[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 48 (Thursday, April 27, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1894-H1895]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE WAR IN IRAQ

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, 1 month ago the American people stopped to 
remember the third anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war. We 
thought first and foremost of the selflessness, patriotism and heroism 
by our troops, our National Guard and Reserves.
  We also remembered those who have been wounded in battle, and who 
need our support more than ever. And we never forget those whose 
service meant giving their lives for their country.
  Americans are united in this remembrance, but so, too, Mr. Speaker, 
do Americans understand that we need a new direction in Iraq, that 
Congress must take up its responsibility and demand that our policy be 
based on honest assessments from our own military.
  For too long the U.S. military's leadership has been ignored and 
stifled by a White House motivated by its own political and ideological 
agenda. Indeed, when General Eric Shinseki told Congress in 2002 that 
we would need almost 400,000 troops to ensure a short and peaceful 
occupation, administration officials said he was wildly off the mark 
and quickly forced him into retirement.
  Earlier this year, when General Casey conceded that U.S. forces were 
stretched, the Pentagon rushed to issue a clarifying statement. And 
when six former generals who worked closely with Secretary Rumsfeld 
called for his resignation, the President wasted no time reiterating 
his unyielding support for Mr. Rumsfeld.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish I had confidence that this White House and 
Secretary of Defense could look beyond their ideological agenda to do 
what is right for our national security and our troops, but I do not, 
which is why I believe the responsibility to take the lead on Iraq now 
falls to the Congress.
  Yes, Congress was delinquent for too long in its oversight 
responsibilities in the prosecution of the war, writing blank checks to 
the administration with no requirements for progress or accountability 
to the taxpayers, but in declaring that 2006 should be a year of 
transition in this year's defense appropriation bill, and in finally 
requiring regular status reports from the administration, Congress at 
last showed that it might be serious about handing over the security of 
Iraq to the Iraqi people.
  Unfortunately, 4 months into 2006, as insurgent violence occurs 
daily, that process has still not begun, with no regular hearings, 
calls for accountability or investigations. The result is that American 
troops find themselves increasingly in the crossfire of warring 
religious groups. Just last weekend eight more U.S. troops lost their 
lives. And the President now says our troops will be in the middle of 
this Iraqi civil war at least until 2009.
  Mr. Speaker, as we go into the fourth year, it is well past time for 
a firm plan to redeploy our troops. This is consistent with the views 
of our troops, nearly three-quarters of whom say 2006 is the year to 
succeed or reassess. It is the view of the top U.S. commander in Iraq, 
General George Casey, who told Congress, our troops are ``one of the 
elements that fuels the insurgency.''
  So the starting point for new policy is to be serious about making 
2006 a year of transition, and signaling to all of the parties in Iraq 
and the region that they must take responsibility.
  We must hear the advice of our own military about how to best reduce 
troop levels without fear of reprisal from the administration. We must 
have a timetable for a phased reduction of our troops, ensuring a 
minimal presence within 12 months, with most redeployed by the end of 
2006. We must expand the training of Iraqi military and police units, 
and demand that they be linked to a reduction in American forces.
  We must establish a contract, as we did in Bosnia, requiring the key 
powers in the region, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to be more 
actively involved in security and reconstruction. Iraq's neighbors must 
understand that they have a stake in its success.
  We should redeploy our National Guard to help with homeland security 
efforts. In coping with disaster, bird flu or another terrorist attack, 
our National Guard must be prepared. But a third of Louisiana's Guard 
was in Iraq during Katrina, slowing relief efforts with deadly 
consequences. And over 500 of my State's National Guard troops are 
deployed in Afghanistan, because the regular Army remains in Iraq in 
such large numbers.
  And with respect to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent since 
U.S. troops were diverted to Iraq, we should refocus our efforts there 
and resume our work to stabilize a country that has provided the base 
for global terrorism.
  Taken together, this new policy will produce a minimal but flexible 
U.S. troop presence in Iraq within a year. That is how we best maintain 
a strong military, while making America more secure. Our troops deserve 
a Congress that takes its oversight responsibilities seriously, not one 
that acts as a rubber stamp for a White House who is clearly off track.
  Our troops are bearing the burden of our indecision. We owe them a 
full and open debate and a new direction. It is not a matter of 
partisanship, but a matter of patriotism of our country's stewardship 
and security.

[[Page H1895]]



                          ____________________