[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 10 (Thursday, January 18, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H739-H745]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 RECOUNTING REASONS FOR VOTING IN FAVOR OF 2002 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING 
                     USE OF MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
today, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 
the President began talking about going to war with Iraq. In the fall 
of 2002, with the midterm elections heating up, the President 
increasingly talked about the threat Iraq poses to the United States 
and its allies. On October 10, 2002, the House voted on H.J. Res. 114, 
the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq resolution. It 
passed the House by a vote of 296-133: 215 Republicans voted for the 
resolution, 6 voted against it. 81 Democrats voted for it, and 126 
voted against it.
  Madam Speaker, in light of what many of our Members know today, they 
perhaps would not have voted for that resolution. As a matter of fact, 
day in and day out as I talk with my colleagues, they recount all of 
that which was told to us by the President of the United States and 
others on the opposite side of the aisle, for the most part, about why 
it was so important to go to war with Iraq.
  They told us there were weapons of mass destruction. They told us 
that the troop levels that they were sending were necessary. They told 
us about the cost of the war. They told us that oil revenues would be 
paying for the reconstruction. They told us we would be greeted as 
liberators. They told us we would be able to contain sectarian 
violence.
  Well, Madam Speaker, I have colleagues that are here this evening who 
will recount perhaps some of what they were being told and the way they 
trusted the Commander in Chief, they trusted our President. They were 
concerned about the safety and the security of our Nation.
  So we have with us tonight some of the brightest, most hardworking, 
most respected Members of the Congress of the United States. They are 
going to remind us of what we were being told and how they came to 
their decision and what they are thinking now.
  Leading that discussion will be my dear friend from Missouri, that is 
my hometown, my birthplace, who I have gotten to know very well. He is 
the Chair of one of the most important committees of this House, the 
Armed Services Committee, a highly respected gentleman, Representative 
Ike Skelton.
  I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend originally from 
Missouri for yielding this time.
  Last year, I had the opportunity to visit the Joint Forces Staff 
College in Norfolk, Virginia. After a ceremony there, I went into the 
library, and in the glassed-off section for old and rare books I found 
a book printed in 1926 about the 1915 British misadventure at 
Gallipoli, entitled ``The Perils of Amateur Strategy.'' I have often 
thought regarding the situation in Iraq that we face today that this 
administration is not giving food for thought to some author to write a 
book entitled ``The Perils of Amateur Strategy II.''
  The issue before us this evening is what would we have done, had we 
known what we know today. Had that been the case, we probably would 
never have had a resolution before us, much less voted in favor of it.
  We have a wonderful military, the finest we have ever had and the 
finest in modern history. The young men and young women are dedicated, 
they are professional and they are volunteers, whether they be active 
duty, whether they be National Guard or Reserve. Gosh, I am proud of 
them. I have been with them aboard ship; I have been with them in their 
training. I have been with them in Iraq and Afghanistan and had the 
privilege of spending Christmas Day with them in Baghdad. But I wonder 
where all of this ends.
  They moved the goalposts on us. The first goal was to make sure that 
weapons of mass destruction were not there, then to establish a 
democracy, and now to bring stability to Iraq. And those goalposts keep 
moving.
  I am truly concerned about where we have been and much more concerned 
about where we go in Iraq. Whatever happens there, and I feel that 
there is no positive outcome for this, the star of this show will be 
the young men and young women who wear the uniform of the United 
States. History will treat them well and our gratitude should go toward 
them.
  There are some mistakes that are made that are irretrievable. There 
have been such mistakes that we have made in Iraq. The first, of 
course, was going in with the intelligence that at least was available, 
not having a plan in use, despite the fact that there was a plan 
available. Lieutenant General Jay Gardner asked for the people to help 
draw it up and was finally given one person from the State Department. 
But the plan was not allowed to be used.
  Looting was allowed, and then we dismissed those who belonged to the 
Baathist Party, who made the trains run and the local government run. 
Some thousands of school teachers were put out of jobs. Then the army 
was dismissed, rather than giving them a paycheck and a shovel and the 
opportunity to help bring security and stability to that torn country.

[[Page H740]]

  The military ammunition, weapons and caches, were not guarded. In 
September of 2003, John Spratt, Robin Hayes and I were told by David 
Kay that there were 50-some-odd caches that went unguarded, and the 
truth in fact is there were many, many more. That is where the 
insurgents got their weapons and ammunition to use against our young 
people.
  We fought the insurgents, the Baathists, criminals, foreigners and al 
Qaeda helping the insurgency, and then more recently the sectarian 
violence that overlays all of the insurgency that is going on; and we 
are there trying to bring stability to that torn land.

                              {time}  1945

  I am hoping for a positive outcome. It is dark and misty as to where 
we are going today. I am hoping lightning will strike for the benefit 
of our young people who are there.
  It is having serious implications in our readiness which we will 
explore and talk about and hope to rectify to some extent in the Armed 
Services Committee.
  All of these areas, I think, are irretrievable, and I am hopeful that 
in the days ahead there will be some light at the end of the tunnel in 
this very sad misadventure in Iraq.
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman, and before the gentleman leaves 
the microphone, would you please confirm for me that did you not have a 
son that served or is serving in Iraq?
  Mr. SKELTON. That is correct.
  Ms. WATERS. Thank you so much.
  Mr. SKELTON. I appreciate the gentlewoman making reference. As you 
know, I am very, very proud of all three of our sons, two of whom are 
in uniform, and I do not speak about them other than just to be proud 
of them.
  Ms. WATERS. Thank you so very much. We appreciate your service, we 
appreciate your work, and we appreciate the fact that you sit here 
every day trying to manage this most important problem and crisis that 
we have and the fact that you have your son who is put at great risk. 
Thank you very much.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Tauscher), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee, who is the 
chair of the New Democrats, one of the hardest working members of the 
California delegation who will present.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, let me first thank my friend and 
colleague from California for her passion and her presence and for her 
leadership and also my other colleague Barbara Lee and for Lynn Woolsey 
and so many of my colleagues who have been indefatigable, unrelenting 
and brilliant in their insistence that we continue to put pressure on 
the administration and the President specifically for the litany of 
mistakes that have been made in Iraq, but at the same time holding 
deeply in our hearts the fighting men and women that come from all of 
our neighborhoods, come from all of our communities. For your 
patriotism, I cannot thank you enough. For your leadership and 
friendship, I will always be indebted.
  Madam Speaker, I cannot and will not support putting more American 
troops on the ground in Iraq. I stand here today more convinced than 
ever that the President's so-called new plan to send over 21,000 
additional American troops to Iraq will only lead to further chaos.
  My opposition to this troop surge is built upon years of hearings in 
the House Armed Services Committee, where I serve as subcommittee 
chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, congressional briefings 
and five trips to the region, including three to Iraq, witnessing the 
war firsthand and speaking with our troops and commanders on the 
ground.
  Sadly, the President has gotten it very wrong every step of the way. 
Yet he continues to ask us to trust him.
  When the Republican-controlled Congress was rushing a vote to 
authorize the war in the middle of 2002's campaign season, I joined my 
friend Dennis Kucinich to call on the Republican leadership to take the 
politics out of the vote, take the decision to send our troops into 
harm's way seriously and postpone the vote until after the election.
  We wrote to our colleagues in October of 2002: ``It is incumbent upon 
us to address the matters of national security and decisions through 
the reasoned and deliberate process afforded us by our Constitution. 
This becomes particularly important when these decisions could possibly 
mean putting our young servicemen and women in harm's way. This is not 
a process that can be rushed for the sake of political expediency.''
  Our best attempts failed. Congress was rushed to a vet, and we had no 
opportunity to sort through what we now know was the Bush 
administration's personal collection of cherry-picked or just plain 
false intelligence.
  The President made it clear that he wanted to rush to invade Iraq and 
prevent international weapons inspectors from finishing their job.
  I spoke out at the time saying, ``We must consider every peaceful 
alternative and contemplate every possible outcome before we turn to 
force.''
  Our warnings were again ignored. In February of 2003, I co-authored 
legislation that would have required the President to submit a public 
report to Congress prior to initiating military action in Iraq.
  Our bill said: ``The United States should not proceed with unilateral 
or preemptive military action in Iraq, but if we do have to go to war 
to disarm Saddam, Congress needs to be sure there are sensible plans 
that will not compromise our ability to prosecute the War on Terror 
elsewhere or further destabilize an already volatile region.''
  That same month, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented 
the United Nations with the Bush administration's case on Iraq's 
weapons of mass destruction, I again said, ``I continue to believe that 
the United States should not proceed with unilateral or preemptive 
military action.''
  After the invasion, I remained concerned about the Bush 
administration's rush to war, and in July 2003 I authored legislation 
to create a select committee to hold public hearings to investigate 
several aspects of intelligence, including whether intelligence 
supported the claim that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United 
States, questioning the accuracy of intelligence that led the 
administration to believe Iraq was working with al Qaeda, and 
questioning the role of the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon.
  The Republican-controlled Congress at the time would not allow my 
bill to see the light of day.
  In September 2003, the President requested an additional $87 billion 
to finance the war. In response, I authored legislation calling for 
explanations, noting that ``President Bush has not yet provided 
Congress with a detailed plan that outlines the strategic objectives of 
Operation Iraqi Freedom.''

  I have sent dozens of letters to the President, Secretary Rice, 
Secretary Rumsfeld and others over the past 4\1/2\ years urging them to 
explain our mission and exit strategy for Iraq. I have offered 
suggestions to stabilize Iraq and bring our troops home sooner. Yet I 
have received few answers.
  Last week, I watched the President plead his case to the American 
people, trying to justify why more troops will save his failed policy. 
But yet again I was disappointed by the stubbornness exhibited by a 
President that has failed in Iraq every step of the way.
  I have stated throughout the timeline of the war that the Commander-
in-Chief has the responsibility to define a well-articulated mission 
that has the support of the American people and an exit strategy to 
bring our troops home sooner and safer. The President has neither.
  Top military commanders in Iraq, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and 
the American people all agree that sending more troops to Iraq will not 
end the civil war. They understand that we should immediately begin a 
strategic redeployment of U.S. troops in conjunction with diplomacy 
that forces Iraq's neighbors to step up as responsible regional 
partners.
  Adding additional troops further prevents the Iraqi government from 
taking responsibility for securing their own country. If the President 
sidesteps the Congress, he does this at his own peril, and sadly, he 
does it with the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families 
paying the highest price.
  This is why I am an original cosponsor of the Meehan legislation that 
requires the President to ask Congress

[[Page H741]]

for an up-or-down vote if he plans to raise troop levels in Iraq.
  I am not advocating cutting funds for the troops while they are in 
harm's way, but I am an advocate of conditioning all further spending 
for the Iraq War based on the Iraqis meeting security and political 
benchmarks and establishing a plan for the redeployment of our troops.
  I will continue to challenge the President to abandon his flawed 
troop surge policy, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. We 
owe it to our troops, to the American people and to our conscience.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
California, not only for the statement that she has made this evening, 
but I believe that you are an example of one of our highly respected 
Members of Congress who trusted the President, who believed what he was 
saying when he offered all of the reasons why we should be going into 
the war, and to have lost your support, I think, is the kind of 
significance that everyone should have an appreciation for.
  We have come to that point in time where supporters who believed in 
the President are now withdrawing their support and urging him to 
abandon the failed policies that took us into that war.
  Next, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Wynn). He is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, another one 
of our respected Members in this House who supported the Commander-in-
Chief when he brought to us all of the flawed evidence, that we did not 
know was flawed at that time, and he has taken a lot of criticism for 
it, but he certainly has clarified his understanding now and he has a 
statement that he would like to bring forward this evening. I yield to 
the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank first the gentlewoman 
from California for yielding, and also for her consistent, aggressive 
and activist leadership on this issue. She has been very courageous 
throughout. She has always taken a principled position, and she is now 
leading our efforts to stand up and express our opposition to the 
President. I want to thank her for that.
  Sometimes one of the most difficult things for a politician or 
elected official to do is to say I was wrong; I made a mistake. I am 
here to say that tonight.
  After 9/11, after the Pentagon was attacked in addition to New York, 
my district, which is just outside of Washington, D.C., felt the 
effects very severely. A lot of my constituents worked in the Pentagon. 
I went to several funerals, and I was very sensitive to the fact that 
my constituents in suburban Washington, D.C., in Montgomery County and 
in Prince Georges County, as Federal workers, were very vulnerable to 
an attack in what is arguably the number one or the number two target 
of terrorists in the United States.
  I represent 72,000 Federal employees, most of whom work right here in 
the Nation's capital, in the immediate Capitol complex area.
  At that time, the President was presenting, as the gentlewoman 
mentioned, extensive evidence about the existence of weapons of mass 
destruction, about attempts to develop a nuclear arsenal, about 
chemical and biological warfare, and I was of the belief that the 
President, on issues of national security, would put politics aside and 
would consider only the best interests of the country. Boy, was I 
wrong.
  It has turned out and become evident to everyone that the President's 
intelligence was seriously flawed. It was inaccurate, it was distorted, 
and it was exaggerated to create a false impression of urgency that 
this country had an urgent threat and that weapons of mass destruction, 
in fact, existed and that they posed a threat to the citizens of the 
United States and, in my consideration, a threat to my constituents 
here in the Washington metropolitan area.
  We were shown classified information, documents, photographs and the 
like, all of which were designed to create the impression that we were 
facing an imminent threat. Assuming the President would not mislead the 
country, I supported the war. That was a mistake.
  But then it came to pass and became increasingly evident that there 
were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that we were not facing 
an imminent threat. So in May of 2004, in an appearance before the 
Muslim Council in my district, I said I think my vote was wrong; I 
think my vote was a mistake.
  Subsequent to that, I heard people say, well, what about the fact 
that we toppled Saddam Hussein? Well, that was a laudable goal, but it 
was not worth 3,000 troops. Well, what about the fact we created 
elections and they put their finger in purple ink and they had 
elections for the first time? I said I agree, that, too, is a laudable 
goal, but that was not worth 3,000 troops.
  If you had asked me then to make this decision based on what I know 
now, I would not have voted to support the use of troops.

                              {time}  2000

  Because, you see, there are a lot of dictators in the world, some of 
whom we not only deal with, some of whom we actually arm. There are a 
lot of dictators that are cruel, that murder their own people, that 
violate human rights. There are a lot of countries that don't have 
democratic processes. And yet we do not make the decision that we ought 
to engage with them militarily. So to my way of thinking, the only 
justification, the only justification would have been the existence of 
weapons of mass destruction and an imminent threat to the United States 
that in fact did not exist.
  What we have in fact seen is that our military presence has worsened 
the situation. Areas that did not have terrorists now have terrorists. 
They are called breeding grounds for terrorism because our presence 
creates a cause for the terrorists, a motivation, if you will, a 
catalyst, an antagonism. That is not solving the problem of terrorism. 
That is not effectively fighting the war on terrorism. Our military 
role has not been productive and effective; in fact, it is been 
counterproductive and sadly ineffective.
  It is time to withdraw our troops. We need to begin now to withdraw 
our troops so that the Iraqis will take more responsibility for their 
own security. In fact, Mr. Maliki says that is what he wants us to do. 
He says, ``Give us the weapons, we will do it.'' He is not so excited 
about having us. Clearly, the American people don't want to be in Iraq. 
More importantly, the Iraqi people don't want us to be in Iraq. It is 
time for us to pull out. We are in the midst of a civil war, one that 
we cannot resolve, and therefore we are not playing a constructive 
role.
  We are now on the eve of another adventure in Iraq or, should I say, 
misadventure, in which the President is proposing not to withdraw but 
just the opposite, contrary to the recommendations of the joint chiefs, 
contrary to the recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group. The President 
is saying, Let's send more troops. He calls it a surge. Folks, it is a 
troop escalation and an escalation of this war, and I will oppose it.
  There is a saying that the old folks used to say: Fool me once, shame 
on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
  Mr. President, you fooled me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice? I 
don't think so.
  I am opposed to any troop escalation. I am opposed to any surge. I am 
opposed to any expansion of this war by military means. Yes, we have to 
fight the war on terrorism, but it seems to me we need to use 
diplomatic means to create an environment in which we can promote 
peace. We need to involve the other countries in the region, be it Shia 
or be it Sunni, who have an interest in a stable region. It is their 
region. They don't want war as a way of life in their region. Let's 
involve those countries, the Egypts, the Jordans, the Saudi Arabias. 
Let them get engaged in helping resolve this war. Let us step back from 
this war. We need to implement diplomatic solutions.
  So this is not a question of withdrawing United States leadership. We 
need to leave, but we need to leave diplomatically. We need to 
understand that, in the modern world, the use of military force is 
extremely limited, limited in its utility, because we are operating in 
a different environment, a terrorist environment, an insurgent 
environment in which additional troops

[[Page H742]]

only work for a temporary period of time. The insurgency withdraws, 
melts away, and then reemerges, which is to say, the President's 
proposal can only lead to a permanent U.S. presence of even more 
troops, putting them in harm's way.
  We have lost over 3,000 troops. The Iraqi people have lost tens of 
thousands more, maybe even hundreds of thousands. It is time to 
withdraw our military presence. It is time to advance the cause of 
peace through diplomatic means and diplomatic leadership.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman again for giving me this opportunity 
to speak.
  Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank the gentleman for that very clear 
statement as one who voted to support.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to direct 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
that very clear statement as one who supported the war in Iraq who has 
withdrawn that support and is sharing with others his feelings about 
why he supported it and why he no longer supports it.
  Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from California, one of 
my colleagues on the financial services committee, Representative Brad 
Sherman.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I remember well the debate on this floor in 2002 about whether to 
give the President the power he sought to take military action, if 
necessary, against Saddam Hussein. But before that resolution even came 
to this floor, we considered it in the International Relations 
Committee. There, we were told that the administration would invade 
Iraq only if the inspectors were not allowed to do their job. In fact, 
Secretary Powell told us that before the whole committee. Then he told 
me that privately.
  Now, I did not completely trust the administration. So in committee I 
offered a resolution that would allow the use of force only if the 
inspectors were not allowed to do their job. A majority of Democrats in 
the committee voted for that resolution. The Republicans pretty much 
all voted against it; and it was defeated.
  Then we all came to this floor, and Mr. Spratt of South Carolina put 
forward a resolution that would allow the President to use military 
force, but only under certain circumstances, such as force being 
authorized by the United Nations. I voted for Mr. Spratt's resolution. 
Unfortunately, it was defeated.
  And, finally, the supporters of the President were able to say that 
there was only one last resolution before us: either we gave the power 
to the President that he sought, but that he promised to use only if 
the inspectors were expelled or prevented from doing their job, or we 
left ourselves in a position where Saddam was free to expel the 
inspectors and to go all out with his weapons of mass destruction 
program.
  At that point, I voted for an overly broad resolution, a resolution 
that gave the President more power than he claimed he would use, or 
gave him power to act under circumstances all under when he said that 
he would act only under a limited number of circumstances. That of 
course is not what happened.
  The President took that power, made little or no attempt to ensure 
the inspectors were allowed to do their job, dismissed them, in effect 
pulled them out of Iraq, and invaded at an early opportunity. 
Obviously, if I knew then how the President would use the power granted 
by this Congress, I never would have voted to give him that power.
  Not only did he invade even though the inspectors were then able to 
do their job and, as it turned out, they were right, there were no 
weapons of mass destruction--but then, in secret briefings on this 
floor, we had been told (and this has been reported in press, I am not 
revealing anything), that the plan was to invade Iraq from the north 
and from the south, so as to take control of the country quickly. What 
happened was that Turkey at the last minute declared that our troops 
couldn't go through Turkey, and our best division was sitting there in 
the middle of the Mediterranean.
  So we had a plan. The plan had been previewed to those of us in 
Congress. The plan involved our best division. (I will just say one of 
our best divisions; I don't want to cast anything but total glory on 
all our divisions.) But one of our best divisions was left sitting in 
the Mediterranean. Now, you would think if you had a plan and you 
couldn't execute the plan, you would go draft a new plan. Instead, they 
just took the northern half of the plan and threw it away and 
implemented the southern half of the plan. Needless to say, we did not 
take immediate control of Baghdad. Needless to say, there was chaos. 
And the rest is history.
  But there are a host of other mistakes made by the Bush 
administration. They were detailed by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton). They included an inadequate number of troops at the 
beginning; disbanding the Iraqi Army when the Saudis, who have some 
understanding of the area, had advised us to do the exact opposite; not 
guarding the arms depots; and a host of other problems.
  Now we are being asked to authorize a surge. An escalation is the 
real word. And we are told that this is critical because Iraq is the 
central front in the war on terrorism. Well, is that really true?
  We are told that Iraq could become a place where terrorists could 
meet and plot. Today they are meeting and plotting in North Waziristan, 
in much of Afghanistan, in much of Somalia, pretty much anywhere they 
want in Iran and in Syria and Sudan. They have plenty of places to meet 
and plot. How many Americans are supposed to die on the theory that 
denying the terrorists one place to meet will prevent them from meeting 
in all the places they are meeting today?
  Then we are told that there will be a humanitarian debacle in Iraq. 
And, again, the prognosis for Iraq is not particularly good, but it is 
by no means clear that we have not done all we can be expected to do to 
help the people of Iraq avoid a civil war and achieve unity. And at 
some point it may be necessary to say that Iraq's decisions need to be 
made by the Iraqis.
  Keep in mind that during Saddam's tenure, year in and year out, he 
killed far more people than have been killed in the time since we 
invaded. We have bestowed upon the Iraqi people not just the pain and 
suffering that they have now, but also freedom from a Saddam Hussein 
who in prior decades had killed not the thousands we see being killed 
now but hundreds of thousands and millions. Our moral responsibility to 
the Iraqi people was to do what was reasonable to help them reestablish 
order. I think we have met much of our moral responsibility. We can do 
more by providing economic and other aid. And we should keep in mind 
that Iraq is just one of many places in the world suffering great 
humanitarian crises.
  Finally, we are told that we are going to empower and overjoy the 
terrorists if they see us leave Iraq or see us fail to surge into Iraq. 
Keep in mind, the smarter terrorists are thrilled to have us pinned 
down there, and to have us bled dry there.
  But, finally, even if all these things being put forward by the 
administration are true, even if withdrawal from Iraq or failure to 
surge into Iraq gives terrorists a place to gather, sets the stage for 
humanitarian crisis, and overjoys the terrorists, there is no evidence 
that we are now doing anything but delaying the inevitable by surging 
over the next few months, or escalating over the next few months. So 
since we are by no means winning or prevailing, surging is just doing 
more of the same.
  The President has asked us to compare the Global War on Radical Islam 
with the Cold War, and I think it is an apt comparison. Iraq has some 
real similarities to Vietnam. And the one thing we all remember about 
Vietnam is being told that if we didn't prevail in Vietnam, the 
communists would be on the beaches in Santa Monica. What did we finally 
do? We withdrew from Vietnam, and doing so was a critical step in 
winning the Cold War just 15 years later.
  I would say that we should pick our own battlefields, we should learn 
from the Vietnam mistake, and we should recognize that the way to beat 
radical Islam may be to recognize that Iraq is not the central front 
and that we have to do a lot of things in a lot of places in the world, 
and cannot allow ourselves to be utterly fixated on Iraq.

[[Page H743]]

  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from California. And I yield to the 
gentleman from New Jersey, Representative Steve Rothman, who serves on 
the Appropriations Committee, he is on the Subcommittee on Defense, and 
on the Subcommittee For Foreign Operations. This is not the first 
evening he has been on the floor; he has made it clear, but he even 
goes further tonight in helping to clarify and make it known where he 
stands on this war.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the gentlewoman from California.
  Madam Speaker, my friends, I was asked by the gentlewoman from 
California if I would share with my colleagues and with you, Madam 
Speaker, the process by which I came to the conclusion that America 
should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq without delay.
  Like most Americans, Madam Speaker, when the President said to 
Members of Congress and the entire country that Saddam Hussein intended 
to bring weapons of mass destruction to the United States to destroy 
us, to kill thousands of Americans, that got my attention, especially 
since it was after 9/11.
  I am from northeastern New Jersey, and a great number, too many, of 
my constituents were killed at the World Trade Center. But nonetheless, 
as an American, after 9/11 I didn't want to wait to get hit again. If 
the President of the United States and his entire Cabinet were willing 
to go before me in closed session, before the country in his State of 
the Union address, before the United Nations with photographs and other 
testimony that Saddam Hussein was sending Iraqi agents to America with 
weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical, to be deposited 
in our water supply system, to bring smallpox to our Nation, et cetera, 
then maybe we needed to stop Saddam Hussein and stop him immediately.

                              {time}  2015

  Then maybe we needed to stop Saddam Hussein, and stop him 
immediately.
  Again, we were told it was an imminent, immediate threat to the 
national security of the United States: Saddam, using agents bearing 
weapons of mass destruction and bringing them on our shores. And so I 
voted to authorize the President to bring military action against 
Saddam Hussein.
  I think most Americans, Madam Speaker, agreed with me that we didn't 
want to be caught again off guard, especially if our President told us 
so unequivocally that these were the facts.
  Well, after we deposed Saddam Hussein, removed him from power, Madam 
Speaker, it became clear to us, most of us and most Americans, and most 
people in the world, that virtually everything that the President of 
the United States had told us about Iraq wasn't true. There were no 
weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had no intention of bringing Iraqi 
agents to slaughter Americans on our shore and that Saddam had precious 
little if not zero contact of any significance with any foreign 
terrorists or anybody who on their own wanted to do something against 
America.
  And so we realized after we deposed Saddam Hussein that we had been 
led to go to war in Iraq on false statements. I don't believe they were 
intentionally false, but they were false. And I believe that history 
will record thereafter, after we gave the President the authority to go 
to war in Iraq, he and his administration, Madam Speaker, committed 
historic military and diplomatic blunders.
  But, you know, I felt in my heart that, yes, at that point there were 
no weapons of mass destruction. The reason for going to war had 
evaporated. But what had we done? Yes, we did a great thing by removing 
this evil murderous dictator from Iraq as an oppressor of his people. 
But then because of the botched way it was handled, those people were 
living amidst looting and insecurity and murder and terrible hardship, 
and I felt that we had a moral obligation to help the Iraqi people 
stabilize their country and perhaps give them a way to become a 
democracy, to live in freedom.
  Even though they were a multi-ethnic society that had never enjoyed 
that kind of freedom, I felt that was our moral responsibility after we 
had removed their dictator and created such chaos.
  Madam Speaker, after the death of more than 3,000 American servicemen 
and -women, after the more than 23,000 American men and women wounded 
in Iraq, after more than 3\1/2\ years of our Nation being at war with 
150,000 troops a year there, and after spending almost one-half a 
trillion U.S. taxpayer dollars in Iraq, I believe we have met our moral 
obligation to the Iraqi people; in particular because we have given 
them a chance in these 3\1/2\ years to decide that they will live 
together in peace, their own neighbor on neighbor, Sunni, Shia and 
Kurd.
  But the Iraqi people have not yet decided that they want to live in 
peace. And, frankly, our standing there, being shot at and blown up, 
has apparently not persuaded them to live with their fellow Iraqis in 
peace.
  And we have needs here in America. Homeland security needs, al Qaeda 
is in over 60 nations in the world planning and plotting against us, 
and that is a real threat.
  Homeland security needs are unmet. We don't inspect 100 percent of 
the containers coming into our ports; 5 percent. Cargo going on 
passenger airplanes is not inspected. I could go on and on. Our borders 
are not secure.
  And our military, our brave and courageous and magnificent military, 
the best in the world, has been depleted, our Army and Marines in 
particular. Depleted by this 3\1/2\ year engagement in Iraq. They have 
done heroically, but some of them are on their second, third and fourth 
tour of duty in Iraq. It is time to bring our troops home. We should 
leave 20,000 or 30,000 in the region in Jordan just in case a foreign 
nation would want to intervene, but that is unlikely and I will explain 
that in a second.
  But bring our troops home and rebuild our military and deal with our 
own homeland security needs and deal with our domestic needs in 
education and health care, balance our budget, and get ready to face 
the threats that are out there in the world that are real because we 
still live in a dangerous world.
  The President says if we do that, there would be a catastrophe in 
Iraq. Well, Madam Speaker, over 30,000 died in Iraq last year. Thirty 
thousand. If you do the math, they only have a country of 25 million. 
We have a country of 300 million. If you do the math, those 33,000 dead 
Iraqi civilians, that is equivalent to almost 400,000 civilian American 
deaths last year.
  If that was the case in America, 400,000 American civilians killed in 
a civil war, wouldn't we call that serious?
  What is going on in Iraq today is a disaster already. He says al 
Qaeda will probably take over. Nonsense. Today you have al Qaeda, who 
are primarily Sunni members of the Islamic faith. You have Sunni Iraqis 
killing al Qaeda Sunnis. They don't like foreign fighters in Iraq, 
whether they be American or al Qaeda.
  And the Shia in Iraq are no fans of the Sunni al Qaeda, either. But 
the folks that they don't like the most in their midst are Americans.
  The President says we believe in democracy and we went to Iraq to 
give them a chance for democracy. This is after there were no weapons 
of mass destruction and all of the other reasons had changed. He says 
we should be there to give them democracy, notwithstanding the fact 
that we are bleeding our own Nation dry of human and other resources.
  Madam Speaker, what do the Iraqi people wish us to do? The point of 
democracy is to allow people to express their will on how they wish to 
be governed. The Iraqi people, 80 percent of them say: Americans, leave 
our country. Eighty percent of Iraqis say: Americans, leave our 
country. Sixty percent of Iraqis today say it is all right to kill 
Americans.
  Madam Speaker, when we leave Iraq, and I hope it is within the next 
six months, caring only about the safety of our troops as we make this 
strategic withdrawal and rebuild our military and get ready to face 
others in the region, know that Iran will be very unhappy that we are 
leaving. Iran will be very unhappy that we are leaving Iraq.
  Why? Because then Iran will have to decide if they go fight on behalf 
of the Shia members of the Iraqi civil war. Maybe Syria will have to 
come in on behalf of the Sunnis fighting the Shia because Syria is a 
Sunni nation.

[[Page H744]]

  Maybe Saudi Arabia may have to get in. That won't happen.
  When we leave, the regional players in the Middle East around Iraq 
will finally realize this is their problem that they have to solve and 
can't continue to stand on the sideline causing trouble.
  I appreciate all the time the gentlelady has given me, and I 
appreciate the opportunity to explain how now for just about a year 
when I announced to my constituents why I believed it was time for us 
to withdraw our troops from Iraq, that it is indeed time to do so. It 
is in America's vital national interest that we do so. It is the smart 
thing to do for our country. We have other needs to address, including 
rebuilding our military and getting ready for real threats that face us 
around the world. And the better results will occur in Iraq and the 
region after we leave. I thank the gentlelady from California.
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for all of the time 
and effort he is putting into helping us get out of Iraq.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to Mr. Bill Jefferson from Louisiana.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this is a very important subject on which we speak 
tonight. Most of what needs to be said has already been said by Members 
who have gone before me, and I know the time is short.
  However, I want to say a couple of things. I have had the privilege 
of serving in the military of our country. I was first commissioned as 
a military intelligence officer and then commissioned in the JAG Corps 
as a judge advocate general officer. I take it seriously when the 
Commander in Chief says we need to protect ourselves and defend our 
country.
  I have a district full of veterans. We have a large port facility 
that is vulnerable to attack and penetration. I had long talks with 
Colin Powell about these issues, and they were all very persuasive and 
convincing about what we needed to do to protect ourselves.
  I thought back about what we did when President Clinton came to us 
about Bosnia and Kosovo when he told us that we needed to give him 
authority to do what we needed to do to protect our country. I thought 
it was fair to treat both Commanders in Chief the same. We should not 
play politics over this issue. If we needed to protect our country, we 
should.
  We all know now there were no weapons of mass destruction, no 
justification for the war, no nuclear weapons could be found there. 
Nothing that the President told us was true was true. Whether he 
intended or not, as has been said, the information was untrue; and, 
therefore, we should not have based the war on it.
  The other thing that is important is that most of us who voted on the 
resolution decided and expected that the resolution would be followed. 
Number one, that the President would go to the U.N. and talk to folks 
and try to get a consensus.
  And number two, that he would only go when there was a consensus 
reached. He really just raced right past the U.N. and went right to 
war, from the very beginning violating the obligations and trust he 
asked us to repose in him.
  Now we are in the middle of a civil war, and we are asked now to add 
more troops, add a surge and escalate our efforts there. I don't 
believe that the American people want to see that done. I surely can't 
support that at this point down the road.
  As we look at what we need to do in our country, there is so much 
that needs to be done. I happen to represent a district that was 
inundated by flood waters, not because of a natural disaster only, but 
because the Corps of Engineers, a U.S. Government agency, failed to 
protect our people and built levees that were not designed properly, 
that were not constructed properly and that were not maintained 
properly. Consequently, they failed and our city drowned.
  It is time for our government to face up to domestic 
responsibilities, particularly for Hurricane Katrina. And all of the 
money that we are going to spend now on a surge in Iraq, I would like 
to see a great part of it spent to bring our people home and restore 
our communities and rebuild back the confidence that people ought to 
have in us right here in America.
  Madam Speaker and Congresswoman Waters, all of you who have done so 
much in this area, I thank you for giving me a chance to come here and 
say these few words tonight. I know our time is very short.
  But I want to see our emphasis placed on our domestic responsibility 
now in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. That is where our country 
needs to focus.
  If it was the Iraq war, after the wheels came off the war machine, 
that has brought about the change in this body, and if that was a major 
reason for what has happened here, I believe on the domestic front, 
Hurricane Katrina was just as important to the changes that we have 
seen in our Congress now. Therefore, our response must be as intense 
and as direct on what we do to adjust ourselves in that war as we do to 
come back here and take care of our people back home.
  Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak 
tonight. I look forward to our getting together to get this war behind 
us and bring our troops home. I applaud diplomacy in this area, and I 
look forward to getting our focus back on our people at home, 
particularly on our Hurricane Katrina survivors and evacuees.

                              {time}  2030

  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for that very clear 
statement.
  And now, Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oakland, 
California (Ms. Lee), who has given so much leadership on this issue. 
She has been with us constantly, urging us to get out and coming up 
with the prescription for how to do it.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, first, let me thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), the founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, for her 
leadership and for this special order tonight, because this is 
historic.
  First of all, let me just say that with regard to the Out of Iraq 
Caucus, Ms. Waters knew, and this was early on, that Members of 
Congress, whether they supported or opposed the war, needed a space in 
this body, needed a framework to begin to discuss ways to get out of 
Iraq. She saw early on that Members of Congress knew that they were 
misled; that the information and intelligence was distorted; and that 
whether, once again, they believed then and voted for the resolution or 
not, that they wanted now to have that dialogue and that debate. So she 
really did open up the space for the debate which we see now occurring, 
which is extremely important because the debate, quite frankly, 
especially with regard to this war, has been shut down. So thank you, 
Ms. Waters, for your leadership.
  Let me also say that tonight we heard from many Members, and I have 
to thank them for their courage and their very clear statements. They 
trusted, as they said, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Commander-in-
Chief violated their trust. Three thousand of our young men and women 
now have died and countless Iraqis have died.
  The President the other night said that he has made some mistakes, 
and some of us thought that he was going to talk about how he was going 
to rectify those mistakes. Instead, he talked about how he was going to 
continue to escalate this war and continue to dig this country deeper 
into a hole. He also said, very recently, and his staff, Mr. Snow, 
said, that if the critics of his policies have a plan on what to do, to 
come forward with it.
  Quite frankly, I believe, and have said this over and over and over 
again, the President got us into this mess and it is up to him to get 
us out. But if he wants us to come up with a plan, then we have a plan. 
We did just that. We introduced, Congresswoman Woolsey, Waters, and 
myself, H.R. 508, which develops a plan to begin to bring our troops 
home within 6 months. It also provides for reconstruction of Iraq in 
terms of our assistance, and it ensures that there will be no permanent 
military bases in Iraq.
  What is going on right now, and we need to call this what it is, is 
an occupation and it is a civil war. The Iraqi people do not want us 
there as occupiers. The American people are sick and tired of this war, 
and we need to bring our troops home.

[[Page H745]]

  Let me just remind you that when this authorization to use force was 
presented to the Congress, Mr. Spratt, as was said earlier, offered an 
alternative resolution, and I offered an alternative resolution, which 
basically said that, look, the United Nations has the responsibility 
for the inspections process to occur. Let the U.N. process move 
forward. We received, I believe, about 72 Members, some of which came 
down and spoke tonight on my resolution. And many Members have told me 
now that they wish they had voted for that resolution because we would 
not be in the mess we are in now.
  Finally, let me just say once again to Ms. Waters, thank you for your 
leadership. I want to thank you for your voice and for making sure that 
the debate finally is occurring in this Congress, and I urge members of 
the public and others who believe that what the American people said in 
November gives us our marching orders to move forward, that they know 
that we are hearing.
  We are going to continue with this debate. Many of us are going to 
say no to this escalation and no to this $100 billion supplemental. We 
want our troops home, we want them protected, and we think the funds 
should be used to do just that.
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman from California for all the work 
she is doing.
  We heard earlier from Members who had voted for the resolution to go 
to war, who have since changed their minds. Fifteen Members signed up 
for tonight, but some had to leave. They waited as long as they could. 
And so we will continue to bring to the floor those Members who have 
changed their minds.
  Tonight not only do we have Ms. Lee, who just joined us, but we have 
Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota, one of our newer Members 
who has been consistent on getting out of Iraq. I yield to the 
gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlewoman from California. And I was told 
early on, Madam Speaker, that the gentlewoman from California wanted to 
feature Congress people who had voted for the war in Iraq and then had 
subsequently changed their minds. I was persistent in trying to be a 
part of tonight's special order, and I thank the gentlewoman from 
California for allowing me to, because I just wanted to point out that 
back in 2003 I had no idea that I would ever be standing in the halls 
of Congress, but I did know in 2003, in March, that this war was wrong 
and we needed to stand absolutely against it.
  But I respect those Members of Congress who came forward tonight and 
pointed out that this war is wrong, was wrong, and we have to get out 
of Iraq now.
  Today--after 6 long years of subsidies to big oil companies with 
outrageous profit margins--we made a bold change for America.
  Today we gave America an energy policy that will move the Nation 
towards a day in which no young American will ever again have to fight 
another oil war for any President--especially this one.
  The President finally admitted last Wednesday night what most 
Americans have known for a long time.
  His Iraq policy is a failure.
  I rise today to strongly oppose this President's solution to that 
failure--a surge of American troops.
  Surge in Bushspeak is plain and simple--an expansion of the same 
disastrous policy in Iraq.
  The vast majority of our country's top military and foreign policy 
experts disagree with the viability of the President's approach.
  This list includes the current Joint Chiefs of Staff, current 
military commanders in the region--General Abizaid and Casey, the 
Baker-Hamilton commission and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
  Republican Senator Chuck Hagel told it like it is last week: ``I 
think this speech given last night by this President represents the 
most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.'' 
As a Vietnam Veteran he should know.
  Our military leaders state we must view Iraq policy as a three-legged 
stool.
  Each leg of the stool represents a key strategy to support 
reconstruction of Iraq--one leg represents our military strategy, one 
economic and one political.
  All 3 legs have to be present, and strong, to ensure Iraqi success. 
If one strategy is over-emphasized--and others don't even exist--the 
stool and our strategy falls apart.
  The President's plan is--at best--a one-legged stool--our military 
involvement. A one-legged stool cannot stand.
  Nor should it--when it is built on the lives of 22,000 young 
Americans.
  I am not a military expert, but experts of counterinsurgencies look 
at Iraq and recommend a military force of a quarter million, to a half 
million troops for any hope of success.
  [Let me be clear I am not for any increase in our troop levels in 
Iraq]
  But, 22,000 troops don't even come close to making this critical 
military benchmark.
  Ted Carpenter of the Cato Institute stated last week:
  . . . A lesser deployment would have no realistic chance to get the 
job done. A limited surge of additional troops is the latest illusory 
panacea offered by the people who brought us the Iraq quagmire in the 
first place. It is an idea that should be rejected.
  This is a reckless and irresponsible proposal. To allow the President 
to place these selfless young Americans in a virtual shooting gallery 
is wrong.
  Since last night, 3,012 of America's most promising young men and 
women have lost their lives in Iraq--and over 22,000 more have been 
grievously wounded.
  We have squandered more than $350 billion of our Treasury in Iraq 
with no end in sight.
  Three hundred fifty billion dollars would fund 48 million kids a year 
of Head Start; it could provide 17 million students 4 year scholarships 
at public universities; we could build 3 million additional housing 
units; or we could hire 6 million more public school teachers for one 
year.
  Instead, we've dug 3,012 graves and mortgaged our children's future. 
Enough is enough.
  Monday, we celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King's life and work. In one 
of Dr. King's last speeches in which he criticized our Vietnam policy, 
Dr. King stated that: ``a time comes when silence is betrayal.''
  That time has come--and our continued silence will be our Nation's 
betrayal. The immediate withdrawal of our troops is the only new way 
out of Iraq:
  Lt. Gen. William Odom, of the Hudson Institute said, (and I quote): 
``The wisdom and moral courage to change the course for strategic 
purposes is what we need today, not mindless rhetoric `about staying 
the course.' `Cutting and running' from Iraq is neither cowardly nor 
imprudent. It is the only way to recover from what is turning out to be 
the greatest strategic mistake in American history.''
  I concur wholeheartedly.
  I thank the gentlewoman from California for her courage and 
persistence in the pursuit of peace; the pursuit of a saner and safer 
world for our children, and all the children of the world.

                          ____________________