[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 103 (Monday, June 25, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7056-H7062]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to address the House, 
and it's good to be here before we go on 4th of July break to celebrate 
the birthday of this great country.
  As you know, in the 30-something Working Group, we come to the floor 
to discuss a number of issues that are facing the American people, and 
also, I think it's important to identify our focus on the issues in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and the issues that are facing the American 
people.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, the events over the weekend in Iraq and also in 
Afghanistan even give us further focus on making sure that the issues 
that are facing our men and women that are in harm's way are addressed 
here in the Congress. I think it's also very important for us to focus 
on what has not happened in this Congress as it relates to making sure 
that we meet the needs of our men and women.
  We have appropriation bills that have been held up in the process 
that are now moving through the process. It's not because of the 
majority side's lack of will to be able to move them, it's the fact 
that we have some of our friends on the other side of the aisle that 
see it fit to slow the process down, but that argument is for another 
day.
  As you know, I'm one of the Members, especially on this side of the 
aisle, that push for bipartisanship. Mr. Speaker, I spend quite a bit 
of time here on the floor talking about how when we work together, 
we're able to move the American agenda forward. And I look forward to 
continuing to stand up on behalf of bipartisanship here in the House to 
accomplish a goal to be able to make sure that our men and women in 
harm's way are able to receive the representation that the American 
people voted for.
  Mr. Speaker, I think also what we should touch on is the fact that we 
have sent a number of documents to the White House, and those documents 
happen to be law, or proposed law. We had a bill that passed both House 
and Senate emergency supplemental that had not only benchmarks in it, 
but also withdrawal dates that were sensible and that were timely to 
let the Iraqi Government know that we will not continue to reward a 
lack of action on their side and accomplishment on their side as it 
relates to securing Iraq. That was vetoed by the President. But I can 
say that not one Democrat went to the White House and stood behind the 
President and said that we will stop any override of the President's 
veto.

                              {time}  2100

  I am so glad that we did send that bill there to show the American 
people that we are willing to do the things that we need to do.
  We also passed a nonbinding resolution against the surge in Iraq, the 
escalation, I must add, in Iraq of U.S. troops and personnel. That was 
a strong message that the American people wanted to send out. That was 
successfully passed. Now, we are going to have two reports when we get 
back July 15, I would say to Mr. Larson, our Vice Chair, in a report in 
September. I think it is going to be very, very important for the 
Members to remember that we are Americans first, Members of Congress. 
Along with that, that first chair that I mentioned, and on the second 
hand, that we are from two different parties, because there are men and 
women who are counting on us to work together.
  But those of us on this side of the aisle have to provide the 
leadership. If the leadership doesn't come from the White House, then 
we are here, sent by American taxpayers, American voters, to represent 
them from the said districts that we are from. But it is important that 
we provide that leadership and opportunity.
  I would like to yield to my good friend, Mr. John Larson, from the 
great State of Connecticut. He is our Vice Chair of the Democratic 
Caucus. I want to thank you, sir, for your leadership on this very 
issue of Iraq.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Well, let me first and foremost 
congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), and Mr. Ryan and 
Mrs. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Murphy for continuing to come to the 
floor, the 30-somethings, and talk about issues that are so important 
to this country. There is no more important issue before this Congress 
or this country, than the war in Iraq.
  There is no more important issue to the American public. But it is 
clear, and I think General Odom stated it

[[Page H7057]]

best, because as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) pointed out, 
this Congress, with its small Democratic majorities, has done what it 
can to end the war in Iraq and put a bill on the President's desk. The 
President opted to veto that bill. Our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle opted to stay the course with the President of the United 
States.
  As General Odom says, and I quote, ``The end game will start when a 
senior senator from the President's party, or a senior Member from the 
House of Representatives, much as William Fulbright did to LBJ during 
Vietnam, stands up and says no, stands up and says let's end the war.''
  Let's create the kind of strategic withdrawal that we need in order 
to preserve our troops, in order to maintain our military's readiness, 
in order to bring sanity back into the lives, especially the reservists 
and the National Guard who have put out so much for us. We are going to 
go home at the end of this week and celebrate the Fourth of July while 
our troops are slugging it out there, while this administration goes 
through some endgame strategy where they sound like the Bobbsey twins 
getting together and say, ``Well, now, all of a sudden, September 15 is 
only a snapshot of perhaps what will happen.'' A snapshot.
  To the men and women who are putting their lives on the line every 
single day, it's time to end the war. That will only happen in this 
House of Representatives and in the United States Senate, as was 
pointed out by General Odom, when Members on the other side of the 
aisle recognize that they have to stand up and say ``no'' to the 
President. They hint about it. They talk about it.
  Meanwhile, while they dither, we lost more than 23 soldiers this past 
weekend. How much longer can the insanity continue here without a 
strategy that provides us with the strategic withdrawal to an over-the-
horizon force as has been advocated on this floor by colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle? Why is it that Ron Paul is the only presidential 
candidate who has the nerve on the Republican side to talk about it 
without fear of being called unpatriotic or in fact booed in an 
audience?
  This Chamber should be a chamber where we have the opportunity to 
speak truth to power. Thank God for people like Wayne Gilchrest. Thank 
God for people like Walter Jones. But Members on the other side of the 
aisle need to join with this majority so that we can create an override 
if the President remains obstinate, along with the Vice President, in 
this myopic pursuit of victory. Victory. No definition of what 
``victory'' is, other than ``staying there for as long as it takes.'' 
We see that the Iraqi government is not living up to its proposals, 
that the surge is an entire failure. Yet, people come to the floor and 
people present in the newspapers arguments that somehow the surge might 
work, what it just needs is a little more time, or perhaps what it 
needs is even more troops.
  It is time to end this war. It is time to make sure that we have 
people on the other side of the aisle that are willing to speak truth 
to power and face up to the fact that it is in the best interest of our 
country, that it is the very American thing to do, to stand up for our 
troops, to provide for our families that are here at home worried sick 
about the prospect of sending their loved ones into this insurgent 
civil war nightmare we have come to call Iraq.
  The American public is way ahead of this Chamber, way ahead of the 
Senate. We plead with our colleagues, especially as we go forward to 
this July 4 weekend, to find the courage of our forebears and to stand 
up, since we are the body that decides on war. You have Senator Warner 
saying that he ought to reconsider the authorization of this war, to do 
what they did in Vietnam, to recognize that the Congress, during that 
era, stood up and deauthorized the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that put 
an end to an unjust war.
  We know now, of course, that we found no weapons of mass destruction. 
We know now that we had no exit strategy. We know now that this 
administration's closest adviser that they took into their bosom was 
Ahmed Chalabi, who ultimately ends up saying, ``So what? I lied to you. 
So what? I lied to you. You got what you wanted. You had a civil war in 
your country. The Iraqis are going to have to have a civil war in their 
country.''
  Americans soldiers, men and women who have served this country with 
honor, go over there to fulfill their duty to their country. We have a 
duty and a responsibility here to make sure that we are doing 
everything within our power to make sure that they are safe and secure. 
Instead, we have stuck them in the middle of a civil war. The military 
objectives of this war have long since been accomplished. It is time to 
bring the troops home.
  I commend Mr. Meek and Mr. Ryan for having come to this floor day in 
and day out and discussed this thing. But we have to turn it up. 
Especially for those of you in our viewing audience, continue to turn 
it up at home. Turn up the conversation and the dialogue that so many 
have taken to the streets, to protest, to talk about moving other 
Members of this great body to come and arrive at the same conclusion 
that most Americans have. It is time for the safe, secure and strategic 
withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
  Mr. Meek, I thank you for the opportunity to come down here and 
address, along with you, Members of the 30-something Group, who have 
continued to speak truth to power here. I especially want to commend 
Mr. Ryan from Ohio for his efforts, as well.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, I am glad Mr. Ryan from Ohio has joined 
us, Mr. Vice Chairman. I just want to commend you for your work with 
the Iraq Watch Group and the work that you have been doing here in the 
House, not only working with Members such as myself, but others that 
are trying to find a way that we, Mr. Speaker, can get our troops home 
more sooner than later. I think it is important that all Members focus 
on the fact that we come to the floor to make sure that we can work 
together.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to not only warn, but I would like 
to bring to the attention of the Members of the House that when that 
bipartisanship is blocked or Members are discouraged from voting on 
legislation, or voting in the affirmative, or slowing down the process, 
when we are trying to carry out the work that the American people sent 
us up here to do, then we have to rise up, the majority that the Vice 
Chairman speaks of so much, to do the things that we need to do on 
behalf of the people.

                              {time}  1915

  I think, Mr. Larson, when you were talking, I couldn't help but 
reflect on what we were able to do last week as it relates to our 
military construction/VA spending bill, which was the largest single 
increase in VA in the 77-year history of the VA. It was a bipartisan 
vote that took place in the final analysis, and it was something that 
was well-needed.
  This is far from what you remember under Republican control, when the 
chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee just got so fed up and could 
no longer tell the veterans groups in this country that he could help 
them, do what he thought he was supposed to have done on behalf of 
those men and women coming back, those men and women waiting in line 6 
months to see a specialist or what have you. He was removed as 
chairman.
  Now we are under a Democratic-controlled Congress, understanding our 
responsibilities, understanding we have two wars going on, 
understanding that the VA doesn't have all of the things that it needs 
to have because of the cuts that have been made, understanding there is 
a Secretary of the VA appointed by the President that was confirmed by 
the Republican Senate, understanding that he doesn't want to make 
career decisions like some Members have, one Member did, who used to be 
the Chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee. And I have that in my 
document that I will bring up a little later.
  But I think it is important that we keep the focus; that we work 
double time in making sure that our men and women that are taking the 
fight to almost an unseen aggressor in the middle of a civil war in 
Iraq, with no end in sight, that they know that we are here, especially 
the majority of us here in this House, and will do everything in our 
power, go to as many meetings as we need to go to and get legislation 
to this floor and keep it in the forefront.
  I say this, Mr. Larson and Mr. Ryan, because I know there are a 
number of

[[Page H7058]]

military families that are there waiting on their loved ones to come 
home. I know there is a wife waiting for a husband, or a husband that 
is waiting on the wife to come back. I know there is a child that wants 
to celebrate what my children celebrate, me walking through the door, 
their mother walking through the door, on a nightly basis, being able 
to do the things that families do. But if you are a soldier, you are 
deployed 12 to 15 months, Mr. Speaker, hands down. And we know with 
this surge that the troop levels have reached a level that has 
endangered the readiness of our country here. I think it is important.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield 
for a moment, I thank you again, because I do want to say that Frank 
Rich wrote an important column in The New York Times yesterday, and it 
is one that I will submit for the record. I think it also lays it out 
pretty clearly.
  I would like to quote here. First he is quoting retired General 
William Odom. ``For the Bush White House, the real definition of 
victory has become `anything they can get away with without taking 
blame for defeat,' said the retired Army General William Odom, a 
national security official in the Reagan and Carter administrations,'' 
when Frank Rich spoke to him most recently. ``The plan is to run out 
the Washington clock between now and January 20, 2009, no matter the 
cost.''
  ``A precipitous withdrawal is also a chimera, since American 
manpower, material and bases, not to mention our new Vatican-sized 
embassy, can't be drawn down overnight.''
  And here is the important thing that I think Mr. Rich says. ``The 
only real choice, everyone knows, is an orderly plan for withdrawal 
that will best serve American interests. The real debate must be over 
what that plan is. That debate can't happen as long as the White House 
gets away with falsifying reality, sliming its opponents and sowing 
hyped fears of Armageddon. The threat that terrorists in a civil war-
torn Iraq will follow us home if we leave is as bogus as Saddam's 
mushroom clouds. The al Qaeda that actually attacked us on 9/11 still 
remains under the tacit protection of our ally, Pakistan.
  ``As General Odom says, `the endgame will start when a senior senator 
from the President's party says no,' much like William Fulbright did. 
That's why in Washington this fall,'' he goes on to say, ``eyes will 
turn once again to John Warner, the senior Republican with the clout to 
give political cover to other members of his party who want to leave 
Iraq before they are forced to evacuate Congress. In September, it will 
nearly be a year since Mr. Warner said that Iraq was `drifting 
sideways' and that action would have to be taken if this level of 
violence is not under control and this government is able to function.
  ``Mr. Warner has also signaled his regret that he was not more 
outspoken during Vietnam. `We kept surging in those years,' he told The 
Washington Post in January, as the Iraq surge began. `It didn't work.' 
Surely,'' Rich goes on to say, ``he must recognize that his moment for 
speaking out about this war is overdue. Without him, the Democrats 
don't have the votes,'' and I repeat, without Republicans, ``the 
Democrats don't have the votes to force the President's hand. With him, 
it's a slam-dunk. The best way to honor the sixth anniversary of 9/
11,'' as we take up this week the 9/11 Commission response, ``is to at 
last disarm a President who continues to squander countless lives in 
the names of those voiceless American dead.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include the entire Frank Rich article for the Record.

                [From the New York Times, June 24, 2007]

                   They'll Break the Bad News on 9/11

                            (By Frank Rich)

       By this late date we should know the fix is in when the 
     White House's top factotums fan out on the Sunday morning 
     talk shows singing the same lyrics, often verbatim, from the 
     same hymnal of spin. The pattern was set way back on Sept. 8, 
     2002, when in simultaneous appearances three cabinet members 
     and the vice president warned darkly of Saddam's aluminum 
     tubes. ``We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom 
     cloud,'' said Condi Rice, in a scripted line. The hard sell 
     of the war in Iraq--the hyping of a (fictional) nuclear 
     threat to America--had officially begun.
       America wasn't paying close enough attention then. We can't 
     afford to repeat that blunder now. Last weekend the latest 
     custodians of the fiasco, our new commander in Iraq, Gen. 
     David Petraeus, and our new ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan 
     Crocker, took to the Sunday shows with two messages we'd be 
     wise to heed.
       The first was a confirmation of recent White House hints 
     that the long-promised September pivot point for judging the 
     success of the ``surge'' was inoperative. That deadline had 
     been asserted as recently as April 24 by President Bush, who 
     told Charlie Rose that September was when we'd have ``a 
     pretty good feel'' whether his policy ``made sense.'' On 
     Sunday General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker each downgraded 
     September to merely a ``snapshot'' of progress in Iraq. 
     ``Snapshot,'' of course, means ``Never mind!''
       The second message was more encoded and more ominous. Again 
     using similar language, the two men said that in September 
     they would explain what Mr. Crocker called ``the 
     consequences'' and General Petraeus ``the implications'' of 
     any alternative ``courses of action'' to their own course in 
     Iraq. What this means in English is that when the September 
     ``snapshot'' of the surge shows little change in the overall 
     picture, the White House will say that ``the consequences'' 
     of winding down the war would be even more disastrous: 
     surrender, defeat, apocalypse now. So we must stay the surge. 
     Like the war's rollout in 2002, the new propaganda offensive 
     to extend and escalate the war will be exquisitely timed to 
     both the anniversary of 9/11 and a highstakes Congressional 
     vote (the Pentagon appropriations bill).
       General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker wouldn't be sounding like 
     the Bobbsey Twins and laying out this coordinated rhetorical 
     groundwork were they not already anticipating the surge's 
     failure. Both spoke on Sunday of how (in General Petraeus's 
     variation on the theme) they had to ``show that the Baghdad 
     clock can indeed move a bit faster, so that you can put a bit 
     of time back on the Washington clock.'' The very premise is 
     nonsense. Yes, there is a Washington clock, tied to 
     Republicans' desire to avoid another Democratic surge on 
     Election Day 2008. But there is no Baghdad clock. It was 
     blown up long ago and is being no more successfully 
     reconstructed than anything else in Iraq.
       When Mr. Bush announced his ``new way forward'' in January, 
     he offered a bouquet of promises, all unfulfilled today. 
     ``Let the Iraqis lead'' was the policy's first bullet point, 
     but in the initial assault on insurgents now playing out so 
     lethally in Diyala Province, Iraqi forces were kept out of 
     the fighting altogether. They were added on Thursday: 500 
     Iraqis, following 2,500 Americans. The notion that these 
     Shiite troops might ``hold'' this Sunni area once the 
     Americans leave is an opium dream. We're already back 
     fighting in Maysan, a province whose security was 
     officially turned over to Iraqi authorities in April.
       In his January prime-time speech announcing the surge, Mr. 
     Bush also said that ``America will hold the Iraqi government 
     to the benchmarks it has announced.'' More fiction. Prime 
     Minister Nuri al-Maliki's own political adviser, Sadiq al-
     Rikabi, says it would take ``a miracle'' to pass the 
     legislation America wants. Asked on Monday whether the Iraqi 
     Parliament would stay in Baghdad this summer rather than 
     hightail it to vacation, Tony Snow was stumped.
       Like Mr. Crocker and General Petraeus, Mr. Snow is on 
     script for trivializing September as judgment day for the 
     surge, saying that by then we'll only ``have a little bit of 
     metric'' to measure success. This administration has a 
     peculiar metric system. On Thursday, Peter Pace, the 
     departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the 
     spike in American troop deaths last week the ``wrong metric'' 
     for assessing the surge's progress. No doubt other metrics in 
     official reports this month are worthless too, as far as the 
     non-reality-based White House is concerned. The civilian 
     casualty rate is at an all-time high; the April-May American 
     death toll is a new two-month record; overall violence in 
     Iraq is up; only 146 out of 457 Baghdad neighborhoods are 
     secure; the number of internally displaced Iraqis has 
     quadrupled since January.
       Last week Iraq rose to No. 2 in Foreign Policy magazine's 
     Failed State Index, barely nosing out Sudan. It might have 
     made No. 1 if the Iraqi health ministry had not stopped 
     providing a count of civilian casualties. Or if the Pentagon 
     were not withholding statistics on the increase of attacks on 
     the Green Zone. Apparently the White House is working 
     overtime to ensure that the September ``snapshot'' of Iraq 
     will be an underexposed blur. David Carr of The Times 
     discovered that the severe Pentagon blackout on images of 
     casualties now extends to memorials for the fallen in Iraq, 
     even when a unit invites press coverage.
       Americans and Iraqis know the truth anyway. The question 
     now is: What will be the new new way forward? For the 
     administration, the way forward will include, as always, 
     attacks on its critics' patriotism. We got a particularly 
     absurd taste of that this month when Harry Reid was slammed 
     for calling General Pace incompetent and accusing General 
     Petraeus of exaggerating progress on the ground.
       General Pace's record speaks for itself; the administration 
     declined to go to the mat in the Senate for his 
     reappointment. As for General Petraeus, who recently spoke of 
     ``astonishing signs of normalcy'' in Baghdad, he is nothing 
     if not consistent. He first hyped ``optimism'' and 
     ``momentum'' in Iraq in an op-ed article in September 2004.

[[Page H7059]]

       Come September 2007, Mr. Bush will offer his usual false 
     choices. We must either stay his disastrous course in eternal 
     pursuit of ``victory'' or retreat to the apocalypse of 
     ``precipitous withdrawal.'' But by the latest of the 
     president's ever-shifting definitions of victory, we've 
     already lost. ``Victory will come,'' he says, when Iraq ``is 
     stable enough to be able to be an ally in the war on terror 
     and to govern itself and defend itself.'' The surge, which he 
     advertised as providing ``breathing space'' for the Iraqi 
     ``unity'' government to get its act together, is tipping that 
     government into collapse. As Vali Nasr, author of ``The Shia 
     Revival,'' has said, the new American strategy of arming 
     Sunni tribes is tantamount to saying the Iraqi government is 
     irrelevant.
       For the Bush White House, the real definition of victory 
     has become ``anything they can get away with without taking 
     blame for defeat,'' said the retired Army Gen. William Odom, 
     a national security official in the Reagan and Carter 
     administrations, when I spoke with him recently. The plan is 
     to run out the Washington clock between now and Jan. 20, 
     2009, no matter the cost.
       Precipitous withdrawal is also a chimera, since American 
     manpower, materiel and bases, not to mention our new Vatican 
     City-sized embassy, can't be drawn down overnight. The only 
     real choice, as everyone knows, is an orderly plan for 
     withdrawal that will best serve American interests. The 
     real debate must be over what that plan is. That debate 
     can't happen as long as the White House gets away with 
     falsifying reality, sliming its opponents and sowing hyped 
     fears of Armageddon. The threat that terrorists in civil-
     war-torn Iraq will follow us home if we leave is as bogus 
     as Saddam's mushroom clouds. The Qaeda that actually 
     attacked us on 9/11 still remains under the tacit 
     protection of our ally, Pakistan.
       As General Odom says, the endgame will start ``when a 
     senior senator from the president's party says no,'' much as 
     William Fulbright did to L.B.J. during Vietnam. That's why in 
     Washington this fall, eyes will turn once again to John 
     Warner, the senior Republican with the clout to give 
     political cover to other members of his party who want to 
     leave Iraq before they're forced to evacuate Congress. In 
     September, it will be nearly a year since Mr. Warner said 
     that Iraq was ``drifting sideways'' and that action would 
     have to be taken ``if this level of violence is not under 
     control and this government able to function.''
       Mr. Warner has also signaled his regret that he was not 
     more outspoken during Vietnam. ``We kept surging in those 
     years,'' he told The Washington Post in January, as the Iraq 
     surge began. ``It didn't work.'' Surely he must recognize 
     that his moment for speaking out about this war is overdue. 
     Without him, the Democrats don't have the votes to force the 
     president's hand. With him, it's a slam dunk. The best way to 
     honor the sixth anniversary of 9/11 will be to at last disarm 
     a president who continues to squander countless lives in the 
     names of those voiceless American dead.

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as we a couple weeks ago had a big 
brouhaha here on what we would do as Democrats to protect the homeland, 
I think Frank Rich is exactly right: They are already trying to get us 
here, and this war has created more terrorists who are trying to get at 
the United States. Many may be here already. We don't know.
  But if you look at what we wanted to do with the homeland security 
bill a couple of weeks ago, put 3,000 more Border Patrol agents on the 
borders, make sure that we completely fund the cargo inspections coming 
in and out of our ports, make sure the technology is at our ports to 
find out if biological or chemical weapons are coming in, fund the 
first responders, fund the cops, fund the firemen, fund the equipment 
that they need for interoperability, so we have an agenda on how to 
protect the homeland that is much different than this one here.
  But as Mr. Rich said, and there was also an article today in The New 
York Times, U.S. generals doubt the ability of Iraqi army to hold 
gains.
  Now, no kidding. They had a big brouhaha with the speaker there, who 
was a Sunni Arab, who was put on leave at the request of a broad 
coalition of the three parties after incidents in which he lost his 
temper at other members and struck them or allowed his guards to rough 
them up. Now, I understand we have had a few brouhahas here in the 
House and in the Senate, but we didn't have an occupying force telling 
us to get along and get together.
  These guys can't get their act together, Mr. Larson, in a way that 
will allow them to take over their own country. When you look at what 
is going on here and the testimony before Congress on June 12 from 
General Dempsey, in charge of training the Iraqi army, he said there is 
a need to increase the Iraqi forces by at least 20,000 troops this year 
and a further expansion would be needed in 2008. That is not possible. 
He said, ``However, the past few days of fighting have not yielded the 
kind of success that we needed. Despite the efforts to encircle leaders 
from al Qaeda and others there, we are not getting the job done.''
  We have so many cultural differences with the Iraqi people, the 
difficulties in training them, the lack of competence among the 
administration to jump on this, the lack of troops, on and on and on 
and on it goes.
  I want to lend my voice to yours, Mr. Larson and to Mr. Kendrick Meek 
from Florida, to say that it is time to bring these troops home. Let's 
redeploy in a very responsible way, protecting the safety of our 
troops, Mr. Larson, which we all support, and make sure that we handle 
this politically and diplomatically, because we won this military 
battle, but now it is an occupation.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. As you have said on more than one occasion 
on the floor, Mr. Ryan, what we have needed all along here is a 
diplomatic surge, not a military surge. It is such a shame that we have 
abandoned so much of American foreign policy. In fact, more than 50 
years of American foreign policy that were centered around deterrence, 
diplomacy and containment. Instead, we went into the wrong-headed 
policies of preemption and unilateralism, which have brought us to the 
quagmire that we are in today.
  It breaks my heart to travel with Jack Murtha to Bethesda and see the 
young men and women who are there, who have become the heroes, of 
course, in our country, but victims of a myopic, failed strategy with 
no exit in sight.
  How much longer can the American public, or for that matter, this 
body, put up with the slogans that ``we will stand down as the Iraqis 
stand up,'' when more of our troops are needed and less Iraqis continue 
to join us; when they decide that they are going to take the next 
couple of months off while we slog it out in a civil war?
  Our soldiers don't know in many respects who the enemy is over there, 
because oftentimes they are getting played, one religious sect against 
another, settling ages of old scores rather than accomplishing any kind 
of goal of establishing a democracy or establishing a government or 
people that are going to stand up so that we can stand down.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that you would 
say that, and I can definitely share with you that we have to put a 
face on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I know time after time again there are some Members that 
are concerned that we may have a single focus on Iraq, and that is not 
the case. We are moving the House. We have appropriation bills that are 
moving through the process. We have legislation. We have the 9/11 
legislation coming up this week. The Senate is fast at work, doing work 
before we leave on Friday. It is important to put a face on this.
  I said before, Iraq, Iraq, and that other issue, Iraq. But look what 
it is doing to the country. Look where it is holding up the resources; 
where it is taking up so much of our time, not only of the Congress, 
rightfully so, because our troops are in harm's way.
  We have a President that is saying ``troops will be in Iraq,'' he 
said this in the past, ``troops will be in Iraq as long as I am 
President.'' ``We will be in Iraq,'' saying ``we.''
  This is the first time he has not had a rubber stamp Congress since 
he has been President. I think it is important that our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, those that have to vote with their 
constituents and for their constituents, make sure we can work towards 
measures in getting our men and women out.
  But to punt the ball down and say, well, let's try on the next series 
of downs, we have to actually try to run the ball on fourth down. 
Running the ball on fourth down is having not only American families 
that are affected by this war in Iraq, but those that are not, letting 
their Members of Congress know that enough is enough.
  Now, let me share this with you. We are going to fight the policy 
battle and we are going to make sure that our men and women have what 
they need to have that are in harm's way. That is

[[Page H7060]]

a no-brainer. I have never run into an American or even received a 
letter that says ``I encourage you not to support the troops.'' Or ``I 
don't support the troops.'' You never hear that. You always hear people 
support the troops.
  The policy is an entirely different issue, and I think it is very 
important to say time after time again that to move in a new direction, 
that is the what the American people wanted last November, is being 
able to have not only the guts, but the integrity to move in that 
direction.
  It is beyond good government. It is making a commitment to those who 
have made a commitment to us. And they are counting on us to stand up. 
And when I say us, I am not talking just about good Democrats. I am not 
just talking about Republicans. I am talking about all Members of the 
House.
  The reason why it is very difficult, Mr. Larson, as you know, to move 
the kind of legislation that we would like to move through this 
process, is because in the Senate they need a number of votes to be 
able to do so, 60 votes, I think that is the number.
  Here in the House, the majority is not all that big, even though we 
are in the majority. I know that the record speaks for itself, and 
before we leave here tonight, I am going to read what I read a week ago 
into the Congressional Record about the accomplishments of this 
Congress and what we have done as it relates to this issue of Iraq and 
where we have run into a roadblock with the President on not only 
vetoing legislation, with the help of our Republican colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle that have been standing with the President.
  I would like, if I can, I don't know if my chart is on the floor, Mr. 
Larson, I had this chart with the President on it and the Republican 
Congress, where they borrowed so much money. I want to have a prop so I 
can make the point even clearer to the Members.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. You have been resilient in making this 
point, but I want to amplify a point you made, if I might. Again, I 
think Frank Rich says it fairly well. I think he puts a great deal of 
responsibility on Senator Warner.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. This is the article you referred to earlier.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The article in the New York Times written 
by Frank Rich.

                              {time}  1930

  I think Mr. Warner has been on record publicly for having stated what 
he has. You mentioned the fact that this House has accomplished a 
tremendous amount, including, and I know you are going to reiterate it 
with your charts, including a number of agenda items that were 
accomplished in the first 100 legislative hours.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That's correct.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. But over in the Senate, and most of the 
general public isn't aware of this, they have a cloture rule. Cloture 
in the Senate means it takes 60 votes in order to pass something, which 
is why Mr. Rich in his article prevails upon Mr. Warner, a senior 
Republican, to rein in Mr. McConnell. Now Mitch McConnell in the Senate 
has indicated that they continue to be obstructionists. Almost every 
single vote that has taken place over in the Senate, every single issue 
becomes a cloture vote which means that there are 60 votes needed in 
order to pass. Of course with only 50 Democrats in the United States 
Senate, that becomes impossible. So they become the obstructionist not 
only in the effort to strategically withdraw our troops and support the 
military and to revert back to a policy that makes sense, but also on 
every other issue that Democrats have been able to bring before and 
pass in this House of Representatives.
  So, Mr. Meek, I am pleased to join with you this evening and thank 
you for coming to the floor with this.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Vice Chairman, I just want to thank you for 
your continued leadership, and point out one fact before I go to my 
chart over here.
  This is not an issue as it relates to, but in the 30-something 
Working Group, and let me just back up. In the 30-something Working 
Group, we like to have third-party validators. We like to have 
information so Members know exactly what they are voting on. We all 
have to go back home and talk to our constituents about the things that 
we have accomplished, and the resources we brought back to our 
district, and where we stood up on behalf of those that needed us to 
stand up for them.
  There have been 47 key measures that have passed, 79 percent 
bipartisan consensus. I think that is important because what you are 
talking about as it relates to the Senate and what I have experienced 
serving with you in the 108th Congress and 109th Congress, we knew 
where our place was in those Congresses. We knew it was hard to bring a 
consensus vote because the leadership on the Republican side would fix 
the deck so we wouldn't have consensus, we wouldn't have 
bipartisanship.
  With Speaker Pelosi, who encouraged bipartisanship where we can come 
together on issues, and these are major issues, these are not post 
offices. There is nothing wrong with naming post offices. I think 
Americans should be recognized at the local post office, and it is a 
wonderful privilege that we have here in Congress to do it. But I think 
it is important that everyone understands that across the board 47 key 
measures, and you know I love charts, Mr. Larson, we are going to 
review those 47 key measures so Members know the time we have come 
together on behalf of the American people.
  I say all of this to say when I spoke of the rubber stamp Republican 
Congress, and I have my rubber stamp, and that is one thing I have 
protected. It is in my office and it is high up on the top of a 
cabinet. I keep my eye on it because I don't know, many of the charts I 
have had in the past that have been very, very effective in making the 
point to the Members, I call it a moment of clarity, fact versus 
fiction, someone, somehow these charts are leaving the floor. I don't 
know what is going on. I'm not saying anything, but I would love my 
charts back. Hopefully one of the Members will hear me.
  President Bush, when you look at it, and this is by the U.S. 
Treasury, the foreign debt, when we talk about this war and we talk 
about the life of our men and women, many of them will never come home. 
A large number of our forces will never come home. And if they do come 
home, a number will come back with physical issues, emotional issues or 
mental issues that we have to deal with.
  So what we did in an appropriations bill, over what the President 
calls for as it relates to mental health counseling, what the President 
has done in the past and what Members of Congress have done, the 
rubber-stamp Congress, the President, over 42 other Presidents, and 
this is my old chart. It is a new number, but this President has 
borrowed more from foreign countries than 42 other Presidents. So 42 
Presidents over 224 years were only able to borrow $1.01 trillion. This 
President, $1.19 trillion at the end of the Republican control of the 
House. This is the Republican House here that allowed the President to 
rubber stamp.
  Here is my point that I want to come back to that Mr. Larson made 
earlier. We as Democrats and a few Republicans, sent a bill to the 
President that we consulted generals, we had hearings. The 
Appropriations Defense Committee had more hearings than the last 
Congress had combined on the whole issue of Iraq and this was just an 
emergency supplemental. I think it is important for the Members to 
understand that we sent that bill to the President and the President 
had a meeting. Members of the Republican Conference went down and had a 
lunch. They all came out and stood behind the President I think on the 
east steps, I saw it on television, and said we stand with the 
President and we have made a commitment to the President that we will 
not take part in overriding his veto as Members of the House.
  Here is the Republican Congress, here is the $1.19 trillion that we 
have borrowed from foreign nations. It reminds me of the past Congress. 
So when Mr. Larson started talking about those willing to stand in the 
schoolhouse door of good policy, Mr. Speaker, I am seeing that and 
saying, ``Okay, the American people have taken the majority from the 
Republicans.'' And I am speaking as a Republican, which is very highly 
unlikely here on this floor. Taken the majority from them and now 
giving it to the Democrats to move in a new direction. Just when we 
start carrying out the will of the

[[Page H7061]]

American people, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Larson, how can we stop this from 
happening? What can we do?
  So the Republican says, ``Well, we don't have the votes on the floor 
because the American people have taken that away from us. Well, maybe 
in the Senate, maybe we can drum up something. We need to have 
bipartisan support, but we are not going to get it because we are going 
to stand in the way as much as we can?''

  And I think it is important that the American people understand and 
Members of the House understand, both Democrats and Republicans, we 
were sent here to do something. I enjoy those Members who take extra 
time to work on the art of doing something and moving us in a new 
direction. But I see Members trying to find some sort of creative way 
to stop things that the supermajority of the American people want.
  The first thing that they threw out, ``Well, the Democrats will leave 
our troops without what they need.''
  That didn't happen.
  ``Well, the Democrats are soft on homeland security.''
  Then we pass a bill that has done more than the Republican Congress 
has done since Homeland Security has been created. As a matter of fact, 
it was a Democratic idea that started the Department of Homeland 
Security so we can have the consensus that we needed. And to have the 
Republicans come to the floor and say that, and the facts are not there 
to support their arguments.
  But I wanted to have this illustration here of the Republican 
Congress with the President addressing the Republican Congress, the 
President is doing the State of the Union and the picture is taken this 
way to show the Republicans on that side, Mr. Larson, to go back to 
your point, so we have a moment again of clarity, a moment to say that 
not only do we have illustrations to show how it happened in the past, 
and that is the beautiful thing about history, and it is good you can 
bring this history up, and it can be lifted off the Congressional 
Record, but to be able to let Members know that there are only so many 
times that you can stand in front of the will of the American people 
and be rewarded. Because the American people, one thing that I saw, 
last November, I have said here on this floor the American spirit will 
always rise. The American spirit will rise above partisanship.
  My message to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and we 
always say on the floor ``my good friend.'' But you know what, they are 
good friends. We work with them every day. We live the same life. Many 
of them are away from their families. Some of them are living in this 
city. They miss their family members, so we go through some of the same 
things that our colleagues do. So we are all here in the Chamber and 
our card is the same shape, and we stick it in this machine and we vote 
on behalf of the American people. But I can tell you this, the American 
people will not reward when you go out of your way to stop their will. 
That is the point I wanted to make.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Meek, I think you have made your point 
extraordinarily well. I especially want to commend, especially for the 
viewers and listeners who regularly tune in when the 30-Something Group 
comes to the floor, first and foremost, call up and thank courageous 
people like Walter Jones, Republican from North Carolina; Wayne 
Gilchrest, Republican from Maryland; Ron Paul, Republican from Texas, 
who more often than not sit almost isolated, almost ostracized on the 
other side of the aisle. And it is not that they don't have the respect 
of their colleagues, because I believe sincerely they do. What they 
should know is that they have the respect of America because they are 
willing to stand up and speak truth to power.
  There are many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who 
would stand with them. Loyalty is important in any process, and 
certainly one can respect loyalty. Loyalty and fidelity are important 
concepts and in fact can be virtues. But when there is blind 
allegiance, and especially when men and women's lives are at stake, 
where is your voice? Will you stand together to have this institution, 
the United States Congress, stand up together, collectively, put an end 
to the war, find a process by which we together can end the war and 
provide, as you point out, as the most recent veterans' bill that we 
passed does, the greatest increase in 77 years for veterans, so that we 
provide the assistance to these brave men and women who have given 
their all. And also to provide the compassion and the caring for their 
family members who wait at home wondering what kind of policy is going 
to unfold here for them to see Congress bogged down the way it is in 
the obstinacy of an administration that says it is just going to run 
out the clock on its policy is wrong.
  As Mr. Rich points out, if not Mr. Warner, then who? And certainly we 
have heard the Walter Joneses and the Wayne Gilchrests and the Ron 
Pauls in the House, but we need other brave Members who have found 
their voice who are able when they go back home to listen to their 
fellow citizens and then come to this floor and join with those men of 
character and stand up for what they know is right.
  We know that Mr. Warner is thinking about it. We know he is talking 
about September. Twenty-three soldiers lost their lives this weekend. 
For people who are serving, tomorrow is today. The urgency is now. Find 
your voice prior to this July 4, strike a tone of independence from the 
administration that has got us here.
  Historically this happened to a Democratic President during Vietnam. 
It is not about Democrats or Republicans. It is about America, and it 
is about standing up for our troops in the field. It is about standing 
up for fellow Americans. It is about Americans finding their voice. Our 
citizens have found theirs. We need the Members of Congress here to 
join together, both House and Senate, to end this insanity and come 
together on behalf of the American public, and especially the brave men 
and women who serve our country so valiantly who we owe such a debt of 
gratitude to, and ought to show it through the courage of our policy 
convictions here on the floor, and then in the funding that we provide 
them to make sure that they have the kind of life that they richly 
deserve when they come home, and that we honor the memory of their 
sacred sacrifice that so many have made on behalf of this Nation.

                              {time}  1945

  I thank the gentleman again from the 30-Somethings for having 
continued to bring this debate to the American public.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Larson, I just want to thank you for not 
only your passion but your leadership. Again, I go back to third-party 
validators. I go back to the will and the desire. Many times we stood 
here on this floor and talked about, Mr. Speaker, if you give us the 
opportunity, if we become the majority, what we would do. Six months 
hasn't really even clicked by yet. Let's just say 7 months hasn't. We 
haven't enjoyed 7 months of being in the majority of this House. It 
just happened in January, and we're talking late January, mid-January, 
where the power changed here in this House of Representatives.
  And the bills, the 47 major bills, at least three actions that we 
have taken, on the action we have taken on Iraq alone, major. The 
hearings that we've had in the Foreign Affairs Committee, double-digit 
hearings. Armed Services Committee, double-digit hearings. In 
Government Oversight, double-digit hearings. You didn't hear about 
these hearings because they weren't called in the last Republican 
Congress.
  Mr. Larson, when you were talking, I couldn't help but pull out of my 
book of information here, because every day we open this book, Mr. 
Speaker, and we find things, we call the National Archives, we call 
committees, we want to know what's going on here in this House, we want 
to know the Members that are trying to push these issues, moving in a 
new direction.
  There's a bill, H.R. 13, by Sam Farr. He has nine cosponsors on that 
bill which is a bill that he has been working on. Representative Lynn 
Woolsey has legislation to bring the troops home, Iraq Sovereignty 
Restoration Act. Mr. Farr's legislation is to repeal Authorization for 
the Use of Military Forces Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Public Law 
107-243, and require withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq. That's 
the title of his bill.

[[Page H7062]]

  We move on to Representative David Price, who has a Comprehensive 
Strategy for Iraq Act of '07 which would withdraw troops as quickly as 
possible from Iraq. He has a list of cosponsors that are moving down 
that line.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Congressman Ron Paul, Congressman Neil 
Abercrombie, Congressman Nancy Boyda.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I just want to make sure we don't leave anyone 
out. We have House Resolution 15, also expresses the sense of Congress 
and also immediate repeal which is done by Congresswoman Sheila 
Jackson-Lee. We have also ours truly, Congressman Larson, John B. 
Larson, repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Forces Against 
Iraq Resolution. You have Representative Ellen Tauscher.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Ellen Tauscher has done a terrific job.
  If the gentleman would yield just for a moment, when you're reading 
through these things, I can't help but think of the time, and I know 
that you hadn't arrived here on September 11. I served with your mom. I 
can remember a time when this entire Congress stood together on the 
steps of the Capitol after September 11 and spontaneously broke into 
God Bless America. It's a time that will be forever seared in my 
memory.
  I remember a time in our caucus just this past year when the Speaker, 
the gentleman from New York, stood up, at a time when we knew that we 
only had and could only muster Democratic votes, stood up and gave a 
speech that I will always remember, that drew our caucus together and 
allowed us to go forward and place a bill on the President's desk. It 
was something that everyone said couldn't be done, the politics were 
too raw, people were too far apart, we couldn't possibly come together. 
But when people rise and find their voice as the Speaker from New York 
did, then great things can happen. A Nation can move. People find their 
voice because within their heart resides the great spirit of this 
country as you pointed out. Within every piece of legislation that 
you're chronicling here is a deep-seated belief on the part of its 
sponsors that this is the right thing to do. There are many on that 
side of the aisle who will disagree. I respect people's positions 
regardless of how they come to them. But I know the great reservoir 
that exists on that side of the aisle that understands what's going on, 
that events are unfolding daily around us and the need for us to act is 
now. That tomorrow has become today, that the urgency can't wait for 
September 15 for yet another report. The time is to act.
  I plead for our colleagues on that side of the aisle, because, as Mr. 
Rich points out, it cannot happen without this Congress coming 
together. And so either we will stand together as a United States 
Congress and send a message and help this President find a way forward 
by demonstrating as a Congress did during Vietnam, no matter who the 
President is, that the right thing to do here is to bring our troops 
home safe, secure and strategically in a manner that will allow us to 
regroup and refocus and go after the enemy in Afghanistan where they 
continue to fester and grow and regroup, the people who actually 
knocked down the towers, the people who struck the Pentagon and but for 
those brave souls on Flight 93 would have surely hit this Capitol or 
the White House. It's time for us to come together in that spirit.
  Mr. Meek, if it weren't for you and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and 
Chris Murphy and Tim Ryan coming here and repeatedly talking about it, 
if you're at home, you're thinking, has Congress forgot about this 
urgency. Do they not pick up the papers every day as we do? When I go 
home, and you said it, people talk about Iraq, they talk about Iraq, 
and then they talk about Iraq. The facts are that without Republican 
support, we cannot override a veto. The facts are that without a 
Republican Senate that will stop the cloture rule and Mr. Warner, or 
following the paths of a great American in Chuck Hagel, comes forward 
and speaks truth to power. There are people on both sides of the aisle 
that are great visionary Americans. We just need to come together at 
this time and find our voice in the same manner that Americans have 
already found theirs.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. As we come to a close, Mr. Larson, I just want 
to again thank you for joining not only Mr. Ryan and I tonight but you 
have been here before in the past. I would encourage, especially with 
you being in the top four of our leadership here in the House, our 
elected leadership as relates to the Democratic Caucus, I know that you 
give voice to many of us that are out here pushing every day. We have 
good people working, not only Chairman Emanuel, but also Mr. Jim 
Clyburn and also Mr. Hoyer and Speaker Pelosi.
  I think it's important that we continue to push this issue on, 
because we are going to need bipartisanship to be able to move this 
agenda of safety for our men and women that are in harm's way, move 
this agenda for those families that are waiting on their loved ones to 
come home, move this agenda, Mr. Speaker, that the American people want 
us to move in a new direction. If we can just put partisanship aside 
just for a moment to do that, it will be a place in history in this 
country that we stood up on behalf of those men and women that are in 
harm's way and we followed the will of the American people. I just want 
to thank you, Mr. Larson, for being here.
  Mr. Speaker, I can share this with you. A, we appreciate the Members 
who have worked with us on the 47 bipartisan measures. B, I think it's 
also important to know that as these issues move to the floor, many of 
these issues never would have made it to the floor if it wasn't for the 
leadership of the Speaker and our leadership team and the great Members 
here in the majority and even some of our Members in the minority. You 
know, we like to share here, some of the bills, on eight bills 
combined, they have 79 cosponsors, 76 of them are Democrats, 3 are 
Republicans. As Mr. Larson identified, some of those members of the 
Republican Conference that have come forth, Mr. Speaker, and said, hey, 
I've heard my constituents, I see what the American people are talking 
about, those moderate voices that are there. They should be commended. 
We spend a great deal of time letting them know, and I know when I see 
them in the hall and even some of my friends that don't necessarily see 
the light on this issue, we still take the time to talk in a very 
sensible way on this because this is work on behalf of the country.

  We have Members that are Reservists, that are National Guard men and 
women, that are in the Coast Guard and other branches of the military, 
they're all counting on us to have those conversations and continue to 
work through the issues. You want to look at good government, you look 
at good government.
  As I close, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Larson reminded me of something on 9/11. 
Everyone came together. Yes, my mother was a Member of Congress at that 
time. I remember she voted against giving the President authorization 
to go to war after that as it relates to Iraq. But I think it's 
important to be able to reflect on the past and find times when we have 
come together and try to find those times in the future and also work 
with the President. As much as I disagree with him on this issue of 
Iraq, I do respect the office of the presidency. I know every Member of 
Congress does. All we can do is continue to try to work together. But I 
do share with the Members that it is going to take bipartisanship 
because there are ways that they can block this from happening.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, it was an honor addressing the House. I thank 
the gentleman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Ohio for joining 
me.

                          ____________________