Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Carolina.
Walter Jones: Mr. Speaker, before I introduce the next speaker, I would like to quote a military expert, General John Abizaid, former commander of the U.S. Central Command,
Walter Jones: who said during a Senate Armed Services hearing on November 15, 2006, "I believe that more American forces will prevent the Iraqis
Walter Jones: from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."
Walter Jones: General Abizaid is not in favor of this surge.
Walter Jones: He is a military expert.
Walter Jones: This time I would yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Delaware is recognized for 6 minutes.
Michael Castle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina for yielding to me.
Michael Castle: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the Iraq war, one of my foremost concerns has been the long-term stability of the Middle East,
Michael Castle: and the potential impact that chaos in this region could have on our security.
Michael Castle: Our men and women in the United States military, among the hundreds of Delawarians, are doing extraordinary work under very complex and difficult circumstances.
Michael Castle: We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.
Michael Castle: Notwithstanding the heroic efforts of our military personnel, the Iraqi Government has been unable to overcome the constant instability and sectarian violence that has marked much of the last 4 years.
Michael Castle: We have increased top levels in the past, including Fallujah in 2004, and Baghdad this past July, with mixed results.
Michael Castle: Despite the incredible efforts of our brave solders, it is clear to me that an increase in American forces alone cannot resolve this conflict.
Michael Castle: Therefore, I will support this resolution, because I believe that the surge will be unsuccessful without a comprehensive diplomatic strategy
Michael Castle: to engage the international community and turn responsibility over to the Iraqi Government.
Michael Castle: That being said, I am disappointed that today's discussion has been structured in such a way that Members are limited solely to an up-or-down vote on the troop increases.
Michael Castle: On Friday, after Congress passes this resolution, we will still lack the strategy necessary to stabilize the Middle East and bring our soldiers home.
Michael Castle: This Congress owes the American people a truly complete and comprehensive discourse regarding our future in Iraq.
Michael Castle: The situation facing our soldiers is extremely complex, and it is unfortunate that the Democratic resolution fails to accurately reflect that reality.
Michael Castle: In December, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group presented a comprehensive blueprint to achieve stability in the region
Michael Castle: and transfer responsibility over to the Iraqi Government, which I have in my hand and I went back and reread this week.
Michael Castle: I would encourage everyone to reread it.
Michael Castle: In my opinion, one of the important recommendations made by the group was to call for a robust diplomatic effort to stabilize Iraq and ease tensions in the region.
Michael Castle: In fact, some of our Nation's greatest military minds, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell,
Michael Castle: have joined the group in recommending that every country with an interest in averting a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq's neighbors, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
Michael Castle: Kuwait, Iran and Syria among them, participate in this important dialogue.
Michael Castle: The group also recommended that we engage the United Nations Security Council, the European Union and other international institutions in launching this new diplomatic offensive.
Michael Castle: The intensive diplomacy recommended by the Iraq Study Group should be familiar to all of us who remember the Cold War.
Michael Castle: One of the best examples of this approach to diplomacy was evident when a week after President Reagan asked General Secretary Gorbachev to "tear
Michael Castle: down this Wall," he sent his administration to Moscow for diplomatic talks.
Michael Castle: The Iraq Study Group's recommendations are by no means a panacea.
Michael Castle: But their report does represent a new path forward, based on the pragmatic style of diplomacy that helped us win the Cold War.
Michael Castle: For this reason, I have joined Congressman Frank Wolf and some of my colleagues in introducing legislation that endorses the Iraq Study Group's call for an integrated diplomatic initiative.
Michael Castle: In focusing on a true strategy for achieving stability in Iraq, this resolution seeks to improve our global standing
Michael Castle: and concentrate our efforts on funding an end game based on a genuine commitment to diplomacy.
Michael Castle: To obtain these goals, the Wolf resolution seeks to lift our debate above the existing political rhetoric
Michael Castle: and pursue a comprehensive strategy to build regional and international support for stability in Iraq.
Michael Castle: It is equally crucial that we do everything within our ability to accelerate the training of Iraqi troops and provide them with the resources necessary to assume control of their own destiny.
Michael Castle: Mr. Speaker, as we speak, thousands of our Nation's bravest and brightest are risking their lives to serve our country in Iraq.
Michael Castle: Protecting American soldiers must continue to be our greatest priority and I will oppose any attempt to cut off funds for our troops who are serving in harm's way.
Michael Castle: Therefore, it is crucial that we advance constructive strategies, such as those identified by the Iraq Study Group, to end the violence and bring our troops home to their families.
Michael Castle: I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized.
Peter Hoekstra: Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my colleague from Michigan, let me make just a couple of comments.
Peter Hoekstra: I think, as we all know, the Iraq Study Group did allow for a surge in troops on a temporary basis to allow us to achieve our objectives.
Peter Hoekstra: Also, as a previous speaker, I was negligent in not acknowledging the comments of my colleague from Maryland when he recognized the contributions
Peter Hoekstra: that were being made by our intelligence folks in Iraq and around the world.
Peter Hoekstra: There are some who believe and are confused by what they may believe or perceive to be the callous omission of any reference to the contributions being made by our intelligence folks in Iraq today.
Peter Hoekstra: It is a significant shortcoming of this resolution, and I am thoroughly confused as to why they would be omitted in this resolution, and their contributions.
Peter Hoekstra: They are working side by side each and every day with our Armed Forces, and this resolution forgets to even recognize that contribution.
Peter Hoekstra: With that, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to recognize my colleague from Michigan, a member of the Intelligence Committee,
Peter Hoekstra: who thoroughly recognizes and has met with these people in Iraq and Afghanistan and understands their contributions.
Peter Hoekstra: He is as confused as I am as to why they do not want to recognize their contributions.
Peter Hoekstra: My colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Speaker pro tempore: How many minutes do you recognize?
Peter Hoekstra: I would like to yield for 6 minutes to my colleague.
Speaker pro tempore: gentleman is recognized for 6 minutes.
Mike Rogers: Thank you Mr. Speaker, Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mike Rogers: Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty important debate, and I have to tell you I am a little confused by my friends' resolution.
Mike Rogers: It is a very complex problem.
Mike Rogers: When you look at the problem in Iraq today, you have really two distinct problems.
Mike Rogers: One is the ethnosectarian violence that is self-sustaining now in Baghdad.
Mike Rogers: It was a precursor to al Qaeda activity to actually create conflict between the Sunnis and the Shias, and unfortunately, it has raised to a level that it is self-sustaining.
Mike Rogers: And you have an al Qaeda-Sunni insurgency happening west of Baghdad that certainly warrants our attention, and the troops there have called for reinforcements.
Mike Rogers: They said, give us reinforcements, we need them badly.
Mike Rogers: Al Qaeda is settling in to make safe haven here.
Mike Rogers: And part of the plan or the surge in fact says that we are going to reinforce those soldiers who are fighting al Qaeda, and they have asked to be reinforced.
Mike Rogers: The simplicity of the resolution concerns me greatly.
Mike Rogers: I am not in favor of sending American troops, the other 16,000, into the streets of Baghdad to intervene in the sectarian violence.
Mike Rogers: I am not. I am in favor of supporting the soldiers who have asked and should receive reinforcements fighting al Qaeda in the west.
Mike Rogers: This resolution really makes no difference in that fight.
Mike Rogers: It makes no difference in the complexities and how we win and get our soldiers home.
Mike Rogers: This resolution does not bring one soldier home.
Mike Rogers: This resolution does not make one soldier safer.
Mike Rogers: This resolution does not bring to justice one terrorist.
Mike Rogers: This resolution offers not one alternative.
Mike Rogers: I think we made some devastating mistakes in Iraq: The extent of our de-Baathification, and what that has meant for us winning the peace,
Mike Rogers: the dismissal wholesale of military units and what that has meant to our ability to sustain peace, the shuttering of nearly 300 state-owned enterprises and what that has done for unemployment
Mike Rogers: and not allowing us to sustain the peace, our failure to focus our national power on solving some of these basic problems.
Mike Rogers: We, in fact, and this is up to us, have allowed politics to creep onto the field of battle, and that has created some very real problems for us and our soldiers.
Mike Rogers: We have seen, because of that politics that has crept into the battlefield in Iraq and what that has meant, it has created some inefficiencies.
Mike Rogers: I, the other day, have counted up 12 different groups or agencies or Departments that have some ability to provide reconstruction money in Iraq.
Mike Rogers: Twelve. That is a problem.
Mike Rogers: Some conflicting policies.
Mike Rogers: Our soldiers will tell you that they feel that they are handcuffed.
Mike Rogers: They at least have one hand cuffed behind their back because of the politics that have crept in that changed the way they are allowed to engage the enemy as they see him and protect themselves.
Mike Rogers: Politics crept onto the battlefield.
Mike Rogers: The turf battles between the State Department and DOD, I wish they didn't exist.
Mike Rogers: We all know they do.
Mike Rogers: We took a very large, bureaucratic, civilian organization and set it down in the middle of Baghdad and wondered why it has some inefficiencies.
Mike Rogers: But these are things that we can change.
Mike Rogers: We can do that.
Mike Rogers: And my mother told me that if you are going to tell me what I am doing wrong, you better be prepared to tell me how to do it right.
Mike Rogers: The resolution before us today says nothing of an alternative.
Mike Rogers: We have soldiers who are getting up every day engaging themselves in the fight for liberty and defense and going after al Qaeda targets in the west
Mike Rogers: and trying to find al Qaeda elements locating and spurring on to self-sustaining ethno sectarian violence.
Mike Rogers: It does nothing to tell them that we, A, support them and, B, will give them all the tools and make the changes that we know we can to make it possible for them to come home to their families soon.
Mike Rogers: This afternoon I am going to do that.
Mike Rogers: I am introducing a resolution, it is fairly comprehensive, that will allow us to focus our national power without sending 20,000 troops to Iraq.
Mike Rogers: It will help target the unemployment that we know is fueling terrorism in Iraq today.
Mike Rogers: Clear rules of engagement for our troops, calling for the repatriation of the one to two million Iraqis who are middle class Iraqis,
Mike Rogers: their doctors and lawyers and engineers and their teachers who fled Iraq in this turmoil to engage our allies to get them back and invest them in the future of Iraq.
Mike Rogers: What disturbs me most, Mr. Speaker, about this resolution, is its clear purpose is to divide those of us in this Chamber.
Mike Rogers: As I said earlier, I don't support the surge in Iraq that targets sectarian violence in Baghdad.
Mike Rogers: I think that must have an Iraqi face for that to be successful, and I think we can provide logistics and command and control and we can provide combat air support
Mike Rogers: and special operation support to make them successful as they move through Iraq.
Mike Rogers: I think we can do that.
Mike Rogers: But this resolution does nothing to bring Members together to solve this problem.
Mike Rogers: If you win this vote today, and this passes, we will have solved not one problem for one soldier who gets up this morning hoping
Mike Rogers: and praying that he can accomplish his mission and come home to his family, not one.
Mike Rogers: It truly seeks to find the differences of those of us in this Chamber on how we move forward in Iraq.
Mike Rogers: There is nothing constructive in that, nothing constructive in that.
Mike Rogers: There is a young soldier that I met, I visited him down in Brooks Army Medical Center.
Mike Rogers: One additional minute.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one additional minute.
Mike Rogers: He asked that his leg be amputated so that he could have full range of motion so he could pass the physical training test for the United States Army and go back to Iraq.
Mike Rogers: And he was going through all that very painful process of getting it fitted and going through the physical training and trying to rehabilitate himself.
Mike Rogers: And as I got ready to leave, I said, is there anything that I can do for you as a Member of Congress?
Mike Rogers: And he turned and said yes, sir, there is.
Mike Rogers: Just don't give up on us.
Mike Rogers: Now, if this soldier can believe in this mission, and he can get up every day and fight through the sweat and the pain and the anguish of a lost limb so that he can get back in the business,
Mike Rogers: if he can roll up his pant leg every day and fit that prosthesis, isn't there a way, and shouldn't we do better and roll up our sleeves to work together to find a solution?
Mike Rogers: We got in this together, we must get out of it together.
Mike Rogers: We need to stop the division that this resolution brings to this House and start working together.
Mike Rogers: Our soldiers deserve better.
Mike Rogers: America deserves better.
Mike Rogers: The future of this country and safety and security deserve better.
Mike Rogers: I yield back my time.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman's time has expired.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Carolina.
Walter Jones: Mr. Speaker, would you please tell us how much time is left?
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Carolina has 41 minutes remaining.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Michigan has 4 hours, 13 1/2 minutes.
Walter Jones: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
Jim Ramstad: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Jim Ramstad: Mr. Speaker, the President has said for more than 4 years that he would follow the advice of his commanders on the ground with respect to troop levels in Iraq.
Jim Ramstad: That is why I am both surprised and disappointed the President did not follow the advice given as recently as 2 months ago by the Army and Marine Corps Chiefs of Staff,
Jim Ramstad: as well as General John Abizaid, General George Casey, and General Colin Powell.
Jim Ramstad: All of these highly respected commanders expressed their opposition to increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.
Jim Ramstad: As General Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East said, an increase in U.S. troops would be counterproductive because it will perpetuate the dependency
Jim Ramstad: of Iraqi forces, create more targets and stretch our military too thin.
Jim Ramstad: Until recently the top ground commander in Iraq, General George Casey, has said that sending more American troops into Baghdad and Anbar province would increase the Iraqi dependency on Washington.
Jim Ramstad: As General Colin Powell, one of the most respected military leaders of our generation put it, a surge was already tried in Baghdad last fall and it failed.
Jim Ramstad: Now it will only further delay Iraqis taking control of their own security.
Jim Ramstad: "It will only further delay Iraqis taking control of their own security."
Jim Ramstad: That is from General Colin Powell, who also noted that he had not heard any generals on the ground in Iraq ask for more troops.
Jim Ramstad: Mr. Speaker, the original mission of U.S. troops in Iraq was to liberate the country and turn it over to the Iraqi people.
Jim Ramstad: We need to get back to that original mission.
Jim Ramstad: Our brave troops have done an absolutely heroic job of liberating the people of Iraq.
Jim Ramstad: Now our troops should get back to the original mission of training Iraqi security forces so they can secure their own country and turn it over to the Iraqi people.
Jim Ramstad: General Casey has long argued that the principal emphasis of American policy should be training Iraqi security forces and handing over responsibility to the Iraqis.
Jim Ramstad: Mr. Speaker, the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq that we passed in the fall of 2002 was never intended to authorize the use of American troops to police a civil war.
Jim Ramstad: It was never intended to provide justification for sending 21,500 more American troops into the middle of a civil war.
Jim Ramstad: As former Navy Secretary in Virginia, Senator John Warner, put it: "whom do they shoot at, the Sunni or the Shia?"
Jim Ramstad: With 325,000 Iraqi security forces already trained, Mr. Speaker, that is according to our Defense Department,
Jim Ramstad: it is time for Iraqi troops to step up to the frontlines in Baghdad, Anbar province, and Fallujah.
Jim Ramstad: It is time to accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces and the turnover of security to the Iraqis so our troops can come home with their mission completed.
Jim Ramstad: It is time for enforceable benchmarks to measure the progress of Iraqi security forces.
Jim Ramstad: Mr. Speaker, it is time for a surge in diplomacy, not a surge in troops to mend a broken country.
Jim Ramstad: It is time for a stepped-up regional peace effort in the Middle East to settle this conflict.
Jim Ramstad: Mr. Speaker, Congress should listen to our commanders on the ground.
Jim Ramstad: We should follow the advice of the Army and Marine Corps Chiefs of Staff.
Jim Ramstad: We should follow the advice of General Abizaid, General Casey, and General Powell when they spoke up in December.
Jim Ramstad: It is time for Congress to step up and express our strong support of our brave troops, our continued support of the original mission,
Jim Ramstad: and our opposition to the increase of U.S. troops to police a civil war in Iraq.
Jim Ramstad: I urge a "yes" vote on the resolution.
Speaker pro tempore: Gentleman yields back.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Michigan.
Peter Hoekstra: At this time I would like to recognize Mr. Hensarling from Texas for 5 minutes.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Jeb Hensarling: I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection.
Jeb Hensarling: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a sad day for our institution, the House of Representatives, and I think it is a sad day because I sense this debate has very little to do
Jeb Hensarling: with coming together as a Nation to face the greatest threat that we have faced since the Cold War.
Jeb Hensarling: But instead I sense and I fear it has much to do with politics as usual.
Jeb Hensarling: I have heard speaker after speaker come to the floor to decry faulty intelligence, to decry how our Nation became involved in Iraq in the first place.
Jeb Hensarling: I have heard speakers decry how the war had been conducted.
Jeb Hensarling: But, Mr. Speaker, regardless of how we got into Iraq, regardless of whose war it might have been once, today it is an American war, and we must accept that fact.
Jeb Hensarling: As the people's elected Representatives, certainly we should look at this new strategy.
Jeb Hensarling: We need to take an open and honest look at it.
Jeb Hensarling: And certainly we are all disappointed that the previous strategy has not yielded the desired result.
Jeb Hensarling: But, Mr. Speaker, very, very much hangs in the balance.
Jeb Hensarling: I myself do not know if the new strategy will work.
Jeb Hensarling: I think it can work.
Jeb Hensarling: I hope it will work.
Jeb Hensarling: And I know it is at least a strategy that has been recommended by the Iraqi Study Group and our new battlefield commander, General Petraeus.
Jeb Hensarling: So until such a time as somebody brings to me a more compelling strategy or until such a time that somebody convinces me that somehow the security of my country
Jeb Hensarling: and the security of my family is somehow made better off by our immediate withdrawal and the subsequent implosion of Iraq, I feel we must support the new strategy.
Jeb Hensarling: Defeat is not an option.
Jeb Hensarling: So what are the options, Mr. Speaker?
Jeb Hensarling: Clearly many, if not most, of the Democrats call for withdrawal from Iraq, as do several of my very respected Republican colleagues.
Jeb Hensarling: And I respect their views when they are heartfelt.
Jeb Hensarling: But, Mr. Speaker, since Democrats now control both Houses of Congress, why are we not voting on a withdrawal resolution?
Jeb Hensarling: And that is one of the reasons this is such a sad day.
Jeb Hensarling: I mean, think about it, Mr. Speaker.
Jeb Hensarling: How do you look a soldier in the eye and say, you know, I don't believe you can succeed in Iraq.
Jeb Hensarling: I don't believe in your mission.
Jeb Hensarling: I don't believe you can win this war.
Jeb Hensarling: And I have the power to bring you home, but I refuse to do it.
Jeb Hensarling: I refuse to do it.
Jeb Hensarling: Where is the courage in that resolution?
Jeb Hensarling: Where is the conviction in that resolution?
Jeb Hensarling: If you truly believe in your heart of hearts that our soldiers are needlessly risking their lives, don't you have a moral obligation to bring them home?
Jeb Hensarling: So with lives hanging in the balance, with our national security hanging in the balance, we have a nonbinding politics-as-usual resolution.
Jeb Hensarling: Mr. Speaker, it is not really all that easy to figure out exactly what it is that the Democrats support.
Jeb Hensarling: But if they don't put forth their own strategy and yet they want to vote against the new strategy, that says one and only one thing.
Jeb Hensarling: It says stay the course.
Jeb Hensarling: It says status quo.
Jeb Hensarling: If you don't have an alternative and you want to vote against this new strategy, then you are voting to stay the course.
Jeb Hensarling: The stakes are too high to stay the course.
Jeb Hensarling: Now, we all know that fighting this war is very costly.
Jeb Hensarling: And like many Members of this institution, I have met with the mothers of fallen soldiers.
Jeb Hensarling: Their burden and sacrifice is solemn and profound.
Jeb Hensarling: But I never, never, never want to meet with the mothers whose children may perish in the next 9/11 if we accept defeat in Iraq.
Jeb Hensarling: Iraq must be seen in the larger context of this war with jihadism, with radical Islam.
Jeb Hensarling: Whether we like it or not, the battle lines are drawn in Iraq.
Jeb Hensarling: And don't take my word for it.
Jeb Hensarling: Take the jihadists' word for it.
Jeb Hensarling: Osama bin Laden has said, "the epicenter of these wars is Baghdad.
Jeb Hensarling: Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States.
Jeb Hensarling: Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States.
Jeb Hensarling: Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars."
Jeb Hensarling: Mr. Speaker, we must soberly reflect on the challenge that we face.
Jeb Hensarling: Listen to al Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's number two in command: "Al Qaeda has the right to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children."
Speaker pro tempore: Gentleman's time has expired.
Peter Hoekstra: I give gentleman an additional minute.
Speaker pro tempore: Gentleman is recognized for one additional minute.
Jeb Hensarling: Listen to Hassan Abbassi, Revolutionary Guard's intelligence adviser to the Iranian President: "we have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."
Jeb Hensarling: Listen to Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini: "Even if this means using biological, chemical, and bacterial weapons, we will conquer the world."
Jeb Hensarling: This is the enemy we face, Mr. Speaker, and we face him foremost in Iraq.
Jeb Hensarling: The consequences of failure in Iraq are immense, the beginning of a Sunni-Shiite genocidal clash as American troop convoys flee the country.
Jeb Hensarling: The battle for Baghdad will undoubtedly spill over to the entire country.
Jeb Hensarling: Shiites will most likely win.
Jeb Hensarling: They will draw in Jordan and Saudi Arabia to the defense of Sunni Iraqis.
Jeb Hensarling: Iran will rise to the defense of Shia Iraqis.
Jeb Hensarling: An entire regional war could easily ensue, and what is left of Iraq would become a safe haven for the recruitment, training and financing of radical Islam.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Carolina.
Walter Jones: Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House take great pride in saying that this is the people's House.
Walter Jones: An AP poll on January 11, 2007, says 70 percent of the American people are opposed to the surge.
Walter Jones: With that, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 6 minutes.
Ric Keller: Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war is the central issue of our time.
Ric Keller: We are spending $2 billion a week and we are losing 100 American lives a month.
Ric Keller: Under these conditions, I feel I owe my constituents my best judgment.
Ric Keller: Interjecting more young American troops into the cross-hairs of an Iraqi civil war is simply not the right approach.
Ric Keller: If the President sends these troops anyway, I will support their funding 100 percent so they have the bullets and equipment they need to defend themselves.
Ric Keller: I approach this decision with a great deal of angst and humility.
Ric Keller: I am not trying to micromanage this war.
Ric Keller: I am just a Member of Congress, not a four-star general.
Ric Keller: But I have listened to what our country's most well-respected four-star generals have to say about this matter, and Generals Abizaid,
Ric Keller: McCaffrey and Colin Powell have all said that sending more troops into Baghdad now is not the answer.
Ric Keller: Now, some people will say, if you are not for surging more American troops into Baghdad now, what are you for?
Ric Keller: What is your plan?
Ric Keller: I am for a different kind of surge.
Ric Keller: I am for a surge of Iraqi troops to take out al-Sadr and his militia, especially since the Iraqi security forces outnumber the Sadr militia by a ratio of 5 to 1.
Ric Keller: That is 325,000 versus 60,000.
Ric Keller: I am for a surge of political process by the Iraqi Government to finally reach a deal on sharing oil revenue.
Ric Keller: I am for a surge of action in implementing the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which were adopted in a bipartisan, unanimous fashion.
Ric Keller: I am for a surge of gratitude by the Iraqi people, 61 percent of whom think it is okay to kill American troops and 79 percent have a mostly negative view of the United States.
Ric Keller: Some people argue that we should support President Bush's decision.
Ric Keller: I like and respect President Bush.
Ric Keller: I want him to be successful.
Ric Keller: Three years ago I could have voted for this surge.
Ric Keller: But the situation on the ground in Iraq today is very different than it was 3 years ago.
Ric Keller: Three years ago, Iraq was not in a civil war.
Ric Keller: Now it is.
Ric Keller: Three years ago, Iraq did not have 325,000 of its own security forces to defend itself.
Ric Keller: Now it does.
Ric Keller: Three years ago, we didn't know whether surging more American troops into Baghdad would give us a long-lasting impact.
Ric Keller: Now we know the answer, because we tried the same thing last summer.
Ric Keller: The benefits were temporary.
Ric Keller: The body bags were permanent.
Ric Keller: We are now told we should trust the Maliki government.
Ric Keller: I have been down that road before.
Ric Keller: I personally went to Baghdad and met with the Maliki government officials last summer.
Ric Keller: I was told that by December of 2006 they would have enough security forces that they would need to defend themselves and we would then be in a position to start bringing our troops home.
Ric Keller: Now they say, give us another year.
Ric Keller: We were told when America sent 15,000 of its own troops to surge in Baghdad last summer that the Iraqi troops would be right there beside them.
Ric Keller: Well, Iraqi troops didn't show up.
Ric Keller: The benefits of the surge were only temporary.
Ric Keller: Mr. Speaker, I voted to authorize the use of force in 2002 because I did not want Saddam Hussein to give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda.
Ric Keller: Now Saddam is dead and there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Ric Keller: We have remained in Iraq for 4 years because we want a unified and secure Iraq, so it doesn't become a haven for terrorists.
Ric Keller: Unfortunately, it seems the Americans want a unified and secure Iraq more than the Iraqis do.
Ric Keller: Let me give you an analogy.
Ric Keller: Imagine your next-door neighbor refuses to mow his lawn and the weeds are all the way up to his waist.
Ric Keller: You decide you are going to mow his lawn for him every single week.
Ric Keller: The neighbor never says thank you, he hates you, and sometimes he takes out a gun and shoots at you.
Ric Keller: Under these circumstances, do you keep mowing his lawn forever?
Ric Keller: Do you send even more of your family members over to mow his lawn?
Ric Keller: Or do you say to that neighbor, you better step it up and mow your own lawn, or there are going to be serious consequences for you.
Ric Keller: Mr. Speaker, sending more young American troops now into the middle of Iraqi civil war violence is not the answer.
Ric Keller: I will support the troops 100 percent.
Ric Keller: But we are not going to solve an Iraqi political problem with an American military solution.
Ric Keller: And that is my best judgment.
Ric Keller: May God bless our troops, our President and our country.
Ric Keller: I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized.
Peter Hoekstra: This time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to my colleague, Mr. Saxton.
Speaker pro tempore: Gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Jim Saxton: Thank you Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Jim Saxton: Mr. Speaker, it has been said here on the floor by more than one speaker, or suggested at least, that the war in Iraq is not part of the war on terror.
Jim Saxton: I disagree.
Jim Saxton: I could not disagree more with that statement.
Jim Saxton: But if you agree with that statement, and if you are casting your vote because you think that is a rationale upon which you can justify your vote, I hope you are sure.
Jim Saxton: I would say I would hope you are sure because I am in my 23rd year, and I know how this place works.
Jim Saxton: It is a wonderful system, because we almost always have a chance to come back and correct our mistakes.
Jim Saxton: A vote on tax policy?
Jim Saxton: I happen to favor lower taxes.
Jim Saxton: But if we make a tax vote that is a bad vote, we can come back next year and fix it.
Jim Saxton: Or if we spend too much money on transportation this year, we can come back next year and reduce it.
Jim Saxton: This resolution takes us down a different road.
Jim Saxton: This starts us down a road where, at some point, we won't be able to come back next year and just fix it.
Jim Saxton: You don't have to believe me.
Jim Saxton: But listen to what our enemies say.
Jim Saxton: I have here the text of a letter that was written on July 9, 2005, from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the author, the second in command in al Qaeda,
Jim Saxton: to al-Zarqawi, the person who at that time was the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.
Jim Saxton: "Our intended goal in this age is to establish a caliphate in the manner of the prophet."
Jim Saxton: Now, I don't claim to be an expert in Islam, but I am told that at one time under this establishment of a caliphate,
Jim Saxton: the caliphate stretched from Spain through the Middle East and Northern Africa to Central Asia and to India.
Jim Saxton: That is a vast stretch.
Jim Saxton: If that is the goal, then we ought to be aware of it, because it becomes a very serious matter.
Jim Saxton: The first stage of this process is to expel the Americans from Iraq, according to al-Zawahiri.
Jim Saxton: The second stage, establish an Islamic authority or an emirate, to develop it and support it until it achieves a level of a caliphate over as much territory as you can spread power in Iraq.
Jim Saxton: The third stage, he says, is to extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.
Jim Saxton: The fourth stage, it may coincide with what came before, he says, the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
Jim Saxton: So clearly, the al Qaeda leadership believes that Iraq is part of the global situation that we refer to as the global war on terror, and if that is right,
Jim Saxton: and I think at least for me I have to assume that that is their intention, Iraq is certainly part of the global war on terror from a Western perspective.
Jim Saxton: And so what the President has suggested is to take advantage of the assets that we have developed, while training Iraqi soldiers to provide for their own security,
Jim Saxton: and send three brigades into the Sunni Triangle, mostly in Baghdad, to be supported by the 21,500 Americans who he has proposed to send.
Jim Saxton: And I heard yesterday that the Iraqi brigades are, in fact, showing up in Baghdad at a 75 percent level, which is better than anyone expected, at least better than I expected.
Jim Saxton: Maybe others expected better.
Jim Saxton: And so I think if we are going to take on this effort to develop a caliphate, as one of the previous speakers said before it gets here,
Speaker pro tempore: The time has expired.
Jim Saxton: Two more minutes.
Peter Hoekstra: One, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one additional minute.
Jim Saxton: Then maybe we ought to do what the commander of the national VFW suggests.
Jim Saxton: The commander of the national VFW put out a press release, and I have the text of it here.
Jim Saxton: "The national commander of the Nation's largest organization of combat veterans is very concerned about the ongoing debate in Congress about the planned troop buildup will be perceived by those
Jim Saxton: in uniform as a sign that America's lawmakers have given up on them and their mission.
Jim Saxton: "My generation," he said, "learned the hard way that when military decisions are second-guessed by opinion polls
Jim Saxton: or overruled by politicians, it is the common soldier and their families who pay the price.
Jim Saxton: "There is no question," he said, "that mistakes have been made in the prosecution of the war in Iraq," but "there is no playbook to fight an unconventional war against an unconventional enemy
Jim Saxton: that wears no uniform and acts without conscience, yet our forces have adapted and are performing brilliantly," and I agree with him.
Jim Saxton: We full respect
Speaker pro tempore: Gentleman's time has expired.
Jim Saxton: Can I have 30 more seconds?
Peter Hoekstra: I yield 30 more seconds.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for 30 more seconds.
Jim Saxton: "We fully respect congressional oversight and the first amendment rights of all Americans to debate issues with national importance,
Jim Saxton: but the VFW is very concerned with the tone and timing of it," he said.
Jim Saxton: "We need to send the message to our troops that America wants them to succeed in Iraq by giving the buildup a chance to succeed."
Jim Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I think the commander of the national VFW is absolutely right,
Speaker pro tempore: Gentleman's time has expired.
Jim Saxton: and I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Carolina.
Walter Jones: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Phil English: of Pennsylvania.
Phil English: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the current debate on the floor on Iraq policy, I would like to offer the following resolutions, observations rather.
Phil English: First, I respect the President's constitutional role as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and I appreciate President Bush's offer to entertain suggestions from Congress regarding Iraq policy.
Phil English: I understand that success in Iraq depends on bipartisan support at home.
Phil English: I applaud U.S. troops who are serving in Iraq with professionalism and bravery.
Phil English: They deserve the support of all Americans.
Phil English: It is becoming self-evident that multiple, extended deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have strained the military.
Phil English: Current deployments and those to come will have lasting impacts on recruiting, retention and readiness of the all-volunteer military.
Phil English: Unfortunately, sectarian violence in Iraq between Sunni and Shia Muslims is increasing, and the failure of Iraqis to reach political settlements
Phil English: and support a unified government greatly contributes to the increased violence.
Phil English: I believe it is time for Iraq's government and security forces to step forward and bear primary responsibility for internal security.
Phil English: As the gentleman from North Carolina noted, the former head of the U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid, told Congress last November that sending in more U.S. troops would not contribute
Phil English: to success in Iraq because it would prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility.
Phil English: It is clear that Iraqi public sentiment opposes the continued U.S. troop presence.
Phil English: In November, the Iraq Study Group called for new diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces
Phil English: that will allow the United States to "begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly."
Phil English: Unfortunately, the Iraqi Government has made little progress toward assuming more responsibility for security, disbanding militias, reconciling sectarian differences and improving essential services.
Phil English: Therefore, I have reluctantly concluded that I have to disagree with the President's plan to send in an additional 21,000-plus combat troops.
Phil English: While I applaud the President's reassessment of U.S.-Iraq policy, I joined several of my colleagues in January in informing the White House that I did not support an expansion
Phil English: of American troop strength on the ground, and nothing that I have learned since has caused me to reconsider my position.
Phil English: Nevertheless, Congress should not take any action that would endanger U.S. military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funding for troops in the field.
Phil English: Most Americans fundamentally understand the long-term security interests of the United States would be best served by an Iraq that can sustain,
Phil English: govern and defend itself and serve as an ally in the war against extremists.
Phil English: Overall U.S. military, diplomatic, and economic strategy should not be regarded as an open-ended commitment but should be conditioned upon the Iraqi Government's meeting benchmarks,
Phil English: including the deployment of additional Iraqi troops in Baghdad, equitable distribution of resources without regard to sect or ethnicity,
Phil English: the use of oil revenues to benefit all Iraqi citizens equitably, and granting military commanders authority to make decisions without political experience.
Phil English: Mr. Speaker, with very minor edits, the remarks you have just heard from me summarize the resolution on Iraq offered by Senator Warner in the other body.
Phil English: It is one of the alternative resolutions we should be debating here today.
Phil English: Unfortunately, the majority leadership does not want to allow a full and fair debate on Iraq.
Phil English: When the Democrat leadership in the other body tried to force a vote on the resolution without an opportunity to offer meaningful amendments,
Phil English: the minority was able to insist on their right to a real debate rather than this phony pretense.
Phil English: Unfortunately, we do not have that ability in this Chamber.
Phil English: So I will vote in favor of the resolution before us as offered, as narrow and as inadequate as it is,
Phil English: but I cannot help but express my frustration that the leadership of the House has squandered an opportunity to allow a full and fair debate with real amendments, not just to Republicans,
Phil English: but to all Members of the House, including their own Members whose voices are stifled by this decision to put political calculations ahead of the national interests and a robust debate.
Phil English: I am not sure what the leadership of the majority party is afraid of.
Speaker pro tempore: Gentleman's time has expired.
Phil English: If they have the votes to reject ?
Phil English: May I have 15 more seconds
Walter Jones: 15 seconds.
Speaker pro tempore: Gentleman is recognized for 15 more seconds.
Speaker pro tempore: [Phil English]: If they have the votes to reject alternatives then they lose nothing by allowing them to be offered.
Speaker pro tempore: If they do not, they will quickly learn, as we did, that if you need to use procedural games to avoid a tough vote, you have already lost on the underlying issue.
Speaker pro tempore: I thank the gentleman from North Carolina
Phil English: for allowing me to be a part of this debate.
Speaker pro tempore: Gentleman's time has expired.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Michigan.
Peter Hoekstra: This time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to Mrs. Blackburn.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentlelady from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.
Marsha Blackburn: Thank you Mr. Speaker and I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding the time, as we come to the floor to debate this nonbinding,
Marsha Blackburn: no confidence resolution that is going to serve to discourage our troops and embolden our enemies.
Marsha Blackburn: I have noted that this obviously is the best that the Democrats have to offer when it comes to national security
Marsha Blackburn: and to their thoughts on how we deal with the situation in Iraq, and that is a disappointment to me.
Marsha Blackburn: I think that the question that we have to ask is, whose side are you on?
Marsha Blackburn: Whose side are you on?
Marsha Blackburn: Are you on the side of winning?
Marsha Blackburn: Are you on the side of freedom?
Marsha Blackburn: Or are you on the side of allowing the terrorists to get an upper hand?
Marsha Blackburn: And as I begin my remarks, I do want to thank the troops that live in my district, those of the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell,
Marsha Blackburn: members of the National Guard who have served with distinction, Reservists who have been deployed more than once.
Marsha Blackburn: I want to thank their families, and I want to thank the veterans that served as in an advisory capacity to me as we look at these issues and as we make decisions about how best
Marsha Blackburn: to approach preserving freedom, preserving liberty, and preserving the sovereignty of this great Nation as we know it.
Marsha Blackburn: I thank them.
Marsha Blackburn: I am grateful for their sacrifice.
Marsha Blackburn: I am grateful for their service to this Nation, and I want it to be noted on this day.
Marsha Blackburn: They have a commitment and a perspective and a love of freedom that few Americans will ever ever know.
Marsha Blackburn: I wish that we all did.
Marsha Blackburn: I am grateful also that they can articulate so fluently their mission and what they are called on to do every day in Iraq, in Afghanistan,
Marsha Blackburn: and in the 30 countries around the globe where Americans fight to preserve freedom.
Marsha Blackburn: They articulate this in e-mails and blogs, and even in notes and letters to their Member of Congress.
Marsha Blackburn: I also, Mr. Speaker, want to recognize the Kurdish community that calls Nashville, Tennessee home, and recognize their commitment and their appreciation to our U.S. troops.
Marsha Blackburn: One of the points that many of them make to me regularly and also one of the points that our men and women in uniform make regularly is to remind us of why we are in this fight,
Marsha Blackburn: why we are in this fight and providing the historical perspective that is so important.
Marsha Blackburn: This didn't begin on September 11.
Marsha Blackburn: It did indeed begin long, long, long ago.
Marsha Blackburn: Indeed, the radical Islamists have fought Judaism and Christianity not for decades but for centuries.
Marsha Blackburn: This is something that we all know.
Marsha Blackburn: The Islamic radicals did get a toe-hold in Iran in the late 1970s with the approach at that point by President Carter, then President Carter, and those around him.
Marsha Blackburn: And now those radicals tell us, they tell us that Iraq is indeed the central front in the global war on terror.
Marsha Blackburn: We know that they want to change the Middle East and then they want to change the world.
Marsha Blackburn: And, Mr. Speaker, that is not the type change that we want.
Marsha Blackburn: I want my children and grandchildren to live in freedom.
Marsha Blackburn: I want them to know an America that is free and strong and independent.
Marsha Blackburn: Our soldiers are fighting.
Marsha Blackburn: They are fighting every day.
Marsha Blackburn: They are fighting the insurgents in the field, they are fighting the battle of ideas; and the battle of ideas is a very, very powerful fight in Iraq at this point in time.
Marsha Blackburn: Now, too many in this Chamber want to add another fight to our military men and women, to their agenda every day.
Marsha Blackburn: They want them to have to fight the battle of public opinion here in the United States.
Marsha Blackburn: I see that as a disservice to the men and women in uniform.
Marsha Blackburn: This legislative body does have a role in oversight of the war, but I do believe, I personally believe it is inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, that we try to micromanage from the comforts of Washington.
Marsha Blackburn: I do believe that we should be listening to our troops and our commanders in the field.
Marsha Blackburn: General David Petraeus, who has taken the command, accepted the coalition flag this Saturday,
Speaker pro tempore: Gentlewoman's time has expired.
Marsha Blackburn: said it very well and I will enter his comments for the RECORD.
Marsha Blackburn: May I have another minute?
Peter Hoekstra: I yield one additional minute.
Speaker pro tempore: Gentlewoman is recognized for an additional one minute.
Marsha Blackburn: He reminds us that progress is being made and lays that out, and I will enter that for the RECORD and have the opportunity to talk about it again later.
Marsha Blackburn: I think that what we have to do is realize the resolution before us, Mr. Speaker, will not build morale with the troops on the ground, and it does give the terrorists just what they want.
Marsha Blackburn: We have to fight back.
Marsha Blackburn: We have to realize sacrifices do have to be made in order for us to further the cause of freedom and liberty in this great land.
Marsha Blackburn: Thank you Mr. Speaker I yield back.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentlewoman yields back.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Carolina.
Walter Jones: Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have?
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Carolina has 25 3/4 minutes.
Walter Jones: Mr. Speaker, this resolution 63 is first to thank the troops for their service, and we all support them.
Walter Jones: The second part of the resolution is to oppose the surge.
Walter Jones: I quote a great military general, Colin Powell: "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, would work."
Walter Jones: He supports our position.
Walter Jones: He opposes the surge.
Walter Jones: That is Colin Powell.
Walter Jones: I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).
Speaker pro tempore: For how long?
Walter Jones: Six minutes
Ron Paul: I thank the gentleman for yielding and I ask the speaker for unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection.
Ron Paul: And I rise in support of the resolution and in opposition to the escalation in Iraq.
Ron Paul: I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his very determined and principled effort to end this ill-advised and dangerous war,
Ron Paul: and I am very pleased that he brought together a group of Members today who are representing the traditional conservative position on war and peace and I deeply appreciate that.
Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, this grand debate is welcomed, but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching
Ron Paul: with Iran, which is supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.
Ron Paul: This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq.
Ron Paul: Instead, it appears to oppose the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq.
Ron Paul: As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge.
Ron Paul: A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation which finances it.
Ron Paul: I hope all my colleagues who vote against this surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts, when we vote on the supplemental.
Ron Paul: The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don't support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops.
Ron Paul: It is nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed
Ron Paul: and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.
Ron Paul: Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion in Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks.
Ron Paul: His pleasure comes from our policy of folly, getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death.
Ron Paul: Total costs now are recently estimated to exceed $2 trillion.
Ron Paul: His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.
Ron Paul: Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is this:
Ron Paul: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and preemption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?
Ron Paul: Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of nonintervention was their position for most of the 20th century,
Ron Paul: and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the left.
Ron Paul: Seven years ago, the right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia.
Ron Paul: At the time, the right was outraged over the failed policy of nation building.
Ron Paul: It is important to recall that the left in 2003 offered little opposition to the preemptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by defunding it, or work to prevent an attack on Iran.
Ron Paul: The catch-all phrase the "war on terrorism" in all honesty has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism.
Ron Paul: Terrorism is a tactic.
Ron Paul: You can't have a war against a tactic.
Ron Paul: It is deliberately vague and non-definable in order to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere and under any circumstances.
Ron Paul: Don't forget, the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us, including that on 9/11.
Ron Paul: Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquests have driven most wars throughout all of history.
Ron Paul: Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own Revolution, been the driving force.
Ron Paul: In recent decades, our policies have been driven by neoconservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military-industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism,
Ron Paul: mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.
Ron Paul: For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing U.N. resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy,
Ron Paul: protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now, Iraq will be left in a mess; implying the implausible, that if we stay, it won't be a mess.
Ron Paul: Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed
Ron Paul: or maimed, and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis.
Ron Paul: We have had enough of both.
Ron Paul: Resorting to a medical analogy: A wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed.
Ron Paul: Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insisting on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient.
Ron Paul: In this case, the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity, here at home, and peace abroad.
Ron Paul: There is no logical reason to reject the restraints
Speaker pro tempore: The time has expired.
Walter Jones: I yield the gentleman one more minute.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one additional minute.
Ron Paul: There is no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security.
Ron Paul: The advice of the founders and our early Presidents was sound then, and it is sound today.
Ron Paul: We shouldn't wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are forced to change our ways.
Ron Paul: We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the carnage and the financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and eventually force us to stop that which we should have never started.
Ron Paul: We all know in time the war will be defunded one way or another and the troops will come home.
Ron Paul: So why not now?
Ron Paul: I yield back my time.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Michigan.
Peter Hoekstra: At this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
Speaker pro tempore: The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Deborah Pryce: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Deborah Pryce: And I especially thank you for your leadership on the floor through this very important debate, a hard debate for us here in the House of Representatives and a hard debate for this country.
Deborah Pryce: But, Mr. Speaker, a new plan is being implemented, a new plan with political, economic and military components.
Deborah Pryce: Reinforcements are on their way even as we speak.
Deborah Pryce: The Iraqis do need to do their part, we know that.
Deborah Pryce: President Maliki tells us that they will.
Deborah Pryce: And if we reinforce now, they will take it over.
Deborah Pryce: They will stand up because they must, and then we will come home.
Deborah Pryce: Mr. Speaker, not everyone believes that this is a good plan.
Deborah Pryce: It is sophisticated, it is comprehensive, but not everyone agrees that it is the right plan, and I understand that.
Deborah Pryce: This war certainly hasn't achieved its intended results.
Deborah Pryce: The President said "stay the course," and some said no.
Deborah Pryce: The President now says, "change the course," and the same folks say no.
Deborah Pryce: That's fair; we have room in this great Nation to disagree.
Deborah Pryce: But if that is the case, that you don't want to stay the course or change the course, then use the tools and the powers available to you to stop the course.
Deborah Pryce: The tools are at your disposal, the power of the purse to defund the effort.
Deborah Pryce: You could repeal the authorization that most of us voted for this in 2002.
Deborah Pryce: You could require troop withdrawal.
Deborah Pryce: You have that power and you have that right.
Deborah Pryce: But, Mr. Speaker, with the world watching, with Islamic fundamentalists, jihadists, just waiting, and with our troops working tirelessly to protect and defend us, don't pass this pointless resolution.
Deborah Pryce: If it meant anything, it would be a different argument, but it won't bring one soldier home sooner and it won't change the course of this war.
Deborah Pryce: It has no teeth, no muscle; but most of all, it has no positive value whatsoever for us as a Nation at war.
Deborah Pryce: Some people say it sends a message to our Commander in Chief, and I believe that that is true.
Deborah Pryce: But that message pales compared to the message it sends to our enemies; our enemies, who pledge that their jihad will last until their religion prevails in the world; not until we are out of Iraq,
Deborah Pryce: until their religion prevails in the world; our enemies, who believe it is their religious duty to bring hostility to the West and to America.
Deborah Pryce: They are tuned in today, Mr. Speaker, you better believe it, and no doubt they are cheering.
Deborah Pryce: But what this message says to our enemies and to the President and to everybody else in the world is nothing compared to what it says to our troops.
Deborah Pryce: This resolution says, Your cause is lost.
Deborah Pryce: This impatient Congress says, Thanks, but we have had our fill.
Deborah Pryce: This resolution says to our troops that your cause is no longer worthy and your friends have died in vain.
Deborah Pryce: And today we learn that this is only the first step in the slow-bleed strategy.
Deborah Pryce: We can't say in the first paragraph that we support them and in the next paragraph that we can't reinforce them.
Deborah Pryce: We can't say that first we honor our troops and their service, and in the next breath say that their cause really isn't worth it after all.
Deborah Pryce: Mr. Speaker, our military leaders have a plan.
Deborah Pryce: They don't have guarantees, there are no guarantees in war.
Deborah Pryce: General David Petraeus asked for these troops.
Deborah Pryce: I met him when I was in Iraq.
Deborah Pryce: He is one of the country's most qualified, brilliant military leaders.
Deborah Pryce: He says this is what is needed.
Deborah Pryce: This plan gives our troops the help they need and gives the Iraqi Government a last chance to stand up and take over.
Deborah Pryce: But this resolution rejects the only plan on the table.
Deborah Pryce: If we reject this plan, then what should we do?
Deborah Pryce: We will be at the status quo.
Deborah Pryce: What should we do to keep this country free from terror for another 5 years?
Speaker pro tempore: Time has expired.
Deborah Pryce: What should we do to show solidarity?
Deborah Pryce: Nothing? What we should do, Mr. Speaker,
Speaker pro tempore: The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Deborah Pryce: is defeat this resolution.
Deborah Pryce: Don't demoralize our troops.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Carolina.
Walter Jones: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Speaker pro tempore: entleman from Tennessee is recognized for how long?
Walter Jones: For 5 minutes.
Speaker pro tempore: for 5 minutes.
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Dick Armey, our former majority leader, said in an interview with a major newspaper chain last week that he deeply regretted voting for the war in Iraq.
John Duncan: Mr. Army said, "Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the adventure vocally and aggressively."
John Duncan: Chris Matthews, on MSNBC on election night, said, "The decision to go to war in Iraq was not a conservative decision historically."
John Duncan: And he added that it "asked Republicans to behave like a different people than they intrinsically are."
John Duncan: William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote in 2004 that if he had known in 2002 what he knew then, he would have opposed the war.
John Duncan: And in 2005 he wrote that to continue there beyond another year would indicate "not steadfastness of purpose but, rather, misapplication of pride."
John Duncan: What about this surge?
John Duncan: The conservative columnist George Will wrote in opposition to it and said it would take a miracle for it to succeed.
John Duncan: Very few people, Mr. Speaker, pushed harder for us to go to Iraq than the columnist, Charles Krauthammer.
John Duncan: A few weeks ago he wrote that the Maliki government we have installed there cares only about making sure the Shiites dominate the Sunnis.
John Duncan: "We should not be surging troops in defense of such a government," Krauthammer wrote.
John Duncan: "Maliki should be made to know that if he insists on having this sectarian war, he can well have it without us."
John Duncan: But listen to what the enlisted men say: Specialist Don Roberts, 22, of Paonia, Colorado, now in his second tour in Iraq, told the Associated Press: "What could more guys do?
John Duncan: We cannot pick sides.
John Duncan: It is like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions."
John Duncan: Sergeant Josh Keim of Canton, Ohio, also on his second tour said, "Nothing is going to help.
John Duncan: It is a religious war and we are caught in the middle of it."
John Duncan: PFC Zack Clauser, 19, of York, Pennsylvania, told the McClatchy News Service: "This isn't our war.
John Duncan: We're just in the middle."
John Duncan: Sergeant Clarence Dawalt, 22, of Tulsa, Oklahoma said, "They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change."
John Duncan: And Sergeant First Class Herbert Gill, 29, of Pulaski, Tennessee, said: "Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years" and he said that after our raids melt insurgents away,
John Duncan: "2 or 3 months later when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back."
John Duncan: Saddam Hussein was an evil man, Mr. Speaker, but he had a total military budget only a little over two-tenths of 1 percent of ours,
John Duncan: most of which he spent protecting himself and his family and building castles.
John Duncan: He was no threat to us at all.
John Duncan: As the conservative columnist Charley Reese has written several times, Iraq did not threaten us with war.
John Duncan: They did not attack us and were not even capable of attacking us.
John Duncan: But even before the war started, Fortune Magazine had an article saying that an American occupation of Iraq would be "prolonged
John Duncan: and expensive" and would make U.S. soldiers "sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists."
John Duncan: Now we have had more than 3,000 Americans killed, many thousands more wounded horribly and have spent $400 billion and the Pentagon wants $170 billion more.
John Duncan: And as one previous speaker said with all the added medical and veterans' costs, the ultimate cost of this war could reach $2 trillion.
John Duncan: There is nothing fiscally conservative about this war.
John Duncan: Most of what we have spent has been purely foreign aid in nature, rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, giving free medical care,
John Duncan: training police, giving jobs to several hundred thousand Iraqis and on and on and on.
John Duncan: Our Constitution does not give us the authority to run another country as we have in reality been doing in Iraq.
John Duncan: With a national debt of almost $9 trillion, we can't afford it.
John Duncan: To me, our misadventure in Iraq is both unconstitutional and unaffordable.
John Duncan: Some have said it was a mistake to start this war but that now that we are there we have to, quote, finish the job and we cannot cut and run.
John Duncan: Well, if you find out you're going the wrong way down the interstate, you do not keep going, you get off at the next exit.
John Duncan: There is no way, Mr. Speaker, we can keep all of our promises to our own people on Social Security, veterans' benefits,
John Duncan: and many other things in the years ahead if we keep trying to run the whole world.
John Duncan: As another columnist, Georgie Anne Geyer, wrote more than 3 years ago, Americans, quote, will inevitably come to a point where they will see they have to have a government
John Duncan: that provides services at home or one that seeks empire across the globe.
John Duncan: We should help other countries during humanitarian crises and have trade and tourism and cultural and educational exchanges.
John Duncan: But conservatives have traditionally been the strongest opponents to interventionist foreign policies that create so much resentment for us around the world.
John Duncan: We need to return to the more humble foreign policy President Bush advocated when he campaigned in 2000.
John Duncan: Finally, Mr. Speaker, we need to tell all these defense contractors that the time for this Iraqi gravy train with their obscene profits is over.
John Duncan: It is certainly no criticism of our troops to say that this was
Duncan: 30 more seconds?
Speaker pro tempore: Time has expired.
Walter Jones: 30 seconds
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds.
John Duncan: It is certainly no criticism of our troops to say that this was a very unnecessary war.
John Duncan: It has always been more about money and power and prestige than any real threat to us or to our people.
John Duncan: And this war went against every traditional conservative position I have ever known.
John Duncan: It is time, Mr. Speaker, to bring our troops home.
John Duncan: I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mac Thornberry: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Pete Sessions: I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for yielding me the time.
Pete Sessions: Mr. Speaker, on Monday night the Rules Committee met and after hours of testimony from members of both parties,
Pete Sessions: the Democrat members of the committee voted along party lines to shut out every opportunity for amendments to be a part of this debate
Pete Sessions: of this resolution today that we will be debating for the next 2 days.
Pete Sessions: Our colleague from Texas, Congressman Sam Johnson, brought an amendment that would have clarified that Congress and the American people support our troops
Pete Sessions: and that funding for our Armed Forces serving bravely in harm's way should not be cut off or restricted in any way.
Pete Sessions: Our colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, also brought to the Rules Committee a very comprehensive amendment that would have made clear that Congress supports the recommendations
Pete Sessions: of the Iraq Study Group, with its emphasis on providing American commanders serving in Iraq with the strategy and tactical means that they need for success
Pete Sessions: and accelerating cooperation with Iraqi leaders to meet specific goals, as the strategy for moving forward to success in Iraq.
Pete Sessions: A number of other Members also spent a lot of their evening sitting in the Rules Committee waiting to share their ideas about how to improve this resolution
Pete Sessions: which thus would help America in our message to not only the President but also the world.
Pete Sessions: However, the 13 members of the Rules Committee are the only ones who had the benefit of hearing and deb