[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.

                          ____________________