[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 80 (Thursday, June 16, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4567-H4580]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2863, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 315 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 315
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2863) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Forbes). The gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Cole) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on H. Res. 315.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Rules Committee met
and reported a rule for consideration of the House Report for H.R.
2863, the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year
2006.
Mr. Speaker, when the Rules Committee met, it granted an open rule,
providing 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
This rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
For the purposes of amendment, the bill shall be read by paragraph.
Additionally, this rule waives all points of order against provisions
in the bill which fail to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, and it
authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who
have pre-printed their amendments in the Record. It provides one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the committee believes this rule will provide ample
opportunity for Members to fully debate the funding of our national
defense.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 2863 and
the underlying bill. This important legislation takes dramatic steps to
further prosecute the global war on terror, enhance our security, and
improve the lives of our servicemen and women. It is a bill that
fundamentally addresses many of the transformative challenges faced by
our military in the future and implements many measures needed to meet
those challenges.
Mr. Speaker, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the full
Appropriations Committee have presented us with an excellent bill. This
bill provides us with a way to meet many of the current challenges that
we face by addressing the immediate requirements of our forces as well
as the ongoing need to transform our military through the adoption of
new technology, advanced methods of warfare, and innovative changes in
military doctrine.
To fully appreciate the significance of H.R. 2863, one must
understand the four long-term challenges that we seek to address in
this legislation.
The first long-term challenge is a direct result of the procurement
holiday that was taken by our country in the 1990s. To understand the
consequences of shortchanging our military during this era, one need
only to recall the ammunition accounts as they were funded, or perhaps
better described as not funded, during this period. The failure to
maintain adequate stocks of ammunition is a shortcoming we are only now
beginning to overcome. Additionally, one can see the adverse effects
that a constant surge in deployments in the 1990s had upon the
maintenance levels of our hardware. This bill takes important steps to
rectify that problem associated with the procurement holiday.
Mr. Speaker, the second long-term challenge we must address on a
continual basis is related to the transformation of our military
forces. The
[[Page H4568]]
famous Goldwater-Nichols legislation of 1986 altered the manner in
which we organize to fight wars and committed us to transforming the
nature of our forces, transformation demands an ongoing strategic,
operational, and tactical review of our needs in relation to
technology, procurement and the development of joint warfighting
capabilities.
Each service, all our units and all our equipment must complement one
another and contribute to the increased effectiveness of our forces.
Transformation is not a goal in and of itself. It is a process of
continuous change and adaptation that makes our forces more effective.
This is an issue we must address on an ongoing basis. H.R. 2863 does
just that.
Mr. Speaker, the third long-term challenge we face is related to our
force structure and manpower requirements. This legislation, while
meeting the request of the President's budget, also continues to fund
additional forces required to prosecute the global war on terror. This
is a good start. In future years, we will need to closely examine and,
I believe, increase the size of our forces. There is no short-term easy
solution to recruiting and maintaining the larger forces I personally
believe we will need in the dangerous world in which we live. Still,
H.R. 2863 is a good interim step and one which we should take and
support and build on in the coming years.
The fourth long-term challenge faced by the military results from the
global war on terror. This is not a conventional war. We are not
fighting a nation state. We are fighting the adherents of a fanatical
ideology that transcends national borders and takes root whenever and
wherever it can. We are involved in a generational war against these
fanatics that will last for decades. It will require a wide range of
diplomatic, developmental, intelligence, communications, and civil
affairs tools and activities to win.
The military component of this effort will be expensive and ever-
changing. Hence, I believe we took a wise and important step when we
added $45.3 billion in bridge funding in ``Emergency Wartime
Appropriations'' to this defense bill. It is something that indicates
our understanding of the long-term nature of the challenge we face and
our determination to commit the resources needed to be successful.
Today, some Members may wish to have a broad discussion on the
situation in Iraq. I welcome that debate, and the open rule attached to
this legislation will allow that discussion. However, in the end, this
bill is not about Iraq. It is about providing the men and women who
defend our country with the tools they need to prevail against those
who would do harm to the United States. After the collapse of the old
Soviet Union, we took our security for granted and we underfunded the
military for a decade. September 11, 2001, taught us the folly of our
assumptions in this regard.
Since that time, the administration and the Congress have made the
tough decisions needed to rebuild our military and expand its
capabilities while waging a war on terror. This bill is another step in
that process. It is well crafted, essentially bipartisan, and moves us
in the proper direction. Once passed, this legislation will enhance our
security, enable us to fight the war on terror, and improve the quality
of life for our servicemen and women.
Mr. Speaker, to that end, I urge support for the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield
myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis), the Appropriations Committee chairman and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), Defense Subcommittee chairman, and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member, for
their continuing bipartisan work in drafting the annual defense
appropriations bill.
I will not take time to detail the programs funded under this bill.
However, I would like to express concern and my deep unease with a few
aspects of this spending bill.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2863 appropriates $408.9 billion for the Department
of Defense. That is $3.3 billion below what the administration
requested. This total also includes $45.3 billion in unrequested funds
for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total defense spending now
accounts for nearly 55 percent of the entire Federal discretionary
budget for fiscal year 2006.
Now, while the Committee has trimmed somewhat the administration's
budget request, overall defense spending, in real terms, is currently
about 20 percent greater than the average Cold War budget.
Mr. Speaker, this is spending of historic proportions.
Since the spring of 2003, Congress has appropriated approximately
$250 billion-plus for the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, largely
through three huge supplemental appropriations bills. U.S. spending in
Iraq alone will be at least 75 to 80 billion this year alone. And it
could approach a $400 billion total by 2006, making the Iraq war one of
the costliest in U.S. history. Everyone in this House expects the
President to ask for additional funds later this year, an expectation
that I guess led the Committee to appropriate the $45.3 billion in as-
yet-unrequested funds for operations in Iraq.
This so-called ``bridge fund'' means, Mr. Speaker, that we are, in
essence, passing two appropriations bills for Iraq and Afghanistan. One
is called the Iraq supplemental, which Congress takes up at the
beginning of each year, and the other is this bridge fund. Remember we
had one last year too, and it is attached to the annual defense
appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, it is no longer breaking news that we are engaged in
Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is critical for the economic and fiscal
health of our Nation that the now-predictable spending for continued
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan be included in the regular budget
process so we can plan for it, make the necessary budgetary trade-offs,
and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, so we can pay for it.
We should be paying for this war now, Mr. Speaker, not handing the
cost off to our grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, just this week the death toll of American troops killed
in Iraq exceeded 1,700. Last month was one of the deadliest months in
Iraq in the 2 years since President Bush declared the end of major
combat operations. In May of 2005, 67 U.S. soldiers and Marines were
killed by hostile fire, the fourth highest tally since the war began.
In a June 12 Knight-Ridder article entitled ``Military Action Won't
End Insurgency, Growing Number of U.S. Officers Believe,'' Lieutenant
Colonel Frederick P. Wellman, who works with the task force overseeing
the training of Iraqi security troops, said the insurgency doesn't seem
to be running out of new recruits. ``We can't kill them all,'' Wellman
said. ``When I kill one, I create three.''
Mr. Speaker, I personally believe there is no military solution in
Iraq, immediate or long term. General George Casey, the top U.S.
commander in Iraq, has expressed similar sentiments. He has called the
U.S. military efforts ``the Pillsbury Doughboy idea,'' meaning that if
you press the insurgency in one area, it only causes it to rise
somewhere else.
Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that an amendment offered by the
Democratic minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), was not made in order by the Rules Committee. This amendment
is quite simple. It calls on the President to transmit to congressional
leaders a report on what is our strategy for success in Iraq, one that
identifies criteria to determine when it is appropriate to begin the
withdrawal of our military from Iraq. The gentlewoman from California's
(Ms. Pelosi) amendment is a reasonable, thoughtful approach. For the
life of me, I cannot understand why the Rules Committee would not make
it in order.
{time} 1045
Mr. Speaker, we need that kind of clarity in our policy. We need a
change, of course, and at the end of this debate, I will ask my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that the Pelosi
amendment may be considered.
Mr. Speaker, there are some who believe that our only responsibility
in
[[Page H4569]]
this time of war is to automatically approve appropriations bills, no
questions asked. Let me remind my colleagues that we also have a
responsibility to do proper oversight, to conduct thoughtful debate,
and to ensure that there is a clearly defined mission, which includes
when our men and women can come home. That is what the Pelosi amendment
seeks to accomplish, but for some reason the Republican leadership does
not want to talk about it.
To be honest, I do not think this administration has a clue about
what they are doing in Iraq, and, Mr. Speaker, that is a tragedy.
Clearly the current situation is not what the administration
predicted, but instead of giving us a truthful assessment, instead of
candor and clarity, we are given spin. We are told that things are
going great. That is simply not credible.
Mr. Speaker, it takes no courage for a politician to stand before a
microphone and say, we must stay the course. It is not our lives that
are on the line. We must recognize that the Members of this House have
a responsibility that has for too long been neglected.
We owe our troops, indeed we owe our country, some answers. I know
that this is not a comfortable topic, but I would plead with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to start worrying less about
saving face and more about doing what is right.
At the end of this debate, Mr. Speaker, I will remind my colleagues I
will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for the fiscal year
2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act and the underlying
legislation.
I would like to commend the gentleman from California (Chairman
Lewis), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey), the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Ranking Member Murtha) and the staff of the Subcommittee
on Defense for their tireless efforts in support of our soldiers,
sailors, airmen and marines who are bravely defending us at home and
abroad.
Mr. Speaker, the bill does a remarkable job of covering a wide scope
of issues that are vitally important to our armed services, both Active
and Reserve components, and it clearly meets the immediate needs of the
warfighter.
I am particularly grateful for the work the Committee on
Appropriations has done to fund the FA-22 program this year. The
funding for 25 planes will go a long way towards providing stability
for that program and assuring that America does maintain air dominance
for the foreseeable future. I also wholeheartedly agree with the
committee's assessment that the Department of Defense should look into
the future needs for the FA-22 fighter and consider both a multiyear
contract and extending the procurement life of the program beyond
fiscal year 2009.
I am especially appreciative for the hard work of the gentleman from
California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) in restoring the multiyear contract for the procurement of C-
130Js. This is an absolutely vital program, Mr. Speaker, for our
military's current and future airlift capability, and I and our Nation
are grateful for their strong support.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking
member of the committee for their hard work on this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), our Democratic leader, whose amendment was not
allowed to be made in order by the Committee on Rules last night.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to action taken
by the Committee on Rules last night when they refused to grant a
waiver for my amendment, which I will describe in a moment.
First, I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha)
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for their patriotism, for
their hard work on behalf of the safety and security of our country and
the well-being of our troops. I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) congratulations and thank you for what you have done.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) is not in the room at
the moment, but I want to acknowledge his great leadership, as well as
that of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member of
the full committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the
new chairman of the full committee. They have all had a strong
commitment to our national defense, to our men and women in uniform, to
the safety and security of our country. They help us honor our oath of
office which calls for providing for the common defense.
I would have hoped that in this legislation that comes before us we
would have had an opportunity to give an accounting to the American
people as to the conduct of the war in Iraq.
As we all know, Mr. Speaker, this Sunday is Father's Day, and many
fathers, young fathers, will be away from their families. They will be
in Iraq. They will be in Iraq, just as many mothers were on Mother's
Day. These brave young mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, and
many others are fighting a war of choice in which we sent our young
people in harm's way without leveling with the American people. They
were sent into a war without the intelligence about what they were
going to confront, without the equipment to protect them and without a
plan of what would happen after the fall of Baghdad.
I, as well as many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have
visited with soldiers in Iraq and many of whom are on their second tour
of duty there. I have conveyed to those brave soldiers, as I have to
the wounded in military hospitals in the United States and overseas,
how grateful the American people are for their valor, their patriotism
and the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. They have
performed their duties with great courage and great skill, and we are
all deeply in their debt.
Disagreement with the policies and the conduct of the war that sent
our troops to Iraq, and which keeps them in danger today, in no way
diminishes the respect and admiration that we have for our troops.
Sadly, their level of sacrifice has not been met by the level of the
administration's planning, and now the American people agree. This war
is not making America safer.
This unnecessary, preemptive war has come at great cost. More than
1,700 of our troops have lost their lives, and thousands more have
suffered wounds, many of them, many thousands of them, suffering
permanent wounds. Since the war began more than 2 years ago, Congress
has appropriated nearly $200 billion for the war in Iraq, and the
United States has suffered devastating damage to our reputation in the
eyes of the world. The cost in lives and limbs, the cost in dollars,
the cost in reputation has been enormous.
Then-Republican Senator from Ohio, Senator Robert Taft, soon to
become the majority leader, the Republican leader in the Senate of the
United States, had this to say about our duty in time of war. He said,
``Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any
kind of democratic government.'' He is a Republican. That was during
World War II, and what he said was right, ``Criticism in a time of war
is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government.''
Each passing day confirms that the Iraq War has been a grotesque
mistake. We are here today considering a rule for a defense
appropriations bill that will provide another $45 billion for that war,
in addition to the hundreds of billions of dollars already
appropriated, and the end is not in sight. This money has been spent in
Iraq without question by Congress, without accountability by the
administration and without success.
Today we must also finally, if belatedly, heed the admonition of
Senator Taft and pose questions. The questions are long overdue, about
the policies by which the Iraq War is conducted. Congress did not
discharge its responsibility to oversee the policies at the start of
the war, and it has not done so since. The American people,
particularly our troops who are serving in harm's way, deserve better.
[[Page H4570]]
If we defeat the previous question on this rule, this is a
technicality inside a baseball process here, but if we defeat the
previous question on this rule, we can consider my amendment, which
says to the President: ``Within 30 days of enactment of this
legislation, Congress expects an accounting from you as to what the
strategy for success is. What security and political measures have you
established that will bring our troops home?''
Specifically, my amendment would require the President within 30 days
of enactment, as I mentioned, submit to Congress a report identifying
the criteria that will be used to determine when it is appropriate to
begin to bring our troops home from Iraq. It does not require that the
troops be brought home by a particular day. It requires only that the
means for judging when they may be brought home be shared with the
Congress.
This is not new language. Under the leadership of the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran), even more expanded, more detailed criteria were
set forth in the supplemental bill, which was agreed to in a bipartisan
way. I believe the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) was a party to
that agreement with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
So this is just raising the profile once again of that requirement,
and I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for his
leadership, for his attention to the detail of all of this, for
providing some questions for much-needed answers for the American
people.
It is long time past due that the President level with the American
people and tell them what the plan is for our troops to complete their
work in Iraq. Before any more money is provided for this war, Congress
must insist that this information be shared.
I hope that the administration will honor the request, the bipartisan
request, in the supplemental. This appropriations bill, which has even
more money for Iraq, is an appropriate place for us to make that
request as well.
This is an enormous issue in our country. Our troops are in harm's
way. Their actions there, again, have been marked by their patriotism,
their skill, their love of our country and their courage, but we have
to let them know what the goal is and when we have accomplished it so
that they can come home.
I hope that we will have bipartisan consensus for a strategy for
success in Iraq.
Regrettably, the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules
refused to make my amendment in order. Therefore, opposing the previous
question on the rule is the only way that we can force this issue on
the defense appropriations bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on that vote and to ``yes'' for
accountability for a safer America.
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for his time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge that this House vote ``no'' on the
previous question for the reasons just laid out by the distinguished
minority leader. I think there are some other reasons as well.
I happen to think that the Iraqi war is the dumbest war that we have
engaged in since the War of 1812, but my opinion is not relevant on
that point today. We are there, and the question is how do we best deal
with the problem now that we are.
To me, it is irresponsible and mindless for us to be involved in a
war unless we have some kind of idea how we will define success. How
will we know when we have won; or conversely, how will we know if and
when this effort becomes obviously counterproductive?
Right now we have no specific measuring stick. All we know is that we
are in a morass, and we are likely to remain there for years. I would
predict American troops are going to be there for a decade under
existing policy. I do not think the American people will stand for that
unless there is a clear policy and a clear set of goals and a clear set
of tools to evaluate what it is we are doing. We need to know what
standard of success will be held up for training Iraqi replacements. We
need to know the answer to a wide variety of other questions.
{time} 1100
But there is another reason why I think this is important. The bill
we will debate today spends $45 billion in a ``bridge fund'' for Iraq.
That means that we are bumping up against the ceiling in the budget
resolution. The problem is that the $45 billion in the defense bill
today only pays for 6 months of the war. How are we going to pay for
the other 6 months? The answer is, we do not know. All we know is that
the next time a supplemental comes up to pay for that war, we are going
to have to find $40 billion or more.
I would suggest if we have to do that, there are only two ways that
are responsible: one is to require the Budget Committee to come up with
another resolution which spells out how we are going to pay for that
additional $40 to $45 billion without raising the deficit.
The second way to do it would be to have reconciliation instructions
to the Ways and Means Committee to actually find ways to raise enough
revenue to pay for that next $40 or $45 billion so that we do not
increase the deficit even further. If we do not do one of those two
things, then this House engaged in an elaborate sham when it passed the
last budget resolution, because everybody knows it only paid for half
the cost of the war this year.
Therefore, I think that what the gentlewoman from California is
trying to do is infinitely reasonable; it is certainly prudent and
fiscally responsible, and it produces a product that every soldier
fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan today has a right to see produced.
They have a right to know that they are not in an open-ended mess. They
have a right to know that we know what we are doing. They have a right
to know that we will have some idea of how to gauge whether what we are
doing is productive or counterproductive. Right now, we are simply
flying blind.
I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia for offering the original
language on the supplemental. This is a follow-up to that in a
simplified version, but it aims at the same thing. It says, ``Mr.
President, tell us how you are going to determine whether this policy
is a success or not. Quit the bull gravy. Give us specifics, not
generalized platitudes which the Congress has been getting on this
subject for the last 2 years.''
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. My main purpose here, obviously, was to focus on the bill and
the rule for the bill, but I want to discuss some of the concerns that
my good friends on the other side of the aisle have.
Frankly, I do not doubt their patriotism for a minute, and I welcome
the discussion and debate. I think it is a very good one and a very
important one for the national purpose. But I think we ought to go back
and recall a little bit the situation in Iraq. We ought to remember who
and what Saddam Hussein was. This was brought home to me very
dramatically on my first visit to Iraq in October 2003. I have since
gone back on three additional occasions, plus to Afghanistan.
I was talking with a young American soldier. At that point we, like
every other intelligence service in the world and most people in the
world, thought there were WMDs in significant quantities in Iraq,
although I do hasten to point out the capacity to acquire and to
develop those was still very much there and Mr. Hussein was still
working himself out of U.N. sanctions and placing himself in a position
to do that.
So I still think we were right to have acted early. But this young
soldier that I was visiting with, I asked him: We've been here a
considerable amount of time. We've not found the quantities of WMDs we
expected. Do you think it was a wise decision to come?
He was quiet for a moment and looked at me and he said: Yes, sir, I
will tell you regardless, and I still think they had the capacity, but
regardless I think it was a good decision to come.
I said: Why?
And he answered my question with a question of his own. He said: Sir,
have you ever been to a mass grave site?
[[Page H4571]]
I said: No, I haven't.
He said: I have. He said, Until you've seen hundreds of wailing women
as bodies are coming out, one after another, trying to identify, is
that a father, is that a son, is that a husband, is that a brother, you
don't know what terror really is. He said: My question is why the whole
world wasn't here 10 years ago.
That is a very interesting question to ask. Because we of all people
had the ability 10 years previously to have done that. We had just won
a war with Saddam Hussein, we stopped at the border, and we actually
urged people on the other side to rise up, and they did. And 50,000 of
them were killed by Saddam Hussein and neither we nor our coalition
allies did anything to help.
So I think looking at what was going on in Iraq, looking at the
400,000 deaths, looking at the 263 identified mass grave sites and
looking, frankly, at our responsibility to have done something when,
indeed, for a decade we did nothing is something that we ought to think
about and, frankly, something that the whole world ought to think
about.
Just 2 weeks ago, or last week, actually, the New York Times ran an
article on another mass grave site that had been located, was being
frankly explored, if that is even the appropriate term, in preparation
for Saddam Hussein's trial, and in that there were 2,500 people, almost
all of them women or children, some of them as young as 3 or 4 years of
age. That is the type of thing that American intervention in Iraq
stopped. My friends on the other side say, Well, are there any
signposts? Any hope?
I think that is a very legitimate question to raise, too, because
there is no doubt this has been a rough road that we have walked down
and no doubt, and I think my friends are appropriate when they raise
this, that it has not gone as predicted and as planned and it has been
a very, very difficult process.
But I think we ought to stop and look at the Iraqis on the ground and
see what they are doing, the fact that a constitutional government has
been established or is being established, the fact that 8 million
people came out to vote under the most difficult of circumstances, the
fact that we have elections scheduled for October and again for
December of this year, an extraordinary achievement by very brave
Iraqis under very difficult circumstances to set up what we most need
in that part of the world, which is a functioning democracy.
That would not be possible without the sacrifice and the service of
the brave men and women of the United States military. That is one of
the things they are accomplishing. Their first accomplishment, of
course, is to make us more secure. I think it is always legitimate to
ask, are we more secure or less secure as a result of the war in Iraq?
I would argue we are more secure. I would argue that anybody that
believes somebody like Zakawi would not be busy trying to kill
Americans someplace in the region or in the world probably is missing
the point. Our troops are engaged there and are engaging an enemy that,
left otherwise free to operate, would be busy trying to kill other
Americans as they demonstrated pretty dramatically on 9/11.
I would also argue that over time the best way to transform the
region is exactly the one that the President suggests, that is, to
establish a functioning democracy. I have a lot of faith in the Iraqi
people. I have met the political leaders there. I saw the courage of
people going out. I talked to a young soldier on the way back just
after the elections actually in March of this year who had been wounded
at Mosul.
I asked him: Were you there for the elections?
He said: Yes, sir, I was. It was the proudest moment in my 15 years
of service to my country. I was never so proud of my unit, my Army or
my country for what we accomplished. And, frankly, I was enormously
proud and impressed with the Iraqi people who came out and demonstrated
their determination with our help to establish a free society.
So I think we should have this discussion. I think it is a good
discussion for us to have. But I think we should remember the horror
that was there before the Americans intervened, the process that is
under way that will not only improve the lives of the people in Iraq
but is essentially the manner in which we hope someday to be able to
leave a self-governing and free country.
It is not going to be an easy task. It is not going to be a simple
task, but it is a noble task and it is one I think that the men and
women engaged in it that wear the uniform of the United States can be
extraordinarily proud of and, frankly, something that all of us can be
grateful to them for accomplishing and running such great risks to
achieve.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just respond to the gentleman briefly by saying that I do not
believe that we are more secure today. We were not told the truth about
this war in Iraq. We were not told the truth about WMDs or Iraq's tie
to al Qaeda. The justification for this war was based on false or
falsified information. Things are getting worse. And this
administration does not have a clue.
I was in Iraq as well. I saw firsthand what is going on over there.
What the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is trying to do is to
get some clarity, to get the administration to come out and explain to
us what their strategy is, if they have one, and if they do not, to try
to get them to come up with one. This is a very serious matter. Those
men and women who are serving our country so bravely over there deserve
more from us than they have gotten.
That is the reason why I hope people will vote ``no'' on the previous
question, to give us an opportunity to force this administration to do
what it should have done a long time ago and that is define what this
mission is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my friend and colleague from
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am very much interested in the debate that just took
place. I cannot help but be mindful of the fact that we are still
debating today the advisability of going to war in Vietnam which
concluded 30 years ago and we may continue this debate on the Iraq war
for another generation.
But the comments that the gentleman makes are really not particularly
relevant to this amendment that we are focusing on in the rule. I did
not feel we should go into the Iraq war without an adequate exit
strategy and without more reliable information connecting Saddam
Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, but I was in the minority. The Congress
gave the President the authority to go to war in Iraq. We accept that.
But we did not give the President the authority to spend an unlimited
amount of money. We did not give the President the authority to take an
unlimited amount of time in completing the mission in Iraq. We
certainly did not give the President the authority to expend an
unlimited number of Americans' lives in pursuing that mission. We have
to retain our oversight responsibility.
In the newspaper today, in The Washington Post, maybe some of my
colleagues were struck at the juxtaposition of headlines, one headline
says, ``Bush Is Expected to Address Specifics on Iraq.'' And on the
page facing it, it says: ``Exit Strategy on Social Security Is
Sought.'' Interesting juxtaposition. But in the story on Iraq, the
White House spokesperson says, the President takes seriously his
responsibility as Commander in Chief to continue to educate the
American people about our strategy for victory.
That is all this amendment was about. That is all we are asking for,
some reasonable information that is critical for assessing how well we
are doing, how much in the way of resources are necessary. We put that
language into the conference on the Iraq supplemental. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I had it put into report language.
The minority leader asked that that language become bill language as
part of the defense appropriations bill.
I do not think it is inconsistent with what the White House
acknowledges is their responsibility to provide us with measurable
criteria for success in Iraq. What level of military capability is
necessary for the Iraq forces, what level of economic viability is
necessary
[[Page H4572]]
for the Iraq economy, what level of political stability is necessary
for the Iraq Government.
That is what we are asking. More importantly, that is what our
constituents are asking. If we had a child in that war, would that not
be the first thing we would want to know? What does it take to
accomplish the mission so they can get back home to their loved ones?
The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, just gave us a report
that states that ``U.S. Government agencies do not report reliable data
on the extent to which Iraqi security forces are trained and equipped.
The reported number of Iraqi police is unreliable because the Ministry
of Interior does not receive consistent and accurate reporting from the
police forces around the country.
Further, the Departments of State and Defense no longer report on the
extent to which Iraqi security forces are equipped with their required
weapons, vehicles, communications equipment, and body armor. Without
reliable reporting data, a more capable Iraqi force, and stronger Iraqi
leadership, the Department of Defense faces difficulties in
implementing its strategy to draw down U.S. forces from Iraq.''
I quoted all those words. That is our GAO. We are not fighting the
issue of the war. We are trying to exercise our oversight
responsibility. What number of Iraqi military forces are going to be
necessary, adequately trained, sufficiently equipped so that we can
turn over some of the military responsibility? What number of Iraqi
police forces are necessary to restore law and order in that country?
{time} 1115
How much more in the way of American dollars are going to be
necessary to reconstruct the infrastructure of the Iraqi economy so
that it will be economically viable? And how much more in the way of
political stability will be necessary so that they could start to
govern themselves? Until we get those questions answered, we do not
know where we are going. And if we do not know where we are going, we
are never going to get there.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the
gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me this time, but primarily for
the outstanding statement he has made during the discussion of this
rule.
I also want to thank the ranking minority member, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha),
because the bill that we will be working on after this rule is adopted
is a bipartisan bill, as any wartime bill should be.
But I think most of the debate on the rule has not been about the
bill that the rule provides for. Most of the debate has been at a
different level on the issue of the so-called war in Iraq. I may get in
a little trouble here, but I do not think we should call this the Iraqi
war or the war in Iraq. This is a global war against terrorism, against
terrorists, who hide and strike from cover. That is what this war is
about. The Iraqi part of the war, because of the tremendous military
capability that we have, that war was over quickly. Saddam Hussein's
villainous regime was toppled quickly and effectively. Saddam's
military was either defeated or ran for cover. That part of the war was
over early, and the President said, ``Mission accomplished.'' That was
accomplished. Saddam was gone. His bad guys were gone.
What we are dealing with today is a war on terror, a war against
terror. The battleground today happens to be Iraq. The battleground
today is in Iraq. On September 11 of 2001, the battleground was in New
York City when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, killing
several thousand of our people. That was the battleground then. The
battleground was at the Pentagon just across the river from the Capitol
on September 11. That was the battleground then. Today it is in Iraq.
On February 26 of 1993, the battleground again was at the World Trade
Center where terrorists attacked. Six lives were lost in that attack.
The battleground again was on June 25 of 1996, at the Khobar Towers in
Saudi Arabia, the home of our Air Force personnel who were working
there at the airbase. Nineteen lives were lost. That was the
battleground in this global war on terror. On August 7 of 1998, the
United States Embassies, our sovereign property in Kenya and Tanzania,
were bombed. Two hundred and fifty-nine lives were lost, including 11
Americans. That was the battleground then. On October 12 of 2000, USS
Cole, off the shore of Yemen was attacked by terrorists. Seventeen
sailors lost their lives, and many, many more were wounded seriously.
That was the battleground in this global war on terrorists then.
The battleground today is in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is not the
Iraqi war. That just happens to be the battleground today. We are
trying to prevent any further battlegrounds in the United States or
anywhere else in the civilized world.
If I were going to make a criticism today, I would criticize many of
our friends in the civilized world because we now have an established
government in Iraq, elected by large numbers of Iraqi people. We are
seeing that government attacked because the major loss of life since
that government was established has been of the Iraqis themselves.
Where is the rest of the civilized world in fighting this war on
terror? They have already been subject to terror in many parts of the
world, and they will continue to be as long as the terrorists reign
free and roam the globe free.
This is not an Iraqi war. Iraq just happens to be the battleground
today. It is an expensive war, and it is an expensive war in the lives
of our personnel. And we want to conclude this war against terror as
quickly as we can, as effectively as we can. And the civilized world
has a responsibility that they are not meeting to help the United
States in this effort to allow this established government in Iraq to
take a strong hold and to be able to provide for their own security as
we battle against the forces of terrorism wherever they might be.
Let us pass the previous question, let us pass the rule, and let us
pass this very good bipartisan defense appropriations bill and get on
with our work.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just say to the very distinguished gentleman from Florida,
whom that I have a great deal of respect for, that all these terrible
terrorist acts that he has cited were committed by al Qaeda. And,
unfortunately, most of those masterminds are still at large because our
forces have been diverted into this war in Iraq, and they are not
focused in on where they should be, on bringing to justice those
members of al Qaeda who are the masterminds of these crimes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding me this time.
Our strategy to win the peace in Iraq is failing. We have been
killing or eliminating 1,000 to 3,000 Iraqi insurgents a month for 17
months, and in that same period of time, the insurgency has quadrupled.
If we talk to people in the theater in Iraq today, they would tell us
that that insurgency is anywhere from 150- to 200,000 people.
So what do we want to do? The gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) wants to have an amendment asking the President to come up with
a success strategy. We do that to support our men and women in uniform
and to support the administration's coming up with an exit strategy,
because it has been 25 months and 1,700 American fatalities since the
President declared ``mission accomplished'' in Iraq. For over 2 years
we have stayed the course, and it has brought us only casualties and
less stability.
After returning to the United States from Iraq, I suggested 5 months
ago that we needed to think of an exit strategy. Five months later the
case for an exit strategy has only grown stronger. And having an exit
strategy does not mean cut and run. It means having a blueprint for
achieving our goal of leaving the Iraqi people sovereign and truly
independent. And it is not a novel idea. All we are asking is for this
President to have the same principle he had when he was Governor of
Texas, when he said, ``Victory means exit strategy.'' It is important
for the
[[Page H4573]]
President to explain to us what that exit strategy is, and that is what
Governor George W. Bush said relative to our campaign in Kosovo, and it
is more relevant today in Iraq than it was even then.
Any successful strategy in Iraq has to address the fundamental
factors that are continuing to fuel the insurgency. One of those
factors, Mr. Speaker, is the suspicion that the United States is going
to occupy Iraq indefinitely. And until we lay out a framework with the
Iraqi Government to bring our troops home, the Iraqi people will never
feel that they have control of their own destiny.
A fundamental problem with our failed strategy has been the failure
to counter the suspicion among the Iraqis that the United States
intends permanent occupation. We are pouring concrete all over that
country, and in order to build credibility for the new government and
make clear that our forces in Iraq are only temporary peacekeepers, we
need to renounce any intention of a long-term presence in Iraq. There
are difficult and fundamental questions about Iraq's future, the
structure of government, the degree of influence and religious and
political minorities. All of these things have to be worked out. But
this process must be fully inclusive. It is our obligation to press the
process and pulling Iraqis out of the insurgency, pulling them into the
political process. A clear exit strategy would help splinter insurgent
groups and help them set aside their own differences. The only reason
they have united is to unite against us in our occupation. We should
support this strategy.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I have great respect, Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle for their passion and their commitment, but I think
they are make a fundamental mistake in their argument about Iraq. I
think what they want is a timetable, not a strategy.
We have a strategy. It is called getting an elected government up and
operational that can defend itself. We have made important steps along
the way in succeeding in that strategy. We have turned over power to
the Iraqis. The Iraqis have had an election. They have an elected
government that, as we debate here, is debating there about the
constitution that they want to have, that they want to live under, that
they want to put in front of their people to approve of in October,
followed by scheduled elections in December for a government.
I remind my friends that while they call for an exit strategy and a
date certain, our friends in Iraq want exactly the opposite of a date
certain. Repeatedly, the elected leaders, the elected leaders in Iraq,
the people who have the voice, the mandate of the people behind them,
have said, Our biggest fear about the United States is that they will
not stay the course, that they will quit and run.
I tell the Members that some of the most surprised people that I met
when I was in Iraq came in two categories when I was there in March
after the elections. First, I met with a group of the newly formed
United Iraqi Alliance, basically a group of Shia and other people who
are now the majority. And we were visiting about the political process
there, and one of the individuals I was visiting with, now a leader in
the government, made the point that, We were not sure that you would
actually allow free elections to occur, and you did, and we are
astonished and pleased and committed to staying the course. So our next
question is, will you stay here and help us against the people that
want to take us back to the era of Saddam Hussein, back to that regime,
because we are going to need your help in this transition process?
That is a very legitimate question. Do we have the political will to
stay while the people that are elected put together the government that
they need to succeed? So we are going to see that in the course of the
coming time. But I think we should be more understanding that there is
a strategy and that there is a process under way that is producing good
results for the Iraqi people, that is giving them actually a government
for the first time that they choose.
I also met with a group of Sunnis who were dissidents, who were not
particularly supportive of the process, and in the course of our
discussion, a number of them made the point, We made a big mistake. We
should have participated in the last elections. The situation in the
country would be different. We would be at the political table. We
would be in a position to affect what is happening. But we also did not
have faith that the United States was serious about democracy. But we
look at the outcome of the election, and we understand that indeed you
were, and we intend to participate as we move forward.
I think the gentleman from Florida made a very good point. We need to
recognize that most people in Iraq are on the same side we are. Most
people in Iraq want a democracy, and most people believe that our
presence there is important in ensuring that that process take root and
actually succeed. I think if we stay the course, frankly, in time we
will be very pleased with the result, but, more importantly, we will
have restored faith.
My friends on the other side of the aisle say people question our
intention about staying long term. I can tell them from my personal
experience it is exactly the opposite. They doubt our willingness to
stay. I would suggest that setting dates certain would sound more like
a surrender strategy than an exit strategy, more like we can count on
at this particular point that the Americans will not be here anymore.
That is a nice thing to know if one happens to be in the insurgency. It
is also a pretty worrisome thing if one happens to be part of the
forces of democracy. At that point whether we have succeeded or not,
whether or not the government is able to deal with the insurgency on
its own, the Americans are saying, sayonara, we are out of here, good-
bye. That is a catastrophic mistake. That, in my opinion, would
undermine the sacrifice, the effort, and the service so far.
So, again, I welcome the debate. And I hope at some point in the
discussion on the rule we can get back to this excellent piece of
legislation, which I think really is important, and where, frankly,
there is bipartisan unity in terms of the things we need to do to move
our military forward.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If the gentleman from Oklahoma has a strategy on Iraq or knows that
the Bush administration has written down such a strategy, would he
please share with us a copy because I have yet to see one?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt).
{time} 1130
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the aftermath of the war in Iraq has been
marred by miscalculations and mistakes, made up for in many cases by
our troops, who have filled the breach brilliantly by improvising,
often doing duty for which they were never trained. You cannot go to
Iraq and talk to our troops in the field and come home without saying
to yourself, thank God there are such Americans.
But their valiant efforts would have been more effective if the
Pentagon had not ignored General Shinseki and deployed too few troops
initially to secure the country and capitalize on our victory in
battle.
Their efforts would have been more effective if the Pentagon had not
ignored General Garner and cashiered the entire Iraqi Army.
Their efforts would have been more effective if we had moved much
sooner to set up a representative government and stand up Iraqi
security forces to whom we can ultimately and must ultimately hand over
the responsibility for securing their own country.
Before we disengage from Iraq, we have to do both of the above. I
firmly believe that. We have to stand up security forces, and by that I
mean police and border guards and the army, adequate to stabilize the
country; and we have to steer the Iraqis through the shoals towards the
adoption of a constitution and the election of a government under that
constitution.
We cannot leave any sooner without risking the collapse of Iraq into
a fractious and bloody civil war which could very well require us to
return. I believe that.
[[Page H4574]]
But to be sure that we are moving systematically in the right
direction, the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), is asking for a yardstick, milestones, by which to measure our
progress. This is not a plan of withdrawal. If it were, I would not
vote for it. This is a strategy for success.
Let me give you one reason from a budget perspective why we need it.
Basically, the budgets in the out years beyond 2006 contain no
estimation of what the deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and North
American Air Defense are costing us. Even though the cost is $80
billion to $100 billion a year, it is not included in the budget.
CBO undertook to estimate, to model, what our likely deployment in
Iraq may cost, because otherwise there is a gaping hole, an unrealistic
aspect, to the budget. Their estimate was that if we drew down to
20,000 troops in theater by the end of 2006 and 20,000 troops in
Afghanistan by the end of 2006, and then taper that force off over the
rest of the remaining 10-year period, the cost over 10 years would be
$384 billion. That is a significant item.
If that is what is in the cards, if that is what is likely, given the
strategy for success, we need to know it, we need to plan for it, we
need to be expecting it.
Given what is at stake, given the lives that have been lost, given
the billions that have been spent, what we are asking is a modest
request to make of the Pentagon; and, Mr. Speaker, it involves the sort
of planning that I would hope they would be doing anyway and should be
sharing with us if they are doing it.
I would therefore urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a
vote for the leader's amendment.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and
for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this very misguided $409 billion
defense appropriations rule and bill. As the proud daughter of a
veteran of two wars, I believe that our Nation is best defended by
funding priorities that truly make our Nation and world safer. This
bill, I am sorry to say, does not do that.
What does it say about our priorities when Congress appropriates $45
billion more for the unnecessary war in Iraq, without any
accountability, direction, or exit strategy or even a plan to end this
permanent occupation? Does the President plan to have permanent bases
in Iraq?
We are in an impossible situation. Taken to war under false
pretenses, our troops have become the very rallying points for the
insurgency they are trying to contain.
This administration continues to stonewall what is a very simple
question: What is the plan to bring our troops home? The purpose of
this funding bill is to provide for our national defense. Yet in the
same way that this war has made us less safe, the funding priorities in
this bill are for weapons systems and military contractors, and
billions of additional funds are unaccounted for in waste, fraud, and
abuse. This only undermines our national interest.
Mr. Speaker, we must get our funding priorities right. And the
American people need to know what the President's plan is. What is his
strategy? What does he consider success? The information that the
Pelosi amendment is requesting is absolutely necessary to begin what
the American people are demanding, and that is the withdrawal of the
United States Armed Forces from Iraq.
It is incredible to me that we are sacrificing our funding needs for
our critical efforts here in America, such as for housing and health
care and education. Once again, we must get our funding priorities
correct. We must get them straight. We must know what the President's
plan is. We must know what he intends to do. The Pelosi amendment gets
that information. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to differ with an
underlying assumption that has been made by a number of my friends on
the other side of the aisle, which is that we are somehow paying an
extraordinary amount of our national wealth for defense. I would
actually argue quite the opposite.
In 1959 and 1960, at the height of the Cold War, this country spent
50 percent, 50 percent, of the entire Federal budget on defense, almost
9 percent of the gross national product, an enormous sum of money.
1980, fast forward, Ronald Reagan, we are spending about 6 percent of
the Gross National Product and about one-third of the Federal budget on
defense.
1990, 4.8 percent of the gross national product and a significantly
lower percentage of the Federal budget.
Today, about 3.7 percent of the national wealth and about 18 to 19
percent of the total Federal budget.
I could make a pretty good argument that either, one, we are very
efficient because we are actually defending the country for
considerably less of its national wealth than we have done at any
period in the postwar period; or we need to be doing more. I would
argue toward the latter, actually. I think we should be doing more, and
I think this bill is a step in that direction.
The second assumption that I want to disagree with is that we are
somehow less safe today because of the Iraqi war. That is asserted,
never demonstrated.
The reality is, I think, if you asked most Americans on September 12,
2001, did they expect other incidents inside the domestic confines of
the United States, they would have said yes, and they would have
expected them in rather short order. It is a little short of miraculous
that we have not had that horrific incident occur again. It could occur
at any moment. As the President has said repeatedly in recent months,
America is safer; America is certainly not safe.
But I would argue, again, the engagement of the enemy a far distance
away from the United States and in a method that keeps them tied down
has actually contributed to the security of our country. This excellent
piece of legislation will enable our military to continue to do the
outstanding job it is doing. Again, on that piece of legislation, at
least, I am delighted there is bipartisan unity.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. A
little over 2 years ago, the President announced on that aircraft
carrier off San Diego, ``mission accomplished'' in Iraq. Today, we must
ask what really has been accomplished with the hundreds of billions of
dollars that the United States has spent and will spend.
Iraq is in chaos. 1,714 U.S. servicemembers have been killed and
12,855 wounded. In the first half of this month alone, 431 Iraqi
citizens have died randomly at the hands of insurgents and terrorists.
Multiple car bombings have become a daily occurrence in Baghdad and
throughout Iraq. The elected government is struggling to gain control
and cannot provide security for its citizens.
Just 2 weeks ago, the New York Times and international news
organizations reported our Marines' discovery of an enormous
underground bunker near the city of Fallujah that was used by
insurgents as a hideout and weapons cache. This bunker is the size of
four football fields and sports dormitories, with full kitchen,
showers, and sanitation facilities. This is just the largest example of
the weapons caches patrols find every week. How can we call the mission
a success when insurgents can operate so freely as to still utilize
bunkers of this size?
All of this simply underscores how spectacularly and tragically wrong
our civilian leadership, from Secretary Rumsfeld right up through
President, was when they rejected military commanders' advice that at
least 300,000 troops would be needed on the ground to occupy and pacify
Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, as we discuss this bill, I urge my colleagues to think
about whether our huge commitment, the thousands of young lives lost
and the hundreds of billions of dollars spent, is being deployed
effectively and wisely.
It is very late in this Iraq tragedy. Congress needs to force the
development of a workable strategy to achieve
[[Page H4575]]
stability in Iraq and then bring our young men and women home. That was
the subject of the distinguished minority leader's amendment which this
rule denies.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me time.
As we debate the 2006 Defense Appropriations Act, I rise to commend
the actions of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Brigadier
General Casey McClain. Their swift effort to implement a tough policy
against sexual assaults in the military is praiseworthy.
I became aware of the troublesome issue in the military when the
Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues held a hearing last spring to
give voice to military women who were victims of sexual assault.
In this time of conflict, when brave young men and women are willing
to put their lives at risk, it is essential that those soldiers do not
fear the actions of their comrades in arms. The act of sexual assault
is condemned in civilian society. It is especially unforgivable when
one soldier sexually assaults another. The bonds of trust and respect
unite soldiers on the battlefield. It therefore is imperative that this
trust not be eroded because of insufficient policies addressing sexual
assault among our troops.
After the hearing, Congress acted last year to include language in
the Defense Authorization Act that required DOD to develop a definition
of sexual assault that is uniform for all of the Armed Forces. That was
part of the problem before. It was no small task, yet the Joint Task
Force on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response led by Brigadier
General McClain carried out this charge with the utmost professionalism
and timeliness.
As a result of their efforts, I am pleased to report that the new
policy on confidential reporting went into effect just earlier this
week. The new policy provides for a confidential means for soldiers to
report assaults and ensures that victims feel safe and that they are
encouraged not to hide, but rather to report this violation.
It is clear that the Department of Defense places a high priority on
the prevention of and response to sexual assault within the military. I
commend their actions, but I remind them that this Congress will
continue to exercise authority over them to ensure that this policy is
continued.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule
so we can consider the Pelosi amendment that was offered in the
Committee on Rules Tuesday night, but rejected on a straight party-line
vote.
Mr. Speaker, the Pelosi amendment would require the President to
submit to Congress within 30 days a report on a strategy for success in
Iraq. That is it.
Mr. Speaker, whatever one's position is on the war in Iraq, I think
most of us realize that it is past time for the administration to
assess the situation in Iraq and to address the matter of an eventual
withdrawal from that country. I hope Members will agree to at least
consider this amendment today.
The House has a responsibility to ask tough questions and to demand
straight answers. I am tired of the spin, as so many other Members are.
It is time for candor. The people of this country deserve that.
A ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the defense
appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow
Members to vote on the Pelosi amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will
block the House from considering and voting on the need for a success
strategy in the war in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, we need a strategy, not just slogans.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I will enter into the Record two articles
cited in my opening statement. I also had a very moving meeting
yesterday with members of the Gold Star Families for Peace who have
lost sons and daughters in the war in Iraq. These families have
experienced the tragedy of this war firsthand, and they believe we
should set a very different course. I will enter into the Record the
personal statements by these family members regarding the continuing
U.S. presence in Iraq.
[From Knight Ridder Newspapers, June 12, 2005.]
Military Action Won't End Insurgency, Growing Number of U.S. Officers
Believe
(By Tom Lasseter)
Baghdad, Iraq.--A growing number of senior American
military officers in Iraq have concluded that there is no
long-term military solution to an insurgency that has killed
thousands of Iraqis and more than 1,300 U.S. troops during
the past two years.
Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerilla war
is through Iraqi politics--an arena that so far has been
crippled by divisions between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition
dominated the January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who are a
minority in Iraq but form the base of support for the
insurgency.
``I think the more accurate way to approach this right now
is to concede that . . . this insurgency is not going to be
settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not
going to be settled, through military options or military
operations,'' Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S.
military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that
echoes what other senior officers say. ``It's going to be
settled in the political process.''
Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq,
expressed similar sentiments, calling the military's efforts
``the Pillsbury Doughboy idea''--pressing the insurgency in
one area only causes it to rise elsewhere.
``Like in Baghdad,'' Casey said during an interview with
two newspaper reporters, including one from Knight Ridder,
last week. ``We push in Baghdad--they're down to about less
than a car bomb a day in Baghdad over the last week--but in
north-center (Iraq) . . . they've gone up,'' he said. ``The
political process will be the decisive element.''
The recognition that a military solution is not in the
offing has led U.S. and Iraqi officials to signal they are
willing to negotiate with insurgent groups, or their
intermediaries.
``It has evolved in the course of normal business,'' said a
senior U.S. diplomatic official in Baghdad, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity because of U.S. policy to defer to the
Iraqi government on Iraqi political matters. ``We have now
encountered people who at least claim to have some form of a
relationship with the insurgency.''
The message is markedly different from previous statements
by U.S. officials who spoke of quashing the insurgency by
rounding up or killing ``dead enders'' loyal to former
dictator Saddam Hussein. As recently as two weeks ago, in a
Memorial Day interview on CNN's ``Larry King Live,'' Vice
President Dick Cheney said he believed the insurgency was in
its ``last throes.''
But the violence has continued unabated, even though 44 of
the 55 Iraqis portrayed in the military's famous ``deck of
cards'' have been killed or captured, including Saddam.
Lt. Col. Frederick P. Wellman, who works with the task
force overseeing the training of Iraqi security troops, said
the insurgency doesn't seem to be running out of new
recruits, a dynamic fueled by tribal members seeking revenge
for relatives killed in fighting.
``We can't kill them all,'' Wellman said. ``When I kill one
I create three.''
Last month was one of the deadliest since President Bush
declared the end of major combat operations in May 2003, a
month that saw six American troops killed by hostile fire. In
May 2005, 67 U.S. soldiers and Marines were killed by hostile
fire, the fourth-highest tally since the war began, according
to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an Internet site that uses
official casualty reports to organize deaths by a variety of
criteria.
At least 26 troops have been killed by insurgents so far in
June, bringing to 1,311 the number of U.S. soldiers killed by
hostile action. Another 391 service members have died as a
result of accidents or illness.
The Iraqi interior minister said last week that the
insurgency has killed 12,000 Iraqis during the past two
years. He did not say how he arrived at the figure.
American officials had hoped that January's national
elections would blunt the insurgency by giving the population
hope for their political future. But so far, the political
process has not in any meaningful way included Iraq's Sunni
Muslim population.
Most of Iraq's Sunnis Muslims, motivated either by fear or
boycott, did not vote, and they hold a scant 17 seats in the
275-member parliament.
There was a post-election lull in bloodshed, a period that
saw daily attack figures dip into the 30s. But with the
seating of the interim government on April 28, attacks spiked
back to 70 a day. More than 700 Iraqis have been killed since
then.
The former Iraqi minister of electricity, Ayham al-Samarie,
has said he's consulted with U.S. diplomatic officials about
his negotiations with two major insurgent groups to form a
political front of sorts. There has been similar talk in the
past--notably by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's
administration, which spoke of inclusion through amnesty--but
nothing has come of it.
At the heart of the problem is the continued failure of
U.S. and Iraqi officials to bring the nation's Sunni
minority, with more than
[[Page H4576]]
five million people, to the political table. Sunnis now find
themselves in a country ruled by the Shiite and Kurdish
political parties once brutally oppressed by Saddam, a Sunni.
With Shiites and Kurds stocking the nation's security
forces with members of their militias, Sunnis have been
marginalized and, according to some analysts in Iraq, have
become more willing to join armed groups.
Since September of last year, some 85 percent of the
violence in Iraq has taken place in just four of Iraq's 18
provinces: the Sunni heartland of al Anbar, Baghdad, Ninevah
and Salah al Din.
U.S. officials prefer not to talk about the situation along
religious lines, but they acknowledge that one of the key
obstacles to resolving Iraq's problems is the difference
between Sunni and Shiite religious institutions.
Shiites are organized around their marja'iya, a council of
clerics--led in Iraq by Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani--that
issues religious edicts that Shiite faithful follow as law.
Sunnis, on the other hand, have no such unifying structure.
The difference was made clear in January when one list
formed under the guidance of Sistani was the choice of almost
all Shiites voting. Those Sunnis who did go to the polls
split their votes among a myriad of organizations including
those backed by a presumptive monarch, a group of communists
and a religious group that mayor may not have been boycotting
the election.
Sunni Muslims near downtown Baghdad have only to drive down
the street to see how precarious their position in Iraqi
politics and society is these days. On roads near the party
headquarters for the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic
Revolution in Iraq, which is in large part shaping the policy
of the nation, Kurdish militia members patrol the streets.
The troops are ostensibly part of the nation's army, but
they still wear militia uniforms and, as is the case with
some in Kurdistan, many either can't or won't speak Arabic.
One of the roads they patrol has been named Badr Street, for
the armed wing of the Supreme Council. There is a large
billboard with the looming face of Abdul Aziz al Hakim, the
Supreme Council's leader.
Unless Sunnis develop confidence that the government will
represent them, few here see the insurgency fading.
Asked about the success in suppressing the insurgency in
Baghdad recently--the result of a series of large-scale raids
that in targeted primarily Sunni neighborhoods--Brig. Gen.
Alston said that he expects the violence to return.
``We have taken down factories, major cells, we have made
good progress in (stopping) the production of (car bombs) in
Baghdad,'' Alston said. ``Now, do I think that there will be
more (bombs) in Baghdad? Yes, I do.''
[From the Washington Post, June 8, 2005.]
Pentagon Wasted Supplies, GAO Finds
(By Griff Witte)
The Defense Department spent at least $400 million in
recent years buying boots, tents, bandages and other goods at
he same time it was getting rid of identical items it had
paid for but never used, government investigators told House
members yesterday.
That finding came as part of a broader inquiry by the
Government Accountability Office that uncovered deep flaws in
the Pentagon's system for determining when it needs to buy
new supplies and how it disposes of supposedly excess
inventory.
Investigators discovered that out of $33 billion of goods
the Defense Department marked as excess from 2002 through
2004, $4 billion was in excellent condition. Only about 12
percent of that was reused by the department. The other $3.5
billion ``includes significant waste and inefficiency,'' the
GAO said, because new or good-as-new items were ``transferred
and donated outside of DOD, sold for pennies on the dollar,
or destroyed.''
Investigators brought some of that equipment with them to
the hearing of a House Government Reform Committee
subcommittee yesterday. Among the items on display were
unused military uniforms and medals that GAO had purchased
off of a publicly available Web site intended for disposing
of unwanted government property. The GAO also obtained the
power-supply system for a component of a nuclear submarine
that was on the Pentagon's ``critical shortage'' list at the
time.
``We're not sure why DOD would be letting GAO have that. We
don't have any nuclear submarines at GAO,'' said Gregory D.
Kutz, the GAO's managing director for special investigations.
Subcommittee members reacted angrily to the findings.
``Waste on this scale affects our ability to meet the
immediate needs of men and women in uniform,'' said Rep.
Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who chaired the hearing. ``The
$400 million spent on unneeded equipment could have bought
body armor, medical supplies or more than 1,700 fully armed
Humvees to protect coalition forces against deadly improvised
explosive devices.''
Rep. Henry A Waxman (D-Calif.) said the only beneficiaries
of the Pentagon's mismanagement are the companies that sell
equipment to the government. ``Federal contractors are
reaping a bonanza while taxpayers are being gouged,'' Waxman
said.
Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) said the GAO's findings
involved the waste of ``an unbelievably staggering amount of
money.''
``Anybody who's not horrified by this does not deserve to
be called a conservative,'' he said.
Pentagon officials testified that they generally agreed
with the GAO's findings, saying new items had been
accidentally labeled in some cases as excess inventory. The
officials said they have made improvements, however, and plan
to have a computer system up and running by January that
would prevent Pentagon officials from buying new equipment
that is already available internally.
``We do have a fix on the horizon,'' said Maj. Gen. Daniel
G. Mongeon, director of logistics operations at the Defense
Logistics Agency.
Yesterday's report followed GAO inquiries that uncovered
evidence the Defense Department was selling unused
biological- and chemical-weapons-resistant suits for $3 each.
At the same time it was buying hundreds of thousands more for
$200 apiece.
Investigators found that example typified a broader
problem. For instance, they paid $2,898 for $79,649 worth of
tires, badges, circuit cards and medical supplies. In some
cases, the goods had been marked as junk but were delivered
in their original packaging. At the same time, the Pentagon
continued to order more of the same items from its suppliers.
The GAO concluded that the Pentagon could have saved $400
million in fiscal 2002 and 2003 had it used what it already
owned, rather than buying more.
GAO investigators also found that at contractor-operated
facilities where excess equipment was supposed to be
liquidated, items were left exposed to rain and wind. Much of
it ended up damaged beyond repair.
In addition, the Defense Department said that between 2002
and 2004, $466 million of equipment marked as excess--
including sensitive equipment such as missile warheads--had
been lost, stolen or damaged. Kutz, who said he believes the
total of unaccounted-for equipment could be far higher, said
the GAO will continue to investigate where those items ended
up.
Statements From Members of Gold Star Families for Peace
Iraq has been the tragic Lie of Historic Proportions of
Washington, DC since before the first gulf war. For years,
Saddam was one of our government's propped up and militarily
supported puppets. Many people have seen the famous footage
of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. I suppose the
two are smiling so big for the cameras because they are
kindred spirits. After all of the hand-shaking and weapon
brokering, when did Saddam become such a bad guy to Bush,
Cheney, Halliburton and Co.? (Insert your favorite reason
here). During the Clinton regime the US-UN led sanctions
against Iraq and the weekly bombing raids killed tens of
thousands of innocent people in Iraq. Many of them were
children, but since one of her children didn't have to be
sacrificed to the homicidal war machine, Madeline Albright,
thinks the slaughter during the ``halcyon'' Clinton years was
``worth it.'' More lies.
Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of current
events understands that this invasion/occupation of Iraq was
not about Saddam being a ``bad guy.'' If that logic is used,
then how many innocent Iraqi people have to die before the
citizens of America wake up and know that our government is a
``bad guy?'' We also know that Iraq was not about WMD's. They
weren't there and they weren't going to be there for at least
a decade, by all reports. Another reason, so wispy and more
difficult to disprove, is that America invaded Iraq to bring
freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. When one tries to
dispute this particular deception, one is accused of being
unpatriotic or hating freedom. Even though correct, the
statement ``Freedom isn't Free'' is very insulting to me.
False freedom is very expensive. Fake freedom costs over one
billion of our tax dollars a week; phony freedom has cost the
Iraqi people tens of thousands of innocent lives; fanciful
freedom has meant the destruction of a country and its
infrastructure. Tragically, this fabricated notion of freedom
and democracy cost me far more than I was willing to pay: the
life of my son, Casey. The Lie of Historic Proportions also
cost me my peace of mind, I do not feel free and I do not
feel like I live in a democracy.
One of the other great deceits that is being perpetuated on
the American public and the world is that this occupation is
to fight terrorism: If we don't fight terrorism in Iraq then
we will have to fight it ``on our streets.'' In fact,
terrorist attacks have skyrocketed in Iraq and all over the
world. So much so, that the State Department has stopped
compiling the statistics and quit issuing the yearly
terrorism report. I guess if one doesn't write a report, then
terrorism doesn't exist? All of Casey's commendations say
that he was killed in the ``GWOT'' the Global War on
Terrorism. I agree with most of GWOT, except that Casey was
killed in the Global War Of Terrorism waged on the world and
its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the
world: George and his destructive Neo-con cabal.
The evidence is overwhelming, compelling, and alarming that
George and his indecent bandits traitorously had intelligence
fabricated to fit their goal of invading Iraq. The criminals
foisted a Lie of Historic Proportions on the world. It was
clear to many of us more aware people that George, Condi,
Rummy, the two Dicks: Cheney and Perle,
[[Page H4577]]
Wolfie, and most effectively and treacherously, Colin Powell,
lied their brains out before the invasion. The world was even
shown where the WMD'S were on the map. We were told that the
``smoking gun'' could come at any time in the form of a
``mushroom cloud'' or a cloud of toxic biological or chemical
weapons. Does anyone remember duct tape and plastic sheeting?
Finally, the side of peace, truth and justice has our own
smoking gun and it is burning our hands. It is the so-called
Downing Street Memo dated 23, July 2002, (almost 8 months
before the invasion) that states that military action
(against Iraq) is now seen as ``inevitable.'' The memo
further states that: ``Bush wanted to remove Saddam through
military action'', justified by the conjunction of
``terrorism and WMD's.'' The most damning thing to George in
the memo is where the British intelligence officer who wrote
the memo claims that the intelligence to base Great Britain
and the U.S. staging a devastating invasion on Iraq was being
``fixed around the policy.'' Now, after over three years of
relentless propaganda, it is difficult to distinguish the
proven lies from the new ``truth:'' that this occupation is
bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq.
Casey took an oath to protect the U.S. from all enemies
``foreign and domestic.'' He was sent to occupy and die in a
foreign country that was no threat to the USA. However, the
biggest threat to our safety, humanity, and our way of life
in America are George and his cronies. Congress made a
Mistake of Historic Proportions and waived its Constitutional
responsibility to declare war. It is time for the House to
make up for that mistake and introduce Articles of
Impeachment against the murderous thugs who have caused so
much mindless mayhem. It is time for Congress to revalidate
itself by holding a hearing about the Downing Street Memo.
The reader can help by going onto www.AfterDowningStreet.org
and signing a petition to Rep. John Conyers so he will know
that the American people are behind him to convene an
investigation in the House Judiciary Committee. You can also
write your Congressional Representative to help push the
inquiry.
It is time to put partisan politics behind us to do what is
correct for once and reclaim America's humanity. It is time
for Congress and the American people to work together in
peace and justice to rid our country of the stench of greed,
hypocrisy, and unnecessary suffering that permeates our White
House and our halls of Congress. It is time to hold someone
accountable for the carnage and devastation that has been
caused. As a matter of fact, it is past time, but it is not
too late--Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey Sheehan, KIA Apr. 4,
2004.
My son Sherwood Baker, only 30 years old, a fine man,
father, husband, social worker, musician, entertainer,
friend, protector, patriot, national guard soldier lost his
precious life on April 26, 2004 in Baghdad.
He had been in Iraq for six weeks. He was assigned to
protect the Iraq Survey Group the very people looking for the
weapons of mass destruction. He was guarding that group as
they entered a munitions factory, it exploded, something hit
my son in his head as he raised himself from his humvee. He
died two hours later, half a World away from all of us who
love him so much.
Two years before this happened, people in the
Administration of George Bush had decided they wanted a war
with Iraq. They were determined to have one, though the facts
about any real dangers were ``thin'', though so many
disagreed, though the American people rejected a capricious
war. So these people who took their oath before God to be
honorable leaders, betrayed the public trust and committed
themselves and our Country to finding a way to have a war.
Some of us suspected all this then, many of us know it now,
the Downing Street memo and other revealing documents bring
the light of truth everyday to these horrendous betrayals.
Now it is the duty of congress to stand up and face these
truths, investigate the documents, follow them where ever
they lead. Hold those accountable who betrayed my son, my
family and this Country I love.
If we are ever to reach Peace in Iraq we must confront the
lies and deceptions that got us there, just as we could not
wage a war successfully on lies, there can be no Peace based
on lies.
It is very simple in some ways, 1706 Americans have given
up their lives, they stand just beyond us now, tied forever
by grief and longing to those who loved them. Tied to the
history of this Country, tied to its honor, now they wait on
us to honor the fallen and honor the truth.
I pray YOU will support the Downing Street memo hearings--
and stand with honor for the truth--Celeste Zappala, mother
of Sgt Sherwood Baker, KIA Apr. 26, 2004.
Silence in the Face of Truth: The Downing Street Memo
(By Dante Zappala)
For the first 30 years of my brother Sherwood Baker's life,
his mission was to be a responsible citizen. He made oaths
and he honored those oaths. This made him a loving father and
husband. This also made him a noble and committed soldier. He
courageously deployed with his National Guard unit to Iraq in
2004.
For the last six weeks of his life, Sherwood's mission was
to provide convoy security for the Iraq Survey Group. He was
killed in action, providing site security for the group that
was looking for weapons of mass destruction. Mounting
evidence indicates that the weapons' non-existence wasn't a
mistake. It was a ruse.
The clouds surrounding Sherwood's death became even darker
recently when I read the contents of a memo from the upper
echelons of the British government. The memo reiterates the
fact that our administration had every intention of invading
Iraq in the summer of 2002. The White House needed only to
sell the idea to the American people.
Prior to Congressional approval, prior to saying, ``War is
the last resort,'' the decision had been made to go to war
regardless of legal justification or the problems associated
with the aftermath of an invasion. The most telling quote in
this memo reads, ``The intelligence and facts were being
fixed around the policy.'' Read the memo: http://
www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html.
My brother died scouring the Iraqi countryside not to
protect his country, but to satisfy the Bush administration's
public relations agenda.
The leaders of our country politicized intelligence to
satisfy an ideology. My brother and more than 1,650 other
soldiers have been killed as a result. Yet I have to sift
through the papers and the news channels to find even a pulse
of concern. In the wake of such disturbing revelations, a
majority of our press and populace resoundingly choose to be
silent.
Overwhelmingly, Americans have ceased to care about how and
why we went war. Apathy, in the face of our soldiers'
sacrifice, seems more convenient.
We cannot allow our government to simply replace the
motivations for war midstream and expect an entire nation and
all its allies to succumb to selective memory. Yet that is
exactly what has happened.
The poet Archibald MacLish, who also lost a brother in war,
wrote:
They say
We leave you our deaths
Give them their meaning.
If we are to give meaning to the deaths in Iraq, we must be
willing to engage in truthful dialogue about the pretenses of
war. Acquiescing to the lure of silence and ignorance is an
affront to the families and memories of all who have fallen.
It is a prescription for unending violence and suffering.
Are we so ashamed of what our soldiers have and continue to
do in Iraq that we can't even talk about how they got there?
Or, are we simply ashamed of ourselves for letting it happen?
We must each confront ourselves over the failures in Iraq.
For that failure is not simply the fault of our leaders
misusing suspect intelligence. Our course as a country,
ultimately, stems from the individual conclusion of all of us
to be either complicit or resistant to war.
The government's failure in Iraq becomes our own failure
when we substitute political rhetoric or blanket ideology for
reason. It becomes our fault when we are recklessly arrogant
and willfully deaf.
Our responsibility as citizens is to acknowledge and
embrace the whole truth about the Iraq War. We must look past
partisanship and hold ourselves and our leaders to the high
standards of integrity that citizenship demands. When we fail
to honor that responsibility, we fail to honor the sacrifices
of our soldiers.
The world as I knew it ended when Neil was killed. Many
years ago someone gave us a beautiful vase and somehow I
knocked it over and it broke into two pieces. I glued it
together, it still holds water, but it lost its beauty. We
are like that vase. For a while I lost my ability to pray.
That has come back, thank God and all those who prayed for
us. Many people go to work with coffee or tea in their
cupholder. I go with tissues in my cupholder, because I cry
to and from work. I am able to function at work because I
work with children. Daily activities are no longer the same.
I can speak to a large group of people, yet I have trouble
going into stores. I cannot be in crowded stores. One of my
dearest friends just retired and I did not go to her
retirement party, because I was worried that I would start
sobbing. I love the theater, but do not go. My son was an
honorable man killed by the actions of dishonorable men--
Dianne Santoriello, mother of 1st Lt. Neil Anthony
Santoriello, KIA Aug. 13, 2004.
My son, Sgt. Mike Mitchell, was killed in Sadr City on
April 4, 2004, the first day of the Shiite uprising. He had
been in Iraq for 11 months, had turned in all of his
equipment on April 3, as he was headed to Kuwait the next
week then back to Germany and his fiancee and wedding--Bill
Mitchell, father of Sgt. Mike Mitchell, KIA Apr. 4, 2004.
Jeff was sent to Kuwait on a 6 month rotation tour with his
Battery, C/1-39 FA (MLRS) in August 2002. He was due back to
the states in February 2003, until orders to returned were
halted in December 2002 because of the build-up. He was
caught in this melee of horror with no other recourse to be a
true soldier and fight for the cause. You can imagine my
horror listening to the propaganda and lies our government
leaderships so vehemently declared to the nation as the
truth. It was out of my control to tell my baby he was in the
wrong place at the wrong time. I felt absolutely helpless. He
died 4 weeks into the invasion. He was just commissioned as a
second lieutenant, he married the love of his life, he
acquired his mustang muscle car, and he was living on his own
in Ft. Stewart, Georgia. He had the world ahead of him and
[[Page H4578]]
eager to be part of life. He didn't expect to lose his life.
He died from a shrapnel metal that pierced his right eye and
traveled through his brain knocking out all the vital parts
to sustain life. He was a victim to an explosion a football
field away. Back then, his unit (FA) was not equipped with
protective gear nor properly trained to handle infantry,
engineers, and explosive specialist jobs. Jeff was 24 yrs old
when he died and my only son. He was the love of my life and
such a cuddly baby to raise. He always had kisses for me even
into his adult life. I miss him so! This war shouldn't happen
and I want the truth. I want someone to gather all the
casualty families and tell them the truth--why it was
necessary to fabricate intelligence information to make a
case for war. We have the right to know even if its
classified--Roxanne Kaylor, mother of LT. Jeff Kaylor, KIA
Apr. 7, 2003.
The Department of Defense announced today the death of two
soldiers who were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. They
died April 19 in Baghdad, Iraq, when a vehicle-borne
improvised explosive device detonated near their dismounted
patrol. Both Soldiers were assigned 3rd Battalion, 7th
Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, and Fort Stewart,
Ga. The soldiers are: Spc. Jacob M. Pfister, 27, of Buffalo,
N.Y., Spc. Kevin S.K. Wessel, 20, of Newport, Ore--Lori
Wessel, mother of Spc Kevin S.K. Wessel, KIA Apr. 19, 2005.
Let me tell you why I think, no demand that Congress
investigate Bush's Iraq War lies. It starts with a
conversation that I remember as if it were yesterday. It was
a conversation between my son and me. He had called me from
Ft. Lewis, Wa.; his duty station. He was assuring me that
there was no way that we were going to invade Iraq. I replied
that I wasn't so sure; after all I kept hearing those war
drums. He told me with all confidence that there were two
reasons. First Saddam was not a threat to the U.S., that we
had him contained. Second, even though Saddam was a bad guy
he was OUR bad guy and if we removed him we would be creating
a political vacuum in Iraq that we would not be able to
control. How very confident he was. Needless to say, that
when we did invade he was more than a little disillusioned.
Of course his two reasons have both proved to be true.
Unfortunately, his Commander and Chief had decided on this
war possibly even before 9/11. In my son's name I demand that
Congress investigate. I demand it in my son's name because he
is unable to demand it himself. Cpl. Jonathan Castro, my only
child, was killed December 21, 2004, when a suicide bomber
was allowed into a military base mess tent in Mosul. I also
demand the investigation in the name of all those still
serving. Many of them would demand it themselves if they
didn't fear military retribution--Vickie Castro, mother of
Spc. Jonathan Castro, KIA Dec. 21, 2004.
As you meet today and discuss the additional evidence of
the lies that were used to launch this illegal, immoral
invasion and occupation of a recognized, sovereign nation, I
would humbly like to put before you yet a few more numbers,
reasons to stay the course and continue to reveal these
crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice.
That number is 538. My nephew, PFC William Ramirez, was
American soldier number 538 to die in this horrific travesty
committed on the people of Iraq in the name of the Congress
of the United States, our citizens and our allies. Think then
of the 537 who came before and the 1100+ who have died since.
Think also of the 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians whose
lives have been lost and blown to rubble by American
munitions and their aftermath.
Here's another number--19. That is how many years William
spent on this earth. Two of those in the U.S. Army. He was
anxious to serve and defend. He was promised a chance to
learn architecture or engineering, to create and build.
Instead, he was sent to destroy, kill and die. And for what?
How many of you, knowing what you know about this war, would
willingly allow a child, a grandchild, a nephew or niece or
even your dog to be sacrificed for it? Can you wrap your
minds around the suffering, pain and grief that lies behind
each number in the newspaper, in your briefings, on the TV?
Multiply those numbers 10 times or so and envision the lives
shattered by injury, physical and mental, and the military
families who must support those victims.
It is horrible and wrong for a life to be cut off violently
and short. The greater horror is the senselessness of it, in
knowing that William's death was in vain. There is no comfort
in thinking the world is a better place because of it. His
heroism was squandered by liars, cheats and profiteers. His
courage was used to attack a nation that was not a threat.
His youth and inexperience was stolen by conniving draft
dodgers waving flags of patriotism and fear who never
answered the call to serve. His life was manipulated to
achieve the ends chosen by a handful of people and his death
means nothing to them.
Congress was lied to, but Congress is still culpable. Our
entire country will continue to pay for this. It is your job
and duty now to investigate without stopping until truth and
justice are rooted out. Number 538 is just one in a sea of
numbers that don't look like much on a piece of paper. It
really isn't that large of a number relative to so many
others in the news. To our family, however it is a fatal
number. It is the difference between a hope-filled future for
a loving, intelligent boy and a silent headstone in a
military cemetery. How many more families will receive a
number like that? How many more?
William may have wanted to defend our country and its
democracy, but the truth is that battle must be waged on
these shores, in these very buildings. And you are the
soldiers. Yes, you have position, influence, money and power
at stake and you might feel that you have much to lose on the
front lines of this conflict. The United States has much to
lose if you do not fight. Please be inspired by our heroic
and selfless troops and by the memory of our fallen. Take up
their cause and restore our nation to one they would be proud
of, to the one they thought they suffered and died for. You
can give meaning to their deaths if only you will--Annette
Pritchard, aunt of PFC William Ramirez, KIA Feb. 11, 2004.
My son, Spc. Joseph Blickenstaff, lost his life in the line
of duty for our country. Yes, we were and are proud of him as
a man and thrilled at his accomplishments. Today is the l8-
month anniversary of his death. One day, at the age of 20,
Joe came to see me and was very excited. He had enlisted in
the Army. I was not happy. He convinced me it was something
he really wanted to do and thought he would be good at it. I
finally agreed it might be good for him.
He left for Basic Training May 1, 2001. He arrived home
from Basic on September 6, 2001. The party to celebrate this
achievement was September 9, 2001. You know what happened
next. All the rules changed. He married his Sweetheart,
Angela, shortly after Basic Training. They moved to
Washington near the Base. Joe continued to prepare in the
Stryker Brigade at Fort Lewis, Washington for the next 25
months. He achieved the Expert Infantryman designation, which
few managed to do. He told me he wanted to be the ``one'' to
bring down Osama Bin Laden. He was full of the righteous
anger that flowed through most Americans after 9-11. He did
not, however, believe we had the right to invade Iraq. He
decided he wanted to go to Iraq to protect his comrades. He
was a gunner. He wanted to take good care of them. He also
wanted to see what he could do to help the Iraqi people. He
hated bullies and spent his life looking out for the
underdogs. He literally would walk down the street and give
his money and his clothes away. As parents, we thought that
maybe the experience of mastering the many skills and
participating in helping other people would turn out to be
Joe's reward for all the hard work he put in as we watched
him become a proud and capable soldier. So, we met him for
dinner and kissed him goodbye in the parking lot of the
restaurant on November 13, 2003. He assured us he would be
home in a few months in order to be discharged on time. The
last words I heard him speak were on my answering machine
about 2 weeks later; ``Mom, they're keeping me for the year,
they're not letting me out.'' My heart broke for him. He had
signed a contract with the United States Government that said
he would serve 3 years. This was to be his last
disillusionment with the Army.
In the early hours of December 9, 2003, we got that most-
dreaded knock on our door. When four uniformed Army officers
face you at 1:30 a.m., there is little to ask except ``How
did it happen?''
As everyone will acknowledge, there are no words to
describe the pain of losing a child. In our case, we held
each other and assured one another that he died doing what he
believed was right. We proudly displayed his Casket Flag and
Bronze Star. We went through the motions of living, though we
felt detached from ourselves.
We did not even know who would answer all the questions we
had. The ticking clock seemed like a relentless tyrant as it
clicked away all the time he would be gone from us.
We had an invitation to meet President Bush at Fort Lewis.
We went to that meeting. I wanted and needed for our
Commander-In-Chief to look into my eyes and tell me he was
sorry for this terrible loss. I was sure I would know if he
was sincere. We had pictures taken with President Bush
looking at the picture of me pinning on Joe's boutonniere at
his wedding. The President asked me if he could keep the
words to the last song Joe wrote while in Iraq. The song
``Worthy'', expressed Joe's deep conviction that he was loved
by his Lord.
In the year since that meeting I have been very disturbed
to learn how many things were wrong with our decision to
declare war on Iraq. I say ``our decision'' because I
supported it in the beginning. I tried to rationalize that
mistakes happen and that ``Freedom Isn't Free'' and on and
on. Nothing really helped us except to keep saying to each
other that Joe died doing something he believed in. Joe died
knowing we all loved him and that he was a precious child of
his Creator. Joe died among friends who had watched him
overcome so many obstacles as the unsure boy, Joe, became the
capable and assured man and soldier, Joe.
But now, to learn how many ways the American people were
deceived into believing our leaders had our best interest at
heart, after believing we had the kind of responsible
leadership that would only put our bravest young people in
danger if absolutely necessary, after believing that we could
trust them with our very lives--it's just a horror beyond the
thinkable. Surely this misuse and loss of our precious young
people constitutes murder.
My Sweet Joe, my brave and independent Joe, my kind and
loving and giving Joe was taken from us through a series of
lies and deception. My heart is breaking--for us, for this
country, for this world. I know there are hundreds of
thousands of people who have
[[Page H4579]]
paid the ultimate price and each one of those people leaves a
family as stricken and changed as my own.
I think the only thing this Nation can do now to save any
honor we might have had in the eyes of the World would be to
lay bare the lies and do whatever we need in order to restore
the things we took from the Iraqi people when we decided to
``shock and awe'' them over 2 years ago. America has not lost
nearly as many people as the Iraqis over this insane approach
to ``helping'' these people, but we have had tens of
thousands of families changed, crippled, and denied their
rights as we are told over and over that our loved ones
offered themselves up to a higher cause.
My son would never have offered himself for the kind of
abuse of power that now exists because of this evilly-
conceived war. And the abuses aren't just happening in Iraq,
as we read daily now. Besides all of the prisoner abuse, the
American people have been abused, our society has been
abused, our financial future has been abused. Every man,
woman and child without food and medical care right here in
America has been abused.
It took an incredible amount of ``fixing'' to make sure
this war happened as planned.
We will never regain our own dignity until we stop this
insanity and become responsible members of our Global
Community. We can do it! Let's start now--Georgia Shilz,
proud mother of Spc. Joseph Michael Blickenstaff, KIA, Dec.
8, 2003.
They just drove away. Your new world is black and white;
it's upside down and inside out. You scream and do not
recognize the pain coming from a place you never knew
existed. You scream again and the sound is your soul leaving
your body.
You might not have even heard the words, ``I regret to
inform you'', because all you needed was to see who was at
your door and you knew. Every nightmare you had about your
loved one being killed in Iraq has just come true. Every
prayer for their safety on this earth will never be answered.
Every deal you made was off.
You cannot possibly know, but you are not alone. 1699 other
hearts broke again as we saw the number tick one more to 1700
and then 1701 and 1702. We know your pain, we know the
hellish journey that you have just begun and there is nothing
to say except ``I'm sorry''. We have hugs to offer and maybe
some advice, but as the moon rises, you will be alone,
knowing that your son or daughter, your husband or wife, your
nephew or niece, your best friend is never coming home.
The sun will come up in the morning and you may be grateful
that you survived another night of your new life, not knowing
how. You may be angry that you survived another night without
your loved one and wonder why you live and they don't. If
only you could trade places.
Some sleep easily, some with medication, some not at all.
You want to sleep to fend off exhaustion, but know if you do
the nightmares might enter the quiet place that once meant
solace. The exhaustion just finds a deeper place inside you,
another place unfamiliar to you.
If you cry, and some cannot or will not, you will wonder if
the crying will ever stop. You don't ever want to stop
crying--how will you ever, ever, ever get your arms around
this new life? You will never want to cry again; it's just so
excruciating. You will wonder how one body can cry so many
tears and for so many hours, days and months.
There will be phone calls, cards, flowers and food. But all
you want is your old life back, knowing that your loved one
will be coming home alive and well.
There will be prayers and religious services. Prayers for
you, prayers for your loved one, prayers for peace, prayers
for strength. Some will seek comfort in their faith, some
will be interminably angry at God.
You never imagined signing a document called ``Disposition
of Remains'' but there it is, your loved one's name, in black
and white. That name doesn't belong there. It belongs on a
letter with love from Iraq, it belongs on an email, but it
doesn't belong there. You will see their name again in
headlines, on TV, on letters of condolence and on other legal
documents and it never feels right. His or her name doesn't
belong there!
There will be questions, there will be details. You want to
know all the details; you want to know none--at the same
time. You have questions--so many questions and so do they.
How could this be happening? What kind of funeral service,
cremation or burial? Who will speak? When is the body coming
home? Why is the body coming home? My son or daughter is
supposed to be coming home--not their body!
The flags will fly at half staff, an indication that one
young friend described as ``someone is sad''. The flag will
cover the coffin, soon to be handed to you, with the words
``On behalf of a grateful nation . . .'' Flags will arrive in
the mail having flown over the state capitol or the nation's
capitol. They all mean the same thing--your loved one is
never coming home and someone is very, very sad.
Maybe you never heard the phrase ``Pain shared is
divided''. We share your pain; we live and breathe your pain
every single day. While you may have never imagined you would
be a part of this group, please know that you are not alone--
Karen Meredith, mother of 1LT Kenneth Ballard, KIA May 30,
2004.
{time} 1145
Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment immediately prior to the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Forbes). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge all of my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question so that we can have an opportunity to
vote on the Pelosi amendment. It is our responsibility as Members of
Congress to ask tough questions, to demand answers, to do the
oversight, to make sure that we are getting this right. We have not
been doing that. This is an opportunity for us to demand that the
administration give us answers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
We have had an excellent and interesting discussion here this morning
on the issue of Iraq, and we will continue to have those discussions
undoubtedly as we move forward.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to again draw the attention of
Members to the strength of this piece of legislation. Unfortunately, it
was not discussed very much during the course of our exchange.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2863 takes many important steps forward in
reforming the procurement and acquisition systems of the United States
military, and increasing its end strength, and providing $45.3 billion
in supplemental ``bridge funding'' for the war on terror.
Mr. Speaker, it must also be noted that this legislation would not
have been possible without much hard work on the part of the gentleman
from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lewis), and the members of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations
and the members of the full committee. As evidenced by their hard work,
this is a bipartisan bill that the vast majority of the House will
undoubtedly agree is a good product.
Mr. Speaker, no legislation is perfect, and, as I said in my opening
statement, the defense appropriation bill takes important steps in an
ongoing process that does not end; that is, the defense of our country.
However frustrated some may be with particular aspects of H.R. 2863, it
undoubtedly moves our military in the direction it needs to evolve and
enhances the security of our country and the well-being of our men and
women in uniform.
Therefore, I, once again, urge my colleagues to support this rule and
the underlying concurrent resolution.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
the rule for the FY06 Defense Appropriations Bill. This rule,
unfortunately, does not allow consideration of the Pelosi Amendment--an
amendment critical to our current and future efforts in Iraq.
We consider the situation in Iraq this week in the midst of growing
public concern over the way this administration has, and continues, to
execute the war. For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more
than half of the public believes that our campaign there has not made
the United States safer. Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the
number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable and two-thirds say the
U.S. military is ``bogged down.'' Nearly six in ten say the war is not
worth fighting.
To date, the lives of nearly 1,700 men and women in uniform have been
lost, and another 12,000 have been injured. Close to 200 billion in
taxpayer dollars have been spent without a clear plan for success. And
today, we are no closer to true success in Iraq than we were since the
days of ``Shock and Awe.''
The Democratic Leader's amendment is simple--it asks that this
administration report to Congress within 30 days with their ``Strategy
for Success'' in Iraq. The Pelosi amendment requires the President to
explain how he will ensure that there are well-trained Iraqi military,
border and police forces that can ensure the security of Iraq and that
there is political stability in the country.
This amendment isn't about setting a hard date for withdrawal, or
leaving Iraq before we finish what we started. This amendment, rather,
simply ensures that Congress--and the American people--know what
milestones and criteria by which our Nation will judge success in Iraq.
Without such a guide, we will continue to be left with an open-ended
military commitment with no end in sight.
Our men and women in uniform deserve nothing less than clear
milestones that lead us to the day when we can bring them home. To get
to that day, we need to know how we are
[[Page H4580]]
going to assess the capabilities and readiness of Iraqi security forces
and when we can expect them to take over vital security missions in
their country. We need to know the number of U.S. and coalition
advisors needed to support Iraqi security forces. And, finally, we need
to know the benchmarks by which we will measure the political stability
of Iraq.
The fog of war is thick in Iraq, and this administration has only
added to it by sticking to their vague notions of success and
stability. But the President can cut through the fog by providing clear
and demonstrable criteria by which we can judge our progress and,
hopefully, success in Iraq.
Since the start of this war, I and many of my colleagues have
implored the President to level with the American people and our troops
over the true cost and end strategy for the war. It is time for the
administration and Congress to be honest with us about a path forward
in Iraq--a path towards a success that brings our men and women home
and restores our credibility at home and abroad.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, and allow consideration of a
critical amendment that will give our Nation a clear path forward in
Iraq.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
Previous Question on H. Res. 315--Rule for H.R. 2863 FY06 Department of
Defense Appropriations
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order and before
any other amendment if offered by Representative Pelosi of
California or a designee. The amendment is not subject to
amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for
a division of the question in the committee of the whole or
in the House.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
Amendment to H.R. __, as Reported
Offered by Ms. Pelosi of California
(Defense Appropriations, 2006)
At the end of title VIII (page __, after line __), insert
the following new section:
Sec. ___. (a) Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to the
Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives
and the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate a
report on a strategy for success in Iraq that identifies
criteria to be used by the Government of the United States to
determine when it is appropriate to begin the withdrawal of
United States Armed Forces from Iraq.
(b) The report shall include a detailed description of each
of the following:
(1) The criteria for assessing the capabilities and
readiness of Iraqi security forces, goals for achieving
appropriate capability and readiness levels for such forces,
as well as for recruiting, training, and equipping such
forces, and the milestones and timetable for achieving such
goals.
(2) The estimated total number of Iraqi personnel trained
at the levels identified in paragraph (1) that are needed for
Iraqi security forces to perform duties currently being
undertaken by United States and coalition forces, including
defending Iraq's borders and providing adequate levels of law
and order throughout Iraq.
(3) The number of United States and coalition advisors
needed to support Iraqi security forces and associated
ministries.
(4) The measures of political stability for Iraq, including
the important political milestones to be achieved over the
next several years.
(c) The report shall be transmitted in unclassified form
but may contain a classified annex.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________