[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 106 (Thursday, June 28, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7422-H7429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE WHITE HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I'm here tonight with my distinguished 
colleague from Florida (Mr. Klein) to talk

[[Page H7423]]

in this Chamber about accountability, and to talk about our security in 
the Middle East, our strategy for the war in Iraq, the problems the 
American people face with the leadership of this country, which does 
not seem, at the very top echelon, the President and the Vice 
President, to be able to respond to the clearly expressed will of the 
American people, the facts on the ground in Iraq, the advice from 
esteemed military commanders and generals who understand the situation 
in Iraq.
  And, really, it all comes down to accountability. Because Mr. Kline 
and I came to this body as a result of the elections of November 2006. 
And in those elections, the American people spoke loudly and clearly. 
In my home State of New Hampshire, they said we need a new direction in 
Iraq; our strategy is not working.
  The war in Iraq has not made us safer. The war in Iraq is not 
enhancing American security. The war in Iraq is not stabilizing the 
Middle East and advancing our true national security interests. The war 
in Iraq is costing billions and billions and billions of dollars, 
sapping our military strength and readiness, and leaving us, as a 
Nation, poorer and unable to respond to conflicts around the globe and 
the urgent need of domestic priorities at home, the needs of working 
families here in America who need the kinds of funds that are being 
diverted into a war that is not working, that need to be used at home 
to help take care of Americans.
  Now I'd like to yield to Mr. Klein.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Hodes).
  I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight as members of our 
freshman class. We try to get together about once a week to speak to 
each other and to speak to the Members on the floor here about the 
importance of what we were elected to do, along with every other 
Member, Democrat and Republican, in this Chamber.
  Certainly this last election had a lot to do with the war and the 
strategy of the war and whether waging the war in the way it was being 
waged was successful. And of course success, at least in my view and 
the people that I have spoken to, is what can we do to enhance and 
protect the American people? All of us, in our homes, our cities, our 
country, and certainly our friends abroad.
  At this time, it seems pretty clear, and I think it's been pretty 
clear to the American people for a long time who have been ahead of the 
President and ahead of the Congress in their thinking about this, that 
the national security of our country, of course coming first, is not 
being enhanced by having our fighting men and women, our brave men and 
women fighting a war that by and large is the participation of a civil 
war, a civil war among groups of people that unfortunately have been 
fighting each other for a long, long time; that by us dropping in our 
own form of democracy in that region, it just doesn't necessarily work 
that way. Although we would like to believe as Americans, and we know 
that we have the best system in the world, it just can't be planted in 
some other part of the world and just accepted as it is.
  So the reality is, what can we do? What are the choices? And I have 
not been one who said immediate withdrawal. There are some in this 
Chamber that believe in immediate withdrawal, there are some that say 
we should be there for 10, 20, 30, 50 years, as long as it takes.
  I think the reality is, there has to be a better way. And I think 
that we've heard from many of our military experts. When President Bush 
says, let's listen to the military experts, I agree. But it's not just 
the military experts that are telling you what you want to hear, it's 
the military experts that have been our generals, people that have 
served in that region, continue to serve in that region, and not just 
as soon replace them if they don't agree with the present 
administration.
  There are answers, just like anything else. It doesn't matter if it's 
health care or energy, there are answers to all these things. People 
solve problems all day long. Americans are very innovative, energetic 
people. There are answers to this one as well. They may not be the 
answers we're looking for that are the ultimate best answers, but there 
are ways that we can best protect our interests in the Middle East, our 
support of the State of Israel and other friends in that region, and 
then most importantly, the people that live in our country. And those 
may be redeployment, moving our troops out of harm's way and into areas 
where maybe the borders are secured; or maybe, as we know now, 
the major mistake was that the entire Iraqi leadership of its armed 
forces was basically eviscerated, they're gone and moved away. And so 
the result is you have an Iraqi Army that by and large is leaderless. 
And they've been trying to make amends on that and trying to deal with 
that, but they're still way behind their curve. We can probably provide 
some support in that area.

  But we do also know at the same time, in terms of our national 
security interests, if we think about what brought us to this point so 
far and why we have this threat of terrorism, is because we were 
attacked on 9/11, nothing to do with Iraq, but Osama bin Laden and al 
Qaeda. That issue has to do with Afghanistan and maybe other areas of 
Pakistan. That's where our military might, our strength, our troops, 
our ability to build coalitions around the world, which we've lost 
along the way here, that's where we can have the most impact.
  So Mr. Hodes, I would just like to open with those thoughts. I know 
we're going to have a little bit of discussion on that. But I want the 
American people to know and I want our Members here in the Chamber to 
understand, there are choices; there are good choices, there are better 
choices, and there are choices to move forward. To stand still, to say 
the surge and all those things, we need to move forward and best 
protect our troops and best protect Americans.
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Klein, one of the things I think about is the change 
in the dialogue that has occurred since the Democrats became the 
majority party here in the House of Representatives as a result of the 
elections of November 2006.
  And I know that there are many people in this country who are 
extremely frustrated. More than 70 percent of the people in this 
country, the statistics now tell us, are committed to changing course 
in Iraq, despite the intransigence, the stubbornness, the refusal of 
the President to face reality, despite the refusal of the Vice 
President of this country to meet his own obligations to the people of 
this country. But the dialogue has changed.
  It's very important, I think, to take stock of what has happened, 
where we are now and how we are moving forward, and also to talk about 
the accountability of the administration and the Republicans, our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who have stood foursquare up 
until now with the failed policies of this President.
  The picture that I have put up here is a picture of President Bush 
with virtually the entire Republican delegation standing with him when 
he rejected the Democrats' attempt to set reasonable guidelines for 
troop readiness, for benchmarks, for Iraqi accountability, and a 
timeline for the responsible, strategic redeployment of American troops 
to protect our security.
  We've heard a lot in the past few days, in the past few months from 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who keep blasting 
Democrats. They say, well, we're not getting anything done. But 
Democrats have stood up time and time again to help push a new 
direction in Iraq. And frankly, and unfortunately, it's been our 
Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have not 
helped move this along, who have not stood up to their President and 
said to our President, this is an American issue. We must all work 
together for a responsible strategy that protects American security.
  Now, after 6 months in the majority, House and Senate Democrats 
really are changing the debate on the war. We're insisting that the 
Bush administration and the Iraqi Government be held accountable. We 
need benchmarks to measure progress, or the lack thereof. We need to 
challenge the stay-the-course strategy, and we will continue to 
challenge this President's stay-the-course strategy.
  And what is not too surprising to me now, as we sit here today ready 
for the July 4th recess and about 6 months into the 110th Congress, 
under pressure from responsible Democrats and the American public, an 
increasing number

[[Page H7424]]

of Senate Republicans are now distancing themselves from the 
President's policy, even as our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, our House Republicans, continue to cling to it. The question is, 
when will the rubber-stamp House Republicans face the reality, join the 
Democrats, together with the American people, in demanding a real 
change and a responsible, strategic redeployment of our forces from 
Iraq? That, as you said, doesn't necessarily mean and shouldn't mean, 
in my view, that we bring everybody home in a precipitous fashion. 
That's what the Republicans continue to claim Democrats are talking 
about, but nothing could be further from the truth. Because the 
Democratic Caucus and the American people understand that what is 
needed is a responsible, strategic redeployment to protect American 
security.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. And Mr. Hodes, I would absolutely agree with 
you. And I think the proof is in the pudding back home. When I go back 
home and I speak to folks in town hall meetings in Palm Beach County 
and Broward County in south Florida where I live, I've heard from 
Democrats, Republicans and independents. And nobody wears their party 
on their sleeve, you just hear from them and they explain how they 
feel. And they feel very strongly that, as former military, there are a 
lot of senior citizen veterans in my area, they fought so hard for our 
country and the values and the strength that they have for the belief 
in the military and the strength that they have for the belief in our 
country and doing the right thing as we did in World War II and as 
we've done so many times since then. And they feel that what is going 
on right now is weakening the military, weakening America, as a 
standard bearer for truth and strength in the world, and this hurts. 
This hurts them, as people who fought so hard for our country.

                              {time}  2100

  I am not 70 years old. I am not 80 years old. But I have so many 
people that have expressed that to me as they wear their hats, as they 
wear their uniform, as they come and talk about their own personal 
experiences. We certainly have that generation.
  Then we have the generation of parents whose kids may enlist or are 
already in the military. Some believe that what the military is doing 
is just right. Some feel very bad and feel like, not that their sons 
and daughters aren't doing the right thing on behalf of the country, 
they just feel like the strategy is not what they have made that 
representation, that commitment about.
  I also feel like you do, that I am beginning to see, and I know in 
some of the committee hearings we have had in the House of 
Representatives we have heard expressions by both Democrats and 
Republicans. We are starting to hear from Republicans, too, about 
questions raised and looking for that accountability.
  The bottom line is this: This is the Iraqis' war. This is the Iraqis' 
responsibility to take their own country and build it back up. That is 
their civilian ability, their ability to put the electricity back on, 
build hospitals and create jobs for themselves and put down the terror 
and the people that are harassing them in the cities and the explosives 
going on. They have got to take their own bull by the horns and do 
something about themselves. We can't do that. They have to do that. So 
there is this responsibility that they have to stand up to themselves 
and recognize.
  We did what we said we were going to do. We took out Saddam Hussein 
and gave them a fresh opportunity. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. He was 
a bad guy. But let's now look to the next level. The next 
responsibility is for the Iraqi people to stand up for themselves. We 
can't fight their war for them. We can't fight that for them. We have 
our own responsibilities.
  We have to deal with Iran right now. Iran is a serious threat to 
Israel and our interests around the world, North Korea, obviously, and 
Afghanistan. These are places where the United States military needs to 
be able to be strong and exert itself when needed.
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Klein, I want to pick up on a few points you made, 
because as I have traveled around New Hampshire, I have met with 
numerous veterans and lots of folks in the active military. The people 
in New Hampshire are not especially liberal, left-wing people. They are 
Americans.
  This issue is really an issue of what it means to be a patriot. 
Because we all want the best outcome we can possibly make for this 
country, for our troops, for our veterans, for our wounded warriors. We 
want to do the best we can for America. On whatever side of this debate 
about the proper policy, I think we all need to respect each other's 
views on that.
  I find that in New Hampshire. But what I find is a deep yearning that 
this country is accountable to the American people, that our government 
is accountable to the American people in a way that sets us on a course 
for being number one.
  Now, I don't mean that in any big, bullying way, but number one 
because, up until recently, in my years--I have been around for 56 
years--this country stood on its values. We stood on the principles of 
truth, justice, fairness, equality, and opportunity for all. That is 
what the American people expect from their government. That is where 
they want our country to go. They see that the war in Iraq has diverted 
us from being as great as we can be, from fulfilling the true promise 
of America both in the blood and treasure of our brave soldiers lost in 
the sands of Iraq.
  They also are very concerned. I speak to people about some of what 
happened and the mistakes that were made that produced the issues that 
we are in today. They are very concerned, for instance, that while 9/11 
was caused by al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan with the Taliban, that 
the Bush administration not only implied but said that somehow, Saddam 
Hussein and Iraq were tied in with al Qaeda at the time of that attack. 
It just wasn't so.
  We have made some serious mistakes that they see. They see that the 
object of going in, occupying Baghdad and immediately firing the civil 
service, de-Baathification, firing the Army, simply provided fuel for 
the insurgency, provided people and weapons to fight against stability 
in Iraq. They see those questions.
  Now the question they are asking is, where to? Where do we go from 
here? The good news is that some of the Republican Senators have begun 
to see the light. I just want to quote one of our distinguished 
colleagues who is in the Senate Chamber, Senator Richard Lugar, the 
distinguished Republican from Indiana, the ranking member on the 
Foreign Relations Committee, who said, ``In my judgment, the costs and 
risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential 
benefits that might be achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge 
strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of 
protecting our vital interests over the long term. Our security 
interests call for a downsizing and redeployment of U.S. military 
forces to a more sustainable position.'' That was a speech by Senator 
Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, on the Senate floor on June 25 of 
this year. He is beginning to face the reality and getting ready for a 
new direction in Iraq.
  We have now been joined by our distinguished colleague, Jason Altmire 
from Pennsylvania. We are delighted to have you with us. He often 
speaks with the 30-Something Group. It is a real treat to have him with 
the New Member Caucus tonight. The Class of 2006 welcomes you, Jason.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you, Mr. Hodes. It is an honor to see you here 
tonight, as well as Mr. Klein from Florida.
  We are at our 6-month point. We have one of our freshman colleagues 
in the Chair tonight. Mr. Hall from New York is serving as the Speaker 
pro tempore this evening. We are in the Chamber here tonight; we are 
talking about the first 6 months. We are talking about what is 
certainly the most important issue facing the country, as anyone would 
agree, which is the war in Iraq. We are talking about accountability. 
As the gentleman pointed out, we have a President that seems to be 
struggling with accountability right now.

  If you look at what has happened in Iraq, we talk about the surge. We 
are going to have this report in September on whether the surge has 
worked. We all pray that we get good news in September, that General 
Petraeus is going

[[Page H7425]]

to come in and give us an accurate assessment and, hopefully, that 
assessment will be that things are turning around.
  But it does not appear at this point that that is the case. In fact, 
as you well know, Mr. Hodes, the last 3 months where the surge has been 
fully in effect and we have been over there, have been the bloodiest 3 
months in the 4\1/2\ years we have been in Iraq. The last 3 months have 
been the worst 3 months. That does not bode well for the effectiveness 
of the surge.
  As you said, we are over 3,500 now that have been killed and 25,000 
injured, wounded and that is just a tragic situation.
  I was able to tour Walter Reed soon after that incident came to light 
with the Washington Post, and perhaps you gentlemen did as well. What 
strikes you when you meet these men and women, they are the bravest and 
the brightest and the best this country has to offer. To think that we 
have a situation where we were giving them substandard care in a 
military hospital, and in the Department of Defense, we chronically 
underfund our VA health care systems all across the country. So you 
have the Defense health care system that Walter Reed was a part of, and 
that was a disgraceful situation; then on the other hand, for the past 
several years, we have chronic underfunding of the VA health care 
system.
  So when we talk about this administration's record with regard to 
accountability and what happens after these brave men and women come 
home, we have the issue of multiple deployments where the Guard and 
Reserve families have to struggle with multiple deployments and 
extended deployments going from 1 year to 18 months. Some of these 
veterans are small business owners or work in small firms where they 
have to go to their employer and say, I have to go over to Iraq, I have 
to serve this country. Of course, the employer says, that is wonderful, 
you have my support. Then they have to go back a second time, maybe a 
third.
  Again, for the ones that own their own business and are the person 
that is running the business, how are they going to keep that business 
afloat? It affects the family. It affects the children. This has so 
many repercussions. Every segment of our society is impacted by it. But 
we have a President that has been given the views of the American 
people--we are going to talk about that tonight--but they have been 
disregarded.
  Sixty-nine percent of the American people think we are heading down 
the wrong road in Iraq and that we need to change course. Instead, we 
get more of the same. We have an administration that was given a 
blueprint for success by the Iraq Study Group 6 months ago now, 7 
months ago. Instead of following it, or at least looking at it, it was 
promptly discarded.
  We have an administration that has ignored the advice of his generals 
on the ground. Whenever they tell him something he doesn't want to 
hear, they have resigned or they are fired. So I lack the confidence 
that this administration is going to be able to view the Iraq situation 
as anything more than ``stay the current course.'' We all know that we 
need a different course.
  We were talking about accountability. I did just want to tell one 
story that is related to the way this administration views our men and 
women and the families that are serving this country. I had a 
constituent in town today. She is an 84-year-old Gold Star mother. Her 
son was killed in 1969 in Vietnam. She has not been to Washington, D.C. 
She has not seen the Wall with her son's name on it, the Vietnam War 
Memorial. She called our office 2 weeks ago and explained her 
situation. She said, ``I am bringing my two daughters, who are 
obviously grown now. They are the sisters of the serviceman that was 
killed in 1969. They are going to come down together as a family for 
the first time.'' Her goal, her life-long dream, was to tour the White 
House. So we called the White House. As you certainly know, there is a 
6-month waiting list. But there is an exception in special 
circumstances. One of those circumstances, we were told, you were 
probably told, were for Gold Star families.

                              {time}  2115

  They can get in and take that tour of the White House.
  So we were told, sure, they are welcome. We sent the information 
over, and then we promptly got a phone call saying, well, no, no, that 
exception only works for Iraq and Afghanistan Gold Star families, not 
for Vietnam era families.
  So we had to call back this 84-year-old woman who wanted to see the 
Vietnam War Memorial and her son's name on the wall for the first time, 
and wanted to tour the White House, it was her lifelong dream, and we 
had to tell her well, I am sorry, we are not going to be able to do 
that, because the White House does not allow that.
  Then it came to my attention that we as Members of Congress in very 
rare circumstances are allowed to take groups down and put them in the 
line if we appear with them. So I called her and I said, you know, I am 
going to just do this myself.
  So today we took her down and we put her in the line and she got her 
tour of the White House.
  So I sent a letter to President Bush and I said, there is two issues 
here. One is this policy is ridiculous. How can you justify putting one 
group of families who have suffered the greatest loss imaginable in the 
service of our country ahead of another group of families? How can you 
put one generation of military Gold Star families ahead of another?
  The second issue is, what is the policy? Can you explain it? What is 
the justification for it? And please change it. That was the situation. 
I was fortunate as a Member of Congress, I was able to get Ms. Boyer 
in. But, unfortunately, you wonder how many people around the country 
have made a similar effort and were unable to get in on this tour.
  So, I really thought this was a disgraceful situation, and I did want 
to bring it to the attention of my freshmen colleagues, because this is 
something that just happened today. And I think it is indicative of the 
treatment that our military families are getting from this 
administration.
  I talked about the fact that we have had 6 consecutive years prior to 
this one of chronic underfunding of our VA healthcare system. You see 
the result at Walter Reed, what happens when you don't provide enough 
funding for these institutions. Unfortunately, we as a nation were 
doing that over the last several years.
  But this Congress took a step in the right direction to resolve that 
by providing the largest increase in the history, 77-year history of 
the VA health care system, and in the 6 months we have been here, we 
have voted for $13 billion in increased funding for the VA healthcare 
system.
  We have also voted to increase screenings and treatment for traumatic 
brain injury, which is now the signature issue for the Iraq war 
veterans. Many of the people who would have perished in previous wars, 
because of increased technology and military equipment, we have a lot 
of amputees and we have a lot of head injuries. So the issues we face 
are different from issues we faced in previous wars with regard to 
treating the men and women that come home.
  So we are going to screen them and we are going to treat them for 
traumatic brain injury and we are going to make that part of what we 
are doing in the VA healthcare system.
  So this Congress has taken a step in the direction of honoring our 
Nation's veterans, and I am proud at our 6-month point of our first 
term in Congress that we can go home over the July 4th recess and talk 
about the fact that no Congress in the history of the Congress has ever 
done more for our Nation's veterans than we have, in just 6 months. So 
I am proud to talk about that.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Thank you. I appreciate your observing those 
things that we did, because I think every one of us believes it is the 
right thing to do. I know, just to share for a moment, the experience 
that all of us had at Walter Reed Hospital and the experiences that we 
have all had in visiting our veterans and our folks who have fought for 
you us so bravely back home.
  The point you made is that many of these men and women back in 
Vietnam, back in other wars, would have died based on the injuries they 
have received. But instead, because of modern science, they are alive 
today, some of

[[Page H7426]]

them. But the injuries are so substantial, loss of both legs, loss of 
arms, loss of major functions that they have, they are going to require 
a lifetime of care. And every American needs to understand that is a 
responsibility we have. When we ask our men and women to fight for us, 
we better be prepared to make sure they have all the necessary cares, 
and their families get that same level of care. Because it is that 
support, that when we ask people to fight for the values and strength 
of our country, that needs to be there.
  But that is a cost of this war. And the problem, of course, is that 
if in fact, as we started this conversation tonight, we are not 
achieving our national security interests, we are not making Americans 
safer at home or our friends overseas more secure, if we are not 
accomplishing any of that, and we are going to wait until September 
now, and unfortunately there may be another 300 or 400 of our brave men 
and women losing their lives for something that again is not 
accomplishing those goals, and we are spending another $40 billion or 
$50 billion, I think a lot of Americans are saying, what could we do 
with that amount of money? What could we do with those lost lives back 
here at home, those lost lives, the lost opportunities for the families 
and men and women fighting for us?
  I know when I think about Florida where I am from, they already have 
139 men and women killed. We have had 1,196 severely injured. These are 
our neighbors. These are our friends.
  We had just tragically this past week, a young man, 25 years old, 
Daniel Agami, who, unfortunately, was killed recently by, of course, an 
IED. I know that every one of us in this Chamber, and I think out there 
in the country, they have been through this loss. They understand what 
that neighbor, that nephew, that son, that daughter, what it means.
  A lot of Americans haven't been really affected by this war because 
maybe the numbers are not as significant as they were during Vietnam or 
during World War II. But it is an American. Every loss of life is an 
American, and I think we all share that sense of feeling and, of 
course, that empathy for the families.
  The question we are raising now, of course, the national commitment 
we have to fight wars is there. The strength and understanding our 
military always has to be at the ready. But we should also understand 
that when we do fight wars, that we need to win, succeed, do whatever 
is necessary, but, at the same time, be smart about it. Accomplish the 
goals that we have and recognize that in this dangerous world that we 
live in today, in this present strategy that President Bush has 
executed and is unwilling to change to this point in time, we have made 
ourselves weaker in other theaters, in other places around the world. 
That is unacceptable to me. It is unacceptable to every person I would 
imagine who is concerned about the future of our country.
  We are prepared to change that. I am very happy that Democrats have 
changed, as you said, Mr. Hodes, the discussion in Washington, taking 
the discussion back in our streets at home, our main streets back at 
home up here, finding even Republicans now who I know believe and, of 
course, they want to do the right thing as well, but just a blind 
loyalty to the President's policy at this point is not the right thing 
to do. We need to think, use common sense, figure out the right way to 
redeploy, protect our men and women over there, do the right thing so 
the Middle East can be stabilized and we can fight our real battles and 
deal with Iran and Afghanistan and other places.
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Kline, thank you very much for those thoughts. I 
expect that over this July 4th recess, a number of our colleagues, 
especially those on the other side of the aisle, will probably be 
hearing from their constituents about their concerns about the current 
course in Iraq, the failure of this administration's strategy, with the 
surge and the way things have been handled, the numerous mistakes, both 
strategic and implementation and in conception have deeply, deeply hurt 
us.
  I know the American people, as we are here in Congress, especially in 
discussions with Democratic Members on the Armed Services Committee, 
are deeply concerned that American readiness, that our readiness to 
deal with other conflicts that may arise, not be jeopardized, and we 
are going to take important steps and have taken important steps to 
improve the readiness that has been hurt by these deployments in Iraq.
  At some point we are going to talk a little bit more about what it 
has meant for our veterans, but we have been joined by another 
distinguished colleague who I would like to introduce. Joe Sestak, a 
member of the class of 2006 from Pennsylvania, came to this Congress 
with an extraordinarily distinguished career, serving our country in 
the military in the Navy.
  He is a gentleman who understands military, military matters, 
military operations. He is deeply committed to American strategic 
interests and is in the forefront of those in the Democratic Caucus who 
are intent on seeing a new direction in Iraq.
  I would like to now turn it over to you, Joe Sestak.
  Mr. SESTAK. I appreciate that from my colleague from New Hampshire.
  I want to comment upon what all three of you brought out, and I 
thought brought out well. I would like to speak about it from my 
experience.
  I remember being on the ground in Afghanistan 2 months after that war 
began. I had the opportunity during a very short period of time to see 
what needed to be done. I left, brought back an aircraft carrier battle 
group for that war. Then we brought that battle group into the Persian 
Gulf for what we thought would be the starting run of the Iraqi 
conflict, and thinking what a tragic misadventure this would be.
  Those words were brought back to me as I thought about them 18 months 
later when I returned on the ground in Afghanistan and saw what had not 
been accomplished when I had known what had to be done. Because we 
diverted our attention and our resources, our Psychological Operations 
Forces, our Special Operations Forces, our Civil Affairs Forces and the 
attention of this Nation from Afghanistan to Iraq.
  To me, Afghanistan is prey to terrorists now once again as the 
Taliban regain control in parts of the southern provinces. And as we 
look inserting more forces back into Afghanistan, it is a poster child 
for what Iraq is really about.
  Iraq is a conflict, a civil war that has hurt our strategic security, 
and Afghanistan is merely a poster child for how the rest of our global 
security, as well as our homeland security, has suffered.
  There is not one army unit here at home, not one, Army, Guard, Active 
Guard or Reserve, that is in a state of readiness, that is committed to 
deploy anyplace in the world, as was said earlier, to any contingency 
elsewhere, from Korea to the Western Pacific, to help our other forces. 
Nor are we engaged in this world where the true center of gravity, 
strategic gravity for the United States is over the next decade, the 
Western Pacific, nor in Southeast Asia, nor in the Middle East.
  We have walked away from a strategy of engagement in this world as we 
have narrowed down to a conflict that is a civil war in one country. We 
need to step back and look at Iraq. Not as itself alone, but as a piece 
in our strategic template of how we look at the security environment 
across this world. Therefore, we need a change in this strategy.
  It is not about getting out of Iraq, as you well said. It is not just 
about returning our troops home. It is about a proper redeployment of 
our forces in order to enhance the security of America.
  I am not anti-war. I am pro-security. And the Democratic approach to 
this is one that recognizes and should recognize with the Republicans, 
because we need them and they need us, to define the end of what 
President Bush said on 10 January would not be an open-ended 
commitment.
  We need to define that end as a certain date, a specific date, 
approximately a year, that says to everyone in that region that 
behavior now has the incentive to change, because we will no longer be 
in Iraq providing the political and military cover for this civil war 
to continue to simmer as the politicians in Iraq, failing to step up to 
the plate because they are pursuing their personal fiefdoms, their 
personal ambitions in the 32 ministries that they run, as we provide 
their security.
  And of great importance is Iran. When I was there with Senator Hagel

[[Page H7427]]

a few months ago, everyone talked about the undue influence of Iran. 
Why not? We are in there bleeding, and that country wants us to bleed 
profusely. But if we were to set a date certain and to lead with 
confidence and engage Iran and Syria, to bring them to the table, our 
most senior political leader, U.S. political leader in Iraq said in 
response to a question, Iran does not want a failed state if we 
redeploy.
  It may not want the government we want, but it does not want a failed 
state. It doesn't want the 2 million Iraqi refugees there that have not 
already overflowed Iraq's borders to continue to flow over Iran's. Nor 
does it want a proxy war between it, the Shi'as in Iran supporting the 
Shia in Iraq, and the Sunnis in Syria supporting the Sunnis in Iraq. 
Once we are out, they don't want that war to ensue.
  So, what this future plan is to be about is a redeployment to enhance 
America's security by focusing where we need to in this world, 
beginning with Afghanistan, and a readiness here at home to bring it 
back up, to remain in that region on bases we already have and had 
before the conflict with troops there in Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, the 
United Arab Emirates, with a carrier battle group and amphibious ready 
group, and then deal with strength as we safely redeploy over a year's 
period, approximately. Because it took 6 months to redeploy out of 
Somalia with approximately 8,000 troops.
  We have got 160,000 in Iraq and over 100,000 U.S. civilian 
contractors to safely redeploy. As we do this with a date certain and 
incentive to change the behavior of the Iraqis so they step up to the 
plate, knowing they must assume responsibilities, it brings the 
Iranians and Syrians together, with us remaining in the region, to have 
a strategy that leads to diplomacy, so that there is an accommodation 
for a non-failed state. A region we have our interests in, we will 
remain there, and a state that has brought the parties together under 
the incentive of a date certain to work towards stability.
  I appreciate being able to make these comments which tonight's 
discussion I believe have really pointed us towards a strategic 
approach to a date to redeploy.
  Mr. HODES. I thank you for those comments. Coming from someone with 
the kind of military experience you have, they ring especially true.
  You know, often on the floor of the House of Representatives, what we 
have experienced in our first 6 months is political rhetoric that masks 
some of the deeper, more complex and nuanced issues that really are 
worthy of discussion in deciding as a nation how to move forward.
  It is really what the American people have been asking, not only of 
us here in Congress, but especially of their President, their Vice 
President, the leaders in the White House, who have been responsible 
for this unfortunate failed policy. And what the American people, who 
are a generous, compassionate and patient people, have been deeply 
yearning for, is a real discussion of the kind we are having now, that 
points the way towards American security. Because, as you point out, we 
have created, unfortunately, more instability in the Middle East.

                              {time}  2130

  And now, however we got into it, we have to make the best of a bad 
situation because we are all in this together. That is the spirit with 
which we as Democrats are trying to talk to our Republican colleagues.
  There has been a lot of name-calling on the floor. They call us cut-
and-run and say this and that and the other thing. But as you have so 
well put, we are talking about a strategy. Strategy is the key word. It 
means a strategic redeployment to protect American security.
  If we just step back for a moment, I want to share some of the 
thoughts of a very esteemed retired general, General William Odom, who 
addressed us recently about the situation there. He said, Look at the 
situation we are in. Our troops are in a sea of hostile people, 
approximately 7 million in number, and growing in hostility every day. 
Fully 80 percent of the Iraqis want the occupation to end. Fifty 
percent of them think badly enough about us that they would sanction 
violence against Americans.
  We are surrounded in Iraq by unfriendly nations, Iran and Syria. We 
have problems with Hezbollah in Lebanon; Hamas and new issues for 
Israel. Israel's security has been threatened by the instability in the 
Middle East because, unfortunately, our misadventure in Iraq has 
emboldened Islamic jihadists in the region. It has not made us more 
safe, but has grown the Islam jihad movement. It has been the best 
recruiting device they have had.
  So he understands the importance of what to do when American troops 
find themselves caught in the middle of not one civil war, as he put 
it, but in the middle of multiple civil wars. He addressed the concern, 
which is a valid concern on the part of all of us, of what will happen 
in Iraq when we redeploy in a planned strategic way. People are 
concerned. What will we leave?
  We have a government at this point which is essentially not working. 
It is hardly a unity government. They can't get themselves together to 
have their army stand up or get the ministers to work together. They 
seem to have fallen into tribal allegiances.
  But what General Odom pointed out in recent discussions with experts 
in the region, including generals of countries whom we have worked 
with, they have pointed out that it is highly likely that when we leave 
Iraq, when the American troop presence, which is the cause, in their 
view, of much instability, is gone, that Iraq--it is not going to be 
great, but the kind of cataclysmic events that people are predicting, 
in their view, won't occur because the Iraqis have had a long history 
of tribal conflict even within the Saddam Hussein regime. And 
remembering that Iraq was forged in 1916 out of separate tribal 
entities by the British and French in a grand deal, there has been an 
undercurrent of these tensions, which the tribal leaders, they believe, 
are going to work out.
  Personally, I believe ultimately there will be a political solution 
in Iraq that the Iraqis must determine for themselves. Our military 
presence cannot impose a political solution; only they can. In my view, 
based on the research that I have done and based on discussions with 
experts in the region, I think it is highly likely that Iraq will 
devolve into some kind of autonomous regions, perhaps three autonomous 
regions. In Kurdistan, one representing the Sunnis, one representing 
the Shia, who then use the central government for certain federal 
purposes, but one which recognizes, as their constitution wants to go 
to, that a political solution, trying to hold together this government 
which isn't working, won't work for them, and they will find once we 
are gone and they no longer have us as a crutch, they will find the 
political solution they need to carry their country forward.
  And if we, as a true world leader, redeploy strategically and wisely 
and then use our diplomatic resources to bring neighbors, allies, 
friends, reunite a real coalition in the world to help, we may be able 
to have the kind of result of a stable state that will help us not only 
in the region but around the world. And it is what the American people 
want.
  It is this kind of discussion and this kind of thinking that the 
President ought to be having with his generals. I hope that as we sit 
here tonight talking about Iraq, and as we prepare to return home for 
July 4, I hope that President Bush is in the White House and I hope he 
is talking to his generals about what the plan ought to be for a 
strategic redeployment. But I fear that he is not doing that at this 
point.
  Mr. Altmire, why don't I throw it over to you.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I was struck in hearing my Pennsylvania colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak), I believe the highest ranking 
military officer ever elected to Congress; and so much of the rhetoric 
that revolved around the discussion that this House had on Iraq was, 
you guys don't have any experience, you don't know what you are talking 
about. All you want to do is tie the hands of the generals on the 
ground, and you need to leave this up to the experts.

  What we have heard tonight is an expert, one of the military's 
foremost military experts that we are fortunate to have not only in 
this House of Representatives, but in our freshman class with us.
  We heard a strategy for success, and we heard someone who has been 
there

[[Page H7428]]

and seen it firsthand. What struck me was the fact that the President 
has probably had these discussions, and he has probably had people come 
to him and offer solutions. Maybe not the identical solutions that 
Admiral Sestak has, but differences of opinion. And the problem is, 
this administration has not shown a willingness to listen to 
differences of opinion.
  I talked about it earlier. Generals are reassigned if they come in 
with a difference of opinion. Public opinion certainly doesn't matter. 
The facts on the ground certainly don't matter.
  I was watching earlier, and I don't know if you had the opportunity 
to walk through some of the facts of what is going on on the ground in 
Iraq right now. We hear a lot of things on TV about, is the surge 
working, is it not working. I will let my colleagues decide.
  In November of 2003, the number of insurgents in Iraq was 5,000. That 
is a pretty high number. In March of 2007, the most recent month for 
which data is available, there were 70,000 insurgents in Iraq as 
estimated by the Brookings Institution. So 5,000, 4 years ago; 70,000, 
today.
  The number of multifatality bombings in May of 2004 was 9; in May of 
2007, last month, it was 42. To me that does not indicate that we are 
making progress or there is a light at the end of the tunnel. And the 
numbers of people killed, both civilian and American servicemen, we 
talked about that earlier, it is exponentially more now.
  Clearly, we need a new direction, and we need people like Admiral 
Sestak, like anyone who is willing to take a hard look at this and 
offer an alternative solution, like the Iraq Study Group. This is a 
group of experts who got together, spent a great deal of time studying 
this issue, making very thoughtful recommendations to the American 
people, to the White House, and they were promptly disregarded.
  Not only were they disregarded, but the course of action that they 
recommended, diplomacy with the other actors in the region, a training 
force rather than an offensive force, these are things that we are 
going in the exact opposite direction. We didn't just discard it, we 
have gone opposite to what they recommended.
  I would say once again that this discussion is healthy. We have four 
of us here that have opinions, and there are a lot of opinions, and 
that is the way it should be. I would agree with the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) that I hope the same type of discussion is taking 
place on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Unfortunately, that does 
not seem to be the case.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I agree with you, Mr. Altmire. Just the title 
``admiral'' speaks of such respect that we have for Representative 
Sestak. Those of us who did not have the privilege of serving in the 
military, as you can imagine, there are 435 of us on the floor, we look 
to each other for advice. We learn from each other.
  I know I have spoken to you on a number of occasions to get your 
advice, to be an informed Member of Congress, and I do appreciate that 
because I think you not only have that lifetime of experience serving 
in the military, but as a leader, an admiral in the military, you have 
the high level of understanding of all the issues we are discussing 
right now. Of course, it is not the end-all, be-all, but it is a 
tremendous resource for all of us.
  One of the committees that I serve on is Foreign Affairs, and that 
committee is responsible for working with the President and the State 
Department on our foreign policy, whether it is in the Western 
Hemisphere, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or in the Middle East or Russia 
or China.
  Our country has been consumed with terrorism since we were attacked 
on our shores by Osama bin Laden. One of the biggest frustrations we 
have as Americans, the most powerful nation in the world with the 
highest level of information and intelligence and reach around the 
world, the fact that Osama bin Laden is still on the loose is beyond 
imagination. Every American should demand that that should have been 
and should continue to be a top priority.
  I am pointing that out for a reason. That reason is, we took our eye 
off the ball when we got involved in this in the first place. That has 
been discussed and we understand that. But that doesn't mean that today 
we shouldn't still be focusing on where the real threat is. The threat 
relates to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and his henchmen. The threat 
relates to nuclear weapons. These are the significant challenges of our 
day. They are challenges as it relates to Russia and loose nuclear 
weapons. They are challenges as it relates to North Korea and 
containing North Korea.
  There was an interesting story that Reuters produced. It talked about 
the estimated number of nuclear weapons that were likely to have been 
produced by North Korea during the last 6 years of the Bush 
administration. This is a rogue country by many discussions, by the 
United Nations and countries around the world, that has a nuclear 
weapon, possibly seven nuclear weapons that we know of, all within the 
last 6 years, which tells us once again that we took our eye off the 
ball of dealing with the true threats.
  This is not a question of whether North Korea is going to shoot off 
an ICBM towards the United States. This is not a stable country and may 
provide that nuclear weapon to other groups, organizations, countries. 
That is a threat. That is where our focus should be. Iraq is a 
different situation.
  We take a look at Iran and what we know about Iran at this moment. 
There are an estimated number of centrifuges in Iran, in their main 
nuclear facility producing reactor-grade uranium. There may be 1,300 of 
these spread out in Iran. Iran is a threat, in having a nuclear weapon, 
to Israel and to other countries in the Middle East, and for the same 
reason, to the United States.
  This is a serious issue. This is where our foreign policy and 
military strength and the sharing of intelligence and confidence with 
other allies around the world, where we have always historically, 
American Presidents have always led, and we made sure that we had that 
authority. And it was in our country's best interests.
  But today we find ourselves in a place because we are mired in Iraq 
where many countries around the world are not prepared to share that 
goal of nuclear containment. This is something that we need to focus 
on. This is another reason why we have to extricate ourselves in a 
responsible way from a war that is not achieving our national security 
interests, and refocus our attention on nuclear weapons that may be 
developed in Iran, and make sure that we are doing the right thing to 
protect the American people.
  Mr. HODES. Thank you.
  Admiral Sestak, we have a few moments left. I turn it over to you for 
some of your closing thoughts and then I will wrap up.
  Mr. SESTAK. If I may add onto comments made by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Klein), the lack of a strategy of engagement by this 
administration where it became focused and stuck in Iraq has hurt our 
security tremendously. We outsourced our leadership during that period 
of time to others.
  North Korea went to China. We gave Iran to the European Union. And I 
can't tell you who we gave the Middle East to.
  Let's step back and look at what has occurred. A conflict in the 
Middle East where our Secretary of State stopped by for a photo-op and 
continued down, in the midst of that conflict, to Southeast Asia for a 
conference.
  Iran, bent now upon a nuclear weapon. And North Korea, as you 
referenced, during that period of time as they called General Powell 
back, who tried to continue the negotiations that the Clinton 
administration had left the Bush administration with an agreed 
framework not to have a nuclear reactor continue to produce fissile 
material. And a missile moratorium. They now at least have seven more 
nuclear weapons, if they care to build them.

                              {time}  2145

  And they've exploded one of them. And they've broken the missile 
moratorium and only belatedly have they actually gone back now and 
agreed to the same agreement that the Clinton administration had.
  Iraq is such a tragedy. Iran, when General Ikenberry was leaving, our 
three-star general from Afghanistan, he was asked, does Iran work 
toward our interest there? The answer was yes. You want stability in 
Afghanistan. It doesn't want the Taliban there or al

[[Page H7429]]

Qaeda. So we step back and say engage, engage with consequences Iran, 
Syria, give them a date that we won't be in that state of Iraq and they 
with Iraqis and Saudis and Jordan must step up so we can be about this 
world and ensure our security elsewhere. That's what this debate is 
about.
  Mr. HODES. I thank all my colleagues, Mr. Sestak and Mr. Altmire from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Klein from Florida. It has been a truly interesting 
discussion tonight focusing on strategy, the complexity of a world that 
has changed but which Democrats are facing with boldness and leadership 
to help take our country and the world in a new direction, to reverse 
the damage that's been done by the administration and reassert our role 
as a leader in this world on our principles and our values, not merely 
our military might but only using our military might in service of the 
good judgment our leaders exercise in the pursuit of peace.
  As we leave for our July 4 recess, I want to leave us with this 
thought. The Army says that it will leave no soldier behind. And as we 
discussed here tonight, the Democrats in Congress have committed to 
leaving no veteran behind. We have voted and passed the biggest 
increase in Veterans' Administration spending for health care and 
needed services in this country's history.
  The chart I have here shows in dramatic form what has happened over 
the past few years. From 2003 to 2008, the VA is treating many, many 
more Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. We've been in a conflict where 
our soldiers have been deployed, redeployed, redeployed and redeployed 
again, two times, three times, four times. Whereas compared to World 
War II, when their active duty tours were 180 days, they're now seeing 
15 months, wreaking havoc on the soldiers and their families at the 
same time. As General Odom put it today, they're experiencing 
cataclysmic events every day, new kinds of injuries, polytrauma, 
traumatic brain injuries, PTSD have created great complexity in our VA 
system.
  So as we go out on July 4, I would ask us all to think about what 
supporting our troops really means. In my view, supporting our troops 
means employing and following a course that is a real, smart, strategic 
effort to protect American security by redeploying our troops from the 
middle of a civil war in which they don't belong, number one. That is 
truly supporting our troops, because they are owed the policy that the 
civilian leaders should be following. That is what our troops are owed 
and our veterans are owed when they come home, the best that we can 
give them. No more broken promises from the White House. No more broken 
promises from the Republicans who have cut the budgets time and time 
again, who have cut health care in the VA, who have imposed fee 
increases on our veterans. No more. We will leave no veteran behind. 
The Democrats promise that. We have followed through on our commitment.
  And I am so proud to stand with you all as Members of the 110th 
Congress to help lead this country in a new direction and be the kind 
of world leader that the American people expect and deserve.
  Thank you very much and good night.

                          ____________________