[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 77 (Thursday, June 15, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4124-H4125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THERE MUST BE A NEW DIRECTION IN IRAQ

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak out of order and address the House for 5 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it has been a day of great 
importance, and tomorrow, we will conclude this debate on Iraq.
  When I spoke earlier today, I mentioned that the dilemma that we have 
is that although there has been a debate, one would wonder, with such 
an important topic, why the process did not allow the American people 
to have alternatives to the present resolution on the floor and why we 
were so constrained that there could not be a definitive plan that 
speaks to the concern of the American people, the families of soldiers 
and veterans, and that is, to discuss fully, without partisan rhetoric, 
the idea of redeployment and the opportunity for our soldiers to return 
home.
  Now, 2 years or so ago, I had, and offered, to this administration a 
concept that I believe would not have placed us where we are today. I 
rose today to say that I support the Murtha plan and resolution, which 
clearly provides an opportunity for redeployment as soon as 
practicable. It is not the cut-and-run theory. It is a theory that we 
respect the idea of the military fighting for our freedom and respect 
the fact that the military's mission has been completed.
  Having just come back from Iraq myself, and been there three times 
and as well to Afghanistan, I know that the boots on the ground, the 
leadership on the ground is, by any means, any definition, the most 
excellent military in the world. We thank them. We thank their 
families. We thank the enlisted. We thank the Reservists, we thank the 
National Guard and any others, civilians who are serving on those front 
lines.
  But we are the policy-makers, and we owe them not just a debt of 
gratitude. So, tomorrow, in protest for no plan, I will be voting 
``no'' on the resolution. I do so without any shame or any conceding to 
accusations of not being patriotic. My patriotism is exhibited by my 
dissent and the dissent of the American people asking us to do 
something, to create a plan that tracks the sovereignty of Iraq, gives 
them the opportunity to move toward their own freedom, to protect 
themselves through the Iraqi National Army and the Iraqi National 
Police.
  Let me just simply say to the American people that what we are 
discussing today are these soldiers who have been willing to put their 
lives on the front line. These are husbands and wives and aunts and 
uncles and cousins. These are mothers and fathers. These are our 
neighbors. These are, in fact, our brothers and sisters. These are 
Americans, individuals who have put themselves on the front line. We, 
as policy-makers, should not cut and run on them.
  I would just say to my colleagues that if we are to be patriotic, 
then we should do it by words and not by deeds.
  So I would argue that what we have done to the soldier is to talk and 
not act. We have, in fact, devastated the United States Army, 
therefore, disallowing or at least causing them to be diminished and 
taking and causing us to put them in a position where it will take 
years for them to rebuild themselves.
  We have undermined the military by not equipping the troops. When 
asked by a soldier in the field why U.S. troops did not have the right 
armor for their vehicles, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, as 
you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army 
you want. What a callous, senseless thing to say, to throw our Army 
into harm's way, and careless about whether they are protected or have 
the armor to protect themselves, allowing families and parents to get 
their hard-earned pennies to send flak jackets to their children and 
then not taking care of our troops when they come home.
  The Bush administration has not developed policies to take care of 
the thousands, 19,000 casualties who are injured, 2,500 of course who 
died, the 2,500 today.
  Health care has proven inadequate, and wounded veterans have been 
hounded by debt collectors because of inefficiencies in the Pentagon's 
administrative expenses.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not long enough for the catastrophic and 
necessity of the debate or the changes that are needed in order to 
change the direction of Iraq.
  I, too, applaud the ending of Zarqawi's leadership of terrorism in 
the world, but that is not the end of the story, and we know that 
insurgency in Iraq is only 10 percent of the violence. The violence is 
between Shiite and Sunni and those young people who believe they can 
kill Americans with impunity and with immunity.
  So I would simply say that I hope tomorrow there will be a 
metamorphical change. I hope someone will shine the light on this body. 
I hope we will rise with courage to say that there must be a new 
direction. I hope we will discard this senseless resolution that simply 
wants to make partisan or make a partisan battle about who supports the 
troops and who does not.
  We cannot stay the course. Richard Nixon knew that we could not stay 
the

[[Page H4125]]

course in Vietnam, and he changed the course of direction.
  It is not anti-patriotic to be able to stand up against the wind of 
the majority, to be able to say that the dissenting Americans need to 
be heard, and if we are heard, it will be for the betterment of this 
Nation and the betterment of this world. Then we can begin to fight the 
global war on terror. Then we can be more successful. Then we can form 
the coalition that we need to weed out the terrorists and to truly 
create for our children a better world.
  I hope tomorrow we will shed the light on this place and change 
direction in the Iraq War.

                          ____________________