[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2801-H2807]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              WAR SUPPLEMENTAL IS BAD POLITICS, BAD POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here 
tonight.
  I wanted to talk on the eve of what may be the most controversial 
bill that we have voted on since I have been a Member of Congress, and 
I have been a Member of Congress now for 16 years. In fact, sometimes I 
don't like to admit that in public because everybody gets so concerned 
about term limits, I don't want to be the poster child for my enemies 
on that subject. But I have been in Congress for the NAFTA vote, for 
the renewal of GATT, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. I have 
been here for the impeachment vote. I was here for welfare reform, some 
very significant pieces of legislation, the Contract With America, and 
recently with the Democrats' 6 for 06 plan. Yet in all my years of 
Congress, I can say that this week, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps Friday, 
we will have what is the most controversial bill that I ever voted on 
and the largest supplemental appropriation bill in the history of the 
United States Congress, a bill which the President requested for our 
troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and the war on terrorism in general. His 
request level was $101 billion, but it is actually going to be about a 
$124 billion bill, because there are many things that aren't even 
related to the war that have now got stuck in the bill.
  There are a lot of different views on this that I wanted to talk 
about. I have my friend, Mr. Carter from Texas, who is a fellow 
appropriator on this Special Order. The thing that is interesting, 
though, is that a lot of the traditional allies of the Democrat Party, 
the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and sometimes in fact those 
two newspapers are inseparable from the Democrat talking points, but 
they are squarely against this bill. The editorial pages have gone out 
of their way to say what a bad bill this is, to say do we really need a 
General Pelosi, which is what the Los Angeles Times said. And to quote 
the Los Angeles Times, ``After weeks of internal strife, House 
Democrats have brought forth their proposal forcing President Bush to 
withdraw the troops from Iraq, 2008. This plan is unruly, bad public 
policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush 
says he will veto it, as well he should.'' That is the Los Angeles 
Times.
  Here is the Washington Post. The Pelosi plan for Iraq. ``The only 
constituency House Speaker  Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for 
amending Bush's supplemental war funding bill are the people of the 
country that the U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize.'' That is real 
important.
  ``The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of 
why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi Government to lose 
all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint as to what might 
happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year, a 
development that would be triggered by the Iraqi Government's weakness. 
It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interest in Iraq, which holds the 
world's second largest oil reserve and a substantial cadre of al Qaeda 
militants, would be protected after 2008. In fact, it may prohibit U.S. 
forces from returning once they leave.'' That is the Washington Post.
  These are not what I would call mainstream moderate newspapers. The 
Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post are out there drumming the 
drums for the liberal causes, time and time again, and they are both 
squarely against this plan.
  You know, I think one thing Americans have to ask themselves is, is 
there U.S. interest in Iraq? Rhetorical question. Is there U.S. 
interest in Iraq? Now, if there isn't, and the war is in fact in the 
tank as Speaker Pelosi and many of her followers believe, get out 
tomorrow. Get out. Get out yesterday. Now, this bill doesn't say that. 
It is more of a slow-bleed, sure-formula-for-defeat plan. But if you 
really think the war is in the tank, why spend another nickel there?
  Now I understand, I haven't spoken to him, that my colleague from 
Georgia, John Lewis, has made that philosophical and principled 
position. John is a liberal senior Member from Atlanta. And he says, I 
am against the war. Why should I vote to spend $100 billion more there? 
I respect that position. But if you are going to spend the money and 
give the troops some assistance, why are you tying their hands at the 
same time? Again, if there is a U.S. interest, then is there not a U.S. 
interest in victory? Is there a U.S. interest in defeat? And so often 
the critics of

[[Page H2802]]

the war always dodge those important questions.
  And you can go back to 2003 and cite many things that have gone 
wrong. I am a Republican and I will tell you what, there have been many 
things that we have misjudged and done wrong, and it is regrettable. 
And I would also say that even prior to 2003, maybe some things should 
have gone in a different direction. I will say, as a Member of the 
House at the time, we were driven by the 17 United Nations resolutions, 
which the Iraqi Government ignored. We were driven by the best 
intelligence estimates at the time, which said that there were weapons 
of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein would use them. That was a view 
that was shared by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and all 
the other leading Democratic critics of this war. But they all had the 
same conclusion in 2001, 2002 and 2003, leading to our resolution to 
give the President the use of force to go into Iraq. But I understand 
politics. Backseat driving and revisionist history just comes with the 
turf.
  So we can politically revise history. I understand there is a short-
term memory and a convenience factor, and if you are running for the 
Democratic Presidential nomination, you have got to be dodging and 
weaving, as John Kerry did last time, voting for it and then against it 
and having positions all over the court.
  But we are here now. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, the last 
election, November 2006, put the Democrats in charge. They are no 
longer in the back seat of the car. The President may have driven the 
car to where it is, but the Democrat Party now has its hand on the 
steering wheel. And you can steer good policy. And this, as the Los 
Angeles Times says, is bad policy, very bad policy.
  If you believe there is a U.S. interest and you think, what would 
happen with the U.S. out of Iraq suddenly? There would be chaos, there 
would be civil war, and it is quite likely that the second largest oil-
producing nation in the world would fall into the hands of anti-
American, anti-Western terrorists and become a nation state of 
terrorists, a haven for more terrorists.
  I don't know of anybody in the Congress that thinks it is a good idea 
to ignore terrorism the way we did prior to 9/11, when the two 
embassies were attacked in Africa, when the USS Cole was attacked in 
Yemen, and when the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center happened. We 
are not going to let that happen again. We understand that you just 
can't ignore terrorism, that you have to be engaged with it.
  So if you believe there is an interest and there is a huge downside 
in sudden withdrawal, why would you vote for a bill that says we are 
going to withdraw but we are going to withdraw slowly? We are going to 
let our troops stay over there, but we are not going to give them the 
backup that they need.
  Now, I have the honor of representing the 3rd Infantry Division, Fort 
Stewart, Fort Hunter, Georgia. I also have a couple other military 
bases. But Fort Stewart leaves this week on its third deployment there. 
And I don't see how I could be expected to represent those soldiers and 
tell them, you know, ma'am, your son is patroling the streets of 
Baghdad and I had the opportunity to send him 20,000 troops to cover 
his back and I voted no. Because it is a fundamental question. If you 
are in Iraq, do you want 20,000 more troops helping you or not? How can 
you say you support somebody if you are not going to give them 
additional troops to back them up?
  Now, I don't believe this is a status quo vote at all, because 
General Petraeus, who is now our commander over there, has designed 
this plan as a way to ramp up our forces and clamp down on the violence 
and the attacks, train the Iraqi troops, and then stabilize the country 
and come home. I believe that that is an exit and a victory plan, and 
it is changing the status quo.
  So why would you put the general in charge, who I think was approved 
by the Senate by a vote of 80 or 90 to zero, I don't think there was a 
dissenting vote, and then say to him, good luck, but we are going to 
micromanage the war because we have 435 Members of Congress who, 
General Petraeus, are mighty good military folks in own right. Maybe we 
should in fact move Congress to Baghdad, since all the generals seem to 
be in this room who have all the answers.
  Mr. CARTER. Would the gentleman yield? I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Very good description of what we are looking at this week. And you 
are right; this may be one of the most critical votes that the people 
that hold these valuable seats that our people back home gave us are 
going to cast in their lifetime, because they are going to cast a life-
and-death vote here.
  You know, as you mentioned, the troops and the 1st Infantry Division 
that you represent over there in Georgia, I am very blessed to 
represent the folks at Fort Hood, Texas. We are the only two division 
posts in the entire world, as I understand it, and I am very proud to 
represent the 4th Infantry Division and the 1st Cavalry Division and 
III Corps.
  As we meet here tonight, the 1st Cavalry Division is in Baghdad, and 
General Odierno and III Corps are in command.

                              {time}  2000

  Now, I have my soldiers from the 1st Cavalry Division, and I call 
them mine because I care about every single solitary one of those 
soldiers as they serve our country. I have them in harm's way tonight 
as we stand here, with great generals who know what they are doing, 
know their mission, and are ready to accomplish it.
  I don't think the American people have really understood what General 
Petraeus is trying to do with what some are calling a surge, but more 
familiar to our soldiers is a call for more boots on the ground; or as 
Jack said, for somebody to take your back.
  But the real issue here is what is the plan for victory that General 
Petraeus has painted for us. Well, the plan is to involve Iraq in their 
own defense. The plan is for one battalion of American soldiers to back 
up a brigade of Iraqi soldiers as they go in and execute a new policy 
in the neighborhoods of terror in Baghdad. The Army will be backing up 
a brigade with a battalion. There are five battalions in a brigade. So 
that means it is a 5 to 1 ratio is the plan for the Iraqis to be in the 
fight versus the Americans. The Americans will provide all of the great 
resources, all of the know-how, all of the skill, all of the training, 
all the can-do that our American forces provide to the fight. But the 
Iraqis will go in and they will take care of cleaning out the 
neighborhoods in Baghdad. They speak the language. They know the 
culture and the religion. They know the various groups. They can do 
this in a much more effective way, with the support of General 
Petraeus' troops. And he has told us that he needs the additional boots 
on the ground to make this plan work.
  Now, I think the American people are a people that believe in 
winning. You know, I sit around this House in our off time, and what 
are we talking about, who is going to win the next basketball game 
competition that is going on in this country? And we are talking about 
who is going to win, not who is going to lose.
  When it is football season, we are looking for a winning season. When 
we have a baseball team, we want them to have a winning year and to win 
the pennant. We are a Nation that likes winners. We have the most 
effective fighting force in the history of man on the ground today, and 
they can win. And they are telling us we have a plan.
  One of the problems that we have run into in Baghdad, and I have 
learned this by visiting with these generals. I visited just recently 
with the general who brought the 4th Infantry Division back, and they 
are ready and training to deploy again next fall for their third or 
fourth deployment.
  What was said was we have demonstrated we can clear out an area like 
Sadr City, for instance. The 1st Cavalry Division went in 2 years ago 
and cleaned out Sadr City, redesigned the sewer system, got the 
electricity system working slightly, got the garbage that had been in 
the streets for years under Saddam Hussein cleaned out, and they did 
this under fire. And they also killed or captured the bad guys that 
they found, and ran the rest of them out of Sadr City. But they didn't 
have the resources to hold Sadr City.
  This plan is to clear, hold, and rehabilitate. That's the plan that 
General Petraeus talked to the Senate about. That's the plan he has, as 
I understand it.

[[Page H2803]]

  And the Iraqis will set up like stations in the various neighborhoods 
to do the clear with our help; they will do the hold with our help; and 
then teams will come in from the Army and the Marine Corps and like 
from the State Department to do the rehabilitation of the area and give 
them services they practically haven't had under Saddam Hussein, and 
some have never had in their lifetime.
  This is a plan that I think we owe to our soldiers and their 
sacrifice, to give them a chance to get done. I am heartsick that we 
have a plan that is supposed to be funding these troops to get this job 
done that is coming to the floor of the House, and it has provisions in 
that plan which it looks like to me are saying we don't think you can 
succeed. Therefore, we are setting up kind of a track to get you out 
because by a vote for the bill in its present state, we are saying to 
our soldiers overseas, we don't think you can get the job done and so 
here is how we are going to get you out, and here is the drop-dead 
date, August of next year, when you are getting out, like it or not.
  You mentioned General Pelosi micromanaging. I have real problems with 
this bill, and I hope every Member of Congress will look at this bill 
and look at it in terms of human beings, i.e. our soldiers. It has a 
provision, and it has a provision which says no unit can go to the 
fight unless they are certified by someone, that they are fully 
trained, fully equipped before they are allowed to go. And if they 
cannot meet that certification on their demarcation date they will be 
by this bill defunded because they are not certified to go to the 
fight.
  Meanwhile, there are troops in Iraq who are expecting to have a 
replacement coming in. They have been there for a year. But what does 
this bill say about those troops in Iraq? In this case, the 1st Cavalry 
Division from Fort Hood, Texas, next fall under this bill, once they 
reach 365 days in theater, this bill defunds those soldiers.
  Now, if we fail to certify their replacements and we have defunded 
the soldiers and now you have a 1st Cavalry Division soldier who is 
short on gasoline and ammunition in the war, is that where we want that 
soldier to be? Is that caring for the American troops? And all of this 
is being managed from here, not from the generals that are in the 
fight?
  I think it is a tragedy that we would even consider doing something 
like this, thinking we as a body have the military knowledge, superior 
to the people we just, by the example you gave, by a unanimous vote of 
the Senate hired a man to do the job.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think the genius of the U.S. Congress is not only can 
we solve health care and education and agriculture and transportation, 
but on the side, we can run a war. I am just saying, hey, with this 
kind of brain power, we all ought to go to Baghdad and put on a 
uniform.
  Mr. CARTER. You go ahead. I have been there three times, and let me 
tell you, I like the professional soldier and the job he is doing.
  Another interesting thing that is not being said that you need to 
know, and I think it is important and if you talk to the soldiers you 
will learn this, in the Anbar Province where the marines are operating 
with some of the airborne folks, and that is where the marines asked 
for 4,000 more troops to help them, for the first time we have had a 
change of support from the populace in Anbar Province. Al Qaeda is 
there. That is where our enemy that blew up our country, that is where 
they are. The marines are hunting them down, capturing or killing them. 
They are saying give us 4,000 more, and we will get this job done. Why 
is that? Because the sheiks are now cooperating. They are now saying to 
the marines, we will tell you where these guys are.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Something curious is that the Speaker of the House said 
we need to get out of Iraq and go to Afghanistan where the real war on 
terrorism is.
  It is kind of scary to think that someone who is third in line to the 
President would have that kind of a naive misunderstanding of the world 
we live in.
  We have been joined by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), and 
I want to hear what he has to say.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I was listening to my friend from Texas's analogy 
about the sporting events, since that is on everybody's mind right now. 
I was thinking about two things. One, the proposal that is being put 
before this Congress, possibly this week, is to say, you know what, 
let's let the fans do the coaching. We hired us a head coach, but you 
know what, we have decided the fans know more about how to win this 
basketball championship, and so we are going to let the fans do that.
  But the most compelling thing that I heard, and I want to talk a 
little bit about this trip, and the gentlemen both know, I just 
returned 10 days ago from being in Iraq for the third time. I was in 
Fallujah, was in Ramadi, and talked to General Petraeus, a four-star 
general who we have tasked to finish and win the war in Iraq, all of 
the way down to the privates. And one of the privates said to me, 
Congressman, it is like this. In sporting events, we have home games 
and we have away games. We lost one of our home games; let's win this 
away game.
  He was referring to the attack on 
9/11. That wasn't the first attack on home soil. So we have lost a 
couple of home games, we want to win the away games.
  Also, the gentleman from Texas is exactly right. What we saw in 
Fallujah and Ramadi is that the sheiks are not only telling us where 
the bad guys are, but in one case, one of the sheiks from his 
particular tribe sent 400 or 500 of his young people from his tribe to 
enlist in the police force in the Iraqi Army, saying not only do we 
want to tell you where they are, but we want to help you take these 
people out of our neighborhoods.
  I believe one of the turning points that is going on in Iraq today is 
the fact that the Iraqi people are tired of what these terrorists are 
doing to their own country. They are tired of the killing. And I notice 
the gentleman has a picture of a street scene. I know what that father 
and mother are thinking: Will my children ever be safe to walk the 
streets of the neighborhood they were raised in?
  The good news is the answer to that is going to be yes.
  Now, is it still dangerous over there? Absolutely. But we are at war. 
I think some people are under the misconception that one day we are 
going to wake up and we are going to have some utopic situation in 
Iraq. The Israeli people have been waiting for that utopic situation 
for many, many years. There is still going to be violence.
  We have violence in our own country. We have violence in our own 
cities. But one of the things I felt was most compelling when I was 
over there, and I was visiting with all of the way from General 
Petraeus down to privates to boots on the ground, and each one of our 
stops in Fallujah, in Ramadi, in Baghdad, we had lunch or dinner with 
the troops. Those are the people that really will tell you how things 
are going.
  What they said is what the gentlemen both have been saying: Things 
are getting better. We are able to go into these neighborhoods, and we 
have a different tactic. We used to have a post and we would go in with 
a convoy and we would tour that area, and at the end of the day we 
would go back out. Now we are putting security posts inside the 
communities. I call it kind of like community policing. Now we have a 
presence there.
  And one of the things that people don't realize, for example, in 
Baghdad, that presence looks like this. There are three Iraqi security 
force officers, whether they be police or army, to every one American. 
So what is happening, those people are coming up to those people that 
are in their neighborhood and saying, Down the block two ways is a bad 
person. And you know what? On a number of occasions we have gone down 
to where the people say they were, and not only did we find some high-
value targets, we also found huge caches of weapons and IED-making 
things.

                              {time}  2015

  So now I think the hearts of the Iraqi people are in this. I know 
that the hearts of our troops were because, as I shared with the 
conference, I believe, 2 weeks ago, those soldiers looked me right in 
the eye, and they said, Congressman, nobody has more invested in this 
war than we do.
  One young man, this is his third tour. He said, sir, I have been in 
harm's way

[[Page H2804]]

three times for this country and for my country, and he said, nobody 
has more invested than I do. He said, Congressman, please go back and 
tell your colleagues, let us finish this job. This is a fight we can 
win.
  And anybody that voted to send those troops over there just to go 
over there and play Army for a while and then come home with defeat 
made the wrong vote. When we send our young men and women in harm's 
way, we need to be sending them to win, not to place. We need to win 
those away games so that we do not have to fight any more home games.
  I also shared with the conference, I believe, this week the story 
about a gentleman that joined me in the State of the Union for this 
year. His name is Roy Vallez, and Roy was sitting right back over here 
in this corner in a seat that my wife gave her ticket to Roy, and why 
Roy is so special is Roy has the distinction, unfortunately, of being 
the only father in America that has lost two sons in Iraq.
  While Roy was here, he was going around telling everybody about how 
important it is for us to finish this war so that his sacrifice, his 
extreme sacrifice, that he made and his sons made was not all for 
naught. He had an opportunity to talk to the President of the United 
States who called him on his cell phone, and he and the President had a 
wonderful conversation. That is the message he said to the President. 
Now, if there is anybody that has a right to question whether we ought 
to pull out right now or quit or come home, I believe Roy Vallez 
probably gets a place at the top of the list.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I do not think you will find Hollywood or the media 
clamoring around Roy Vallez the way they have Cindy Sheehan. I wonder 
what the difference is.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I think it is a very good point. Unfortunately, the 
rest of the world does not get to hear the good stories.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I have found the same way. I have been to Iraq twice, 
and when I go there to talk to the troops, their biggest enemy is the 
American media. They will tell you it is so frustrating, and they never 
would have believed the media was so bad.
  I want to show you some statistics that I think are important because 
you have just been there, but this was a poll that, again, good old 
American media covered up that was actually in Sunday's London Times, a 
British company, the largest poll in the history of Iraq, over 5,000 
people were surveyed.
  Now, I think so often when we hear polls that CNN reports, they poll 
their newsroom, 25 people, all whose minds have made up against the war 
and against George Bush. But this was the largest poll in the history 
of the country, largest poll during the war, of over 5,000 people.
  They found this: That al-Maliki's, as a Prime Minister, approval 
rating is 49 percent. In September, it was 29 percent. That is a 
significant statistic.
  The other thing is we keep hearing that we are caught up in a civil 
war. Well, the flip side is this: It is 70 percent of the people do not 
believe that they are in a civil war.
  Now, is it not strange that the Iraqis do not believe they are in a 
civil war, but if you poll the Democrat Members of Congress, I bet you 
90 percent would say they are in a civil war, and yet somehow the folks 
who live there do not believe they are in it. I find that a strange, 
just a very big difference, but, you know, who knows? I mean, we are 
politicians. We know everything. So certainly we know what the Iraqis 
are up to, and maybe they do not.
  The other thing that that poll, and it is not on my chart, but the 
other thing that the poll showed is that 66 percent of the people say 
they are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein, 
conveniently unreported in American news, but I would recommend to you 
all to check out Sunday's London Times.
  One other statistic that was not in the poll, but this is just a 
fact. But the month before we started the surge, and the surge 
officially started the 14th of February, the month before, there were 
1,440 civilian casualties. Since that time there have been 265. You 
cannot ignore that statistic.
  Now, I also want to give everybody a homework assignment. This is 
just for the folks back home. I would love you guys to see what the 
Democrat leadership says about the bill they are introducing tomorrow. 
Remember, this is a bill that is their official war plan.
  Go to www.gop.gov/news/documentsingle, and what do we have? Aspx? 
This, if we can get this on camera, if anybody would come call me, I 
would love you to see the Democrat leadership explaining their plan. I 
am telling you, it is absolutely, it is almost right out of Comedy 
Central. Are they really saying this? Because everything is, well, what 
date y'all call getting out? Well, I do not know, let me ask my 
colleague here. Well, I do not know, let me ask my colleagues. It was 
kind of like, okay, can anybody tell us the capital of Iraq? This is, 
yes, it is on a GOP Web site. That is the only thing partisan about it. 
It is absolutely not touched up one bit.
  I want to be sure everybody has an opportunity to look this up, but 
go to www.gop.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx? And ask for the document ID 
is 60396, and if you cannot find it, just call my office and we will 
give it to you, but it is scary. It is on one hand hilarious. On the 
other hand, it is scary that here is a leadership of a party saying 
here is our plan, and they cannot even explain it on prime-time 
television.
  I wanted to say the scary part is these are high-stakes stuff, but 
please, look this up and watch this news conference. If you still think 
that this is the right thing to do, well, you are seeing something I am 
not seeing.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I want to make the point, but I think that is one of 
the things that concerns me most is that this global war on terrorism 
is a real war. So when we talk about bleeding out or getting out or 
whatever you want to call it of Iraq, the thing that the other side has 
not brought to us is what they are going to do next, what is next on 
the agenda, what are they going to do if they pull out of Iraq, then 
how are we going to continue to keep these bad people from following us 
back to the U.S.?
  I think that is a real concern, and I think that the fact that the 
gentleman, I did the see the copy of the press conference, and it is 
disconcerting that those folks that are the folks that have the next 
plan.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman also knows, both you guys being from 
Texas, that last year the Border Patrol, I believe, caught 115,000 
people coming through the Mexican borders who were OTM, other than 
Mexican, and the concern of terrorists coming over here is real because 
we do have terrorists right now inside the United States border. We do 
not know how many cells or what they meet or what their intentions are, 
but we do know that they are here.
  Mr. CARTER. I think that is a very good point. I also think it is a 
very good point to note that we are talking about, we need to get back 
to what we set out to do here in Congress with this supplemental bill. 
I mean, what did the President and the generals who are in charge of 
this fight ask us to do as a Congress? Did they ask us to load up a 
bill with pork so that folks back home would have all kinds of pork 
projects? No. They asked us to give them what it takes for them to do 
their job. They did not ask us to run the war. They asked us to help 
them do their job.
  People love to quote generals around here, and, in fact, today I have 
heard twice quoted generals. Of course, these were all generals that 
are no longer in the fight, but they quote them, and they are certainly 
valid sources, and I do not criticize the opinions of those generals. 
They love to quote them. But I do not hear anybody quoting the opinions 
of the generals that are in the fight today, and yet they are giving us 
their opinions.
  One of the things that some folks back home ask me, and I think this 
is a valid thing to pass on to everyone here in the House and to 
whoever may be listening, General Petraeus was asked about an exit 
strategy from Iraq. He said, let us get this deal to work because we 
think we have the right formula to make it work, and as we stand up the 
Iraqi troops and they show what they are showing us in preliminaries 
right now that they are now ready to participate, as we have these 
successes, we can start drawing down the troops.
  So he told an exit strategy. How many of us have heard that in the 
media? All we hear is we are going to war, it is never ending, and 
there is no exit strategy, and the man that we just elected or voted 
for in the Senate

[[Page H2805]]

unanimously to be in charge has told us, this is not a never-ending 
situation. It is all about standing up the Iraqis and standing down the 
Americans, and we can get there if we do this thing well.
  This man is considered by everyone in the military as the 
counterinsurgency expert of the Army. That is why we have got him over 
there.
  So let us get back to what we are doing here. American soldiers, one 
of the things that just amazes me what the soldiers and marines do, 
they strap on between 80 and 100 pounds of stuff, sometimes more than 
that, and they go out in 140-degree temperature in metal vehicles and 
fight for the freedom of those people in Iraq. But this Congress and 
this bill wants to load on their shoulders an additional $24 billion 
worth of pork, and it is a shame.
  And why does this bill have this pork in it? What I mean by pork is 
things that have nothing to do with what we were asked to do, which is 
help our soldiers do their duty.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me talk to you, for the $23 billion extra that are 
not related to the war but are on this bill, designed to bring in more 
people to support it, this is what it includes: avian flu, $969 
million. We have already spent, I believe, $5.6 billion on avian flu. 
We have already spent $5.6 billion, but it is an emergency, we have got 
to spend nearly another billion.
  Spinach, spinach recall, not spinach disaster, but recalling to the 
private sector, $25 million.
  Minimum wage, well, we know that is an emergency. Hurricane citrus 
program because of Katrina and Rita, I guess like avian flu, Katrina's 
the gift that keeps on giving in terms of any time you need to pass 
something.
  NASA, $35 million for exploration capabilities. Well, that is 
certainly emergency. We better deal with that on the backs of the 
soldiers.
  Corps of Engineers, more repair to the levee system in New Orleans. I 
do not know how many times we are going to repair that levee system, 
but maybe the Corps of Engineers cannot get it right, and who knows, 
maybe we need to bring in the private sector.
  And, of course, FEMA is going to get more money. I mean, what would 
an emergency bill be without the FEMA bureaucrats getting more money?
  And then there is rental assistance for Indian housing, another 
emergency; crop disaster assistance, shrimp, $120 million; frozen farm 
land, $20 million; aquaculture operations, $5 million for aquaculture 
for shellfish, oysters and clams. It does not have to do with Katrina, 
to my knowledge.
  Of course, the emergency at the FDA, $4 million for the Office of 
Women's Health. Big emergency. I guess you guys have been getting a lot 
of letters about that one.
  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $60 million for 
fishing communities, Indian tribes, individual, small businesses, 
fishermen and fish processors, $60.4 million.
  And then there is the emergency of Secure Rural Schools Act, $400 
million for rural schools to offset revenues lost by the Bureau of Land 
Management owning timber.
  And then low-income energy assistance program, a little confused 
about this one because, you know, with global warming, and it already 
being March, well, who knows? I digress.
  Vaccine compensation, $50 million to compensate individuals for 
injuries caused by the H5N1 vaccine. Now, as you know, that is avian 
flu. And so of the $5.6 billion we have already spent, and of the $900 
million we are about to spend, we still have to give $50 million extra 
on that.

                              {time}  2030

  Then, $50 million for the Capitol Power Plant. I mean, we have got to 
get that building renovated.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. That and the Visitor Center are somehow tied 
together. I think they are having a race as to who can finish that 
project last.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Yes, I think so. Then the children's health care 
program, the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program, there is a shortfall. But we have to ask ourselves, what is 
the shortfall? The gentleman Mr. Carter knows, one of the big reasons 
is because the children's health system has been abused in many States 
because they have insured adults.
  Mr. CARTER. We did discuss this last week, and this plan was good 
hearted. It was designed to help children. But some of our States said, 
wait a minute, here is our chance, this is free health care from the 
Federal Government for our State. Let's just include children and their 
parents, and maybe their brothers and sisters.
  Mr. KINGSTON. And the grandparents.
  Mr. CARTER. And the grandparents. In fact, let's just make it health 
care for everybody in our State that falls in this category. This is 
like the Federal Government, and now they have got a shortfall, which 
that is not kind of hard to figure out if you calculate it, what it 
costs to take care of the kids, and then you added all their extended 
family to the program, yes, they will have a shortfall. This isn't 
rocket science here.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman will remember in committee last week, 
when we debated this funding, Dr. Weldon and I had an amendment. I 
pulled out a chart that showed the number of States that had put the 
majority of their money into adult health care rather than children's 
health care.
  You know, if there is a problem out there, that should be addressed. 
I want to say for the record, these things aren't programs that don't 
have merit. All of these things that I have listed are, I think there 
are some valid arguments for them. Some reforms are certainly needed in 
many of them, but they don't belong in a war bill, a funding war bill.
  Mr. CARTER. That's the key.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Doesn't the gentleman find it ironic, both of you, 
that in order to get support for this flawed plan where we are 
basically saying to our troops, we don't think you can get the job 
done, we are going to cut and run, we are going to slow-bleed this, 
that they have got to go out and start buying votes from their Members 
by offering up these projects, some of these pet projects from some of 
these Members in order to get support. Something as important as our 
national security is being bartered in the halls of the United States 
Congress.
  I don't believe the American people think that's the way we ought to 
be doing business here. I don't think they think when we are making 
policy about keeping America safe, keeping America secure, making sure 
that when we send our troops somewhere, we support them 100 percent so 
that we can bring home the victory we send them to.
  Now we are bartering for that progress with these projects. As the 
gentleman said, many of these things are worthwhile initiatives, but 
this is not the time nor the place nor the forum for those to be talked 
about.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I want to read you this statement by the Speaker of the 
House, third in line for the President, March 19. This is Nancy Pelosi 
talking, ``When we do this, when we transition, when we change the 
mission, when we redeploy the troops, build political consensus, engage 
in diplomatic efforts and reform and reinvigorate the reconstruction 
effort, then we can turn our attention to the real war on terror in 
Afghanistan. I hear the voice of the future in the Chamber. What a 
beautiful sound. What a beautiful sound.''
  Now, I guess that qualifies you to micromanage the war in Iraq 
because you have acknowledged there is no terrorism in Iraq, that it's 
all in Afghanistan. I guess if the real war is in Afghanistan, then the 
fake war is in Iraq. Therefore, it's okay, at the hands of the troop.
  Mr. CARTER. We are sitting here with a concern that goes back 1,000 
years between the Sunnis and the Shiites. That is why people talk about 
civil war.
  Now, has anybody read what has been put in the Middle Eastern 
newspapers about if the Americans pull out, and it blows up in Iraq, 
the countries that will come to the aid of these two groups? The 
Iranians have said, we are not going to let Shiites be put down, we 
will come to their aid. The Saudis have said, we are not going to have 
genocide for the Sunnis who are the minority party, we will come to the 
Sunnis' aid.
  I think Americans know that if you take Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, 
that is the basic oil production region of the entire Middle East who 
could become involved in a region-wide conflict because of America's 
early pullout, as recommended by Speaker Pelosi. Then

[[Page H2806]]

you know how upset folks got about $4-a-gallon gasoline? So what 
happens when over two-thirds of the world's supply is involved in a 
civil war or region-wide war in the Middle East if you don't care about 
doing the right thing? We certainly know people care about having $10-
a-gallon gasoline. It's kind of a sad, tragic thing to argue.
  But let's get realistic about this. If we get stability in Iraq where 
there is not going to be this threat of genocide, if we can get there 
by them turning to their government for assistance rather than to 
militia and terrorists, that is our goal. If we get there, we keep a 
stable region, and America is affected by having stability in that 
region.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. We are talking about this civil war. One of the 
interesting things in Fallujah is we sat down, and at the table, across 
the table, was the police chief of Fallujah. Sitting next to him was a 
colonel in the Iraqi Army. The interesting thing about that meeting, 
one is Sunni, the other is Shiite. Yet they are working side by side to 
make sure that Fallujah, the streets of Fallujah, are again a place 
where families can walk and commerce can take place.
  One of the interesting things that I saw on this trip, each trip I 
have seen progress. On this particular trip, I saw a lot more people 
out in the farmlands. What a lot of people don't know about Iraq is 
that at one time they were an exporter of agricultural products. This 
is a region of the world that is rich in a lot of natural resources. 
One of those is water.
  But more people were engaged in the streets. We flew at night. We 
flew from Ramadi into Baghdad, flying over the city, a lot more lights, 
a lot more electricity on, not just in the city but out in the 
countryside. These are the kinds of things that are going to build that 
Nation.
  To pull the plug after we have invested all of the lives and the 
resources into this initiative at this particular point in time is 
really unconscionable for our country even to consider that. I am 
concerned that a lot of people don't realize, as you said, what is 
really at stake here.
  Mr. CARTER. I think that Americans clearly have a stake in a stable 
Middle East. If they don't realize they have a stake, they will know it 
when they go to the pump, if that region goes into turmoil. They will 
know it. You know, it's sad to have to talk in those terms, but it's 
the truth.
  Let's get back to why we are here. We are here to give our troops the 
tools they need, the weapons they need, and the fuel they need to 
continue this fight and to see if this new direction will bring victory 
for a bunch of folks that deserve a victory.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let's also say that the supplemental is needed for a 
lot of needed equipment for these troops, and there is a lot of good in 
this supplemental.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. There is.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I want to say also on a bipartisan basis, you have a 
lot of support for the good that is in the supplemental. I will hand it 
to the Democrat leadership, the Democrats on the Appropriations, for 
putting in things that we know the troops need such as the MRAPs, the 
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Humvees the troops want; more money for 
the joint IED defeat fund. We had some really good testimony on that. 
Increases for the defense health care program, that is important; more 
money for equipment and training, more money for Afghanistan to 
counterterrorist-laden regions, money for a shortfall in the theater. 
There is some very good things in this bill that we believe, on a 
bipartisan basis, that the troops need.
  But the part which requires the Iraqi Government to do certain 
things, which they may or may not be able to do by a deadline of July 
1, really does tie up the Commander in Chief. I will say we are an 
equal branch of government, but the Commander in Chief is in charge of 
wars, not Members of Congress.
  Just to give you an example, to rewrite the Iraqi hydrocarbon law, 
which has to do with revenue sharing of the oil, I think it's a good 
thing to do. But I think if you say it has to be done a date certain, 
July 1, they might not be able to do that.
  Here we are in the United States Government, last year we could not 
pass a budget. Right now, we are having trouble passing a budget. 
Sometimes these things take longer than they do shorter.
  We got to give a new government the opportunity to get things done 
and not micromanage their government. But I think the biggest concern 
is, among other things, that there is still a pullout. There is still a 
date certain for a pullout, August 2008, and it's possible Iraqis won't 
be ready. It's possible we could do it before then.
  What General Petraeus has outlined for us is to go full-fledged with 
this troop surge, bring stabilization while ramping up the training of 
our Iraqis, so that we can hand them the baton in a way that we have 
continued stabilization, and then we can go home. I think letting 
General Petraeus call that shot in Baghdad is far more important than 
435 wannabe generals here in the United States Congress and in 
Washington.
  Mr. CARTER. I agree with you wholeheartedly. That is our issue here 
tonight. I agree with you. They worked hard to put a lot of the needs 
in here. Let's not say that these other things that have been, in my 
opinion, wrongly added to this bill in the way of pork, those things 
are still very important to this country. Many of those things are 
important to my district, but I would tell my folks back home, as 
important as some of those things are, our kids have enough to carry on 
their shoulders in Iraq without carrying the burden of these projects 
which can be dealt with in the regular appropriations process which is 
still to come, and the regular budget process which is still to come.
  You know what? If passing legislation, if there were a drop-dead date 
we were told, we would be voting on this bill today. So if we were 
going to be having a drop-dead event in world politics today, it would 
drop dead today, because we didn't pass what we were promised we were 
going to pass today.
  To put a time limit, to do it by the 1st of July or everybody comes 
home, when we are talking to them, that's the voice of a legislative 
body talking to another legislative body. And they know they can't meet 
deadlines in their Congress. We can't meet absolute deadlines in our 
Congress. Things happen. This is what's wrong with micromanaging from 
6,000 miles away.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. The gentleman is exactly right. I think the point was 
made, this is a young government. This is a young government that is 
basically about 8 months old. Basically they are learning how to govern 
because they have been an oppressed people for so long.
  I think about our Nation, we are going to celebrate over 230 years of 
history of this country, this Republic. We are still learning how to 
govern in many ways. I think talking about drop-dead dates, wouldn't it 
be nice if we had a drop-dead date to go to a balanced budget in this 
Congress?
  The gentleman talked about the splitting of oil reserves, and I think 
some of the positive things are there has been a tentative agreement 
reached within some of the Iraqi leadership, and they are going to 
hopefully bring that to a vote here fairly quickly. Prime Minister 
Maliki is making it very clear that there is no one that is a sacred 
cow in this war. If there are bad people out there, no matter what 
their affiliation is, that they have permission to go and do that.

                              {time}  2045

  And the list goes on and on of the positives. Yes, we still have 
fatalities; yes, we still have people being killed in that country. But 
we have never, I don't know of a war we have fought that there weren't 
those costs.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted to point out one more time: Civilian 
casualties a month before the surge, 1,440; casualties after the surge 
beginning February 15, 265. Bombings have dropped 40 percent, from 163 
to 102. And that would just be general bombings, IEDs. And then car 
bombings are down 35 percent, from 56 to 36. That is progress we are 
already seeing because of the surge.
  And I want to get the guys home, but you need to complete the job, 
you need to have victory and make sure that we do not have to go back, 
and an arbitrary pullout date would cause that.
  I also want to say this: I really do believe the Democrats are right 
in having more oversight. Frankly, I think that, as Republicans, we did 
not get the

[[Page H2807]]

oversight that we should have. We should have been tougher on some of 
the testimonies that we received. And I think that their suggestions of 
what the Iraqi Government should do aren't far off. But I think giving 
them deadlines when we have trouble passing legislation ourselves, I 
think that is a little unreasonable.
  But then the biggest part is the arbitrary pullout date of March 
2008. And I think you are setting up failure when you are doing that. 
That decision has got to be made by our generals in Baghdad.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for letting us have this discussion 
tonight and allowing us to participate in this discussion. It has been 
a good one. I hope that the folks that are looking at this bill very 
hard and trying to decide how they will vote, I hope that they will 
vote to give our American soldiers all the resources they need, and 
give the trained professionals the opportunity to direct the fight, not 
certain Members of the United States Congress. And if that happens, I 
believe that we are on the road to success.
  But we will have to have oversight, and we will have to watch it 
closely, and I for one am in favor of that, because what I care most 
about is the lives of those soldiers that I get to say good-bye to and 
welcome back home on the planes in Texas. And they matter to us in 
Texas, they matter to us in the United States. And we are proud of 
them, and we owe them everything we can to keep them alive, healthy, 
and successful. And I thank you for allowing me to participate.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. And I appreciate the gentleman's comments. And I also 
want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for allowing us this time 
tonight.
  I think I would leave you and leave the American people not with my 
words and not with Members of Congress or even General Petraeus or some 
of the other military leaders, but I will leave you with the words I 
started off the evening with in my time here is the words of the young 
men and women that are boots on the ground, that have served not one 
tour, but two tours, and many of them three tours, when they looked me 
in my eye and they said, ``Congressman, we want to go home. We want to 
spend time with our families. We want to go back to our communities. 
But, Congressman, we have a lot invested in this war, probably more 
than anyone else, and let us finish this job.''
  And so I urge my colleagues to listen to these young brave men and 
women that are doing phenomenal things for our country and for the 
people in Iraq. Listen to the soldiers: Let's finish this job.
  Mr. KINGSTON. And, finally, let me say this: Let's defeat this bill. 
Let's come back on a bipartisan basis and come up with something 
better, something that gets Democrats and Republicans together in the 
name of the troops, America, and international security.
  It is in our interests to get the politics out of legislation like 
this and come back with something better, something more noble. And I 
believe we can do it, because we are Americans. Thank you.

                          ____________________