SKELTON, Ike: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.
SKELTON, Ike: Mr. Speaker, out of all of this Iraq business, there's one star, and that star, as every American should know and appreciate, is the young American in uniform. That is the purpose of this
SKELTON, Ike: legislation, and I take this opportunity to compliment those who serve our country wherever they may be, those in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world or here within our United States. I'm
SKELTON, Ike: proud of them. And they are our stars.
SKELTON, Ike: Mr. Speaker, we have been engaged in Iraq since March of 2003. And in hearing discussion on the rule, it's obvious that some people wish to confuse the effort in Afghanistan with the effort in Iraq.
SKELTON, Ike: They are separate and distinct. The war in Afghanistan is something that we needed to do. The Taliban government gave sanctuary to the al Qaeda terrorists in that country of Afghanistan, and we did
SKELTON, Ike: the right thing by going in there.
SKELTON, Ike: The war in Iraq is one of choice. There have been discussions and difficulty and debate over how we got there, but we are there. But people should know that the insurgency in Iraq and the subsequent
SKELTON, Ike: sectarian violence between the Shiite and Sunni is a different and distinct war from that in Afghanistan.
SKELTON, Ike: You know, in history, we learn from the past. Strategic mistakes have been made, and we're supposed to learn from that. And we have to go to our revolution in 1776, when the British General Howell
SKELTON, Ike: did not follow up his victories against George Washington's troops on Long Island. Consequently, George Washington's troops were able to encamp at Valley Forge and later attack successfully Trenton
SKELTON, Ike: and New Jersey. That was a strategic mistake that allowed our revolution to be successful. Lee's invasion of the north, the battles of Antietam and Gettysburg, were strategic mistakes of the Confederacy.
SKELTON, Ike: And, Mr. Speaker, sadly, we have seen not only strategic mistakes in Iraq, we have seen irretrievable strategic mistakes; no plan for the aftermath, the initial victory, the number of troops was not
SKELTON, Ike: as General Shinseki recommended, far too few; the unguarded caches of weapons and ammunition, allowing the insurgency to have free access to them; the dismissal of the Iraqi Army, rather than giving
SKELTON, Ike: them a pay check and a shovel, the closing of the Iraqi industries, the deBaathification, which put thousands of people out of work, including thousands of school teachers. These irretrievable
SKELTON, Ike: mistakes made it very difficult for us to have any sort of positive success in that country.
SKELTON, Ike: We hear the call, well, wait until September. There'll be another report. Well, we have been in Iraq for four Septembers. There is the old song that those of us with a little gray in our hair
SKELTON, Ike: remember as the September song. And one line from that song of yesteryear, ``we haven't got time for the waiting game.'' That's where we are now. We don't have time for the waiting game.
SKELTON, Ike: The purpose of this is a matter of readiness. It's a matter of national security. It's a matter that we must face now, or else the strain and stretch on our ground forces, particularly the Army and,
SKELTON, Ike: of course, the Marines, will be beyond repair for many, many years.
SKELTON, Ike: It's a matter of strategic importance that we redeploy from Iraq in a responsible manner, and that's what this bill does. And we are able to keep our forces strong.
SKELTON, Ike: We never know what's going to happen. The last 30 years, we've had 12 military contingencies in which our Armed Forces have been engaged, four of which have been major in size; none of them
SKELTON, Ike: predictable. We don't know what the future holds. But for national security interests, we need to have a ready force, particularly our ground forces, which are being strained so very much now.
SKELTON, Ike: Further, it is important that we pass the security of Iraq over to the Iraqi government and to the security forces of that country. We cannot hold their hand forever. They must step up to the plate
SKELTON, Ike: and take over their own security. It's important that that happen.
SKELTON, Ike: This bill, Mr. Speaker, initially sets forth a sense of Congress that the authorization for use of military force against Iraq was enacted into law in October of 2002, and that the government of Iraq
SKELTON, Ike: that was in power at that time has been removed and it's leader tried, convicted and executed by a freely elected government of Iraq; and further, that the government of Iraq, the current government
SKELTON, Ike: of Iraq does not pose a threat to the United States, and for more than 4 years, the efforts of our Armed Forces have been valiant in their work and in their combat in that country.
SKELTON, Ike: We need a responsible redeployment. This legislation gives it to us. It states that the Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of armed forces in that country beginning not
SKELTON, Ike: later than 120 days after the date of enactment. It also states that such redeployment shall be complete to a limited presence which is spelled out in the bill, not later than April 1, 2008.
SKELTON, Ike: The question before us, are we, as a country, any safer now than we were when we went into Iraq in March of 2003? What has it done for the security of our country?
SKELTON, Ike: We see the sectarian violence, on top of the insurgency, the insurgency being aided by foreign fighters, many of them al Qaeda, and consequently, we know that the end must be done by the Iraqi
SKELTON, Ike: security forces. That's what we are trying to do in this legislation; responsible redeployment of the American forces, cause the Iraqi troops and forces to take over their own security, and restore
SKELTON, Ike: the readiness to our ground forces here in the United States.
SKELTON, Ike: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
HUNTER,DUNCAN: Mr. Speaker, following my remarks and Mr. Skelton's remarks, I understand we are going to yield to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I would yield an additional 15 minutes of my
HUNTER,DUNCAN: time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and also I would yield 30 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and that he may be allowed to yield time in turn.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, time may still be controlled.
Hunter, DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hunter, DUNCAN: First, I want to express my great respect for my colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a partner on many, many legislative endeavors and a gentleman who really has the welfare of
Hunter, DUNCAN: the troops of the United States in his heart when he speaks and when he legislates.
Hunter, DUNCAN: But, Mr. Speaker, let me say this about this piece of legislation which has been brought by the Democrat leadership before this House. This is an attempt once again to stampede a retreat from Iraq,
Hunter, DUNCAN: and it's a gratuitous attempt to do this. There is no reason, only 3 « weeks after the surge of troops has been put in place, to now race for the borders, to demand that the President start to wind
Hunter, DUNCAN: up this operation and start to leave, especially when General Petraeus will be making recommendations to us on September 15. There is no reason to do this. And I am reminded of when the surge was
Hunter, DUNCAN: first announced and I was on the floor in a discussion with a good colleague from the Democrat side, and she immediately said, the day after the surge had been announced when only a few people were
Hunter, DUNCAN: even in country from this increase in forces, and she said, There has been a car bombing and that proves the surge doesn't work. And she was ready to immediately start a retreat from the country, and
Hunter, DUNCAN: I take it a number of folks on that side of the aisle were willing to do that.
Hunter, DUNCAN: There is no reason to do this. We have an interim report which has just come out. The interim report says that in the 18 areas of interest in which progress has to be registered, there has been
Hunter, DUNCAN: progress on eight of them, there has been unsatisfactory progress on eight of them, and on two of them it is too early to really make an evaluation. Well, that is the interim report. And on September
Hunter, DUNCAN: 15th we will get a further report.
Hunter, DUNCAN: And as I look at the important things, the things that to me are important in this report, one thing that is very important is the fact that when we needed to get the three additional brigades and
Hunter, DUNCAN: that additional troop strength into Baghdad from the Iraqi Army, we got them there. Even though they didn't show up early on a year and a half ago, this time they showed up. Mr. Maliki was good on
Hunter, DUNCAN: his commitment. They got there. So things that were important to me with respect to this report are being accomplished.
Hunter, DUNCAN: But the facts are we are only 27 days into this surge. And the Democrat resolution really spells out no plan whatsoever. It asks the President to come up with yet another plan, which is highly
Hunter, DUNCAN: interesting since he has a plan and since General Petraeus has stated that he will recommend adjustments on September 15th. So if there are adjustments to make to the plan, they should come after
Hunter, DUNCAN: General Petraeus appears before us and gives us his recommended adjustments.
Hunter, DUNCAN: So what are we doing here? Well, what we're really doing is counting votes. This is basically an attempt by the Democrat leadership to get a hard vote count, see if any more people have slipped, if
Hunter, DUNCAN: there are any more votes on their side of the aisle so that they will be able to tee this thing up and have another vote, hopefully, from their perspective, to forward their goal, which is to start a
Hunter, DUNCAN: retreat from Iraq as soon as possible.
Hunter, DUNCAN: There is not a single recommendation in the resolution that is offered by my good friend. There is no recommendation for a new strategy. There is simply a series of questions asked of the
Hunter, DUNCAN: administration, and those questions can all best be answered when General Petraeus comes before us.
Hunter, DUNCAN: So, you know, Mr. Speaker, there are two messages that I see coming from Iraq; and we all see in this very complex, very difficult mission lots of messages. A message I saw the other day came from a
Hunter, DUNCAN: senior Marine leader. Do you know what it said? It said, quote, ``We are crushing the enemy in Anbar.'' And then a few minutes later, I saw a message from the Democrat leadership that said, ``We have
Hunter, DUNCAN: to get out now.'' I have seen the Democrat leadership many times say, We are going to end this war. Mr. Speaker, they don't have the ability to end this war. No American has the ability to end this
Hunter, DUNCAN: war. What they do have if they gain enough power is only the ability to leave this battlefield.
Hunter, DUNCAN: Let's not stampede for the border, Mr. Speaker. This is not a time to make a precipitous decision to start ordering the President on a policy that is going to be reported on on September 15th. Let's
Hunter, DUNCAN: keep our stability. Let's make sure that we don't pass this gratuitous piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, which really is nothing more than a vote count for the Democrat leadership.
Hunter, DUNCAN: I would reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman reserves.
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and yield myself such time as I might consume.
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, in Iraq today a misguided war is raging in our country's name. We in this Congress and the American people across the country are filled with admiration for the heroism and sacrifice of
LANTOS, TOM: our soldiers on the battlefield. But we cannot fathom the mindless stubbornness of the administration fixated on illusory aids. It is pathologically preoccupied with pursuing that despite all the
LANTOS, TOM: evidence of how destructive the situation has become.
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, we have seen this movie before, quite literally, as any classic film buff knows:``The Bridge on the River Kwai,'' an Academy Award-winning tale based on real events in World War II. Alec
LANTOS, TOM: Guinness plays a British colonel mesmerized and hypnotized by the goal of building a bridge that will last through the ages even though doing so will only strengthen the enemy. For a while Alec
LANTOS, TOM: Guinness persuades his fellow prisoners of war that completing his weird project will leave a legacy of which they can be proud.
LANTOS, TOM: But it soon becomes clear that the real goal is to build a monument to himself as he looks back on his few true achievements in life.
LANTOS, TOM: At one point this antihero tells his men, We can teach these barbarians a lesson in Western methods and efficiency that will put them to shame. Mr. Speaker, at this point the audience knows where the real shame lies.
LANTOS, TOM: The American people know that what happens by our hand in Iraq will be our legacy. We are no longer willing to tolerate keeping our sons and daughters in the midst of a sectarian civil war. The war
LANTOS, TOM: in Iraq was launched by an administration using faulty intelligence and mesmerized by a dream of some sort of monument to democracy in the Middle East with Iraq at its center. It is past time to stop
LANTOS, TOM: enabling the construction of this folly.
LANTOS, TOM: The legislation before us directs that the redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq be carried out in a safe and orderly manner. It sets a time certain by which that should start, and it is clearly
LANTOS, TOM: intended to bring about a major reduction in our troop presence by April of next year. And in the meantime, our legislation will compel the administration to come up with something which amazingly
LANTOS, TOM: enough to date it hasn't had: a comprehensive strategy for Iraq addressing our national security interests not only there but in the entire region and the ways to maintain our interests even as this
LANTOS, TOM: redeployment is carried out.
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, today the administration issued its interim report on the troop escalation in Iraq. Though the White House chooses to focus on the benchmarks that have been met in what it calls a
LANTOS, TOM: ``satisfactory'' way, the assessment, in fact, shows that Iraq has made unsatisfactory progress on half of the 18 political and military goals that Congress set for Iraq this spring.
LANTOS, TOM: The people of Iraq and our fighting forces there know the situation all too well. The index of progress that they face each day tells them much more than a 25-page report can ever say. With every car
LANTOS, TOM: bomb that takes a civilian toll, every insurgent's bullet that finds its mark, every roadside explosive that maims or kills one of our own brave men and women in uniform, the sacrifices mount; and
LANTOS, TOM: the result is anything but satisfactory.
LANTOS, TOM: This is why, Mr. Speaker, our measure deserves our full and unwavering support. We need to direct a misguided administration to face reality and to start the responsible redeployment of our forces
LANTOS, TOM: from Iraq. By asking this Congress to extend our patience yet again, by pointlessly risking our troops, and by continuing to ignore the will of the American people to end this war, the administration
LANTOS, TOM: is reaching for a bridge much too far. I reserve the balance of my time.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Gentleman reserves.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Gentle lady from Florida
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Gentle lady is recognized.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which seeks to impose a strategy of defeat on our Armed Forces and our country. By binding our military and our foreign policy
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: in a straitjacket, this legislation would accomplish what thousands of our enemies have sought: to force the United States to retreat from Iraq without a plan for victory.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Proponents of rapid withdrawal would like us to ignore the reality that Iraq is but one of the critical battlefields in an ongoing war against Islamic jihadists, against global terrorism, a war
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: declared by the jihadists and which saw its beginnings in November 1979, when Iranian radicals stormed our embassy, took Americans hostages, and held them captive for 444 days.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: From there Americans, Westerners, innocent human beings were targeted. Where and when were they targeted? In the bombings of the Marine barracks in the U.S. embassy in Beirut in 1983, in the bombings
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: of the World Trade Center in 1993, in the bombings of the Khobar Towers in 1996, in the attacks of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and in the attacks on the USS Cole in the year 2000.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Proponents of rapid withdrawal want us to look at the bombings in Iraq in a vacuum, disregarding the similarities to the suicide bombers that have killed scores of innocent Israelis, those who
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: planned and carried out the bombings in London, in Madrid, in Bali that claimed so many innocent lives.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: These may not be the exact individuals, nor the same groups, but they are part of a global terrorist network working toward the same end, to destroy , to attack us and our allies.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: The Islamic jihadists will not stop their agenda of destruction simply because we quickly withdraw from Iraq. They will, perhaps, stop when they see our nations, our cities, our communities burning,
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: just as the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon burned on that terrible day of September 11, 2001.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: They have clearly articulated their goals. Listen to their words; al Qaeda's second in command, Al Zawahiri, made it clear in May of this year, and I quote him: ``The empire of evil, the United
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: States, is about to end and a new dawn is about to break over mankind, which will be liberated from the caesars of the White House and Europe and from the Zionists.''
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Those seeking to impose an immediate withdrawal deadline are so intent on rushing through this legislation that they appear to have failed to consider the consequences of a U.S. national security
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: interest of what euphemistically is being called a ``phased redeployment.''
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: How is the strategy of quick withdrawal different from the strategy outlined by Al Zawahiri in a letter that he sent to al Qaeda operatives about driving the U.S. out of Iraq? How would we prevent
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: the development of Iraq into a full base of operations for al Qaeda and other terrorist networks? We pretend to be armchair generals, seeking to undermine the strategies called for by our commanders
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: on the field. But we should not.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Some label the current strategy of failure long before this full complement of units had been, in fact, deployed. But those doing the fighting in Iraq know that we have not failed, patriots such as
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: the Parsons brothers from my congressional district.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Huber Parsons was serving his third deployment in Iraq, this time with the Army Stryker Brigade, when his vehicle was struck by a deep buried IED just a few months ago. His driver was killed, and
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Huber had to undergo a number of surgeries. I had the honor of visiting him often at Walter Reed. He is pictured here saluting his fallen brothers-in-arms at a memorial service in Fort Lewis,
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Washington. His twin, Bill, and his younger brother, Charlie, are both currentlyserving in Iraq, also with the Army Stryker Brigade. They, like my stepson, Doug, and my daughter-in-law, Lindsay, and
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: so many others who have served or are currently deployed in Iraq, are disheartened when they hear the references to failure and consider that the talks of this rapid withdrawal shows a lack of
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: confidence in their ability to defeat the enemy.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Many patriots ask me why the Congress would endanger them and their fellow service men and women by having them engage the enemy with an immediately reduced force. Where, in a region of jihadists,
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: are troops to be deployed to? What Middle Eastern government would want to host a retreating and defeated American Army? How does withdrawal to Kuwait or Qatar, as some have proposed, help us fight
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: al Qaeda in Iraq? If al Qaeda strategies worked in Iraq and forced an American retreat, how can we not conclude that they will also pursue them in Kuwait and Qatar and beyond?
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Mr. Speaker, George Orwell said that the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. We should be discussing strategies for victory, not how to ensure our own defeat.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: And let me close, Mr. Speaker, by reading the words of General Petraeus in an interview just a few days ago word for word. He said, ``I can think of few commanders in history who wouldn't have wanted
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: more troops, more time or more unity among their partners. However, if I could only have one at this point in Iraq, it would be more time. This is an exceedingly tough endeavor that faces countless
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: challenges.'' General Petraeus continues. "None of us, Iraqi or American, are anything but impatient and frustrated at where we are. But there are no shortcuts. Success in an endeavor like this is
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: the result of steady, unremittent pressure over the long haul. It is a test of wills, demanding patience, determination and stamina from all involved."
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: General Petraeus, as we know, was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to be our commander in Iraq, yet somehow we have become better war commanders than General Petraeus.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentle lady from Florida reserves. The Gentleman from California is recognized.
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Wexler of Florida.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Gentleman from Florida is recognized.
[WEXLER, ROBERT]: hank you, Mr. Lantos.
[WEXLER, ROBERT]: Mr. Speaker, President Bush stubbornly refuses to end the war in Iraq. It is up to Congress to step forward and mandate that our troops return home. Congress must deliver to the American people what
[WEXLER, ROBERT]: they voted for in November. It is Congress that must end this disastrous war. At long last, this legislation delivers a responsible withdrawal of American troops.
[WEXLER, ROBERT]: The stark reality is that the President's escalation strategy has been an utter failure. Instead of a successful surge, the President's policy in Iraq has regressed, and the death toll of American
[WEXLER, ROBERT]: troops and Iraqi civilians has mounted.
[WEXLER, ROBERT]: This President is unwilling to change course, despite overwhelming American opposition to the war, despite failing to meet political, economic and security benchmarks, and despite calls by Senate
[WEXLER, ROBERT]: Republicans urging a change in course. The President is in denial, and it is time for Congress to deliver a reality check.
[WEXLER, ROBERT]: Our troops have sacrificed enough. Our military families have suffered enough. American taxpayers have spent enough. Congress must bring our troops home, and this bill does it. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentle lady from Florida
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for three minutes.
COBLE, HOWARD: I thank the gentle lady from Florida for yielding.
COBLE, HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I voted against the surge. And for 2 « years, I have said that we need to keep the troop withdrawal issue on the table, but I have also said during that time that the date for withdrawal
COBLE, HOWARD: should be reserved for the commanders on the ground.
COBLE, HOWARD: The bill before us was not introduced until yesterday, and in my opinion, it is vague, at best; generously laced again, in my opinion, with politics.
COBLE, HOWARD: I excel at an understatement, Mr. Speaker, when I declare that this war has been mismanaged. It was appropriate to remove Saddam, an international terrorist, but there was never, in my opinion, a
COBLE, HOWARD: post-entry strategy; therefore, mismanagement.
COBLE, HOWARD: The Iraq issue, Mr. Speaker, is neither as favorable as its proponents contend, nor as unfavorable as its opponents profess. The good news is the evil-driven terrorists have not attacked us again.
COBLE, HOWARD: And I am confident that many moderate Muslims do not embrace the useless killing and destruction of property that has occurred in Iraq, but their silent vocal opposition has been disappointing, at
COBLE, HOWARD: best. The Iraqi Government has been disappointing as well, and we need to insist upon more compliance it seems to me.
COBLE, HOWARD: But given all the facts surrounding this matter, Mr. Speaker, I believe this Chamber is well-advised to wait until September. We're told that the general will be here in September to report what, if
COBLE, HOWARD: any, favorable or unfavorable results have occurred since the surge, and I believe that is our best policy today.
COBLE, HOWARD: The cost has been enormous, as has been said, and we would be remiss if we tried to deny that. But I think the right vote is against this proposal today, and then let's revisit it subsequently when
COBLE, HOWARD: the general comes before us in September. I again thank the Gentle lady from Florida for yielding and I yield back the balance of my time.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman yields. Gentleman from California is recognized.
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 « minutes to the distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ambassador Diane Watson of California.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Gentle lady from California is recognized for two minutes.
WATSON, DIANE: Thank you very much, Chairman Lantos. And thank you, Chairman Skeleton, for crafting this resolution and giving us the opportunity to discuss the war. And I want to thank our
WATSON, DIANE: Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who has been steadfast in moving this Congress and this country towards an honorable exit from our occupation of Iraq.
WATSON, DIANE: We are now 6 months into President Bush's vaunted escalation of the war in Iraq, and we are not seeing progress. Recently, the Washington Post reported that U.S. military commanders are increasingly
WATSON, DIANE: relying on Sunni militias to fight insurgent groups. Our military officers are giving these militias weapons and intelligence and setting them loose.
WATSON, DIANE: Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago, the President told us he needed to escalate the commitment of the United States soldiers to Iraq to disarm ethnic militia. Now, we are arming them? Just a few
WATSON, DIANE: months ago, the President told us that the ethnic militias were undermining the security and stability of Iraq. Now, they are the guarantors of the stability and security of Iraq?
WATSON, DIANE: When the President's strategy for victory involves arming the people who, just a few months ago, were our sworn enemies, it becomes difficult for any of us to explain to our constituents what our
WATSON, DIANE: troops are still doing there in Iraq.
WATSON, DIANE: The troops have done their job, and in an honorable way, but they will not be successful if the President cannot decide what the mission really is. And I remember him several years ago. Can I have
WATSON, DIANE: another minute to finish up?
LANTOS, TOM: 30 more seconds to my friend
WATSON, DIANE: saying ``mission accomplished.'' I am sure we will hear from a number of people here that we need to give the escalation more time, that we need to wait until September. I'm not
WATSON, DIANE: willing to do that, Mr. Speaker. I'm not willing to explain to the families of the soldiers who will die between now and September that it took an extra 3 months to figure out the President's plan,
WATSON, DIANE: and there has been no strategy given to us for success.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Mr. Speaker, at this point, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from Texas is recognized for three minutes.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Mr. POE. I want to thank the gentle lady for yielding time on this important issue.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Redeployment. Withdrawal. These words mean the same thing, ``we quit.'' ``Quitting'' Iraq is not a plan. It's not even a strategy; it is a total handoff of responsibility to an unstable government
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: with an ill-prepared military.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: I don't dispute that we must do more to ready Iraqis to handle their own security. I do insist, however, that we cannot suddenly leave the Iraqis scrambling to defend their new brand of democracy
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: amidst chaos. That is what this ``leave at any cost'' plan would do: leave our enemies and those of the Iraqi people unfettered and free to pursue their diabolical agenda in Iraq and throughout the world.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: So I would like to ask those who want to quit exactly what they plan to do to fight the terrorist operatives in Iraq when our troops turn around and leave. What's the plan?
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: I would also like to know, who, besides the ``New York Times'', is saying that the fight is lost in Iraq? Reports indicate that our troops are making progress. Sectarian murders in Baghdad have
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: declined in the last 6 months. More Iraqis are coming to American troops with information about the terrorists. And Iraqi citizens are organizing against al Qaeda at the local level. Good for them.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Mr. Speaker, General Patton sailed with his soldiers from Algiers to Italy in World War II, and he said to them, ``No man is beaten until he thinks he is.'' This war is not over unless we quit. And
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: when we quit, we are certainly defeated.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Here is what the defeatists say about the battle. They say that our troops were ill-prepared to go into battle, and there weren't enough of them; that they had inferior equipment; that they had
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: improper uniforms for the extreme weather; U.S. intelligence was flawed; that we underestimated the resolve of the enemy; that Americans and our allies were killed by friendly fire.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: No, Mr. Speaker, this is not the war in Iraq, but this is the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, a battle that my father fought in. Those Americans, led by General Patton and others, did not run or
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: quit because war is hard. You do not win wars by evacuating. And Americans won the Battle of the Bulge and broke the will of the enemy.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: I ask this question: How does this plan to force the United States to withdraw from Iraq differ from al Qaeda's plan to force us to withdraw from Iraq? Why wouldn't al Qaeda celebrate if this bill is passed?
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Mr. Speaker, General Patton went on to say to his troops, ``The glory of American arms, the honor of our country, the future of the whole world rests in our individual hands. See to it that you are
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: worthy of this great trust.''
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that the honor of our country is at stake again today, but that's not all. Our security, the security of Iraqis, and the future of democracy and liberty in the Middle East,
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: all of these are in our hands.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Let us be worthy of this trust. And that's the way it is. I yield back.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from California.
LANTOS, TOM: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from the State of Washington (Mr. Smith) of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The speaker is recognized for how much time? Two minutes for the Gentleman from Washington.
SMITH, ADAM: Mr. Speaker, in listening to this debate, I think the biggest problem is the proponents of the stay-the-course plan in Iraq continually and completely equate the battle in Iraq with
SMITH, ADAM: the battle against al Qaeda and the terrorists who struck us. The two are not the same. Infact, we heard from Ms. Ros-Lehtinen that Iraq is but one of the battlefields that we are fighting against al
SMITH, ADAM: Qaeda. That is absolutely true. Yet we have 80 percent of our assets in Iraq. Meanwhile, report after report come out that al Qaeda is strengthening themselves in Afghanistanand Pakistan, where we
SMITH, ADAM: don't have enough resources.
SMITH, ADAM: Our argument is not for retreat. Our argument is that there is a better way to fight al Qaeda and those who threaten us than to put all of our assets in Iraq while not paying enough attention to
SMITH, ADAM: where al Qaeda is really strengthening itself. In Iraq, it is primarily a power struggle in which alQaeda is a player. It is not primarily about al Qaeda's threat against the U.S. In Afghanistan,
SMITH, ADAM: with the Taliban and al Qaeda, it is a very different story.
SMITH, ADAM: Our troops, our assets, the lives and the talents of the people of this country are tied down in Iraq fighting what is primarily a civil war instead of better fighting al Qaeda. In fact, our
SMITH, ADAM: presence, inmany ways, has strengthened al Qaeda. Syria would never be an ally of al Qaeda in any sort ofreal-world scenario, because al Qaeda wants to topple their regime. Yet to defeat us in Iraq,
SMITH, ADAM: they have come up with an alliance of convenience.
SMITH, ADAM: There is a better way to fight al Qaeda. We are here today to change course in Iraq because it is a better way to protect this country. Timing isn't the issue. Six months ago, these facts
SMITH, ADAM: werebasically the same as they are today. In September, these facts will be basically the same as they are today. We cannot wait if we are going to have the best possible strategy for defeating al
SMITH, ADAM: Qaeda, the group that threatens us most, instead of getting bogged down in the civil war and in the tribal differences that are present in Iraq. We want to win, not to quit. This is the better way to do it.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentle lady from Florida
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Gentleman from Indiana is recognized for five minutes.
PENCE, MIKE: I thank the distinguished gentlewoman and my good friend from Florida for yielding.
PENCE, MIKE: Mr. Speaker, we are come to this floor today, it seems to me, in an important moment in the life of two nations. We are come to this floor at a time when our colleagues in the other body are debating
PENCE, MIKE: a Defense authorization bill and will be considering amendments about a new course in Iraq.
PENCE, MIKE: So I do not question the decision of the majority in this chamber to consider these same issues, particularly in light of the release of the initial benchmark assessment report by our military and
PENCE, MIKE: diplomatic leadership in Iraq. It is a report, I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that is to me frustrating, as it is, I think, to Members on both sides of this aisle. Of 18 benchmarks included in the
PENCE, MIKE: interim report to Congress, progress on eight of the benchmarks has been characterized as satisfactory, but progress on another eight are unsatisfactory, with it being too early to tell on another two.
PENCE, MIKE: Two months from now, the Crocker-Petraeus report that Congress has been promised will provide, we believe, a broader assessment. But, frankly, I am struggling, as a strong supporter of our effort in
PENCE, MIKE: Iraq, with the failure of this Iraqi Government to step forward with the kind of progress, enacting legislation on de-Ba'athification reform, hydrocarbon resources reform, and the scheduling of and
PENCE, MIKE: planning of provincial elections.
PENCE, MIKE: I want to be transparent about that frustration as much as I was when I met with Iraqi cabinet officials just a short 2 months ago. The Iraqi Government must do more. And if there is any unintended
PENCE, MIKE: benefit of this debate today, my hope is that some of this debate with that message would echo to those people.
PENCE, MIKE: But that being said, I will oppose this measure, Mr. Speaker, because I truly believe that defeat and an American failure in Iraq is not an option that we can consider.
PENCE, MIKE: And I truly believe, with great respect to my colleagues who would endorse this proposal for a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq by April 1 of next year, I truly believe that, before we make
PENCE, MIKE: any decision adjusting our strategy on the ground, we ought to wait to hear from those Americans on the ground in Iraq who have been charged with implementing the strategy the President put into effect in January.
PENCE, MIKE: But I want to reiterate, and I think I speak for many Republicans, Mr. Speaker, as the President said in January, our commitment to this Iraqi Government is not open-ended. But my commitment to an
PENCE, MIKE: American and Iraqi success is deep and heartfelt. Whether this Iraqi Government can rise to that challenge or not, we must find a way, as the gentleman from Indiana in the other body said, we must
PENCE, MIKE: find a way to forge agreement to achieve success in Iraq.
PENCE, MIKE: The good news of the assessment that has come before the Congress is that we have been achieving some progress as a result of the President's surge strategy on the ground. Between May and June, 26
PENCE, MIKE: high-level al Qaeda leaders have been killed or captured.
PENCE, MIKE: I know there are some, even the gentleman who just spoke, who questioned whether we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Our soldiers don't question that. Eleven of those al Qaeda leaders killed or
PENCE, MIKE: captured were emirs, local al Qaeda leaders; seven were facilitators who smuggled foreign weapons; five were cell leaders who commanded terrorist units.
PENCE, MIKE: U.S. operations in the last 2 months, according to the reports released this week, have also uncovered an al Qaeda media network in a nondescript facility outside Samarra. U.S. forces have also, I am
PENCE, MIKE: happy to report, received 23,000 tips during this period of time, which is four to five times the number of tips we were receiving last year.
PENCE, MIKE: But, again, that goes against the backdrop of disappointing news. While the American soldier performs with courage and effectiveness, the Iraqi government still fails to demonstrate the urgency.
PENCE, MIKE:
PENCE, MIKE: I would ask the gentle lady for one more minute.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: I would yield my colleague an additional minute.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman is recognized for an additional minute.
PENCE, MIKE: So as I struggle, I would just ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who share my concerns about the lack of progress in Iraq, as to this solution you bring to the floor,
PENCE, MIKE: how will your plan for a unilateral withdrawal keep American soldiers safe?
PENCE, MIKE: We have 160,000 soldiers there now. The majority of this Congress would call for them to exit Iraq by April 1. Well, in effect it would take 3,000 large convoys, according to some press reports, to
PENCE, MIKE: evacuate the country down the one road out through Basra and into Kuwait.
PENCE, MIKE: Also I would ask, how would this plan for unilateral withdrawal decrease the number of terrorist safe havens in that country? And since al Qaeda is clearly in Iraq, how would the plan for unilateral
PENCE, MIKE: withdrawal succeed in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq?
PENCE, MIKE: Lastly, I say as the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee, how will a withdrawal, a precipitous, reckless, irresponsible withdrawal, make the Middle East safer and more stable?
PENCE, MIKE: I fear if we lose Iraq, we will lose Israel. We must come together as a Nation to find a way forward to succeed in Iraq.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Gentleman's time is expired. The Gentleman from California is recognized.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman from New York is recognized for two minutes.
ENGEL, ELIOT: I thank the gentleman, my distinguished friend, the chairman, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, it's time to get our troops out of the middle of an Iraqi civil war. It's time to
ENGEL, ELIOT: start bringing our troops home.
ENGEL, ELIOT: My friends on the other side of the aisle are essentially saying ``stay the course.'' At what point, I would ask my friends, do we say that the administration's policies in Iraq have failed and it is
ENGEL, ELIOT: time to change course? I think that time is now.
ENGEL, ELIOT: Even the Bush administration's interim assessment of whether the Iraqis are meeting basic benchmarks shows that they have failed to achieve any level of political and economic success. Here we are in
ENGEL, ELIOT: the fifth year of the war, longer than World War II, more than half a trillion dollars and 3,600 American lives lost, and Iraqi politicians seem further apart than ever. Indeed, the evidence that our
ENGEL, ELIOT: soldiers are involved in an Iraqi civil war is mounting and a solution seems even further from our grasp.
ENGEL, ELIOT: Young American service personnel cannot solve the problem of Iraq, because, ultimately, Iraq is not a military problem anymore; it is a political crisis. And if the Iraqis cannot solve their
ENGEL, ELIOT: political problems, we cannot do it for them. Only Iraqi politicians can bring about a solution, and our military personnel should not be dying to hold together the collapsed Iraqi state.
ENGEL, ELIOT: Mr. Speaker, this war has turned into a great strategic fiasco, from the lack of planning to insufficient number of troops, to incompetent management of reconstruction projects, to the use of torture
ENGEL, ELIOT: in military prisons. Our blunder in Iraq will affect our ability to succeed in the Middle East and elsewhere for years to come.
ENGEL, ELIOT: Therefore, I strongly support this bill, which requires that we begin redeploying American troops home within 120 days of enactment and ending by April 1, 2008. I yield back the balance of my time.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from Florida.
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: I appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Western
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA: Hemisphere of our Foreign Affairs Committee.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
BURTON, DAN: I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
BURTON, DAN: You know, the things that are being said today, if George Washington had had television and radio and newspapers, would have been said about him. Several of his generals wanted him out because he
BURTON, DAN: wasn't winning battles and things were going wrong. Even in the Congress of the United States, Lee of Virginia led the charge to try to get rid of George Washington during the Revolutionary War.
BURTON, DAN: Abraham Lincoln, McClellan, one of his chief generals, who wouldn't fight, ran against him for President, and Lincoln was going to be defeated if Sherman hadn't taken Atlanta.
BURTON, DAN: War is not a popular thing. It's a horrible thing. Chairman Lantos was a survivor of the camps during the Holocaust during World War II. I would like to ask you a question: What would have happened
BURTON, DAN: if we hadn't won that war? How many more Jewish people would have been killed in those camps? Millions more. Six million died, but many millions more probably would have died if Hitler had prevailed.
BURTON, DAN: But we had Winston Churchill, who was willing to go to the mat to make sure that they didn't win and that he was going to defeat Hitler.
BURTON, DAN: If we pull out unilaterally like they're talking about right now, we leave those people over there who voted and held their fingers up, we leave those people to their fate with these people who are
BURTON, DAN: radicals, who are going to take over.
BURTON, DAN: Iran has camps. Senator Lieberman talked about that. They have training camps right there along the border. They are sending terrorists in to help augment the terrorists in Iraq. And if
BURTON, DAN: weunilaterally pull out, just like you're talking about, those people who voted , who voted for freedom and democracy, many, many, many of those will die, maybe even more than who have been dying in
BURTON, DAN: Darfur, and you have been talking about how important it is that we do something in Darfur.
BURTON, DAN: A vacuum will be created, and Iran will fill it. They will not stop their nuclear development program, and we will be imperiled down the road from their nuclear development program because they'll
BURTON, DAN: have a real jumping-off point throughout the Middle East, not just in Iran but in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan, if many of you have your way.
BURTON, DAN: I don't know why we're not waiting on General Petraeus' report. We just gave him authority and gave him the money to pursue this until he reports back in September. I don't understand why we're
BURTON, DAN: jumping the gun and trying to force withdrawal right now when General Petraeus, who talked to all of us, has not had a chance to succeed.
BURTON, DAN: 61 million people died in World War II, 6 million Jews; 61 million. In this nuclear age, if we pull in our horns and let Iran run wild over there, which they will, and they develop their nuclear
BURTON, DAN: program, how many millions could die in this country as well as around the world? I think, I submit to you it probably would be more than 61 million.
BURTON, DAN: In the United States, if we pull out like you're talking about, we'll probably have to go back in to stop them from developing that nuclear capability and stop them from training these people to go
BURTON, DAN: in and terrorize not only Iran and also Iraq and other places in the Middle East. That s a tinderbox over there and we have to make the right decision.
BURTON, DAN: Every President who has been in a war has been criticized by Congress at one time or another. Every single President, unless it was a very short war where you were in for 5 or 6 days or a couple of
BURTON, DAN: months. This is no exception.
BURTON, DAN: Have mistakes been made? You bet. Were mistakes made in World War II? Eight hundred guys drowned in a mock Normandy invasion off the coast of England. If we had television then and the newspapers we
BURTON, DAN: have today, we would never have invaded Normandy because they would have stopped it just like that because of criticism of those 800 guys drowning to death. They would have said it wouldn't have
BURTON, DAN: worked; it wasn't feasible.
BURTON, DAN: This is a very, very important issue we are talking about. Our brave soldiers are doing their job over there. And they watch on television right now, and what are they hearing? Pull out, pull out,
BURTON, DAN: pull out. They are asking, What are we fighting for if the Congress is going to jerk us out right now? And we have heard from a lot of them who say, hey, we're doing the job, and we're doing better right now.
BURTON, DAN: I just think we ought to think very long and hard about what we're doing. It could effect a world war. We're in a world war against al Qaeda right now, but it could be a much more devastating war if
BURTON, DAN: we don't make the right decisions. And I'd just like to say to my colleagues that I think it's extremely important that you think long and hard about what you're trying to do. Nobody likes war. Nobody likes war.