[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 64 (Friday, April 20, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E816-E817]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1591, U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' 
                HEALTH AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 19, 2007

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I could not support this motion 
to instruct House conferees on the Defense Supplemental appropriations 
bill, for two reasons: First, I do not support the idea of rigidly 
insisting on the parts of the House-passed bill that the motion says 
the conferees should not change. Second, I believe the funding of our 
troops and the future of our involvement in Iraq are too important and 
too serious to be used for cheap partisan tricks.
  My vote was based on my appraisal of the merits of the motion, 
without regard to how others may have decided to vote. In other words, 
unlike the gentleman from California who offered it, I took the motion 
seriously--and, like its author, I opposed it.
  Earlier, when the House considered the Defense Supplemental bill 
itself, I voted for the bill to ensure that America's soldiers get the 
equipment and resources they need and the top-quality health care they 
may require when they come home.
  My vote for the bill was not a vote to support the Bush 
Administration's policy in Iraq. We are 4 years into a war the Bush 
Administration assured us would be short and decisive. The 
Administration's misjudgments, lack of planning and poor leadership 
have made a bad situation worse--and the tactic of increasing troops 
for a temporary ``surge'' is no substitute for what is needed, namely, 
a strategy for containing civil war and a wider regional war.
  While I am convinced that it was a strategic mistake to go to war in 
Iraq in the way that the Bush Administration did, we are still deeply 
engaged there--and while our troops are in the field, we must provide 
them what they need. Beyond supplying our soldiers, however, we must 
extricate them from what objective defense experts have characterized 
as an emerging civil war.
  Disengaging from that civil war is the purpose of the provisions in 
the House-passed bill designed to hold the president accountable to the 
benchmarks set by his own administration and the Iraqi government--
including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; conducting of provincial and 
local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification 
process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi 
revenues for reconstruction projects.

[[Page E817]]

  I strongly support that approach because I am convinced that holding 
the president and the Iraqi government accountable for achieving these 
benchmarks will provide us with the leverage necessary to pressure the 
Iraqi government to forge the political solution we all know is 
required. In fact, Defense Secretary Gates has acknowledged that the 
House-passed a bill has been helpful in this approach by showing the 
Iraqis that American patience is limited.
  As I said when the House debated the bill, however, I do not believe 
it was a good idea to include a date certain for withdrawing U.S. 
combat troops from Iraq. As I said then, I do not consider this 
provision to be wise and if it had been up to me, it would not have 
been included in the bill. I remain convinced that we should steer 
clear of arbitrary public deadlines for military actions and focus 
instead on realistic diplomatic and political goals. Our military needs 
flexibility to be able to link movements of U.S. troops to the 
realities of the situation on the ground, and successful diplomacy 
requires such flexibility as well.
  I voted for the bill despite my reservations about the withdrawal 
language because the deadline--August of 2008--is far enough away that 
it can be revisited, and while I did not like its inclusion, I do not 
believe in letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  But since it would have been better if it had not been included in 
the first place, I could not vote to instruct the conferees to insist 
on including it in the conference report.

                          ____________________