GREEN, GENE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee for allowing me to speak.
GREEN, GENE: Before I get into my prepared remarks, part of the resolution, if my colleagues would go to page 5 of the resolution, says as part of the justification required, the President shall, at a minimum,
GREEN, GENE: address whether it is necessary for the Armed Forces to carry out the following missions: protecting U.S. diplomatic facilities and U.S. citizens, including Armed Forces who are engaged in carrying
GREEN, GENE: out other missions; serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; but also, engaging in actions to disrupt and eliminate al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in Iraq.
GREEN, GENE: So every time I sat here on the floor listened and heard, ``we are bailing out of attacking al Qaeda,'' we are not doing that. This resolution says we will still be there. The President has to
GREEN, GENE: certify, though, that is what we are doing. We are not shoring up the Iraqi Government; we are fighting al Qaeda, who brought us September the 11th. So anybody who says we are leaving is just wrong.
GREEN, GENE: I yield an additional minute to my friend.
GREEN, GENE: Time has expired
GREEN, GENE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, obviously we speak slower in Texas. I rise in support of this resolution and this legislation, and thank Chairman Skelton for his work on the bill. Like
GREEN, GENE: Chairman Skelton, I want to thank our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and their families who are serving our country.
GREEN, GENE: I have stated before, we must let the Iraqi Government know our commitment is not open-ended. I have not supported efforts for immediate withdrawal, but this bill, just like our first supplemental
GREEN, GENE: sent to the President, which he vetoed, lets the Iraqi Government know that they need to make some tough choices to stabilize their country within the next several months.
GREEN, GENE: It also gives our administration time to have a comprehensive strategy in Iraq, and allows the troops to remain to protect our diplomatic facilities and fight al Qaeda, and training and equipping the
GREEN, GENE: Iraqi security forces.
GREEN, GENE: As this legislation states, we give the President the authority to use the Armed Forces to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Iraqi
GREEN, GENE: government at that time. But we won that battle. The government was removed. The power and its leader indicted, tried and convicted, and executed by the newly elected, now-democratic government of Iraq.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentle lady from Florida is recognized.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: [ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA]. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) who has traveled to Iraq several times, I yield myself a minute to answer some questions posed on
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: the other side of the aisle.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: What we have here is a nonspecific, nondetailed, nothing planned for victory. The bill on page 3, since the gentleman refers to the bill, let's look at it. It talks about a reduction, a transition, a
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: limited presence, a limited presence, again, with maximum attention paid to the protection of our Armed Forces. What does that mean? So you want our troops to face the terrorists with even less protection?
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It shall be further implemented as part of a comprehensive strategy. What do these phrases mean? What would General Petraeus do if this legislation were to become law, which it will not? This is not
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: a plan. It says nothing. It is making a political statement.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: I am pleased to yield 3 « minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) who has been to Iraq and understands the situation well.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman is recognized for three minutes.
INGLIS, BOB: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentle lady for yielding.
INGLIS, BOB: Mr. Speaker, we have a huge challenge in Iraq. It is a challenge for Democrats. It is a challenge for Republicans. It is a challenge for the President and for the Congress. We need an American
INGLIS, BOB: solution to that challenge. The question before us today is whether this resolution is going to advance that solution or it is actually going to make it more difficult.
INGLIS, BOB: I am one of the 17 Republicans that wasn't convinced of the surge; but I am aware now that we are doing it. It is underway, and the plan is clear to have General Petraeus report in September.
INGLIS, BOB: I am not certain why it is that we should be debating today a resolution prior to that time because, between now and then, rather than having a succession of political kind of resolutions, we could
INGLIS, BOB: be working toward an American consensus on this. And I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that that consensus is not that far away. I think we can start with two very clear observations. First, our military
INGLIS, BOB: has done exactly what we have asked them to do. And they have done it very well.
INGLIS, BOB: Second observation we can make is that we need to use the American concept of accountability. We need to impose accountability on the Iraqi regime and say to them, we've got these benchmarks and here
INGLIS, BOB: are some rewards for success and some consequences for failure.
INGLIS, BOB: And between now and September 30, if we work in a cooperative way, I think we can find a whole series of success check points that we can lay out for the regime in Baghdad. We can say to them,
INGLIS, BOB: Republicans, Democrats, the President and Congress alike, can say to them, here are the things that we want you to accomplish, and we have the right to insist that you accomplish them because after
INGLIS, BOB: all, we are spending $2 billion a week. But even more important than that, far more important than that, we have American lives at risk. So we have the right as their protectors to say we want you to
INGLIS, BOB: achieve these things. If you do, you get these rewards. If you fail, there are these are the consequences. And we can lay out a whole series of those if we work together in a cooperative way. The
INGLIS, BOB: President, the Congress, Republicans and Democrats, we can come up with that American solution and we can find a way forward in Iraq.
INGLIS, BOB: The question that I think the proponents of this resolution need to answer is, if you simply set the withdrawal date of April 1, what went with all of that accountability? What went with all of those
INGLIS, BOB: success check points? And the question really for the proponents is: How do you know by April 1, such a date in stone, that you will have succeeded? Why not work cooperatively between now and
INGLIS, BOB: September, awaiting the report, to prepare a series of very carefully thought out success check points with consequences for failure and rewards for success? And think through the plan. As it is, I
INGLIS, BOB: think there is not much of a plan; and, therefore, I will vote against the resolution.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Speaker's time is expired. The Gentleman from California.
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my colleague from California (Ms. Woolsey).
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentle lady from California is recognized for two minutes.
WOOLSEY, LYNN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Lantos for the time and Chairman Skelton for bringing this important resolution to the House floor.
WOOLSEY, LYNN: Mr. Speaker, the American people have called for bold action to bring our troops home, and today we are debating a first step, setting a date certain to bring them home.
WOOLSEY, LYNN: Over the next weeks, we will vote to prohibit permanent bases in Iraq. We will continue the drumbeat to fund the safe and complete withdrawal of our troops.
WOOLSEY, LYNN: But, Mr. Speaker, despite calls--no, actually pleas--from the American people, some at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and many right here in the House are just fine with staying the course. In
WOOLSEY, LYNN: fact, they are once again changing the conversation. They are trying to focus on gut feelings about an upcoming terrorist attack. But the American people will not stand for changing the conversation,
WOOLSEY, LYNN: and they will not stand for staying the course, nor should we in this Congress.
WOOLSEY, LYNN: The costs are just too high: $10 billion a month, and worst of all, the deadliest 3-month period since the escalation; 3,600 troops dead; at least 26,000 wounded; and tens of thousands of Iraqi
WOOLSEY, LYNN: refugees leaving Iraq every day. This is not only unacceptable; it is immoral.
WOOLSEY, LYNN: Today, the Congress must take a bold step to bring our troops home. We must stand up today with the American people. We must say, enough is enough. End the occupation, bring our troops home. I yield back
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentle lady yields back. Gentle lady from Florida.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: McCaul), a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
McCAUL, MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for yielding me this time.
McCAUL, MICHAEL: Here we are once again. I feel like we have done this before. Once again, I rise in opposition to the Democratic leadership's latest attempt to politicize the war, and I strongly urge my colleagues
McCAUL, MICHAEL: on both sides of the aisle to vote against defeat in Iraq.
McCAUL, MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the debate in this Chamber over the future of Iraq and the best course of action has been passionate and divisive, and each Member of this House has their own opinion. Yet the one thing
McCAUL, MICHAEL: we should be united on is our end goal and result. That should be the same: a democratic and stable Iraq.
McCAUL, MICHAEL: The Democratic majority has chosen to use this month of July, as they have attempted several times already this year, to hold a series of votes to withdrawal our troops and force a premature end to
McCAUL, MICHAEL: Iraq's pursuit of freedom and democracy.
McCAUL, MICHAEL: We have to ask: What would happen if we withdrawal immediately? When we talk to the experts in the region, the leaders in these governments and key stakeholders in the region, they will tell you it
McCAUL, MICHAEL: will be a fireball in the Middle East. It will create a vacuum, a safe haven for al Qaeda. Iran will swoop in and take over. They, the key nations in the region, are quite frankly terrified of this
McCAUL, MICHAEL: action, and they tell us that privately.
McCAUL, MICHAEL: I believe that we can cannot afford that course of action. The Democrats have chosen this course not because it is in the national interest of this country but rather because they believe it provides
McCAUL, MICHAEL: them with good talking points to use back home. I submit they are mistaken.
McCAUL, MICHAEL: In my view, Americans are tired and frustrated with the partisan squabbling over the war which has done nothing to improve the situation in Iraq. Putting politics above our national interest while
McCAUL, MICHAEL: the men and women of our military are fighting overseas is simply unacceptable. In a time of war, politics should end at the water's edge.
McCAUL, MICHAEL: There is another way forward. I and others have introduced the Iraq Study Group recommendations Implementation Act of 2007. This legislation is bipartisan. It is a comprehensive set of
McCAUL, MICHAEL: recommendations, a plan of action to succeed in Iraq, a plan which matches our military might with political solutions, with economic solutions and with a diplomatic surge which can bring peace and
McCAUL, MICHAEL: stability to the troubled nation. This bill has gained strength by those who recognize that moving forward in a unified way still exists in the Congress.
McCAUL, MICHAEL: The Iraq Study Group report offers a consensus policy that the vast majorities of Americans support. The sponsors of the Democrat withdrawal bill that we are debating here today, however, have
McCAUL, MICHAEL: decided that even though the surge only came into effect 3 weeks ago, that it's already failed and we need to question it and throw it out.
McCAUL, MICHAEL: They further decided that we should declare defeat immediately and not wait for General Petraeus to come to Congress and give us his firsthand report. This rush to judgment, this rush to action on
McCAUL, MICHAEL: their part makes it clear that they have not reached an informed decision but, rather, a political one.
McCAUL, MICHAEL: Throughout the course of our American history, we've answered the call for freedom, and we, Mr. Speaker, I submit are at our greatest when we are united as a Nation; at our worst when we are divided.
McCAUL, MICHAEL: We should unite behind the ideals which helped achieve victory against the threats to our very way of life, such as the victories against the Third Reich, such as the threats by the Soviet empire and
McCAUL, MICHAEL: the victory against the Soviet Union.
McCAUL, MICHAEL: Today, the greatest threat is the threat of terrorism, and the conflict in Iraq poses one of the greatest challenges to the American experience. We must unite, or we will surely fail. And I yield back.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman yields back. The Gentleman from California.
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 « minutes to a distinguished colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Gentle lady from Texas is recognized for two minutes. Without objection.
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee for allowing members of that committee to show their commitment through their legislative work in a
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA: hearing at the early stages of his leadership when we were allowed to present solutions. They were not Republican solutions or Democratic solutions. They were solutions for those of us who love
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA: America, and I just want to simply reinforce that. I thank Mr. Skelton for his leadership.
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA: I have legislation that declares a military success, and I rise today to make it clear I believe that the fallen in battle are heroes, and those who still fight carry their banner, for 3,611 have
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA: died, and I don't know why we're not on this floor declaring a military victory, thanking our soldiers.
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA: And my good friend from Texas says that he supports the Iraq Study Group. So do I and I have legislation. We all have legislation that responds to the Iraq Study Group. I might remind him that that
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA: report, bipartisan report, speaks articulately to redeployment, and so when we look at the costs of the war, $120 billion, Americans are asking, should one more drop of blood be shed? And my answer
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA: to that is, no. Should we engage? Yes. Should we involve in the surge of diplomacy? Absolutely.
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA: We want to make sure that all of those nation states can work to help solve the divide, the civil war. But we must face the facts that this process that the President is continuing to repeat does not
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA: work. It is wracked with corruption and misdirection. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA: As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I have been disturbed this whole week about the gut reaction. As I listened to the Secretary of Homeland Security speak about his gut feeling of the
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA: possibility of a terrorist attack. I'm a member of that committee. I live every day with the idea that the question will be asked by Americans to the Homeland Security Committee and the Homeland
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA: Security Department, does the Secretary realize that we have fueled the fires of terrorism by training terrorists in this war.
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA: And so when I speak of why we must end, it is to save lives. It is to reconcile Iraq, and it is to make America safer. I ask for support of the underlying legislation.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentle lady is recognized.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: because I'd like to comment on a point that was raised by my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton) regarding the intentions of Iran.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: The deputy interior minister for security affairs and the former deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran said on April 26 of this year, ``Iran has long-range missiles that can make nowhere safe for America.''
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: He also said, ``Iran is able to fire tens of thousands of missiles per day at American targets on a daily basis and, with its long-range missiles, can threaten Israel which is acting as America's'' proxy.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: So it is clear to us, Mr. Speaker, that Iran seeks not just to wipe Israel off the map, as Ahmadinejad has said time and again, but to destroy the United States. So is the plan to immediately leave
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Iraq so that Iran can begin its takeover of the region? Is this in the national security interests of the United States? Is that going to make us safer?
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: I think that we should carefully consider what will happen were we to withdraw immediately as, it has been called for. And with that I reserve the balance of our time.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentle lady reserves. Gentleman from California is recognized.
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Gentleman from Texas is recognized for two minutes.
HINOJOSA, RUBEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, H.R. 2956, and for the safe redeployment of our combat troops out of Iraq.
HINOJOSA, RUBEN: I thank our Chairman Lantos of the Foreign Affairs Committee for yielding time to me and want to reiterate that for 4 years now our administration has sacrificed its many soldiers for an Iraqi
HINOJOSA, RUBEN: Government that has failed to take responsibility for its own security. While many of these soldiers have made great sacrifices on our Nation's behalf, the President has failed to support them with a
HINOJOSA, RUBEN: viable strategy to succeed in Iraq and then to end combat operations.
HINOJOSA, RUBEN: This bill would force the President to be accountable to this Congress and to the American people. Yes, the American people deserve to know how this war is conducted and how it will end.
HINOJOSA, RUBEN: This bill would force the Iraqi Government to realize that America's commitment to their nation is not open-ended and that they must be accountable to their people for security and stability.
HINOJOSA, RUBEN: This bill would allow our military to safely redeploy from combat in Iraq to better confront emerging security threats around the world.
HINOJOSA, RUBEN: This bill would end the drain upon our Nation's resources that could better be used on our priorities at home such as improving our homeland security, strengthening our economy, and for providing for our citizens.
HINOJOSA, RUBEN: I strongly support this important legislation and request the President heed the call of this Congress to support our troops by redeploying them out of Iraq. With that I yield back my time.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from Florida.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for three minutes.
PEARCE, STEVE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her yielding and for her work on the issue and thank the majority party for their work. We're involved in a very serious discussion here.
PEARCE, STEVE: I was in the Air Force in 1970, in Reese Air Force Base in Texas in pilot training, and the Shah of Iran's son was in the class right behind me. I didn't know much about the Shah of Iran, coming from
PEARCE, STEVE: Hobbs, New Mexico, but we began to watch and began to visualize as he left training, and those Iranians who were in the training class with me left and went back home to Iran, what their life was
PEARCE, STEVE: like flying jets in the Middle East. And then in 1979, the Shah was suddenly out of power, just like that. The ayatollah came to power and instituted a tremendous repressive regime that continues to this day.
PEARCE, STEVE: Now, the question that our friends on the other side of the aisle fail to ask is just what is their plan to see that our friends in the Middle East have stability because, in fact, they're balancing
PEARCE, STEVE: the terrorists in their own countries every day. They're balancing them using our force and our will and our promise to help.
PEARCE, STEVE: So what do our friends in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, what do they do? When I went to Israel earlier this year, Israel simply said they fall. If you leave Iraq, those nations fall.
PEARCE, STEVE: Now, it's an uncomfortable truth, but somehow we're not going to talk about some uncomfortable truth these days. It's an uncomfortable truth that the entire Middle East is facing a problem of
PEARCE, STEVE: stability. If the entire Middle East faces a problem with stability, the entire world has a problem of stability because, if the Middle East exports about 25 to 30 percent of the world's oil, which
PEARCE, STEVE: it does, then the world oil market becomes destabilized, the world economy becomes destabilized, and in the end, the terrorists win because they have destabilized the world rather than defeat any of
PEARCE, STEVE: the forces in the world. That's been their long-term plan, to export instability, and they have been doing a very good job of it.
PEARCE, STEVE: Now, the President after 9/11 said we're going to fight a war on terror that simply does three things: we're going to take away the training camps, we're going to choke off their funding, and we're
PEARCE, STEVE: going to take the fight to them. Now, you can agree or disagree that Iraq is a place of combat with the terrorists, but it looks like to me that the terrorists from all over the world are coming in
PEARCE, STEVE: there. Iran is providing terrorists and weapons, Syria and other nations; and so whether or not it appears that the war is there, our soldiers believe that they're actually fighting al Qaeda.
PEARCE, STEVE: So the President's plan has definitely uprooted the training camps. We've begun to squeeze off the funding to the al Qaeda troops, to the terrorists worldwide, and we have taken the fight to them.
PEARCE, STEVE: But now then, when we retreat, when we come home, the question that has failed to be asked by our friends who have this resolution calling our troops home, it fails to ask what do we do for world
PEARCE, STEVE: stability at that point. It is a serious omission. It's not accidental.
PEARCE, STEVE: I appreciate the gentle lady for yielding.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from California.
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to a valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee who serves with great distinction as vice chair of the Subcommittee on Terrorism,
LANTOS, TOM: Non-Proliferation and Trade, Mr. David Scott of Georgia.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
SCOTT, DAVID: Mr. Speaker, I stand 100 percent behind this bill for a responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. Much has been said. There are several points I would like to make going forward.
SCOTT, DAVID: First of all, this is responsible. This is not something that was just put together. This was put together with military advisers of the first order, generals on the ground who were consulted, and by
SCOTT, DAVID: two of the most distinguished individuals in this Chamber, our distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Tom Lantos, and our distinguished chairman of our Armed Services Committee,
SCOTT, DAVID: Mr. Ike Skelton. Nobody can argue their credentials. Nobody can argue the credentials of the military advisers that put this together.
SCOTT, DAVID: But most importantly, ladies and gentlemen, the people that no one has mentioned, the entity that no one has mentioned, the most important entity of all is the American people. This bill represents
SCOTT, DAVID: the will of the American people. Seventy percent of the American people support this action today.
SCOTT, DAVID: Now, ladies and gentlemen, let me remind you of the words of Robert Jackson, one of our distinguished Supreme Court Justices in the steel seizure case of 1952, when a similar situation was in place,
SCOTT, DAVID: where we were at loggerheads then with the executive branch and the legislative branch, but at that point, the Supreme Court decided that Congress has the authority. And Jackson went on to say that
SCOTT, DAVID: when the executive branch denies, disrespects and disavows the authority of Congress, we enter into what is referred to as a zone of twilight, or a twilight zone.
SCOTT, DAVID: That's where we are now, and to get out of this twilight zone of destruction and mayhem, of instability in the Middle East. You talk about stability in the Middle East. We are more unstable in the
SCOTT, DAVID: Middle East now as a result of what we have done. Get us out of this twilight zone. This bill is the way to do it, and I commend it and hope we pass it overwhelmingly.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentle lady from Florida.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentle lady is recognized.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Generals on the ground were consulted on this bill? Seventy percent of Americans support this bill, support immediate withdrawal of our troops?
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: This bill before us is nothing more than political hyperbole, partisan politics using our troops as cover, because the American people don't have this bill in front of them. We didn't have this bill
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: before us until just a few hours ago.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Let me show you exactly what the Democratic leadership has scheduled for us to debate, and I use the term lightly. For an entire day, rather than do the hard work of our Congress that we need to do
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: to have more serious discussions on Iraq, on this bill, on appropriations, it's six pages long, six pages long, Mr. Speaker..
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: It was introduced yesterday, so I don't know what commanders on the field we consulted with. I would be interested in doing that, in finding that out. The first page is the title. The second page,
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: it's a ``sense of Congress,'' language, nonbinding. The third page says ``reduce forces to limited presence.'' Who understands what that is? Certainly not the drafters of this bill. The fourth and
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: the fifth page calls for a strategy.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Yet this Congress already has demanded a strategy from the President, and it is due in September, a report. That's what the Democrats say that they have asked for. But yet they are not willing to wait for that report.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: And the last page is definitions, Mr. Speaker.. This is what we are debating today, Democratic politics using our troops as pawns. Commanders on the field who were consulted? Give me a break. I
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: yield back. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from California
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 « minutes to a valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Costa).
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from California is recognized.
COSTA, JIM: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2956, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.
COSTA, JIM: Now, certainly this measure is part of an ongoing effort to try to bring comprehensive change. We do have a vested interest in the Middle East as we are engaged in this war on terror throughout the world.
COSTA, JIM: Notwithstanding that fact, though, for 6 years, our administration has had a blank check in Iraq, and that war on terror, and unfortunately, I think, by any critical evaluation, at best it has been
COSTA, JIM: bungled. At worst, we have made a mess of things. The previous Congresses have left little to be desired in terms of real oversight.
COSTA, JIM: With unlimited resources, we have complicated our relations with the Middle East, and it's unfortunate for our country. It seems for every step forward, we take a step back. This legislation, then
COSTA, JIM: again, is another effort to begin a new direction, which will protect our interests in the Middle East and begin to develop a plan to bring our troops home.
COSTA, JIM: What is lacking in this legislation though is a requirement for the President to tell us how we are going to, in fact, stabilize the areas with all the diplomatic resources available to us and our
COSTA, JIM: allies throughout the world in this region. Nonetheless, under the current circumstances, this legislation, I believe, is the next logical step. Clearly, doing more of the same continues to risk
COSTA, JIM: precious lives of American men and women in uniform, not to mention our Treasury, with little responsiveness, unfortunately, or cooperation from the Iraqi Government.
COSTA, JIM: Hopefully, this legislation will allow the administration to engage and work with us for constructive change that the American people demands. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentle lady from Florida.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank you for keeping such careful order on the floor on such a controversial topic.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair thanks the gentlewoman.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: I have the pleasure of yielding 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who has been to Iraq several times, has wrestled with his conscience and understands
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: the situation of jihadist terrorism worldwide.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from Connecticut.
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: I thank the gentle lady for yielding. I deeply admire Tom Lantos, my friend, whom I have known for so many years, and Ike Skelton, the authors of this resolution.
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about an issue we all have strong feelings about. I regret to say it's a debate that's under a closed rule that doesn't allow all aspects of this issue to come to the
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: forefront, and I deeply regret that.
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: We asked for a new Secretary of Defense. We wanted Rumsfeld replaced, and he was replaced by Secretary Gates. We asked for a new general on the ground and a new strategy, and General Petraeus was chosen.
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: After all that he had already done, he was willing to step in. He received unanimous support in the Senate, unanimous support. He has asked one thing from us with this new strategy. He said, give me
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: until September 15 to show what we can do with this surge.
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: What this resolution does is it bypasses that. It basically, in my judgment, pulls the rug out from under General Petraeus. I think we owe it to him, unless he were to come back and say, we need to
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: change our strategy right now, but he hasn't done that.
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: In my 17 visits to Iraq, I have seen good months and bad months. Since December, I think it's pretty extraordinary that we have won back Anbar province, an all-Sunni province. The irony is, we had
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: given it up, and it had become a mini Afghanistan with al Qaeda acting like the Taliban. The tribal leaders came to us and said, help us get rid of them.
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: If we were not there to do that, they would be stuck with an Afghanistan with a Taliban type of leadership in all of the Sunni area in Anbar province. But, fortunately, we didn't pull the rug out
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: from under them. We are there to help them.
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: I think there are, clearly, at least two inconvenient truths that we are dealing with. One inconvenient truth is the one that Al Gore talks about, which I wish more of us paid attention to, and that
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: is global warming. The other inconvenient truth is what the 9/11 Commission report says that we are confronting and that is Islamist terrorists.
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: Islamist terrorists have made it very clear that this is ground zero. If we were to leave Iraq, Iraq, in my judgment, would be like Afghanistan, with no troops to prevent the insurgents to do just
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: what the Taliban did. And I just hope and pray that we find a way to work together, that we look at bringing the Iraq Study Group presentation before us, because we all say we can support it. Let's
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: build on what we can agree.
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: I conclude by making this point. We ask the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds to work together and reach out to each other, but Democrats and Republicans are having a hard time reaching out and working
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER: together. Bring forward a bipartisan proposal and see how well it could do on the House floor.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from California.
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend and distinguished colleague from California (Mrs. Capps).
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentle lady from California is recognized for one minute.
CAPPS, LOIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill to finally end this disastrous war. President Bush's war in Iraq has been the biggest foreign policy catastrophe in our
CAPPS, LOIS: Nation's history. We have been distracted from doing the job in Afghanistan, the Nation that harbored al Qaeda. Hundreds of billions of dollars have evaporated into the sands of Iraq while vital
CAPPS, LOIS: needs have gone unmet at home. Our international reputation has been battered and bruised. Our Army has been hollowed out.
CAPPS, LOIS: The war has cut short the lives of more than 3,600 of our bravest citizens, injured tens of thousands more. Yet this President continues to insist that we remain in Iraq.
CAPPS, LOIS: Today we must tell this President he is wrong. We must take a stand against this tragic war, begin the hard work of repairing our foreign policy. We must listen to the American people and vote to end
CAPPS, LOIS: this war. Let us truly support our troops and vote to bring them home. I yield back.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentle lady yields. The gentle lady from Florida.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Price of Georgia.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Gentleman from Georgia is recognized for three minutes.
PRICE, TOM: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
PRICE, TOM: Mr. Speaker, this is a sad and disappointing day for this House and for America. Once again, the majority is placing politics over national security, politics over reasoned policy, politics and
PRICE, TOM: partisanship over citizens and sanity.
PRICE, TOM: Clearly this bill was not written in response to what our generals think, whose interim report was released just hours ago. Instead, it was written in reaction to polls and to political pressure from
PRICE, TOM: MoveOn.org and others. This isn't a thoughtful piece of legislation to achieve success in Iraq or success for America.
PRICE, TOM: The lack of definition for a limited presence included in the bill reveals that this is just another cynical attempt by the majority to politically pander. How terribly disappointing.
PRICE, TOM: In effect, this legislation is a vote of no confidence in our military commanders, and it's a shot of encouragement to al Qaeda. It's pure political opportunism, and it's devoid of military strategy.
PRICE, TOM: As Members of Congress, we have a greater responsibility than just to politics. We have a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of long-term American security. We must be thoughtful. We
PRICE, TOM: must be deliberate in our actions.
PRICE, TOM: We have a capable leader, General David Petraeus, unanimously approved by the Senate, the expert in counterinsurgency strategy. He was given by this Congress, just a few weeks ago, until September,
PRICE, TOM: to make positive progress in Iraq and report.
PRICE, TOM: But this majority isn't interested in what our military commanders are capable of, or the situation on the ground. Their only interest is politics, in raising the white flag and in coming home
PRICE, TOM: without any thought or definition as to when or where they are willing to defend our security.
PRICE, TOM: But because the political climate is ripe, the majority wants to undercut our troops. It's upsetting, it's sad, and it's very disconcerting that politics would trump national security.
PRICE, TOM: This bill signals to our enemies that it doesn't matter what the commanders say. It says that thoughtful military strategy takes a back seat to good politics.
PRICE, TOM: Mr, Speaker, this isn't an exit strategy, it's a political strategy. How terribly disappointing. I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and to commit to positively working
PRICE, TOM: together on behalf of the American people and American security. I yield back the balance of my time.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from California is
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: recognized.
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, before yielding to our last speaker, I want to express my disgust and outrage at this arrogance which we have just heard.
LANTOS, TOM: The previous speaker assumes that there is a monopoly of virtue and wisdom on one side. That is not the case.
LANTOS, TOM: We have listened to our colleagues on the other side with respect and attention, and that is exactly what we demand of every single Member on the Republican side. This was an appalling spectacle
LANTOS, TOM: debasing what has thus far been a fine and noble debate.
LANTOS, TOM: I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the conscience of this House, my good friend from Georgia, Congressman John Lewis.
LEWIS, JOHN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to thank my friend, my colleague, Chairman Lantos, for yielding.
LEWIS, JOHN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. This resolution is not a panacea. It will not get us out of Iraq tomorrow, next week or next month, but it is a step that will bring an end to this madness.
LEWIS, JOHN: Our President, the commander in chief, told us a few days ago, that the surge is just beginning when he deployed more troops 6 months ago. He asked Members of Congress to wait. He is telling the
LEWIS, JOHN: American people to be patient.
LEWIS, JOHN: We cannot wait. We cannot be patient. The American people want an end to this war and end it now. How many more of our young people must die before we realize enough is enough? One more day of
LEWIS, JOHN: involvement is too many. One more death is one too many. This war is not worthy of another drop of human blood.
LEWIS, JOHN: It is leaving a stain on the moral fabric of this Nation and destroying our credibility in the community of nations. We will never find the answer to Iraq down the barrel of a gun or in the warhead of a missile.
LEWIS, JOHN: Vote for this resolution and bring this war to an end and bring it to an end now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I yield back the balance of my time.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Gentleman yields back.
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of our time to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.
SKELTON, IKE: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), a member of the Armed Services Committee.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Gentle lady from New Hampshire is recognized.
SHEA-PORTE, CAROL: Mr. Speaker, the National Counterterrorism Center recently issued a report entitled, ``Al Qaeda Better Positioned to Strike the West.'' This report concludes that al Qaeda has
SHEA-PORTE, CAROL: reorganized, regrouped, and is stronger now than it has been in years.
SHEA-PORTE, CAROL: Yesterday, in the Armed Services Committee, we heard testimony that al Qaeda has established itself in the mountains along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and is operating with relative impunity. On
SHEA-PORTE, CAROL: Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says he has a gut feeling we will be attacked this summer.
SHEA-PORTE, CAROL: For years, Democrats have been saying we need to focus our efforts on combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the President took our brave soldiers and our resources to Iraq. Now it
SHEA-PORTE, CAROL: appears that the President's disastrous policy of ignoring the real threats and bogging our military down in Iraq has borne fruit. The area and the country is destabilized and more dangerous to their
SHEA-PORTE, CAROL: neighbors and to us. Thanks to the President's policy, our military is now overextended, our Nation is deep in debt, and our international reputation is stained.
SHEA-PORTE, CAROL: This cannot be allowed to continue. We are America the beautiful. We are the greatest country on Earth. We are the beacon of light and hope. We need to withdraw from Iraq, place our soldiers in a
SHEA-PORTE, CAROL: place where they can respond to any terrorist threats, and protect our borders as we once again reclaim our moral reputation.
SHADEGG, JOHN: Mr. Speaker, I claim the time that has been yielded to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
SHADEGG, JOHN: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I honor him and respect him deeply. But this legislation is
SHADEGG, JOHN: deeply and fatally flawed. It will damage America and American interests for two reasons:
SHADEGG, JOHN: First, it is a purely political document, hopelessly vague and meaningless. Let me explain why. The bill turns on two key terms. One, that the United States transition to a ``limited presence'' in
SHADEGG, JOHN: Iraq within the next 120 days; and, two, that the President provide a justification of ``the minimum force levels required to protect the United States' national security interests in Iraq.''
SHADEGG, JOHN: While I am pleased that the authors recognize that we are in Iraq to protect our national security interests, again, the legislation is hopelessly vague and therefore meaningless because neither of
SHADEGG, JOHN: these two key terms. Neither ``limited presence'' or ``minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests'' is defined. Oh, the bill has a definition section and other terms are
SHADEGG, JOHN: defined, but ``limited presence'' and ``minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests'' aren't defined.
SHADEGG, JOHN: You might ask yourself, why would the authors of the measure leave two such critically important terms undefined? Well, the answer is easy: Because this bill is not about policy; this bill is about politics.
SHADEGG, JOHN: The congressmen, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows exactly why these terms are not defined, and indeed the Democratic leadership knows why these terms are not defined. They are not
SHADEGG, JOHN: defined because they need ambiguity. Indeed, ambiguity in this legislation is essential to its passage. They know that they can't agree on what the meanings of these terms are. You see, if they
SHADEGG, JOHN: defined ``limited presence'' as too many troops, then their most liberal, most antiwar Members would not vote for the legislation. They couldn't. And, if they defined limited presence too low, then
SHADEGG, JOHN: their Blue Dog Members would not support the bill. Again, this bill is about beating up on the President and about scaring nervous Members of Congress.
SHADEGG, JOHN: Again, let's look at the other term, ``minimum force levels required to protect U.S. national security interests.'' Why not define what that minimum is? Answer, again, if they define it too high,
SHADEGG, JOHN: those who want out tonight and want our force levels at the lowest conceivable level couldn't vote for the bill. And if they define it too low, then those who recognize we face a threat from Iran and
SHADEGG, JOHN: other regions' interests wouldn't vote for the bill. It is deeply flawed for those reasons.
SHADEGG, JOHN: And I would ask proponents of the bill what they would say if the President, as he could under the language of the bill, were to decide that ``limited presence'' means 154,000 troops, just 1,000
SHADEGG, JOHN: fewer than we have now? That would comply with the letter of the bill, but it wouldn't satisfy proponents of the bill.
SHADEGG, JOHN: And what if the President, as he can under the language of the bill, were to define the term ``minimum force level required to protect U.S. national interests'' not as 155,000 troops as we have
SHADEGG, JOHN: today, but rather at 500,000 troops?
SHADEGG, JOHN: You see, they can't agree on those terms. I wonder how many of the Members realize that the critical terms in this bill aren't defined.
SHADEGG, JOHN: The bill is also flawed for a second reason, and that is that it reneges on the essential agreement Congress struck just 2 weeks ago. It is a little bit like Lucy pulling the football out from under
SHADEGG, JOHN: Linus just before he kicks it. Here, don't rely on my opinion; rely instead on today's Washington Post. You see, today's Washington Post editorial makes the case for me. The Washington Post, not
SHADEGG, JOHN: exactly a conservative journal, says, ``It seems like just weeks ago, because it was, that Congress approved funding for the war in Iraq and instructed General David H. Petraeus to report back on the
SHADEGG, JOHN: war's progress in September.'' Ladies and gentlemen, this isn't September.
SHADEGG, JOHN: The Post goes on to write, ``Before Congress begins ordering withdrawals, it should at least give those generals the months they asked for to see whether their strategy can offer some hope.'' We owe
SHADEGG, JOHN: it to those generals to give them, as The Washington Post says, the months they asked for, but, instead, we have given them 27 days.
SHADEGG, JOHN: I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and I reserve the balance of my time.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The Gentleman from Missouri.
SKELTON, IKE: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from
SKELTON, IKE: Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
bOSWELL, LEONARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for this opportunity to speak. I rise in support of this legislation.
bOSWELL, LEONARD: Much has been said these past years about the extent of the U.S. engagement in Iraq. The Iraqi people have made progress. Saddam is gone. They have had elections. We are told they have got over
bOSWELL, LEONARD: 300,000 Iraqi police and soldiers trained, equipped, and in the field. They are engaged in a civil war, and we cannot be involved in trying to referee that. As well as others in this body, I have
bOSWELL, LEONARD: been given assurances that they have that many troops.
bOSWELL, LEONARD: I believe the war in Iraq has had a serious negative effect on the readiness of our brave men and women in uniform who are serving with honor and distinction. Their deployments and, oftentimes,
bOSWELL, LEONARD: redeployments without adequate time at home to rest and train is affecting our Nation's ability to meet future contingencies. As it stands today, listen up, as it stands today, we do not have,
bOSWELL, LEONARD: repeat, do not have a single combat-ready brigade ready to be deployed.
bOSWELL, LEONARD: The United States cannot chart the destiny of the people of Iraq. The Iraqi Government must take responsibility for its own nation, and this legislation puts us on the path to see to that worthy and
bOSWELL, LEONARD: noble cause. Support the legislation. I yield back.
SKELTON, IKE: Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to my colleague, my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from Maryland is recognized for one minute.
CUMMINGS, ELIJAH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
CUMMINGS, ELIJAH: The interim report released by the President today details exactly what I anticipated, a lack-of-progress report which demonstrates that the Iraqi Government has made the least progress on those key
CUMMINGS, ELIJAH: benchmarks that are vital to achieving stabilization.
CUMMINGS, ELIJAH: The President at a press conference earlier today stressed the usual line of excuses that he has far too often utilized in the past, stating that we need to give General Petraeus time to show that
CUMMINGS, ELIJAH: the plus-up is effective and stress the importance of waiting until the September 15 progress report is released before drawing conclusions on the policy in Iraq. However, the President forgot to
CUMMINGS, ELIJAH: mention that General Petraeus said in an interview just last month that the chances of having a stable Iraqi Government in place by September are slim to none. Those are his words.
CUMMINGS, ELIJAH: Frankly, our troops need our support, and that support must be their redeployment, which will end the continued bloodshed. I yield back.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman's time is expired. Who seeks recognition?
SKELTON, IKE: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, my friend, my colleague, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentlewoman from California is recognized for two minutes.
TAUSCHER, ELLEN: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to voice my very strong support for Chairman Skelton's legislation. It represents an unequivocal belief that the United States cannot and should
TAUSCHER, ELLEN: not be in the business of fighting Iraq's civil war.
TAUSCHER, ELLEN: For over 4 years, it has been clear to me that our troops successfully and bravely accomplished the mission authorized by the President in the fall of 2002.
TAUSCHER, ELLEN: Today's report that our troops have done their job but the Iraqi Government has not underscores the deep problems with the Bush administration's approach. We are no longer at war with Iraq's
TAUSCHER, ELLEN: Government; instead, our forces are caught in the middle of an escalating sectarian conflict in Iraq, with no end in sight. Yet, the President continues to blindly stay the course, with disastrous
TAUSCHER, ELLEN: and deadly consequences.
TAUSCHER, ELLEN: Chairman Skelton's bill would make significant reductions in our troop presence by April of 2008. Democrats, along with our Republican colleagues who no longer trust the President's leadership, are
TAUSCHER, ELLEN: doing all we can to change the President's full speed ahead mismanagement of the war in Iraq and divert the policy toward returning our troops home sooner and safer.
TAUSCHER, ELLEN: This more responsible presence, which limits U.S. presence to fighting terrorism and training Iraq forces, will be a first step in restoring stability in Iraq and the readiness of our military which
TAUSCHER, ELLEN: has been badly damaged over the last 4 years.
TAUSCHER, ELLEN: I appreciate Chairman Skelton's leadership on this matter, and I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense approach and yield back the balance of my time.
SHADEGG, JOHN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentle lady from Tennessee is recognized for two minutes.
BLACKBURN, MARSHA: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
BLACKBURN, MARSHA: And while I have the utmost respect for the chairman, I disagree with him on this resolution and I do rise to oppose the resolution today.
BLACKBURN, MARSHA: I guess I don't like the rhetoric of defeat. And I think that if we look at the situation in Iraq and if we look at the global war on terror, we have to ask ourselves: If we accept defeat at the
BLACKBURN, MARSHA: hands of the terrorists, then what type message are we going to send? And I don't think that we would like that. Because if we pull out now, it is going to say that the U.S. is weak in the war on
BLACKBURN, MARSHA: terror. It is going to say that we accept roving death squads in the streets of Baghdad, that we accept ethnic cleansing and a region engulfed in all-out chaos. That is the message we send. Just as
BLACKBURN, MARSHA: when we were children, our actions carry a message with them.
BLACKBURN, MARSHA: Our soldiers deserve the confidence of their leaders, and not second-guessing by politicians that are a half world away. I think that they need to know that we are with them.
BLACKBURN, MARSHA: I had a message from a Marine parent. And they said, You know, we have our men out there fighting every day. They are using all the tools available to them. They are in combat. They are in patrols.
BLACKBURN, MARSHA: They are using technology to stabilize, to train Iraqi troops. Then at night they come home, they come back to that post, that forward operating base, and they hammer out e-mails and blogs to those
BLACKBURN, MARSHA: of us here to help combat the rhetoric coming out of Washington, DC.
BLACKBURN, MARSHA: General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker have a plan, the Baghdad Security Plan. We find out now much of Baghdad is more secure than it was. Most of the troops to carry out this plan just landed, just
BLACKBURN, MARSHA: got there 2 weeks ago to start implementing the plan. I think that for us to second-guess is inappropriate. I think that it may be the fashionable thing to want to pull out.
SKELTON, IKE: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the Armed Services Committee, my friend and colleague, Mr. Andrews.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: entleman from New Jersey is recognized for one minute. Without objection.
ANDREWS, MR.: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
ANDREWS, MR.: I support this legislation because it will make America safer. Our safety depends upon stability in Iraq.
ANDREWS, MR.: Now, there are two ways to achieve stability in Iraq. The first is to prop up the present government and hope it succeeds.
ANDREWS, MR.: That has failed. The best evidence of that failure is from Iraqi leaders themselves. Last weekend, a Shiite Member of Iraq's legislature said, in the absence of enough security forces, authorities
ANDREWS, MR.: should help residents arm themselves for their own protection. The Sunni president of Iraq said, people have a right to expect from the government and security agencies protection for their lives,
ANDREWS, MR.: land, honor and property, Mr. al-Hashemi said. But in the case of the inability of Iraqi security forces, the people have no choice but to take up their own defense.
ANDREWS, MR.: This government has failed, and we are spending the precious blood of our sons and daughters to prop it up. The second way to achieve stability in Iraq is to compel a political solution. This
ANDREWS, MR.: resolution will do that. It deserves our support.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from Arizona
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from Iowa is recognized for two minutes.
KING, STEVE: Mr. Speaker, I would start out with the title of this, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. Positively Orwellian to name a resolution the Redeployment From Iraq Act. I have gone
KING, STEVE: back and revisited George Orwell, and I can tell you this says, the Cut and Run From Iraq Act. And however you want to cut it, that's part of it.
KING, STEVE: Then it says, be moved in a safe and orderly manner. And I'd like to know from the other side, was the helicopter lifting people off of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, was that safe and orderly? Would
KING, STEVE: that comply with your definition?
KING, STEVE: Another point, we have in this Congress constitutional responsibilities and authorities with regard to war. The first thing we can do in this Congress is declare war. The second thing we can do is to
KING, STEVE: raise an army and a navy, and the third thing is to fund it, not to micromanage it. This is another piece of micromanagement. This is another piece of moving us down the path towards what history
KING, STEVE: will record as a defeat on the floor of Congress, not a defeat in the field of battle.
KING, STEVE: Von Clausewitz said the object of war is to destroy the enemy's will and ability to conduct war. And we understand that if you don't have the will, it doesn't matter what your ability is. We're the
KING, STEVE: only unchallenged super power in the world, and you're breaking down the will of the American people.
KING, STEVE: Sun Tzu said it more simply. ``Supreme excellence in warfare lies in destruction of your enemy's will to resist an advance of perceptible hostilities.'' And yet the American people's will has been
KING, STEVE: systematically undermined by the debate here on this floor, by the debate in the national news media. And I question, in the face of the opposition that we have to our will here in this country, if
KING, STEVE: we ever can manage the effort to rise up and defend freedom with this kind of support that we lack.
KING, STEVE: And then, when Mr. Price of Georgia lays out that the Defeatocrats in Congress are invested in defeat, then the former gentleman from California rose up and squealed. And being the leading number one
KING, STEVE: pork-producing district in America, I can tell you, when you throw a rock into the pigpen, the ones that squeal are the ones you hit.