ferret terrorist groups out of their many hiding places, we must have broad allied support. Second, it risks seriously damaging U.S. moral legitimacy, potentially providing states like India and Pakistan with a preemptive option that could drive long-standing conflicts beyond containable bounds.
Finally and perhaps most dangerously, actions without broad Arab support may inflame the sources of terrorism, causing unrest and anger throughout the Muslim world. This dynamic will be worse if Iraq attacks Israel--perhaps with weapons of mass destruction--and draws them into the conflict. Iran, which has the potential to seize a reformist path, may well move away from the United States in the face of attacks that could next be taken against them. Together, these dynamics will make achieving peace in the Middle East more difficult and may well provide the rationale for more terrorist attacks against Americans.
These concerns do not make military action in Iraq untenable. They do, however, highlight the depth and importance of the issues to be addressed before we strike. We need to ensure that in taking out Saddam, we don't win the battle and lose the war.
3. How to ensure that the United States can execute this operation successfully as well as its other military missions:
As you are well aware, Mr. President, the consideration of military action against Iraq comes at a time when U.S. forces are actively engaged throughout the world in a range of missions. Given the operational pressures these forces currently face, we must ask what the risks and trade-offs will be of defeating Iraq, particularly if Iraqi forces mass in Baghdad for urban operations. How many casualties must the American people be prepared to take in a worst-case scenario? What will the impact of sustained operations be on so-called high-demand, low-density assets? What military operations might we have to forego because of continued demands in Iraq? Will we still be prepared for the range of other threats that might emerge throughout the world? With little allied support and contributions, will we still be able to maintain military spending on transformational technologies and on sound quality of life for our forces if we are bearing a huge wartime cost alone? What will be the impact on the domestic economy of these resources drains and of the long-term costs of reconstructing Iraq? These questions must be answered before any military action commences so that the American people understand the risks and the sacrifices involved.
I ask these questions only to highlight the complexity of the undertaking and the need for Congress, the American people, and our friends around the world to understand exactly what is at stake and why we must act now. Only such a comprehensive strategic approach will ensure that we commit U.S. troops consciously and with full knowledge of the range of challenges we face--both in the initial campaign and in the long aftermath to follow. Even a strategy that has military action as its centerpiece will require great diplomatic efforts to ensure its success. I look forward to hearing the administration's answers and to working with you to find the best course of action.
Sincerely,
Ike Skelton,
Ranking Democrat.
--
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, DC, March 18, 2003.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: This is a critical week for our nation and for the world. As you prepare to make the most difficult decision of sending our troops into combat, the thoughts and prayers of all Americans are with you. My colleagues here in Congress have many different views on the wisdom of action in Iraq and the severity of its consequences. But we are united in our support for all the men and women who serve this nation.
There is no doubt that our forces will be victorious in any conflict, but there is great potential for a ragged ending to a war as we deal with the aftermath. I appreciate the efforts that members of your administration have made to keep me informed about plans for the administration and reconstruction of Iraq following military conflict. Your team has thought about many of the things that will need to be done.
[Page: H4032]
Secretary Rumsfeld frequently talks about the list he keeps of things that could go wrong in an Iraq war. I have kept my own list--of things that could go wrong after the war is over. The list below is indicative of this broader list. My hope is that this will be helpful to members of your administration as you continue to plan for all possibilities. These are not complete scenarios but rather a series of possible problems that could occur in some combination.
INTERNAL DIVISIONS AND EXTERNAL INFLUENCES IN IRAQ
Without access to Iraq through Turkey, U.S. troops are not present in northern Iraq in large numbers. Turkey enters northern Iraq to establish a buffer zone and fighting breaks out between the Turks and Kurds. A significant U.S. military force is needed to separate the groups, complicating the governmental transition and international support.
An uprising in Kirkuk leaves the Kurds in control of areas of the city and surrounding area. This triggers a large Turkish invasion to protect the Turkmen minority and to prevent Kurdish control of oil resources. Again this would require U.S. military resources with all the attending effects.
In the event that Turkey crosses into Iraq, Iran may do the same, ostensibly to stem the refugee flows from southern Iraq and to protect Shi'a interests.
Shi'a populations in the south rebel and undertake attacks against Sunnis. U.S. troops must step in to protect the Sunnis and restore peace. These tensions resurface during attempts to build a federal and representative government.
Urban fighting in the south brings Shi'a into conflict with Sunnis. The resulting devastation causes a refugee crisis as Shi'a make for the Iranian border. The results of Saddam's policy of forced Arabization of areas like Kirkuk yield dangerous consequences. Groups like the Kurds flow back into these areas seeking to reclaim their former homes and land, sparking conflict with Iraqi Arabs.
Attempts to fashion a federal government in Baghdad prove difficult. Iran is able to establish proxies for its influence among the Shi'a representatives. Once in Iraq, infighting breaks out among members of the former Iraqi opposition in exile. The United States is unable to transition the administration of Iraq effectively and has to remain in place, with significant military backing.
The war involves lengthy urban combat, particularly in Baghdad. Most infrastructure is destroyed resulting in massive humanitarian problems. The emphasis on humanitarian aid distracts from efforts to establish a new government. Once established the government faces massive political pressure from the sustained humanitarian crisis.
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Saddam uses biological and chemical weapons against advancing U.S. troops, but also inflicts substantial civilian casualties. Efforts to stabilize cities and to establish a government are complicated by the need to deal with the large number of dead and to decontaminate affected areas.
Saddam uses biological and chemical weapons directly against civilian populations or against another Arab country and seeks to affix blame for civilian suffering to the United States. Over the period of occupation, this resentment complicates U.S. efforts to maintain support for reconstruction efforts.
U.S. troops are unable to quickly find all of Saddam's capabilities, requiring a long, labor-intensive search and anxiety as to when the task is complete.
Regional leaders, for money or to gain influence, retain caches of WMD and transfer some to terrorist groups.
Saddam attacks Israel with missiles containing weapons of mass destruction. Israel retaliates. Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia and Jordan, come under intense political pressure to withdraw their support from the U.S. war effort. U.S. forces are forced to reposition operational centers into Iraq and Kuwait, complicating reconstruction and transition efforts.
OIL RESOURCES
Saddam sabotages a significant number of wells before his defeat. Current estimates indicate he may already have wired up to 1,500 of these wells. The damage takes years to contain at great economic and environmental cost and removes a major source of reconstruction funding.
Internal groups, such as the Kurds, seize oil-rich land before American troops reach the area, causing internal clashes over these resources. Militant Shi'as seize other wells in the South.
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT
The United States takes immediate control of Iraq's administration and of reconstruction. The United Nations can't agree on how involved to get given the divisions among the Security Council about the need for conflict. The lack of UN involvement in the administration makes the European Union and others less likely to give. This situation delays reconstruction and puts more of the cost on the United States and a smaller number of partners.
U.S. reconstruction efforts that give U.S. corporations a great role at the expense of multilateral organizations and other participation--as was detailed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal--spur resentment and again limit the willingness of others to participate.
AMERICAN COMMITMENT
Stabilization and reconstruction prove more difficult than expected. U.S. troop requirements approach 200,000--the figure General Shinseki has mentioned--for a sustained period. This puts pressure on troop rotations, reservists, their families, and employers and requires a dramatic increase in end-strength.
Required funding reaches the figure suggested by a recent Council on Foreign Relations assessment--20 billion annually for several years. During a period of economic difficulty, the American public calls for greater burdensharing.
It is my hope that none of these eventualities comes to pass. But as you and all military leaders know, good planning requires considering the range of possibilities. It also requires advance preparation of the American people. You have regularly outlined the reasons for why the United States must disarm Iraq. I urge you to do the same in explaining why we must stay with Iraq for the long haul, even with the economic and military burdens this will entail.
As always, I am willing to help in any way I can to make this case to my colleagues and the American people.
Sincerely,
Ike Skelton,
Ranking Democrat.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee for allowing me to take a little time early in this debate, although I know the Armed Services Committee is going to come up a little later. And I wanted to talk about this war and touch on some of the subjects that my good friend Mr. Murtha has brought up over the last 15 or 20 minutes.
I was a new Member of Congress in 1983 when I went over to Beirut with a lot of those great members of the Armed Services Committee, and we got over there a couple of weeks before the Marines were blown up in the terrorist act that all Americans now have heard about and understand. And the reaction of the United States to that was basically to move out. And I know we all remember the Khobar Towers going up and a similar nonreaction from the United States. And we remember the embassies going up in North Africa and the national derision that followed the sending back of a couple of cruise missiles, one of which was alleged to have hit a drugstore, which was at most a symbolic response to the blowing up of those embassies in Africa. And I remember the Cole, and we all remember the Cole, and the destruction of that ship and the ensuing American casualties and the nonaction by the United States.
And then we were struck on 9/11, and we realized that it was wrong for us to treat these terrorist acts as isolated, compartmentalized acts that were unrelated. And at that point we struck back. And we undertook a mission first to Afghanistan, secondly a mission to Iraq.
And I do not think we have to plow old ground about Iraq. I think everybody understands Saddam Hussein, Gulf I. But I think it is important and it is good that my friend Mr. Murtha has pointed out that, in fact, even as we drove that armored spearhead north in this war against Iraq, taking Baghdad, Tommy Franks was intercepting communications even then from Iraqi officers to the effect that they were on the verge of using the ``special weapon,'' which we interpreted to be poison gas, a weapon of mass destruction, and he gave out orders that were right down to platoon and squad level, get ready for those weapons of mass destruction.
I can also remember giving a briefing, giving an invitation to every Member of this House, Democrat and Republican, before we voted on taking military action in Iraq, to come over and listen to intelligence experts in a closed briefing with no handlers, no White House personnel, and ask any question they wanted to ask about weapons of mass destruction. And they did that. Lots of them. We had over 100 Members at several of the briefings. And we had members of the intelligence apparatus of this country laying out differences. They talked about the aluminum tubes, how some people thought those were to be used in centrifuges for the conversion of uranium, the enrichment of uranium. Others thought they were to be used for rocket bodies. But we invited all the Members before they made that vote to give the President license to go into Iraq. They did that vote from an educated standpoint. They had an opportunity to pull all the information that they wanted.
Now, it has been stated that we did not have enough troops going into Iraq.
[Page: H4033]
Now let us talk about troops in the occupation and the level of troops in the occupation because that has been brought up a number of times, and General Shinseki's statement about needing more than the number of troops that we had there has been used many times. There have been two arguments: one, that we needed to have more troops to make sure we could suppress the insurgents; and the other statement that was made, sometimes in the same speech, would be that we needed to put an Iraqi face on the security apparatus. Well, you can't have it both ways. You cannot have an American on every street corner and have an Iraqi face on the security apparatus.
And let me just say one last thing, which is a hard, tough truth for this House. But when the gentleman from Pennsylvania and I, as we watched the last of the 1990s unfold and the Clinton administration left the White House, we noticed in our defense committees that we went into that administration in the early 1990s with 15 American Army divisions. We came out of that administration with 10, count them, 10. Roughly 33 combat brigades. That is a fact of life. That is what we had to go into this operation with. Now we are moving and we are building toward 43 combat brigades right now. But we cut the military, we cut the U.S. Army, by almost 40 percent, and that is what we had to go into this war with.
Now, with respect to the gentleman's statements that in the first war we got lots of folks to chip in and pay for this thing, that is right. On the other hand, you had lots of self-interest. You had Saddam Hussein's tanks in third gear before we threw the 82nd Airborne in between him and his objectives, and you had everybody that had an oil well in that region scared to death and willing to pour money into this operation. So it is no surprise that countries out of self-interest will pile on and will help out. It is also no surprise that we have had lots of times in our national history when it has been tough to bring allies on board, when we had to have big pieces of this operation by ourselves and go it alone. And yet we were able to bring at least 20,000 coalition members into this operation.
And it is true we did not have the French and the Germans. But the French and the Germans were looking forward to major oil contracts with Saddam Hussein, and they did not want to go this time against their pocketbooks, and that is a fact of life.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's yielding.
You and I have had a great opportunity to work together in the defense arena in recent years. My chairing our subcommittee in Appropriations brought in clear form to me the contribution you have made to the strength of America and our role in the world.
I may not be able to speak later, but let me say to the gentleman that very early on in this process, one of the great trips I have ever taken was with a cross-section of this House, people who voted against the war, people who were in the center somewhere, people who supported the President from the beginning, all of them over a long weekend. And together we saw Saddam Hussein for what he was, visiting killing fields with 500,000 people that this guy murdered, of his own people, while he was building golden palaces.
As we left, we came together to see what we would do about that big supplemental on the war. To a person, Democrat and Republican, one of our Members summarized it by saying this: All of you know where I have been coming from. I voted against the war. It is going to be very unpopular when I go home. But after seeing what Saddam Hussein is really about, how could we do anything else?
And all 13 of those Members came in that great debate and supported the President's fight against Saddam Hussein because it was a fight against the war on terror.
[Time: 13:30]
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. And, you know, that takes me to another point, which is the Iraqi Army. It has been said many times, and probably will be said again in this debate, that we should have kept the Iraqi Army intact.
Now, the road that is not taken is always the smoothest. But looking at the Iraqi Army, at Saddam Hussein's army, he had 15,000 Sunni generals. How are you going to maintain an efficient Iraqi Army that is responsive to a new fledgling civilian government with 15,000 Sunni generals running this thing?
We have had to build this army from the ground up. I think that history will show that that was the right thing to do. To have an efficient army, you have got to have a couple of things. You have got to have an army that has a chain of command which is responsive, that means that the private does what the sergeant says and the sergeant does what his platoon leader says, and right up the chain of command.
And you have also got to have an army that is responsive to the civilian government, to that new defense minister that was just put in place. I do not think you are going to do that with 15,000 Sunni generals. I have seen that statement tossed around so much that I hope to be able to talk to some of the folks a couple of years down the line when it is reflected.
Incidentally, people like Barry McCaffrey who have not been great friends of the administration's operation have said that looking at the Iraqi Army now, they see a core of strength, they see leadership emerging, and they see an Iraqi Army that is becoming effective.
So what are we doing? We have a mission, and the mission right now for the military is to provide a shield for this fledgling government as it goes into place, this new government. We are nation-builders. We are building a nation. It is also to train up the Iraqi military, and we are going to hand off this defense burden, that means our people come home after we train up and mature the Iraqi military.
If the question for us is, who is best equipped to decide when we take the training wheels off, when we let the Iraqi military go forward, I think we should leave that judgment up to the people who tracked down and brought to justice Mr. Zarqawi, a gentleman who said that he was going to take this war to Washington, DC, and London.
He is going to be a little late for that one, because we have an extremely competent American military on the ground in Iraq right now. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania would agree with that.
So let's use that same judgment of those combat commanders who are training those Iraqi units in their areas of operation who say, okay, this battalion is just about matured, this one is not, this one needs more equipment, this one needs some more training. Let's rely on their judgment as to when we can hand that load off to them and let them bear the security burden.
Why should a Senator from Wisconsin or a Congressman from California try to impose an arbitrary date on when that maturity takes place. You cannot do it. So I would just ask my friends to give to those great Americans who are over there working this mission right now, let's send a united statement to them that there is value in this mission, there is value in their operation.
We are going to complete this mission. You know, they are lacking something that the Greatest Generation had. The Greatest Generation in World
[Page: H4034]
Let's give the 1st Marine Division that is out there in that tough province in the al Anbar Province out in Fallujah the same support we gave them when they were fighting Guadalcanal. The 1st Marine Division deserves a united American public and a united American Congress.
So let's send a message. The main message that is manifested in this resolution is that we should not have an arbitrary cut-off point, an arbitrary deadline, and, secondly, that we will complete this mission. Let's send this message to every soldier, every marine who is watching this thing from the mess halls in Mosul and Tikrit and Baghdad and Fallujah, the message that the United States House of Representatives stands with them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we send them a message when we vote on the armed services bill. Very few people voted against it. I believe we voted, in the defense subcommittee of appropriations, only 15 or 16 people voted against it. But Theodore Roosevelt said, ``If you disagree with a policy and you do not say anything, you are actually treasonous.''
I disagree with the policy. I do not disagree with supporting the troops. There is no one that supports the troops better than the Members of this Congress. And that is shown by the few people that vote against the bill.
One other thing: I think the gentleman made a mistake when he said we are for the war, against the war on terror. We are actually fighting for the war on terror is what we are doing. But I appreciate what the gentleman is saying.
I appreciate the fact that he and I both asked for more troops at one point. He was the lead sponsor at that particular time.
I recognize the gentleman from California for 13 minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, before we went to war, President Bush and other administration officials made three promises to the American people: one, we would find weapons of mass destruction; two, we would be welcomed as liberators; and, three, the reconstruction of Iraq would pay for itself.
Well, all three promises proved to be false. Today I will focus on the reconstruction effort in Iraq and the massive waste, fraud, and abuse that have undermined our efforts.
Stuart Bowen is the Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction. He often talks about the reconstruction gap which is the chasm between the President's promises and reality.
Mr. Bowen is absolutely right: the gap is enormous. But it is dwarfed by the incompetency and corruption gaps in Iraq. The consequences of mismanagement and corruption are serious. Waste, fraud, and abuse have flourished. The taxpayer has been repeatedly gouged.
Iraq is not being rebuilt. We have lost credibility and are now viewed in Iraq as occupiers, and our troops did not get essential equipment when they needed it. We have now spent $50 billion on Iraq reconstruction, including $30 billion from U.S. taxpayers.
Let's look at what we got for the money. Despite spending $2 billion, Iraq's oil production is still well below prewar levels, running about a half million barrels below 2003 levels. We have invested $4 billion into improving electricity generation.
Not only is the administration 2,000 megawatts short of reaching its goal for peak output, but generation is actually below prewar levels. And we spent $6 billion on oil production and electricity generation. And we have actually lost ground.
The situation is the same for drinking water. In essence, we have squandered $50 billion. Profiteering has been rampant, and the taxpayer has gotten gouged and the work has not gotten done. And what is especially shameful about the wasteful spending is that we needed this money for our troops. When we first went into Iraq, our troops did not have enough body armor.
Families had to purchase armor off the Internet and ship it to Iraq in a desperate attempt to protect their loved ones. On congressional delegations, individual serv ice mem bers have taken our staffs aside and begged for more night vision goggles.
Patriotic Americans even had to donate their frequent flier miles so troops who were dumped at the Baltimore airport by the Pentagon could make it home for the holidays. This should never have happened. It is inexcusable that our troops face desperate shortages of essential gear while billions of dollars were frittered away.
To understand the magnitude of this, there is no better place to start than Halliburton. Halliburton is the largest private contractor operating in Iraq. The company has three contracts that total more than $20 billion. We now know that political appointees, not career civil servants, decided to give Halliburton a secret no-bid contract for $7 billion to operate Iraq's oil fields.
As GAO has reported, the key decision that led to the award of the secret contract violated Federal procurement law. When a career attorney properly objected, he was simply overruled. And despite statements from the Vice President, we know now that his chief of staff, Scooter Libby, was personally briefed on this entire plan months before the war.
The decision to give those lucrative contracts to Halliburton has been expensive. According to Pentagon audits, Halliburton's total unreasonable and unsupported charges exceed $1.4 billion. Well, the examples of waste, fraud, and abuse are numerous. Halliburton charged $45 for a case of soda; $100 for a 15-pound bag of laundry.
When they had brand-new $85,000 Halliburton trucks, they abandoned them or torched them if they got a flat tire or experienced minor mechanical problems. Halliburton's contracts are cost-plus. That means that Halliburton is reimbursed for all of its costs, and then receives an extra percentage as additional profit.
In practical terms, this means that the more Halliburton spends, the richer it gets. Now we talked to former Halliburton employees who worked in Iraq. They told us the informal company motto was: ``Do not worry about price, it is cost plus.''
Halliburton was supposed to be in Iraq to provide support for the troops, but the company used one standard for the troops and a completely different standard for its own executives. Halliburton employees stayed at the five-star Kempinski Hotel in Kuwait, where it costs taxpayers $10,000 per day. This is the five-star Kempinski. This gorgeous hotel offered maid service, complimentary fruit baskets to Halliburton employees.
Our troops stayed in tents in the desert. At one point, a cost-conscious Army official asked Halliburton to move its employees into air-conditioned tents, but they refused.
To their credit, career government auditors identified these overcharges. When they examined Halliburton's second oil contract, they harshly criticized Halliburton's performance, citing profound systemic problems and exorbitant indirect costs. But their recommendations were rejected.
After reviewing Halliburton's first oil contract in Iraq, auditors recommended that the Army not pay $263 million in unreasonable and unsupported charges. But the Army ignored those auditors and paid Halliburton $254 million, over 95 percent of the disputed charges.
And in spite of the auditor's findings, Halliburton was paid nearly $100 million in profits and bonuses for overbilling taxpayers.
Well, Halliburton symbolizes what went astray in Iraq, but it is not the only contractor abusing the system. Parsons received the contract to rebuild health clinics throughout Iraq. But despite spending $186 million, Parsons completed just 20 of 142 health clinics they promised to build.
Another firm, Custer Battles, received two security contracts. A Federal jury recently found that the company committed 37 separate acts of fraud. These are not isolated instances. There are over 70 corruption investigations currently under way in Iraq. These cases involve allegations of
[Page: H4035]
The U.S. management of the Development Fund for Iraq, which was the fund that held the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales, is a classic example of what not to do. The Coalition Provisional Authority handed out over $8.8 billion in cash, in cash, to Iraqi ministries. And they had no idea what happened to the money: $8 billion in cash simply vanished.
One former U.S. official who was in Iraq at the time, Frank Willis, described conditions as the Wild West. He said the lack of controls effectively created a free fraud zone.
[Time: 13:45]
Iraq was awash in brand-new $100 bills with no accountability to prevent corruption. All the while, the White House looked the other way and Congress put its head in the sand.
Under the Constitution, we are supposed to be a check and balance, but we have abdicated this responsibility. The Republican majority is terrific at applauding the President, and they are proving it again today with this dishonest resolution.
Congress isn't doing the serious and important work it must do to protect our troops, rebuild Iraq, look out for American taxpayers. Congress must be more than a cheerleading section for the White House.
The fiasco in Iraq was a windfall for some. Halliburton made more than $2 billion in profits last year. Its total revenue has increased by 66 percent since 2002. Another beneficiary was David Brooks. He is the CEO of a company that makes bulletproof vests. In 2001, Mr. Brooks reportedly earned $525,000. In 2004, he earned $70 million. Last year, the U.S. Marines recalled more than 5,000 of the company's armored vests. But by that time Mr. Brooks had pocketed $186 million.
Well, the American people might think that Congress would rise up in the face of such unconscionable profiteering. When our troops are willing to sacrifice so much, and they do sacrifice so much, how can we let others create cynical fortunes off their blood?
As we debate this resolution, 2,500 of our bravest men and women, have been killed in Iraq. Over 18,000 have been wounded, and the total cost of the Iraq war is over $300 billion. Those of us privileged to serve here have been spared any of the personal consequences of being on the front line, but we should not be spared the responsibility of doing our job.
We owe more to our troops than slapping ``I support our troops'' bumper stickers on our cars and extolling their courage. Instead of wasting time on bipartisan charades, we should acknowledge and fix our mistakes so that Iraqis can take over and our troops in Iraq can come home.
We owe more than empty promises to American families who are paying for this costly war in Iraq. They count on us to make sure that their money is spent well, and we haven't done that.
An honest unsparing look at the record of the past 3 years tells us a stark truth. The White House and Congress have failed our troops, the taxpayers and the Iraqi people. They deserve better than a partisan resolution that pats ourselves and the White House on the back.
It is shameful that we are squandering money on Halliburton at the very same time that we don't have enough money to protect our troops. It is shameful that Congress has abdicated its oversight and legislative responsibilities to rein in the incompetence and corruption that has undermined our efforts in Iraq.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution in front of us today is about an urgent proposition. We are a nation at war, a nation at war with radical Islamists. The war was not of our choosing, but it is the central struggle of our time, the first major conflict of the Information Age.
This debate is a defining one for the House and for our Nation. It is important to begin by explaining that the threats that we face are real. They are serious, and they are ongoing. We must address these threats by continuing to confront them aggressively rather than shying away from them because they are difficult. We begin the debate framing four fundamental issues that define the war with radical Islam.
First, our Nation is engaged in a long-term war. That war didn't begin on 9/11. We should maybe look back to 2/26. February 26, 1993, perhaps is when this war really did begin to come into focus. What happened on February 26, 1993? That was when the World Trade Center was attacked for the first time.
Second, al Qaeda views Iraq as a central front in its war against Western democracies. Bin Laden's stated goal is to establish a global Muslim caliphate whose historical center includes Iraq, and Zarqawi was operating in Iraq long before American troops entered that country.
Third, al Qaeda is a sophisticated enemy in the first war of the Information Age. In a war against terrorism, a critical battle is over intelligence. We must use every means at our disposal to obtain information about our enemies and counter their sophisticated information war.
Fourth, our Nation must recognize how this battle is evolving. We need to recognize the threat of home-grown terrorism, home-grown terrorism that has already been experienced in Spain, the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands and, most recently, Canada.
We are a nation at war. America has been in an armed struggle with radical Islam for at least 15 years. The first clear declaration was the attack on the World Trade Center, 6 dead, 1,000 wounded. The Khobar Towers were attacked in June of 1996. Our ambassadors were attacked in Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998 and the USS Cole was attacked in October of 2000.
In 1996 bin Laden declared war against the United States in its fatwa. Throughout the 1990s, there were multiple attacks. Almost 300 people were killed, and there was a minimal U.S. response. No one in the 1990s connected the dots.
But this war is not just limited to the United States. It is a global war against Western democracies. Our enemies are active across the globe, and they must be countered across the globe, not just by the United States but by our allies.
I would like to yield to my colleague from New Mexico, the chairwoman of our Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee, for a further explanation about the long-term focus of this war.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, it is important for Americans to understand that the war on terror did not begin on a cool September morning, that this was something that had been building over a decade or longer, that in February of 1993, radical Islamist operatives drove a truck into the basement of the World Trade Center and blew it up. One thousand people were injured and six people died, and we treated it as a crime, not an act of international terror.
On June 25, 1996, American airmen who were conducting operations in the southern no-fly zone in Iraq were settling in for the night in their quarters in Saudi Arabia in a building known as the Khobar Towers when a sewage truck drove into the compound, backed up to the wall of that building, and the people who drove it fled in a white car.
They were seen from the roof of the building by the security forces, and they started evacuating the building. They were about three floors down when the truck exploded and 19 airmen were killed.
In August of 1998, we were here in this House when we got word that our two embassies, one in Kenya and one in Tanzania, had been attacked by bombs. The U.S. Attorney in the District of New York got 17 indictments, one of them for a man whose name wasn't really well known at the time. His name was Osama bin Laden.
In October of 2000, the USS Cole was in port in Aden, in Yemen when a small boat came up to it and exploded, tearing a gash 40 feet by 60 feet long midships on the USS Cole, and 17 sailers died.
All of these actions we treated as isolated instances. We played defense ineffectively against a transnational, loosely connected movement against extremists who exploit Islam and use terrorism to bring about their dark vision of the future.
The adherents to this movement are parasites who thrive in weak states and in failed regimes. That is why the terrorists made Iraq a central front in
[Page: H4036]
That is why it is important to see it through in Iraq. We made a decision after 9/11 that we would play offense and not defense. As Americans, we know the enterprise that we are engaged in is difficult and requires persistence and resolve. That is very hard on some days. It is very hard for us to understand why it is important to stay the course.
But we know this. Our enemies are persistent and will stay the course. They will not stop if we ignore them.
So that is the choice we face as a nation and why this debate today is so important. It is a choice between resolve and retreat. For me and my family, I choose resolve.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
A quote from Zawahiri to al Zarqawi in July of 2005: It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of a prophet in the heart of the Islamic world, end of quote.
Al Qaeda views Iraq as a central part of this global war on terror.
I would like to yield to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, despite what you hear and, despite the pointing out of problems in a very difficult task, we ought not to be asking politicians here in Washington, we ought to be listening to our enemy.
Osama bin Laden, quote, this third world war is raging in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war. It will end in victory and glory, or it will end in misery and humiliation.
With what you have talked about earlier, Mr. Chairman, from that letter from Zawahiri to al Zarqawi, he went on to say that prophet in the heart of Islam world, specifically Egypt, neighboring states of the peninsula and Iraq, they have declared war against the United States and all those who seek to find democracy and peaceful solutions.
Terrorist Abu Nidal found safe haven in Iraq and was killed in Baghdad in 2002. Zarqawi and his network were operating in Baghdad and the Kurdish-controlled region of Iraq a year at least before the start of the war. As a matter of fact, from that base of operations, they executed the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan in 2002.
Our troops found a suicide vest factory that had 800 suicide vests equipped and ready to go in south Baghdad in April of 2003. Iraq was on the State Department sponsor of terrorism list. Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 cash to the family of suicide bombers in Israel.
You know, with every sacrifice made by our great American soldiers, for every girl that now walks in Iraq and Baghdad and goes to school, for every young mother that goes to a medical clinic to get treatment where there was none before, for every dead terrorist in Iraq, we make progress every day.
One platoon sergeant in Iraq, and I quote, I have yet to speak to an American here who thinks we are losing. Trust me, no soldier wants to be here. No one wants to cut and run either. Leaving would send the wrong signal to our enemies.
There are only two groups of people who want America to leave and withdraw in humiliation, Mr. Speaker, from Iraq.
President Bush met with the Shiia, the Sunnis, the Kurds just recently, just this last week. None of them, even the Sunnis, wanted the United States to leave. As a matter of fact, they asked for reassurance that we would stay with them in this difficult and tough struggle for freedom.
[Time: 14:00]
That would leave only the terrorists who want an early American withdrawal and some politicians in this town.
I would listen to what our enemies said when Zarqawi declared, ``We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it.'' They will kill American families at any given opportunity.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we should stand with our soldiers. We should stand with our families here that helped take the fight to the terrorists overseas. We should stand for victory, and we should stand with the United States of America.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague from Michigan for those comments.
The other thing that we have learned is that this is the first war in the Information Age. The Information Age provides some unique opportunities to our enemy. As we work to deny the terrorists their physical sanctuary, radical Islamists, using the tools of the Information Age, are working actively to develop a virtual sanctuary on the Internet which enables them to grow their movement around the globe.
Some have said, well, this is a battle that should be fought in Afghanistan. This battle is not limited to Afghanistan or Iraq. Tell that to the people in Spain, the Netherlands, the U.K., Canada or Australia that this is really just a battle about Afghanistan.
The Information Age is making this a very, very different battle than we have ever fought before. To explain that in more detail is my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
I yield to Mr. Thornberry.
Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, part of the job of intelligence is to understand our enemy, and what we should clearly understand about our enemy in the war on terrorism is that they are very sophisticated. They are sophisticated users of technology using, as Chairman Hoekstra just mentioned, the Internet in order to recruit, in order to train its people, in order to intimidate populations to go along.
They use Internet video games in order to help train and indoctrinate people in the Arab world to their way of thinking. They use the Internet for communication. They use videotapes and DVDs to get their message out. They have very adept users of technology.
But they are also adept at using media. As a matter of fact, Prime Minister Blair said recently that they play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party. They know, for example, that one horrific act of cruelty shown on video will get far more attention than a thousand acts of kindness or patience from our soldiers.
They are agile and clever in using cruelty through the media in order to achieve their ends; and, Mr. Speaker, I think maybe the most important point we can make on their sophistication is that they know they cannot beat us militarily, and that is not their object. They are sophisticated enough to know that the way they can beat us is to influence our political decisions, to impact our political will.
There has been a very, what has now really become a classic study of this sort of warfare, often called 4th-generation warfare, a book called ``The Sling and The Stone,'' which traces this sort of attack from Mao's Tse-tung all the way through al Qaeda and its affiliated groups. One of the key points that the author makes, unlike previous generations of war, it does not try to win by defeating military's forces. Instead, it directly attacks the minds of enemy decision-makers to destroy the enemy's political will.
That is what is going on. Their use of technology, their use of cruelty, their use of the media has a target which is us because, as another author has written, it only takes a few hundred people in Washington, DC, to decide that this war is lost. So they are focusing their attention not on our strength, but on our weakness, which is potentially our political will.
That is why this resolution is important. It is why in order to meet a sophisticated threat, a political threat, which al Qaeda and its affiliated groups try to pose to us, we have to resist that sort of manipulation. Part of that resistance occurs on the floor of the House.
I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, this battle continues to evolve. We know that al Qaeda wants to attack us again in our homeland. That is why it is important to stay on the offensive, attacking them where they are and making sure that they do not have a safe haven to plan, to train and to develop the resources to attack us again.
[Page: H4037]
But the other thing that they are trying to do is to develop the concept of homegrown terrorism, and it is something that is evolving.
I would like to yield to our chairwoman of the committee, Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, some of the worst acts of radical Islamic terrorism have been committed by homegrown terrorists, and homegrown terrorists are citizens or residents of the Western countries who, without any direct contact with al Qaeda, adopt a militant radical Islamic outlook, and they seek to conduct acts of terrorism in support of the global jihad.
Propaganda on the Internet, as we heard from you and from Mr. Thornberry, drives the movement. Groups like al Qaeda and the Zarqawi network use it to distribute their slick videos, to glorify the violent jihad.
Homegrown terrorists committed, as I think you have said before, recent acts in Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
The Madrid attack, for instance, on March 11, 2004, a group of Moroccans living in Spain attacked passenger trains in Madrid killing 190 people; and the plot was conceived, it was organized, and it was equipped with no support from international terrorist groups.
Recent events have demonstrated that Europe is not the only place where homegrown Islamic militants can develop.
On June 4, 2006, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrested 17 Canadians for planning to attack Canadian government buildings.
We have seen homegrown Islamic extremist groups in the United States. Our Federal, our State, and our local law enforcement agencies have so far been able to stop them before they could launch attacks.
In August 2005, for instance, the FBI arrested four members of the JIS plotting to bomb military recruiting offices and synagogues in southern California, and this is the interesting part: The JIS was founded by an inmate at the California State Prison in Sacramento, and most members of the JIS are American citizens who were born and raised in the United States. They were radicalized and recruited into JIS while they were in prison; and as far as authorities know, none of these members had any contact with foreign terrorist groups.
Last February, the Justice Department indicted three men in Ohio for aiding insurgents in Iraq and planning to attack U.S. troops there. Two of the men were naturalized U.S. citizens, and one was a permanent legal resident. The men learned their craft by downloading terrorism instructional videos from jihadist Internet sites. They had no contact with al Qaeda. Had they not been arrested, they may have started looking for local targets that they could attack.
We cannot ignore the threat of homegrown terrorism. It is imperative that we understand which elements of our society are vulnerable to jihadist propaganda, how radicalization occurs, and how we can prevent Americans from becoming pawns of al Qaeda.
The British House of Commons concluded that the U.K. coun ter ter ror ism community did not anticipate the March 2005 suicide attacks because it did not understand homegrown terrorism and the radicalization process. We cannot make that same mistake.
At the same time, we cannot let our concern about homegrown threats breed suspicion and distrust of our fellow Americans. The diversity and the harmony of the American people is our country's greatest strength, and the global jihadist network we are fighting wants to divide us by inspiring homegrown terrorists whose attacks will spread.
And I think Mr. Thornberry said it best, they are using the media, the Internet. They are using that to divide our country, and that is what will take us down, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is imperative that we continue on this course and we continue to fight this war on the away front, not the home front.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague.
Reclaiming my time, it is why this resolution is so important, to send a clear signal that we are going to win this global war on terror; that we are going to be successful in Iraq; that we are going to fight the enemy where they are using all of the techniques that they use in an Information Age; and why we need to redouble our efforts to make sure that they cannot attack us; and that we stop the development of homegrown terrorism in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
This all sounds good. It is all rhetoric. It is rhetoric. The number of daily attacks in Iraq have gone from 2004, 53 attacks per day; May 2005, 70 attacks per day; May 2006, 90 attacks per day. Electricity is less than prewar level. No water available to all, only 1 hour a day, Mr. Speaker, and the oil production which was supposed to pay for the war is less than prewar production.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, there is no more pressing issue in our country today than bringing an end to the war in Iraq as quickly as possible.
I thank my colleagues on the other side who just completed their discussion of the war on terror. They remind us that it is a war in which we can never yield and about which we have no choice. They also remind us that Iraq has become a recruiting ground for those international terrorists; that Iraq has become a proving ground for those international terrorists; and that Iraq has become the motivation for many of those international terrorists, none of which existed before the President's choice to go to war, a war not of necessity, a war that was unjustified based upon falsified intelligence.
In fact, we see the new CIA Director said that intelligence that the administration used to make the case for war was wrong, inaccurate, and misleading. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.
The administration used fear to scare this country into war based upon those lies. He refused to properly prepare for the war and its aftermath, and now our soldiers, our families, and our Nation are paying an enormous price for this President's tragic blunder.
Two thousand five hundred Americans soldiers, we are informed today, have died in Iraq. 19,000 American soldiers have been wounded, many of them missing limbs and suffering other very serious debilitating injuries that will afflict them the rest of their lives. The war has cost almost a half a trillion dollars in taxpayer money, and America's international reputation and respect in the world has been severely damaged.
The President often says that he makes decisions about the future of Iraq based upon what the generals say; but when the time came to listen to the generals prior to Iraq, the President refused to listen to them. He refused to listen to them when they questioned the force structure that was available to us to go into Iraq at that time, but he went anyway. He refused to listen to them when questions were raised the day after we seized Baghdad.
What we now see is massive national chaos for which our soldiers were not trained, not given any instructions on how to deal with, and certainly did not have sufficient numbers to deal with. The President sent the troops into that war with that poor planning, that poor structure, and that poor understanding of what would take place afterwards.
The American public had to witness soldiers being forced to buy their own body armor, have their families buy it because we did not have a proper supply prior to going into that war. Many men and women were sent into battle with unarmored, old Humvees that were used for flood control in the California rivers before they showed up in Iraq, and those soldiers died because of that inadequate equipment and because of the roadside bombs that are the number one killer in Iraq.
We see the torture of detainees was approved at the highest levels in the Pentagon; and this, again, has led to an undermining of our position in the world, our moral position in the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism.
[Page: H4038]
This is a policy blunder of historic proportions by this President, and it is very important that we understand that we are paying a huge price for these mistakes by this administration. Tragically, we stand here on the floor of this Congress today 3 years after the beginning of this war, but for 3 years questions were not raised in this Congress about that force structure, about that preparedness, about the detainee policy, about these actions that have so severely undermined us.
Yes, we saw the taking of Zarqawi, and what do we have there? We have the real use of smart intelligence on the war against terror. As you pointed out, they are not going to come after the 130,000 troops. They are not going to come after our strengths, but that is what people have been saying for a long time. That is what people have been writing about at the military schools, about the networking of terrorism and how you had to go after it. We went after it exactly the wrong way, in exactly the same way, as people who made these historic blunders throughout history, when confronting this kind of force.
Yes, we should provide the special ops; yes, we should provide the surveillance; yes, we should provide the intelligence and we should work together. In the case of Zarqawi, we saw, once the Jordanians were insulted enough by the attacks on their land, they put their intelligence sources to work, combined with ours, and Zarqawi was run down, and we provided the 500-pound bombs. We provided the special ops.
That is not what is happening day to day in the war in Iraq, and our troops are paying a horrible, horrible price for the lack of preparation, the lack of planning and the lack of prosecution of this effort and the initial mistake and lies by the President of the United States.
The President's policies in Iraq have severely undermined America's national security and made the world less safe.
In response to the clear failures in Iraq, the Republican Congress has acted like a rubberstamp for President Bush rather than the elected representatives of the people of America.
Republicans in Congress have hid their heads in the sand and refused to question the President, instead sheepishly pretending success is around the corner.
As a result, Iraq is engaged in a civil war that threatens to consume the country.
Congress has done nothing to stop the civil war in Iraq, nothing to hold the President accountable for the failures in Iraq, and nothing to put our troops on a safe and speedy path toward home, or to other parts of the world where they are needed to fight against terrorism.
The President and his allies in the Republican leadership in Congress have made up their minds.
They have a plan for Iraq. It is the same failed plan they started the war with. It is chaos with no end in sight.
There is no more that we can ask of America's troops. They have done everything they have been asked to do. It is time for them to serve their nation where they are needed most, and that is surely not in Iraq.
Now is not the time to stay the course of failure.
America needs a new direction in Iraq--a new direction that will make Americans safer.
[Time: 14:15]
Mr. HOEKSTRA. The historic blunder is that we didn't address this problem in the 1990s when it started rearing its ugly head.
I yield to my colleague for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to place a statement concerning this resolution in the RECORD at this point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman's statement will be placed in the RECORD.
There was no objection.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, much of this resolution is language that everyone supports, especially the praise for our troops.
They do a great job everywhere they are sent, and it is certainly no criticism of them to criticize this war.
In August of 2002, two months before Congress voted for the war in Iraq, Dick Armey, then our Republican Majority Leader, in a speech in Iowa, said:
``I don't believe America will justifiably make an unprovoked attack on another nation. It would not be consistent with what we have been as a Nation.''
Jack Kemp wrote before the war, ``What is the evidence that should cause us to fear Iraq more than Pakistan or Iran. Do we reserve the right to launch a preemptive war exclusively for ourselves or might other nations such as India, Pakistan or China be justified in taking similar action on the basis of fears of other nations?''
Mr. Kemp said, based on evidence that he had seen, there was not ``a compelling case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.''
William F. Buckley wrote that if he had known in 2002 what he knew then in 2004, he would have been against the war.
Last year he wrote another column against the war saying: ``A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride.''
The very popular conservative columnist Charley Reese wrote that the war was ``against a country that was not attacking us, did not have the means to attack us, and had never expressed any intention of attacking us, and for whatever real reason we attacked Iraq, it was not to save America from any danger, imminent or otherwise.''
Many years ago, Senator Robert Taft expressed the traditional conservative position: ``No foreign policy can be justified except a policy devoted to the protection of the American people, with war only as the last resort and only to preserve that liberty.''
Millions of conservatives across this Nation believe that this war was unconstitutional, unaffordable, and, worst of all, unnecessary.
It was waged against an evil man, but one who had a total military budget only two-tenths of one percent of ours.
We are not going to be able to pay all our military pensions, social security, Medicare, and all the little things we have promised if we are going to turn the Department of Defense into the Department of Foreign Aid and attempt to be the policeman of the world.
This is contrary to every traditional conservative position on defense and requires huge deficit spending.
The conservative columnist Georgie Ann Geyer wrote: ``Critics of the war against Iraq have said since the beginning of the conflict that Americans, still strangely complacent about overseas wars being waged by a minority in their name, will inevitably come to a point where they will see they have to have a government that provides services at home or one that seeks empire across the globe.''
Mr. Speaker, we need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home, the sooner the better.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our chairwoman, Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, an issue that hasn't received enough attention in the debate on the global war on terror is what happened to American intelligence during the 1990s.
To effectively wage the war on terrorism, we need a robust intelligence community that is capable of gathering intelligence aimed at eliminating the terrorist threat. Unfortunately, as the war escalated in 2001, the intelligence community was still reeling from policies that were implemented in the 1990s which undermined the ability of our intelligence agencies to predict 9/11 and to effectively fight the war today. Simply throwing people and money at the issue, it doesn't solve the problem. Developing expertise to replace what was lost in the 1990s is a long endeavor. It takes 5 to 7 years of training and experience to bring an operations officer up to full performance.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to list a few examples of what happened in the 1990s that hampered our intelligence community efforts leading up to and at the onset of the war.
Between 1992 and 1999, the CIA's presence overseas declined by almost one-third. Our intelligence agencies had their hands tied by the Deutch Doctrine, forbidding recruitment of sources that had shady backgrounds, limiting our ability to get information on potential terrorist attacks. The number of officers declined and overseas facilities were closed. And as a result of the crises in the Balkans and in Africa, et cetera, officers were sent to areas where many times they had little knowledge of the issues there and, in some places, the targets had little and sometimes no presence.
As a result, overall intelligence collection was decimated. James Pavitt, the former CIA Deputy Director for Operations, told the 9/11 Commission in April of 2004 that we were vastly underfunded and did not have the people to do the job, and noted that spending on CIA human collection was cut by 20 percent during the 1990s.
Analysis suffered equally in the 1990s, with low priority accorded to terrorism analysis. Intelligence analysts were
[Page: H4039]
The death of Zarqawi and the arrests of 17 terrorist suspects in Canada are recent successes in the global war on terror. However, we still have a long way to go to rebuilding our networks of human sources. Reform has to continue, and we must acknowledge that many of the problems facing U.S. intelligence agencies today are the product of unwise and neglectful intelligence policies of the past.
It is simple to destroy, but it is much more difficult to build. Over the past 6 years, we have worked to rebuild our Nation's intelligence capability, and it may take a few more years to complete. There is not a moment to waste in carrying out these essential reforms to our intelligence community.
And I will say, Mr. Speaker, that we must continue this war. We must continue to let our intelligence community do their job.
Mr. MURTHA. I yield myself 1 minute.
One of the Members said, ask Spain about the threat. Fifty-six percent of the population of Spain believes the U.S. in Iraq is the most dangerous threat to world peace. They rank Iran lesser of a threat than the United States.
And one other thing. When we look back at the intelligence cuts, President Bush I felt it was a peace dividend and started to cut the intelligence budget years ago. So we have to make sure we don't let our rhetoric get ahead of the facts.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, since day one of the war in Iraq, Democrats have provided the President with everything he asked for, yet Republicans have denied the President the one thing he needed: Oversight.
In a post-9/11 world, the American people need the vigilance and the patriotic determination of every Member of Congress to demand answers to the questions their constituents are asking. Instead, the Republican Congress sat and watched the administration make mistake after mistake after mistake.
And don't listen to just one Member of Congress. Consider the words of Three Star General Greg Newbold, top Operations Officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After a scathing critique of Secretary Rumsfeld, he says, ``The Bush administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress defaulted in fulfilling their Constitutional responsibility of oversight.''
General Anthony Zinni, former Commander of the U.S. Central Command in the Mideast: ``We are paying the price for the lack of credible planning, or the lack of a plan. Ten years of planning were thrown away.''
Major General Batiste, who commanded 22,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq. ``Rumsfeld and his team turned what should have been a deliberate victory in Iraq into a prolonged challenge.''
Eight generals have raised serious questions concerning Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership. I don't know, maybe the Pentagon suffers from the soft bigotry of low expectations and social promotion as a policy. Maybe these generals weren't just qualified; or maybe, just maybe, they had to speak up because the Republican Congress was silent. You have adopted an approach of ``see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil'' with abandon.
America was told this would be a quick war, and it turned into a long war. This Congress walked away from its oversight responsibility. America was told 130,000 troops would be enough, but more were clearly necessary. This Congress, the Republican Congress, walked away from its oversight responsibility. America was told this would be a conventional war. It turned into an insurgency. This Congress walked away from its oversight responsibility. America was told oil would pay for reconstruction, and the taxpayers are left with a $480 billion tab. This Congress walked away from its oversight responsibility. America was told we would be greeted as liberators, but they have become and are treated like occupiers. This Congress walked away from its oversight responsibility.
And when Don Rumsfeld, a man who expressed contempt for the idea of nation-building, was assigned the responsibility of rebuilding Iraq and mismanaged the war against the insurgency, this Congress, the Republican Congress, walked away from its oversight responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans want to portray the greatest foreign policy challenge of a generation as simply the choice between more of the same or a new direction. And we Democrats welcome that. The debate today is about whether the American people want to stay the course, with an administration and a Congress that has walked away from its obligations, or pursue a real strategy for success in the war on terror.
Twenty-five hundred brave Americans, male and female, have given their lives in trying to stabilize Iraq. Last month was the bloodiest in Iraq's history. According to Major General Rick Lynch, attacks against civilians increased 80 percent since November 2005.
We cannot achieve the end of victory and continue to sit and watch, stand pat, the status quo. That is the Republican policy. Democrats are determined to take the fight to the enemy. In the words of President John Kennedy, ``We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to assure the survival and success of liberty.''
Democrats will never put American serv ice mem bers in harm's way without a plan and without support. For that, you need the sit-and-watch complacency of a Republican Congress.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. This Congress will not walk away from a mission, it will not walk away from its troops, and it will not walk away from its allies.
With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit saddened by the comments of the gentleman from Illinois. You know, our enemies do not have a first Tuesday in November plan. They have a plan for a caliphate. They have well established themselves to murder Christians, Jews, Muslims, women, and children. They will behead you, they will shoot you, they will blow you up. They do not care.
To have the talk of rhetoric, because the electricity isn't where it is, let's come home in defeat; because the oil isn't going exactly the way we would like it, let's come home in defeat; that is no standard for victory.
What is the standard for victory? Where were we 4 years ago? Let us look at it in the global war, this World War III that Osama bin Laden declared in his own words. Pakistan, 4 years ago, was the only government supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. They were working against the United States in Afghanistan. They supported, financed, gave as much comfort as they could to the enemy to produce terrorists, to attack Americans and Westerners all over the world. In Iraq, we know that Zarqawi was there a year before the war; that they used that operation to kill an American in Jordan, a diplomat of great service to our country. In Libya, they had a nuclear weapons program and self declared they would share it with anyone.
So 4 years later, not because I gave a great speech on the House floor but because very brave men and women put on the uniform and fought the terrorists with a military uniform so our children wouldn't have to fight it in a school uniform here at home, and now what has happened? Pakistan has joined us in the fight against terror. There are our allies just 4 years later in hunting down al Qaeda.
Afghanistan is now an ally in the war on terror. Their intelligence services, their military, as a matter of fact just this morning, launched a 10,000 troop crackdown on terrorists. This morning. Last week, Iraq launched a 70,000 security personnel crackdown on terrorists. This week, they are our allies now in the war on terror.
Libya. That is the components of the nuclear weapons program of Libya. It is now in the possession of the United States of America. They gave it to us not because we stood here and debated but because we had brave men and women with boots on the ground who showed courage and commitment and said we will take the fight to you. We will not allow you to take the fight to us.
[Page: H4040]
Which country would you have go back? Which one would you say, ah, it wasn't important that they became an ally? Four Muslim nations have stood up against the ravages and the terror and the brutality of terror today because of actions our brave soldiers take overseas.
So don't get confused in every little problem that happens, and there are a lot of them. Sir, you served in Vietnam. You know this challenge. They are great, they are hard, and sometimes they are disappointing, yes. But at the end of the day, every great victory, every great victory ends with our heads held high and safety and security for the United States.
Let us not come home in humiliation. Let us not tell all of those families that their loved ones died in vain because we have a November time frame and not a time frame for victory.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask Members to address their comments to the Chair.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
This is rhetoric. It is not getting better. I spoke out November 17, and things have gotten worse than it was 6 months ago. They are worse today than they were then.
When I left Vietnam in August of 1967, they gave me this bullet, and they said in this bullet that everything is going to be all right. The President of the United States said we just had an election, and we have a new election in Vietnam, and this was a month after I got out of Vietnam, and everything is going to be all right. We lost 37,000 people.
It is not a matter of whether we want to prevail in this operation, it is a matter of how we are going to do it, and I disagree with the way we do it. I disagree with the policy. That is what I disagree with. I think our troops have become the targets. Incidents have increased every day, and more Americans are being killed every day. And we are going to pay a heavy price in people being killed and also we are going to pay a heavy price for the individuals in the future with the debt increasing at $8 billion a month.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is to my great regret that at key moments like this the President of the United States does not seek to unify the country. He does not use these moments to bring people together, to strengthen us. He does not rally the country behind our men and women in arms and in harm's way.
We applaud our troops. Thank God for their willingness to sacrifice for our Nation. I take every moment to support them and their families. But the President and the Republican leaders, within moments of our soldiers' valor in eliminating one of the worst terrorists, is rushing for some political advantage, some way to hurt the Democrats and raise the President's poll numbers. Our country deserves so much better.
The President wants this Congress to simply applaud his current course in Iraq, which is an indefinite, open-ended commitment of U.S. troops in the middle of a sectarian religious war. By the President's own words, 3 more years, with generals now talking about 10 years and permanent bases.
I want to be clear. I do not want to stay the course with this policy which will make us less safe, undermine our military, help the terrorists, cost many thousands of lives and cost another trillion dollars. This Congress has never held the President and his administration accountable, even when there were no plans.
[Time: 14:30]
This President, more than any other, has politicized this war, ignoring the advice of the military at every step, from General Shinseki's call for more troops to General Casey's admission that our troops' presence was inflaming violence. They have imposed political judgments from ideologues at the White House at the expense of our military's best advice.
And this Congress supported the White House politicians, not the generals when our course was set. This Congress supported the White House politicians when they did not give our troops the body armor and Humvee armor they needed. Now, when the President says just support the politicians in the White House one more time, they are here with this resolution.
What our troops need is a policy that is good for America and for our military. Being bogged down in Iraq indefinitely will make us less safe. All of the countries in the world and the region and the Iraqi people need to hear that America will redeploy over a responsible period. The current course allows countries a free ride at the expense of American troops and taxpayers. A policy of responsible redeployment will force others to play their role.
No one on this floor is for a precipitous withdrawal, and the President's statements are reckless, political and a disservice. We all agree, as did both bodies of the Congress, that 2006 would be a turning point. The White House politicians have ignored that resolution.
I support a redeployment of our troops to meet critical security needs over the next 12 months, with a significant reduction by the end of 2006. Others support redeployment by the end of 2008, and some by the end of 2007. But we all believe America's interest and our troops are served by a new course.
So I ask the President to change. Why not speak to the country's better virtues and unite the country? We want you to succeed. We should work together for a stronger America.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a colleague from the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, in November 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini, the former radical Islamic leader, seized power in Iran, riding the slogan, ``Death to America.'' Just 4 months after his rise to power, it became evident that agents of radical Islam would stop at nothing to kill Americans. This doctrine of hatred resulted in terrorists killing over 600 people prior to 9/11.
My colleagues, my chairman has mentioned this, Congresswoman Wilson mentioned part of this, and I wish everyone who got up here would go over this list.
In April 1983, 63 people died at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. That is not rhetoric; that is dead Americans.
In October 1983, 241 died at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. That is not rhetoric; that is dead Americans.
In February 1993, six people were killed at the World Trade Center. That is not rhetoric; that is dead Americans.
In June 1996, 19 American servicemen died after a truck bombing at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. That is not rhetoric; that is dead Americans.
In August 1998, 224 died at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. That is not rhetoric either; that is dead Americans.
In October 2000, 17 died on the USS Cole in Yemen. That is not rhetoric either; that is dead Americans.
If some people continue to preach cut and run from this war, then they will continue to kill Americans, kill Americans and kill Americans. The global war on terrorism must be fought. We can do it on the streets of our hometowns, or we can take the war to the terrorists. Either way, it has to be done; and personally, I prefer doing it over in Iraq rather than in New York or Washington, D.C. or San Francisco.
For the first 20 years, we allowed the terrorists to fight this war on their terms. 9/11 served as a wake-up call for us in the sense that we could no longer afford to sit on our hands and let the terrorists continue to kill innocent Americans. Under the leadership of the Bush administration, and with the support of this Republican-led Congress, we took the fight to the terrorists, wherever they may be.
Mr. Speaker, right now their choice is Iraq. It is the central front in the war on terror. In fact, Osama bin Laden has said he believes the war going on in Iraq is nothing short of the Third World War. The importance of Iraq in achieving al Qaeda's objectives of killing Americans is clearly spelled out in a 2005 letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's closest advisor, to Musab al Zarqawi, the man tapped by bin Laden to head al Qaeda operations in Iraq. He said that getting the U.S. out of Iraq is critical if they are to turn Iraq into a permanent base of recruitment, training and operations just like the one they had in Afghanistan.
This is why it is imperative that we stay the course and ensure that the democratically elected government can take hold. A democratic Iraq will be the death of al Qaeda, and those aren't my words Mr. Speaker, they are the words of Zarqawi.
[Page: H4041]
Mr. Speaker, we have accomplished so much in the global war on terror, highlighted by the recent death of Zarqawi. We have significantly degraded the al Qaeda network by denying them a safe haven in Afghanistan and capturing or killing many of their leaders and associates. We have also built an unprecedented international coalition to combat and prevent terrorist financing and dismantle terrorist support networks.
Mr. Speaker, America is safer, but we are not yet secure. The enemy we are fighting is determined and serious about its desire to kill Americans. We can not allow Iraq to become a breeding ground for terrorist activity.
A free and democratic Iraq is absolutely essential to fighting the terrorist threat and building long-term peace and stability in the region. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I was in Beirut the day after the attack, and I recommended to President Reagan, I recommended to the President of the United States, get out of Beirut because we didn't have enough troops; 2 months later he got out of Beirut because he didn't have enough troops.
I know what rhetoric is, and I know what fighting on the front lines are. I know the difference between them. I know that standing here does not solve the problem, and it has gotten better, it has gotten worse. That's the problem. And you are not talking about Iraq. The gentleman up there was talking about the war on terror. I am talking about Iraq. That's what I am talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for 4 minutes.
Mr. CLYBURN. I thank Mr. Murtha for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, last Saturday I visited the Johnson VA Medical Center in Charleston, South Carolina. That medical center is named for a young man who is the recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor because just out of high school he went off to fight in Vietnam and he threw himself on a grenade to save the others in the foxhole with him.
I went to the hospital last Saturday to visit one of my heroes, Joseph Henry Washington. Joseph Washington was on the USS Arizona on that fateful day at Pearl Harbor. I went because I wanted to report to Joseph Henry Washington on my recent trip to Iraq because he questioned the wisdom of my going there.
I said to Joe that I was very pleased with what I had found militarily in Iraq. I told him that I thought that our military forces were doing an admirable job, and I thought they were meeting with significant success.
But I said to him, Uncle Joe, I am very, very disappointed in what I have found on the domestic front. We are not going to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq until we can give them a police force that believes and is committed to law and order, not one that is 80 percent corrupt.
I said to him that I did not think that we were going to be successful in Iraq until we involved the Iraqi people in the reconstruction efforts. We see $9 billion that we can't account for. We see construction going on up in the northern part of the country. But in Baghdad, in and around that part of the country, we see a failed policy. That is what is causing the problem in Iraq. We must begin to involve the Iraqi people in the reconstruction of their country.
Eighty-five percent of the country is without electricity. Almost 60 percent of the country is without drinking water. We are never going to be successful until we tackle these problems, and that is where we are failing because there is no accountability on the domestic front in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I go back to Charleston the day after tomorrow because we are going to bury Uncle Joe. He stayed alive long enough for me to make my report to him. And for over 45 years in my consultations with him, he never wanted to talk about his experiences on the USS Arizona or his experiences after returning home. Why? Because he was never sufficiently included in the building of this great Nation. And the people of Iraq are not being sufficiently included in the rebuilding of their country. Until we do that, we will never be successful with this policy.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), my colleague from the committee.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important week for us to have this debate on the necessity of the global war on terror, a war that we did not ask for, but a war that came to us.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out that after Beirut, we left. We did not react to it. Several other instances like that occurred during the 1990s. We were attacked at the Khobar Towers; we did not react. We were attacked at the Kenya embassy; we did not react. We were attacked the first time at the World Trade Center; we did not react. The Tanzania embassy was bombed; we did not react. The USS Cole was bombed; we did not react. What did it yield us? A continuing battle against terror around the globe.
I would remind my fellow colleagues that one such incident of attacking Americans happened in the Philippines when Gracia and Martin Burnham were kidnapped, along with a constituent from Representative Bono's district. The leader of the Abu Sayyaf Group, ASG, was trained by al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That training occurred because we did not respond to these prior attacks. We left them alone.
In the Indonesian al Qaeda training papers they found, they said one of the things that America is vulnerable about is they don't follow up. You can attack them, and they withdraw. They withdrew from Vietnam, they withdrew from Beirut, they withdrew from the Cole, the Kenya embassy, and Khobar Towers. They did not react the first time when they attacked the World Trade Tower. We have continued to make ourselves vulnerable by not responding to the worldwide war on terror.
Thanks to American training and intelligence aid, the Philippine Government was able to rescue Gracia Burnham. Martin Burnham died in the rescue attempt. It was probably because we couldn't get close enough into the fight.
But the important thing that we need to remember is if we back off now, according to the paper, or the letter that was written from al Zawahiri to the now-deceased al Zarqawi, it will be considered a victory for al Qaeda if we leave. Al Qaeda is the one that has decided to bring this war to Iraq and to fight Americans. That information is available on their Web sites and in the information that we collect. It is what the captives tell us when we interview them.
They want to take this fight to the Americans in Iraq. I tell you, if we are going to have to fight terrorists, I would rather fight them at a place where every American carries a gun rather than on the streets of New York or Washington or Wichita because they have brought the fight to us. It is not we who decided to do this.
I think it is very important as we pursue this worldwide battle against terrorism that we insist on doing it with our full resources, with full dedication, and that we disrupt their finances, that we disrupt their places of safe haven, that we disrupt the countries that are providing protection for them, and that we go to the terrorists and we find the root causes of this terrorism and sever the root.
I think the reason we have seen so much money from al Qaeda going to Iraq, the reason that they have sent so many weapons into Iraq, the reason so many foreign fighters have gone into Iraq is because that is where they want to fight this battle.
If we leave now, it would be giving them a victory and we would be once again putting another picture on the board here saying we should have fought harder; we should have stopped it back in 2006.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
The problem is that the opposite is happening. That is the problem we have. We can stand here and say we want to fight the terrorists in Iraq. Actually, al Qaeda we think is less than 1,000.
We think we are caught in a civil war. It is the way that we are doing it. The military cannot win this war. The military commanders, even General Pace admits we cannot win this militarily.
What we are caught in, we have become the target of the insurgency of the sectarian violence. It is the way that we are doing it is what I disagree with.
[Page: H4042]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Murtha for having the temerity to speak truth to power. Thank you for having the temerity to separate the war on terror from the travesty that is taking place in Iraq.
It is amazing to me, and this used to be a place, as Professor Remini writes, where Members would come down, unrehearsed, without charts or graphs. They would speak from their heart. They would talk about this institution and what it means to democracy all over the world.
What a sham today. We should all glorify in the aspects of democracy that take place all around the world and in Iraq. But what a sham this is today when we are denied any alternative resolution.
[Time: 14:45]
Mr. Lantos eloquently stated that earlier today, when he talked about Bob Michel and his eloquence standing on this floor, talking about speaking truth to power. And that is what is so upsetting to the American people and why Mr. Murtha has been recognized all around this country for standing up and speaking the truth to the American people, something this administration and, frankly, this Congress, has been unable to do. Level with the American people. Let's start with leveling with the American troops, leveling with all of those families of reservists and National Guardsmen who I speak with on a regular basis, who have been deployed, redeployed, deployed and redeployed again many times because we haven't had a plan.
Here we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe, and you guys bring to the floor a political document not designed for a new direction or to bring the country together to discuss this issue the way it should be, but instead as talking points outlined by Karl Rove in New Hampshire, sandwiched in between the President's photo op and a picnic this evening.
Americans are outraged that we don't have a citizenry and Members here who are willing to stand up and have accountability. We all support the war on terror. And this party, from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy, to JACK MURTHA, has stood on the watch wall of freedom and stood there valiantly, but collectively with the American people and in this body and in this Chamber, but that is not going on here today. Instead it is right out of the playbook, attack JACK MURTHA. Attack the messenger. That is a formula that works. It worked against Max Cleland. It worked against JOHN KERRY. Geez, that will work against JACK MURTHA also. Discredit this guy. Discredit what he has had to say because he had the temerity to speak truth to power in an administration that can't level with the American public, can't level with you.
Why don't you criticize General Baptiste, General Zinni, General Van Riper, all of these generals? Are they all wrong too for speaking truth to power? Shouldn't we be talking about how we can collectively move forward in a new direction for this country, instead of a tried and true playbook of political jargon on a resolution that is nonbinding? Speak truth to power.
I am proud to associate myself with Mr. Murtha and everything he stands for.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would renew his request that all Members should address their comments to the Chair and not to other Members.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, Mr. Young.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about politics. This debate is about America. It is about Iraq because Iraq is one of the many battlefields on which we fight the global war on terror. Afghanistan is another battlefield on which we fight the war on terror. But there are many battlefields on the war on terror, and we don't want any of them to be here in the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is a lot about America, not only America today, America past, but America in the future. The world still remembers, and many Americans still remember December 7 of 1941 when American territory was attacked by an enemy. An America that was built out of the wilderness and was built by settlers, that was built by industrialists, that was built by just plain ordinary people, brick by brick, block by block, business by business, school by school, hospital by hospital, an America that many Americans paid a great price to create, to achieve. And that America has come under attack in many ways.
As I said, December 7, 1941, some of us remember that day and where we were. Others will never forget September the 11th of 2001, where we were, what we were doing and what it did to this great country of ours.
The global war on terror must be won. It is real. The threat is real. If you don't believe the threat is real, look at the old news reels of the Twin Towers in New York City or the field in Pennsylvania where Flight 93 crashed into Mr. Murtha's district to avoid that aircraft from attacking this United States Capitol.
And just a few minutes ago I came from the Pentagon where a celebration of the dedication of the Pentagon Memorial was unveiled where 184 Americans lost their lives in that vicious attack on the Pentagon.
Mr. Speaker, this war has to be won. All over the world there are cemeteries where Americans lie in rest, Americans who lost their lives in different parts of the world to keep America what it is, to keep America what was created at so many sacrifices. And many of us have had the opportunity to visit those cemeteries and to pay our respects to those fighting warriors who went ahead and did what was necessary to do to preserve this great America.
There are American heroes in Iraq today and American heroes in Afghanistan today. And as Mr. Murtha said earlier, he and I have spent a lot of time visiting with a number of those wounded heroes at our military hospitals. But they will tell you, and they will be the first ones to tell you, we have got to win this war. And the attitudes of these young men and women are outstanding because they will tell you that what they want is to be healed from their injuries and to get back to the fight because they believe in their country. They love their country, and they believe that it is important that we stop the threat to this great Nation of ours from those terrorists, the terrorists who attacked us on September 11 in New York, in Pennsylvania, at the Pentagon, those terrorists who attacked the USS Cole, killing many of our sailors and wounding many more, those terrorists who blew up the Khobar Towers, which was a home for American airmen in Saudi Arabia, those terrorists who blew up the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These young troopers, these warriors understand the threat. America understands the threat. And ladies and gentlemen, it is important that we stand up to that threat and that the America that we know is the America that our kids will know and that our grandkids will know in the years to come.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for 30 minutes.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and, as prior speakers have done, I commend him for speaking truth to power.
Mr. Speaker, 1,184 days ago American troops invaded Iraq to rid Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction.
The weapons weren't there. But American troops still are. I have met some of those troops on my three trips to Baghdad and Afghanistan, as well as Pakistan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Our Armed Forces and intelligence personnel are extraordinary. Many are on their third or fourth tours.
As a mother of two sons and two daughters, and as a newly minted grandmother, my heart goes out to families who have lost their dear ones. I am deeply moved by the courage, dignity and patriotism of the men and women recovering from grievous wounds at Walter Reed and other U.S. hospitals. And I have visited with them.
Our action in Iraqi created a failed state and, tragically, our postwar mission, as presently defined, cannot succeed. There are too few troops to stabilize the country. They are inadequately equipped.
[Page: H4043]
They are fighting an insurgency we didn't predict, at constant risk from IEDs we can't find, with no clearly developed goals to help the new Iraq government achieve political and economic security, and no exit strategy.
Two major failures led us to war, and we had best learn some lessons or risk making the same mistakes again. As ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, these failures haunt me.
Had we got the intelligence right, I believe we could have made different choices, and the pain and loss and anger many feel could have been avoided.
First was a massive intelligence failure in assessing Saddam's WMD capability. The second, equally grave, was the politicization of intelligence by the President and a White House determined to push us toward war.
The failure to assess Saddam's WMD capability accurately has been well documented. As CIA weapons inspector David Kay put it, ``we were all wrong.'' Overriding the advice of intelligence professionals, administration officials put stock in bogus sources like CURVEBALL, and self-promoters like Ahmed Chalabi.
But simply calling Iraq an intelligence failure ignores the larger policy failures that created the false momentum toward war.
The administration cherry-picked intelligence and hyped the threat. They talked in ominous tones about ``mushroom clouds,'' even though many questioned evidence suggesting Saddam had nuclear weapons capability.
They made a mantra of the claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague, a claim that has been thoroughly discredited.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz famously predicted we would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqis would throw rose petals, ignoring intelligence community assessments about the potential for armed resistance.
Writing in Foreign Affairs, Paul Pillar, the intelligence community's senior Middle East analyst, described how the Bush administration disregarded the community's expertise, politicized the intelligence process, and selected unrepresentative raw intelligence to make its public case.
To date, nobody has been held accountable for this misuse of prewar intelligence.
The intelligence failures did not end when we invaded Iraq. Our President declared ``Mission Accomplished'' in May 2003. Senior U.S. officials in Iraq asserted in July 2003 that insurgent attacks represented ``a limited problem of some bitter-enders'' loyal to Saddam.
Yet, 3 years after Saddam's fall, 2,500 U.S. troops are dead, a number confirmed by the Pentagon just today, and insurgents appear more active than ever.
We have surged intelligence resources into Iraq in a frantic effort to find the next IED. As a result, we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, where Taliban fighters are reconstituting themselves, even as the United States reduces the number of troops there. Osama Bin Ladin and Ayman al Zawahiri are still at large, inspiring a new generation of recruits to the jihad.
Just as constant deployments to Iraq cause burnout in the Army, National Guard and Reserves, we are also burning out large numbers of intelligence professionals. And assigning them to Iraq means they are not available to address other national security challenges, like Iran and North Korea.
There has been good news. U.S. intelligence agencies operating with Special Operations Forces have tracked down many key terrorist leaders. The takedown of Zarqawi showed the importance of fusing human intelligence, imagery, signals intelligence and a military strike capability in real time. That is how intelligence ought to work. It was a huge tactical victory.
But tactical victories alone are not enough. We need a new strategy for Iraq, a dramatic change of course. We need to hold senior officials accountable for massive policy and management failures. Replacing Donald Rumsfeld, the chief architect of the postwar policy, is long overdue. He ignored the advice of senior military advisers, ignored the careful recommendations of those who understood nation-building, and ignored those horrified by a prison situation careening out of control. And he prides himself, even now, on refusing to change a failed policy.
[Time: 15:00]
Congress must also provide aggressive oversight to learn why the administration erred so grievously.
Since I returned from my third trip to Iraq last September, I have been calling on the administration to develop an exit strategy, and I believe it is now time to begin a phased, strategic redeployment of U.S. and coalition forces out of Iraq on a schedule designed by military commanders. A schedule designed by military commanders, not designed by the U.S. Congress.
I believe the U.S. is part of the solution in Iraq, but our large military presence is part of the problem. Beginning to reduce the ``footprint,'' while maintaining an over-the-horizon strike force, will improve our chances for success.
I think we have 3 to 6 months to advance three objectives: first, helping the new Iraqi Government provide electrical power, particularly in Baghdad, and deliver other critical economic and social services to the Iraqi people. Second, supporting the Iraqi Government in its effort to disarm Shiite militias and integrate them into a trained Iraqi national security force. Third, continuing the process, begun by our able Ambassador Khalilzad, of obtaining buy-in from Sunni political leaders. Achieving these objectives will enable us to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it.
Mr. Speaker, the next 3 months are critical. We have a moral obligation to assist Iraq on its path to democracy. But if clearly defined minimum objectives cannot be achieved within that time frame, the prospects for success in Iraq could all but disappear.
So a change in course is urgently needed. The President's visit to Baghdad was important, but it is not a substitute for needed policy changes. And Congress cannot be infinitely passive. This debate today will only have meaning if, in fact, it leads to a change of course in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to lead. This resolution, in my view, is a press release for staying the course in Iraq. It does not signal a change in policy, and thus I cannot support it.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Arizona, a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Renzi.
Mr. RENZI. I thank the chairman.
I have respect for the gentlewoman from California. I also listened to her words carefully, and I want to remind her that on October 9 she spoke about Saddam Hussein and his development of weapons of mass destruction, saying that he is impulsive, irrational, vicious, and cruel and that left unchecked, he will grow stronger, only to develop the capability to match his disdain for America and his Middle East neighbors and that he poses a clear and present danger.
Those were the words of the ranking member. That was the belief of Bill Clinton. That was the belief of Hillary Clinton. That was the belief of Madeleine Albright. And yet we are told today that this is a press release.
al Qaeda is a cancer. It has metastasized itself throughout the world. There is a lot of negativity, whether or not we want to join and take the war in Iraq and link it with terrorism. It is a cancer. It needs to be carved out, and the American people need to show the will and the endurance. Our troops do. Our people at home, I believe, have that will.
I believe there should be no arbitrary date set for withdrawal and yet no permanent, unending deployment. No cut and run, yet measured progress in helping a people who want to be free without an illusion of overnight success.
This enemy wants to take the fight into the later rounds. They want to prey on what they perceive is our lack of concentrated focus, and their captured documents refer to the U.S. being worn down and quitting.
Today's resolution is very similar to Rosie the Riveter. We bring out and ask the American people to stay strong. During World War II, we fought an enemy whose goal was to invade and dominate the land and the geography and to gain power and spread fascism. Terrorism is like fascism. While different tactics may be in place, Islamofascists want to establish a caliphate covering Southeast Asia,
[Page: H4044]
Zarqawi died in Iraq. Saddam was pulled out of a spider hole in Iraq. The Taliban was defeated in Afghanistan. Taking the fight to them works. With continued detainee reporting, coalition and allied sharing of intelligence, the Iraqi people working with us to identify safehouses, and the greatest group of unsung Americans sequestered in the backrooms of our intelligence agencies, we can keep the pressure on.
This resolution is about prevailing against our enemies, about achieving a shared success, Republicans and Democrats with the Iraqi and the Afghanistan people. This is about taking the fight to those who will strike America again and will wound this Nation and kill our innocent civilians.
America must endure, endure and prevail.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from California control the 30 minutes and yield to people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time of my 30 minutes remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 21 minutes remaining.
Ms. HARMAN. It is now my intention to yield to members of the minority of the House Intelligence Committee who are here.
First, I would yield 3 1/4 minutes to Representative Boswell who is ranking member on our Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence.
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to say to Mr. Murtha, I salute you, sir. We both served in Vietnam. I had two tours. I never told you this. I don't go around talking about it much. You don't either. But Charlie Beckwith, you remember that name, don't you? In the Iron Triangle? Sometimes we had those assaults and sometimes we had to go bring them out. When we had to bring them out, there were lots and lots of casualties. We did not like to do that.
So this exercise we went through a few months ago, saying that you wanted to make an immediate withdrawal, that is not what you said. I know that, and we all know it because that would be chaos. It needs a plan.
So I come today to share that little bit with you. I finished up my tours in the military as an instructor at the Command Staff College, Department of Tactics. We rewrote 101-5. We might want to talk about that sometime. You might find it interesting. And I would say without reservation, LEONARD BOSWELL, JACK MURTHA, and probably everybody in this Chamber support our troops, absolutely, 100 percent. That is not on the table, as far as I am concerned. They are in a difficult mission. They are performing superbly. And we are very, very proud of them. That is not the question.
Last December IKE SKELTON and, I do not know, 12 or 15 of us, and I do not know how I got invited, but we got invited to the White House to meet with the President, the Vice President, Mr. Rumsfeld, Ms. Rice, General Pace. And the whole conversation was everything is going really, really good in Iraq. And I got a chance to engage in conversation with the President, and I said it seems to me what I am hearing here is we have got 90-plus battalions, at that time, and now it is over 100, 20-something brigades, several divisions, armed, equipped, and in the field. And I have been to Iraq. A lot of us have. I am not sure about that, but if that is true, then why don't we start a withdrawal program carefully?
Do you know when we do best? We do best when we are under a little bit of pressure, when we know we have got to perform, we got to get the job done. And I think that applies to everybody in my life experience, Iraqis included. Under pressure, we went through the liberation from Saddam, regardless of how we decided to make the decision. We can debate that if you want to, but I do not want to do that. I supported the resolution based on what information I had. But regardless of that, if we would look at it in this sense: we have liberated the people from Saddam. He is in jail. He is on trial. Now we are occupiers. We want to help them get settled. They had a great election. We all understand that. They have established a government. And it is pretty tough. They got it done, I am told.
You know, it is kind of like putting the team on the field. You haven't seen them play yet together. Maybe they will do well, or maybe they won't. I don't know. We don't know. But we wish them well. We want them to succeed absolutely.
My point is this: they need to take some responsibility and the pressure is on to do it. They have got 254,000 troops trained, equipped, and in the field. We have a right to start, orderly, with a plan, bringing our troops home. We ought to do that. Not run, but an orderly withdrawal.
And I salute you for that, Mr. Murtha.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a senior member of our committee and a member of the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time on this very important matter.
To my good friend Mr. Murtha, I also salute you as a Vietnam veteran, one that knows what the cost of war does to a family and to our country.
My friends on the other side of the aisle would have you believe that this is a simple choice between retreat and resolve. This is a false choice. It is a political stunt. This is about respect. This is about respect for our role to do our jobs as a Congress in oversight.
We can win this war with a comprehensive and reasoned approach to deployment of our troops. But the President's supporters characterize any disagreement as cutting and running. It does not wash. This is unfair and it is disingenuous and this is unpatriotic.
The real choice is between blind adherence to Secretary Rumsfeld's ill-conceived strategy and the somber assessment of the proper way to fight against an insurgency. Congress has an important role to play in this process, and that is what today's debate should be about.
In my role as a member of both the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, I traveled to Iraq and paid a great deal of attention to the effects of this war and their impact on our military, on their families, and our intelligence apparatus. There have been and continue to be critical gaps in our intelligence system in this war.
When the Vice President says that our troops will be greeted as liberators, I have to think that we were not prepared. When the Army's chief of staff tells us that a successful campaign would require many more troops than we were planning to deploy, I have to think that we were not prepared. When the administration cannot get its story straight about the rationale for war and the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, I have to think that we were not prepared for this war.
These mistakes, these gaps in our knowledge, frankly, cry out for oversight. It is not about resolve versus retreat. It is about respect for this Congress doing its job in oversight. This Congress could have and should have done a better job of conducting oversight and vigorously questioning the statements that have been made by this administration: statements about the presence of WMD or about connections to 9/11 or about the war taking no longer than 6 months.
In fact, when I asked the administration, before we went to this war, whether there was a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, the answer was no. We could have made America safer by conducting vigorous oversight, but we as a Congress have failed to do that.
At the same time, while most of our men and women have served honorably and bravely, the unsustainable pace of our operations combined with an overstressed force has led to major problems. It led us on the road to Abu Ghraib and to some of the most heinous allegations lodged against our American troops in history.
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the conduct of this war has made us less safe. This is what this debate should be about. It has distracted us from the global war on terror. It has hurt recruiting and retention in the military. It has broken our Army for possibly the next decade or more. It has hurt
[Page: H4045]
[Time: 15:15]
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my California sister, a member of our committee, the ranking member of the Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee, Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and Congressman Murtha. We salute you for your extraordinary leadership.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the majority has brought a resolution before the House. It is a resolution. It is a nonbinding resolution. For those that are listening in, it just means that we are going to talk. There is not any action that will come out of it.
Let us think about the context, the broader context of where we are today, June 15, 2006. Across this magnificent country, almost two-thirds of the American people, it matters not where they live, what their economic background is, what their political affiliation is, have now lost faith in the President's war in Iraq.
They have also lost faith in the President. He had high ratings. He is now down to about 33 percent. And it is about this issue of war in Iraq. Why? Why? Because what was advanced? We had to go in because there was an eminent threat. If we did not get them, they were going to get us. Except that premise, the President even acknowledged, did not turn out to be so.
We all honor and support our troops. None of us will stipulate to anything less. We all honor the tradition that they have set. We all stipulate to that. We know that there are terrorists in this world. And we will pursue them in the pursuit of the protection of our Nation.
But there is a difference between Iraq and the war on terrorism. And some people in the Congress, unlike people in the country, do not want to acknowledge that. So where are we today? Our intelligence agency demoralized, intelligence manipulated, the American people ashamed of what we are doing instead of being proud.
It is too bad, my friends, that the term ``cut and run'' is ever used against a man that has served so honorably and has the medals to show them. I submit that it is the Congress that has cut and run on accountability, on not doing oversight, on not watching where the money is going.
Potable water has not been improved in Iraq. Even retired generals, for the first time in my life of 63 years have I ever heard retired generals that have spoken out and said this is not a policy, stay the course is not a policy.
Yes, we need a debate. We need a debate about alternatives. About alternatives. This is a regrettable instrument that you have brought to the floor today. I think two-thirds of the American people understand it.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to Mr. Holt of New Jersey, ranking member of the Intelligence Policy Subcommittee.
Mr. HOLT. I salute Mr. Murtha, and I salute the servicemen and -women in the field, recovering at Walter Reed, and waiting to serve.
This is a critical matter that we waited far too long to debate on this floor. And instead today we now get a meaningless resolution that says, well, stay the course, whatever that means.
Well, today I was meeting with some seventh and eighth graders. And I asked them to help me put in perspective what we are talking about here today, what would we say that 10 years from now we wish that we had said about the war in Iraq.
The first one said, too many lives have been lost already. The second one said, the reasons for going to war were wrong, maybe even deceptive. The third said, the Iraqi people are worse off today than they were before.
We should ask ourselves how posterity will regard Congress for giving President Bush everything he asked for without oversight, without accountability. There are shifting rationales for war: oh, it was weapons of mass destruction; oh, no, it was retribution for September 11; no, actually it was about human rights abuses under Saddam; no, actually it was containment and disarmament and the U.N. were not working.
No. No. It was to stand up a democracy that could be emulated throughout the Middle East. No, it was to protect America's strategic interests, including oil. And today we have heard over and over again a response that this is about terrorism.
No, it is not about terrorism. This is not about Khobar Towers. It is not about the USS Cole; it is not even about the World Trade Center. Today's debate is about Iraq, a war of choice. And this is a resolution that says, stay the course.
The other side, Mr. Speaker, is engaging in classical misdirection. This has nothing to do with terrorism except that Iraq has now become a breeding ground and a training ground for terrorists. And meanwhile the war has warped American priorities and cost us dearly.
Numerous powder kegs around the world are being ignored. International standing and our ability to counter terrorism is hurt. Here at home, I must say, Hurricane Katrina crystallized American thinking when they realized that the President and Congress were putting our attention, our resources in Iraq and not for the needs of the people here at home.
History will remember this war as a colossal blunder. When we leave Iraq, and I hope we will begin immediately, no one will wish that we stayed longer. No one will look back and think the current course could ever have been successful. This war is not making us safer. It is not making Iraq safer.
The generals understand that. You have heard that today. The large majority of the Iraqis understand that. The U.S. public understands that. And, yes, even seventh graders in New Jersey understand that.
Let us begin our redeployment immediately, rather than approve a meaningless stay-the-course resolution.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our colleague from California, a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Issa.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I certainly think it is important that this debate go back and forth as it has between the defeatist attitude of my colleagues and what I believe is the appropriate stay the course of this side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, we are often alleged of only doing two things in the Congress, either nothing or overreacting. Today, by a measured response of saying stay the course, we are doing exactly what we need to do. This is not meaningless.
Just in the last week a declassified document taken from the safehouse in which Zarqawi met his appropriate punishment, and I will read just short excerpts, our time is short, but they are meaningful and I think many Members listening throughout their offices and here on the floor probably have not yet read this.
Zarqawi says, however, here in Iraq, speaking of why time is on the side of al Qaeda, however, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons.
He goes on to talk about the formation of the National Guard. He goes on to talk about the impact on the resistance of various improvements there. He goes on to talk about how we the Americans and the Iraqis have undertaken a media campaign against the resistance and it is working.
He goes on to say, the resistance has had its financial outlets cut off and restricted. He talks about how, in fact, we have been effective in creating big divisions among the ranks of what he called the resistance.
He then plots to find a way to get America embroiled in yet another conflict with another enemy. And he is speaking of Iran. He then plots on how he might convince us that Iran was further along in its weapons of mass destruction. He then plots no more.
Mr. Speaker, we have done, for once, the even, middle-road thing we have to do. We did not go into this war the way we went into, as Congressman Murtha said, Beirut, only a little bit, only not enough, and only for a little while.
We have gone into the war on terrorism with commitment from this Congress, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the South of the Philippines, wherever the terrorists may be; and we said we will stay the long haul in each of these places.
My time is short. I just want to do two things. One is, to say that, unlike Congressman Murtha, I did not serve in combat. But I entered the Army in
[Page: H4046]
And throughout the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, I visited Lebanon, and I visited the region, and I got to know my fellow Arabs of the world. And I knew there was a problem and they knew there was a problem and we were not addressing it. We are now addressing it.
So we will be punished by the opposition any time we either do nothing or do something. But I would rather do something in the interests of freedom.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, many on this side advocate a strategy for success.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another member of our committee, Mr. Rup pers ber ger of Maryland.
Mr. RUP PERS BER GER. Mr. Speaker, whether you are for or against the war in Iraq, the fact is we are there now and we must support our troops. We must give them the resources they need to protect themselves.
In Congress and across the country, we all want the same thing. We all want the Iraqi military to be able to take control of their own country and secure their cities so that we can bring our men and women home that are in uniform.
What we disagree on, though, is strategy. We have been staying the course and continuing down a bumpy, dangerous and deadly road for a long time. The American people are losing confidence in the war in Iraq. Americans are turning on the news and opening up the newspaper to see more and more stories about troops being killed by roadside bombs and suicide bombers.
The Department of Defense released today that 2,500 troops have died in the war in Iraq since it began more than 3 years ago, and more than 20,000 have been injured.
The only people sacrificing in this war are the troops and their families. I have been to Iraq four times and just returned from my most recent trip over the Memorial Day recess. I also serve on the House Select Intelligence Committee where I am briefed often on the situation in Iraq and the global war on terror.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we need a new strategy in Iraq. I believe we must have the Iraqi security forces take on more responsibility in securing their country. I believe we must move American troops to the perimeter of the urban areas and let the Iraqi military patrol the streets in their cities.
Under this perimeter strategy, the American military will still back up the Iraqis in an emergency. This will reduce the Iraqi dependence on Americans and help them gain confidence in their own ability to secure their country.
This perimeter strategy will free up American troops to start the process of bringing our servicemen and -women home. Having the Iraqi military patrol their own streets will show the Iraqi people that their new government has been created and their own forces are now protecting them.
It will also give the American public new hope that the Iraqis are taking more control of their country and U.S. troops are not put in the dangerous situation of patrolling the Iraqi streets every day.
This perimeter strategy will allow the American military to do what it does best. Our intelligence analysts can use technology to locate insurgents and al Qaeda operatives.
Our special operations forces can focus on high-value targets, and our air power can be used to take them out. Changing the mission of U.S. forces, redeploying them to perimeter areas, and lowering the profile of the U.S. forces in urban areas will break the dependency the Iraqi military has on U.S. forces.
Mr. Speaker, you know, it is not about being a Republican or Democrat. It is about having the right strategy, it is about having the Iraqi military secure its own cities, and it is about bringing our men and women in uniform home.
I believe this new perimeter strategy will help us do that. I also, with the remaining time that I have, want to talk about the issue of the Iraqi war versus terrorism. There is no one that I know in the Democratic Party that is not behind the United States fighting the war strongly against terror.
[Time: 15:30]
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the rookie on our committee, Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, regretfully this debate on America's role in this debate on Iraq has been converted into a debate on the war on terror.
The Republican leadership has mimicked this divisive White House and sought a political squabble instead of a policy debate. The majority leader's memorandum that was circulated directing his Members to politicize and name call and obfuscate the issue is a disservice to this House and to the country as a whole.
Nothing was gained when the administration first inflated the issue of Osama bin Laden and terrorism with Iraq, and nothing is gained here today by this bald attempt to avoid discussion of Iraq policy and again try to conflate the issue of international terror with Iraq's insurgency.
Our country's democratic system requires the active involvement of Congress on key policy questions, particularly the issue of war. Its Members have a patriotic duty to hold the executive branch accountable, especially during a time of war. Troops as well as our citizens at home deserve and expect no less.
Back in 2001 this entire Congress went into Afghanistan against al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and essentially every Member, Republican, Democrat or Independent, went with the international community, rallying to the side of Americans, rallying to our aid. Our intelligence personnel, special ops forces, military and our allies were there.
But it was not in the case in Iraq where this President, President Bush, prematurely diverted troops and resources out of Afghanistan, before that mission was completed, before Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and Taliban leaders were captured, and before Afghanistan was stabilized.
President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld chose to start the Iraqi conflict on selective and incomplete intelligence when there was no imminent threat to the United States, without letting the international inspections run their course, without building international support, without a plan to stabilize and rebuild the country and bring our troops home, and ignoring the advice of leading generals about troop strength and strategy.
As a result of those failed judgments made over and over again, our troops have suffered in the field, not having adequate body armor and vehicle armor. They have been deployed an unreasonable number of times, and they are under unbelievable stress and danger. Our veterans have received inadequate care, some $3 billion short of what they should be having, and we have experienced a harmful lack of oversight and accountability.
The Iraqi people, more than half of them, are without clean water, 85 percent lack electricity, oil production less than what it was before the war started, and unemployment of over 40 percent and billions of dollars of American taxpayer money being spent without getting it where it is supposed to go, our troops not getting the safety equipment, Iraqis not getting the reconstruction done, and the American taxpayer $360 billion out of pocket. The policy of the Bush administration has done more to harm our military strength and more to harm and misdirect resources away from terror.
United States troops have done their jobs. They got rid of Saddam Hussein, they allowed for the constitution to be drawn and elections to be held, and they trained Iraqi security. The time has come for Iraqis to have the incentive to take control and responsibility for their own security. This idea of an open-ended commitment to stay the course just impedes this goal.
The true presence of our country impedes and fuels the insurgency. Nine out of 10 Iraqis want a timeline for withdrawal. Seventy percent, including the Prime Minister, set a timeline for withdrawal. It appears that the Bush-Rumsfeld group wants to be more Iraqi than the Iraqis.
It is time to shift the focus to political and diplomatic solutions. It is time we disavow any intention to permanently remain or to keep them on bases. It is time to revitalize our military, refocus on Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, and
[Page: H4047]
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Zarqawi's document:
However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces, harmful to the resistance, for the following reasons.
Time is on our side. We are making progress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, today we have heard a lot about who is right and who is wrong. Let me quote, at the outbreak of the Civil War, from Leroy Walker, who later became first Confederate Secretary of War. He said that he could wipe up with one handkerchief all the blood that would be spilled in the coming dispute between the North and the South. He was wrong.
We have been wrong, too. We were wrong about weapons of mass destruction. We were wrong about the costs, and we were wrong about the tenacity of this insurgency. But Tony Blair came here about a year and a half ago and he gave a great speech, and he said something very important we ought to be reminded of.
He said if we were wrong about weapons of mass destruction, and all we did was liberate a noble people from a brutal dictator, he said that history would forgive. But had we failed to act, and had we been right about weapons of mass destruction, he said that history would not forgive.
So this debate about who is right and who is wrong, I think, misplaces the interest of the United States. We were right that Saddam Hussein and his sadistic sons were a clear and present danger to his people, his neighbors, the region, and to American interests. Saddam Hussein plotted to kill a former U.S. president.
And just like megalomaniac leaders of the past, he attacked his neighbors in Iran, and he invaded Kuwait. Some prefer to ignore the historic comparisons to the Sudetenland and Liebensprau. Montezuma was right, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Dr. Henry Kissinger was right, too, when he said that with domestic policy, actions have consequences. But with foreign policy, inaction can have consequences. We are now seeing the suffering played out in Darfur and Somalia because of inaction.
Millions of innocent women and children are now at the mercy of the followers of bin Laden and al Zarqawi, and al Qaeda understands what some in this body refuse to acknowledge, that Iraq and Afghanistan are part and parcel of their war against us. When they are defeated there, and I pray that they will be, their ability to wage terrorist war against us will be diminished dramatically.
When we talk to the troops who come home from that region, they talk about progress. They talk about schools and hospitals that are open. Members, let me read for you from an e-mail that came back from a Minnesota soldier back to Minnesota. This was after the first election in Iraq.
He said, despite everything that has been going on around them, they still voted. Despite all the violence, they stood in line to be heard. Word is that despite the insurgents' best efforts, voter turnout may be as high as 72 percent across the country. Shoot, even in the States, that would be a great turnout.
All I can say is that together we, the United States and the Iraqis, no kidding, we did it. I know full well that this doesn't solve everything. Sure, there will be tough days yet to come. But for today, we won, we all won.
Our returning military personnel tell us something else. Iraqi and Americans have one thing in common. They want American forces to come home, but not just yet. Members, now is not the time to go wobbly. Let's give victory a chance and a lasting peace will surely follow.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to explain to our colleagues that this side is not trying to go wobbly. We are trying to articulate what we believe would be a better strategy for success in Iraq.
For our final 2 minutes, I will yield the first minute to Representative Crowley of New York, a member of the International Relations Committee.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thought we were going to start this debate this evening to talk seriously about the problems we are facing in Iraq and begin to talk about our constitutional oversight powers to begin to address this situation. I was wrong.
The American people want a change in our Iraq policy, and as their representatives, we have an incredible opportunity to speak to those concerns. But, quite frankly, we won't do that today.
As a New Yorker, and as the only Member of this House to lost a relative on 9/11, I am sickened that once again my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to try to spin this as an answer to 9/11.
If we thought that Ann Coulter's criticism of the Jersey girls who fought for an independent inquiry into the 9/11 attacks was bad, today Ms. Coulter pales in comparison to this Republican-led Congress. They still use the victims of 9/11 as a reason for being in Iraq in the first place, when all evidence, all evidence says otherwise.
When I hear my colleagues continue to talk and say that Iraq is a stop in the war in terrorism, what happened to the first stop? What happened to Osama bin Laden? Five years later, we have yet to capture or eliminate the person responsible for that action in the first place. But yet we find ourselves in a quagmire in Iraq. I intend to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), a member of the committee.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I just want to make a couple of observations. To my colleagues on the minority side, ladies and gentlemen, debate what you wish to debate. No one is telling you what to debate here today. All I have heard you do is complain about what you can and cannot say. I very much want to hear your strategy.
Ms. Harman talked about we have a strategy for success. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Emanuel, talked about we want to take the fight to the terrorists. I would love to hear how.
That is what we are doing at this moment. There is an old country and western song that teaches you, you know, while I was busy dreaming about yesterday, tomorrow hit me right between the eyes.
What you are doing is dreaming about yesterday. We are in Iraq. Mr. Holt had it right. It is today a training ground, a recruiting ground for terrorists. It is interesting, it is instructive, and we should talk about how that happens so we don't repeat it in the future.
But it is the reality for the moment. What do we do to end it? Where do we draw the line? Where do we say this is where we have to win? It is Iraq, and we better get it right.
Ms. HARMAN. To the prior speaker, we are trying to articulate exactly what we should do.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield the final minute of the Intelligence Committee's time to Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland, a member of the National Security Subcommittee of the Government Reform Committee.
I thank Mr. Murtha for yielding me the 30 minutes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we can say what we want on the floor of this House. We can debate and vote on nonbinding resolutions like this. But what is most important to the American people is not what we say here but what we do here.
This resolution does not commit this House to do anything. It does not require this Congress to take any measures to hold the Bush Administration or ourselves accountable for what is happening in Iraq.
The Bush administration was totally wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. No one has been held accountable. The Bush Administration totally miscalculated the number of troops that would be required to provide greater stability on the ground in post-invasion Iraq. No one was held accountable. The Bush Administration got the costs of the war totally wrong. Again, no one was held accountable.
It is a simple principle. If you reward and ignore failure today, you are going to get more failure tomorrow. This House has ignored those failures. While our men and women have been fighting bravely in Iraq, this House has been AWOL when it comes to providing oversight.
[Page: H4048]
Instead of providing a system of checks and balances, this Congress has been a blank check and a rubber stamp.
If we were a board of directors, we would be sued by shareholders for gross negligence.
I proposed a simple amendment to this resolution. It would have required this Congress to actually do something--to conduct adequate oversight and to implement the 9-11 Commission's recommendations, including those requiring this body to reform its own intelligence oversight process. The Republican leadership refused to allow us to debate or vote on my amendment. It apparently wants this House to remain an accountability free zone.
Ten hours of debate does not excuse years of giving the administration a blank check on Iraq. A non-binding resolution is not a substitute for an action plan. Let's start doing our job. We owe it to our troops and the American people. Shame on this House for abdicating its constitutional responsibility.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Thank you Mr. Chairman, for yielding me a few moments today to speak with our colleagues and with the American people.
As I traveled with seven colleagues earlier this year to visit our troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, I learned a great deal about the American spirit, the spirit of our volunteer servicemen and women and what drives them to risk it all. It is the defense of freedom. It is the understanding that vigilance and sacrifice are requirements for our Nation's security.
Back home in the comfort of their living rooms though, many Americans lack that focus. They forgot about Iraq's violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and the mounting incidence of attacks on our Nation leading up to 9/11. They began to loudly dissent and doubt and distract from our mission in Iraq.
One of the generals who I spoke with while I was in Kuwait took the opportunity in a quiet conversation to ask a very pointed question. He said, is America fighting this war, or is it just our military who is fighting this war?
We today, together with all Americans, must answer that general's thoughtful question. We must answer it for him, for ourselves, for the rest of the world, but especially for our enemies, so they know America is truly committed to liberty and the victory of civility and opportunity for all who love freedom and support democracy.
These enemies have long been committed to robbing the world of liberty. The United States and others have been targets of these terrorists many times leading up to 9/11 because of our commitment to the ideal of freedom. These enemies include regimes which harbor terrorists, but most especially those loosely connected terrorist organizations operating outside a national framework who share an ideology of oppression, tyranny, control, hatred resentment. They value no life, no man, no woman, no child.
We Americans cannot continue to be free if we spend all our time questioning our mission. Many Americans want to debate the validity of prewar intelligence or weapons of mass destruction. Whether one nation or another supported al Qaeda, how many troops do we need? Americans have to look beyond the tactical challenges.
We must do as Tony Blair did. The people who are fighting us, he said, know what is at stake. The question is, do we?
[Time: 15:45]
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 60 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) from the Out of Iraq Caucus, and I ask unanimous consent she control the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this resolution as the chairperson of the 72-member Out of Iraq Caucus of the House of Representatives. Tomorrow will mark the 1-year anniversary of the Out of Iraq Caucus.
My colleagues and I joined together to form the Out of Iraq Caucus to pressure the Bush administration into telling the truth about what is going on in Iraq, to admit their mistakes, and to admit their misjudgments, and to force them to devise a plan to bring our troops home.
The Bush administration cannot deny that they misled the world about the reasons we invaded Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was no connection between the unfortunate destruction of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. We have not been welcomed with open arms in Iraq. We have no substantial support for this war by other countries. Yet, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Ms. Rice, Mr. Wolfowitz, and Mr. Karl Rove continue to squander the American taxpayers' dollars on a war that cannot be won with a military solution.
Here we are 3 years later, 2,500 American soldiers dead, 18,498 U.S. soldiers seriously injured, and Congress has appropriated over $320 billion for this war, and the costs will only continue to rise. Even Condoleezza Rice admitted there have been thousands of missteps. The American people are increasingly aware of this mismanaged, corrupt, and bungled war.
The company that Vice President Cheney served as CEO of, Halliburton, has been awarded no-bid contracts for billions of dollars, and they have had over $400 million in unsupported costs and another $1 billion in questioned costs. In simple words, they are cheating the American people. Yet they are not being held accountable for their criminal actions, and the administration has facilitated these illegal actions.
However, Congress has done virtually no oversight of this war, no hearing, no acknowledging the generals that are trying to tell us about Mr. Rumsfeld's mismanagement of this war. We have not done the oversight, and today, we find that we have this debate. It is not sufficient, nor has it been properly characterized. This resolution we are debating is a sham.
As a matter of fact, it is a trap. It is an attempt to force Democrats to sign on to a resolution that will do nothing to bring our troops home. Oh, they want to make us sound as if we are unpatriotic. They want to make us sound as if we do not support our troops. We love our troops. We are as patriotic as anybody, and so I would implore my colleagues not to get caught into this trap.
This resolution is not intended to solve any problems or chart a new course that will permit us to preserve the lives of our troops or to be successful in Iraq.
I know what is happening. My friends on the opposite side of the aisle are getting frightened. They went home on the break, and they heard the American people. They saw the polls, and they came back with a Karl Rove-constructed resolution to try and make it seem as if now they get it. But this resolution does nothing. It will only continue to mislead.
We formed the Out of Iraq Caucus to oppose any permanent bases in Iraq. We support H.J. Res. 73 to redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq, commonly referred to as the Murtha resolution.
There are a lot of misconceptions about what the Murtha resolution is. So let us take a minute and explain clearly what the resolution says.
Section 1 says: ``The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.'' They would have you believe this is meant to withdraw immediately. That is not what it says, and let us get that straight today. What that means is there will be no more U.S. troops sent to Iraq and that the troops in Iraq will be redeployed as soon as possible, a judgment that should be made by military officials on the ground. So stop misrepresenting what this resolution is all about.
Section 2 says that ``a quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.'' That means a group of marines will remain in the Middle East to respond to threats that destabilize our allies in the region or the national security of the United States.
Section 3 says: ``The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.'' This war cannot be won through military means alone. We must put the full weight of the United States behind diplomacy in order to end bloodshed in Iraq.
[Page: H4049]
The Murtha resolution endorses these principles, and there is no reason why the entire Congress of the United States cannot get behind this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the Out of Iraq Caucus supports the Murtha resolution as the clear plan for America. We support bringing our troops home, and stop saying we do not have a plan. We have a plan. It is a good plan. It is the Murtha resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be able to control the remainder of the Intelligence Committee's time on this side of the aisle.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and I commend the brave American and coalition soldiers who have risked their lives to fight terror and promote freedom around the world, including the 14 courageous Delawareans who have lost their lives while honorably serving their State and this Nation.
Despite weeks of significant progress, we are now facing a critical stage in the war on terrorism. I believe an immediate withdrawal or the establishment of a hard deadline to withdraw will be comparable to an abandonment of the new Iraqi Government and would encourage the terrorists and violent factions to bide their time, inviting mayhem and guaranteeing chaos.
Such a decision may also embolden our enemies to, once again, attack our homeland and interests abroad, thus further endangering American citizens. The future of the Middle East and the security of free nations around the world depend upon the development of a strong and stable democracy in Iraq.
Therefore, in order to reach an acceptable level of stability in Iraq, it is extremely important that we, as an international community, intensify our efforts to reduce the influence of militias, restore electricity, rebuild schools, and assemble a modern and sustainable economy for the benefit of all Iraq's citizens. A greater emphasis on the development of the Iraqi security forces, with a focus on the selection and education of effective military officers, is absolutely imperative so that we may begin supplanting our forces in the region with Iraqi troops at the earliest date possible.
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we honor our brave soldiers by continuing to work with our international partners to promote democracy and protect freedom around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and I commend the brave American and coalition soldiers and all other personnel who have risked their lives to fight terror and promote freedom both at home and abroad. These courageous men and women have made tremendous sacrifices to ensure our security, and they deserve our utmost respect and appreciation.
There have been three successful elections held in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, and in recent weeks significant progress, both politically and militarily, has been made in the region. As a former member of the House Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the elimination of al-Zarqawi will prove to be a key psychological and organizational blow to al Qaeda's terrorist network.
Still, the facts are undeniable--progress in Iraq and Afghanistan has come at a tremendous cost. My small State of Delaware alone has lost fourteen brave soldiers, each of whom honorably served their State and Nation. My heart goes out to these noble Delawareans and their families.
And while elections and military victories are crucial, many challenges still lie ahead. We are now facing a critical stage in the war on terrorism, and it is essential that the international community come together to support Iraq's efforts to build a strong, unified government capable of steering the country toward a path of peace and democracy.
Although, several of my colleagues have suggested that the U.S. should set a hard deadline for withdrawal from the region, I believe such a course would be unwise. An immediate withdrawal, or the establishment of a hard deadline to withdraw, would be comparable to an abandonment of the new Iraqi government and would encourage the terrorists and violent factions to bide their time, inviting mayhem and guaranteeing chaos. Such a decision may also embolden our enemies to once again attack our homeland and interests abroad, thus further endangering American citizens. The future of the Middle East, and the security of free nations around the world, depends upon the development of a strong and stable democracy in Iraq.
Therefore, in order to reach an acceptable level of stability in Iraq, it is extremely important that we intensify our efforts to reduce the influence of militias, restore electricity, rebuild schools, and assemble a modem and sustainable economy for the benefit of all Iraq's citizens. A greater emphasis on the development of the Iraqi security forces--with a focus on the selection and education of effective military officers, is absolutely imperative. Over the last few years, we have trained and equipped thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police officers and it is now crucial that we do more to improve this process, so that we may begin supplanting our forces in the region with Iraqi troops at the earliest date possible.
Mr. Speaker, the thousands of Americans who have served in the war on terrorism exemplify the very courage and honor on which our Nation was formed. It is essential that we recognize their service by continuing to work with our international partners to promote democracy and protect freedom around the world.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership and her strong voice over the years on so many issues, especially with regard to this unnecessary war.
It has been almost 4 years since Congress authorized this unnecessary war, and we are really still not having a debate on Iraq policy. So, quite frankly, this debate is a sham. It attempts to, and you have heard this before and you will hear it again, it attempts to link the war on terror with the bloodshed and violence and killing in Iraq. How deceptive can you be?
As a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I believe that we should be debating and passing the Murtha resolution today. The Murtha resolution would redeploy our troops from Iraq at the earliest practicable date and pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
Instead, the Republicans continue to play political games at the expense of our brave troops.
This resolution is a disingenuous attempt by the Republicans to really rewrite history by claiming that Iraq is linked to the terrible tragedy of 9/11. This is deplorable. We all know that Iraq had nothing to do with the tragic attacks of 9/11. Yet, the President misled the American people into a war of choice, with no end in sight.
We could have avoided this, and you remember Congressman Spratt and myself, we introduced substitutes to the use of force back in 2002, which would have allowed the United Nations' inspectors to ensure that Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction.
And what is the cost of finding out that there are no weapons of mass destruction? Today, we reached the sad milestone of 2,500 American brave troops who have given their lives; and by the end of the year, we will have committed close to $400 billion.
Are we any safer as a result of this purposeless war in Iraq? Not according to the 9/11 Commission, whose report card gave the administration a failing grade in virtually every category relating to terrorism preparedness.
The Republicans try to claim that Iraq is the central front on the global war on terror, but the fact is that it has undermined our ability to protect our Nation. National security professionals recognize this, Mr. Speaker, and let us be clear: we are spending billions of dollars to occupy a country that did not have weapons of mass destruction or terrorist ties. At the same time, we are cutting programs to secure our ports and keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists. There is something really wrong.
Worse still, this President and the Republican majority really refuse to level with the American people about when our troops are coming home, also really if they are coming home.
While we are debating this very bogus resolution, the most substantive
[Page: H4050]
The American people do not want an open-ended war and occupation. Quietly removing a measure that was approved by both the House and the Senate is a gross abuse of the democratic process and is further evidence that Republicans are afraid to level with the American people about their real plans for Iraq.
Let me tell you, there will be a day of reckoning. The American people are demanding answers. They deserve a truthful accounting of how we got into this unnecessary war, how the billions of dollars have been misspent and when our troops are coming home, and also, they really deserve to know if our troops are coming home, given recent reports that the administration is considering leaving a permanent force of 50,000 troops in Iraq and indications that establishing permanent military bases are not off the table.
So, Mr. Speaker, the American people will not forget that, instead of answers to their questions, the Republican majority keeps giving them rhetoric and posturing like they are doing today, and the American people deserve better.
This sham resolution, it really should be rejected. We should support the Murtha resolution. That is what we should talk about today. That will take steps to end this war. It would take steps to bring our young men and women home; and I tell you, if we do not debate this, we do not know when the opportunity to debate or to have a real debate will take place.
It should have been a real debate today. Unfortunately, this has deteriorated into posturing into rhetoric and into misrepresenting what the facts are.
I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from Maryland, I yield myself 30 seconds to read a quote we mentioned earlier in this debate from Osama bin Laden. He said, ``This Third World war is raging in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war. It will end in victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.'' That is not this side of the aisle. That is Osama bin Laden.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As we debate the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism, there will be strong, heartfelt feelings and expressions on this House floor. Let us, however, as we debate have a powerful sense of resolution, a powerful sense of urgency, a powerful sense of urgency to end the war and to end the war successfully.
A stable, free Iraq, a stable, free Afghanistan will be a blessing to the Iraqis, a blessings to the Afghanis and a blessing to the region and the world at large.
The war on terrorism is the next stage of the Cold War. Civilized people who believe in the rule of law, justice, equality and freedom cannot allow self-anointed fanatics to rape, pillage and murder at will around the globe.
A great Islamic theologian once said, ``One hour of justice is equal to a hundred-year prayer.'' The world wants to hear from us. It is our job to end the war in Iraq successfully. The United States, with the assistance of and for the good of the civilized world, can and will defeat terrorism. This debate is our hour of justice.
[Time: 16:00]
General Eisenhower said, ``The emphasis of the military is on authority and obedience; the emphasis on public office is communication and consent.'' As we craft this resolution, I urge you to keep these themes in mind.
And as we will eventually walk across the graves in Arlington Cemetery, listen to these words: ``We are the dead. Short days ago we lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, loved and were loved. And now we lie in Flanders Field.'' Let us work together through this debate to figure out how to end the war.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California, Representative Woolsey, 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, many of us voted against this war from the very beginning. In fact, 60 percent of the Democrats voted ``no'' to the war in Iraq. Since then, we have hosted informal hearings, we have founded the Out of Iraq Caucus, we forced a debate and vote on the House floor, Mr. Murtha offered his intelligent proposal to redeploy our troops, and last night I gave my 151st 5-minute speech on Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, it has been almost 39 months since our troops were sent to Iraq, and today, more than 37 months after the President declared ``Mission Accomplished,'' our troops are still there.
Just this week, the President of the United States said this about Iraq, and I quote: ``My message to the enemy is don't count on us leaving before we succeed. Don't bet on American politics forcing my hand, because it is not going to happen.'' Except, Mr. Speaker, it is completely unclear what constitutes success or when the mission will be accomplished under these circumstances. Saying we will stand down when the Iraqis stand up? Well, that is just talking points that give the American people no clear guide as to when they can expect this war to end.
By leaving this question vague, by defining success entirely on his own terms, the President is allowing himself an open-ended commitment and a blank check in Iraq. As for his hand being forced by American politics, what the President calls American politics is actually a majority of our citizens outraged at the loss of life, the hundreds of billions spent, and the global credibility we have squandered.
The American people, as of this morning, see 2,500 U.S. troops killed, more than 18,000 U.S. soldiers gravely wounded, and thousands more mentally and physically traumatized from their experience in the war. They see the United States losing an equivalent of one battalion every month in Iraq, and the American people want answers. They do not want partisan resolutions like the one before us today, a resolution that does nothing to end this war.
They see all the sacrifices, Mr. Speaker, and they ask, for what? They know none of it is making Americans in Iraqi safer. In fact, the presence of nearly 150,000 American troops in Iraq has become a rallying point for anti-American extremists in the Arab world. The people of this country support our troops. They see nothing inconsistent about having the deepest contempt for this war while expressing the utmost admiration for the soldiers on the front lines.
Last fall, I traveled to Iraq and I visited with our troops. My conversations with them confirmed what I already knew: These are uniquely loyal, intelligent, and courageous Americans. If only those civilians who are running this war had half the honor and integrity of the men and women who are fighting it.
It is time, Mr. Speaker, this Congress caught up to the American people. It is time that the Commander in Chief stepped up by offering a solution, instead of dismissing American anxiety as just politics. It is time to establish a multilateral security force to keep the peace in Iraq while shifting the U.S. role from military occupier to reconstruction partner. It is time to give Iraq back to the Iraqis, not continuing to occupy the bases, not attempting to control their oil.
This is what the American people want, Mr. Speaker. They want an end to this war. They are not certain exactly how or when, but that is our job to execute those details. They are looking to us for leadership. It is time this Congress and the President of the United States provided the leadership to bring our troops home.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi, a leader on national defense affairs, Mr. Wicker.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, what is the status of our effort in Iraq today, and where do we go from here?
Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle see the situation getting worse and worse. I see real progress. I see three successful elections, I see the completion of a national unity government, and I see the elimination of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. But more than anything else, Mr. Speaker, it is the returning troops I talk to who convince
[Page: H4051]
Now, as to the question of where we go from here, two things are certain: Iraq is ground zero in our global war on terror. And the decisions we make will affect U.S. credibility for decades to come.
Al Qaeda attacked our homeland unprovoked on 9/11, and it is that same al Qaeda we fight today in Iraq. We must defeat them there and anywhere else until their terrorist threat has ended. But make no mistake, this is the same enemy that demolished the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon.
Another argument we have heard today is that this war was a mistake to begin with; that it was unnecessary; that it was in fact based on a lie. This view, of course, ignores the fact that intelligence agencies not only in the U.S. but from Israel, Great Britain, Germany, and France, to name a few, were unanimous in their conclusions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright cautioned that it was a real possibility Saddam would use these weapons or share them with terrorists intent on attacking the U.S. again.
But if you think about it, Mr. Speaker, what such an argument really advocates is a present day Iraq with Saddam Hussein still in power. That would have been the logical result of their point of view. An Iraq still ruled by intimidation, humiliation, rape, and torture. A Saddam Hussein still free to continue his proven network of chemical and biological weapons research. A Saddam Hussein with plans and advanced designs for long-range missiles to threaten our allies and our interests.
To some, this may be an acceptable alternative. But it is not to me. The world is a better place because Iraq is free of Saddam Hussein, and the world will be safer if we maintain our resolve. The administration has embarked on a sound plan for freedom and stability in the region and for better security for our citizens. Stay the course.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the State of Washington, Representative McDermott, 5 minutes.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this debate begins with one fundamental truth. We are in Iraq and our leaders have no plan to get us out of Iraq.
The President says U.S. soldiers will stay in harm's way for as long as he says so. ``We will stand down,'' our leaders say, ``when the Iraqis stand up.'' In other words, Iraqi clerics and the factions they control and the decisions they make about whether to cooperate with the Iraqi government will determine what we can do. The extent of our involvement, the length of our stay, the number of our dead is controlled by religious clerics in Iraq because we have no strategy except to wait for the Iraqis to stand up.
Republican leaders in this Chamber say we will stay because Iraq is a model of success and it is helping us win the war on terror, as if a resolution they alone write will somehow make Iraq the role model for projecting U.S. influence around the world.
Today, the American people say with a growing voice that Iraq was a mistake, and staying with no plan or timetable is the wrong course for our soldiers and our Nation. The unending war, the permanent bases, the fortress embassy we are building all make a powerful argument that our involvement in Iraq is more an occupation than a liberation. This promotes terrorism. This helps recruit terrorists. It doesn't help end the terrorism.
U.S. soldiers in Iraq are doing an heroic job, but we are not doing ours. It is not partisan politics to insist that a nation at war have a plan to achieve the peace. The resolution and its backers seem to think it is unpatriotic to ask questions and to demand a plan. That is not true. Our foreign policy fails when we fail to ask enough questions, not too many.
American soldiers are falling every day, and there is no one, not a single person in this House who does not respect and support our soldiers. But this resolution is intended to paper over the truth about the Iraq war and it does not support our soldiers and will not make a difference in winning the war. Our soldiers need and the American people expect their leaders to develop a battle plan that will work in the field because it is based on military intelligence, not political expediency.
We are in a war and we need a battle plan from the President, not a message memo from the House majority leader. War isn't waged by a political party nor is it won by political ideology. Iraq needs a credible battle plan. There is only one at the moment, and we should be debating it.
John Murtha put forward a plan 6 months ago and only today are we able to discuss it at all, with no ability to alter the resolution before us. This is not an honest debate, an honest attempt to seek answers for our problems in Iraq. It is a debate about a letter of endorsement for the President, not an examination of our options.
Jack Murtha has emerged with a battle plan, and it is no surprise. He is a decorated combat soldier who reflects what the best military minds believe. As a veteran myself of the Vietnam era, I must say that Jack is a soldier's soldier, a combat hero who has one and only one goal: To defend our Nation with the finest military and the best plan.
Jack has a plan: Strategic redeployment. It is smart, proud, honest and effective. You can't win a war with rhetoric and resolutions. You win with a thoughtful plan. I support the Murtha resolution that puts in place a plan to protect our soldiers, protect American interests in the Middle East, and protects American people here at home. It is a battle plan that resolves to bring our troops home on a timetable driven by the United States, not subject to the approval of Iraqi clerics. It is a commitment to secure the peace by being smart about the war.
The American soldiers need a battle plan, not a resolution that reflects a bunker mentality of the Republican Party losing its grip on political control.
Two grim things came out of the Pentagon today. When the President declared ``mission accomplished,'' 141 people had died. Today, the 2,500th person died. The other thing that came out was a 74-page booklet to help Republicans manage spin control during the Iraq debate on the floor. It is called ``The Iraq War Debate Prep Book.''
The Defense Department is putting out PR pieces. That is an affront to the American people. It is not a front on the war. The American people want change because the Pentagon under this administration distributes PR plans. Debate talking points. What is the military doing with that kind of stuff up here on the Hill in this body? We see no military plan.
Support U.S. soldiers by passing Jack Murtha's plan to get out of Iraq.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY. After September 11th, Mr. Speaker, bin Laden's deputies said, ``People of America, your government is leading you into a losing battle. Remember, your government was defeated in Vietnam, fled in panic from Lebanon, rushed out of Somalia, and slapped across the face in Aden. Your government today is leading you into a losing war.''
And no wonder. Look at our past. November 1979: 52 Americans taken hostage at the U.S. embassy in Iran. We had a failed response. April 1983: 17 Americans killed at our embassy in Beirut. We took no action. October 1983: 241 Marines killed, 100 wounded. Our Marines were redeployed. April 1988: 259 killed in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. We sought indictments. February 1993: Six killed and a thousand injured after the explosion of the first World Trade Center bombing. We took them to court. October 1993: 18 U.S. servicemen were killed and 84 wounded in Somalia. We withdrew our troops. August 1998: 224 killed at U.S. embassies. We fired cruise missiles in Afghanistan and Sudan.
[Time: 16:15]
October 2000, 17 U.S. killed and 30 wounded in the USS Cole attack. We took no action.
[Page: H4052]
However, since September 11 we have been much different. We fought the Taliban in Afghanistan, and now we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and the U.S. is sending a message to the terrorists and the world, and we are different and we will respond.
Now, there will be disagreements between leaders who are retired and current ones. This is part of history. Witness the disagreements between Lincoln and McClellan, Patton and Montgomery, MacArthur and Truman.
But now we are having success. Our troops are being redeployed outside of the cities of Iraq. We are transferring the battle to Iraqi security forces and their police, and now they have a government where they must face the scourge of al Qaeda, and we cannot let them face it alone.
I wish we could finish quickly, but I know we cannot finish hastily. I think one wounded soldier said it to me, summed it up best, he said, I want to go back and finish the job, I want to fight them there, not in our suburbs.
I know we cannot fight them in our courts. I know we cannot fight terrorists with our police in our streets. I know surely we cannot fight terrorist murderers with diplomacy. Let's finish the job of terrorism, then we bring them home.
Ms. WATERS. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I rise in strong support of our brave troops and in strong support of Congressman Murtha's plan for a responsible redeployment from Iraq.
Americans want the truth about the Iraq war. Americans deserve the truth, and despite all the talk from those who declared this war, ineptly pursued this war, and still today justify this war, the American people in overwhelming numbers have determined for themselves the truth about this war.
Polls taken even after the killing of al Zarqawi show that only 33 percent of American adults think that the results of the war were worth the loss of life and other costs. Only 33 percent approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq. Only 26 percent of Americans feel that the United States is better off because of the war.
The American people in their wisdom have been able to distinguish reality from rhetoric. The truth has been a major casualty in the war of Iraq.
It is worth reviewing just a few of the statements presented as truth that have been proven to be not true, never true, and still today not true:
Dick Cheney said in August 2002, ``Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.''
In March 2003, Donald Rumsfeld said, ``We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.''
The President said in May 2003, ``We found the weapons of mass destruction.''
And Donald Rumsfeld on the cost, ``Well the Office of Management and Budget has come up with a number that is something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that will be the U.S. burden and how much will be other countries is an open question.''
Dick Cheney said May 30, 2005, ``I think they are in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.''
And what happens to those experts who tell the truth? Are they heeded and embraced by the Bush administration? Hardly. Although it is now universally agreed we didn't have enough troops to avoid the chaos and violence after the initial invasion, when the Army's top general, Eric Shinseki, testified in February 2003 ``something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers'' would be necessary to achieve victory in Iraq,'' he was immediately and publicly repudiated by Secretary Rumsfeld who said that ``the idea it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark.'' Shinseki was quietly ushered into retirement, and Secretary Rumsfeld remains in place leading the failed Bush administration policy in Iraq.
When Dr. Lawrence Lindsey, former assistant for economic policy to the President, told the Wall Street Journal in September 2002 that the war's cost could reach $200 billion, he was fired by the President.
Yet by the end of this year we will have spend $450 billion in Iraq. Some say at the end of the day the war will cost $1 trillion taxpayer dollars.
Since the time the President announced on May 1, 2003 that ``major combat operations in Iraq have ended,'' more than 2,350 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives, and the President has not attended a single one of their funerals. And the United States is spending in excess of $8 billion a month to wage the war. That is $266 million a day, $11 million an hour, $185,000 a minute and $3,100 a second, every second for this war. Certainly we could have afforded body armor and proper Humvees for our soldiers.
We could have insured 165 million children for 1 year, provided more than 13 million American students with 4-year scholarships at public universities, fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 11 years, give basic immunization to every child in the world for 92 years, and I believe that would have bought us more security than invading Iraq has done.
Our military men and women have done a magnificent job in the Iraq theater and deserve better. The civilian leadership in the White House and the civilian leadership in the Pentagon have failed. Time after time they have been wrong. They projected the cost of the war and got it wrong. They predicted the length of the war: wrong. They predicted the existence of weapons of mass destruction: wrong. They predicted the Iraqi reaction to our occupation: wrong. They got the reconstruction of Iraq wrong. When it came to providing needed equipment, they got it wrong.
And who will pay the price for those mistakes? None of the architects of this war. No one of them has been held accountable. The only ones paying the price are dead and wounded soldiers, our men and women in uniform.
We need a new direction in Iraq. The majority has nothing to offer in terms of a plan, just more political ploys, more talk, more mistakes like those cited today.
It is time to redeploy our troops from Iraq. There is a plan, the Murtha plan; and we should make sure that we are not establishing a permanent military presence there.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, a while ago one of the members of the Armed Services Committee said under the rules of the debate today that we can discuss anything we want to, debate anything we want to.
It occurs to me while this is not a proposal for statutory change, it is a sense of the House resolution. Under the rules of this debate, may I present my amendment to reestablish the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in the House Armed Services Committee so we may properly provide oversight? Is that allowed under the rules of this debate today?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Under House Resolution 868, the previous question has been ordered on adoption of the resolution without intervening amendment.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I welcome this debate, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to terrorism and in support of honoring our commitments. I rise in support of this resolution.
It is clear that one-half of those engaged in this debate believe we need to get out of Iraq and believe we need to get out soon. In support of their position, they cite mistakes that were made leading to the war and mistakes that have been made in conducting the war, and they cite the recent increase in terrorist attacks and incidents.
Let me make it clear, Mr. Speaker, reneging on our commitment to defeat terrorism in Iraq now would be a mistake of monumental proportions for which future generations would pay and pay deeply.
Of course mistakes have been made. In every human endeavor, mistakes are made. That is the nature of human endeavors.
I personally am convinced we had too few troops in Iraq when Baghdad fell. I joined my colleague JOHN MCCAIN in visiting Iraq. I have been there multiple times, and it was obvious to me
[Page: H4053]
Recently, a constituent of mine, a Vietnam War helicopter pilot, approached me in Phoenix and said, This war is unlike Vietnam. It is unlike Vietnam, he explained, because were we to abandon this effort without succeeding, make no mistake about it, the consequences would be far reaching and disastrous.
Let's talk about some of those.
First, it would be a humiliating defeat for the United States. Look no further than the words of Osama bin Laden. He said: ``The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.''
Future commitments by the United States could be scoffed at by our allies and by our enemies around the world for generations to come. It would shatter the trust we have built amongst our allies in the region. The newly elected Iraqi Government, and I find it ironic that we are having this debate within days of its selection, would collapse and we would have the creation of a radical, oil-funded terrorist state. But sadly and most importantly, to fail now would establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that our brave soldiers, men and women, who gave of their lives or who suffered grave injuries that will be with them for the remainder of their lives did so in vain.
Most importantly, it is not necessary. We can succeed, but the path to defeating terrorism in Iraq is not surrender; it is resolve. The opponents argue that we have suffered recent increases in violence and insurgent attacks. The increase in those attacks is not proof that we are losing, and it is certainly not proof that we cannot prevail. Rather, I submit to you it is proof that the insurgents understood that the period leading up to the election of a permanent representative government in Iraq was their best chance, and they took their best shot. And they failed.
For all that is rational, for that is honorable, we must not now within days of the election of that new permanent government cut and run. No, indeed, we must give it an opportunity to do its job, an opportunity to succeed.
Now, those who say that we are losing ignore that by their own admission al Qaeda is acknowledging that it is failing in Baghdad. I urge us not to cut and run now for our children and for our grandchildren.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first let's note what a degradation of democracy is taking place here.
The majority party has put forward a resolution that allows no amendment. There will be a debate in which those of us who think some things are good and some are bad, contrary to every reasonable democratic procedure, will have no opportunity to say so.
Here is the tactic that is being used: they take a number of things that people agree with, they mix in with them things which are quite controversial. They treat them as if they were not separable.
Let me say what I have said again before. The majority party thinks the way to legislate is the way you feed a pill to a dog: you take the unpalatable with the popular.
Now I will have to say this: one of the things we are trying to do is to persuade the people in Iraq to be able to work together and make democracy work. We are trying to persuade, we are told, the Shiia and the Sunni to work together. We are trying to tell the majority Shiia to share power.
Mr. Speaker, how can you and your party believe that we inspire people to share power by giving the example of its monopolization in an abusive fashion?
I just hope that the members of parliament in Iraq who may hear about this will remember a very important point: please do not try this at home.
Now let's get to the substance.
This war in Iraq came after September 11. It was not the response to terrorism the war in Afghanistan was. I am struck in listening to the Members on the other side of the aisle that Afghanistan appears to have too many syllables for them to pronounce. What is in fact happening is that the war in Afghanistan, which was the response to the terrorist attack, which was almost unanimously supported here and by Democrats in the Senate, is in fact not going as well as it should.
One of the prices we are paying for the war in Iraq is the deterioration in Afghanistan. Now, the war in Iraq was launched based on a couple of lies we were told. And I am struck to hear people still defending the arguments about the weapons of mass destruction. It seems my colleagues on the other side have decided to adopt a Marxist idea. The Marx in question, of course, is Chico, and the mantra is: Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes? Having been repudiated overwhelmingly by the facts, they stick to the rhetoric.
Here is the price we are paying. We shouldn't have gone in. Of course having gone in, we are victimized by one of the most incompetently administered examples in American national security history. But here is the price we pay: the war in Afghanistan deteriorates our ability to protect ourselves at home. Every time you hear that we can't afford communications, we can't afford more people at the border, we can't afford port security, every time people hear that we can't afford something that would enhance our security at home, understand that it is the war in Iraq that makes it impossible for this Nation to afford it.
[Time: 16:30]
If we did not have these hundreds of billions being drained there, we could take care of the agenda.
Finally, it constrains us elsewhere in the world. It has led to an increase in anti-Americanism which I deplore, with which I disagree, but it is a fact.
Our ability to deal with the potential Iranian nuclear weaponry is constrained by the fact that we are in Iraq. In fact, the Iranians have been among the major beneficiaries of what we have done in Iraq.
So you went into a war on the basis of two lies. You have handled it incompetently. We are now at the point, well, does that mean you pull out? And here is the point. You tell us on the one hand that there is great success. We have built a government, et cetera, et cetera. But also, you tell us simultaneously that if we withdrew American troops the house of cards falls. Well, which is it? Have you built a successful entity in Iraq? If you have, why can't we pull out? Why can't 28 million people in Iraq, with a couple of hundred thousand Iraqis under arms deal with 15 or 18,000 terrorists?
The fact is that this is a failed policy that gets worse every day.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Dr. Weldon.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, the President's plan, and our troops.
In recent days U.S. and Iraqi forces have dealt terrorists in Iraq a decisive blow. The brutal leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu al Zarqawi, responsible for untold deaths and inciting widespread unrest has met his end, and none too soon, thanks, mainly to our troops, courageous men and women in the field who got the job done.
And let us not forget, Ramzi Yousef, the man who plotted and attempted the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center that could have led then to tens of thousands of deaths, was an Iraqi intelligence agent.
And let us remember the great accomplishments of our troops in the field. For too long U.S. news media has focused only on the negative and has chosen only to report bad stories, stories of terrorist attacks. Indeed, for every story that reports heroism and accomplishment of our troops in the field, our American news media focuses 9 or 10 stories on terrorist attacks and the failings of our military. Where our military can accomplish great things over and over again, the American news media ignores it and instead looks for a negative story to report.
Well, I want to report on one good story, a great story that shows that we are getting the job done and the Iraqi people are with us. And indeed, this
[Page: H4054]
For 3 days in 2005, U.S. troops led the successful assault on Tal Afar to liberate innocent men, women and children from their terrorist captors. Thanks to our brave soldiers, schools in Tal Afar are now open. And once terrified Iraqi citizens are now able to shop, travel the streets openly, go outside their homes.
And as 60 Minutes noted, some of our American soldiers involved in the liberation of that town now have throngs of Iraqi children follow them admiringly in the streets.
Mr. Speaker, Tal Afar is just one example of the great job we are doing there. There are many, many more. We need to stay the course, not cut and run.
I support the resolution.
Ms. WATERS. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, and I agree with most of what has been said.
I support the Murtha proposal for an immediate and orderly redeployment. There is one subject I would like to raise which has not been discussed very much here, however, and that is the role of the American oil barons who have contributed greatly to the colossal mess of the war in Iraq.
Our troops today are as good as they were when they were labeled the greatest generation and defeated Hitler. But in Iraq, today's counterparts of Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, the Colin Powells, the John Murthas, they were not allowed to take charge. Lust for control of the oil made the oil barons push everyone capable of carrying out a reasonable destruction of Saddam Hussein aside. This administration encouraged the oil barons to overrule the military professionals.
Lust for oil is still the problem. Seldom discussed in America, but very much on the minds of the people of Iraq. We cannot succeed as long as the ordinary Iraqi people see us as oil thieves responsible for the terror and their day-to-day misery.
We went into Iraq fighting fanatics, fighting Saddam Hussein and his oligarchy of brutal, decadent killers. No great crowds greeted our troops with flowers. But there is good reason to believe that the masses of citizens were hoping for some real improvements. But we guarded only the oil wells, while the water systems and the electricity grids collapsed.
As the people observed our preoccupation with oil, the insurgency began to grow. The leadership of the oil barons could not run a country, and they could not manage an occupation.
Oil revenues must be addressed in order to regain the confidence of the Iraqi masses. We need a transparent, open, full discussion of what are the arrangements that have been proposed, what is being proposed or what contracts are already in place.
Chevron, BP, Exxon, they are there. Contracts have been written. Is there a committee in this House or a subcommittee that knows what kinds of contracts have been written? What will the Iraqi people have left after these contracts are executed? They were executed before the government was in place.
Oil is the greatest resource that Iraq has, of course. They are number four among the nations of the world. To what degree is Halliburton going to control the revenues as their payment for reconstruction of some of the oil wells? To what degree are the foreign oil companies going to control revenue because of their arrangements for the pipelines and the shipping and retail outlets? What is going to happen to the oil? These are the questions that the Iraqi people are asking. Everybody in every section of the country wants to know how are the oil revenues going to be distributed? If I live in a province where there is no oil, will my area benefit?
These questions need to be answered honestly. Congress must seize the initiative from the American oil barons and demand justice for the Iraqi citizens. The oil belongs to them.
We must win their trust and separate the masses of the Iraqi people from the fanatical murderers. Follow the logic of the Murtha resolution. Give the people control of their oil revenues and get out of Iraq. We can do that when we have the trust of the Iraqi people.
When the Iraqi people have their own revenues, they can equip their own police forces. They can take charge of their government in a competent way. They don't need us, and they will be less likely to join hands with the insurgents and protect the fanatical murderers that have now found greater receptivity in the population than ever before.
Get out of the Iraq. Give the people control of their oil revenues.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, especially after my recent visit, that progress is being made in Iraq. But much of that would be lost if we prematurely remove our troops before the Iraqi people are fully capable of governing and securing their own country.
Success in the global war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is the defining challenge of our generation, whether some war opponents like it or not.
Bin Laden's deputy has declared Iraq to be the place for the greatest battle, where he hopes to expel the Americans and then spread the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq. Such statements reaffirm why withdrawing our troops would be a disaster for the future of Iraq.
Our own national security can actually embolden those who hate our way of life to further harm us. A premature withdrawal or premature deployment home would represent a clear defeat for American interests, not just in Iraq, but in the wider region around the globe. Terrorists everywhere would take heart at this serious blow to our credibility.
Frankly, if we were to abandon the Iraqis now, who in the world would openly assist us in the global war on terror? What country would allow our military to deploy and operate on its territory? Worse yet, who would dare to be seen as our partner, ally or friend?
As even the Washington Post said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in its lead editorial, Iraq's new democratic government deserves a chance to succeed. And yes, this is the time to support our brave young warfighters, who are truly doing the work of freedom, and not undercut their service and sacrifice.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I might offer that I am proudly a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus out of a duty and a sense of patriotism and love of my country. And so this is a very somber debate.
And I remind my colleagues of the very tense moments of the presentation of Secretary Powell before the United Nations. All of us were in a sense of awe, listening to the devastating evidence of why we should go to Iraq. So I come to this podium today with a very heavy heart because we are constrained, not Members of Congress, we are of no relevance, but the American people are constrained in not allowing a debate or dissent. That is what we are showing here today, that we can have no dissent, we can have no recognition that Democrats and others, we do have a plan.
[Page: H4055]
And so, on the birthday of the Army, I want to salute the Army. Mr. Murtha, I want to salute you for your service and your plan. And I want to salute all of the United States military. And might I say that our soldiers are doing their job. They have done their job. And out of doing their job, the casualties are some 19,000, and today, I am very sad to say that 2,500 of them are now dead.
And so I come with a heavy heart to suggest that there are myths that we need to overcome. And one of them is that there is something called ``cut and run.'' It is not ``cut and run.'' It is the opportunity of involvement, debate and patriotism, a belief that we can put forward a plan that the American people will believe in.
The Bush Iraq policy has harmed the United States military, and I might say that I am glad to stand with a retired Marine Lieutenant General, Gregory Newbold, who says, ``my sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and a swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions or bury the results.''
And so I come again to suggest that no, there is no ``cut and run.'' There is reality. A Pentagon commission study concluded that the Army cannot maintain its current pace of operation in Iraq without doing permanent damage to the quality of the force.
We realize that the large and extended deployment of the National Guard units overseas has undermined the ability of the United States to deal with terrorist attacks or natural disasters. We realize that resources are being diverted and, therefore, we are not able to fight the global war on terror.
I don't want my friends to pigeonhole us. We want a debate and a plan to save lives, and we want a free, independent and democratic Iraq. That can happen with a new change, a new day, Democrats and others, who believe in leading this country to a new future.
I don't want the same old plan, and I am not ashamed of saying so. That is why I am here to open the doors to dissent, tell the American people to come marching into the United States Congress. Don't let us talk for you. You want redeployment. You want the troops out. You don't believe the Democrats believe in ``cut and run.'' You understand that the General, Lieutenant General, has said we are careful about this war. Come home.
Murtha plan, the Out of Iraq Caucus is proud of our patriotic stand.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I rise to speak on H.R. 861, a resolution which declares that the ``United States will prevail in the Global War on Terrorism.'' I believe that it is the resolve of all Members of this House and of all Americans. But to prevail in the global war on terrorism, we must remain focused on the global war on terrorism, and not allow ourselves to be diverted or distracted.
Unfortunately, we have been distracted from waging a full-scale, all-out global war on terrorism by the President's fateful decision to go to war in Iraq. Before and after 9/11, Iraq was not a part of the global war on terror, much less the central front. It only became so when the President launched his ill-advised preemptive attack.
I am proud to be among the majority of House Democrats who voted against the Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force, AUMF, in 2002, which authorized the President to use military force to disarm Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction, WMD. I voted against going to war in Iraq because I thought it a diversion from the important task facing the Nation and that was winning the global war on terror. History has shown that we were right. The ill-advised rush to war in Iraq has not only been a diversion from the war on terror but a strategic disaster of epic proportions. As Thomas Jefferson would say, to prove this let facts be submitted to a candid world.
(I) The Bush Iraq Policy Has Harmed the U.S. Military
We just learned today the sad news that the 2,500th soldier has been killed in Iraq. More than 19,000 others have been wounded. The Bush administration's open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq has weakened the U.S. Army, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserves. The extended deployments in Iraq have eroded U.S. ground forces and overall military strength. A Pentagon-commissioned study concluded that the Army cannot maintain its current pace of operations in Iraq without doing permanent damage to the quality of the force. So more than 3 years of a continuous deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq has:
Contributed to serious problems with recruitment, with the U.S. Army missing its recruitment targets last year;
Forced the Army to lower its standards for military recruits; and
Led to military equipment shortages that hamper the ability of U.S. ground forces to do their job in Iraq and around the world.
The large and extended deployment of National Guard units overseas has undermined the ability of the United States to deal with terrorist attacks or natural disasters. For example, State officials in Louisiana and Mississippi struggled to overcome the absence of National Guard members from their States in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. In Louisiana, about 100 of the National Guard's high-water vehicles remain abroad--even as the State continues to rebuild from Hurricane Katrina. Coastal North Carolina is missing nearly half its Humvee fleet, and Guard officials there say shortages have forced the State to pool equipment from different units into one pot of hurricane supplies.
In addition, the equipment the Guard needs to help in the aftermath of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina is in shorter supply because the gear is in use in combat zones, is battle-damaged, or has been loaned to cover gaps in other units.
(1) War in Iraq has diverted resources and attention from other fronts in the fight against global terrorist networks.
The killing of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi last week was a major success for U.S. troops, but it is not likely to diminish Iraq's insurgency. Iraqis make up 90 percent of Iraq's insurgency, unlike foreign fighters like Zarqawi, and a primary motivation for Iraq's insurgency is the U.S. troop presence. Even after the Samarra shrine attack in February threatened to push Iraq into all-out sectarian civil war, the vast majority of attacks still target U.S. forces.
Outside of Iraq, the Bush administration has failed to present a realistic strategy for countering the threat posed by the global terror networks. In a recent survey of more than 100 of America's leading foreign policy experts conducted by Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress, eight in 10--84 percent--do not think that the United States is winning the war on terror. The war in Iraq has not helped America win the broader fight against global terrorists. Instead:
By invading Iraq without a realistic plan to stabilize the country, thei Bush administration created a new terrorist haven where none had previously existed.
By maintaining an open-ended military presence in Iraq, the Bush administration is presenting U.S. terrorist enemies with a recruitment tool and rallying cry for organizing attacks against the U.S. and its allies.
According to the National Counter-Terrorism Center, the number of large-scale terrorist attacks in Iraq increased by over 100 between 2004 and 2005, with a total 8,299 civilians killed in 2005.
Osama bin Laden remains at large and Al Qaeda offshoots proliferate.
By diverting resources and attention from Afghanistan to an unnecessary war of choice in Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration has left Afghanistan exposed to a resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The United States needs to complete the mission in Afghanistan and cannot do it with so many troops bogged down in Iraq.
By focusing so many U.S. resources on Iraq, the Bush administration has taken its eye off the ball in places like Somalia, which was overrun by Islamist militias tied to Al Qaeda last week.
(2) The War in Iraq has increased the burden on U.S. taxpayers without stabilizing Iraq or making Americans safer.
Over the last 3 years, the United States has spent more than $300 billion in Iraq, yet the investment has failed to stabilize Iraq or improve the overall quality of life for most Iraqis. According to the Congressional Research Service, total assistance to Iraq thus far is roughly equivalent to total assistance, adjusted for inflation, provided to Germany--and almost double that provided to Japan from 1946 to 1952. Yet on key metrics like oil production, Iraq has failed to advance beyond pre-war levels, and quality of life indicators remain dismal:
Oil production is below pre-war levels--2.6 million barrels per day in 2003 vs. 2.1 million barrels per day in May 2006;
The majority of water sector projects and health care clinics planned in 2003 remain not completed, despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars;
One in three Iraqi children is malnourished and underweight, according to the United Nations Children's Fund.
Rather than a record of progress and achievement, the Bush administration's record is one of corruption and waste:
$8.8 billion given to Iraqi ministries by the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA, remains unaccounted for, according to the Congressional Research Service;
[Page: H4056]
Iraqi Defense Ministry officials spent $1 billion on questionable arms purchases;
The Interior Ministry has at least 1,100 ghost employees, costing $1.3 million a month.
In short, we have no strategy, no support from allies or friends in the region, a nascent civil war in the country we are supposed to be helping, an overstretched military, a misdirected counterterrorism effort, and a massive diversion of funds in support of a failed effort.
(II) Responding to Administration Myths and Fantasies
The Bush administration and its rubber-stamp Republican allies in the House have politicized national security in the past. They have used national security as a wedge issue to divide the country and push for policies that have not made Americans safer. But today a majority of Americans are now skeptical about the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
Myth 1: Democrats want to quit while we are ahead and the Iraqis are just getting started.
Conservatives argue that Democrats who criticize and offer alternatives are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, retreating just as the Iraqi Government needs the most help.
Fact: The time has come for the United States to give Iraqis the incentive to stand on their own two feet and take control of their own affairs. In a few short months, the U.S. military involvement in Iraq will be longer than it took the United States to win World War II. The open-ended commitment of U.S. troops fuels as much as it retards the insurgency and civil conflict in Iraq. Nearly 9 in 10 Iraqis approve a time line for U.S. withdrawal, and 70 percent of the Iraqi public supports the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces by the end of 2007. A growing number of Iraqis, including the new prime minister, are saying that Americans must begin to leave.
U.S. troops have done their share. By getting rid of Saddam Hussein, they have given Iraqis an historic opportunity to take charge of their destiny.
By fostering the birth of the constitution and the holding of elections, they
have assisted in the building of a new democracy. They have trained more than a quarter of a million Iraqi security forces. It would be self-defeating for the United States to want Iraq to succeed more than Iraqis do.
Myth 2: Democrats offer only ``cut and run'' and ``retreat and defeat.''
Facts: Belittling opponents will not divert attention from a failed policy. Staying the course and offering a vague and open-ended commitment of U.S. troops gives Iraqis a blank check and a veto of America's national security.
The future of Iraq cannot be more sacred to Americans than to Iraqis. Responsible redeployment offers Iraqis a chance to take responsibility for their political and security future after we have already aided in the creation of a new constitution, the staging of two elections, and the training of a quarter of a million security forces.
Myth 3: Democrats who raise questions and oppose the Bush Iraq policy are unpatriotic.
Over the past 3 years, the Bush administration has questioned the patriotism of its critics.
Facts: Our country's democratic system requires the active involvement of Congress on key policy questions--particularly at a time of war. The United States has a strong tradition of its Congress asking tough questions. During a time of war, including the hearings organized by Democratic Senators like Senator Harry Truman during World War II and Senator William Fulbright during Vietnam, even though the White House was controlled by Democrats.
It is the patriotic duty of Members of Congress to hold the executive branch accountable, especially during a time of war. Two prominent Vietnam war veterans, Republican CHUCK HAGEL and Democrat JOHN MURTHA, have recently argued that it is unpatriotic not to raise questions in a time of war. America suffers when Congress and the public are silent.
Myth 4: Democrats reject the Bush administration's efforts to advance freedom.
Facts: The Bush plan for Iraq is solidly grounded in a flawed view of combating terrorism, arguing that promoting a narrow vision of democracy will crowd out and defeat terrorists.
The United States must and should support real democratic transitions around the world. But the Bush administration's naive approach to democracy promotion--narrowly focused on elections--has failed by giving terrorist organizations an opening to seize the reins of power, as seen by the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections earlier this year. Terrorists have been exploiting the Bush administration's flawed and narrow strategy focused on the most ostensible images of democracy, like purple fingers in elections.
Despite impressive gains in Iraq's political transition, the country remains in the very early and fragile stages of a long-term process of building a real democracy. Contrary to the rhetoric put forth by the Bush administration, Iraqis do not live in freedom, according to Freedom House, which measures trends in political rights and civil liberties over the past three decades. The rights of women and minorities are not protected; the rule of law is honored more in the breach than the observance; and political violence remains rampant. Despite much work left undone, the Bush administration has cut funding for programs to support freedom and democracy in Iraq this year.
Myth 5: Democrats who criticize the Bush policy hurt the morale of the troops.
The Bush administration and its conservative allies have said that offering criticisms and concrete policy alternatives on Iraq hurts the morale of U.S. troops.
Facts: There is no evidence that debate at home has any effect at all on the morale of troops. But other factors directly impact the lives of U.S. troops and morale--including going to war without the equipment and armor, not having a realistic strategy for Iraq and not taking care of the troops after they come home.
Not equipping the troops. When asked by a soldier in the field why U.S. troops did not have the right armor for their vehicles, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, ``As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.'' Iraq was a war of choice, and the Bush administration had time to get ready.
Not taking care of the troops when they come home. The Bush administration has not developed policies to take care of the troops when they return from battle. Health care has proven inadequate, and wounded veterans have been hounded by debt collectors because of inefficiencies in the Pentagon's administrative systems.
Myth 6: Democrats who oppose the Bush Iraq policy are ignoring and not listening to the generals.
Facts:
It is the Bush administration that has failed to listen to top U.S. generals before and during the invasion by not sending enough troops to stabilize the country. It is Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who has constrained free expression in the military by firing or forcing out those who disagree.
Nonetheless, even the current commanding officers argue that the United States needs to take realistic steps to reduce its military presence to remove the fuel that fires the insurgency. For example, in October 2005, GEN John Abizaid, the commander of Central Command Forces, argued that the United States must reduce its ``military footprint'' in Iraq and the region as a means to create more stability, but President Bush has continued to stick with a ``stay the course'' message.
Myth 7: Democrats who criticize the Bush Iraq policy are helping the terrorists and giving them what they want.
The Bush administration has argued that questioning its plan emboldens America's terrorist enemies, an unconstitutional argument aimed solely at shutting off real debate at home. Harkening back to 2002, when Bush officials warned that people should ``watch what they say,'' President Bush and top officials in his administration have warned against ``irresponsible'' debate to limit and control democratic political debate at home, even while the Bush administration purports to advance democracy abroad.
Facts: Bush policies at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib do more to undermine our place in the world than any words spoken by administration critics. The Bush administration policies that coerce rather than create cooperation through dialogue and common purpose undermine how others view us. A new poll by the Pew Research Center finds that America's image has slipped further, and global support has declined for the U.S.-led war on terrorism.
Myth 8: Democrats prefer a world with Saddam Hussein still in charge of Iraq.
Facts: Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, and it is a good thing that he is no longer in power. But that is not the key question today. The key question is: Where is Iraq now, and where does it go from here? And the many mistakes made by the Bush administration--including sending in too few troops to secure the country and invading without a clear and realistic plan for Iraq's reconstruction--have made the situation in Iraq much worse off than it should have been.
Iraq has become a failing state and is suffering from several major internal conflicts--in large part the consequence of the Bush administration's failure to plan for the post-war situation. And moving forward requires Iraqis, not Americans, to be in charge of the future.
Myth 9: Democrats just want to criticize and politicize Iraq and do not have plans about what to do.
Facts: This is simply not true. A growing number of leading Democrats and other progressive leaders have offered sensible alternative visions about what the United States should do next to set the right course in Iraq. Nearly all progressive plans recognize that the United States must intensify its political and
[Page: H4057]
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I close by quoting from the Declaration of Independence and the motto of the U.S. Army, which marks its 231st anniversary today. It may seem odd to quote the two together. But I do so because real patriots have courage--courage to face the truth and the courage to speak truth even when it is unpopular. The Declaration of Independence, with its affirmation of the inalienable human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness gave patriots the courage to fight for a cause that was just but at the time thought by most to be unattainable. A motto of the U.S. Army is ``We will not falter, we will not fail.''
The war in Iraq does not help us in the global war on terror. There are only two directions to take in Iraq: President Bush's plan of staying the course and letting a future President clean up the mess, or the Murtha plan to change the direction of that course. I stand with Representative MURTHA in calling for the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq to make our country safer, our military stronger, and the region more stable. I support the Murtha plan. It is the only plan for success in Iraq that is worthy of the sacrifices made by our troops. And I support a plan for greater coalition support for Iraq as it moves to protecting itself as a soverign nation.
Our troops in Iraq have never faltered and they have never failed. They were never defeated in battle. They won the war they were sent to fight. They completed their mission. They performed magnificently. Well done. Well done. Well done.
Our troops have earned the right to return home and be reunited with their families and loved ones. Now is not the time for us in Congress to falter or fail. Now is the time to embrace a plan for our troops in Iraq that offers a chance of success. We need a plan that will work. There is only one such plan. It is the Murtha plan that allows for redeployment of our troops as soon as practicable and allows for redeployment of troops at the perimeter of Iraq to be used in time of crisis. This is a plan that will work.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Members are reminded to address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution. In my capacity as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health, I was fortunate enough to visit the American cemetery in Normandy, France that is located overlooking Omaha Beach. Our brave soldiers during World War II were in France not to fight the French, but to fight the Nazis that had occupied France.
Today our soldiers are not in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight the citizens of those countries, but we are there to fight the insurgents and the Taliban. In listening to the debate today, it reminded me of my visit and reading some of the names of the brave soldiers that fought for our Nation during World War II.
Mr. Speaker, there are over 9,300 patriots buried in Normandy today. Those brave souls fought in a war against the forces of evil then, just as our soldiers in Iraq are fighting against the forces of evil today.
[Time: 16:45]
What would have happened back then if America had pulled out of the World War II before the mission was accomplished? What kind of world would we be living in today?
As many of my colleagues have done, I have personally visited Iraq. I have seen the progress, and I have seen the good job that our brave men and women are doing for us and for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. I was proud to sit down and share a meal with many soldiers from South Carolina's First District. And the question that many of our soldiers kept asking me was ``Why are none of the good stories making it back to the folks back home?''
Mr. Speaker, I think many of us today are trying to share some of the good stories and recognize all of the positive things that our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing for us.
The good news is that now women in Afghanistan are able to vote in democratic elections for the first time in their lives. The good news is that Iraqi citizens are now able to protest and let their opinions be heard in public.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I represent the Out of Iraq Caucus, and I support the Murtha resolution.
This war of choice so far has cost us the lives of close to 2,500 American men and women, let alone tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and has cost us $320 billion and has weakened the United States' prestige and brought our interests and our values into question to a degree not seen since the Berlin Wall divided Europe.
It is our failure here in Congress to perform our duty of oversight which has cost America most. From the beginning of the march to war, the President and his advisers blundered into failure after failure. False claims about African uranium and mobile anthrax labs. Unlikely claims of Saddam's leaks to al Qaeda. Stubbornly ignoring the advice of the uniformed military about troop levels. Turning a blind eye to the venal corruption that swallowed $9 billion of Iraqi money, U.N. Oil-for-Food money, without a trace. Shame on us.
Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers in their wisdom gave us a mechanism, a defense against tyranny called congressional oversight, and it is about time we start doing our duty to the American people by performing that oversight. While I welcome this debate, it is a poor substitute for what we really should have been doing.
I call upon you to withdraw this empty resolution, this meaningless, self-congratulatory, fraudulent scam and let us work together to examine our mistakes, fix them, and bring our troops home. Let Iraqis rebuild their own nation.
The President says we need to stay in Iraq until the mission is complete, but the President cannot explain to the American people exactly what the mission is, let alone tell us when he expects to complete it.
Let us take credit towards victory by sighting the completion of a democratic government in Iraq and killing the biggest terrorist there, claim these as a victory, and keep our word by honorably deploying our forces. Three and a half years is hardly cutting and running.
We all share the same dream that the Iraqi people do. We want them to live in peace in a secure and prosperous society where they are free to choose their government. But the presence of our troops and our occupation of Iraq has become such an obstacle to that future that we can no longer ignore reality. How can we win a war against terrorism when terrorism is a concept? You must change the hearts and the minds to succeed.
So let us work together to bring our courageous troops home and put an end to this devastating war of choice.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, it is rare that I would speak on this issue. I do support this resolution, but more than that, I would like to remind people why we are here.
There are not many in this room, but there are a few that remember 1939. I lived in that era and I listened to people speak about ``Hitler's really not a bad guy. He's just minding his own business. He's taking care of his people. We shouldn't be involved.'' Fifty-two million people later, we won World War II. We should have knocked him in the head when we had a chance instead of listening to Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Britain. We should have aggressively pursued him as we did Saddam Hussein. In my heart of hearts, I believe that we would be, in fact, in a nuclear war if we had allowed him to continue his trek.
But this President stood up and he was a leader and he stopped it. Now we have done that deed and we are in a place where we should continue and finish this job.
Someone said this is not a cut and run, that we have been there 3 1/2 years. But I ask you to ask your military people, ask those people out at Walter Reed, as I have. Most of them are proud of their service and their duty. And I salute each one of them, him or her,
[Page: H4058]
If you believe in democracy and believe in peace, we must continue this trip that we started. We must finish it and make sure that democracy reigns in the Middle East. If we do not do so, we would a do a great disservice to our armed services and America as a whole. Remember, ``He's really not a bad guy. He's just minding his own business. It's his country.'' Fifty-two million people later, the war was ended. Our people, their people. And I do not want to have that happen again.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Representative Solis.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our troops and in opposition to the President's stay the course in Iraq.
The war in Iraq was under taken with too few troops, not enough of the right equipment, and no plan for peace. Without a plan to secure the peace, 2,500 servicemen and women have been killed, including 10 in my district: Private First Class Jose Casanova, Jr., age 23; Lance Corporal Manuel Ceniceros, age 23; Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez Flores, age 21; Lance Corporal Benjamin Gonzalez, age 23; Corporal Jorge Gonzalez, age 20; Sergeant Atanacio Haromarin, age 27; Specialist Leroy Harris-Kelly III, age 20; Corporal Stephen Johnson, age 24; Corporal Rudy Salas, age 20; Marine Corporal Carlos Arellano, age 22.
I have celebrated their sacrifices and mourned their passing with their families: with their parents, with their spouses, and with their children.
Eighteen thousand four hundred and ninety servicemen and women have been injured during the war in Iraq, 8,501 so badly they will be permanently damaged from their injuries. I have visited with many of them at the Walter Reed Hospital.
And even with more veterans returning from Iraq, President Bush refuses to provide adequate funding for their health care. At a time when more than 17 percent of the troops returning from Iraq suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, this is the wrong course of action.
No one can question the commitment of our troops, especially our green card soldiers like Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez Flores, who was granted posthumous citizenship but could not realize the beauty of our citizenship because he was not granted that before he died.
Since 9/11, 25,000 serv ice mem bers have become U.S. citizens. Despite the commitment and sacrifices of thousands of green card soldiers and their families, many in this House are not willing to provide them with support because they lack documentation.
Mr. Speaker, amid the doubt and anger I have expressed about the war, I have never ever questioned the commitment of our troops to this Nation. They deserve a real plan to secure the peace so that they can be redeployed, and I wholeheartedly support the Murtha plan.
American taxpayers, Members, deserve accountability for the $17 billion in no-bid contracts for Halliburton and real measures to protect the homeland and our port security. The Bush administration has failed to fulfill its responsibilities to our troops, veterans, and all Americans. This resolution fails them.
It is a sad day when this resolution is the only thing that can be offered for our servicemen and women. Francisco Martinez Flores did not die in vain. He deserves the very best. The American people deserve a real debate.
Bring our troops home and no permanent bases in Iraq.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the families of East Texas, especially those with loved ones serving overseas, I strongly support this resolution.
Despite what the national media portray, the inconvenient truth is this: Terrorists have been attacking America freely for more than two decades. We should have learned we cannot push America's security forward by retreating from terrorism. We cannot strengthen the world by weakening our resolve, and we cannot support our troops by belittling them at every turn.
It is clear to all but perhaps us that the terrorists' strategy is not to defeat America in Iraq. They cannot do that. Their strategy is to defeat America in America. They are counting on the American public to lose its will and for Washington politicians to undermine the morale and support of our troops overseas.
The truth is if America quits, if America turns back now, no nation, no community will be safe from terrorism again. Terrorists will learn that they can wait us out one public opinion poll at a time. And the next time America is attacked, the next time innocent people die and we vow justice, who will believe us then? Who will support us then?
I stand with the President. We must persist in Iraq and Afghanistan until these nations are no longer safe havens for terrorism. We have ``taken the hill'' against the terrorists. Too many Americans have sacrificed their lives for us to give it back now. Americans like Chief Warrant Officer Chuck Fortenberry of Woodville, Lance Corporal Shane Goodman of Orange, Staff Sergeant Christopher Everett of Huntsville, Specialist Michael Weger of Spring, and Specialist Hoby Bradfield of The Woodlands, among many.
Our troops have proven they will not quit. The question is will we? Our troops know what is at stake. The question is do we?
Let us not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Let us put aside our partisan politics and unite until terrorism is truly and soundly defeated.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio, Representative Kaptur.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding and for her leadership on a real strategy against terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. It contains no plan, no solution, no way forward. I support the Murtha plan, which clearly aims to more strategically engage U.S. forces to redeploy and be ready.
Indeed, the invasion in Iraq has diverted our Nation from the war on terrorism and created a new terrorist training platform. Across the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and the Pacific, United States policy has engendered more hatred, yielding a counter-reaction of more radicalism and protest.
In Egypt, the most populous Arab nation and a key ally in the Middle East and Africa, recent parliamentary elections yielded a quantum leap in representatives from the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical anti-Western party. This group now comprises 88 members of their parliament, up nearly 25 percent from 17 in the 2000 election.
In the Palestinian Authority, the peace process with Israel is dead. Rather than parties moving toward peace with Israel, we witness another tragic breakdown as Fatah and Hamas mass in the streets and Israelis and Palestinians shoot and kill with abandon.
Mogadishu, Somalia has just fallen into the hands of Muslim extremists. That failed state is another breeding ground for terrorism.
In Afghanistan more loss of life has resulted this year than at any time since the U.S.-led invasion and President Karzai remains a prisoner of circumstance, unable to move freely without heavily armed guards.
Mr. Speaker, we are not winning the war on terrorism. The situation in Iraq teeters on all-out civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiias.
[Time: 17:00]
To win the war on terrorism, the United States must use our military assets wisely, not just robustly. We must transfer policing to Iraqi forces and remove ourselves as a source of friction.
Secondly, we must decouple ourselves from the repressive oil dictatorships that create regional antagonisms there and become energy independent here at home.
And, thirdly, the Palestinian-Israeli standoff must be elbowed to the peace table, because it is a primary lightning rod for unrest across the region.
Our current presence in Iraq is counterproductive in the broader war on terrorism. Meanwhile, diplomatic channels are totally frozen by this administration. Unfortunately, this resolution offers no plan. It offers no solution. It offers no way forward.
[Page: H4059]
This Congress should support the Murtha plan for our military forces, redeploy and be ready.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself the remainder of the time allocated to the Intelligence Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the first 5 hours of this debate, trying to listen carefully to each speaker. And it seems to me that some people try, as best they can, to isolate Iraq from the rest of the war on terror.
Now, that may be politically convenient for them to do, but it is not what the real world is like. As a matter of fact, it was not long ago that we found a letter from Zawahari, Osama's number two, to Zarqawi in Iraq talking about tactics.
Just as the Cold War had several battles across the globe, the war on terrorism has several battlefields across the globe. And I believe that it is clear from their own words, the terrorists see Iraq as the central front in our war against them now and into the future.
Secondly, we seem to have a lot of armchair strategists who want to redeploy this way or redeploy that way, because they say nothing is going right. I would recommend they read the document found this morning, or released this morning, that was found in Zarqawi's house.
It says that things are going pretty well for us, and not so well for them. I think it is a little early to give up.
Thirdly, there are a lot of people who want to debate the procedures or debate Congress's job or debate past decisions. And it is true, history will have to pass judgment on decisions that the military commanders and the President and the Congress have made in the past. They will do so when the air of partisanship has faded.
But the truth is, however you feel about where we are, we are where we are. And the question is, do we leave a job half done? Do we leave early, and leave those Iraqis who are willing to put their lives on the line by being part of the government or part of the police force or part of the military, do we abandon them when they are trying to build a country? I think that would be a mistake.
In fact, I think to retreat at this point, whether you call it a strategic retreat, a strategic redeployment, or whatever word you want to use to back up now, will only embolden the terrorists. We have seen time after time, when they sense political vacillation, they strike. They struck in Istanbul in 2003, in Madrid in 2004, in London in 2005.
Where they sense weakness, it is like an animal. Where they sense fear, they attack. We have got to do better and make sure we win this war.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, ground zero on the global war on terror is not, never was Iraq. It was Afghanistan; 9/11, it was planned in Afghanistan by Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, with the complicit help of the Taliban.
In a near-unanimous vote on the floor of this House, we voted to go in there and root them out and end that threat once and forever. But something bad happened on the road to victory, and the eradication of the Taliban and al Qaeda, and the capture, dead or alive, dead or alive, of Osama bin Laden. Remember that.
We got mired in Iraq. And today the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden are still at large and they are resurgent. I just saw 800 Oregonians off to Afghanistan. We need more troops there. We need to finish the job we abandoned to go into Iraq.
But 1,093 days ago, a complicit, compliant Republican-dominated Congress acceded to the Presidential demand to divert our energy into an unnecessary war in Iraq. I was one of the 60 percent of the Democrats to vote ``no.''
Here we are, 2,497 troops have died, 18,490 seriously wounded. We all honor those troops and do not question that. But we disagree, not on the noble service of the troops, but the competence of the leadership of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld in initiating an unnecessary war in Iraq and insisting on an open-ended, indefinite commitment of U.S. troops in the middle of a civil war.
The President has said, ``Bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq will be decided by future Presidents.'' That means after 2009. That is what George Bush is talking about. That is not acceptable.
At its core, this resolution says stay the course indefinitely. We should be debating a real policy on Iraq, not a nonbinding politically motivated resolution. We should be debating the Murtha resolution, a real plan.
As a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I resent the fact that we have here a meaningless, nonbinding Karl Rove-politically inspired resolution on the floor, not amendable, no substitutes allowed; and they call that a debate on the policy in Iraq.
They say they are honoring the troops. That is a dishonor to the people of America and those who serve us. And they talk about cut and run. We have won. Saddam Hussein, he is on trial. They have a Constitution. They have a government. They have succeeded. We have succeeded.
But they have a sectarian problem. They have been fighting for 1,400 years. And they are going to continue fighting. We need to negotiate a timetable with their legitimate government to get the U.S. troops redeployed, out of Iraq, to other hot spots and bring the remainder home.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Middle East and Central Asia Subcommittee, I have traveled to Iraq, having led a delegation just this last January. And I met with officials again and received a wealth of congressional testimony here in DC. All confirmed that the U.S.-led liberation of the Iraqi people is having a positive reverberation throughout the broader Middle East.
Iraq is a catalyst for hope, a vivid example that the future of the broader Middle East belongs to freedom and democracy. To fully comprehend just how far Iraq has come with the assistance of U.S. and coalition forces, we must consider the horror that was Iraq under Saddam Hussein: chemical attacks resulting in scores of innocent deaths; a gruesome campaign to exterminate Iraqi Kurds; the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees who fled Saddam's persecution; the deaths of 400,000 Iraqi children in his regime's final years killed by malnutrition and disease due to the failed policies of his regime; the use of rape and the beheading of women as tools of coercion and intimidation as part of their regime opposition.
Mr. Speaker, now let us consider what has been accomplished thus far since we removed Saddam Hussein from power. The progress achieved serves to honor all of our men and women as this chart shows. They have fought, and some have fallen for the fulfillment of our noble, our just, and our necessary mission in Iraq.
Some of the highlights of progress, Mr. Speaker: Iraqis participated in elections three times since 2005, with ever-increasing voter participation each time. The Iraqi press is free and it is growing. Iraqi women are playing an increasingly pivotal role in their society.
A market-based economy is being established as Iraq emerges from three decades of Saddam's neglect. Over 260,000 Iraqi police and security forces have been trained and have been equipped. Iraq now has a democratically elected government for the first time in its history that includes all ethnic groups.
We should therefore focus on what we need to do to help ensure a free and secure Iraq and not on how soon we can leave it, ignoring that it is in our national security interest to succeed there.
The jihadists are determined and they have declared Iraq to be the central front of their campaign of terror. Are we to waver in front of these challenges? Absolutely not. Terrorist mastermind al Zarqawi, now dead, acknowledged in a February 2004 letter to al Qaeda the threat that success in Iraq posed to the extremist effort.
He said, Our enemy is growing stronger by the day, by God, this is suffocation. One of Osama bin Laden's closest associates wrote about Iraq a couple of years ago. And he said, a far more dangerous threat is secularist democracy, because it drives Muslims to refuse to take part in jihad.
[Page: H4060]
Mr. Speaker, this clearly demonstrates that our efforts in Iraq are serving long-term efforts of spreading democracy as an antidote to Islamic terrorism and extremism.
Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of President Ronald Reagan's words in his first inaugural address when he said, ``Above all we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenal of the world is so formidable as the will and the moral courage of free men and women.''
Every day the Iraqi people are proving how true that statement is. We too must demonstrate the will to press ahead. Leaders from the Arab world have confided their views on how important it is for their own efforts to have the U.S. in Iraq. However, the best evidence that we are on the right path comes from those closest to me, including my stepson, Dougie, and his fiance, Lindsay, both marine officers, both who have served as fighter pilots in Iraq.
And I hear it from one of my subcommittee staffers, Matt Zweig, who is currently deployed in Iraq. Their unwavering belief that success in Iraq will make us safer at home confirms that our strategy is correct and that our goals are sound.
They remind me that we must heed the advice issued by Winston Churchill when he said, ``One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.''
Mr. Speaker, we must not, we will not flinch in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution because we should not be echoing the lies we have been fed to justify this cruel and deceitful war. We should not continue pretending that by fighting the war in Iraq we are advancing the war on terrorism.
Our intelligence tells us that only 7 to 8 percent of those we are fighting in Iraq are Islamic terrorists. The other 92 to 93 percent are fighting a war for power between contending religious groups.
There is no compelling reason to send our young people to die to determine how to divide the spoils between the Sunnis and the Shiites. We should be redeploying our resources to fight the real war on terrorism, going after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, fighting jihadist ideas all over the Muslim world, getting the loose nuclear material out of the former Soviet Union before it is smuggled to al Qaeda to make nuclear weapons, screening all of the shipping containers before they enter our ports, and protecting our chemical and nuclear plants against sabotage that could kill tens of thousands of Americans.
But the Bush administration and this Congress will not vote the funds to fight the real war against terrorism. And every reason we were given for invading Iraq has been shown to be false. Weapons of mass destruction. Not there. Saddam Hussein working hand in glove with al Qaeda. Not true. And the more information that leaks out, the more apparent it becomes that these were not mistakes, but deliberate lies.
But does this Congress get to the bottom of this? Not this Republican Congress. This Republican Congress sees no evil, hears no evil, and speaks no evil when it comes to a war that has already killed 2,500 of our young men and women and promises to kill thousands more.
This Republican Congress asks no questions about what we can possibly achieve that can justify the continuing slaughter.
[Time: 17:15]
I ask you, if the President had gone to the American people and said, we must invade a country that poses no imminent threat to us, we must sacrifice thousands of lives in order to create a democratic government in Iraq, would we have agreed? I think not.
As the President now says to us that we should continue indefinitely to expend American blood and treasure to support one side in a sectarian civil war, a side, moreover, that is increasingly cozying up to the mullahs in Iran who do pose a threat to us, should Congress continue to consent? I think not. This Congress should agree with the Out of Iraq Caucus. We should say enough already. Enough with the lies and the deceit and the evasions. Enough with the useless bloodshed. We should ensure the Iraqi people that we desire no U.S. military bases in Iraq.
This Congress should adopt the Murtha resolution. We should adopt a swift timetable to redeploy our troops out of Iraq and bring them home and let the Iraqi oligarchs know they cannot depend on the United States forever.
It is our crucial moment in American history to concentrate our resources on the real threats that face us around the world and at home and put an end to this bloody, senseless and diversionary war.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. The gentlewoman has been a leader for freedom all around the globe, and this country should appreciate her for that.
Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to lead a bipartisan all-female Congressional delegation to Iraq. It was one of the most emotionally overwhelming experiences of my professional life. We met women of enormous courage and hope.
They told us that they want to work, they want to vote. They want to be a part of their society, a democratic society. But we also heard about what life was like before the coalition came. We heard about the treatment of women under Saddam Hussein and during torture, oppression, that most of us could not imagine.
We were told of the heart wrenching stories of husbands torn from their homes in the middle of the night by brutal, secret police, and the women left behind, usually with children, faced with the impossible burden of providing for their families in a society that doesn't even allow women to work. Some were raped, some were tortured, but that was before liberation.
The road to liberation has been a rocky one. But our troops are doing good work every day in Iraq. We saw soldiers building schools and hospitals, vaccinating hundreds of children. They coach soccer. They tutor. They make a difference. They risk their lives every day to protect the newly acquired rights of Iraqis, but especially the women.
If I were asked to give one good reason why we should stay in Iraq, I would tell you to stay. We need to stay for the women.
Well, I saw women of diverse ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic classes. They were empowering each other with education, with hope, with friendship, just like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Another courageous woman I met, Nasreen Barwari, the Minister of Public Works, was later the target of an assassination attempt. Her crime, being an outspoken woman in a important position. Thankfully she survived, but her bodyguard was killed. Her female colleague, Dr. Al-Hashimi of the Iraqi Governing Counsel, was not so lucky. She was tragically gunned down.
Ladies and gentlemen, if we stay in Iraq, one of the major reasons is to stay for the women.
Just over two years ago, I was privileged to lead a bipartisan, all-female congressional delegation to Iraq.
It was one of the most emotionally overwhelming experiences of my official life. We met women of enormous courage and hope. They told us they want to vote, to work, to be a part of the democratic process.
Some said they wanted to run for office and help create the laws that will build a new Iraq.
But we also heard about life before the coalition came.
We heard about the treatment of women under the Saddam regime--enduring torture and oppression that most of us could not imagine.
We were told heart-wrenching stories of husbands torn from their homes in the middle of the night by a brutal secret police.
The women left behind, usually with children, faced the impossible burden of providing for their families in a society that didn't allow women to work or remarry.
Some were themselves raped and tortured.
But that was before liberation.
The road since liberation has been a rocky one.
But our troops are doing good work every day in Iraq.
[Page: H4061]
We saw the soldiers building schools and hospitals, vaccinating thousands of children, and putting an archaic infrastructure back in operation.
They coach soccer, they tutor--they make a difference! And they are risking their lives to protect the newly acquired rights of all Iraqis--but especially women.
If I were asked to give you one good reason why we should stay in Iraq, I would tell you we should stay for the women.
If we can make the values of a free society--the rule of law--work for the women of Iraq, we create the conditions for these new democratic values to take root and spread.
While there I saw women of diverse ethnicities, religions, and socio-economic classes empowering one another with education, hope and friendship--much like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.
In Mosul, we met with the Women's Social and Cultural Society. They had been meeting secretly, but now felt safe enough to be public and actually welcome our delegation.
These women, accompanied by their wide-eyed daughters, are creating a new Iraq as they promote social, political and educational equality for all Iraqis. But they're not alone.
One of my favorite stories of the trip was of two Iraqi women who arrived one day at a fountain in the town center of Hillah dressed in traditional Muslim women's clothes but with a decidedly non-traditional mission.
A courageous woman I met, Nasreen Barwari, the Minister of Public Works later was the target of an assassination attempt.
Her crime? Being an outspoken woman in an important public position. Thankfully, she survived, though her bodyguard was killed.
Her female colleague, Dr. Al-Hashimi, of the Iraqi Governing Council, was not so lucky.
She was tragically gunned down outside her home.
The dangers Iraqi women face can't be underestimated nor can the obstacles put in their path to liberation. But these women remain undaunted!
We also visited the police academy in Baghdad where 29 women were training to be the first female police officers ever in Iraq.
These wonderful women told us how excited they were to be learning skills to hold their first job. Many had barely been out of the home setting before. Their exuberance was infectious.
We also went to a residential area in Mosul to talk with a group of neighborhood women--some educated, but many not. We met in the crowded living room of one of the members. All the rooms were packed. The electricity was only on for half of our afternoon together. But that was more than they had had in years. The curiosity of the men on the street outside was so thick you could cut it with a knife.
The women's group had many questions for us.
``How do we find our voice?'' they asked. ``How do we organize other women to make an impact? How can we affect the direction of this country?''
They were asking the most fundamental and basic questions of civic involvement--how to construct the foundation of the democratic process. As we left, their children came forward with flowers for us.
I think it's fair to say that U.S. soldiers have liberated more women in the last 4 years than anyone or anything else in the last 20--maybe longer.
Still, changing 2,000 years of tradition isn't going to happen with stroke of a pen. It will take time and patience.
This is not the time for us to abandon these courageous women--not when they have come so far.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague, whose resolution I support, for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution before us. Let us be clear from the outset that those who have opposed the Iraq war stand solidly and proudly in support of our troops and their families. To suggest that calling for the return home of our brave troops somehow denigrates their service and their sacrifice is absurd. We can best support our troops by bringing them home.
Mr. Speaker, the terrible numbers we have bandied about here are not mere statistics. Each one represents the tragic story of a ruined life and a shattered family, 2,500 troops dead, more than 18,000 wounded, many so grievously. The average tour for National Guard members has been 342 days, turning the lives of countless American families upside down.
The material cost of the Iraq war is about $320 billion. But you can never put a price on its toll in human suffering, nor can you realistically argue, Mr. Speaker, that the war in Iraq has made our country safer or advanced our effort to combat global terror.
Those that come to the floor and link Iraq to 9/11 are certainly wrong. They are factually wrong, because there remains no evidence that Saddam was involved in the al Qaeda attacks on our Nation, and they are morally wrong to invoke the memories of the victims of September 11th to justify this indefensible war of choice.
I am pleased that al Zarqawi is dead, but his death does not change the fact that Iraq has become a haven for terrorists and the best recruitment tool we could have handed our enemy. No, Mr. Speaker, those who oppose this war are not soft on security. We believe strongly and passionately that keeping the troops in the middle of this increasingly bloody civil war only weakens our security.
It is a disgrace it has taken so long for Congress to spend a few hours of this day debating the Iraq war, but the American people will not be fooled. They recognize that a debate on a cynical and politically motivated resolution is no substitute for a thoughtful Iraq policy that advances our national interests and listens to the voices. Let us vote ``no'' on this resolution.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Transportation and HUD Appropriations.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution before us. I want to convey a very simple message. We must stay the course. At this crucial point in our history, it is unacceptable to enact a policy of passivity, resignation or defeatism in the face of terror.
Some say that we should surrender and pull out. They may think that this will win them votes and that it is good politics, but it is terrible policy, devastating policy. It is essential that we continue to fight in Iraq so that the fight does not come into our backyards.
Make no mistake, we do not choose Iraq as a front line on the war on terror. Al Qaeda has done that. But we must have that fight over there so we don't have it back here.
Like many of my colleagues, I have visited Iraq and seen firsthand the revitalization of country. The men and women our Armed Forces are fighting terrorists who are trying to claim Iraq for their own. Without their valor and dedication, the progress made in Iraq would not be possible. It takes time, will, patience and perseverance to transition a country once ruled by a tyrannical despot.
Terrorists who seek to eliminate anyone who provides hope for the future have infested Iraq, but they will not succeed. The Iraqi people are committed to freeing their country from these fanatical invaders, and we are too. The Iraqi people's future is in their hands, and right now they want U.S. help.
Just this week, Iraqi army and police forces backed by U.S. troops launched Operation Forward together. This operation was created by Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki and his parliament, and it is their first major security action since a new government of national unity was sworn in on May 20.
Mr. Speaker, the resolve of the United States should never be questioned. The world must know that the United States finishes what it starts.
We will win the fight against global terrorism, including in Iraq.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and submit a statement for the RECORD in opposition to the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand in opposition to this resolution. As illustrated by the House Majority Leader's memo establishing this debate as ``a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats,'' the primary intent of this resolution is political--shifting attention from the real issues behind the slow progress in Iraq. In this election year, just 4 months shy from the polls, Republicans are using this resolution as a divisive strategy rather than holding a substantive debate on Iraq.
[Page: H4062]
Today's debate, which should have been an opportunity for Members of Congress to have a serious discussion on the war and to pose tough questions to the Administration on Iraq, has regrettably become nothing more than a partisan ploy. While I do not hesitate to applaud certain aspects of the resolution honoring the sacrifices of our courageous soldiers who are risking their lives in Iraq, I cannot be supportive of capitalizing on these very sacrifices for political gain.
I also disagree with the dangerous analogy made in this resolution between Iraq and the Administration's ``war on terror'' policy. There is not, and never has been, any credible intelligence linking Iraq to 9/11 and Al Qaeda. Focusing the discussion on the war on terror and victories won, rather than on workable policies to bring our troops home, reduces this debate to no more than a justification for maintaining the Administration's status quo agenda in Iraq.
Seizing the political momentum after the killing of Zarqawi, Republicans are offering a resolution which does little more than tout recent ``impressive victories'' in Iraq. While the death of Zarqawi is reassuring, we must be careful not to pat ourselves on the back prematurely for another ``Mission Accomplished.'' Terrorist cells are still numerous and active, violence is still prevalent, and our brave men and women still continue to fight.
Although I voted against the initial resolution approving the war in Iraq, I have consistently voted to support our troops with much-needed armor and supplies. However, this should not be construed as favoring continued occupation. Today the Pentagon's report confirming the overall U.S. death toll at nearly 2,500, underscores the grave and violent situation that our troops face every day. I believe it is our responsibility as Members of Congress to devise a responsible exit strategy. We must ensure that we do not lose sight of our real end goal in this debate: to bring our troops back home as quickly as possible.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Murtha, and the Out of Iraq Caucus.
The President will not bring an end to this war. He says it is a decision for the next President. But he is building permanent bases in Iraq, and he is determined to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq into the distant future.
This Congress may not bring an end to this war because the real power to end the war is in a cutoff of funds. Congress keeps appropriating funds in the name of the troops, and the troops will stay in Iraq instead of coming home. Only the American people can bring an end to this war as they brought an end to the Vietnam War. Let this be a time of stirring of civic soul.
It is a time for a reawakening of civic conscience. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but there are WMDs in D.C. Lies are weapons of mass destruction. 2,500 soldiers dead. Over 10,000 Iraqis, innocent Iraqis have died. It is time for an end to our national sleepwalk to the graveyard of the Iraq war.
It is a time for truth, a time for clarity, a time for action, a time for teach-ins, for meet-ups, for marches, for rallies about the war to begin at college campuses, at churches, at labor halls, at libraries. It is time to gather in civic centers, in town halls, to discuss the truth about this war and to plan civic action to end it, time for the American people to exercise their first amendment right to stand up and speak out, time to redirect the policies of this country, time to learn and practice peaceful, nonviolent conflict resolution, time to believe in our capacity to evolve beyond war, to believe and act under the belief that war is not inevitable and peace is inevitable if we are ready to commit to the daily work of peace building everywhere.
The global war on terror has become a global war of error: attacking or threatening countries which did not attack us, bombing neighborhoods to save neighborhoods, committing atrocities in the name of stopping atrocities, losing our vision, losing our way in the world, sacrificing our children and their future, giving up their future resources for education, for health care, for housing, piling it all high on the altar of war and worshipping a false god of destruction.
When we begin these proceedings with this remembrance, Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, we are not talking about any nation. We are talking about a force which is above all of us. The world is not ours to conquer. There is no glory in the abuse of power. This President will not bring an end to this war after the Murtha resolution, this Congress may not bring an end to this war, but the American people certainly will bring an end to this war. They will do it in the streets, and they will do it at the ballot box, and the American people will become the Out of Iraq Caucus.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the subcommittee on State, Justice and Commerce appropriations.
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. The war on terror and this whole thing began really in 1980 when our embassy was taken over in Iran and the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983, Lebanon, embassy in 1983, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Nairobi, Tanzania.
I have so much that I want to say. I will just say this. If we were to set a date, the Mujahedin would say we defeated the Russians in Afghanistan, we defeated America in Iraq and the jihad would take place all over this world. This would be a very, very dangerous thing to say.
So I rise in strong, strong support of this resolution and say we can and will win this war. I remember when I read the book by Whittaker Chambers. He was a witness. He said when I left the Communist Party, I believed I was leaving the winning side and joining the losing side. Whittaker Chambers was wrong because of people like Ronald Reagan. We must be resolute. I rise in support of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 861 and to show my support for our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who are on the front lines in the global war on terrorism. I commend our forces for the recent actions in targeting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the insurgent leader killed in an airstrike June 7. I also commend President Bush for his visit earlier this week to Iraq to meet with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and encourage the work of the new Iraqi government.
I share the deep concerns about the continuing violence in post-war Iraq, which is taking the lives of U.S. military personnel and civilians. I continue to pray for the protection of the men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day to help the Iraqi people as they build their own government, and also for their families here at home who continue to make tremendous sacrifices.
I recognize there were good and reasonable people on both sides of the decision to send U.S. armed forces to Iraq. But whether or not you agreed with that decision, we are there now and cannot just walk away. Too much is at stake. The success of our efforts in Iraq and the success of the Iraqi people in establishing their own government are critical to the overall war against terror and to the security of our country and the world.
Our efforts in Iraq, many believe, are an important campaign in the global war on terrorism. Our world is a dangerous place, and as we learned on September 11, 2001, terrorism is not something in a far away land. We did not seek this war. We were attacked on our own soil, and this war is a different kind than any our Nation has ever fought. But it is one we are fighting to make our own nation and the world more secure. It is critical that we remain resolute in this fight.
I believe a case can be made that the war on terrorism really began more than 20 years ago with the attacks against America at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The bombing there in the spring of 1983 killed 63 and wounded 120. Later that year, 241 U.S. servicemen--220 Marines, 18 Navy members and three Army members--were killed when a truck bomb exploded at their barracks in Beirut. Those attacks were followed in 1993 by the first World Trade Center bombing in New York City, in 1996 by the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, in 1998 by the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and in 2000 in the attack in Yemen on the USS Cole.
After the attacks on the two embassies in Africa in 1998, I became very concerned about the U.S. response to terrorism and authored the legislation creating the National Commission on Terrorism. On the cover of that report is a photo of the twin towers in New York on fire after the
1993 attack. The foreboding nature of that photo is now all too real as we relive the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
Late last summer I returned to Iraq for a third time. I have now visited all but the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq. With each successive trip, I have seen improvements--renovated schools, cleaner water systems, new Iraqi army constituted. I also have seen the continuing and serious security problems and other challenges facing a liberated Iraq, and I
[Page: H4063]
One interesting comment I heard on that trip is that we can't expect to rebuild Iraq on our timetable, but rather it must be on Iraq's timetable. Life--and timetables--in Iraq are not the same as in the United States. This is a very key point, and one the Bush administration needs to do a better job of explaining.
It also is important to remember that the United States had its share of growing pains. While our revolution was in 1776 it was 11 years before our forefathers began to draft a constitution and it wasn't ratified until 1789. Few remember that our constitution was debated in complete secrecy. Delegates knew that they would generate heated differences and did not want to advertise their own dissensions or put crippling arguments into the mouths of the opposition. We also had leaders like George Washington, Ben Franklin, George Mason and James Madison who had the benefit of understanding British history in addition to being exposed to the workings of the House of Commons. Democracy and an elected government is truly a foreign concept to the Iraqi people.
The Bush administration also needs to do a better job of explaining what the consequences of ``failing'' in Iraq would mean to the average person in Chantilly, VA, Topeka, KS, or Portland, OR. I repeatedly asked people I met during the trip--from generals, to State Department officials, to members of the Iraqi government--what they thought ``failure'' would mean. The responses were frightening.
I heard references to Somalia--think of the movie ``Black Hawk Down''--and the former Yugoslavia with all its ethnic cleansing. The images that flashed in my mind when I heard these countries were disturbing. I was in Somalia during the crisis in 1993. I traveled to Sarajevo and the Yugoslavia region several times in the early to mid-1990s where so many were killed. In fact, all the people I met with in Vukovar, Croatia, in 1991 were killed several months later and are now buried in mass graves.
Many speculated that civil war would break out in Iraq and even more foreign fighters from across the region would pour into Iraq in hopes of influencing the outcome. I was told almost all of the insurgents carrying out the suicide attacks are foreigners, most coming across the Syrian border from places like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan. I was told militias continue to fight each other on a regular basis in some parts of the country.
If our mission fails and civil war comes, the country would almost certainly break into three parts: the Kurds in the north, the Sunnis in central Iraq, and the Shias in the south. It is believed the Kurds would most likely be able to keep from being drawn into the fighting and govern themselves. In the central region of the Sunni Triangle, warring factions would fight for control and most agree that there would be sheer chaos. Iran's presence was felt in the south as it tried to influence the recent elections and if civil war were to break out, elements in Iran may well involve themselves in the south.
With civil war, almost everyone I asked said that Iraq would become a haven from which terrorist groups could launch attacks against the United States and other countries. No one has to be reminded of what happened on 9/11. Thirty people from my congressional district died that day among the 3,000 who perished.
Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would like nothing more than to have a new ``base'' from which to operate, much like Afghanistan in the 1990s after the Soviets were defeated. There is no denying that the terrorists have designs on the United States and, as one officer told me, ``We must win the war so we don't fight the next war in America.''
Terrorists are doing everything in their power to prevent the United States and its coalition partners from being successful in Iraq. They believe time is on their side and that they can ``wait out'' the United States. They will do anything--including blowing themselves up in busy marketplaces--to disrupt our progress and turn the Iraqi people against us. They believe that the war being fought in Iraq is not a ``military'' war but rather a ``political'' war and American public opinion will dictate when the United States leaves, not military success.
There is a general belief among terrorism experts that the top priority of terrorists is to seek chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons. The video of two commercial airliners being flown into the World Trade Center is ingrained in every American's mind. I shudder to think what terrorists would do if they obtained a biological or chemical weapon.
Many I spoke with also said failure in Iraq could destabilize the entire Gulf region and possibly lead to the downfall of the governments of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Failure also could have serious impact on the world's economy. Japan gets more than 75 percent of its oil from the region, Western Europe, 30 percent, and the United States, 22 percent. We saw what happened in the wake of Hurricane Katrina as consumers feared gas shortages. Failure in Iraq would make oil costs even higher and have a major negative impact throughout our entire economy.
Others said they believe the United States has a moral obligation to the people of Iraq to successfully complete what it started. They asked how the American public would feel if civil war were to break out and thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis were slaughtered in the subsequent fighting?
Finally, many believe the United States's credibility is at stake. In a piece in the Washington Post's Outlook section last September, Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of ``A War Like No Other,'' wrote:
..... If we fled precipitously, moderates in the Middle East could never again believe American assurances of support for reform and would have to retreat into the shadows--or find themselves at the mercy of fascist killers. Jihadists would swell their ranks as they hyped their defeat of the American infidels. Our forward strategy of hitting terrorists hard abroad would be discredited and replaced by a return to the pre-9/11 tactics of a few cruise missiles and writs. And loyal allies in Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan, along with new friends in India and the former Soviet republics, would find themselves leaderless in the global struggle against Islamic radicalism.
Failure cannot be an option in Iraq nor can creating an arbitrary deadline for pulling out U.S. troops. The ramifications on our country and other countries in the West would be huge. Our withdrawal must be event driven and not artificially tied to a calendar. Many I talked to said we must set conditions for victory, not dates for withdrawal.
The Bush administration needs to do a better job articulating just what is at stake and the potentially catastrophic consequences. No one believes we will lose the war on the ground in Iraq; it's here at home that there is a concern. I had one general officer say point blank that the ``center of gravity'' for our success in Iraq is the American public.
That said, I strongly believe that it would be of great value to have an independent review of ongoing operations in Iraq. I call this effort ``fresh eyes on the target'' and offered this suggestion following my latest trip to Iraq. On March 15, I was pleased to attend the announcement of the formation of the 10-member bipartisan Iraq Study Group, being led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission. The members, as are their co-leaders, are among America's most honorable and venerable citizens: former CIA Director Robert Gates, former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, former Clinton adviser Vernon Jordan, former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Virginia Senator Chuck Robb, former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
The study group was launched in partnership with the United States Institute of Peace, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, and the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. Its mission is to undertake a bipartisan, forward-looking assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact on the surrounding region, and its consequences on U.S. interests and it will focus on political, military, security and reconstruction in Iraq. The group will travel to Iraq and report to the American people. I understand they will meet with President Bush this week.
It will assess what is working and what changes should be made in helping the Iraqi people to establish their own government and stop the terrorist insurgency which is continuing to foment the violence of the Saddam Hussein regime. One of the most critical jobs of this panel is to determine the ramifications of failure to accomplish our country's mission in Iraq and to explain that to the American people.
In the 1930s, the world failed to stand up to fascism. When we--with our allies--did stand up and fight, we defeated fascism. It also took some time for the world to stand up to communism. But when we did, we defeated communism. Now we face al Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden, who in his own words has said he will use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons against us. We must continue the determined effort now that we have had in the wars over the years as we fight terrorism. Standing together, I believe we can defeat this threat to the freedoms and liberties and way of life we have fought to maintain for well over two centuries.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us, House Resolution 861, is an unfortunate farce. It is part of an extension of the political propaganda, which has come from the Republican Party in defense of their so-called war on terror. It is not the first example. We have had many others.
Some of the highest-ranking members of this administration have purposefully and intentionally misled this Congress and the American people by providing them with wrong information. We saw it right here in the House of Representatives when the President himself talked about how the British had learned that Iraq was importing enriched uranium from Niger.
He was told before he delivered that speech that there was no evidence that that was true. Yet he came here and said it and put the responsibility on Great Britain knowing that what he was saying was untrue. It is a criminal violation of Federal law, two criminal violations of Federal law to consciously, purposefully, intentionally, mislead the Congress, particularly when you are trying to obtain actions from the Congress which result from that purposeful and intentional misleading.
[Time: 17:30]
What has been the cost? So far, 2,500 American service men and women killed in Iraq. We hear today from the Republicans how they honor the servicemen, but they continue to have them killed, wounded, continue to have them suffer on the basis of false information, deceit and lies.
They claim that this is continuing the war on terror. Well, what happened to the real war on terror? We were attacked by the al Qaeda. The al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq. We know that to be the case. We know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know that to be the case.
Yet, after we went into Afghanistan, which was providing solace and security for the al Qaeda network, and chased Osama bin Laden up into the Tora Bora Mountains, the administration decided and the Defense Department decided that they were going to abandon the search. Why did they not pursue the person who was responsible for this attack?
Well, there is one logical answer to that question, and the answer is if they had found Osama bin Laden, the rationale for the attack on Iraq would disappear. That is why we need to get out. That is why we need to pass the Murtha resolution.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, there are few certitudes in these complicated times. Anyone who was not conflicted in the original decision to invade Iraq or who does not see a downside to all courses of action today is not thinking. But I am hard pressed to believe anything except that the case for a steady, measured drawdown of troops in Iraq is compelling. The neocon desire to establish a semi-permanent presence in a divided Muslim country is foolhardy.
It is true that there are circumstances where it is better to fight over there than here at home. Afghanistan is a case in point. But we should not be so naive as to fail to recognize that there are also circumstances where fighting over there can increase the likelihood that conflict will spread to our shores. A decision to prolong unnecessarily our intervention in Iraq could be a case in point, as could a military confrontation with Iran.
There are tipping points in all struggles. The signs are evident that we are close today to a calamity if we do not recalibrate our policies. The irony is that our troops have lost no battles and shown great heroism, but Western occupation is intolerable for Muslims. It is also not the American way. The longer we stay, the greater the prospect that anarchistic acts will multiply and spread, perhaps to our shores.
The issue is no longer, as is so frequently asserted, the need to stay the course. It is to avoid overstaying our presence.
Sometimes it is harder to know how to end a war than to start one. Just as important to think through the ``why and how''' of committing troops to conflict, we must also think through the ``why and how'' of ending an engagement. Timing is a key element of both considerations.
For many Americans, including me, the war in Iraq has been difficult to justify. But all Americans, except perhaps a few who may be partisanly vindictive, should want as positive a result as possible, given the circumstances we now face. The decision to go to war may have been misguided and strategies involved in conducting it mistake-ridden; nonetheless there should be clarity of purpose in ending the conflict, with the goal neither to ``cut and run,'' nor simply to cut losses. At this junction of involvement we should define cogently our purposes and by so doing create a basis both for a viable future for Iraq and for a U.S. disengagement that respects the sacrifices of those who have served so valiantly in our armed forces and those of our coalition allies.
Americans understand that three rationales were given at successive stages for the war. The first involved Iraq's complicity in 9/11; the second was the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD; and the third was the desire to replace the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein with a free, democratic government. The first two arguments have proven frail. The third has some legitimacy, but to many of us it never seemed compelling, particularly in relation to the costs of the conflict.
In any regard, whether or not democracy provided a compelling rationale for starting the war, it offers the most appropriate rationale for ending it. If we do not prepare to leave Iraq on our terms, stating clearly that now that a Constitution has been adopted, elections held, and a government formed, we are prepared to proceed with a comprehensive and orderly draw-down of our troops, we will be viewed as an occupying power lacking credible motivations. When we eventually leave, the other side will claim they forced us out. That is why it is as critical to define the rationale for our disengagement as the reason for going to war. And democracy is the only rationale I know that can be used as a basis for ending our involvement in this conflict with any hope of suggesting a partial measure of success. The key is that we must control and be seen as controlling our own fate.
All Americans should be respectful of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. They have been placed in an untenable situation. If they had not been so heroic and in many cases so helpful in rebuilding neighborhoods and schools, the U.S. would face a far more difficult dilemma today.
But we have no choice except to assess whether Osama Bin Laden and his movement have not been given added momentum by our intervention in Iraq, and whether the ideologically advocated policy of establishing long-term bases or one of returning our troops home is likely to be the more effective strategy in prevailing in the world-wide war on terror.
Here, it should not be hard to understand that prolonged occupation of a country which encompasses an area of land where one of the world's oldest civilizations prospered is humiliating to a proud people and those elsewhere who share its great religion. It should also not be hard to understand that the neo-con strategy of establishing a long-term military presence in Iraq with semi-permanent bases raises the risk of retaliatory terrorist attacks at home and abroad.
Indeed, according to the University of Chicago scholar, Robert Pape, in his definitive book on suicide bombers, Dying to Win, the principal reason anarchists choose to wrap themselves in explosives and kill innocent civilians is to register martyred objection to the occupation of countries or territories by the armed forces of Western or other Democratic governments. Suicide bombing, by implication, will exist as long as occupations continue.
In this regard, a note about al Qaeda is in order. Just as neither Iraq with its secular leanings nor any Iraqis were responsible for Ð9/11, so Saddam Hussein apparently considered Osama Bin Laden as much a rival as a soul brother. It is Western military intervention that has precipitated al Qaeda's rapid growth in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a ``cause celebre'' for its singularly malevolent actions. If American withdrawal policy comes to turn on the question of anarchy--i.e., troops can't be drawn down as long as IEA attacks continue--we place ourselves in a catch-22 and, in effect, hand over decision-making discretion to those who wantonly kill. We allow the radical few to use our presence as the reason for their actions and at the same time cause our involvement to be held hostage to their villainy.
On the other hand, if we proceed with a turn-over of responsibilities to the new, freely elected Iraqi government, Sunni dissidents will confront a critical choice: to pursue the insurgency or join the political process. Pursuing the insurgency would be a risky gamble; if it fails, Sunnis may fall under Shiite domination
[Page: H4065]
Though the prudential and civilized choice may seem obvious to us, a continued American military presence in Iraq gives Sunni radicals a popular cause--ridding the country of the occupier--for rallying popular sentiment in Iraq and elsewhere and justifying continued violence. Announcing the commencement of an orderly drawdown of our troops, and trumpeting it widely, would rob radicals of this powerful cause, allowing moderate Sunnis to join the government and pursue sectarian interests through the constitutional process.
In the realm of policy timing can often be as important as substance. Just as Senator Dirksen once noted that a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there and pretty soon you're talking about real money, in foreign affairs a week here and a week there can soon add up to a policy dilemma.
It is possible, of course that civil strife will ensue when we withdraw, but this is just as likely to be the case in 2026 as 2006. In any regard, civil union is for the Iraqi people to manage. It's not for American troops to sustain. The authorization this Congress gave to the Executive to use force contemplated the clear prospect of military intervention in Iraq. It did not, however, contemplate prolonged occupation. If this is not understood by the Executive branch, the current overwhelming Iraqi polling sentiment favoring American troop withdrawal will be more than matched by shared American sentiment. And in a democracy no one can be a leader without followers.
The older I get, the more central I consider the human factor to be in international relations. Logic is never totally dominant. No one knows the exact origins of the seven deadly sins, but to the degree human nature is the least changed aspect of the human condition, it is relevant to today's debate to contrast two human foibles: avarice and pride. Let me suggest that avarice, the weakness of business classes, is fundamentally more pragmatic than pride, the weakness of politicians, and pride is fundamentally more dangerous than avarice.
For example, if a bookstore owner were to read two books and strongly prefer one to the other, he might inventory half a dozen of the one he prefers and one of the other. But if his customers buy the one he likes least, he will not reorder the one he likes. He will put it on the discount shelf and re-order the public's choice. His pride isn't hurt. In politics, on the other hand, the tendency is to avoid embarrassment, never acknowledge error. Mistakes are often repeated to avoid political inconsistency.
An anecdote comes to mind. In one of my early terms in Congress I was invited to the Library of Congress to a seminar Henry Kissinger was asked to give on the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Before going, I perused one of his autobiographical tomes and was struck by a singular paragraph. In December 1968, Kissinger as the National Security Council Advisor-designate met with Richard Nixon, then the President-elect. They agreed, he wrote, that their policy would be to disengage from Vietnam. After Kissinger had delivered his lecture, I asked him about his pre-Presidency strategy talk with Nixon. Why, I inquired, didn't the Nixon administration immediately do what he said they had decided in December 1968, to do? Kissinger looked at me and responded: ``We meant with honor.'' I asked him if honor required escalation. ``Absolutely,'' he replied.
``Honor'' and ``pride'' do not have the same meaning. But in some circumstances they are clearly first cousins.
I mention this incident as a reflection of human nature and the psychology of decision-making. LBJ was too much of a Texan to reverse gear on his own policies; Nixon was too much a product of the Cold War to risk being perceived as less tough than his Democratic predecessor.
All wars evoke analogies to prior conflicts; Vietnam is on everyone's mind. My sense is that references to our Southeast Asian experience are somewhat oblique, but important to ponder. Of particular relevance is the advice of a former Vermont Senator, George Aiken, who suggested we just declare victory and get out of Vietnam. Aiken's advice was rooted in frustration, but wise as it was, represented more spin than reality. Given the strategies then in play, victory wasn't close at hand. Today, on the other hand, despite the escalation of world-wide violence and the precipitation of widespread mistrust of the United States, particularly in Muslim societies, the Administration can point to positive political change in Iraq. An Aiken approach might not be historically compelling, but it would have more currency now than when originally suggested.
In governance, judgment to be good must be timely. If we maintain a heavy presence much longer our president could find himself in a dilemma of the kind Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon came to know too well. Despite the overwhelming nature of our military capacities and the courageous commitment and sacrifice of our armed forces, well-intentioned policies can fail if they are inadequately justified, poorly executed, or pursued too long. The timing and explication of disengagement can be as consequential as the decision to intervene.
This is why clarity of purpose and flexibility of response are so crucial. Hasty withdrawal is problemsome; orderly, philosophically cogent decisions to wind down the military dimension of our presence in Iraq should, however, be our highest national interest priority.
It would be a mistake of historical proportions if respectful relations not only between America and the Moslem world but between America and its traditional allies were to rupture. We are obligated to see that they don't.
In a broader historical and philosophical context, the American intervention in Iraq underscores the need to probe the question of the limits of power of a superpower and the possible anomaly that there are liabilities of power, particularly for a superpower.
Does, for instance, overwhelming military might alone protect us from terrorism, or if wielded unwisely, does it escalate our vulnerability to terrorism?
Likewise, does overwhelming economic power ensure loyalty and buy friendship even from countries most indebted to the United States, or does it inspire resentment?
With each lED explosion and suicide bomb attack it becomes clearer that America and the world community are in a strategic pickle. In an era of anger, of divisions in the world based on economics, on color of skin, on ethnicity, on religious upbringing, on happenstance of family and place of birth, those who have causes--good and bad--have new globalized techniques of being heard and felt. Great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King appealed to the higher angels of our nature and achieved revolutionary change with non-violence. More mendacious leaders like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden have sought to impose their wills on others through appeals of hate and reliance on increasingly wanton instruments of oppression.
The policy question Americans must think through is whether great powers may be more effective with policies of restraint rather than intervention. Just as Gandhi and King led non-violent revolutions which have proved more lasting than the barbarism of Stalin and Pol Pot, maintenance and embellishment of the American model of governance may itself be more intrusively revolutionary in oppressed societies than interventionist policies.
Caution and restraint are better models for 21st Century statecraft than nai 4ve adventurism.
With this admonition in mind, it is critical that Members of the Executive Branch must understand that how and what they say to justify various policies determines how others respond.
Anyone who ever studied physics may recall that Sir Isaac Newton set forth three fundamental laws, the second of which was that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A decade ago when the Congress was led by an extraordinary upstart whose first name was Newt, I suggested, at first as a pun, the existence of a fourth ``Newt-onian'' law, this one of social physics: reaction is greater than action. My thoughts at the time related to the partisan bickering within Congress. But with the passage of time I have come to the conclusion that international slights have graver consequences than domestic.
When, for instance, we use words like ``evil,'' reference events like the Crusades, and employ tactics designed expressly to ``shock and awe,'' should we not expect others to think and respond in like or escalated terms, although the methods employed might in the current vogue be described as asymmetric?
This brings me to several broad precepts, one of which is seemingly trite, and others of which are intended to form a theoretical and practical framework for a recalibrated foreign policy.
First, the trite. Every society has a sage who cautions that wise leaders should put themselves in the shoes of their adversaries before reaching self-centered judgments. The profoundest illustration of this comes from literature rather than Clausewitz or Tsun Tsu.
When speaking to constituents of the rationale for and against the Iraq War, I have over the past couple of years referenced a set of books that provides more geo-political wisdom than balance of power strategists: the Alexandria Quartet by Lawrence Durrell.
Set in inter-war Egypt, each of Durrell's four books chronicles the same series of events through the eyes of a different participant. While the events repeat, the stories are profoundly different. The implicit moral is that one set of eyes, one set of interactions, is insufficient to gain a full grasp of what is happening around us. Likewise, in world politics one
[Page: H4066]
The Muslim experience, for instance, gives substantially less weight than the Western experience to the two cataclysmic wars of the 20th century. Despite Lawrence's involvement in Arabia and the battles between Allied forces and Rommel's tanks, the engagements in the Middle East and North Africa were skirmishes compared with the struggles in Europe and the Far East. Not only do Muslims see the 20th century differently from Westerners, but Europeans and Americans have drawn different strategic parallels in the application of common experience to current challenges in the Middle East.
In the immediate aftermath of the First World War, historians and political strategists in Europe rightly concluded that the European alliance system had been too rigid and the assassination of a relatively minor figure, an archduke, should not have precipitated a war of such devastating consequences. Hence European leaders in the 1930's falsely concluded that historical wisdom necessitated initial accommodation with Hitler's adventurism. Too little flexibility caused one war; too little spine led to Munich. In the current context, President Bush sees himself as Churchill rather than Chamberlain, but Europeans see 9/11 as more analogous to the shots fired at Archduke Ferdinand than as a cause for a doctrine of preemption or war with Iraq, a war that could too easily spring into a clash of civilizations.
If we're ever going to have a chance to shape or deter the actions of others, we must understand their reasoning. Failing to understand or respect Muslim culture, for instance, resulted in the greatest intelligence failure of our era. It is, however, not the sole intelligence failure. In one of the
greatest judgmental errors of our time, we appear to have attempted to combat the ideological posturing of others by ideologizing our own intelligence. Based on what is known today, policymakers wrongly implied Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attack and not only erred in assessing Saddam Hussein's WMD capacities but put too much faith in a narrow cadre of policymakers who suggested the United States would be welcomed as a liberating rather than conquering or, worse yet, colonizing force in Iraq. Estimates of the costs of war, of the ramifications of our involvement, of the expected reaction of the population and of the likelihood of foreign respect and support were dead wrong.
Now, given the anarchy that has mushroomed in the country, Washington is swept by occupation analogies of World War II. Japan and Germany, it is noted, were occupied for more than five years after hostilities ceased. Hence, many are suggesting, we must be prepared to stay at least this long in Iraq.
I have seldom been more apprehensive about an historical analogy. Japan and Germany were the instigators of war; their citizens understood this. The Muslim population throughout the world does not see it this way. They see the U.S. as the aggressor. Images from Al-Jazeera portray a country under siege. In the Moslem world Iraq looks more like a police-cordoned West Bank than a great and ancient society on the move to a better life. Outsiders are viewed as unwanted intruders acting out of great power self-interest, disrespectful of the culture and values of the country being occupied.
Yet if we take the most difficult geo-strategic issues of the day, it is impressive how we seem to misunderstand the fundamentals of human nature. Publics in many parts of the world are crying out for two aspirations: respect and hope. But our policy response is an entirely parochial one, rooted in the so-called doctrine of American Exceptionalism, which neo-cons do not define as refining a shining City on a Hill but as the right of a superpower to place itself above the legal and institutional restraints applied to others.
In the Neo-con world, values are synonymous with power. The implicit assumption is that American security can be bought and managed alone, without allies, without consideration of contrasting international views or the effect of our policies on others. Treaties like a Comprehensive Test Ban, which every President since Eisenhower has propounded, have been rejected, as have negotiations to strengthen the verification provisions of the Biological Weapons Convention.
Legitimacy is critical for all countries. There may be times and circumstances in which the U.S. national interest requires action without the support of our allies or without United Nations sanction. But the U.N., in particular, is ignored at great risk, especially when the international community is largely at odds with American policies. In this context, recent rhetorical attacks by ideologues in and out of government on the U.N. and other multilateral institutions would appear to particularly ill-serve the American national interest.
The diplomatic issue our government has to come to grips with today is the problem of sequencing. Which comes first--the chicken or the egg--is the most cheerful and abstract philosophical discussion Americans engage in. But which precedes the other--talk or war--is neither cheerful nor abstract. Experience would seem to indicate that while war may not be averted by negotiations, it is less likely to break out if direct dialogue occurs beforehand. In adversarial situations pacific results can seldom be achieved without human interaction. That is why our founders clearly contemplated that the new American Republic would have diplomatic relations with undemocratic states. It is why Prime Minister Rabin, when faulted for talking to Arafat, noted that you don't make peace with friends.
There are few examples in history where empty chair diplomacy has proved effective. Indeed, it is next to impossible to reach mutual accommodation if there is not mutual understanding and a modicum of trust and respect which only personal relationships can provide.
The sequencing dilemma is particularly evident with regard to Iran. Not only should we not fear to negotiate, we must understand that as the stronger party, we can afford to put on the table steps, particularly related to process, that weaker parties are less able to initiate without seeming to capitulate. Unfortunately, we have over a number of Administrations chosen to isolate rather than engage Iran. The question is whether isolationist policies drive a proud people to greater extremes. A stigmatic refusal to interact has characterized our policy toward Iran for a generation and, just as haplessly, Cuba for two.
Some of us have fretted for a long time that a more forthcoming U.S. diplomatic approach might have produced a more stable Persian Gulf. Five years ago Senator Specter and I invited to Capitol Hill the Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. In a long meeting over dinner in a small room on the Senate side of the Capitol, I indicated that while many of us would like to see more direct contact between the U.S. and Iran, normalization of relations was inconceivable unless Iran ceased supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. The ambassador responded with frankness. He chillingly acknowledged Iranian support of Hezbollah but then asserted that such support would cease the moment a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was reached in a framework acceptable to the Palestinians.
The slight hope implicit in this position may or may not have reflected Tehran's real position at the time, but it is apparent that Ahmedinajad is far more radical today than Khatami was yesterday. While neither has nor had the power of the Ayatollahs, the hardening of Iranian public attitudes toward us and Israel makes questions about the effectiveness of our strategic and psychological isolation of Iran important to ponder.
Last week the administration suggested a possible policy shift. We indicated a willingness to join the Europeans in talks with Iran if Iran first agrees to freeze uranium enrichment activities. This approach might presage a nuanced new American flexibility. But much depends on the Iranian response. Our position appears to be that we will proceed with sanctions and contemplate sterner actions if Iran does not capitulate on the uranium issue, but we will not talk to the government unless it first acquiesces. In other words, the goal of negotiations must be achieved before we will negotiate. Conditional approaches like this are needlessly ``high wire''; nevertheless, in contrast with prior diplomatic intransigence they may represent the best hope yet of yielding a conflict-averting break-through on the NPT issue.
Yet policymakers in Washington appear to underestimate a series of strategic phenomena. Hezbollah is far larger, more sophisticated and experienced in terrorist undertakings than Al Qaeda. A preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would unleash a level of anarchy in world affairs that would be unprecedented. It would slow but not stop its ability to develop nuclear weapons. It would have little effect on Iran's ability to obtain such weapons elsewhere. The ``loose nuke'' phenomenon is real. A rich country has as good a chance to purchase or steal weapons of mass destruction as it does to develop them on its own. And if that country is attacked as part of an effort to block nuclear development, it has to be assumed it will have new incentives to seek and use such weapons. This prospect could presumably be heightened if bunker busting bombs tipped with small nuclear warheads are employed.
The U.S. thus faces a double catch-22: embargoing Iran hurts our economy more than theirs and attacking militarily the Iranian infrastructure ensures immediate asymmetric violent responses as well as the greater likelihood that weapons of mass destruction once obtained will be used against us and our allies at a later point.
This brings us to the last underestimation by Washington. We may be considering a conflict
[Page: H4067]
The Iranians, too, are in a quandary. They recognize that no American President can take the force option completely off the table. They suspect DOD has made extensive contingency plans and they see a President who has little hesitancy to take difficult, unpopular decisions. They know he is in his last term and does not want to pass on strategic problems to his successor. They may reason that a U.S. decision to attack is irrational because it would solidify a radical reaction in Iran, in other Muslim countries, and perhaps even within the U.S., but the government of Iran cannot be certain that the President will conclude that he would be passing on a bigger mess if he attacked rather than engaged.
The Iranian challenge is stickier than many Americans assume. The President may see himself in a position analogous to that of John Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy was dealing with Khrushchev and a Soviet system that had many despotic dimensions. But while communism was manipulated in such a manner as to become a quasi-state religion, it is fundamentally about political and economic rather than spiritual relationships. Iran, on the other hand, is a theocracy in a region where religion and, too frequently, its perversion are dominant themes. Just as the Iranian government must understand the strong will of the President, Washington has to come to grips with the pride and principles of an adversary which is the inheritor of one of the oldest civilizations on earth. Each side may understand the consequences of individual actions, but that does not mean that decisions in one or the other country will not unfold domino-like in a manner that could be catastrophic for all. That is why human interrelationship--diplomacy--is so key.
Let me suggest a corollary to Lord Acton's maxim that power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. The Leach corollary is that military power tempts and excessive power tends to tempt excessively. America's enormous military strength is critical at this stage in history. But while we are obligated to recognize that its maintenance is imperative, we must also realize that its utilization may not fit, and may indeed be counter-productive, in certain strategic settings.
Analogies between all wars exist, but comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are frail. What must be understood is not that Iraq could be as bad as Vietnam; rather, that it is becoming far worse. Vietnam, after all, involved no WMD issues; and while the North was predominantly Buddhist
and the South Catholic, there were no implications of a world-wide religious struggle; nor of a conflict that might last many decades, if not centuries. The issue at the time was Communism and fears that if Vietnam fell, neighboring governments would topple like dominoes. In retrospect, the real domino lesson of Vietnam was about political decision-making. Once the patriotic flag was raised, stands taken, words uttered, one doubtful decision precipitated another, and the pride of politicians did not allow a change of course until the people demanded common-sense reconsideration.
Interestingly, in the 19th century, two obscure Italian political theorists, Vito and Pareto, noted that for all the differences in political systems, one person alone at the top had the power to make critical decisions for a nation. While these decisions might be of a social magnitude, they are personal in the making.
Our Founders were moral as well as political thinkers. They feared kingly powers and wanted shared decision-making, especially when it came to war. But as we all have come to understand, modern times have produced wars without formal declarations approved by Congress. In response to Vietnam, Congress fashioned the War Powers Act to establish new constraints on the Executive. While most Constitutional scholars are convinced the Act would be declared unconstitutional if it were ever tested, it stands today as the law of the land. What is often overlooked, however, is that the Act also empowers the Executive wide-ranging options to commit American forces for a period of several months. Hence, there is little doubt that the administration assumes it has no need to come to Congress if it decides to launch an air assault on Iran, as long as it is only of multi-week duration.
Let me conclude with an observation about priorities, contrasts, and principles.
First, priorities. The Iraqi war has had the unfortunate effect of decreasing American attention on both Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma, both of which have extraordinary consequences for U.S. national security. In addition, while I have assumed for most of my adult life that war and peace is the biggest issue in the world, the bigger challenge to life itself may be disease control. We have lost nearly 2,500 American troops in Iraq and 20 to 40 times as many Iraqis have been killed. But over the past two decades more than 20 million people have died of AIDS, and this number will double or triple in the next decade or two. Likewise, a new flu epidemic might match or exceed these numbers. Yet we are spending less on these problems than the cost of one month's fighting in Iraq.
Second, contrasts. Educated Americans are well aware of the ideas that Samuel Huntington and Joe Nye of Harvard have propounded about the dangers of a clash of civilizations and of the importance of soft as contrasted with hard power in diplomacy. These are important frameworks of thought for the American public to dwell upon. But I would add to those considerations the elements of individual judgment and the contrasting model of realism vs. pseudo-realism in policymaking. Realists look to effect, not to appearance. But Washington today has come under the sway of the grim neo-con notion that diplomacy, particularly multi-lateral diplomacy, is soft-headed. Is this not pseudo-realism? What is more realistic and more consistent with the American heritage than attempting to advance the rule of law? An earlier excess of pseudo-realism caused the Senate to reject Wilsonian idealism and ignore the League of Nations. Nevertheless, it approved U.S. participation in the World Court. Americans want law and order. Americans also prefer to work in alliances. It is neo-con nonsense, realism inverted, to press a foreign policy rooted in snubbing the concerns of others.
One of the myths of our time is that realism is principally about might. Actually, realism is about the human condition. A great power must maintain a strong military capacity, but it is the human condition that must be improved if national security is truly to be secured. Impoverished nations are breeding grounds for radicalism. Where there is no hope, there is nothing to lose. When life, as Hobbs described, becomes nasty, brutish, and short in a jungle of hopelessness, and humiliation, it becomes easily expendable, sometimes by martyred self-choice.
Finally, a note about principle. Never has it been more important to return to the basics. Whether it be tax policy or foreign policy, the concern must be for justice and the common good, what the 19th century British utilitarians described as concern for the greatest good of the greatest number.
The public wants its leaders to unify and uplift. Elections are about whether political leadership is up to the task. Democracies provide continual verdicts. This fall will be one measure.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to thank all the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus who have spoken so eloquently this afternoon.
I rise in opposition to H. Res. 861 and in support of Representative Murtha's proposal to redeploy our troops.
Since this war began, we have seen nearly 2,500 casualties. This number does not include the nearly 20,000 who have been wounded. I would like to take a moment to talk about the significance of those casualties and wounded because I often feel that we gloss over those numbers and forget that each one is or was an actual person. They were somebody's son or daughter, somebody's mother or father, somebody's brother or sister.
They are real people, as real as 19-year-old Private Brandon Sloan and First Sergeant Robert Dowdy, who were the first soldiers from my congressional district to become casualties in the 507th Maintenance Group incident. They are as real as the 325th Marine Regiment of Brookpark, Ohio, who suffered multiple casualties. I attended those funerals and those memorials.
They are as real as Sergeant Shurvon Phillip, an East Cleveland resident and Shaw High School graduate, who recently returned to Cleveland after suffering serious injuries in Iraq and enduring weeks of recovery. Shurvon is now paralyzed, and because of a brain injury, he cannot talk. We welcomed him home last Saturday at the Louis Stokes VA Medical Center.
Shurvon's mother, Gail, had this to say: ``That Jack Murtha, he came to see my son three times and each time he treated Shurvon as his own son.'' Shurvon's mother, Gail Ulerie, had this to say about President Bush when he came to see him to give the Purple Heart to her son while he has at Bethesda Naval Hospital: ``I am glad for
[Page: H4068]
I say we should not walk away from the young men and women who are left over in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should remember what Shurvon's mother said. Bring our troops home. Bring our troops home. Bring our troops home. She said she did not want to see any more young men or women laying back like this, and if you saw Shurvon you would know what I meant. He is in a chair, where he is sat up like this. His lips are swollen, sticking out. He can hardly say a word. We are saying to him, you know, Shurvon, we are sorry you are a casualty; you stood up for your family; you stood up for the United States of America. But he cannot stand up for himself.
Let us stand up for the young men and women of America. Bring our troops home, redeploy them, and let us think of America first.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, of our International Relations Committee.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the overwhelming majority of U.S. forces have performed their mission in an exemplary, professional fashion and deserve both our praise and profound thanks.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that Iraq remains a dangerous place today because hate-filled fanatic, perhaps even psychotic, mass murderers bomb and shoot innocent men, women, and children. The terrorists have a morbid fascination with all things violent. There is nothing whatsoever benign or noble or praiseworthy about these people. They are mass murderers.
If left unchecked, the terrorists would impose dictatorship once again on Iraq and Afghanistan, which would result in more mass killings, systematic torture, rampant fear, political prisoners, and an end to freedom and liberty.
While I respect the right of those who criticize our Iraq policy and our solidarity with the Iraqi people, I do remain deeply disappointed that those who protest U.S. policy outside of this Chamber seldom, if ever, criticize the terrorists. No harsh, mocking words of condemnation of George W. Bush is left unspoken. You hear it on TV, talk shows, and at war protests; but no such righteous anger is directed at the mass murderers who blow up our soldiers or incinerate pious worshippers in prayer or kidnap, torture and kill humanitarian workers.
American coalition soldiers in Iraq are peacemakers who have the toughest job in the world. They are peacemakers who put their own lives at risk to create sufficient space and order so that democracy and respect for human rights can grow and peace can be established.
I want our soldiers to come home and to come home soon, but that fervent hope must be tempered with reality on the ground and what our commanders on the ground think best. To leave prematurely or pursuant to an arbitrarily arrived at deadline established by Members of Congress may unwittingly put more lives at risk and strengthen the fanaticism and hope of the terrorists.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 861.
The Hyde resolution honors--and profoundly thanks--all those American, Iraqi, Afghan, and coalition forces who have so courageously fought the war on terror, especially those who have lost their lives in the defense of freedom.
Our war dead--and wounded--define anew what it means to be brave and honorable and good.
And our condolences and prayers go to the families of the fallen.
The overwhelming majority of U.S. forces have performed their missions in an exemplary, professional fashion--and deserve both our praise and profound thanks.
We all know that Iraq remains a dangerous place today because hate-filled, fanatic--perhaps even psychotic--mass murderers bomb and shoot innocent men, women, and children. In the past their thugs were in the government suites and Hussein's opulent palaces--now some remain in the streets--hopefully not for long.
The terrorists have a morbid fascination with all things violent. There is nothing whatsoever benign or noble or praiseworthy about these people.
They are mass murderers.
If left unchecked, the terrorists would impose dictatorship once again on Iraq and Afghanistan, which would result in more mass killing, systematic torture, rampant fear, political prisoners and an end to freedom and liberty.
While I respect the right of those who criticize American policy and our solidarity with the Iraqi people, I remain deeply disappointed that many of those who protest U.S. policy outside of this chamber seldom--if ever--criticize the terrorists.
No harsh, mocking thoughts of condemnation of President George W. Bush are left unspoken. You hear it on TV and radio talk shows and at war protests, but no such angst is directed at the mass murderers who blow up our soldiers or incinerate pious worshipers at prayer in Mosques or who kidnap, torture, and kill humanitarian workers trying to save and enhance the lives of the vulnerable.
American and coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are peacemakers and they have the toughest assignment in the world. They are peacemakers who put their own lives at risk to create sufficient space and order so that democracy, respect for human rights, and peace can be established and grow.
I want our soldiers to come home--and soon.
But that fervent hope must be tempered with realities on the ground. What do our military commanders on the ground think? To leave prematurely or pursuant to an arbitrarily arrived at deadline established by members of Congress may unwittingly put more lives at risk and strengthen the fanaticism and hopes of the terrorists.
Still, public debate on exit strategy is important--even necessary--because it puts pressure on us all to figure out how to prudently accomplish redeployment and it puts constructive pressure on Iraqi leaders to move more quickly to take ownership of their own security.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House wants our Nation and our coalition partners to succeed in helping the Iraqis establish a democratic government that respects human rights and abides by the rule of law and to succeed in standing up Iraqi security forces that can maintain order and protect their citizens.
We pray, of course, for the safe return of our brave servicemen and -women who are fighting for freedom half a world away, and we applaud their success last week in eliminating the terrorist murderer Zarqawi. The professionalism, bravery, and sacrifice of our Armed Forces are indeed awe-inspiring.
This year, Mr. Speaker, 2006, should be a year of transition in Iraq; and it is my expectation that the United States will be able to reduce the American troop deployment over the ensuing months and transfer the risks and responsibilities to the duly elected government of Iraq. That is what has been proposed.
Today, it is regrettable that this Republican majority seeks to exploit this critical issue of national security for political advantage. The resolution before us, like the Hunter resolution that was debated last December, was drafted, in my view, for political reasons.
As Majority Leader Boehner explained, its purpose is an opportunity to create ``a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats.''
For our country's sake, for our troops' sake, the majority should have offered a resolution that sought unity, rather than division.
There are provisions in this resolution, of course, with which all of us agree. I, for one, strongly share the resolve to prevail in the war on terror. However, this resolution misstates, in my opinion, the facts about why the Bush administration instigated our military action against the Hussein regime in 2003. It paints a picture of Iraq today that does not comport with the reality on the ground, and it ignores the fundamental responsibility of this Congress to conduct meaningful oversight of the administration's conduct of this war.
The political motivations underlying this resolution have been laid bare; and, thus, I will be forced to vote ``no.''
[Page: H4069]
The American people will not be deceived by this exercise today which our Republican colleague of North Carolina (Mr. Jones) labeled a charade.
The American people know, as Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, the former commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, said, ``What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures.''
The administration manipulated intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. It ignored the advice of top military commanders and sent too few troops to accomplish the task; and, consequently, we failed to stabilize Iraq after Hussein was rightfully removed from power.
It fired police and security forces and oil workers, which fueled the instability and initiated war before making alternative plans to shut off escape routes to the north when the Turks would not let us come in.
It had no effective plan to quickly get infrastructure repaired and rebuilt. It failed to properly equip our own troops, as Mr. Murtha has observed, 2,500 of whom have given the ultimate measure of sacrifice in this war.
It grossly underestimated the costs of the war at about $60 billion, which now stands six times larger and more.
And when confronted with concrete evidence of widespread mistreatment of detainees in American custody, the President failed to hold anyone in his administration accountable.
Sadly, and dangerously, according to the Pew Research Center, the global credibility of the United States has sharply declined.
The record of the Republican Congress is, in my opinion, no less disturbing. This proud body, the people's House, has abdicated its oversight role and failed to root out waste, fraud and corruption so prevalent in Iraq today.
Nearly $9 billion in reconstruction funds are unaccounted for. No-bid contracts have been awarded to private contractors such as Halliburton. Detainees in American custody have been abused and, in some instances, killed, and still, still, there is no effective oversight on these matters in the Congress of the United States.
In the face of one of the most important issues before our country, we have been presented with politics as usual.
[Time: 17:45]
It is an effort to divide, when an effort to unite was in our country's and our Armed Forces' best interest.
I regret that I have to vote ``no.'' I believe success in our efforts in Iraq is important to achieve, but partisanship only impedes the attainment of that objective; an objective, hopefully, that we all share.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who chairs the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation for our International Relations Committee.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is good that the American people are able to hear this debate and judge for themselves who should be making the policies and which policies are best for our country.
I have been through this before. I worked in the White House with Ronald Reagan for 7 years, and I heard some of the same shrill voices that we hear today in those days. I heard the same gutting of the President o