[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 25, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8405-H8411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LIMITING USE OF FUNDS TO ESTABLISH ANY MILITARY INSTALLATION OR BASE IN
IRAQ
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2929) to limit the use of funds to establish any military
installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent
stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise United
States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2929
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) On May 30, 2007, Tony Snow, the President's press
secretary, said that President Bush envisions a United States
military presence in Iraq ``as we have in South Korea'',
where American troops have been stationed for more than 50
years.
(2) On June 1, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
elaborated on the President's idea of a ``long and enduring
presence'' in Iraq, of which the ``Korea model'' is one
example.
(3) These statements run counter to previous statements
issued by the President and other administration officials.
(4) On April 13, 2004, the President said, ``As a proud and
independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite
occupation and neither does America.''.
(5) On February 6, 2007, Secretary Robert Gates stated in
testimony before Congress, ``we certainly have no desire for
permanent bases in Iraq.''.
(6) On February 16, 2006, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld stated in testimony before Congress, ``We have no
desire to have our forces permanently in that country. We
have no plans or discussions underway to have permanent bases
in that country.''.
(7) On March 24, 2006, the United States Ambassador to
Iraq, Zalmay Kahilzad stated that the United States has ``no
goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq.''.
(8) On October 25, 2006, the President stated, ``Any
decisions on permanency in Iraq will be made by the Iraqi
government.'', in response to a question whether the United
States wanted to maintain permanent military bases in Iraq.
(9) On February 6, 2007, Secretary Gates said, ``We will
make that decision, sir'' in response to the question: ``Is
that still our policy, that we're going to be there [Iraq] as
long as the [Iraqi] government asks us to be there? . . . Is
our presence left up to the Iraqis or do we make the
decision?''.
(10) The perception that the United States intends to
permanently occupy Iraq aids insurgent groups in recruiting
supporters and fuels violent activity.
(11) A clear statement that the United States does not seek
a long-term or permanent presence in Iraq would send a strong
signal to the people of Iraq and the international community
that the United States fully supports the efforts of the
Iraqi people to exercise full national sovereignty, including
control over security and public safety.
(12) The Iraq Study Group Report recommends: ``The
President should state that the United States does not seek
permanent military bases in Iraq. If the Iraqi government
were to request a temporary base or bases, then the United
States government could consider that request as it would in
the case of any other government.''; and ``The President
should restate that the United States does not seek to
control Iraq's oil.''.
(13) The House of Representatives has passed 6 separate
bills prohibiting or expressing opposition to the
establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq including
three of which have been enacted into law by the President:
Public Law 109-289, Public Law 109-364, Public Law 110-28.
SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States not to establish any
military installation or base for the purpose of providing
for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in
Iraq and not to exercise United States control of the oil
resources of Iraq.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.
No funds made available by any Act of Congress shall be
obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:
(1) to establish any military installation or base for the
purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United
States Armed Forces in Iraq; and
(2) to exercise United States economic control of the oil
resources of Iraq.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Ackerman) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on H.R. 2929.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there have been many justifications for why we went to
war in Iraq. Take your pick: We invaded to capture Saddam's weapons of
mass destruction, or we invaded to oppose a
[[Page H8406]]
dictator and bring democracy and human equal rights to the Iraqi
people, or we invaded to fight al Qaeda and prevent them from attacking
us here.
So many reasons have been offered that you can mix and match one from
column A, two from column B.
Whatever your favorite reason for invading Iraq, the one reason that
was never offered was that we are invading Iraq to occupy their land,
establish permanent bases and control their oil. Yet, among Iraqis,
this perception is that the establishment of permanent bases is
precisely why we invaded. The insurgents use that perception to recruit
fighters and incite attacks on our troops.
The bill before us today, introduced by our colleagues, Barbara Lee
and Tom Allen, along with Jim Moran and David Price, will help combat
that perception. It states that it is the policy of the United States
not to establish permanent bases in Iraq and not to control Iraq's oil
resources.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the House has spoken on
the issue. Six separate times the House has passed legislation
prohibiting or expressing opposition to the establishment of permanent
military bases in Iraq. Three of those bills have been signed into law.
Yet, from the President, we continue to get mixed messages.
In May, the President's spokesman talked about a U.S. presence in
Iraq that looked like our presence in South Korea. Last month,
Secretary Gates suggested that the President was considering a long and
enduring presence in Iraq.
Whatever your position on the war, I don't think anyone here in this
House believes that we should be in Iraq for over 50 years. In case
anyone needed any further convincing that pursuing a long-term presence
in Iraq is unwise, the Iraq Study Group was unequivocal on the point of
permanent bases. ``The President should state that the United States
does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq''. But instead of
standing down when the Iraqis stand up, the President seems intent on
putting down roots. It is the wrong policy yet again.
The Lee-Allen bill will send an important message again that the
United States has no interest in permanent bases.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, as has been said, this legislation cites the fact that
the House of Representatives has passed six, one, two, three, four,
five, six separate bills prohibiting or expressing opposition to the
establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq, including three,
one, two, three, which have been enacted into law by the President.
In fact, the language contained in H.R. 2929, which is before us
today, is nearly identical to the language adopted under a Republican-
controlled Congress in section 1519 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
This is the bill before us today. This is the law.
The fiscal year 2007 bill states:
``No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of
appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose
as follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of
providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in
Iraq.
(2) To exercise United States economic control of the oil resources
of Iraq.''
That is law. That has been passed a couple of times. And now the bill
before us this morning says this:
``No funds made available by any Act of Congress shall be obligated
or expended for a purpose as follows:
(1) to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of
providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in
Iraq; and
(2) to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources
in Iraq.''
Once, twice, three times. We can pass it again. But why are we here?
Why are we spending valuable time, Mr. Speaker, debating an issue that
the Congress on a bipartisan basis already has agreed to, once, twice,
three times, four times, five times, six times? The majority's attempts
to score political points on a range of issues, including particularly
Iraq policy, has already paralyzed precious months of military planning
and congressional business, including the 9/11 bill.
It was only last night when the majority conferees finally agreed to
incorporate into the 9/11 conference report critical language offered
by the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, my good
friend Mr. King of New York, which would provide immunity to passengers
and commuters who report suspicious activities.
In a post-9/11 world, Mr. Speaker, passenger vigilance is essential
to our Nation's security. An alert citizenry is our first line of
defense against those who may seek to do us harm.
Yet, some of our colleagues, rather than supporting or encouraging
such personal commitment and involvement from our citizens, would have
preferred to leave them vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits and, instead,
engage in debates on legislative items and policy already enacted into
law and discussed once, twice, three times, four times, five times and
six times.
However, since we are having this ``Groundhog Day'' discussion, it is
important to once again note that there are no permanent United States
bases overseas. Rather, the scope and the duration of U.S. basing
rights are determined by individual agreements and entered into with
host governments throughout the world.
It is also important to clarify that a policy position that does not
support permanent bases in Iraq does not translate into either a
prohibition against the American troop presence in Iraq, we could have
that discussion on another bill, or a prohibition against the existence
of any U.S. military installation in that country.
But that is not what is before us today. The bill before us in its
``findings'' section states that the Iraq Study Group Report recommends
that ``the President should state that the United States does not seek
permanent military bases in Iraq.''
Correct.
The bill also specifically highlights the other component of that
recommendation, which says, ``If the Iraqi Government were to request a
temporary base or bases, then the United States Government could
consider that request as it would be in the case of any other
government.''
This legislation therefore accepts the prospect of a negotiated
agreement for a future relationship with the Government of Iraq to,
among other things, allow U.S. military and security forces to operate
from U.S. installations within Iraq, including through a possible
status of forces agreement that would define the legal status of U.S.
personnel in Iraq and would define the rights and responsibilities
between the United States and the Government of Iraq. Furthermore, this
legislation before us today does not prohibit the United States from
entering into the interoperability agreements that allow the United
States and Iraq to share common infrastructure and bases.
Mr. Speaker, I do not object to this legislation. We have supported
it before and look forward to supporting it again.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the chief sponsor of the
resolution.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and
for his leadership. Also, I would like to thank our Speaker, our
leadership, Chairman Skelton, Chairman Lantos, Congresswoman Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen and others for really bringing this critical measure to a
vote today.
What this legislation does is really simple. It does what the Iraq
Study Group and other experts have recommended that we do. It makes a
clear state of policy that the United States does not intend to
maintain an open-ended military presence in Iraq and that we will not
exercise control over Iraqi oil, and it backs up that policy with the
power of the purse.
{time} 1045
And the President and his administration to this date, and I mean to
this
[[Page H8407]]
date, have not made a clear statement of this policy. Putting Congress
on record with this clear statement helps take the target off our
troops' backs; it supports our goals of handing over responsibility for
security and public safety to Iraqi forces.
Mr. Speaker, the perception that the United States plans to maintain
a permanent military presence in Iraq strengthens the insurgency and
fuels the violence against our troops. That is why experts ranging from
former adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority Larry Diamond to
the Iraq Study Group have called on the President to make a clear
statement of policy that the United States does not intend to maintain
permanent military bases or an open-ended military presence in Iraq.
Unfortunately, the administration has refused to do that. In fact,
there are conflicting accounts as to who will decide if we stay in Iraq
permanently. When the President was asked that question at a press
conference last October he said: ``Any decisions on permanency in Iraq
will be made by the Iraqi Government.'' But when Secretary Gates was
asked is our presence left up to the Iraqis, or do we make the decision
in testimony before the Senate this February, Secretary Gates said, we
will make this decision.
More recently the administration has further muddied the waters by
saying that they envision a United States military presence in Iraq
similar to that we have in South Korea where American troops have been
stationed for more than 50 years and won't be leaving anytime soon.
We must soundly reject the vision of an open-ended occupation as bad
policy which undermines the safety of our troops, and we must recognize
it for what it is: Another recruiting posture for terrorists.
To those who raise objections or want to suggest this is only a
symbolic measure, or raise semantic questions about what a permanent
base is, let me say this: This is a serious issue, and I think we
should all recognize how much is at stake.
The question is simple: Do we support an endless occupation, or do we
oppose it? We may disagree on many things about Iraq, but I hope we can
agree that an endless occupation is not the answer. Let's make that
commitment today. Let's put the so-called Korea model to bed, and let's
tell our young men and women that when they come home, they will all
come home. Let's pass this legislation, and I want to thank
Congresswomen Woolsey and Waters, and Congressmen Price and Allen for
their support.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
If I could point out that the most recent reincarnation of this very
same issue was passed earlier this year in this very House, and I would
like to read verbatim what it said. I was proud to vote for it, and I
will vote for it.
Sec. 1222. Continuation of prohibition on establishment of permanent
military installations in Iraq or United States control over oil
resources of Iraq.
Section 1519 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2444) is amended by
inserting after ``this Act'' the following: ``or any other Act for any
fiscal year''.
Mr. Speaker, with that I am pleased to yield with great pleasure such
time as he may consume to a great American, the ranking member of the
Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter),
who has also voted for this measure six times.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady for her
leadership and also thank the author of this measure and simply point
out that we have already passed this measure, and we did pass it on our
defense bill last year.
Very simply, no American troops are permanently stationed in
countries around the world by virtue of the fact that we station them
with the permission of the host country. The idea that we are going to
insist or enforce, or unilaterally lodge American troops in Iraq is not
something that is contemplated by anybody.
I just say to the gentlelady that we may have a time in the future,
and we have dozens and dozens of countries around the world which on a
regular basis give us permission to move our troops across their land
area. We may have a time in the future, for example, 5 or 10 years from
now, when we have to have an early warning for a missile strike from
Iran to Israel.
I know that the gentlelady wouldn't object to American forces going
in and establishing an early warning station so that we can save the
lives of people living in Tel Aviv from a strike similar to the Scud
strike that Saddam Hussein launched in the early 1990s at Israel.
We may have a time when we have to project American forces for a
contingency around the world, and when you do that, regardless of what
country you are talking about of the dozens of countries that host us
on a regular basis, you go through a protocol. You contact the country.
You receive their official permission going through their government,
and that describes the parameters of the American presence that will be
there, how long it will be there, what the usage will be, whether it is
an airfield or a radar station.
But there could be a time, should Iran develop weapons of mass
destruction or continue on this path to develop weapons of mass
destruction and at some point attack a neighbor or prepare to attack a
neighbor, and it could well be in the interest of the United States,
for example, to have early warning capability should Iran want to make
a strike on a country like Israel when that request will be made. And
hopefully it would be responded to affirmatively by the free nation of
Iraq.
I support this legislation, and I will vote for it again, as I voted
for it six times. But I would hope that Members would understand and
realize that we use dozens and dozens of assets around the world which
are all done permissively by the host nations.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished coauthor of the resolution before us, the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2929, the Lee-Allen
bill to ban permanent bases in Iraq.
Regardless of one's position on U.S. military operations, we can all
agree on the need for the Iraqi Government to succeed. The perception
that the United States plans a permanent presence in Iraq fuels the
resentment against our troops and complicates the path towards
political reconciliation in Iraq. Too many Iraqis believe that we
intend to stay in their country indefinitely.
A clear statement by Congress, not part of a larger bill, that we do
not intend a long-term or permanent military presence in Iraq is
necessary to send a strong signal to the Iraqi people and to the world.
It supports our goal of handing over responsibility for security and
public safety to Iraqi forces.
Passage last year of prohibitions on permanent bases in Iraq based on
legislation I wrote with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee)
marked perhaps the first time Congress legislated to change the
direction of our Iraq policy. In total, three ``no permanent base''
provisions have been enacted. H.R. 2929 make these permanent. Twice the
House has rejected amendments to weaken these provisions.
Recent statements by administration officials, however, are
troubling. The White House Press Secretary said recently the President
envisions a United States military presence in Iraq ``as we have in
South Korea,'' where American troops have been based for more than 50
years. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made similar comments.
H.R. 2929 reaffirms that the United States has a clear and consistent
policy against a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq. I urge its
adoption.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today we are sending a clear message that
our commitment to the Iraqi people will be ongoing, but that our
military presence will not be permanent. Over and over this Congress
and the American people have clearly called for an end to the
occupation in Iraq. We are calling for bold action, action to bring our
troops home and return Iraq to the Iraqi people.
The actions of this administration have clearly put our troops in
danger.
[[Page H8408]]
Troops were sent in without adequate training, and even yet without
appropriate equipment, and now our heroic soldiers are being returned
to extended and repeated tours of duty. All of this is unacceptable,
and now the administration says they want to leave the troops there for
future Presidents to sort out the mess.
We say ``no way.'' No more putting our troops in danger, and no
permanent bases. Show the American people, show the Iraqis, show the
international community we have no plans to occupy Iraq. Vote ``yes''
on the Lee amendment.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
cosponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a sponsor of this
important legislation to prohibit the establishment of permanent U.S.
bases in Iraq.
We have passed similar legislation before by a wide margin. The first
time was a few weeks after I questioned General Abizaid in an
appropriations hearing. He could not unequivocally disavow permanent
bases, and so the House stepped in and asserted its prerogative on
foreign policy by prohibiting permanent bases in Iraq.
Now, my colleagues might understandably ask, why are we voting on
this bill again today? The reason is that the Bush administration
continues to stubbornly reject the will of Congress, of the Iraq Study
Group, and of the American people.
Defense Secretary Gates recently stated his goal of ``a long and
enduring presence'' in Iraq. President Bush has stated his vision for a
presence ``as we have in South Korea,'' where U.S. troops remain 50
years after an armistice. That kind of rhetoric suggests that they have
not yet gotten the message, and it seriously damages our cause.
The Iraqi people and the American people need assurance that there is
light at the end of the tunnel, that occupation is not a permanent
state of affairs. So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation
today, and to once again unequivocally state that the U.S. will not
establish permanent bases in Iraq, because this administration and the
world need to understand that America's misadventure in Iraq must and
will come to an end.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a cosponsor of the resolution.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New
York.
I wish those on the Republican side that are objecting to this
resolution would ask the President what is it about the word ``no''
that you don't understand? How many times do we have to say that there
will be no permanent military bases in Iraq?
Sure, we have said it in legislation before, but as recently as last
month the Secretary of Defense elaborated on the President's statement
about envisioning a long and enduring military presence in Iraq similar
to the Korean model. Well, imagine how that plays into the propaganda
of our enemy. No wonder al Qaeda is gaining in strength and
effectiveness. No wonder people are believing in what they are saying,
because we are playing into their hands. They are saying we are there
as occupiers of an oil-rich Arab country.
We believe that we went there as liberators, those who supported the
war. But gosh sakes, don't play into al Qaeda's strength. Take away
this recruiting tool and this rallying cry.
Let's pass this resolution today and say clearly and unequivocally:
No permanent military bases in Iraq, period.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support H.R. 2929, a bill to prohibit
permanent bases in Iraq, and I thank the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for their persistent
leadership on this important issue.
The House passed the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq this month to
get our troops out of Iraq by April. The question now is not whether we
will redeploy our troops, but when and how.
This resolution makes it emphatically clear to the Iraqi people and
to President Bush that we do not intend to keep troops in Iraq
indefinitely.
{time} 1100
The United States must not be seen as an occupier. Otherwise, our
presence there will be used to recruit insurgents, to keep Iraq
entrenched in violence and to create an even more dangerous environment
for our troops.
This House, too, has already expressed its opposition to permanent
bases, but today, we do it clearly with bipartisan support and send a
very clear statement. I urge all of our colleagues to listen to the
will of the American people, of the Iraqi people, and to support H.R.
2929.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2929.
From the beginning of the President's invasion and occupation of
Iraq, he has insisted that the United States has no intention of
permanently occupying that country. I think there is no better way to
reassure both our friends and our adversaries that the United States
does not intend to become an imperial occupier of Iraq than to make
clear that the U.S. will not build permanent military bases there.
The American people are seeking clear assurance that their government
has a plan for leaving Iraq. If the President fails to embrace this
legislation, it would only confirm for many Americans that the
President has no strategy for bringing our troops home and, in fact,
intends to keep them there forever.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I hope the President will
listen to the American people and sign it into law.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes
to the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding.
I want to thank my good friend and colleague from the Bay Area,
Barbara Lee, for bringing this timely legislation before us today.
The last thing Congress and the American people want in Iraq is to
keep U.S. troops there permanently. We need a rational and reasonable
exit strategy. Yet the administration has signaled that it intends,
instead, to put down roots in Iraqi soil, soil that is already soaked
with the blood of our soldiers and countless Iraqis.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Building huge military bases in Iraq
to last the ages is not the answer. We want to bring our servicemen and
servicewomen home to Nebraska and Idaho and California. Our legislation
will prohibit spending funds to establish permanent military bases in
Iraq, and I support it wholeheartedly.
Let me be clear. This measure does not prohibit us from protecting
our embassy and other vital interests and fighting terrorism. It only
ensures that our troops do not put down permanent roots.
The administration has drawn a parallel between our proposed,
sustained presence in Iraq and the U.S. obligation to South Korea after
the Korean War. Mr. Speaker, we have been in South Korea for more than
54 years, and I hope we won't be as long as that in Iraq.
The Korean peninsula for over half a century was vital to our
security interests during the Cold War, but Iraq is not Korea. It is
now beyond question that our national security is being harmed, not
helped, by our continuing vast footprint in Iraq.
As long as huge numbers of our forces are there, the Iraqi Government
will limp along, failing to undertake the far-reaching political and
security changes desperately needed to promote lasting stability in
that long-suffering country.
And it will only anger the Iraqi people to promote the erroneous
impression that our troops will be there permanently. In fact, a
commitment not
[[Page H8409]]
to establish permanent bases may facilitate an earlier, safer, more
orderly exit, as it will reassure Iraqis that our intention is not to
have a permanent presence in that country.
I, therefore, strongly support this resolution to ensure that the
administration heads in the right direction in Iraq.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request of the
gentlewoman, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, if she
would be kind enough to yield us 3 minutes of her time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Absolutely. I would love to yield you 3 minutes. We
have two speakers, Mr. Poe, who is already here, and Mr. Rohrabacher. I
just want to make sure that they would have enough time. But once
they're done, I would be glad to yield you the time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Sure. Why don't you take that time now.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield such time as he
may consume to my distinguished colleague from Texas, a member of our
Foreign Affairs Committee, Judge Poe, who is very cognizant of Public
Law 109-364, which already says that they will have no permanent
military bases in Iraq.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from Florida for
yielding me the time.
There has been a consistent message that has been put forth by
Congress that we are not interested in permanent bases in Iraq, but
that should not diminish our need to have a presence there at this
time. We must not jeopardize United States security interests. At issue
here is the definition of the word ``permanent.'' No one can quite
agree on what that really means.
This bill is similar to one we passed earlier when we passed language
in the supplemental on this topic. The point is, we do not intend to be
in Iraq permanently. We are not interested in Iraqi oil.
I do believe our military is stretched too thin throughout the world.
We literally have a U.S. troop presence in almost every country on the
globe, from military bases in Germany to Korea and other places in
between. Some of those bases seem like they are permanent because we
have been in those areas for so long. Our troops in those nations
remain an issue of really another debate.
The issue here is over permanent basing in Iraq. We should have
installations or naval ships in an area where our troops can quickly
deploy, and Iraq really should be no different. But we've never set out
to occupy any nation. We are not an imperial Nation. We do not intend
to violate the sovereignty of another nation by occupying it. This has
always been United States policy. The United States came to liberate,
not conquer, Iraq, and this is our policy.
In a letter one of my colleagues addressed to Chairman Peter Pace,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace was asked his
thoughts on the need to have the U.S. enter into and retain the ability
to enter into agreed military basing rights agreements with Iraq and in
Iraq. In his response, General Pace stated it's the intention of the
United States military to ``work closely with Iraq's sovereign
government to decide the terms and what foreign military forces . . .
will remain in Iraq.''
Historically, basing rights agreements have been a necessary part of
diplomatic relations with foreign governments, but they've always been
agreed to by the United States and that other nation. These agreements
outline guidelines and conditions for operating American military bases
and troops worldwide.
It is both common and responsible for the United States to enter into
temporary basing agreements with other countries hosting our troops.
This is being done in every country hosting United States troops, and
the representative Government of Iraq should not really be an
exception. And we should continue to work with them on temporary
basing, but not permanent basing.
We shouldn't somehow put Iraq in some type of different category than
we have other allies in the world, but we should make it clear that our
basing rights are only temporary. So, designating that we may have
temporary basing rights is only logical in Iraq, but a permanent
presence in Iraq is not desired. And it has been the statement of this
Congress before.
So I support this legislation.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this
legislation and salute the bill's sponsor, Barbara Lee from California,
as a courageous and clear voice in this Congress.
It's interesting listening to this debate that there seems to be no
disagreement about a resolution that will help build stability in Iraq,
as others have said. It will make clear that the U.S. is not an
occupying force, and it will deny al Qaeda a key recruiting tool.
It is also clear that we are not prohibiting a U.S. presence in the
region, even a U.S. temporary presence in Iraq. We have bases in other
neighboring countries and the Middle East, and we will have an over-
the-horizon force.
I'm really surprised that not only is the White House refusing to
follow the law, but those senior White House officials with whom I've
spoken numerous times about this issue all seem to agree we don't need
a permanent military presence, and yet, stubbornly, they refuse to make
clear that we won't have one.
Pass this resolution. Let's do the right thing. Congress, as an
article I body, needs to get this White House to follow the law.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on International Operations.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
Let me note, I have all along argued, and I think the people on our
side of the aisle have argued, that we are not in Iraq in order to have
permanent bases or any other such thing. American efforts in Iraq have
been totally based on benevolent and noble motives, and I would hope
that this is well-understood and appreciated by the people of Iraq
themselves.
The fact is that there is some confusion because, during the public
debate on what American foreign policy should be, far too often we have
heard in the hype of emotions the charges, even from people in this
body, that America is being imperialistic. I mean, that word
``imperialism'' has actually sprung up in several hearings that I've
been at as a Member of Congress. That is an insult to American military
personnel. We can honestly disagree about what's going on in Iraq
without having to debase the people of the United States of America by
claiming we're imperialists like the former empires in Russia and
Germany, et cetera.
No, I think we've been benevolent from the beginning. Our people
wanted to come in, to liberate Iraq from a bloody tyrant who
slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people. We came there to
help the people of Iraq and hopefully establish a democratic
government. Now, whether or not we succeed or not, I'm not sure. I
would hope the majority of people in Iraq appreciate that, and today,
we are reaffirming to them we are not there to have any permanent
presence.
I, in fact, will be proposing legislation this coming week which
suggests, as a sense of the House, and I would ask the Speaker of the
House to be aware of this, that we need to have a sense of the House
resolution calling on the Iraqi Government to have a referendum of
whether they want the American troops that are there today to begin an
immediate withdrawal or whether they would like American troops to stay
there until order has been restored and order has been brought to the
people of Iraq. I think that if the Iraqi people vote that we should
have an immediate withdrawal, we should go. We should go. But if the
people of Iraq decide they appreciate and want us to be there to help
them fight off radical Islamists and others who would impose their
brand of dictatorship on the people of Iraq, well, then, perhaps we
should take into consideration that the Iraqi people want us there.
So I will be proposing legislation later on in the week calling for
this referendum, and in the meantime, let us reaffirm with this
legislation that it had never been the intent of the United
[[Page H8410]]
States of America to use Iraq as a permanent base for America's
military presence in that region.
I thank you very much for your leadership, Madam Speaker. Thank you
for your leadership in this, and I appreciate you are an activist.
Since I've been in this Congress, you have always been an activist, and
we have been on the same side in that activism.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the distinguished minority leader of
the full committee is prepared to close, we have one final speaker.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, were we seen as occupiers in Haiti, in Bosnia? Do we
not, as some have said on Iraq, have a sustained military presence in
these countries? Did we not intervene in Haiti to restore democracy and
remain to prevent the increased violence?
In fact, as our distinguished Speaker, whom we'll be hearing from in
just a few moments, when she argued for a sustained U.S. deployment in
Bosnia, Speaker Pelosi said, Is the Bosnian mission without danger and
risk? No. With strong leadership there are always risks. These risks
have been minimized. They are risks for peace, risks for ending years
of bloodshed, risks for freedom. We risk far more by failing to act.
{time} 1115
We risk far more if we allow the tenuous peace to collapse and watch
the flames of war ignite again. I agreed with Speaker Pelosi then when
she said that on December 13 of 1995, and I agreed with her when she
said on September 19 of 1994, when advocating for a sustained U.S.
presence in Haiti, the Speaker said, setting a date certain for troop
withdrawal will unnecessarily endanger both our troops on the ground
and our efforts at promoting democracy in Haiti.
I say that we have no less at stake here in Iraq. The bill before us,
as we have said before, is a fine bill. We support what it seeks to do
because, in fact, it is law. It is already United States law.
We want to make sure that the Iraqi people have the same level of
commitment that we have shown to other oppressed people throughout the
world. We should not ignore the consequences of a rapid withdrawal from
Iraq in a vitally important region of the world.
But, like I have said, this is not the issue addressed in this bill.
Some have remarked about the greater issue of Iraq in their discourse
today. On the bill before us, it is already public law. We have passed
it six times in the House. It has been law three times, and we have no
objection to the bill becoming law a fourth time, a fifth time or a
sixth time.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of
our time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Speaker
Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and to
acknowledge the exceptional leadership of my colleagues from
California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey,
for their leadership on this issue, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee's
authorship of this legislation. Congresswoman Barbara Lee,
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Congressman Tom Allen, Congressman David
Price, Congresswoman Maxine Waters have all been important in the
leadership of bringing this legislation to the floor and continuing our
debate on the involvement in Iraq.
The legislation is timely and a key part of our strategy for a new
direction in Iraq. Thank you all.
I am very pleased to join our distinguished colleagues on the
minority in support of this legislation. Yes, I have had the privilege
of working with Mr. Rohrabacher, with Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen and
others, Mr. Wolf and Mr. Smith, over the years on issues that relate to
human rights throughout the world. I respect them for their leadership
in so many arenas. It has been a privilege to work with them. I am so
glad they are supporting this legislation today.
Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important for us to measure any
initiative in relationship to the war in Iraq against the backdrop of
what does this do to contribute to a vision for stability in the Middle
East, whether we are talking about no permanent bases, whether we are
talking about redeploying our troops out of Iraq, a change of mission
there, to leave troops only for specific limited purposes. This is what
the generals have told us. General Odom, for one, has said any vision
for stability in the Middle East must begin with the redeployment of
troops out of Iraq. So, too, this issue today, no permanent bases.
Yes, our colleagues are correct that this has been brought before the
Congress before and has been passed into law, but the fact is that it
may not have been heard adequately by the administration and certainly
not by the people in the region.
This legislation clearly signals that the United States does not seek
a permanent military presence in Iraq. This action is necessary to
clarify confusing and contradictory statements from the administration
regarding our Nation's long-term strategic relationship with Iraq.
In its final report, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended that
the United States clearly state that our Nation does not seek permanent
military bases in Iraq or to control Iraq's oil. It did so to help
shape ``a positive climate for . . . diplomatic efforts,'' which are
essential to ending the U.S. presence in Iraq and bringing greater
stability to the Middle East.
While the administration has previously indicated it would not seek
permanent bases in Iraq, recent statements raise contrary questions.
Administration officials have remarked that the President envisioned a
continued military presence in Iraq similar to our presence in Korea,
where U.S. forces have been stationed for more than 50 years.
The American people have made it clear in the election that they want
a new direction in Iraq that brings the troops home. The Iraqi people
and regional powers must also be reassured that the United States does
not seek to exploit Iraq either by building permanent military
facilities there or by exercising control over its oil. We can make
that statement by passing this legislation overwhelmingly today as part
of our strategy for a new direction in Iraq and for stability in the
Middle East.
The President's remarks in South Carolina yesterday were really
saddening. Just when you think you have seen it all, just when you
think you have heard it all, the President mentioned al Qaeda nearly
100 times to justify his course of action in Iraq. Let us remove all
doubt. This Congress, every single person here, is committed to fight
the war on terror, but let us not misrepresent what the troops in Iraq
are doing.
Everyone who examines the situation with the knowledge says we do not
belong in a civil war in Iraq. So, again, the President's statements
give great cause for grave concern. They crystallized why the Congress
must continue to pressure the administration to change course in Iraq.
Yet again, President Bush mischaracterized the facts on the ground in
Iraq and the latest intelligence on the real threat of international
terrorism.
Just yesterday news reports were that the administration plans a
continued substantial troop presence in Iraq through the summer of
2009; heaven knows, beyond then.
As the latest National Intelligence Estimate reveals, the war in Iraq
has not made America safer or turned the tide against terrorism. In
fact, while we have been tied down in Iraq, al Qaeda has been
regenerated, has regenerated its ability to attack the United States
while enjoying safe haven in vital areas of our ally in the war on
terrorism, Pakistan.
The President's Iraq policy is unacceptable to the American people,
and to Democrats in Congress, because it has allowed al Qaeda to regain
its footing, reinforce its numbers, and refocus on another spectacular
and deadly attack on the United States. That is why we must change
direction in Iraq and do it now before it is too late.
America cannot afford another 2 years of war in Iraq. We have already
lost more than 3,600 brave Americans to this bloody conflict. There can
be no discussion of the situation in Iraq without pausing to remember
and acknowledge the sacrifice, the courage and the patriotism of our
men and
[[Page H8411]]
women in uniform and their families who have sacrificed so much for our
country. We thank them, we honor them, and we think they deserve better
than no plan for a redeployment of troops out of Iraq.
We have lost 4 years that could have been spent bolstering Homeland
Security, strengthening counterterrorism efforts, and focusing all of
the resources at our disposal on combating the terrorist threat.
Today's vote can again make clear to the President, and to the
administration, to the American people, to the people in the Middle
East, to the people in Iraq that the American people are opposed to a
permanent military presence in Iraq.
The American people are demanding a new direction. The Democratic
Congress will go on record every day, if necessary, to register a
judgment in opposition to the course of action that the President is
taking in Iraq. The Democratic Congress will go on record every day, if
necessary, to fight for a redeployment of our forces as a central
element of a new direction strategy for Iraq.
I urge my colleagues to vote in overwhelming numbers for this
important legislation.
Again, I thank our colleagues, Congresswoman Barbara Lee,
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Congressman Tom Allen, Congresswoman Maxine
Waters, and Congressman David Price and all the others who played such
an important role in bringing this legislation to the floor.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of the H.R. 2929, which I voted for, and which overwhelmingly passed
the House of Representatives. This common-sense legislation limits the
use of funds to establish any military installation or base for the
purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States
Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise United States economic control over
the oil resources of Iraq.
In December 2006, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group released its
recommendations for U.S. policy in Iraq. Included in those
recommendations were two important provisions--the first advises the
President against seeking permanent military bases in Iraq and the
second encourages the Iraqi Government to take control of their own oil
resources.
Accordingly, H.R. 2929 solidifies those recommendations and sends a
very clear message to the Iraqi people that the United States is not an
occupying force. The perception that the United States plans to keep a
permanent military presence in Iraq and use its oil resources has only
fueled the insurgency and violence against our troops. That has been
exacerbated by President Bush's recent comments that our military
presence in Iraq could extend 50 years into the future. In response,
this legislation puts Congress on record opposing any permanent bases
or attempts to control Iraq's oil revenues and helps take the target
off our troops' backs.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this war. I believe it is long past time to
bring our troops home and end our involvement in this civil war.
Although our withdrawal from Iraq will not happen tomorrow, this
legislation is one way we can help put an end to our involvement today.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
distinguished Congresswoman from California, Barbara Lee for her work
on H.R. 2929, which bans permanent military bases from being
established in Iraq. She has long been a voice on ending the war in
Iraq and I commend her and the work of Congresswoman Maxine Waters and
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey for their fortitude on this issue. I would
also like to recognize Congressman Tom Allen and Congressman David
Price for their commitment and contributions to the bill.
In-line with the Iraq Study Group report, this bill would prohibit
the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases. It would also
prohibit the United States from exercising control over Iraqi oil
resources. This bill signals a larger issue and bigger picture--our
presence in Iraq is not permanent. Let it be clear to the Bush
Administration and the Iraqi people that this Congress will not support
an open-ended military occupation in Iraq.
The American people have spoken. The American Congress has acted. If
necessary, we will go on the record everyday until we bring the troops
home--we owe it to them and their families. I am proud to support this
bill and I urge my colleagues to join me.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.
This week, the White House announced that it foresees American troops
in Iraq into at least 2009, and the President has even gone so far as
to suggest that our presence in Iraq may evolve to look like our
presence in South Korea. We've had troops stationed in South Korea--on
permanent bases--for over 50 years. This resolution says clearly to the
President and the people of Iraq that we will not turn our temporary
presence in Iraq into a permanent one. The Congress should take
whatever additional measures are necessary to ensure that no funds are
expended for the construction of permanent bases in that country, and
to that end I urge my colleagues to vote for this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2929.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________