[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 77 (Thursday, June 15, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4128-H4129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      H. RES. 861, IRAQ RESOLUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
resolution on the Iraqi war.
  Mr. Speaker, as we discuss what to do now, we must first acknowledge 
the fact that we cannot discuss an exit strategy for leaving Iraq 
without first stating what the entry strategy was, and then stating 
what we are trying to accomplish now.
  We were originally told we invaded Iraq because they had weapons of 
mass destruction. That turned out not to be true. We were then told 
that we invaded Iraq because the Iraqi leaders were connected with the 
9/11 attacks. That turned out not to be true. The rationale that Iraq 
posed an imminent threat to the United States was exposed as untrue 
even before the invasion.
  A letter from the Director of the CIA to the Chair of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee dated October 7, 2002, specifically stated that 
the CIA believed that Iraq and Saddam Hussein did not pose a terrorist 
threat to the United States and would not be expected to pose such a 
threat unless we attacked.
  Mr. Speaker, after it became clear that there were no weapons of mass 
destruction, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and that Iraq posed 
no terrorist threat to the United States, we have been subjected to the 
excuse of the week for being in Iraq.
  We were told that we needed to capture Saddam Hussein for our safety. 
He has been in jail for over a year, and yet we are still in Iraq.
  Then the rationale changed that we needed to capture al Zarqawi. We 
did that, and we are still in Iraq with no apparent plan to leave.
  The rationale for this week is we are still in Iraq in order to 
establish a democracy. We have to recognize that the nature of a 
democracy is that it cannot be imposed on anyone. Further, if the 
purpose is to establish a democracy in Iraq, it is ironic that the 
citizens right here in Washington, D.C. cannot elect a representative 
to vote on this very resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that we made a mistake and the only 
sensible rationale for still being there is because we made a mess and 
we have a moral responsibility to clean up that mess. And so we have to 
acknowledge that we are in quagmire, and it will become clear that 
there are no good results that can occur.
  Cut and run, bad result. Stay the course to prove we have resolve, 
bad result. Don't worry, be happy, bad result. Continue to pretend that 
success is around the corner, bad result. I use ``quagmire'' lightly 
because this administration's poor planning has strained our troops 
with many units in their second and third tours. Attacks on the United 
States are increasing, not decreasing. During the course of our 
occupation, the number of insurgents has dramatically increased, and 
our presence in Iraq has been counterproductive, just as the CIA 
predicted. As of today, 2,500 servicemembers have been killed and many 
more wounded.
  Our military equipment is wearing out much faster than normal. 
Emergency reserve stocks have been stripped. We have endured the 
embarrassment of torture at Abu Ghraib prison and questionable 
detention policies at Guantanamo Bay, and we have not begun to 
effectively deal with the issue of corruption in private contracts.
  Despite spending billions of dollars on electricity and 
reconstruction, over half of the Iraqi households lack clean water, and 
85 percent lack reliable electricity.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to be reminded when we first invaded Iraq the 
administration instructed the Budget Committee not to even budget for 
the war because it would cost so little. But now we have appropriated 
almost $400 billion, not including future medical costs for injured 
troops, and that has to be compared with the $7.4 billion that it cost 
us to defeat Iraq in the Persian Gulf war.
  Meanwhile, we have problems at home. There are shortfalls in the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, cuts in first responder grants, only 5 
percent of our containers in our ports are being screened, and the 
administration has failed to adequately implement the 9/11 Commission's 
recommendations.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not more secure. We are less secure as a result 
of the war.
  Many experts have concluded that the military has done as much as it 
can, and so our exit strategy must include the use of diplomacy and 
politics

[[Page H4129]]

using the lessons we have learned from our mistakes.
  But today, instead of honestly assessing what we are going to do in 
Iraq, we are considering this resolution which repeats all of the 
disparaged reasons for the invasion and proclaims its success, not a 
civil war is just around the corner, and that we should follow the 
strategy of don't worry, be happy.
  In contrast, any real debate would have us start with an honest 
assessment of our situation. But without articulating why we invaded in 
the first place and what we want to accomplish now that we are there, 
we cannot have an exit strategy. There can be no coherent discussion of 
an exit strategy while we are being directed by this resolution to 
accept the smiling face, don't worry be happy description of our 
situation in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, we should defeat the resolution.

                          ____________________