[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 24, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4035-H4040]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE WAR IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to come 
before my colleagues and those that might be looking in to speak about 
the war in Iraq.
  We have heard colleagues speak about the issue tonight in poignant 
and, no doubt, sincere terms. Mostly, the words of my Democrat 
colleagues register their objection to the ongoing war in Iraq, and 
that is expected, as Democrats will prepare to bring to the floor of 
the House of Representatives by this weekend a war spending bill that 
will include timetables for withdrawal that will add unconstitutional 
provisions which will necessitate the beginning of troop withdrawals by 
July 2007, with the goal of ending U.S. combat operations no later than 
March of 2008.
  I want to leave for a little later, Mr. Speaker, the discussion of 
whether or not Congress has the constitutional authority that will be 
contemplated in this legislation, but for now I want to speak 
specifically to the state of the war. And I want to say, as President 
Bush said yesterday in the Oval Office, this is a tough time in Iraq.
  In my role as the ranking Republican member of the Middle East 
Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee here in the House of 
Representatives, I am regularly and routinely briefed both about our 
surge strategy, the efforts of U.S. and coalition and Iraqi forces on 
the ground, and of course regularly briefed on the efforts of 
insurgents and al Qaeda and those attempting to foment sectarian 
violence and to generate a civil war in Iraq. It is a tough time in 
Iraq.
  This week, we will hear from our commander in Baghdad. General David 
Petraeus is on Capitol Hill as we speak, preparing to meet tomorrow 
with Members of the United States House of Representatives to present 
his report on the progress of the surge. And that is specifically what 
I want to speak about tonight, because, Mr. Speaker, I suspect my 
colleagues will hear tomorrow what I heard from General David Petraeus 
in Baghdad just 3 weeks ago when I traveled with colleagues in the 
House and Senate to tour literally the streets of Baghdad and to tour 
our progress in Ramadi and in al-Anbar province.
  I believe what General Petraeus will tell our colleagues on Capitol 
Hill tomorrow is that despite a recent wave of insurgent and horrific 
bombings, this war is not lost. In fact, because of the President's 
surge and the brave and courageous conduct of American soldiers on the 
ground and brave Iraqis on the ground, we are making modest progress in 
Iraq in the early months of this surge.
  But, as General Petraeus will say, while Congress will this week 
contemplate embracing a resolution that will be built upon the 
predicate that the war is lost, in fact there is evidence that this new 
surge strategy both in Baghdad and in the al-Anbar province are 
beginning to have a good effect.
  In Baghdad, for instance, as I will chronicle tonight, despite recent 
and horrific bombings, sectarian violence is down significantly in the 
past 2 months. Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer because of the 
deployment of more than two dozen U.S. and Iraqi joint operating 
centers throughout the city. And now, perhaps most compellingly, in the 
al-Anbar province in Ramadi, more than 20 of the Sunni sheik leaders 
have come together to form what they call the Iraq Awakening Movement. 
For the first time ever, Sunni leadership in the al-Anbar province are 
standing with the American soldier and with the government of Nouri al-
Maliki.
  Again, let me say, this is a tough time in Iraq. But we are in the 
midst of

[[Page H4036]]

a strong backlash and counterattacks by insurgency in al Qaeda. We are 
beginning to see the seedlings of hope in that war-torn country. I 
truly believe we are making progress precisely because of the 
President's surge strategy.
  This war is not lost. And before I close tonight, I will reflect on 
my heartfelt sentiment that I believe the American people know that 
victory is our only option in Iraq, and I will urge this Congress to 
give General Petraeus not only a willing ear tomorrow but also the 
time, the resources, and the authority under his Commander in Chief to 
secure a victory for freedom in Iraq.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the skepticism of my colleagues on 
this point and perhaps even the skepticism of some who would be looking 
in tonight. So let me stick tonight not so much with rhetoric or 
semantics, but let's just talk about the facts on the ground in 
Baghdad. Because it seems to me just, not as a Congressman, but as an 
American, that most of the facts that I get in the popular debate in 
America in the mainstream media have to do with the horrific 
counterattacks that insurgents and al Qaeda are conducting in response 
to the surge.

                              {time}  2030

  But I want to focus tonight, in the time that I have been allotted, 
on the products of the surge, both militarily, both with regard to 
security in Baghdad and in Ramadi, where I visited just 3 short weeks 
ago, and also, in the political process which we all know ultimately 
holds the solution to our impasse in Iraq.
  Let me begin by saying, first and foremost, despite the difficulty of 
our challenge in Iraq, we are seeing positive indicators under the 
President's new strategy that we hope will turn into positive trends.
  General Petraeus has been carrying out this new strategy now for just 
over 2 months. He will not have the full complement of U.S. forces and 
reinforcements on the ground in Baghdad for several months yet, which 
makes all the more questionable those who would be prepared at this 
point to announce withdrawal before the surge has been even fully 
implemented in Iraq.
  Iraqi and American forces are making incremental gains, specifically 
in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. And let me emphasize, President's 
strategy, from the first time he outlined it to the Nation, from the 
time, a few days before that what I and a handful of Members were in 
the Cabinet Room and the President described his strategy for a surge 
of military reinforcements.
  This is not about sending in enough forces to provide military 
control of the entire country of Iraq. President's strategy, the so-
called surge, actually found its origin in the Iraq Study Group report, 
which, if memory serves, on page 74 in the published edition, actually 
said that, and I quote, that the Iraq Study Group said that they would 
support a temporary increase in forces or a surge in U.S. forces in 
Baghdad to quell violence in the capital city, to make possible a 
political solution.
  Now, I know in the past, and perhaps even before the end of this 
week, many of my colleagues who oppose the war will cite glowingly the 
Iraq Study Group. But I will take whatever opportunity I have, 
informally or formally, to respectfully point them to that page of the 
Iraq Study Group report. The President's surge is a military strategy 
designed to quell violence in the capital city of Baghdad, and, to no 
less extent, in Ramadi and the al-Anbar Province.
  The belief is that if we can, U.S. and Iraqi forces in the lead, if 
we can quell violence in the capital city, we can create an environment 
where the political process and a political settlement and, ultimately, 
regionally a diplomatic settlement can take hold. And there is some 
evidence that that surge strategy is beginning, just beginning to 
deliver on the security that will make that political and diplomatic 
settlement possible. The most significant element, therefore, of the 
new strategy is being carried out in Baghdad.
  Baghdad, it is widely known, was the site of most of the sectarian 
violence in Iraq, and therefore it is the destination for most of our 
reinforcements. At this point there are three additional American 
brigades that have reached the Iraqi capital, and while another is in 
Kuwait preparing to deploy, one more will arrive next month.
  The Iraq Government, for its part, when I am home in Indiana I am 
asked a lot about what are Iraqis doing for their own security as a 
part of this surge and as a part of this war. Well, the Iraqi 
Government is meeting its pledge to boost force levels in Baghdad.
  Here is a jarring statistic, Mr. Speaker. For every U.S. combat 
soldier deployed in Baghdad, there are now roughly three Iraqi military 
forces deployed in Baghdad. Let me say that again. For every one 
American combat force, for every American soldier, combat soldier 
deployed in Baghdad, there are now roughly three soldiers as a part of 
the Iraq Security Force deployed in Baghdad.
  And American troops are now living and working side by side with 
Iraqi forces. I actually had the chance to see it firsthand in our trip 
to Baghdad; in fact, our trip to a joint operating center with General 
David Petraeus on April 1. These neighborhood small outposts are called 
joint security stations.
  In fact, on this map, Mr. Speaker, we see the coalition's forward 
operating bases in the fall of 2006. Here we see in the center of town 
the international zone, so-called the Green Zone. Of course here is the 
Baghdad international airport. And at this point, in fall of 2006, 
roughly, these diagrams, these small triangles, 1, 2, 3 and 4 
represented all of the forward operating bases in Baghdad.
  Since the beginning of the surge, now, Mr. Speaker, there are 21, 21 
combat outposts throughout Baghdad, and 26 joint security stations run 
together with U.S. and Iraqi forces. These are seen as a key building 
block in an effort to increase security for Baghdad's residents.
  As I mentioned, we traveled out to the al Karada joint security 
station during my April 1st trip to Baghdad. We helicoptered from the 
Green Zone. We landed at the al Karada joint security station. These 
joint stations, for all the world, they are like neighborhood police 
stations. And U.S. forces, literally, on 2-week rotations, move to 
these stations.
  And it was very compelling to me to see U.S. and Iraqi forces side by 
side when we arrived in this joint operating security station. And they 
greeted us warmly, and we spoke with Iraqi military personnel; spoke, 
of course, with American personnel.
  And I remember one of the facts that stuck out in my mind was that 
when they were building this particular joint operating center at al 
Karada, right literally in downtown Baghdad, they offered, out of 
respect to religious traditions, they offered the Iraqi forces, they 
said, Well, you could have separate living forces from the U.S. forces 
so that you wouldn't have to essentially bunk together. And it was the 
Iraqi soldiers who said, Absolutely not. We want to bunk together with 
the American forces. We want to, essentially, be in the same dorm with 
them, and we are deploying with them every day.
  And there is a tremendous sense for all the world, Mr. Speaker, of 
esprit de corps that one gets when you see the American soldier and you 
see the Iraqi soldier, as we did that day at the al Karada joint 
security station.
  Let me say again, I was unable to bring tonight, Mr. Speaker, a 
diagram that would show all of the locations of the 26 joint security 
stations that now dot the landscape of Baghdad, 26 stations that were 
not there in the fall of 2006. Security issues would not permit me to 
put that on, essentially, global television through C-SPAN coverage, 
looking in.
  But for all the world, if you can imagine, here we had four forward-
deployed stations in the Green Zone, and now, literally, I would mark 
up this map into almost an incomprehensible state if I were to draw the 
21 combat outposts and the 26 combat security stations that are now on 
the ground in Baghdad.
  Iraqi and American forces are working together. Specifically, not 
only living at these stations, but deploying 24/7 to clear out and 
secure neighborhoods. If a heavy fight breaks out, American forces step 
in. Iraqi forces learn, side by side, valuable skills in fighting 
shoulder to shoulder with our troops.
  Iraqi and American forces have also, in the past 3 months, received 
more

[[Page H4037]]

tips than during any 3-month period on record.
  Baghdad is not safe; can we say that for the RECORD? But Baghdad is 
safer because of the presence of U.S. and Iraqi forces throughout the 
capital city. And an evidence of that, number one, is a sharp decline 
in insurgent sectarian violence within the city of Baghdad, a sharp 
decline which I mentioned in my opening comments.
  But also evidence we can point to is more tips from people in Baghdad 
than at any 3-month period on record. By living in Baghdad 
neighborhoods, it is believed that American forces are getting to know 
the culture, the concerns, the local residents.
  I don't understand every operational profile of our presence in Iraq. 
I have been there five different times. But my sense is, Mr. Speaker, 
that prior to, essentially, the embedding of these joint security 
stations throughout the capital city, American forces essentially would 
deploy from one of our forward operating bases where there was a 
problem, patrol, deal with the problem and go back to base. Now we go, 
we stay. And that is what is being widely credited with two facts, one 
good and one bad.
  The first fact, as I have mentioned, and I will say again, there has 
been a drop in sectarian violence in Baghdad, as well as in Ramadi, 
which I will get to in a minute. That is the good news.
  The bad news is that the enemy is fighting back in the form of 
horrific bombings. We saw the bridge car bomb. We saw bombings against 
unsecured marketplaces, particularly recently on the south and west of 
Baghdad. Heartbreaking, violent acts by the enemy, which I believe give 
evidence of the fact that we are taking the fight to the enemy and the 
enemy is responding.
  But again, let me say again, sectarian violence overall in Baghdad is 
down in the first 2 months. And it gives us just an inkling of hope for 
success of the surge.
  Baghdad is not safer. But it is safer because of the presence of 26 
joint operating centers where U.S. and Iraqi forces deploy and live 
together and patrol the neighborhoods 24/7.
  Now, let me speak a little bit about the al-Anbar Province, truly an 
extraordinary experience from our time in Baghdad. Our delegation 
traveled west into the al-Anbar Province, the capital of which is the 
city of Ramadi. And Ramadi is a very dangerous place, Mr. Speaker. It 
is a place where there has been a great and tremendous and consistent 
insurgent presence.
  Ramadi historically is where, frankly, most of the Sunni power in the 
country was focused. Most of the wealth of Sunnis was concentrated in 
Ramadi, and therefore the Sunni insurgency against the al-Maliki 
government found much expression in violence in that city.
  Here is a picture on the ground, unclassified, of the insurgent 
presence in Ramadi, of just 2 months ago, the river passing through the 
middle of town. I believe the U.S. military base is in this direction.
  But just to give you a snapshot here, Mr. Speaker, you can see all of 
this red area that shows insurgent presence in Ramadi. Quick snapshot, 
the present picture in Ramadi is this. And again it is in direct 
connection with the leadership of General Odierno, U.S. forces and 
Iraqi forces employing exactly the same strategy that I just described 
is being deployed in Baghdad, the deployment of joint security 
stations, Iraqis and Americans working together.
  Now, the city of Ramadi that was highly compromised 2 months ago with 
insurgent presence, according to U.S. sources this would represent al 
Qaeda in Iraq positions, now, according to official U.S. military 
sources, now has been reduced in its scope to a relatively isolated 
area of the city of Ramadi.
  Well, how is that happening? Is it all about joint operating centers 
and the military response?
  Well, it certainly is a part of that. But I would also add, a great 
deal has to do with a sea change that is taking place among Sunni 
sheiks and Sunni leadership.
  Remember, in the history of the three successive national elections 
and referenda that took place in Iraq, for the most part, Sunnis, and 
particularly Sunnis in al-Anbar Province, not only were opposed to 
measures, but refused to participate in most cases.
  Now, there has been a breakthrough in recent months, and we met with 
a Sheik Sitar, a courageous man, roughly my age, who ended up, Mr. 
Speaker, being featured for all the world on a 60 Minutes program a 
week after we returned from Iraq, for all the world to see and hear his 
own words.
  We sat in a room with Sheik Sitar and we heard them describe what he 
helped to found. It is called the Iraq Awakening Movement. The Iraq 
Awakening Movement already includes 22 of 24 Ramadi-area Sunni tribes 
that are now cooperating with U.S. and Iraqi forces.
  Let me say that again; 22 of 24 Ramadi area tribes are now 
cooperating with U.S. and Iraqi and coalition forces.

                              {time}  2045

  Sheikh Sattar himself has an extraordinary and compelling story. His 
father was killed in his native town of Ramadi by al Qaeda. His two 
brothers were killed by al Qaeda. And to hear him tell it, Sheikh 
Sattar just said, That's enough, and began in the process with other 
sheikhs and other tribal leaders throughout the Sunni population of 
Ramadi and to say this is not going to happen like this anymore. And 
they came to the American base in Ramadi and sat down with officials 
and said, We want to figure out how to move forward.
  He made comments that were echoed across the Nation on that ``60 
Minutes'' CBS television program. And I commend Scott Pelley and I 
commend CBS News for replaying his comments.
  He looked at us across the table and spoke about the American 
soldier. And I paraphrase now, Mr. Speaker, but Sheikh Sattar said, 
Anyone who points a gun at an American soldier in Ramadi is pointing a 
gun at an Iraqi. It was incredibly moving. He spoke of their gratitude 
to the American soldier. And then he looked me right in the eye across 
this small conference table at the U.S. military base in Ramadi, and he 
said, Congressman, anyone who tells you the Iraqi people don't like 
Americans is lying to you. And then he said with even greater emphasis, 
Iraqis love Americans and, particularly, he added, the American 
soldier. I don't have his words precisely correct, but it was very 
moving to this small-town boy to hear a man roughly my age living in 
this war-torn country who was now risking his life to stand with his 
own nascent government, the al Maliki government, and to stand with 
U.S. and coalition forces.
  We are forward deployed. Much of the strategy that I described in 
Baghdad we were told in Ramadi is being employed in Ramadi. But I think 
something else is happening in the al-Anbar province: tribal sheikhs 
cooperating with American and Iraqi forces to fight al Qaeda, providing 
highly specific intelligence. We have sent more troops to the al-Anbar 
province with these significant changes where presence of al Qaeda 
terrorists in the city has declined significantly in the past 6 months, 
as evidenced by these charts.
  But it would be important to note, as I return to my original 
graphic, that al Qaeda responds to these changes with sickening 
brutality. But the local Sunnis in al-Anbar province and in Ramadi are 
refusing to be intimidated, and they are stepping forward to drive out 
terrorists.
  We are cracking down on extremists also gathering in other parts of 
Iraq, but as I conceded on a news program this afternoon, one of the 
concerns that I heard, Mr. Speaker, from General Odierno in Ramadi and 
General Petraeus in Baghdad was that as we move U.S. and Iraqi forces 
into those major cities with a special emphasis on Baghdad, number one, 
the enemy will fight back, and the horrific bombings of the past few 
weeks are evidence that this enemy will not go quietly. But, number 
two, the other, and we are seeing evidence of this already, is that the 
al Qaeda and the insurgent elements, to the extent that we are able 
systematically neighborhood by neighborhood to drive them out of those 
major cities, that they will move into the outlying province, and we 
are seeing evidence of that.
  But let me say again the strategy here is not to go neighborhood by 
neighborhood to secure the entire city of Baghdad. The President's 
surge strategy is a clear hold-and-build strategy designed to provide 
enough security in Baghdad and a critical area in

[[Page H4038]]

Ramadi to allow a political solution to take hold.
  We can assume our enemies will continue to fight back. These are 
ruthless, blood-thirsty killers who not only desire the power that 
would come with a nation-state in Iraq, but they desire to do us harm 
and to do harm to our posterity. They will continue to fight back. But 
I believe there is evidence that this strategy to clear areas, to hold 
them with the joint operating centers, again, 26 joint operating 
centers throughout the city of Baghdad where American forces and Iraqi 
forces are living and patrolling 24/7 is a strategy where we can 
provide the kind of stability to facilitate the political and economic 
progress that will make a lasting peace possible.
  And let me speak to that. As we increase our troop levels, it is 
vital that we also strengthen our civilian presence, provisional 
reconstruction teams, organizations that restore basic services, 
stimulate job creation, promote reconciliation.
  I was at USAID yesterday. I met with Ambassador Tobias and learned 
about the extraordinary efforts that are taking place to meet real and 
human needs on the ground. I met in my office today with the head of 
the Iraqi Red Crescent organization, an admirable organization modeled 
in effect after the American Red Cross but built on the Muslim 
tradition of the Crescent. The Iraqi Red Crescent is an organization 
that day in and day out is answering the humanitarian crisis on the 
ground in this violent and war-torn country.
  Military operations are beginning to open up a breathing space, 
though, for political progress, and therein lies the real hope, Mr. 
Speaker. As we sat down with the foreign minister, seven members of the 
cabinet, and the Vice President of Iraq over a long and lengthy and 
brutally frank dinner in the ambassador's headquarters in the Green 
Zone at the end of our day in Baghdad, we emphasized the need to move 
forward on reconciliation, to move forward on an agreement that would 
distribute the oil revenues equitably between all the ethnic groups in 
Iraq. And, truthfully, as they reminded us, the Iraq legislature has 
met some key milestones, met one benchmark by passing a budget that 
commits $10 billion for reconstruction. The Council of Ministers 
recently approved legislation that would provide a framework for an 
equitable sharing of oil revenues.
  Now that legislation will go before the Iraq Parliament for its 
approval. The government has formed a committee to organize provincial 
elections. And I want to say of the al-Anbar province, with Sunnis now 
in the Iraq Awakening movement beginning to stand with U.S. and Iraqi 
forces and the al Maliki government, we urged them very strongly to 
move as quickly as possible toward provincial elections with the 
expectation that Sunnis in the al-Anbar province and in other provinces 
of the country would, in many cases for the first time, participate and 
take ownership in the electoral and the governing process.
  The Iraqi cabinet, as they reminded us, are all taking steps to 
finalize toward agreement on a de-Baathification law. And in a 
conference in Egypt next month, Prime Minister Maliki will seek 
increased diplomatic and financial commitments for Iraq's democracy.
  Ultimately, let me say as clearly as I can, during these difficult 
days for the war in Iraq, the answer in Iraq is not exclusively 
military, but we must provide the military support to give the al 
Maliki government and this nascent democracy the capacity to defend its 
capital. To defend its capital is at the very essence of the 
credibility of any government. And given the opportunity to provide 
basic services and basic security in Baghdad, we believe that all of 
these objectives could move forward, not only internally in Iraq. The 
de-Baathification law, oil revenue sharing agreement, provincial 
elections, all of which would contribute to a widening sense of 
ownership in this new democracy, but also it would provide an 
opportunity where Iraq could begin, as it has just recently begun, to 
reach out to its neighbors with the United States already at the table. 
Even with countries greatly antagonistic to our interests in the 
region, the United States has been willing to sit down and begin to 
facilitate the achievement of a diplomatic solution.
  The truth is that giving up on Iraq would have consequences far 
beyond Iraq's borders, and there may be time before the end of this 
week and before the end of this debate to expand on that. But let me 
just say emphatically, Mr. Speaker, that withdrawal is not a strategy. 
Withdrawal would do nothing to prevent violence from spilling out 
across the country and plunging Iraq into chaos and anarchy.
  In fact, when I asked the leader of the Iraq Red Crescent movement 
today what a precipitous and early withdrawal of U.S. forces would 
mean, he painted a frightening picture of a humanitarian crisis, true 
civil conflict and strife, potentially widening into a wider regional 
war generated by the instability and uncertainty in Iraq.
  But that being said, let me speak, if I can, in my time remaining, of 
the proposal that we will consider this week on the floor of the 
Congress. And that is what I have described in the past as the Democrat 
plan for retreat and defeat in Iraq. I wanted to come to the floor 
tonight, Mr. Speaker, to basically share what General David Petraeus 
shared with me in Baghdad and just the seedlings, the very beginning of 
hope, that the President's planned surge is beginning to produce modest 
progress in Iraq.
  But let me say again at the outset, it is easy to be understood in 
this debate, it is a tough time in Iraq; but despite a recent wave of 
insurgent bombings, this war is not lost, and Congress would do well to 
reflect very deeply on the real facts on the ground, not the images in 
the media, but the real facts on the ground that I have recited 
tonight, that General Petraeus will recite to Members tomorrow, before 
we make a decision to embrace a plan contemplated by House and Senate 
agreement, a $124 billion spending plan expected to come to the floor 
with the goal of bringing U.S. troops home beginning July of this year 
and ending U.S. combat operations no later than March of 2008.
  When I think of the Democrat plan in the midst of this hard-fought 
effort, street by street, the sacrifices that American and Iraqi 
soldiers are making, and the fact that both in Baghdad and in Ramadi 
sectarian violence is down. Despite the horrific bombing, sectarian 
violence is down. Cooperation in the form of tips is increasing. We are 
just beginning to see the inklings of hope in Iraq. And yet the 
Democrat majority will bring forward a proposal that would micromanage 
it, deadlines for withdrawal. For all the world, that makes me think of 
George Orwell, who said: ``The quickest way to end the war is to lose 
it.'' And I really do believe the Democrat plan is a prescription for 
retreat and defeat.
  Now, let me speak about the proper role of Congress in this context. 
And I think it speaks of the great wisdom of our Founders that 
Congress, as a body of 435 otherwise well-intentioned men and women, is 
not particularly well suited to the conduct of war. In fact, at the 
Constitutional Convention, almost no issue was more summarily dealt 
with than what our Founders referred to as war by committee. They 
feared it. Their experience was derived from stories of the 
Revolutionary War as General Washington was chased from New York all 
the way across New Jersey, facing almost certain defeat in the 
Philadelphia suburbs across the river, the Delaware.

                              {time}  2100

  Every single night, General Washington would later record that he 
would sit in his tent and write letter after letter to Congress asking 
for appropriations, asking for support, asking for details.
  As our founders put together the Constitution of the United States, 
they said there would be one Commander in Chief, and that would be the 
President of the United States of America; and that we would not have 
war by committee. And the Constitution is more clear on no other fact. 
Congress can declare war, Congress can choose to fund or not to fund 
military operations, but Congress cannot conduct war. In fact, those 
times in American history where Congress has intruded itself on the 
purview of the Commander in Chief have been marked as summarily 
perilous times.
  I am recently reading up on the committee in this Congress during the 
Civil War. I think it was loosely entitled ``The Committee on the 
Conduct of

[[Page H4039]]

the War.'' And it was a committee in Congress that did not just attend 
itself to President Lincoln's use of public assets and funding of the 
war, but it involved itself well into recommendations about military 
operations and the like. It would be none other than Robert E. Lee, the 
leader of the Army of the Confederacy, who would say, ``That committee 
in Congress was worth two divisions to me.'' Robert E. Lee, leading the 
Army of the Confederacy, would say that the Committee on the Conduct of 
the War, functioning in Congress, was worth two divisions to him. And 
yet, we will see this majority bring forward a measure that I believe 
violates both common sense, the Constitution and our history with a 
plan for withdrawal from Iraq. And a message of withdrawal at a time 
when we are just beginning, in the midst of horrific counterattacks by 
the enemy, where we are just beginning to see evidence of modest 
progress from the surge, I think is precisely the wrong message to 
send.
  But on this constitutional argument it is worth noting that it would 
not simply be my reading of history and the Constitution that would 
criticize the plan for a timetable for withdrawal included in the war 
funding bill this week, but let me quote, if I may, Mr. Speaker, an 
editorial in the Los Angeles Times that was published in the month of 
March under the heading, ``Do We Really Need a General Pelosi?'' Their 
main point was, in effect, ``Congress can cut funding for Iraq, but it 
shouldn't micromanage the war.'' That newspaper went on to say, and I 
am quoting now the Los Angeles Times, ``After weeks of internal strife, 
House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President 
Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq by 2008.''
  The L.A. Times said, ``The plan is an unruly mess, bad public policy, 
bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, President 
Bush says he will veto it, as well he should.''
  They go on. ``It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding 
vote of disapproval, it's quite another for it to set out a detailed 
timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation 
of the conflict.'' They add, ``Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been 
forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy 
landings; or if in 1863 President Lincoln had been forced by Congress 
to conclude the Civil War by the following year.''
  ``This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military 
strategy,'' so wrote the left column lead editorial in the L.A. Times 
in March. Not exactly a ringing endorsement from the editorial board of 
record in the home State of Speaker Pelosi.
  And about the same time the Washington Post, really another lion of 
the liberal media in America, wrote in a lead editorial entitled, ``The 
Pelosi Plan for Iraq,'' the following: ``In short, the Democratic 
proposal to be taken up this week is now an attempt to impose detailed 
management on the war without regard to the war itself.'' ``Congress 
should rigorously monitor the Iraq Government's progress on those 
benchmarks.'' ``By Mr. Bush's own account, the purpose of the troop 
surge in Iraq is to enable political progress.'' They wrote, ``If 
progress does not occur, the military strategy should be reconsidered, 
but aggressive oversight is quite different from mandating military 
steps according to a flexible timetable conforming to the need to 
capture votes in Congress, or in 2008 at the polls.'' So wrote the 
editorial in the Washington Post.
  You know, it really is amazing sometimes how politics, common sense 
and the Constitution can make such strange bedfellows. I don't think 
I've ever come to the floor of this House and quoted in any length the 
lead editorial in either the Washington Post or the L.A. Times, but I 
do so approvingly this evening. In both cases, these newspapers 
identified what I asserted at the beginning, that the Democrats should 
heed the call of the Constitution and common sense and reject the 
Pelosi plan for retreat-defeat in Iraq. They should reject it on the 
basis of our history and Constitution, but they should also reject it 
because, as General Petraeus will describe to our colleagues tomorrow, 
in the midst of horrific counterattacks by our enemy, there is evidence 
of modest progress on the ground. Sectarian violence is down in Baghdad 
and Ramadi. Cooperation among civilians is up. And I say once again, 
where there once were four forward operating bases in the fall of 2006 
in Baghdad proper, now, like the joint security station I visited on 
April 1st in downtown Baghdad, now there are 26 joint operating 
stations throughout Baghdad, almost as many, I'm told, in Ramadi, where 
U.S. and Iraqi forces are living together 2 weeks at a stretch and 
deploying and patrolling neighborhoods 24/7. This is exactly not the 
time to embrace arbitrary timetables for withdrawal, or for Congress to 
tell our generals on the ground how to conduct the war.
  I believe in my heart of hearts that the American people know that we 
have but one choice in Iraq, that victory is our only real option. And 
let me say this again; if I am repetitive tonight, Mr. Speaker, it is 
intentional. I mean to be understood.
  This is a tough time in Iraq. As General Petraeus comes to Capitol 
Hill this week, I expect that he will tell our colleagues what he told 
me and Members of the House and Senate on the streets of Baghdad just 3 
short weeks ago. And that is that, despite a recent wave of insurgent 
bombings, counterattacks by the enemy responding to our surge on the 
ground, this war is not lost. In fact, because of the President's surge 
and the brave conduct of U.S. and Iraqi forces on the ground, we are 
making modest progress in Iraq.
  In Baghdad, despite the recent bombings, sectarian violence is down. 
Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer because of the presence of 26 
joint operating stations where U.S. and Iraqi forces are deployed. And 
as I mentioned earlier, the extraordinary developments in Ramadi, which 
has seen a precipitous decline in the last 2 months in sectarian 
violence, and also has seen 22 of 24 Ramadi-area Sunni tribes now 
cooperating and supporting U.S. forces and supporting the new al-Maliki 
government is truly an extraordinary development, to say the least.
  I believe in my heart that the American people know that victory is 
our only option. And I just began recently, Mr. Speaker, rereading a 
biography that you might well approve of. It is the David McCollough 
biography of President Harry Truman. I have appropriated a few quotes 
by President Truman that I found particularly compelling and 
particularly appropriate at this time, and I will quote them with 
respect because I think they speak to our time, which is a tough time 
in Iraq, and a hard time for an American people that have little 
interest, almost at the level of our DNA.

  We are not a Nation interested in foreign entanglements. We are not 
an empire-building Nation. And throughout our history, we have quickly 
grown weary of long-term foreign entanglements. So this is a hard time 
at home, it is a hard time on the ground. We are taking the battle with 
the enemy with the President's surge, and the enemy is fighting back.
  President Truman faced such times, difficult days both in his 
personal career and as a wartime President. So I will reflect on his 
words and that of a leader of another country in difficult times as I 
reflect what I think is very close to the character of this Nation. 
Harry S. Truman said, ``Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring 
it to you. Put them on the defensive, and don't ever apologize for 
anything.'' That was advice he gave to Hubert Humphrey in September of 
1964.
  In 1945, President Truman said, ``I wonder how far Moses would have 
gotten if he had taken a poll in Egypt. What would Jesus Christ have 
preached if he had taken a poll in Israel? Where would the Reformation 
have gone if Martin Luther had taken a poll?'' President Truman went on 
to say, ``It isn't polls or public opinion of the moment that counts; 
it is right and wrong, and leadership, men with fortitude and honesty 
and a belief in the right that makes epochs in the history of the 
world,'' President Harry Truman said in 1945.
  And for those who would embrace withdrawal as a means of achieving 
peace, President Truman says out of history, quote, ``A reminder: The 
absence of war is not peace.'' And I would argue the absence of U.S. 
forces in Iraq is not peace; it is a prescription for anarchy.
  I would also appropriate from history as I speak to what I truly 
believe in my heart is at the very core of the American identity, and 
that upon which we

[[Page H4040]]

must avail ourselves during this time of testing in the war on terror, 
and they are the words of Sir Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of 
England, and a man considered by many to be the greatest leader of the 
free world in the 20th century. He gives us words that I believe speak 
to our time. And I quote, ``Never, never, never believe any war will be 
smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on a strange voyage can 
measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who 
yields to the war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he 
is no longer the master of policy, but the slave of unforeseeable and 
uncontrollable events.''
  Winston Churchill would also say, ``You ask, `What is our policy?' I 
will say it is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might 
and all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a 
monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalog of 
human crime. That is our policy.
  ``You ask, `What is our aim?' I can answer with one word: Victory--
victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long 
and hard the road may be. For without victory, there is no survival.''
  And of our time, where many of our countrymen would wish away this 
war-torn part of the world, I can't help but think that this quote is 
appropriate. Sir Winston Churchill said, ``One ought never to turn 
one's back on a threatened danger or try to run away from it. If you 
do, that will double the danger; but if you meet it promptly and 
without flinching, you will reduce it by half.''
  These are difficult days in Iraq. Sacrifices that American forces and 
their families are making are deeply humbling to me and to every Member 
of Congress and, I believe, of the American people. But I believe that, 
despite the recent wave of insurgent bombings, this war is not lost. In 
fact, because of the President's surge and the bold leadership of 
General David Petraeus in Baghdad and General Odierno in Ramadi, our 
U.S. forces on the ground, in combination with Iraqi forces, we are 
beginning to see modest progress in Iraq.

                              {time}  2115

  In Baghdad, despite recent bombings, sectarian violence overall is 
down, and the same is true in Ramadi. Baghdad is not safe, but it is 
safer because of the deployment of 26 joint operating centers 
throughout the city. A city where there once were simply an 
International Green Zone, the Baghdad Victory Base, and four forward-
operating bases in Baghdad, now throughout the city, in form when I 
visited them on April 1 in Baghdad for all the world looked like 
neighborhood police stations. They call them joint operating centers, 
where U.S. and Iraqi forces live together, work together, eat together 
and deploy together, in 2-week rotations. And it is making a difference 
on the ground.
  In the al Anbar province in Ramadi, it is extraordinary to say 22 of 
the 24 Sunni tribal leaders, led in part by Sheikh Sattar, with whom I 
spent one of the most memorable hours of my life on April 2 earlier 
this month, Sunni leadership is standing with the al Maliki government, 
standing with the American soldier, rejecting the insurgency, rejecting 
al Qaeda, and reclaiming their city and their country for peace and 
security.
  We have a long way to go, but not that long before we know whether 
this new surge strategy will work. I believe it is imperative that 
Congress give General Petraeus not only a willing ear tomorrow when he 
comes to Capitol Hill, but I think it is high time that we sent the 
President a clean bill, take out all the micromanagement of the war, 
all the unconstitutional benchmarks and datelines for withdrawal, for 
that matter, take out all the pork-barrel spending that has nothing to 
do with our military, and send General Petraeus and our soldiers on the 
ground the resources they need to get the job done and come home.
  You know, I was asked by a soldier in Ramadi, a soldier from Indiana, 
he looked at me and he said, Congressman, I just want to ask you an 
honest question. He said, When is it going to be enough? When are we 
going to have been here long enough? And I said to him with great 
humility, I said, Son, I will answer this as straight with you as I 
can: I think we have to stick around here until these people can defend 
themselves, and not a minute longer.
  That is what we need to accomplish, Mr. Speaker. We need to stick 
around long enough to help Iraqi security forces provide the basic 
stability in their capital and in the critical al Anbar province, and 
particularly in Ramadi, in order that the political process and the 
diplomatic process regionally can go forward. And then, like Americans 
of past generations, we can pick up and go home, and only ask for a 
debt of friendship in return.
  It is a time of testing for our country. It is not a time for 
shrinking back. But based on the evidence, the facts that General 
Petraeus shared with me in Baghdad and will share with us on Capitol 
Hill, it is time to give the surge a chance to succeed.
  The Congress will likely pass a supplemental bill that will have 
unconstitutional benchmarks and datelines for withdrawal. The President 
of the United States will keep his word. He will promptly veto that 
legislation. But my hope, and, candidly, Mr. Speaker, my prayer, is 
that after we have gone through this exercise and Congress has made its 
importance felt, we will get our soldiers the resources they need and 
we will give them the time and the freedom to succeed in this surge.
  But there are no guarantees. We are up against a ruthless and brutal 
enemy, who even this very day claimed American lives in another 
ruthless suicide car bomb attack.
  I believe it would be a stain on our national character that we would 
not wipe off for generations if we were to walk away now; if we were 
simply to say to the good people of Iraq, hundreds of which I have had 
the chance to meet and to speak with over my five journeys there over 
the last 4 years of this war, it would be a stain on our national 
character to that generation of Iraqis to leave them unable to defend 
themselves, to harvest a whirlwind of sectarian violence, revenge 
killings, and to leave them to become a part of a country that would 
become subjugated by the blood-sworn enemies of the United States of 
America. And it would be a stain on our national character to leave 
Iraq, in effect, worse off than how we found it.
  As bad as it was under Saddam Hussein, I can't help but believe that 
if those who fight us in the form of the insurgency and al Qaeda today 
gain the reins of control in that Nation, that we will, as Winston 
Churchill said, we will double the danger, and our children and our 
children's children will pay a price we dare not imagine.
  So we are faced with choices today, and my challenge to my colleagues 
and to any looking on is to listen to the facts, not the adjectives, 
not the ``spin,'' as it is referred to in the popular debate, but 
listen to the facts. And the facts are that it is a tough time in Iraq. 
We are facing a determined enemy. But that despite a recent wave of 
insurgent bombings, this war is not lost.
  In fact, because of the President's surge and the extraordinary 
courage of U.S. and Iraqi forces, we are making modest progress in 
Iraq. In Baghdad, despite recent bombings, sectarian violence is down. 
Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer because of the presence of more 
than two dozen U.S. and Iraqi joint operating centers. And now 22 of 24 
Sunni sheikhs and tribal leaders have come together in Ramadi and the 
al Anbar province to support the al Maliki government and U.S. forces.
  Let's give General Petraeus a willing ear. Let's listen to the facts. 
And then let us reject timetables for withdrawal, pork-barrel-laden 
spending bills, and simply provide our soldiers the resources they need 
to get the job done and come home safe.
  I believe that we can secure victory for freedom in Iraq, and in so 
doing we will deliver a victory for freedom, not only for the Iraqi 
people, but for ourselves and our posterity. We will unleash, as the 
President has spoken so eloquently, the forces of freedom and stability 
in a part of the world that has known little of either. That is my 
hope, and that is my prayer.

                          ____________________