[quote]
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63 . Despite the brave efforts of our troops, the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate. Our troops have gone above and beyond the call of duty. Unfortunately, they are caught in the middle of sectarian violence.
From the onset of the conflict, there has been mismanagement and mishandling from this administration. The administration was not prepared for the violence following the removal of Saddam Hussein.
In addition, the previous Congress did not do its job. The 110th Congress held the first oversight hearing since the invasion in 2003. That is 4 years without any congressional oversight.
I have heard so many speeches here saying that we support the troops. I think everyone, every single Member, supports the troops. Yet all those years that we were hearing from the families and from our soldiers themselves, saying they did not have the equipment, they did not have certainly the equipment to keep them safe, where were we? Where were we as Members in making sure that our military had the best equipment?
Since January, we have had 52 oversight hearings on Iraq. It turns out that nearly $12 billion from the American taxpayers have not been accounted for. That is $12 billion that could have been spent on our equipment to protect our troops. Our troops deserve better.
The President explained his new plan for Iraq last month. Again, I hear that we must stand by the President. Well, I was one that stood by the President. I voted with the President. I voted for every appropriation for the President, and now he is doing the same thing. It is not working. It has not worked. It is time for a new plan.
He called for an increase of 20,000 more troops in Iraq and, unfortunately, I am afraid that this is a little bit too late. We needed hundreds of thousands of troops in the beginning. That is when the generals asked for those troops and they were denied.
The truth of the matter is we did this war on the cheap. We did not do it right in the beginning, and now we are all paying the consequences.
Throughout the conflict our troop levels have changed. We have sent more troops in when our generals called for them. Then they were made smaller. To no fault of our troops, the extra numbers did not calm the situation. I do not believe that putting more of our brave men and women in harm's way is the solution to this conflict.
President Bush emphasized his intentions of placing more authority and responsibility on the Iraqi Government. Well, it is about time. We have spent a lot of money to train the police officers, to train their military, and yet they are not standing up for their own country.
Prime Minister Maliki has not proven that he can stop the violence that is going on in his country. That should not mean that our troops should be there. Our troops are trained for a war, not to settle political differences in that country. He has failed to bring equal representations of the Sunnis and the Shiites into the Iraqi Government. This shortfall has fueled sectarian violence, putting our troops in greater harm.
Poor planning by civilian leaders within the administration has placed our brave men and women in harm's way. Our troops have gone above and beyond the call of duty. They have served our country bravely and honorably, and we all know that. Many of these troops have served their full tours of duty in Iraq, and they have left behind family and friends to defend this great Nation.
More than 3,000 of our men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice, and not one of them, in my opinion, has died in vain because they were doing their duty. We sent them there, and they have lived up to that, and thousands more have suffered debilitating injuries.
It is time to shift the burden of this conflict to the Iraqis themselves. We have a responsibility in Congress to make sure that our troops are not put unnecessarily in harm's way.
President Bush has made his decisions without consulting enough experts and retired generals. Where was all the information that we needed years ago as far as bringing the experts, knowing what the culture was in the Middle East? That is something that we still are not addressing here.
Decisions have not been clearly thought out and our troops have paid the price. And after much thought, I have come to the conclusion that a phased redeployment of our troops is the best option.
No one is really talking about Afghanistan either. When we started, we were winning in Afghanistan. When we took those troops out of Afghanistan, we started seeing the insurgents coming in. We can put our troops along the borders. We can stop the insurgents coming into Iraq while the Iraqi Government tries to solve their own problems.
We can go back into Afghanistan and make sure that we shore up that country so more insurgents and military equipment are not coming from that country.
We must show the American people and our allies, by the way, who are leaving, they are not supporting us, it is not just Democrats and a lot of our Republican colleagues that feel that we should get out. Our strategy has been wrong, it is time to work together, and I am hoping after all these debates, when we come back from our break, we can actually go to our committees and come up with a way to solve these problems, not only for America, but before the world.
[/quote]
[quote]
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to much of the debate yesterday and today, and I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Michigan to remind and educate us all about what is at stake for our security and how Iraq fits into the larger war against radical Islamic terrorists. That is serious work.
Unfortunately, this resolution is not serious work. I believe we have to start by asking a basic essential question: Why are we doing this? What is the purpose of this resolution? What good will come from passing it? I cannot find an acceptable answer.
The struggle in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islamic terrorists is, in my view, the preeminent national security issue facing our country. It is important for Congress to devote serious, meaningful attention to it. But whatever we do should have a purpose, a purpose that makes the United States stronger, a purpose that will help us be successful, a purpose we can explain and be proud of in years to come.
Here we have a nonbinding resolution, which means it does not have the force of law. It conveys an opinion. Now, we do that from time to time. We congratulate a sports team, we express concern about curing a disease, we pat somebody on the back. We do express opinions.
What is the opinion in this resolution? It is that we support the troops, but we do not support their mission. We support the troops, but we do not support their new commander, who is this Nation's preeminent strategist and expert on coun ter in sur gency, who just wrote the manual for coun ter in sur gency, who was just approved by the Senate unanimously. We support the troops, but we don't support him or her or what he is trying to do. Now, what is the purpose of expressing that kind of self-contradictory opinion?
And I continue to be troubled when I think, when in the history of the United States has Congress passed a resolution expressing an opinion on a battlefield strategy for an ongoing operation that Congress has approved? It is like June 13, 1944, D-Day plus seven: Congress passes a resolution that says, ``We support the troops, but Eisenhower should never have landed in Normandy. And, besides, he doesn't have the right number of people to hit those beaches anyway.''
Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that this resolution is more about political posturing than it is about anything else, and I think every American ought to be saddened and disappointed by it. We have a spectacle going on in this country where a group of people running for President try to outdo one another to see who can be the most against our involvement in Iraq. Now we come to add to that spectacle with a nonbinding contrary resolution.
Just put yourself in the shoes of those men and women going into battle in Baghdad. Does this resolution encourage you or discourage you? Put yourself in the shoes of those people who do not want stability in Iraq, our adversaries. Does this resolution encourage you or discourage you? Put yourself in the shoes of those families like Ms. Granger, just visited, or the Britt family in Wheeler, Texas, or the Das family in Amarillo, Texas who have lost their sons in this effort. Does this resolution encourage you, or does it discourage you? Who is helped by this resolution?
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be misunderstood; mistakes have clearly been made with regard to our involvement in Iraq, and Members should be part of a serious study to learn from them. There are a good many questions that need to be asked, and there is very good reason for skepticism that this new strategy is really going to work. We should ask those questions. We should hold Iraqis accountable for doing what they say they are going to do. I know there are some people who say we don't need to ask any more questions, they have already made up their mind; they are ready to vote to leave today. Fine, let's vote on that. It is a serious vote, with consequences, and people that vote that way ought to be ready to shoulder the responsibility for the consequences that come from that sort of vote.
But this resolution is not serious, it is just political posturing, pure and simple.
Mr. Speaker, this struggle is going to require the best of us for years and possibly decades to come. It will require that we put aside the political temptations to get a momentary partisan advantage. It requires that we do our constitutional duty not to be a rubber stamp to any administration, but to be an independent branch of government committed to serious, thoughtful work.
To prevail over these radical Islamic terrorists and protect our people, we are going to have to bring the full array of national assets. Yes, our military, but also our diplomats and our foreign assistants and our ideas and our ideals. All of that is going to have to be at our best. But it is going to require the best of us, too, and we are not giving our best with this resolution. Hopefully, we can do better.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I yield 1 hour of our time to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control this hour of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. And I apologize for my voice.
Before I yield time, I want to take just a couple minutes and remind the House that, yes, we are here today to talk about resolution 63, but to remind the House that why we are in Iraq is the question.
I want to start my comments by sharing with the House that I met with a real marine general hero that very few people on the floor know his name; his name is General Gregory Newbold. And I want to quote him from Time magazine, April 9, 2006, ``Why Iraq Was a Mistake.'' I will be brief.
Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, General Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique. I want to quote this to the House from General Newbold.
``I was a witness and therefore a party to the action that led us to the invasion of Iraq, an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that these zealots' rationale for war made no sense, and I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat, al Qaeda.''
I mention that, Mr. Speaker, because today this is an important debate. And, yes, my friends on the other side I respect and have great love and affection. But I remember in 1999, when we were on the floor as the majority party criticizing President Clinton for going into Bosnia, that was a nonbinding resolution.
That is what the Congress is about: debate, disagreements, agreement, debate. That is our constitutional responsibility.
Let me tell you what Karen Hughes, who was speaking for then-Governor Bush, who is now President Bush, said about the nonbinding resolution. This was in The Washington Post, March 27, 1999. I quote Mrs. Hughes speaking for Governor Bush at the time, criticizing President Clinton, and this is a quote. ``If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain that they have a clear mission, an achievable goal, and an exit strategy.''
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, my colleague and friend (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose deploying 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. Oh, if you oppose the surge, the troops will be demoralized, we are told. The five ``d'' words will be prominently exposed this week as my friend just mentioned: debate, dialogue, discipline, deliberation, and democracy.
The troop morale will be adversely affected because we are involved with these disciplines? I think not. I believe they would more readily be demoralized if we were willy-nilly rubber-stamping every issue confronting us.
I approved of removing Saddam Hussein because it is my belief, and I continue to believe it is the general consensus of this Congress, that Saddam was indeed an international terrorist. I regret that we were inept in formulating a post-entry strategy. I am not convinced that any particular strategy was ever in place.
It is unfortunate and, yes, unfair, that many people, strike that, some people, perhaps many people, are blaming President Bush, the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and our other allies for the civil unrest in Iraq. Saddam was removed and a free election was conducted, so the Iraqi people were given a choice between freedom and civil war. Unfortunately, they chose the latter. They rejected freedom and chose civil war. And the longer we maintain a presence there, the more they will rely upon us. The time has come, in my opinion, for the baton to be handed to the Iraqis.
Finally, permit me to discuss cutting and running. Oh, you cannot leave; you will be accused of cutting and running, we are told. If we had removed Saddam, which most Iraqis wanted, and then withdrew 4 or 5 weeks later, or even 4 or 5 months later, that would have constituted cutting and running. But we have been there for years, Mr. Speaker. Over 3,100 of our troops have given the ultimate sacrifice, in excess of 25,000 have suffered injuries, many permanent disabling injuries. This is sacrifice, not cutting and running. And I insist that we do not maintain an eternal presence in Iraq if for no other reason than the cost to the taxpayers, which has been astronomically unbelievable.
In excess of 2 years, Mr. Speaker, I have stressed the importance of retaining troop withdrawal as a viable option. Early on, virtually no one was even remotely considering withdrawal. I believe withdrawal is not unsound for the reasons I have previously cited.
Some Americans and perhaps some in this body oppose the Iraqi operation because they dislike President Bush. I, however, do not march to that drum. I am personally very high on President Bush. But on the matter of troop escalation, I am not in agreement.
The noted British statesman Edmund Burke, while addressing Solicitors at Bristol many years ago said, ``As your representative, I owe you my industry, but I also owe you my judgment. And if I sacrifice my judgment for your opinion,'' he said, ``I have not served you well.''
Some of my constituents will embrace my vote as demonstrating sound judgment. Others will likely reject my vote as a result of flawed judgment.
Not only do I owe my best judgment to my constituents, but to our troops as well, who we continue to remember in our thoughts and prayers.
[/quote]
[quote]
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I want to first say, since I am coming at this point in this time, that I am a Republican who opposes this resolution. Most importantly, because this resolution is nonbinding, I am one of the ranking members on the Appropriations Committee who will fight to make sure that, no matter what, funds are not restricted or reduced or cut from the men and women in harm's way on behalf of this country in the future days, regardless of what is said on this floor.
I want to make some general observations. First, the war on terror is the worst-named war in the history of our country. We are at war with Islamic jihadists, fundamentalists, radicals. We need to be more clear as to who we are fighting. Frankly, my view is that this is a religious conflict. People may ask in Tennessee or Texas, why are we involved?
Well, for the first 1,350 years of this religious conflict we were not involved. But history shows that a man named Qutb, the Wahhabi leader, a radical, over 40 years ago, came to this country, was educated, went back and indoctrinated a man named Azzam and taught a man named bin Laden that Western liberalism, freedom, self-government would actually bring about apostasy or ungodliness.
That is the truth. He indoctrinated the Sunni radicals that your way of life, self-determination, would create ungodliness, and that it must be stopped, and at that point we were brought into this religious conflict, the split there in the Arab and Persian world created by the 1970s, organizations in Iran that overthrew the Shah, and it gave them the first Islamic state when Ayatollah Khomeini was brought back in 1978, and, unfortunately, our leaders in the country helped bring that about in the late 1970s.
Khomeini took over, and within a few months they took our hostages in Tehran. That was a low point in this country's history and my life, and from 1978 forward 30 times our interests have been attacked around the world, and twice they have been attacked domestically in the United States.
It is important to remember this. We are at war with Islamic jihadists. Al-Zarqawi and Zawahiri were talking while al-Zarqawi was still alive, and he said we need to expand the caliphate from Indonesia to Morocco. They believe they can go north to Europe and all the way to the former Soviet Union. This is where the Arabs have had influence, this is their agenda.
It is interesting to me that this only became very difficult in the last 12 months in Iraq. This week was the 1-year anniversary of the Samara mosque bombing. That is when the sectarian violence broke out. They are attacking each other. Moqtada al-Sadr's uncle is buried at that mosque. He was killed by Saddam Hussein.
One year ago, they blew up that mosque in sectarian violence. What is Moqtada al-Sadr doing today? He is fleeing. Why? Because he hears that we are going to increase security, put more boots on the ground in Baghdad. He is fleeing to Iran.
What does that say about all of this? Well, it says to me that we are beginning to do the right thing. The region's leaders told us this week partition of Iraq is not acceptable in the Arab world or the Persian world or the region. A partition will not work. It will make things worse. They also said ``a precipitous withdrawal will be catastrophic.''
I remind my colleagues and the American people, we were not in Iraq before September 11. We were not in Afghanistan before September 11. This problem is not going to go away if we leave Iraq. This is a generational challenge.
As a matter of fact, I will say this, and this may be the most dramatic thing said on this floor, and I am briefed at a pretty high level. I believe we haven't been attacked domestically since September 11 for two reasons. One, we are better than we have ever been at intelligence again, and I am glad.
Two, they don't want to see us united like they saw us after September 11. Our enemies love the dissent and the division. They do not want to see us come together again, because when we do we are the best in the world.
Five points, Iraqi troops are showing up, progress is being made. This morning, a story out, several Iraqi battalions now exceed the 75 percent measurement on participation. For them that is very good.
Two, reinforcement is what this is. It is not a surge. The spread on how many troops we have had over the last several years is from 136,000 to 160,000. We are down to the lower level. This is going to bring us back to the upper level, about what we had when the elections were held. It is not a surge, it is reinforcement.
Three, the commanders tell us that reinforcement will, quote, will save lives and reduce violence. Reinforcements militarily, always there is a grid that shows that reinforcements save lives and reduce violence.
Four, there are two tracks here. One is troop strength and security. The other is diplomacy. You will see in the coming days diplomacy break out in the region. I say to all my colleagues who have great concern, that are afraid we are not talking to Iran and Syria, just stay with us. I believe you will see dialogues at every level take place in the region in the coming weeks, and I have been meeting with some of the administration officials.
Then let me say this, and I know what the distinguished majority leader said, and I respect him, and I believe many, many people, if not everyone in this House, have good intentions. If this resolution is followed by a funding cut, more Americans will die, and the sacrifices to date will be lost. We must do better, but we better not retreat in Iraq.
Too much is at stake. Our problems are not going away. Let's not be foolish. Let's not retreat from this challenge. Let's stand together and unite for the fight of our lives. It is a generational struggle, and we must pull together and meet in defense of liberty and our way of life.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Before I introduce my friend from Maryland, I want to read a statement from Marine General Joseph Hoar, former Commandant of U.S. Central, when he appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations on January 18 of 2007. This Marine general said, and I quote, the proposed solution is to send more troops, and it will not work. The addition of 21,000 troops is too little and too late.
[/quote]
[quote]
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for being generous with his time. I also want to sincerely thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his effort to resolve the issue successfully and for bringing those of us who are speaking here this morning together and for organizing this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this resolution for many reasons that I will explain, but this resolution is not a retreat from Iraq. This resolution is understanding the new phase that we find ourselves in with the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. So it is a step forward in the right direction.
I want to begin by commending our American troops and the intelligence community for their bravery, their professionalism and their stunning competence in Iraq and Afghanistan under very difficult circumstances. Those young men and women have eliminated terrorist training camps and gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his band of terrorists, who for years have brutalized the Iraqi people and many people, many thousands of people in the region.
They have eliminated the potential for weapons of mass destruction, these young men and women, and we are proud of that. The Taliban is disbanded and al Qaeda is on the run. These are our troops and the intelligence community.
Where are we now? We find ourselves now, the war on Iraq, and the global war on terrorism, in a new phase, the President understands that phase. The Congress is grasping with that phase. We now know the war in Iraq is in a new phase, and a global war on terror continues, so how do we respond?
How do we approach this new phase? Let's look at the recent past. Let's go back to the 1950s. President Eisenhower said, for the United States to be safe and secure we need a strong military, the best intelligence, and consensus and dialogue.
President Eisenhower implemented all of those practices, especially after Nikita Khrushchev pounded his shoe at the podium of the United Nations and pointed to the Western diplomats and said, ``we will bury you.''
Eisenhower's response? He invited Khrushchev to the United States for a dialogue.
President Kennedy was told there were armed nuclear warheads in Cuba. What did President Kennedy do? Proceed with dialogue and talking with the Soviets. We did not go to war. Nixon went to China.
Who during that period of time did we not have a dialogue with? It was Ho Chi Minh; 53,000 Americans died in the Ten Thousand Day War. Hundreds of thousands were wounded, and millions of Vietnamese were killed. What if we had a dialogue with Ho Chi Minh about ending the French colonial period and encouraging Vietnam to have self-determination, that which we fought for in World War II? What would have happened?
Fifty-three years of dialogue with North Korea just now may be yielding results, 53 years of dialogue. Ask yourself this question. Is a century of dialogue without resolution better than one day on the battlefield? Don't be quick to answer that, but ask that question to yourself.
The world, rich and poor, the people of the world, are intimately familiar with American history, especially with the following man. They know the words of Thomas Jefferson. ``We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.''
They know Lincoln's words, ``with malice toward none and charity for all.'' They know Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, words, ``You should be judged by the content of your character.''
America is the race of races. The melting pot has become a common heritage with the world's people. Our enemies are ignorance, arrogance and dogma. Monstrous certainty has been and is the tragedy of mankind. The new phase of the war in Iraq and the global war on terror not only includes the military, it not only includes the intelligence community, but in this instance it must include a surge of diplomacy, to integrate the Middle Eastern countries in a diplomatic dialogue about the stability of the region, including reconciliation, economics, trade issues, medical and educational exchanges, et cetera, et cetera. This must be and is a necessary part of that complete strategy to make America safe and secure. The blueprint, the starting point, is to vote ``yes'' today on today's resolution.
The second phase of that is to understand the words which is the blueprint for this new phase, the Iraq Study Group. What do we do with U.S. troops in the Middle East? There are strong recommendations for that. What do we do about training and equipping the Iraqi Army and making them prepared? That is in the Iraq Study Group.
What is the framework for cooperation with the Iraq people, the Iraq Government, and the problems with sectarian violence? That is in the Iraq Study Group.
What about a new diplomatic initiative with all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria? How about consultation with Congress? Vote for this resolution, and we can move on to end the violence, the sectarian chaos, the foolish, bitter electronic exchanges between countries, electronic exchanges, instead of face-to-face conversations.
That effort, fully implemented, will bring our troops home sooner. They will have a brighter future, and the generations to come for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We as Members of Congress are at the controls. We are able to control the policy. How? With our vote. Do we know how to use the military? Do we know how to use the intelligence community? Do we know the possibilities of consensus and dialogue with all the countries of the region? If our young men and women are brave enough to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, then we as Members of Congress must be brave enough and informed to start a dialogue in Damascus, in Tehran, in the entire region, to hasten peace.
The first step is an ``aye'' vote on this resolution.
[/quote]
[quote]
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I was here on the floor yesterday and thought I would only speak once. As I heard the debate of thoughtful Members on both sides of this issue, I was reminded of something I said yesterday that needed to be said again. Although the people you are hearing from mean well on both sides, less than a third of the Members speaking on this House floor served in the U.S. military, although everyone was eligible, and less than a third have traveled to Iraq, although everyone was eligible. Perhaps we will give the freshmen a pass.
This is, in fact, a debate by people who are not military experts. I count myself among those, who although I served in the military and have been to Iraq, I am not a military expert. I don't pretend to play one on television and before the American people, and yet that is what we are doing here for four solid days.
We are in fact, pretending to be military experts. Well, Mr. Speaker, this morning I had a military expert in my office, Staff Sergeant Bain. He is only a staff sergeant. How is he an expert? He is just finishing 3 years in Walter Reed, 3 years of recovery from terrible wounds. He came in doing a very good job with his artificial leg. He came in and shook my hand, even though he cannot feel with that hand.
All I could do was thank him for his service and hand him a coin and wish him well in his civilian life. But he took the time to tell me that he disagreed with the President sending 20,000 troops to Iraq.
He said, I am sorry I can't be there for that. He said, they ought to send 100,000. What we did there we need to finish. Staff Sergeant Bain got it right. The United States military and its experts believe we need to get this finished and get it right.
Now, the staff sergeant is 3 years out of Iraq, so I will forgive him for not being sure about whether it should be 20,000, as our military leaders, including General Petraeus, have asked for, or whether it should be 20,000 more if necessary, or 100,000. But it is important that Staff Sergeant Bain be heard.
Because in fact what you have here are a bunch of people, most of whom did not serve in the military, most of whom have not bothered to go to the combat zone, and those of us who did for the most part had a relatively quick tour in and out. We have not experienced what our troops have experienced.
And I know there is some disagreement among those who have been there. But, Mr. Speaker, I ask the American people to ask a vet of this war, their own vet, their own neighborhood, and they are going to find out they want to win this peace just as they won the war.
They toppled Saddam, and now they are being told to cut and run. That is what this is leading to. Mr. Speaker, we cannot do that and we know it. And yet for political expedience this body is pretending to be military experts.
Mr. Speaker, I will close simply by reminding this body of something we do know about. This is a body filled with people who understand history. Under fascism; we took on Japan, Germany, Italy and their allies. And it took 4 years before we did it, while they grew, and 4 years to defeat them. And it took a decade or more to turn those countries into functional democracies.
Yet America stayed the course. And we had troops deployed there and we have troops deployed there today, even though they are functional democracies.
Mr. Speaker, for more than 50 years we fought the other ``ism,'' communism. China, the Soviet Union, and the rest of the Soviet Bloc stood there threatening annihilation, but the American people put up with unspeakable amounts of money and significant loss of military lives, over 100,000 in two side battles of the Cold War.
We spent countless billions. Sometimes as much as 50 percent of our government's budget went to the military. And we did it. Now we are being asked to deal with radicalism. And I cannot name a country of radicalism. And I cannot say radical Islam or radical Islamic fascism, I simply say radicalism, because these radicals come from different sects of Islam, but they have one thing in common: They seek to conquer countries to put an ``ism'' onto them that is not of their choosing, and without freedom.
Won't the American people stand here today with the Congress representing them and stand against this ``ism'' for at least as long as we stood against fascism and at least as long as we stood against communism?
[/quote]
[quote]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a military expert, General John Abizaid, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, who said during a Senate Armed Services hearing on November 15, 2006, ``I believe that more American forces will prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.''
General Abizaid is not in favor of this surge. He is a military expert.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the Iraq war, one of my foremost concerns has been the long-term stability of the Middle East, and the potential impact that chaos in this region could have on our security.
Our men and women in the United States military, among the hundreds of Delawarians, are doing extraordinary work under very complex and difficult circumstances. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.
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. We have increased top levels in the past, including Fallujah in 2004, and Baghdad this past July, with mixed results.
Despite the incredible efforts of our brave solders, it is clear to me that an increase in American forces alone cannot resolve this conflict. Therefore, I will support this resolution, because I believe that the surge will be unsuccessful without a comprehensive diplomatic strategy to engage the international community and turn the responsibility over to the Iraqi Government.
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. On Friday, after Congress passes this resolution, we will still lack the strategy necessary to stabilize the Middle East and bring our soldiers home.
This Congress owes the American people a truly complete and comprehensive discourse regarding our future in Iraq. The situation facing our soldiers is extremely complex, and it is unfortunate that the Democratic resolution fails to accurately reflect that reality.
In December, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group presented a comprehensive blueprint to achieve stability in the region and transfer responsibility over to the Iraqi Government, which I have in my hand and I went back and reread this week. I would encourage everyone to reread it.
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. In fact, some of our Nation's greatest military minds, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, 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, Kuwait, Iran and Syria among them, participate in this important dialogue.
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. The intensive diplomacy recommended by the Iraq Study Group should be familiar to all of us who remember the Cold War.
One of the best examples of this approach to diplomacy was evident when a week after President Reagan asked General Secretary Gorbachev to ``tear down this Wall,'' he sent his administration to Moscow for diplomatic talks.
The Iraq Study Group's recommendations are by no means a panacea. But their report does represent a new path forward, based on the pragmatic style of diplomacy that helped us win the Cold War.
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. In focusing on a true strategy for achieving stability in Iraq, this resolution seeks to improve our global standing and concentrate our efforts on funding an end game based on a genuine commitment to diplomacy.
To obtain these goals, the Wolf resolution seeks to lift our debate above the existing political rhetoric and pursue a comprehensive strategy to build regional and international support for stability in Iraq.
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.
Mr. Speaker, as we speak, thousands of our Nation's bravest and brightest are risking their lives to serve our country in Iraq. Protecting American soldiers must continue to be our greatest priority. I will oppose any attempt to cut off funds for our troops who are serving in harm's way.
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
[/quote]
The District government does not have permission to make that type of legislation with approval of Congress or the President. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (8) The Mayor may propose to the executive or legislative branch of the United States government legislation or other action dealing with any subject, whether or not falling within the authority of the District government, as defined in this Act. SEC. 601. [D.C. Code 1-206] Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Congress of the United States reserves the right, at any time, to exercise its constitutional authority as legislature for the District, by enacting legislation for the District on any subject, whether within or without the scope of legislative power granted to the Council by this Act, including legislation to amend or repeal any law in force in the District prior to or after enactment of this Act and any act passed by the Council. SEC. 602. [D.C. Code 1-233] (a) The Council shall have no authority to pass any act contrary to the provisions of this Act except as specifically provided in this Act, or to-- (3) enact any act, or enact any act to amend or repeal any Act of Congress, which concerns the functions or property of the United States or which is not restricted in its application exclusively in or to the District; (4) enact any act, resolution, or rule with respect to any provision of title 11 of the District of Columbia Code (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts); SEC. 711. [D.C. Code 1-211] The District of Columbia Council, the Offices of Chairman of the District of Columbia Council, Vice Chairman of the District of Columbia Council, and the seven other members of the District of Columbia Council, and the Offices of the Commissioner of the District of Columbia and Assistant to the Commissioner of the District of Columbia, as established by Reorganization Plan Numbered 3 of 1967, are abolished as of noon January 2, 1975. This subsection [section] shall not be construed to reinstate any governmental body or office in the District abolished in said plan or otherwise heretofore. SEC. 717. (a) [Partially codified at D.C. Code 1-101(] All of the territory constituting the permanent seat of the Government of the United States shall continue to be designated as the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia shall remain and continue a body corporate, as provided in section 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to the District (D.C. Code, sec. 1-102). Said Corporation shall continue to be charged with all the duties, obligations, responsibilities, and liabilities, and to be vested with all of the powers, rights, privileges, immunities, and assets, respectively, imposed upon and vested in said Corporation or the Commissioner. ( [uncodified] No law or regulation which is in force on the effective date of title IV of this Act [January 2, 1975] shall be deemed amended or repealed by this Act except to the extent specifically provided herein or to the extent that such law or regulation is inconsistent with this Act, but any such law or regulation may be amended or repealed by act or resolution as authorized in this Act, or by Act of Congress, except that, notwithstanding the provisions of section 752 of this Act [D.C. Code 1-1307], such authority to repeal shall not be construed as authorizing the Council to repeal or otherwise alter, by amendment or otherwise, any provision of subchapter III of chapter 73 of title 5, United States Code in whole or in part. http://www.abfa.com/ogc/tit6.htm