Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Missouri.
Ike Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan),
Ike Skelton: who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Armed Services Committee.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
Marty Meehan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Marty Meehan: With all due respect to my friend from New Mexico, I want to make the point that this resolution does not do anything to stop funding for the troops.
Marty Meehan: As a matter of fact, it was this administration that sent 140,000 troops into harm's way without up-armoring Humvees.
Marty Meehan: There is nothing in this to cut funding for the troops.
Marty Meehan: But this administration sent 140,000 troops into harm's way without up-armored Humvees, without Kevlar vests.
Marty Meehan: And what did Secretary Rumsfeld say?
Marty Meehan: He said you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wish you had.
Marty Meehan: We are the United States of America.
Marty Meehan: We should never go into harm's way, never go into harm's way, without uparmored Humvees and Kevlar vests.
Marty Meehan: The Washington Post did a front page piece just the other day.
Marty Meehan: It says that we still don't have the most effective up-armored Humvees that are available in the United States.
Marty Meehan: It is not acceptable.
Marty Meehan: It is inexcusable and indefensible.
Marty Meehan: I will be going to Iraq in a few days.
Marty Meehan: I expect to see a country, unfortunately, that has gotten worse and worse in terms of the level of violence than the one I visited in 2003 and in January of 2005.
Marty Meehan: When I came back in January of 2005 I presented a strategy, a white paper, entitled "Iraq: The Light at the End of the Tunnel."
Marty Meehan: Many of those recommendations were included in a bipartisan Iraq Study Group with distinguished experts on foreign policy and military affairs.
Marty Meehan: They didn't call for more troops in Iraq.
Marty Meehan: What they called for was for America to go into the background.
Marty Meehan: The simple facts bear out a true grim reality.
Marty Meehan: We are told that we are going to rebuild the country's infrastructure.
Marty Meehan: But here are the facts.
Marty Meehan: Iraq has less electricity than it did before the war.
Marty Meehan: Residents of Baghdad get 41/2 hours of electricity now, one-quarter of what they expected before the war.
Marty Meehan: We were told that oil revenues would pay the entire cost of the way.
Marty Meehan: But here are the facts.
Marty Meehan: Iraq produces less oil today than it did before the war.
Marty Meehan: Instead of funding the war, oil is turned out at about half the rate than it was when Saddam was in power.
Marty Meehan: The bad news continues.
Marty Meehan: Skyrocketing unemployment, decreasing levels of drinkable water and a security situation that has deteriorated into a full-blown civil war.
Marty Meehan: Now the President wants, in face of the recommendations of experts, to send 21,500 more troops into this situation.
Marty Meehan: Does the President really think that the surge will stabilize the security system long enough to undo all the failures of the last 4 years?
Marty Meehan: I cannot honestly believe that this is the best strategy and the collective wisdom of the Department of Defense, of the State Department and of the intelligence community.
Marty Meehan: You know what I see?
Marty Meehan: I see a President who seems to be desperate to divert attention away from the missteps, away from holding people accountable,
Marty Meehan: and to just hold on to Iraq as long as he can and let the next administration deal with it.
Marty Meehan: When I watched his speech, when I listened to Secretary Gates describe it, I saw nothing that gave me the impression that the escalation would do any good in the long term.
Marty Meehan: When we need to encourage them, Shias, Sunnis and Kurds, instead we are alienating.
Marty Meehan: When we need to be standing up Iraqi security forces so our men and women can stand down, instead we are undercutting.
Marty Meehan: When we need to be engaging Iraq's neighbors, instead we are on a war path with Iran.
Marty Meehan: We need to fundamentally change our approach in Iraq, and this plan is more of the same.
Marty Meehan: I admit that the escalation we are debating will accomplish a number of things.
Marty Meehan: It will endanger more American lives.
Marty Meehan: It will continue to erode our national security.
Marty Meehan: It will continue around the world to keep America up front in the war in Iraq, creating more terrorists and more insurgents, not less.
Marty Meehan: It will deplete our military's resources, which are already stretched to the limit.
Marty Meehan: And this plan will again ask our soldiers and marines to leave their families and return to the war zone that they have just left.
Marty Meehan: I stand here today with a simple message: Mr. President, the American people want a policy that changes direction.
Marty Meehan: We urge you to rethink this policy of escalating the war in Iraq.
Speaker pro tempore: Gentleman the time has expired.
Speaker pro tempore: Why does the gentleman from Arizona rise?
Speaker pro tempore: [Rick Renzi] I yield my such time as I may consume, I begin by yielding as much time as the gentlelady from New Mexico needs to respond.
Heather Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Massachusetts who has given his comments about the resolution and the support for the troops we are deploying,
Heather Wilson: Thank you.
Heather Wilson: would join me in a unanimous concept request to amend the resolution to express our intent
Heather Wilson: and the intent of this House to support those in the U.S. Armed Forces who are serving and who will serve in Iraq.
Mart Meehan: If I may, we have supported the troops.
Mart Meehan: In fact, if it were not for this Congress working in a bipartisan way with Republicans and Democrats, we never would have gotten up-armored Humvees into the field.
Mart Meehan: We never would have gotten Kevlar vests.
Heather Wilson: Reclaiming my time, this is exactly my point, is the gentleman will not support those who are deploying, and the resolution does not do so.
Heather Wilson: I thank my colleague from Arizona for the time.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Arizona.
Rick Renzi: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California.
Speaker pro tempore: Gentleman is recognized.
Duncan Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I just wanted to address a point that my friend from Massachusetts just made.
Duncan Hunter: He said that we always need to have up-armored Humvees in any war that we enter into.
Duncan Hunter: We had at the end of the Clinton administration about 112, as I recall, up-armored Humvees, only for VIPs and for diplomats.
Duncan Hunter: We have today 15,000 up-armored 114s.
Duncan Hunter: This is the first war in our history since the beginning of this country in which we have had up-armored tactical vehicles.
Duncan Hunter: With respect to the SAPI vests, that is, the bulletproof vests and body armor that our troops wear, we had at the end of the Clinton administration this many, zero pieces of body armor for our troops.
Duncan Hunter: We have today over 400,000 sets.
Duncan Hunter: That is enough sets for two sets for everybody who is in theater, and everybody has them.
Duncan Hunter: I have said for the last several years if there is anybody who has a son or daughter who does not have body armor who is in theater, call me personally at my office.
Duncan Hunter: In the last two years, I have received zero calls.
Duncan Hunter: So what we have, we feel, the new equipment, not just up-armored Humvees but body armor, which incidentally is very heavy and, to some degree, does render, does result in some degradation of mobility,
Duncan Hunter: but we have put in hundreds of new systems, weapons and equipment systems, since the year 2000 which have accrued to the benefit of our troops.
Duncan Hunter: I just wanted to set the record straight.
Duncan Hunter: I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Missouri.
Ike Skelton: I yield five minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Washington who is also a member of the Armed Services Committee (Mr. Larson).
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized.
Rick Larsen: I want to thank Chairman Skelton for yielding time, and I rise today certainly in support of this resolution.
Rick Larsen: I rise also today in support of a strong U.S. military, a military that is ready to combat terrorists and a military that is ready for the challenges of this century.
Rick Larsen: And for these reasons, I have to oppose the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq and support the resolution before us.
Rick Larsen: The President's announcement to add 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq is a step in the wrong direction.
Rick Larsen: The American public does not want an escalation of the Iraq war, especially without an explanation of what we are trying to achieve.
Rick Larsen: The President promised a new approach, but more troops does not equal a new way forward.
Rick Larsen: The United States has a choice.
Rick Larsen: We can stay in Iraq to keep a lid on Iraq's civil war or we can devote enough time and attention to fighting terrorists wherever they are
Rick Larsen: and securing a military that is prepared to protect our national security.
Rick Larsen: I choose the latter.
Rick Larsen: But at a time when we need to manage our strategic risk in the face of terrorists and nuclear uncertainty, at a time when our enemies are numerous,
Rick Larsen: unpredictable and dangerous, this administration has made the wrong choice.
Rick Larsen: I believe this approach damages our military readiness today and damages our ability to prepare for threats in the future.
Rick Larsen: This war has strained our ability to train here at home with functional equipment.
Rick Larsen: It has strained the ability of our services to recruit for the future.
Rick Larsen: It has strained our ability to prepare a defense budget that can prepare us for 21st century threats.
Rick Larsen: Every State in this Union, including Washington State, has National Guard units that are depleted.
Rick Larsen: They do not have the equipment that they need to train and are forced to leave equipment in theater, making it harder to do their job at home.
Rick Larsen: In Washington State, 90 percent of the Army National Guard and 65 percent of the Air National Guard have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and performed admirably and honorably; but at home,
Rick Larsen: they only have 55 percent of their required equipment on hand, equipment that is integral to the training of these Guardsmen.
Rick Larsen: The President's escalation plan will not solve these problems.
Rick Larsen: It will make them worse.
Rick Larsen: The President's plan will not decrease our strategic risk.
Rick Larsen: It will exacerbate it.
Rick Larsen: Units at home are struggling just to meet the training requirements necessary to deploy to Iraq.
Rick Larsen: With this escalation plan, units at home will suffer as the Army and Marine Corps are forced to take more of their equipment
Rick Larsen: to supply the additional brigades going into Iraq, depleting their training opportunities.
Rick Larsen: Equipment shortages at home are what we hear about most, but the war's effect on our prepositioned equipment abroad may be as serious a threat.
Rick Larsen: The Army relies on prepositioned sets of equipment in strategic locations around the world.
Rick Larsen: This equipment ensures that our troops are able to deploy at a moment's notice.
Rick Larsen: A large portion of this equipment has been taken to support the troop increase, increasing the chance that equipment will not be available in the case of an emerging crisis.
Rick Larsen: I personally have lost confidence in the Iraqi Government to fulfill its commitments to the United States.
Rick Larsen: I want our women and men in the military to know that we have a strategy that is worthy of their individual actions and sacrifice and that they will have the resources necessary to do their job.
Rick Larsen: But most of all, I am concerned that the President's decisions have led us away from our greatest national security threat; that is, fighting terrorists who will do us harm.
Rick Larsen: Make no mistake, while some of us support this escalation and some of us oppose it, all of us can agree on the need to support our women and men in the military,
Rick Larsen: honor their commitment, and make sure they get the resources they need to do their jobs.
Rick Larsen: I recently heard from a friend of mine who, I will conclude with this, who served in the Army Reserve in Iraq and likely he will return.
Rick Larsen: This is what he said.
Rick Larsen: "Here I am, socially and culturally aware of the greater world.
Rick Larsen: I am educated and a father of two beautiful children, children who have not been touched by war or tragedy.
Rick Larsen: People tell me I should get out of the military because I have done my part, I don't need to serve again; but I do because if not me, then whom?
Rick Larsen: I serve as an instrument of the State because I believe in the institution which is the Army and in turn with what that institution supports.
Rick Larsen: As an officer, I have a duty to provide leadership to those under my command, and if it means I give my life at the expense of my children
Rick Larsen: and all the things I love and hold so dear in life, then that is what I will have to do.
Rick Larsen: I do not seek this action blindly.
Rick Larsen: I am cognizant of the dangers inherent in soldiering and understand the risks and rewards involved.
Rick Larsen: As a soldier, I will always pray for peace, but in a time of war, I am willing to move towards the sounds of the guns.
Rick Larsen: I will fight for the Army a nd I will fight for my country, but most importantly, I will fight so others will not have to experience the mental anguish and soul-crushing reality which is war.
Rick Larsen: For in the end, I know that I can love the Army all I want, but the Army and this country will never love me back, no matter what the sacrifice.
Rick Larsen: I am at peace with this dichotomy."
Rick Larsen: We owe my friend and his brothers-in-arms the training and equipment he deserves, and we owe him a national strategy that honors our military and our safety.
Rick Larsen: That is why I ask everyone to vote for H. Con.
Rick Larsen: Res. 63 to show that this escalation is a step in the wrong direction.
Rick Larsen: I yield back
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman's time has expired.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Missouri.
Ike Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the majority leader.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized.
Steny Hoyer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Steny Hoyer: I was watching this debate from my office, and I was constrained to come to the floor.
Steny Hoyer: There are legitimate issues raised by this resolution as to whether or not you support or do not support the escalation that has been proposed by the President.
Steny Hoyer: But no one ought to hide behind the troops.
Steny Hoyer: No one ought to come to this floor and say that this Congress, 435 of us, will not support whatever soldier or sailor or marine is deployed to Iraq.
Steny Hoyer: Whether it is today or tomorrow, they will have our support.
Steny Hoyer: And when we say in this resolution they are serving, it means if they are serving, if the Commander in Chief has sent them there, we will support them.
Steny Hoyer: And very frankly, for my friend from New Mexico to come to this floor and make the representation that somehow we have limited that support to those
Steny Hoyer: who currently are on the ground is not an honest representation, in my opinion.
Steny Hoyer: There are those of us who disagree as to what supporting the troops means.
Steny Hoyer: My friend, the former chairman of the committee, just got up and said he has not gotten any calls lately, but we got a lot of calls in 2002 excuse me in 2003 and 2004 and 2005.
Steny Hoyer: And today, Chairman Murtha of the Appropriations Committee is saying we do not have the armored Humvees for these new troops that are going to be deployed or in the process of being deployed.
Steny Hoyer: So when you come to the floor, my friends, debate the substance of this policy, but do not hide behind the troops, do not assert that anybody on this floor does not have every intention
Steny Hoyer: and commitment to supporting to whatever degree necessary our young men and women and, as I have said, some not so young, who are deployed in harm's way at the point of the spear.
Steny Hoyer: Because no one in this Congress, and our troops ought to know, that no one in this Congress will not support them when they are deployed at the point of the spear.
Duncan Hunter: Will the gentleman yield?
Steny Hoyer: I will be glad to yield to my friend.
Duncan Hunter: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Duncan Hunter: The point that I made??
Steny Hoyer: I was not referring to you, my friend.
Steny Hoyer: I want to make that clear.
Duncan Hunter: I am talking about the armor issue.
Duncan Hunter: The point that I made is the idea of coming to the floor and implying that somehow there was bad faith in this government for not having the new body armor that our troops presently have to the tune
Duncan Hunter: of 400,000 sets, that somehow that was a dereliction of duty is also a disservice, not only to the former Congresses, but also to the former administrations.
Duncan Hunter: Because the last administration in the year 2000 had zero sets of body armor.
Duncan Hunter: Body armor is a new advent, it is a new system.
Duncan Hunter: We now have hundreds of new systems that we have injected into the warfighting theater.
Duncan Hunter: So the idea that we had a ragtag military moving across the berm into Iraq is also not accurate.
Duncan Hunter: And I would hope that the gentleman would admonish his colleagues who come to the floor who imply that our people went across that berm unequipped is also not accurate.
Duncan Hunter: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Steny Hoyer: I thank the gentleman for his observation.
Steny Hoyer: I am not sure the gentleman and I agree.
Steny Hoyer: I am not an expert in this area; I do not serve on the subcommittee or the committee.
Steny Hoyer: But the information that I have is that the troops that we sent in 2003 and 2004 on the ground did not have sufficient quantities of body armor for each one of them.
Steny Hoyer: Now, that may be inaccurate, and if the gentleman thinks that assertion is inaccurate I would be glad to yield.
Duncan Hunter: My point is to the gentleman.
Steny Hoyer: Is that inaccurate?
Duncan Hunter: That is inaccurate if you refer to the historic amount of body armor that our troops have had.
Steny Hoyer: Reclaiming my time.
Duncan Hunter: Then I would say, yes, that is inaccurate.
Duncan Hunter: The way the gentleman stated and if he is not going to qualify it, then that is inaccurate, because we have never had body armor until this war.
Steny Hoyer: Reclaiming my time, is the gentleman asserting that all of the troops who were in Humvees in 2003 and 2004 had armored Humvees or that they had all of the troops deployed in harm's way,
Steny Hoyer: and, by the way, being in Iraq is in harm's way wherever they may be, had sufficient body armor?
Steny Hoyer: Is that what the gentleman is asserting?
Duncan Hunter: The gentleman and I are good enough friends, if the gentleman will allow me to make a one sentence answer.
Duncan Hunter: The answer is, not since 1776 until just a few years ago have American troops in Vietnam and Korea and World War II, in any war, had what is known as ballistic body armor.
Duncan Hunter: It is a brand-new thing.
Duncan Hunter: And we have got yet new systems that we are going to be putting into the field shortly.
Duncan Hunter: So they don't have the newest and they didn't have the newest.
Duncan Hunter: They now have 400,000 sets.
Duncan Hunter: But to imply that that lack of having them from 1776 to 2000 made them into some type of an unequipped force is also not fully true.
Steny Hoyer: I thank the gentleman for his observation.
Steny Hoyer: But, of course, my assertion was not 1776 to 2000; it was 2003 and 2004.
Steny Hoyer: But the point that I will make, and if I can conclude, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time.
Steny Hoyer: The point that I wanted to make, though, is irrespective of that assertion one way or the other, I believe every one of our colleagues, whatever their view on this resolution might be,
Steny Hoyer: all 435 have every intention and will in fact do whatever they need to protect and promote the safety of our men and women in harm's way.
Steny Hoyer: And the assertion, I tell my friend, that was made by the gentlelady from New Mexico that the verbiage of this resolution says, because serving, it does not mean those who will serve, obviously,
Steny Hoyer: as soon as they are sent into theater, they are serving in Iraq and they are covered by this resolution.
Steny Hoyer: There ought to be no confusion on that issue by anybody on the floor or anybody who might be listening to this debate.
Duncan Hunter: Will the gentleman yield one last time?
Steny Hoyer: I will be glad to yield to my friend.
Duncan Hunter: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Duncan Hunter: And let me say to my friend, and I listened to the gentlewoman's discussion.
Duncan Hunter: The gentlelady is a very careful Member of Congress, and she looked at the words and she asked the question: Does this include, because it appeared that it refers,
Duncan Hunter: the equipage language refers to people who are presently there but does exclude, and she is a very careful person and I have been in markups with her and committee meetings before.
Duncan Hunter: She is very careful about wording; words mean things.
Duncan Hunter: That it doesn't refer to people who are going to be deployed by the President in the future.
Duncan Hunter: And her worry, and I think it was a sincere concern, is that people who may be sent by the President in the future may end
Duncan Hunter: up seeing a cutoff of funds, of supplies, O and M dollars, as a result of this Congress.
Duncan Hunter: So if the gentleman is assuring us that that is not going to happen, I think that is good news to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Steny Hoyer: Reclaiming my time, I am glad that it is good news.
Steny Hoyer: I will repeat: No one in this Congress, not Chairman Skelton or Chairman Murtha or any Member on this side, will take any action that will put at risk the men
Steny Hoyer: and women whom we have placed at the point of the spear in harm's way.
Steny Hoyer: I make that representation to you, that assertion, and I make it as strongly as I can possibly make it.
Steny Hoyer: This is about a policy, a policy as to whether or not we ought to send 21,000 additional people.
Steny Hoyer: And as the gentlelady from New Mexico said she herself has great reservations about that policy,
Steny Hoyer: but rationalizes voting against the resolution which opposes that policy on an assertion that I think was not correct.
Steny Hoyer: And if she wanted that clarification, I am glad that I could give it to her.
Steny Hoyer: I thank the gentleman.
Steny Hoyer: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Arizona.
Rick Renzi: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the dialogue, and I thank the gentleman from California.
Rick Renzi: I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Rick Renzi: I also could benefit from the wisdom of the gentleman from Maryland.
Rick Renzi: In defense of my neighbor from New Mexico, she articulately pointed out that the resolution also talks about the fact that the flawed language in this resolution, and I quote,
Rick Renzi: says that Congress disapproves of deploying more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
Rick Renzi: Certainly you do not disapprove of the several thousand troops that will be sent to al-Anbar province.
Rick Renzi: I mean, after all, that is where we are engaging al Qaeda, the folks who attacked us.
Rick Renzi: I mean, after all, that is where the generals are asking for those several thousand troops.
Rick Renzi: So you throw out a number of 20,000 troops.
Rick Renzi: Not all of them are going to downtown Baghdad.
Rick Renzi: Many of them are going to al-Anbar.
Rick Renzi: A funny thing about al-Anbar province and Fallujah.
Rick Renzi: The tribal authorities in that area who were with al Qaeda have now turned against al Qaeda.
Rick Renzi: They are looking to join the American forces.
Rick Renzi: They are looking to take advantage of this new enthusiasm, this new troop deployment.
Rick Renzi: Certainly when you put down 20,000 troops, you don't mean the 4,000 or 5,000 going to fight al Qaeda that attacked us.
Rick Renzi: Do you? Because that portion of the resolution is flawed.
Rick Renzi: I was recently in Iraq and had the honor of meeting Major General Moore.
Rick Renzi: Major General Moore reminded me, "Al Qaeda is a hyena waiting in the dark, ready to rip apart innocent Americans.
Rick Renzi: And they are coming.
Rick Renzi: We need to be lions, fiercely defending our people, ferocious in the face of enemy."
Rick Renzi: You know, unfortunately, this nonbinding resolution is a political whimper rather than a roar of support for our troops.
Rick Renzi: The language undermines our battlefield plans, it fails to offer any alternatives, it offers no hope, encourages no victory, and contains no solutions.
Rick Renzi: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a cruel message to our brave soldiers on the front lines and it undermines their fighting spirit and their morale.
Rick Renzi: It pushes for an abrupt exit to Iraq, sidesteps the dire consequences of leaving Iraq, not just of the country but of the people.
Rick Renzi: On a recent trip to Baghdad I was stunned by the honorable Iraqi families who live in the Sunni-Shia fault line neighborhoods,
Rick Renzi: families who have lived together despite ethnic differences and religious differences.
Rick Renzi: These are neighborhoods that are a model for religious tolerance.
Rick Renzi: Can you imagine enduring religious bigotry and living peacefully alongside a different Muslim sect, and yet in exchange for your moderation and understanding your family is hunted,
Rick Renzi: you are forced to move by armed militia at gunpoint, and these are the same radicals that pursue and round up your husbands and your sons and torture them and kill them?
Rick Renzi: And then you are left as a single mother in downtown Baghdad with children, and all you have to hold on to is a fledgling government and American soldiers,
Rick Renzi: these same American soldiers that are already deployed and being sent and are already on their way to Baghdad to protect your home and your children's future.
Rick Renzi: And yet this morning you awake in Baghdad, you await the news of politicians in Washington arguing about taking away this little bit of security that you have.
Rick Renzi: And if you can't imagine that, and a lot us have traveled together who have been to the Iran-Iraq border, go with me to al-Kut,
Rick Renzi: where we are developing evidence of Iran's active engagement in exporting weapons and money and support for radical Islamists.
Rick Renzi: Could the news be true that the Americans are talking about leaving the border, about leaving the several hundred El Salvadoran and multinational forces that are serving there with us?
Rick Renzi: Those are the El Salvadorans from our own hemisphere.
Rick Renzi: These are the El Salvadorans that survived death squads in their own country.
Rick Renzi: These are the El Salvadorans who will return home.
Rick Renzi: And what will they say about America?
Rick Renzi: Did we leave too soon?
Rick Renzi: Did we leave that border unguarded?
Rick Renzi: Did we turn it over to the Iranians?
Rick Renzi: Did we allow that little city called al-Kut to revert back to the city named "Little Teheran"?
Rick Renzi: You know, The State Department has warned us that a retreat of American military forces at this time could trigger ethnic cleansing.
Rick Renzi: The resulting humanitarian crisis could be one of the worst in the region, and genocide could trigger a refugee exodus into Jordan and Syria and the surrounding regions.
Rick Renzi: My friends, should we lose our resolve, it is likely death squads will roam and will become immediately more emboldened and more murderous,
Rick Renzi: and what is now referred to as violence in Baghdad will quickly regress into mass killings.
Rick Renzi: Mr. Speaker, genocide is what caused our involvement in the Clinton administration to put us into Bosnia.
Rick Renzi: Eventually the cry from mass slaughter of innocent civilians in Baghdad could cause us to reenter Iraq.
Rick Renzi: We need to take responsibility, all of us, for our words and our actions.
Rick Renzi: We need to understand the effect this flawed resolution has on the morale of our soldiers overseas, and the effect it will have on the desires of our allies to team with us in the future.
Rick Renzi: Finally, we need to take responsibility, all of us, for the encouragement this resolution gives to our enemies.
Rick Renzi: I was up in Bilad recently with General McCrystal.
Rick Renzi: After a long briefing and discussion, we were ready to depart the region and General McCrystal said to me, You know,
Rick Renzi: tell the folks back home that I am going to stay and fight until somebody makes me leave.
Rick Renzi: General McCrystal, today we are trying to stop that from happening until your work is done.
Rick Renzi: Mr. Speaker, the American people must demand that the authors of this resolution tell us what their better plan is for al-Anbar province.
Rick Renzi: Tell us what your better plan is for the tribal authorities who have just joined us in the fight against al Qaeda in our national interests.
Rick Renzi: Tell us, my colleagues, explain to me the consequences of withdrawing from downtown Baghdad and the slaughter that that could have on the tens of thousands of innocent families.
Rick Renzi: Tell me what we say to the Salvadorans serving with us on the Iraq-Iranian border if we are about to leave that border unguarded.
Rick Renzi: Please explain to me how this measure of discouragement, this flawed resolution, doesn't affect the performance and the morale of our troops.
Rick Renzi: Please tell me how this political debate doesn't weaken the resolve of our country to win, to endure, and to prevail.
Rick Renzi: I yield back.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Missouri.
Ike Skelton: I yield five minutes to my colleague, a fellow member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentlelady from California (Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ).
Speaker pro tempore: The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
Loretta Sanchez: Thank you genlteman and thank you Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and in opposition to the President's decision to send more of our troops to Iraq.
Loretta Sanchez: I was against this war from the onset.
Loretta Sanchez: On October 10, 2002, I was one of the few who voted against the resolution authorizing the President to use military force in Iraq.
Loretta Sanchez: But the authorization passed, and we went to war.
Loretta Sanchez: At that point we supported our troops and we wanted to win, and we want win.
Loretta Sanchez: And I have voted for every appropriation bill to give our troops what they need to achieve their mission.
Loretta Sanchez: So here we are, more than 4 years later, and what do we have to show for this war?
Loretta Sanchez: Violence in Iraq continues to skyrocket.
Loretta Sanchez: This past December was the deadliest month for Iraqi civilians since the war began.
Loretta Sanchez: Over the course of this war, 45,000 to 65,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives, maybe more; we really don't know, because nobody is counting here in America.
Loretta Sanchez: And over 3,000 brave American troops, men and women in our Armed Forces, have lost their lives.
Loretta Sanchez: My home State of California sends the most to the services.
Loretta Sanchez: We alone have lost 325 men and women in Iraq, and we have sustained about 2,500 injuries to our military personnel, more than any other State in the United States.
Loretta Sanchez: And Iraqis have paid the price.
Loretta Sanchez: Our military, their families; the families of our military are the ones sacrificing in this war.
Loretta Sanchez: They have paid the price, and our country has paid the price for this President's war.
Loretta Sanchez: Yet Iraq is less secure than ever, even before the President's "mission accomplished" declaration.
Loretta Sanchez: There is no functioning infrastructure, no banking system, zero economic stability.
Loretta Sanchez: Iraq is not secure, Baghdad is not secure.
Loretta Sanchez: The Iraq Study Group reported that the President's strategy in Iraq is failing.
Loretta Sanchez: It is failing.
Loretta Sanchez: And how does our President respond?
Loretta Sanchez: With more of the same.
Loretta Sanchez: He wants to send 21,500 more of our men and women into Iraq to carry out the same failure.
Loretta Sanchez: The President has failed to articulate what these new troops will do that is different from what has been done over the past few years.
Loretta Sanchez: What is his plan?
Loretta Sanchez: Four surges?
Loretta Sanchez: Four surges that didn't work.
Loretta Sanchez: He wants to do it again?
Loretta Sanchez: And believe me, sitting on the Armed Services Committee, I have been here to see it.
Loretta Sanchez: I was the one in the first few months who told General Franks, this is an insurgency, it is guerrilla warfare.
Loretta Sanchez: He refused to call it that.
Loretta Sanchez: I was the one that went to Iraq when General Odierno told me there were only 359 insurgents left, that we were almost there,
Loretta Sanchez: while the day before, his boss, Abizaid, had said he thought there were about 5,000.
Loretta Sanchez: That was two years ago.
Loretta Sanchez: I was there when Secretary Rumsfeld was saying we have trained 89,000; two days later, 95,000; a week later, 160,000 Iraqi Army.
Loretta Sanchez: This was two years ago.
Loretta Sanchez: Just pulling numbers out of the air, that is what they were doing to America.
Loretta Sanchez: And I was there in Iraq the day that General Petraeus, who was successful in Mosul, and then Mosul fell because he pulled his troops from there to Fallujah, and to try to take Fallujah.
Loretta Sanchez: And he said to me with tears in his eyes, We couldn't hold Mosul because we had to take the troops to go to Fallujah.
Loretta Sanchez: At that point he said, We didn't have enough troops.
Loretta Sanchez: But the President didn't listen.
Loretta Sanchez: The President fails to grasp that military action alone is not sufficient to stabilize Iraq.
Loretta Sanchez: And without a legitimate diplomatic component, there will be no end to the civil war in Iraq.
Loretta Sanchez: But the President has refused to engage the powers in the region.
Loretta Sanchez: He has outright rejected the notion of dialogue with Iran and Syria, a key suggestion from the Iraq Study Group.
Loretta Sanchez: It is not the role of Congress to command our forces.
Loretta Sanchez: That is the constitutional responsibility given to the Commander in Chief.
Loretta Sanchez: But he has to do it right.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentlelady's time has expired.
Loretta Sanchez: And we have to hold him accountable for our failures in Iraq.
Loretta Sanchez: I yield back Mr. Chairman.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentlelady's time has expired.
Speaker pro tempore: Who seeks recognition?
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from California
Duncan Hunter: Thank you Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak for a couple of minutes and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized.
Speaker pro tempore: Will the gentleman suspend momentarily.
Speaker pro tempore: The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings
Speaker pro tempore: or other audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from California may proceed.
Duncan Hunter: Mr. Speaker, thank you, and I wanted to take this couple of minutes to expand on my conversation with the majority leader.
Duncan Hunter: Mr. Speaker, it has been said a number of times that we went over the berm and went into Iraq without body armor.
Duncan Hunter: In fact, no American troops until just a couple of years ago, from the time that we were first a Nation and deployed military forces on our homeland or around the world, in all those years,
Duncan Hunter: in that entire history of the United States, we never had body armor.
Duncan Hunter: I never had body armor in Vietnam.
Duncan Hunter: Nobody ever saw it.
Duncan Hunter: We had no body armor in Korea.
Duncan Hunter: We had no body armor in World War II, except perhaps in very, very specialized operations where perhaps specialized custom-made body armor, that is,
Duncan Hunter: bulletproof armor would be manufactured for some special forces teams or special operations.
Duncan Hunter: Now, I have in front of me a comparison.
Duncan Hunter: This comparison is between a soldier in 1999, at the end of the last administration and the equipment that he has, and a soldier today.
Duncan Hunter: Now, as you can see, this is a soldier in 1999.
Duncan Hunter: He has a number of accessories.
Duncan Hunter: In fact, he has an M?16; he has a flak jacket; he has gloves; he has load-carrying equipment; he has protective goggles.
Duncan Hunter: He does have a night vision device.
Duncan Hunter: He has also got a helmet and accessories that can be utilized when he is in combat.
Duncan Hunter: Now, the soldier today has a lot more.
Duncan Hunter: That soldier has, for example, instead of an M?16, he has an M?4 carbine.
Duncan Hunter: He has now body armor, including an outer tactical vest body armor.
Duncan Hunter: He has enhanced small arms protective inserts, called SAPI plates.
Duncan Hunter: He has deltoid auxillary protection and side plates.
Duncan Hunter: He has knee pads.
Duncan Hunter: He has more sophisticated aiming equipment and night vision equipment than his counterpart of just a couple of years ago.
Duncan Hunter: My point is that whenever new systems are introduced into the force, and the first thousand or so systems or several thousand systems go into the force and a battalion
Duncan Hunter: or even a brigade has those pieces of equipment, you can by definition say that everybody else that doesn't have them is now deficient in equipment.
Duncan Hunter: In fact, they are not deficient in equipment.
Duncan Hunter: This point was made by a leader in the 101st Airborne who pointed out that one of his battalions that they looked at,
Duncan Hunter: which was rated the top level of readiness, that is C?1 readiness, ready to go, ready to fight, in 1999.
Duncan Hunter: If you took all of the new equipment that troops have today and put that new equipment on as a requirement for that same battle-ready battalion in 1999, they would be rendered C?4,
Duncan Hunter: or unready for battle by definition because they don't have the new equipment.
Duncan Hunter: So I think one thing we need to do, as we lean on the Army, the Marine Corps, and the other services to move equipment into the field quickly, let's not penalize them,
Duncan Hunter: and when they move the first several thousand sets into the field, let's not say, Congratulations,
Duncan Hunter: you've just rendered on paper the rest of your units unready because they don't have the new stuff you're moving in.
Duncan Hunter: That will have a chilling effect on what is already a very cumbersome process and a very steep bureaucracy to get through in terms of moving equipment to the field.
Duncan Hunter: I wanted to just make that point.
Duncan Hunter: What I would like to do at this point is yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized.
Randy Forbes: Thank you Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon among a sea of voices that I quickly confess I do not understand.
Randy Forbes: Now, some of them are my friends and some of them are very good people and I don't want to make any mistake about it.
Randy Forbes: I understand the pressures they are under.
Randy Forbes: I understand what it is like when you have major news media outlets who will not even take individuals who attack innocent civilians
Randy Forbes: in the United States and destroy our property and they won't even call them terrorists.
Randy Forbes: I understand the pressure when they control much of the media that we get across the country.
Randy Forbes: I also understand what it is like, Mr. Speaker, when we have Web sites that are filled with hate, that spew poison out throughout all of our congressional districts,
Randy Forbes: and I understand the pressure that we get when we have people who don't want to listen but simply want to scream, who stand outside and protest at our offices.
Randy Forbes: I understand those pressures.
Randy Forbes: What I don't understand is the response that I am seeing here today on this floor.
Randy Forbes: Just a few years ago, I had the privilege of traveling with then Speaker Denny Hastert to the 60th anniversary of one
Randy Forbes: of the greatest military achievements the United States has ever seen, and that was the invasion of Normandy.
Randy Forbes: Almost every historian agrees it was the battle that literally saved the world.
Randy Forbes: It was of particular importance to me because my dad had died just a few months before and he was there during World War II.
Randy Forbes: Mr. Speaker, I sat that day in the sun among a sea of heroes who didn't come up to the microphone and pound the desk and they didn't speak in shrill voices.
Randy Forbes: They sat with quiet silence because they had done the hard work and they had literally saved the world.
Randy Forbes: And after that ceremony, I had the honor of just walking with them, in the same presence with them, as we walked down on the beach at Omaha Beach and stood there literally speechless
Randy Forbes: as the military historians first told us that that was a victory that didn't necessarily have to be a victory, that we could have easily lost that battle.
Randy Forbes: And if we had lost Omaha Beach, we would have lost that invasion.
Randy Forbes: If we had lost that invasion, Germany would have signed a treaty and Europe would have looked much different than it looks today.
Randy Forbes: And they told us about the guns that were pointed up and down Omaha Beach,
Randy Forbes: huge cannons and the machine guns locked on the front that created virtually killing fields for our young men that would have to come on that beachhead.
Randy Forbes: And then, Mr. Speaker, they told us about the very first Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Frederick Morgan, who had warned against doing exactly what we are doing today when he said this:
Randy Forbes: "Do not have efforts that end in the production of nothing but paper, but we must contrive to produce action, not paper, if our goal is victory, not defeat."
Randy Forbes: And then Mr. Speaker, they described how when General Eisenhower, one of the most beloved generals of our time,
Randy Forbes: when he was strategizing that great vision, his own generals disagreed with him on many issues.
Randy Forbes: In fact, some of them threatened to quit because there were different strategies.
Randy Forbes: Some said don't go today, some said go today, some said do it a different way.
Randy Forbes: But then as they watched that invasion, greatest victory of all times, let me tell you what happened early that morning.
Randy Forbes: Our airborne men, some of them were dropped into the flooded lowlands, and they drowned without a bullet ever being fired on them because we dropped them in the wrong places.
Randy Forbes: Some of them were dropped in the midst of German positions, and they were captured or they were killed.
Randy Forbes: Less than a half of the 82nd Airborne's gliders ever reached their assigned landing fields.
Randy Forbes: By early morning, 4,000 men of the 82nd and 60 percent of their equipment was unaccounted for.
Randy Forbes: Mr. Speaker the high seas that day swamped many of our boats, and we lost our radios in the bottom of the sea, and only three out of 16 of our bulldozers survived.
Randy Forbes: But what was worse, in the first 4 minutes we had 97 percent casualties on that beach.
Randy Forbes: The Germans were elated.
Randy Forbes: Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to this debate, I could only think what would happen if the leadership controlling this floor had been
Randy Forbes: on the command ships sitting off of Omaha Beach, because you and I know what would have happened.
Randy Forbes: One by one, they would could came up to the podium, they would have grabbed a microphone, they would have pounded, and they would have looked at all the things that happened.
Randy Forbes: At the end of all that, do you know what it would have resulted in?
Randy Forbes: It would have had a note that they would have passed to the 29th Division, and those young boys on that beach, some of them 17, 18, 19 years old,
Randy Forbes: who were hunkered down on that beach in the sand, some of them paralyzed with fear not knowing what to do.
Randy Forbes: And that note would have said, we love you, we support you, we just want to let you know we disagree with the action that you are taking.
Randy Forbes: We don't know what to tell you, we just disagree with the action that got you here.
Randy Forbes: But fortunately Mr. Speaker, that was not the leadership that governed that day.
Randy Forbes: The leadership that governed that day was people like Brigadier General Cota who went up and down that beach and he looked at those young boys and he said, essentially, don't look at the beach.
Randy Forbes: Don't look at the bullets that are flying here at you, because if you do you are going to die on this beach and you are going to lose everything you believed in.
Randy Forbes: What he told them to do, he said, Look at that hill.
Randy Forbes: We have got to take that hill.
Randy Forbes: He said, Rangers, lead the way.
Randy Forbes: Americans, lead the way.
Randy Forbes: You know what?
Randy Forbes: They took that hill, and they won the greatest military victory in the history of this country.
Randy Forbes: And as a result, they saved the world.
Randy Forbes: Mr. Speaker, I hope and I pray that we will continue to birth voices that say don't look down, don't look at the mistakes, look at that hill.
Randy Forbes: We have got to take this hill, and we have got to save the world from this threat of terrorism that so threatens us.
Randy Forbes: THank you Mr. speaker I yield back.
Speaker pro tempore: Who seeks recognition ?
Speaker pro tempore: Gentleman from Missouri.
Ike SKelton: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time that has been consumed and the time remaining, please?
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Missouri has 3 hours, 3 minutes remaining.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from California has 3 hours and 4 minutes remaining.
Ike Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized.
Ike Skelton: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that this debate is about so many things other than the resolution that is before us.
Ike Skelton: Simple, straightforward, in plain English language, two points.
Ike Skelton: The first is, we in this Congress fully support those wonderful young men and women in uniform.
Ike Skelton: Secondly, we do not agree with the addition of 21,500 troops into Iraq.
Ike Skelton: That is what we ought to be debating.
Ike Skelton: I listened to my good friend from Virginia speak of Normandy, I was there with him.
Ike Skelton: I saw my friend, Dr. Tommy MacDonnell, with a worn Purple Heart and a Cluster and his Silver Star in his uniform that day.
Ike Skelton: Great memories, great American victory.
Ike Skelton: But what in the world is the debate involving other battles, other days, other conditions, when we ought to be talking about this?
Ike Skelton: This is a simple, straightforward debate.
Ike Skelton: I yield five minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Armed Services Committee (Mr. Marshall).
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for five minutes.
Jim Marshall: I thank the gentleman.
Jim Marshall: Mr. Speaker, we are debating today a nonbinding resolution to disapprove the Iraqi-American military surge in Baghdad.
Jim Marshall: We do so knowing Congress cannot manage a war, let alone micromanage one.
Jim Marshall: We do so knowing the surge has begun, and we will continue despite our debate and vote.
Jim Marshall: We do so hoping our debate will not discourage those called upon to execute the surge, but we also do so knowing that it might.
Jim Marshall: Mr. Speaker, that is enough for me to oppose the resolution.
Jim Marshall: I will vote "no" on the anti-surge resolution, despite the fact that for three years now I have consistently contended that we should have fewer troops in Iraq, not more.
Jim Marshall: Clearly, the surge is inconsistent with my general view with how to make our effort in Iraq sustainable and winnable.
Jim Marshall: But the anti-surge resolution is akin to sitting on the sidelines and booing in the middle of our own team's play because we don't like the coach's call.
Jim Marshall: I cannot join mid-play naysaying that might discourage even one of those engaged in this current military effort in Baghdad.
Jim Marshall: To those soldiers and marines who are engaged Mr.Speaker, I would say the following.
Jim Marshall: Don't be discouraged by this debate and vote.
Jim Marshall: It is birthed by the very democracy that you are defending.
Jim Marshall: If you are successful, Iraqis may one day enjoy the same right to debate and vote like we are debating and voting.
Jim Marshall: If they do, they may well look back at you as having birthed that right for them.
Jim Marshall: Nearly 40 years ago, I was a grunt platoon sergeant in Vietnam, a kid who dropped out of college and enlisted specifically to go to Vietnam.
Jim Marshall: And at the very time that I was fighting insurgents in Vietnam, our country was torn by antiwar protests and debate.
Jim Marshall: I didn't worry about that.
Jim Marshall: You should not either.
Jim Marshall: I didn't let it discourage me.
Jim Marshall: You should not let it discourage you.
Jim Marshall: You should simply do your duty and be proud of the fact that you have done it.
Jim Marshall: Do it to the best of your ability.
Jim Marshall: I made tons of mistakes, failed many, many times to do what I should have done.
Jim Marshall: But do what you can to discharge your duty on behalf of the country and let others, the President and the Congress, debate what that duty actually is.
Jim Marshall: There are legitimate differences of opinion in the United States among the leadership concerning the best way forward in Iraq, how to get to the best possible result.
Jim Marshall: Don't worry about that.
Jim Marshall: No doubt you have your own ideas.
Jim Marshall: I certainly did when I was in Vietnam.
Jim Marshall: While in combat in Vietnam, I was convinced that the tactics that we were using needed to be dramatically changed.
Jim Marshall: But, nevertheless, I continued to do the best I could as I was instructed to do.
Jim Marshall: I gave a eulogy for Sergeant Victor Anderson of the Georgia National Guard about two years ago, 39 years old, disqualified because of diabetes when the National Guard was called up.
Jim Marshall: He fought his disqualification, he went to Iraq.
Jim Marshall: The week before he died, hit by an IED, he saw some of his men killed.
Jim Marshall: He sent an e-mail back to his family.
Jim Marshall: In that e-mail, he explained this, people ask me why I fight.
Jim Marshall: I do not fight for some ideology.
Jim Marshall: I fight for that man to my left and the one to my right.
Jim Marshall: They are men of their honor.
Jim Marshall: When called, they responded and did their duty.
Jim Marshall: They did not run away.
Jim Marshall: If you believe in nothing else, believe in them.
Jim Marshall: It is that kind of spirit that I hope you have.
Jim Marshall: I hope, in fact, that I can look at you when you come back from Iraq and be as proud of you as I am of so many others who have fought for us in Iraq and elsewhere.
Jim Marshall: I am a good bit older.
Jim Marshall: It has been 40 years since I was in combat.
Jim Marshall: When I look back at combat, I remember the things that I failed.
Jim Marshall: I forget the things that went particularly well.
Jim Marshall: Don't fail, do as well as you can.
Jim Marshall: Don't be discouraged by this debate, and we will continue to have additional debates.
Jim Marshall: There will be laws, et cetera, passed.
Jim Marshall: Just do your duty as best you can.
Jim Marshall: Thank u mr, sp, i yild b
Speaker pro tempore: who seeks recognition?
Speaker pro tempore: Gentleman from Colorado.
Mark Udall: r.
Mark Udall: Speaker, I yield myself five minutes.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
Mark Udall: Mr. Speaker, I want to also acknowledge Mr. Marshall and the powerful sentiments he just shared with all of us.
Mark Udall: Mr. Speaker, this debate is long overdue.
Mark Udall: It is our first extended and substantive debate on the war in Iraq since Congress gave the President the authority to invade more than 4 years ago.
Mark Udall: But if we do nothing more than debate the President's escalation plan,
Mark Udall: we will not keep faith with the American people who rightly expect this new Congress to bring our costly involvement in Iraq to a close.
Mark Udall: And while the resolution before us is largely symbolic and nonbinding, it can be, I think it should be, the opening part of a longer,
Mark Udall: thoughtful debate about our long-term national interests not only Iraq but the entire Middle East.
Mark Udall: So this resolution is a start.
Mark Udall: And I will vote for it because I agree with the message it sends.
Mark Udall: The resolution expresses disapproval of the President's sending more troops to Iraq, an action that is contrary to the wise advice of the Iraq Study Group,
Mark Udall: critical members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and experienced military commanders like former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Mark Udall: The President's escalation is most likely too small to be effective, and adopting new counterinsurgency tactics comes two years too late.
Mark Udall: The resolution, in my opinion, represents the correct response to these facts.
Mark Udall: It expresses support for our brave men and women in uniform, but disagreement with the policy of military escalation.
Mark Udall: Mr. Speaker, as we speak here today, the death toll in Iraq rises, and the war continues to drain our national Treasury,
Mark Udall: stretch our Armed Forces, and weaken our capacity to effectively counter Islamic terrorism.
Mark Udall: Congress needs to send the message that things must change.
Mark Udall: I opposed the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, and I have never once regretted that vote.
Mark Udall: But today we must focus on the future.
Mark Udall: We cannot move the clock back, but we need to avoid making a bad situation worse.
Mark Udall: We should not be scaling up our military mission in Iraq, we should be scaling back.
Mark Udall: We need to make the U.S. military footprint lighter, not in order to hasten defeat or failure in Iraq, but to salvage a critical measure of security
Mark Udall: and stability in a region of the world that we can ill afford to abandon.
Mark Udall: As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I know about the pressures on our active duty and National Guard and Reserve soldiers.
Mark Udall: They lack enough equipment and training.
Mark Udall: They are experiencing multiple or extended deployments and limited time at home between deployments.
Mark Udall: But to be successful our men and women must be properly trained, equipped, and ready to deploy worldwide quickly.
Mark Udall: Shortfalls in personnel, equipment, or training increases the risk to our troops and to their mission.
Mark Udall: In short, this administration's policies have brought us to the point where we not only cannot sustain an escalation in Iraq, but also we are not fully prepared for other contingencies.
Mark Udall: But that is not the only reason I oppose the escalation.
Mark Udall: I do not think the President's rationale for it makes sense, no matter our readiness levels.
Mark Udall: The just-released National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq agrees that the term "civil war" accurately describes what is happening in Iraq,
Mark Udall: and suggests that the conflict may in fact be worse than a civil war.
Mark Udall: Putting more Americans at risk is not a recipe for victory.
Mark Udall: And as a new Foreign Relations Council report notes, we bear responsibility for developments within Iraq, but are increasingly without the ability to shape those developments in a positive direction.
Mark Udall: So what should be the way forward?
Mark Udall: For one, I believe a reduction of military forces in Iraq and a phased redeployment of our Armed Forces to border regions like Anbar and the Kurdish areas of Iraq would be effective.
Mark Udall: That can give us flexibility to act militarily in Iraq if necessary, but will also increase the pressure on the Iraqi Government to move toward political reconciliation.
Mark Udall: I do not think an immediate withdrawal of American forces or setting a date certain for withdrawal makes sense, but neither does an open-ended commitment for American blood and treasure.
Mark Udall: And as bad as the situation is in Iraq, we must work to avoid a collapse in the region.
Mark Udall: Not only because we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq, but also because our national security has been badly compromised by the Bush administration's failures.
Mark Udall: We should adopt the main policy recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, including stronger efforts of diplomacy in the region.
Mark Udall: It is not in the interests of any nation to have Iraq descend into further civil war and chaos.
Mark Udall: As challenging as diplomacy is in the Middle East, I believe the sacrifice of our soldiers demand that we engage in serious regional talks, including those with our adversaries Syria and Iran.
Mark Udall: And finally, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced - I yield myself an additional minute
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for an additional minute.
Mark Udall: we must reach for bipartisanship in crafting our policy in Iraq.
Mark Udall: Mr. Speaker, the stakes in Iraq are very high.
Mark Udall: The outcome in this region will have consequences for future generations that will long outlive those of us who are in Congress today.
Mark Udall: Great leaders acknowledge mistakes, learn and chart a new course.
Mark Udall: For the sake of future generations and to keep faith with the generations that built America, let us be a Nation of great leaders.
Mark Udall: Thank you Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
Speaker pro tempore: Gentleman's time has expired.
Speaker pro tempore: Who seeks recognition?
Duncan Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for as much time as he may consume.
Jim Saxton: I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Jim Saxton: First, let me begin by saying that I have observed several speakers here during this debate who I am sure in good faith made the representations that they did,
Jim Saxton: that the short-term redeployment or surge was not a recommendation of the Iraq Study Group.
Jim Saxton: This is a copy of the report of the Iraq Study Group.
Jim Saxton: On page 73 there is a discussion of increasing troop levels in Iraq.
Jim Saxton: And the Iraq Study Group did in fact suggest that a substantial increase of 100,000 or 200,000 troops would likely be not a good idea.
Jim Saxton: However, they say this, and I quote.
Jim Saxton: "We could, however, support a shortterm redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad,
Jim Saxton: or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective."
Jim Saxton: And so I would say to my friends that is in fact the case.
Jim Saxton: And so I hope that that puts that matter to rest.
Jim Saxton: This resolution, I suspect, has been drawn up as a well-meaning resolution.
Jim Saxton: There have been some suggestions here today that it is political in nature.
Jim Saxton: I do not know if that is true.
Jim Saxton: But I would hope that it is a good, well-meaning resolution.
Jim Saxton: I have been here now for well over 20 years, I am in my 23rd year.
Jim Saxton: I have learned a lot about the House.
Jim Saxton: This is a great system.
Jim Saxton: We do great work here.
Jim Saxton: And we usually do it right.
Jim Saxton: Sometimes we make mistakes.
Jim Saxton: On many issues we make corrections to those mistakes.
Jim Saxton: When we pass tax bills, months later or a year later we will make some technical corrections to the tax bill, because we did not do it quite right.
Jim Saxton: And in many other cases, if we spend too much money in an appropriations bill this year, we can come back and reduce it in a future year.
Jim Saxton: But I would suggest to my friends who support this resolution that it is a start down a road; it is a start down a road that at some point could have disastrous effects.
Jim Saxton: And so we want to make sure, I am sure you want to make sure, that you get this right.
Jim Saxton: I would like to walk you through some reasons why I think that this takes us in the wrong direction.
Jim Saxton: In fact, there is a bunch of evidence to point to the fact that the enemy is watching what we are doing, that they have learned from our past mistakes,
Jim Saxton: and that they are in fact hoping that this resolution passes, for some fairly obvious reasons.
Jim Saxton: Let me go through four case studies that we have made about similar situations.
Jim Saxton: First, a situation in Lebanon.
Jim Saxton: Lebanon was a wonderful country.
Jim Saxton: It was a democracy.
Jim Saxton: It had a Parliament.
Jim Saxton: Had Christians and Muslims living together sharing power.
Jim Saxton: And in the middle 1970s, things began to change.
Jim Saxton: The big change was that fundamentalist Islam came to town and Hezbollah came to town.
Jim Saxton: And in 1975, a war erupted, which has been called a civil war.
Jim Saxton: There was the emergence of multi-sided militia groups, sectarian violence and civilian massacres.
Jim Saxton: Sounds familiar.
Jim Saxton: In 1982, the U.N. sent in a multi-national force to try to quell the violence.
Jim Saxton: And on October 23, 1983 the Marine barracks was bombed by Hezbollah with the support of Iran.
Jim Saxton: The best description of it I have heard or read comes from a description by some Navy SEALs who were sleeping in their bunker on the beach, not in the barracks.
Jim Saxton: And the magnitude of the explosion, to hear them describe it, was something to behold.
Jim Saxton: And it shocked America.
Jim Saxton: And in 1984 we withdrew our Marines.
Jim Saxton: The remainder of the peacekeeping force was gone by April of 1984.
Jim Saxton: There was no serious U.S. retaliation for the Beirut bombing.
Jim Saxton: The civil war continued until 1990.
Jim Saxton: Hezbollah emerged from a loose coalition of Shia groups and, with Iranian assistance, quickly grew into a strong fighting force in Lebanon.
Jim Saxton: That is case number one.
Jim Saxton: Case Number two.
Jim Saxton: We have got troops today in Afghanistan.
Jim Saxton: If things had happened somewhat differently a couple of decades earlier, they might not be there at all.
Jim Saxton: But in the mid-1980s the Afghan resistance builds momentum with Muslim fighters to recruit a jihad against the Soviets.
Jim Saxton: And we all have read about that resistance movement.
Jim Saxton: It was fierce, and we actually helped them.
Jim Saxton: And in 1989 the Soviets had had enough, just like we had had enough in Lebanon, and the Soviets withdrew.
Jim Saxton: From 1989 to 1992, the Afghan civil war continued until the government of Afghanistan fell.
Jim Saxton: In 1993 and 1994, the Taliban came along, and they gained power.
Jim Saxton: In 1996, Osama bin Laden moves back to Afghanistan and forges an alliance between al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Jim Saxton: Since then, we know the history very well of Afghanistan.
Jim Saxton: A void was there to be filled, and the fundamentalist Islamists filled it.
Jim Saxton: Now, I would like to turn to the third case study, the case study involving Somalia.
Jim Saxton: In 1980, the Somalia Government becomes increasingly totalitarian and resistance movements emerge across the country, which leads to a civil war in 1991.
Jim Saxton: Being great bighearted Americans, in 1992 and 1993, we decided to save the starving Somalis, and we initiated Operation Restore Hope.
Jim Saxton: In May 1993, the U.N. assumed the mission from the U.S. as an international mission.
Jim Saxton: In October of 1993 the battle for Mogadishu took place.
Jim Saxton: Eighteen Americans were killed.
Jim Saxton: The U.S. stops operations against Aidid, and in March, 1995, both U.S. and U.N. forces withdraw.
Jim Saxton: It was later confirmed that al Qaeda supported Aidid's militia.
Jim Saxton: There is evidence that the U.S. withdrawal inspired bin Laden's first bombing of the World Trade Center.
Jim Saxton: The Islamist fundamentalists filled the void once again.
Jim Saxton: Let me move to my fourth case study, the Israeli withdrawal, again, from Lebanon.
Jim Saxton: Preceding the Israeli invasion in 1982 the PLO was conducting attacks on Israel from south Lebanon.
Jim Saxton: In 1982, Israeli forces invaded southern Lebanon in response to an assassination attempt by Abu Nidal against Israel's ambassador to the U.K.
Jim Saxton: After attacking PLO, Syrian and Muslim Lebanese forces, Israel occupied southern Lebanon.
Jim Saxton: If you want to read a great account of this, read the book entitled "Because They Hate."
Jim Saxton: It is a book written by a Christian woman by the name of Brigitte Gabriel, who is now living in the U.S.,
Jim Saxton: and she tells the story of living in a bunker, living in a bunker until the war was over, not a nice thing to do.
Jim Saxton: In 1982 to 1984, the multi-national peacekeeping force came to Lebanon.
Jim Saxton: The PLO withdrawal in 1982 is replaced by a strengthening of Hezbollah.
Jim Saxton: In 1985, Israel moves to the security zone in southern Lebanon.
Jim Saxton: And in 2000, Israel withdraws.
Jim Saxton: I only need to point to the events of last summer in Lebanon to say, once again, the fundamentalist Islamists, Hezbollah, filled the void.
Jim Saxton: We are embarked today on a discussion of another potential road to withdrawal.
Jim Saxton: And I don't represent that this resolution does that, but it puts us in that direction.
Jim Saxton: Evidence of our failure to respond to terrorism has emboldened al Qaeda for years.
Jim Saxton: This withdrawal would be another one, if it goes that far.
Jim Saxton: In 1993, the World Trade Center bombing took place.
Jim Saxton: We didn't respond.
Jim Saxton: In 1996, the Khobar Tower bombings took place and we didn't respond.
Jim Saxton: In 1998, the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania occurred and we didn't respond.
Jim Saxton: In 2000, the attack on the USS Cole occurred and we didn't respond.
Jim Saxton: The result, New York City, 9/11.
Jim Saxton: People ask me why I am so concerned about this.
Jim Saxton: People ask me why,that you know, Saxton, you have been on the floor too much.
Jim Saxton: Let me show you the next chart.
Jim Saxton: This is why I am concerned.
Jim Saxton: This is my family.
Jim Saxton: When I first ran for Congress in 1984 the steering committee asked me why I wanted to be a Member of Congress.
Jim Saxton: I said, because I have had a good life.