[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 130 (Wednesday, September 5, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10138-H10145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1815
                           SITUATION IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sires). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tone and the statement of our 
colleague who just completed his hour and was talking about what our 
country can do when we pull together. Over the next hour, I believe 
that several Members of the Republican Conference here in the House of 
Representatives will come down and share their perspectives gained, 
many of them from physically going to Iraq or Afghanistan, or both, 
during the recent August district work period when Members were back in 
their district and allowed to travel to give firsthand accounts of what 
they learned and their meetings with General Petraeus and Ambassador 
Crocker and others, and a real up-to-date report on the situation in 
Iraq.
  But I do agree with the gentleman in his closing comments that we 
must as a Nation take ownership again of certain things not even in a 
bipartisan way but in a nonpartisan way because these are America's 
problems. They are not Republican or Democratic problems. And frankly, 
as much as some people would like to say it or believe it or use it for 
political purposes, this is not President Bush's war; this is America's 
fight. President Bush and Vice President Cheney will be gone in just a 
little over a year. The problems will not go away. The threats will 
still be here. The challenges of this generation to answer our 
patriotic call to this Nation, to answer our responsibility in 
sacrifice and service will continue, I believe, for some time.
  I did not go to Iraq in August, but my nephew did. Specialist Jeffrey 
Watts is now serving his country as a soldier in Iraq for the next 15 
months as part of the 1-181st Field Artillery Brigade. I heard the 
gentleman from Minnesota talk about the deployments. What I was 
fascinated by when I was with the 1-181st earlier this summer as they 
shipped out to Fort Bliss to train to go to Iraq, is how many members 
of the 1-181st, and this is a National Guard unit, also deployed with 
the 278th from our Tennessee National Guard a year and a half ago and 
came back and redeployed with the 1-181st. They didn't have to but did; 
and how many vice versa went before, many of them because they are 
volunteering to serve their country in harm's way. In harm's way, big 
harm's way, because they love the opportunity to serve their country. 
They are incredibly selfless patriots of the highest order, and I do 
think this House comes together in praise of these valiant Americans 
who understand that freedom is not free and that somebody has to stand 
between a real threat and our civilian population, and that is what 
they are doing.

[[Page H10139]]

  General Petraeus will be here next Monday with Ambassador Crocker to 
give us an update. Everybody is anticipating that, and you have this 
review and that review and these stats and those stats. And even the 
Government Accountability Office is heavily involved, as if they 
somehow supervise the Pentagon. But I think it is important for us all 
to prepare to listen objectively next Monday because I think you are 
hearing in a bipartisan way, Members like the gentleman from Washington 
State from the Democratic side who recently came back and clearly said 
much progress has been made. This Petraeus plan is working.
  The guy who understands this insurgency threat more than anyone in 
our military and therefore anyone in the world is leading a new 
approach in Iraq. And the report will come beginning next week. And if 
we are objective, I think we will support his recommendations. If we 
are not objective and we have a political bias or an agenda, we may 
reject it.
  Some of his words in anticipation of next week are already out. He 
talks about the extraordinary progress in the Anbar Province. General 
Petraeus says that was the result not of military actions certainly 
alone, it was the result of really a political shift where the 
population, led by the sheikhs of major tribes, decided to reject al 
Qaeda and its Taliban-like ideological behavior and the extremist 
behavior that they have come to associate with it.
  He said: ``That is what brought the level of violence down so 
dramatically, because al Qaeda no longer finds a hospitable place in 
the Euphrates River valley the way it certainly did in the past. We 
have been banging away at al Qaeda for years, but until we could hold 
them off with the help of the local population and local volunteers, 
those operations were never as meaningful as they have been in recent 
months. That is what we are trying to do in other locations in Iraq. 
That has also led to a rise in the detainee population over the last 6 
months as more al Qaeda operatives have been caught. And while there is 
always a concern that they will gain strength, the pool of potential 
recruits has actually shrunk. Their sanctuaries have shrunk 
considerably so they don't have the ease of locations and movements 
where they are safe the way they were before. Clearly there is real 
progress being made. War is an ugly thing. It is always an ugly thing. 
It is not perfect, but great progress is being made.''
  Now, I am going to take the time before I introduce the gentlelady 
from Virginia and others that will come to read an opinion from a 
German journalist about Iraq that was in the Wall Street Journal last 
Monday and then submit it for the Record. Josef Joffee. He says:
  ``In contrast to President Bush's dark comparison between Iraq and 
the bloody aftermath of the Vietnam War last week, there is another, 
comforting version of the Vietnam analogy that gained currency among 
policymakers and pundits. It goes something like this:
  ``After that last helicopter took off from the U.S. Embassy in Saigon 
32 years ago, the nasty strategic consequences then predicted did not 
in fact materialize. The `dominoes' did not fall. The Russians and 
Chinese did not take over, and America remained number one in Southeast 
Asia and in the world.
  ``But alas, cut-and-run from Iraq will not have the same 
serendipitous aftermath, because Iraq is not at all like Vietnam.
  ``Unlike Iraq, Vietnam was a peripheral arena of the Cold War. 
Strategic resources like oil were not at stake and neither were bases. 
In the global hierarchy of power, Vietnam was a pawn, not a pillar, and 
the decisive battle lines at the time were drawn in Europe, not in 
Southeast Asia.
  ``The Middle East, by contrast, was always the `elephant path of 
history' as Israel's fabled defense minister, Moshe Dayan, put it. 
Legions of conquerors have marched up and down the Levant, and from 
Alexander's Macedonia all of the way to India. Other prominent visitors 
were Julius Caesar, Napoleon and the German Wehrmact.
  ``This is not just ancient history. Today, the great Middle East is a 
caldron even Macbeth's witches would be terrified to touch. The world's 
worst political and religious pathologies, combined with oil and gas, 
terrorism and nuclear ambitions.
  ``In short, unlike yesterday's Vietnam, the greater Middle East is 
the central strategic arena of the 21st century, as Europe was in the 
20th century. This is where three continents--Europe, Asia and Africa--
are joined. So let's take a moment to think about what would happen 
once that last Black Hawk took off from the Baghdad International 
Airport.
  ``Here is a short list. Iran advances to No. 1, completing its 
nuclear arms program undeterred and unhindered. America's cowed Sunni 
allies--Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the oil-rich Gulfies--are drawn into the 
Khomeinist orbit.
  ``You might ask: Wouldn't they converge into a mighty anti-Tehran 
alliance instead? Think again. The local players have never managed to 
establish a regional balance of power; it was always outsiders--first 
Britain, then the U.S.--who chastened the malfeasants and blocked anti-
Western intruders like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
  ``With the U.S. gone from Iraq, emboldened jihadi forces shift to 
Afghanistan and turn it again into a bastion of Terror International. 
Syria reclaims Lebanon, which it has always labeled as a part of `Great 
Syria.' Hezbollah and Hamas, both funded and equipped by Tehran, resume 
their war against Israel. Russia, extruded from the Middle East by 
adroit Kissingerian diplomacy in the 1970s, rebuilds its anti-Western 
alliances. In Iraq, the war escalates, unleashing even more torrents of 
refugees and provoking outside intervention, if not partition.
  ``Now, let's look beyond the region. The Europeans will be the first 
to revise their romantic notions of multipolarity, or world governance 
by committee. For worse than an overbearing, in-your-face America is a 
weakened and demoralized one. Shall Vladimir Putin's Russia acquire a 
controlling stake? This ruthlessly revisionist power wants revenge for 
its post-Gorbachev humiliation, not responsibility.
  ``China with its fabulous riches? The Middle Kingdom is still happily 
counting its currency surpluses as it pretties up for the Olympics, but 
watch its next play if the U.S. quits the highest stakes game in Iraq. 
The message from Beijing might well read: `Move over America, the 
Western Pacific, as you call it, is our lake.'
  ``Europe? It is wealthy, populous and well-ordered. But strategic 
players, those 27 member-states of the E.U. are not. They cannot pacify 
the Middle East, stop the Iranian bomb, or keep Mr. Putin from wielding 
gas pipelines as tools of `persuasion.' When the Europeans did wade 
into the fray, as in the Balkan wars of the 1990s, they let the U.S. 
Air Force go first.
  ``Now the upside. The U.S. may have spent piles of chips foolishly, 
but it is still the richest player at the global gaming table. In the 
Bush years, the U.S. may have squandered tons of political capital, but 
then the rest of the world is not exactly making up for the shortfall.
  ``Nor has the U.S. become a `dispensable nation.' That is the most 
remarkable truth in these trying times. Its enemies from al Qaeda to 
Iran--and its rivals from Russia to China--can disrupt and defy, but 
they cannot build and lead.
  ``For all the damage to Washington's reputation, nothing of great 
import can be achieved without, let alone against, the United States. 
Can Moscow and Beijing bring peace to Palestine? Or mend a global 
financial system battered by the subprime crisis? Where are the central 
banks of Russia and China?
  ``The Bush presidency will soon be on the way out, but America is 
not. This truth has recently begun to sink in among the major 
Democratic contenders. Listen to Hillary Clinton who would leave 
`residual forces' to fight terrorism. Or to Barack Obama, who would 
stay in Iraq with an as-yet-unspecified force. Even the most leftist of 
them all, John Edwards, would keep troops around to stop genocide in 
Iraq or to prevent violence from spilling over into the neighborhood. 
And no wonder, for it might be one of them who will have to deal with 
the bitter aftermath if the U.S. slinks out of Iraq.
  ``These realists have it right. Withdrawal cannot serve America's 
interests on the day after tomorrow.

[[Page H10140]]

Friends and foes will ask: If this superpower doesn't care about the 
world's central and most dangerous stage, what will it care about?
  ``America's allies will look for insurance elsewhere. And the others 
will muse: If the police won't stay in the most critical of 
neighborhoods, why not break a few windows or just take over? The U.S. 
as `Gulliver Unbound' may have stumbled during its `unipolar' moment. 
But as giant with feet of clay, it will do worse and so will the rest 
of the world.''

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 27, 2007]

                             If Iraq Falls

                            (By Josef Joffe)

       In contrast to President Bush's dark comparison between 
     Iraq and the bloody aftermath of the Vietnam War last week, 
     there is another, comforting version of the Vietnam analogy 
     that's gained currency among policy makers and pundits. It 
     goes something like this:
       After that last helicopter took off from the U.S. embassy 
     in Saigon 32 years ago, the nasty strategic consequences then 
     predicted did not in fact materialize. The ``dominoes'' did 
     not fall, the Russians and Chinese did not take over, and 
     America remained No. 1 in Southeast Asia and in the world.
       But alas, cut-and-run from Iraq will not have the same 
     serendipitous aftermath, because Iraq is not at all like 
     Vietnam.
       Unlike Iraq, Vietnam was a peripheral arena of the Cold 
     War. Strategic resources like oil were not at stake, and 
     neither were bases (OK, Moscow obtained access to Da Nang and 
     Cam Ranh Bay for a while). In the global hierarchy of power, 
     Vietnam was a pawn, not a pillar, and the decisive battle 
     lines at the time were drawn in Europe, not in Southeast 
     Asia.
       The Middle East, by contrast, was always the ``elephant 
     path of history,'' as Israel's fabled defense minister, Moshe 
     Dayan, put it. Legions of conquerors have marched up and down 
     the Levant, and from Alexander's Macedonia all the way to 
     India. Other prominent visitors were Julius Caesar, Napoleon 
     and the German Wehrmacht.
       This is not just ancient history. Today, the Greater Middle 
     East is a cauldron even Macbeth's witches would be terrified 
     to touch. The world's worst political and religious 
     pathologies combine with oil and gas, terrorism and nuclear 
     ambitions.
       In short, unlike yesterday's Vietnam, the Greater Middle 
     East (including Turkey) is the central strategic arena of the 
     21st century, as Europe was in the 20th. This is where three 
     continents--Europe, Asia, and Africa--are joined. So let's 
     take a moment to think about what would happen once that last 
     Blackhawk took off from Baghdad International.
       Here is a short list. Iran advances to No. 1, completing 
     its nuclear-arms program undeterred and unhindered.
       America's cowed Sunni allies--Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, the 
     oil-rich ``Gulfies''--are drawn into the Khomeinist orbit.
       You might ask: Wouldn't they converge in a mighty anti-
     Tehran alliance instead? Think again. The local players have 
     never managed to establish a regional balance of power; it 
     was always outsiders--first Britain, then the U.S.--who 
     chastened the malfeasants and blocked anti-Western intruders 
     like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
       With the U.S. gone from Iraq, emboldened jihadi forces 
     shift to Afghanistan and turn it again into a bastion of 
     Terror International. Syria reclaims Lebanon, which it has 
     always labeled as a part of ``Great Syria.'' Hezbollah and 
     Hamas, both funded and equipped by Tehran, resume their war 
     against Israel. Russia, extruded from the Middle East by 
     adroit Kissingerian diplomacy in the 1970s, rebuilds its 
     anti-Western alliances. In Iraq, the war escalates, 
     unleashing even more torrents of refugees and provoking 
     outside intervention, if not partition.
       Now, let's look beyond the region. The Europeans will be 
     the first to revise their romantic notions of multipolarity, 
     or world governance by committee. For worse than an 
     overbearing, in-your-face America is a weakened and 
     demoralized one. Shall Vladimir Putin's Russia acquire a 
     controlling stake? This ruthlessly revisionist power wants 
     revenge for its post-Gorbachev humiliation, not 
     responsibility.
       China with its fabulous riches? The Middle Kingdom is still 
     happily counting its currency surpluses as it pretties up its 
     act for the 2008 Olympics, but watch its next play if the 
     U.S. quits the highest stakes game in Iraq. The message from 
     Beijing might well read: ``Move over America, the Western 
     Pacific, as you call it, is our lake.''
       Europe? It is wealthy, populous and well-ordered. But 
     strategic players those 27 member-states of the E.U. are not. 
     They cannot pacify the Middle East, stop the Iranian bomb or 
     keep Mr. Putin from wielding gas pipelines as tools of 
     ``persuasion.'' When the Europeans did wade into the fray, as 
     in the Balkan wars of the 1990s, they let the U.S. Air Force 
     go first.
       Now to the upside. The U.S. may have spent piles of chips 
     foolishly, but it is still the richest player at the global 
     gaming table. In the Bush years, the U.S. may have squandered 
     tons of political capital, but then the rest of the world is 
     not exactly making up for the shortfall.
       Nor has the U.S. become a ``dispensable nation.'' That is 
     the most remarkable truth in these trying times. Its enemies 
     from al Qaeda to Iran--and its rivals from Russia to China--
     can disrupt and defy, but they cannot build and lead.
       For all the damage to Washington's reputation, nothing of 
     great import can be achieved without, let alone against, the 
     U.S. Can Moscow and Beijing bring peace to Palestine? Or mend 
     a global financial system battered by the subprime crisis? 
     Where are the central banks of Russia and China?
       The Bush presidency will soon be on the way out, but 
     America is not. This truth has recently begun to sink in 
     among the major Democratic contenders. Listen to Hillary 
     Clinton, who would leave ``residual forces'' to fight 
     terrorism. Or to Barack Obama, who would stay in Iraq with an 
     as-yet-unspecified force. Even the most leftish of them all, 
     John Edwards, would keep troops around to stop genocide in 
     Iraq or to prevent violence from spilling over into the 
     neighborhood. And no wonder, for it might be one of them who 
     will have to deal with the bitter aftermath if the U.S. 
     slinks out of Iraq.
       These realists have it right. Withdrawal cannot serve 
     America's interests on the day after tomorrow. Friends and 
     foes will ask: If this superpower doesn't care about the 
     world's central and most dangerous stage--what will it care 
     about?
       America's allies will look for insurance elsewhere. And the 
     others will muse: If the police won't stay in this most 
     critical of neighborhoods, why not break a few windows, or 
     just take over? The U.S. as ``Gulliver Unbound'' may have 
     stumbled during its ``unipolar'' moment. But as giant with 
     feet of clay, it will do worse: and so will the rest of the 
     world.

  I think that says it pretty well from a German journalist about our 
commitment in Iraq, what the stakes are, what will happen if we are to, 
as our Democratic colleague said, precipitously withdraw from Iraq.
  We all want our troops home. I want my nephew home, but not until it 
is in our national interest for us to draw down troops on the timeline 
that secures our liberty and protects our people and our place in the 
world. And that is what is at stake.
  I want to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. 
Drake), a member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Tennessee for having this hour this evening where we can 
come and tell you what our observations are about Iraq. And also, I 
would like to thank his family for the service of his nephew. I know he 
is in our thoughts and prayers for his safe return. I would also like 
to thank really the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have loved 
ones who are serving. I would like to thank the very brave men and 
women who are serving around the world for us today.

                              {time}  1830

  They truly understand the threat in the world, and they understand 
the consequences if we were to just pull out, and I think this is one 
of the most overwhelming things.
  When you do make a trip like ours this year, it was my third trip 
into Iraq, and this year was my first trip into Afghanistan, but when 
you arrive in these Nations, the most overwhelming feeling immediately 
is that every single one of the young men and women that you're looking 
at serving in the U.S. military have volunteered to serve our Nation, 
and that is an incredible feeling.
  The first thing that we did on our trip, it was very early August, we 
went into a neighborhood north of Baghdad. There was six of us on the 
trip, and we had the opportunity to meet with four Iraqi sheiks, two 
Sunni and two Shia. Now, like most Americans, I think I was of the 
impression that Sunni and Shia would never even speak to each other, 
much less work together to rid Iraq, their neighborhood, of the enemy. 
Well, they were in that room together and they sat Sunni, Shia, Sunni, 
Shia, as they talked to us about what they've done.
  And the reason for what they've done, of course, is the incredible 
amount of violence that is taking place in Iraq against Iraqi 
civilians, executions, torture, and it's brought those sheiks into a 
position to join together for their neighborhood, for their region and, 
as they told us, for Iraq, that they did what they did for Iraq. They 
joined with our military. They worked together for 2\1/2\ months, and 
when they were ready, combined with our military, these four sheiks and 
their citizens ridded that neighborhood of the enemy in only 4 days' 
time. They were so proud of themselves.

[[Page H10141]]

  They told us repeatedly how their children could go out and play. Our 
military told us that this was the most dangerous street in northern 
Baghdad, the most IED attacks of all of Baghdad. They told us that they 
can go out and walk to the store now because of what's taken place.
  What the incredible change that you're seeing in Iraq right now is 
that our military is helping local leaders to develop the capacity to 
govern at that very local level, the most important area, and to work 
on a regional level to bring that about.
  Now, those sheiks are a little bit disappointed in their national 
government. I asked them about the Sunni members who had walked out of 
the government. Their answer is my favorite quote of the entire trip, 
and the quote was, they won't be reelected. I thought that's quick that 
they learned that.
  They're extremely concerned about the involvement of Iran and Syria. 
Our military knows full well of the involvement of those two 
governments and weapons that are coming in and help that's being 
provided. They need services. Our military brought in the governor of 
Baghdad to look at their neighborhood and to see what could be done 
differently.
  They also were very clear that they want their government to succeed, 
and they were very clear in telling us that they need our help and they 
want our help.
  We also met with the Deputy Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister 
Barham Shala, who is a Kurd. The Iraqi Government, and we don't ever 
talk about this, is set up, when your prime minister is the Shia, your 
two deputies, one's a Kurd and one's a Sunni. Your president is a Kurd, 
so your vice presidents are Sunni and Shia so that you bring in all 
three together to be able to have the involvement of all three sects 
within the country. It's not just one person telling you what to do.
  Of course, the Deputy Prime Minister expressed a little bit of 
disappointment in how far the national government had come. There were 
meetings that were taking place even while we were there. He was very 
clear, and I thought this was very important, that he said their focus 
is to establish the institutions of government so that their government 
would continue, regardless of who was in power, and that no one would 
be able to just grab power and do something different in Iraq, but that 
they form a stable government just like here in the U.S.
  When we had a shift in January from Republican control to Democrat 
control, there was no change in the way our government functions. Our 
courts functioned, and actually, Admiral Fallon, in addressing the 
Senate just recently, made the same types of comments, how important it 
is that we set up a rule of law, that we protect human rights.
  So I was encouraged to hear him talking about that. He did stress 
that it was going to take time, and I asked him, because it's been very 
important here to us in America and our benchmarks, that there are 
pieces of legislation that we want the Iraqi Parliament to pass. And I 
asked him if it was true that he actually had the votes to pass that 
legislation. His answer surprised me. He said, Oh, yes. He said, I have 
75 percent approval for the legislation. I reminded him that in America 
we pass major pieces of legislation with one vote.
  But he looked at me and said something critically important. He said, 
if I pass this legislation with 75 percent, it means I've cut out the 
Sunni from the government. They would feel they had no power and they 
would feel they had no voice.
  Now, just today in the Armed Services Committee, we received the GAO 
report on Iraq and the status of these 18 benchmarks. About six of the 
benchmarks deal with legislation that we'd like to see passed, and we 
failed on that, that that legislation has not passed, as we all know. 
But there was another benchmark that was stressed in it, that there be 
political involvement of minority parties and minority rights be 
protected. Now, we've passed on that benchmark, but I would say to the 
gentleman from Tennessee, to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we had passed 
that legislation against the wishes of an entire group of people, that 
we would have failed in meeting the benchmark that minority parties be 
included.
  He talked to us about Anbar and about how it's been stabilized. Our 
trip was due to go there, and we weren't able to because we were 
detained here in Washington for that extra day. But he talked to us as 
well about the $10 billion that's been appropriated by the Iraq 
Parliament for reconstruction efforts. That joins with the 60 countries 
that have joined with America in our reconstruction efforts there. 
There is $200 million that's been appropriated to use just in Anbar 
province, and those contracts are now being let because the security 
level there will allow those construction projects to go forward.
  I'd also like to add that we do have a policy in Iraq, and that's 
called Iraqis First. Whether you're an Iraqi company or you're an Iraqi 
civilian, that if you're able to be hired by us, that we want to hire 
Iraqi first.
  The Deputy Prime Minister was clear that they are a country in 
transition, and he did caution us that they would not meet their 
benchmarks by September 15, but I would really want us to focus on not 
did we meet 18 benchmarks but what are the goals and what are the 
objectives and how do we develop a fully functioning Iraqi Government 
and how do those benchmarks play into that, how do they make 
responsible decisions there like I think they just did in not forcing 
legislation that would have cut an entire section of their country out.
  I think that's critically important. We all support benchmarks, but 
we want those benchmarks to reflect achieving the goals that we've set, 
and we want to show where are those positive developments, and people 
are frustrated when they don't hear them, when American people don't 
hear of the progress that's being made or four sheiks coming together 
to stabilize their own region and asking that we not leave them and 
that we give them their help.

  We did meet with General Petraeus. We met with Ambassador Crocker. We 
will receive their report on Monday. I know you have others who are 
here to talk. I just wanted to close by talking about the last thing we 
did that day.
  We met with Iraqi security forces, and they were actually special 
ops. They were so impressive that I would have thought I was here in 
the U.S. watching special operation forces do a demonstration. Our 
military was very clear that they are very easy to train, and the good 
news that we haven't heard is that these Iraqi forces are able to train 
their new recruits that are coming in. I want you to know they were so 
proud of themselves.
  Think of the risk to those men who are serving in Iraqi security 
forces. In our country, we know our men and women are in harm's way. 
That's painful for us as Americans, to have our men and women in harm's 
way defending this Nation. But in Iraq right now, anyone who joins the 
Iraqi security forces is in harm's way simply for joining, not in the 
threat of battle but simply for joining.
  So I want to thank you for letting me tell you about them, tell you 
about what I saw on our trip to Iraq. It was critical for me to see 
Afghanistan for the first time because there's a lot of similarities in 
Afghanistan. We're doing the same thing.
  We are looking at the local level now. We understand that that's the 
way we need to win this fight, but the change that's come about is like 
you have seen in Iraq, where local leaders join with us. Remember, they 
have to make a choice. Are they with us and their national government 
or are they with the Taliban in Afghanistan or with the al Qaeda in 
Iraq.
  And they have to make the right choice, because if they make the 
wrong one, they're dead. And what's the message that we've sent to the 
world is that we're going to leave? How do you choose us if we're going 
to leave and you would be left there with an enemy? It's critical that 
we establish political, economic and security measures in Iraq so that 
this nation can function, can establish a government that will take 
them into the future and not just short term.
  I did ask one question, and your article made me think about it, in 
armed services not long ago. We had witnesses come and talk about the 
National Intelligence Estimate, and my question to them was what would 
be the impact

[[Page H10142]]

on America if we were to leave, if we were to have done everything that 
we've done but if we were to leave before that government can govern 
itself, secure itself and develop itself economically? What would be 
our standing in the world? Would we be a paper tiger? What would our 
allies think of us? And would anyone ever trust us in the future?
  The answer to me was we haven't studied that issue. Well, I think not 
only do we need to study the issue. We need to make sure that Iraq has 
made such progress that I've seen in my three trips. We need to make 
sure that these people aren't the victims of the violence that will 
take place. The Deputy Prime Minister pointed that out to us. He told 
us the consequences that would happen if we were to leave. He told us 
that Iraq is the heart of the Middle East and that everyone is watching 
what we we're doing.
  So thank you for letting me join you tonight and thank you for the 
service of your nephew.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her service to the 
Commonwealth of Virginia and to this great Nation of ours on the Armed 
Services Committee and for going and bringing us that unique insight.
  As I prepare to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, let me say I 
think part of the equation for the Congress in a responsible, objective 
way in the days ahead is to remember that this is not all about Iraq. 
It is about the bigger picture with the global threat of the jihadists, 
the most radical elements of Islam, and the way that they are spreading 
their influence around the world outside even of the Middle East. I 
think we have to really understand that to know what the stakes are 
associated with the precipitous withdrawal or anything that is 
perceived to be a retreat.
  These are real problems. It's easy to say, oh, George Bush got us 
into this war with flawed intelligence. It's also easy to forget that 
over half of the Democrats in the United States Senate voted to remove 
Saddam Hussein by force and almost half the Democrats in the House of 
Representatives voted to remove Saddam Hussein by force based on the 
very same knowledge and understanding that the executive branch had 
about what the threats were, and we made that decision as Americans.
  It is really unfortunate today that decisions and responsibility for 
those decisions now end up being peeled off as partisan issues instead 
of, we do these things together, we stand together, we stand behind our 
troops together, we stand behind their mission together.
  We had Members like Ralph Hall of Texas come back and say to a person 
the men and women in uniform told him while he was there that we should 
stay and finish what we started and not leave until we can successfully 
complete this mission. And you say, well, what is that and when will we 
know? Objectively, you're getting that report and it's much more 
positive than it was, and the stakes for leaving are incredibly high.
  If you don't believe the influence of the radical Islamists around 
the world, I would encourage you to read Mark Steyn's book, ``America 
Alone,'' where he lays out what's happened in Europe and the influence 
with the global sharia, which is a call to Islamic law, and the 
intimidation and the threat around the world, or even this new book 
called ``Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World,'' 
by J. Miller Burke. He wrote this book exposing the connection between 
the Saudi royal family and terrorism through these charities that they 
set up and funnel money.
  It reminded me of the Oil-for-Food scandal at the United States where 
Saddam Hussein corrupted the United Nations.

                              {time}  1845

  All of the corruption that exists through this radical effort, 
because this book that lays all this out can't be bought today. It has 
vanished from all of the Amazons. It has vanished from the availability 
of Barnes & Noble to find the book. What happened to it?
  Well, through intimidation and money, they have taken this 
information out of circulation so the people can't see these 
connections.
  They literally tie him, this man, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, to the 
charity that he set up to fund bin Laden with Saudi royal family money, 
and then when they published the book, it vanished. You can't get it. 
You can't go buy it.
  Mark Steyn lays out, this is the kind of work that the radical Wahabi 
sect, the al Qaeda operatives, are doing in the world. They have 
infiltrated and corrupted, and we are like boiling frogs if we deny any 
longer how this threat is overtaking the free world. America Alone's 
premise is they've already got Europe and frankly Australia is really 
the only nation standing with us like they need to.
  This is a growing global imminent threat. If we pull out, it will 
rapidly deteriorate in the world. Our credibility will be lost for 
generations. We may never regain it. Those are the stakes. That's 
bigger than Iraq. Iraq is one chapter in this long-term gener-
ational struggle for our freedom. The sooner we realize it, the better 
we are.
  I went and spoke to kids in schools in August, and they asked the 
question about, well, Afghanistan and the Taliban attacked us, but 
Saddam Hussein in Iraq didn't attack us. Why did we go there?
  The lesson of history is Germany didn't attack us, either. Japan 
attacked us. Germany didn't attack us. But did we ignore the threat of 
Nazi Germany? No. Our men stormed the beaches of Omaha and liberated 
Normandy and Omaha Beach, and liberated Europe, so that our way of life 
could be preserved. Sometimes they forget that, but that's American 
leadership. This is very, very similar to that.
  Are we going to exert it in a world in what this editorial calls the 
caldron, you know, of the worst political and religious pathology in 
the history of the world in the Middle East? This is the central stage. 
We cannot retreat from this without us really, really taking a global 
hit.
  The next president is going to inherit the responsibility of doing 
this, of carrying this forward.
  I want to yield to the statesman from Georgia, a physician, a healer, 
a man with a great heart but a strong back, also a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, Dr. Phil Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Tennessee, Zach 
Wamp, for, first of all, conducting this special order hour, leadership 
hour on the Republican side, and for allowing me and my colleague and 
great friend from Virginia, Thelma Drake, for being part of that. Doug 
Lamborn, the gentleman from Colorado, I think, has joined us.
  Mr. Speaker, I was on the trip with Thelma Drake from Virginia when 
we visited Iraq and Afghanistan, and I am not going to repeat 
everything that she said, but I want my colleagues to know that this 
was my fourth trip to Iraq, my first opportunity to go to Afghanistan.
  But this was a necessity that I go this fourth time. I think some 40 
or 50 Members of the Congress during the so-called August recess spent 
5 to 7 days in the Middle East and the combat zone in 120-degree 
weather.
  Those of us on the Armed Services Committee, I am sure, felt duty 
bound to do this, particularly as we approach the report from General 
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker that's going to be delivered to the 
House on next Monday, September 10.
  I have been four times, but this was the most meaningful visit, 
because I came to a realization, really, actually, it emboldened my 
feeling that we need to give victory a chance. Again, I want to thank 
Zach Wamp, the gentleman from Tennessee, for the passion that he brings 
to this issue. I thought he was just an expert on energy, but he is 
also an expert on national defense, more important, the global war on 
terror, as he so passionately explains this issue.
  I was on the floor last night during some of our special order time, 
5-minute speeches and the two sides, the Democratic majority has an 
hour and the Republican minority has an hour. I heard one of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, a gentleman from Maryland, 
talking about losing a soldier, a 22-year-old brave patriot in his 
district, and he talked with the mom and was trying to, of course, 
console her.
  The gentleman said on the floor last night, you know, it was sort of 
ironic, the mom of the fallen soldier said, isn't it ironic, I am here 
planning my son's

[[Page H10143]]

funeral and the Commander in Chief is planning a wedding.
  That's not the kind of commentary that we need on the floor of this 
House to suggest that the Commander in Chief doesn't care, that he has 
got his head in the sand and that each and every one of these 3,700 or 
so KIAs and 18,000 of our best and bravest that have sustained, in some 
instances, massive injuries, if you don't think that the Commander in 
Chief goes to bed every night with this on his heart, then you are just 
flat wrong.
  I think the gentleman, on more reflection, would agree with what I am 
saying. This President cares. This Commander in Chief cares. He wants 
to give victory a chance.
  It's not a matter of staying the course and same old same old, the 
Iraq Study Group, the gentleman from Indiana, the long-serving 
distinguished Democrat, 37 years in this body, and Ambassador Baker, 
Secretary Baker, served under three Republican Presidents, you have got 
two people that made some suggestions. One of the main suggestions that 
they made was we need a surge, we need more troops, especially in and 
around Baghdad, and those four provinces, where all of the violence, 
most of the violence, 95 percent of it, is occurring. This is exactly 
what the President responded to.
  What did we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle? Oh, 
well, you know, too little, too late.
  Yet, you know, 3 or 4 years ago it was, well, you're not putting 
enough troops in there to do the job, you didn't listen to General 
Shinseki, it's a constant pulling the rug out from under the combatant 
commanders, and we see 435 people that want to be Commander in Chief. 
It just doesn't work that way.
  In the Democratic special hour last night, after we talked about our 
experience in Iraq and these recent trips, the team on the Democratic 
side said, you know, we can't afford to spend this money. We've almost 
spent $1 trillion trying to win this global war on terror, and we need 
to be spending this money to repair bridges, to give more money to the 
gulf coast, to maybe even give more money than a 300 percent increase 
in the SCHIP program to cover every man, woman and child from cradle-
to-grave with universal health care.
  Even if I were for some of those things, I will tell you this, you 
spend that money on those things, and you don't protect our people from 
global terrorism, then you will see, in a New York minute, how quick 
that money would go down the toilet as these people blow up this 
infrastructure, just like they did 9/11, almost 6 years ago now, and 
killed 3,300, almost the same number, that we have lost in Iraq and 
Afghanistan over a 4-year period. They killed them within a period of 
45 minutes.
  Mr. WAMP. That reminds me, today, yet another terrorist plot coming 
out of Germany, preparing to attack our Air Force base in Germany and 
soft targets of just public places in Germany where Americans are known 
to hang out was foiled, thankfully. The German authorities were on top 
of it.
  That is a major, major terrorist attack again. We see this over and 
over again, thankfully, you know. God has spared us, our intelligence 
is working, we are listening. Because of FISA, we are able to listen to 
foreign terrorists talk to each other. We've taken the precautions.
  Then I have this theory that they don't want to strike us right now 
because they don't want our country to pull back together again and be 
resolute against this threat, so that those things, combined, have kept 
our country secure and safe at home while we are fighting these 
insurgents and these terrorists in the Middle East.
  We're going to be fighting them somewhere. If it's not in Iraq, it's 
going to be Somalia, Northern Africa. I can go through a list of the 
troubling places in the world where we're going to face these kinds of 
problems and activities, and there are 20 countries that are at risk 
around the world for big-time terrorist actions like the Taliban came 
out of Afghanistan, and we can either basically stand against this 
threat today or face it globally and more at home tomorrow. That's not 
a threat. It's reality. In Germany today it was proven again they are 
trying to hit our targets wherever they are.
  Mr. GINGREY. I am so glad the gentleman brought that up, because what 
he is talking about, and I commend to all my colleagues, read the 
article, these were three, in one case, I think, a citizen of Germany, 
maybe of Islamic descent, but a German citizen, and not only were they 
planning on attacking Frankfurt, where most people fly into when they 
go into Western Europe, certainly from this country, but also, and I 
know the gentleman is aware of this, their plan was to attack Ramstein 
Air Force Base and the Landstuhl European Army Medical Center where 
every one of these troops, our troops, that are injured so severely, 
and our great physicians on the battlefield are able to save their 
lives to get them through Ramstein Air Force Base to that Landstuhl 
Army Medical Center there just a few miles away, and that's what they 
were going to attack.
  Mr. WAMP. The lowest of the low who would attack your wounded and 
injured.
  Mr. GINGREY. The lowest of the low.
  Of course, I know we want to yield to our friend from Colorado, and 
we will hear from him in just a second, but as I conclude my remarks, I 
just want to say, and Mrs. Thelma Drake, the gentlewoman from Virginia 
mentioned this a little earlier, we had a report today in the House 
Armed Services Committee, a report that was requested by Congress in 
our last emergency supplemental, from the Government Accountability 
Office, the GAO, on these benchmarks, and the Comptroller General 
talked about the progress. Really, he talked mainly about lack of 
progress, and it was ironic that even though several of those 
benchmarks, we had made some progress, he pretty much gave the Iraqi 
government a failing report card.
  I think that is disappointing here, just a matter of a few days prior 
to General Petraeus' report.
  He even suggested that while General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker 
are highly professional and we would get a professional report from 
them, we would not get an unbiased report. The only unbiased report was 
coming from him and from the Government Accountability Office.
  I suggested to him, during that hearing, you know, you might be 
unbiased, but your ability to interpret what you see on the ground 
certainly militarily may not come even close to General Petraeus and 
Ambassador Crocker. So let's wait for the report, let's give victory a 
chance. That's what I want to say to all my colleagues. Let's button 
our lips for the rest of this week, and let's see what the report says.
  I would suggest that the President is going to listen to General 
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, and I would suggest that yes, indeed, 
the Iraqi government is making progress, that they are not making as 
fast of progress as we would hope, but we would continue to put 
pressure on them, but let's give victory a chance.
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for that commentary, especially the 
update on the hearing today from the GAO and Mr. Walker.
  I will be a little more pointed to tell you as the ranking member of 
the appropriations subcommittee that funds the GAO, and funds Mr. 
Walker's organization, that unfortunately many times, whether it is 
government spending or oversight in Iraq, a lot of what happens in his 
office revolves around him and not us.

                              {time}  1900

  It is all about him, and again today, it's all about him. He's the 
only one that somehow can be unbiased, and he's the only one that can 
do this. And there's a little kingdom over at the GAO and he's the 
king. And we need to remember that and put it in perspective this week 
before we hear from the absolute expert on counterinsurgency in modern 
world history, David Petraeus, the best we can put in charge. He's the 
best we can offer to this situation. And let's listen to him 
objectively and not get caught up in an ego matter, frankly, involving 
Mr. Walker.
  And I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, a distinguished member of 
our Veterans' Affairs Committee, a relatively new Member, but a very 
experienced and seasoned Member, Doug Lamborn.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, like many of my House colleagues, I 
traveled with a Congressional delegation to Iraq during the August 
recess, and I

[[Page H10144]]

rise now to speak about the successes that I saw and experienced 
firsthand while in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, the members of our armed services are working tirelessly 
each day and night in Iraq to rebuild this country and to ensure our 
national security. While in Iraq, I had an opportunity in Fallujah to 
meet with marines from Colorado Springs who were upbeat about the 
progress in Iraq and were certain that their accomplishments during the 
surge had produced a truly positive result. They were also equally 
concerned that people at home in the United States did not understand 
how successful they have been.
  After my visit to Iraq, I am pleased to say that I am even more sure 
than ever that their mission has not been in vain. They truly are 
making a difference for the Iraqi people and for the communities in 
which these people live.
  During our visit, we met with GEN David Petraeus who had many 
positive things to say about the progress that has been made since the 
surge began. For instance, he mentioned the elimination of safe havens 
for militia forces and al Qaeda, continued progress in Anbar province, 
progress in the operation and training of the Iraqi Army and 
encouraging signs of tactical successes in Baghdad. I look forward, 
like my colleagues here who've just spoken, to reading General 
Petraeus' report on the surge with great scrutiny when it is released 
this month.
  I'm also delighted to hear that some of my Democratic colleagues have 
realized and acknowledged that the surge is working. I plan to continue 
to work with all of my colleagues, as well as the military and the 
administration, to ensure that the sacrifice our brave men and women 
are making in Iraq is not abandoned before the mission is completed.
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman, and at this time I want to yield to 
the ranking member of the Oversight Subcommittee of the Armed Services 
Committee, the gentleman from Missouri, Todd Akin.
  Mr. AKIN. It's a pleasure to be able to join our discussion tonight 
on the subject of Iraq. I approach the subject this evening from 
several perspectives; one, as a father of a marine who is now a captain 
who has been in Iraq; also as someone who has visited Iraq a number of 
times myself, but particularly, and more recently, as the ranking 
Republican on the Oversight Committee of the Armed Services Committee. 
That is a committee that we have been hearing now, for quite a number 
of weeks, of witnesses, Republicans, Democrats, all kinds of different 
positions and people with ideas that are supposedly experts about what 
we should be doing in Iraq.
  Now, one of the things that has jumped out, after having to sit 
through hours and hours and hours of testimony, is a certain pattern. 
Every single witness, conservative, liberal, Republican, wacko one way, 
strange the other way, anybody, every single one of them, there were 
two things that they always said, and that was, the first one was, if 
we pull out rapidly, it will be, first of all, a huge blood bath of 
Iraqis killing Iraqis. We're talking about millions of people dying, 
which will, of course, all be reviewed in all the gory detail on the 
media. And second of all, the region will become extremely unstable. 
Both of those, regardless of who they were, political party, anything 
else, those were the two common themes.
  And what emerged after weeks and weeks of listening to all these 
experts was, there is no gracious, easy way for us to try and tuck our 
tail between our legs and quit. We're like the bear that's going 
through the woods. We're more than halfway there.
  The most logical, the most common sense, the most economic, the least 
loss of life course for us is to proceed forward logically and win this 
war. And there is even reason to believe that we can.
  And the strategy is becoming more and more obvious as to how that has 
to happen. The first basic principle is that our troops are doing a 
very good job in Iraq. The second basic principle is that we've fallen 
into this sort of belt line, beltway mentality thinking that America's 
greatness all came out of Washington, DC and therefore the problems 
have to be solved in Baghdad, and that's just wrong. The political 
solution in Baghdad is not working properly. Where we are having 
success is the very way that America was built 300 years ago, and it's 
being built in local communities and local cities, local towns and 
various states as they built this great Nation and the same way. That's 
what's happening over in Iraq.
  We are having very good success on the local level working with local 
sheiks, giving them a sense that it's their country, they can shape it, 
and what we need to be doing is aggressively giving those local 
governments authority and limiting the Baghdad authority to certain 
very specific items. We call that federalism in this country, and 
that's where we need to be going. We can win this, and it is the most 
inexpensive, the lowest loss of life and the very most positive results 
we can expect by just using the same principles that we found that 
built America. So I think that's where we need to be going.
  The Democrats are wrong. You can't pass a constitutional amendment 
that says everybody's going to get along with each other. Even if you 
put a gun to the head of the Iraqi Baghdad Government, they couldn't do 
that. They couldn't succeed in that.
  They're wrong in being against the surge. The surge is proving to be 
effective. It is helping us to build local governments. And they're 
wrong in the sense that everything is lost and we ought to quit. That's 
not true, and none of the witnesses suggested that it's wise for us to 
pull out precipitously.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me some time, and I appreciate the 
comments of my colleagues that understand the importance of this and 
understand terrorism.
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman from Missouri and his distinguished 
leadership as the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Let me say, before introducing the gentleman from Texas, one of the 
biggest changes that I see, not just in Iraq, but globally, is that 
finally moderate Muslims are standing up against the radicals. We're 
seeing that in country, we're seeing that in other parts of the world. 
Up until a few months ago when they saw American resolve coming 
forward, they literally were so afraid and intimidated and harassed, 
and the radicals were seizing the moment.
  Now, finally, and let me tell you, because of the sheer numbers, if 
we're ever going to really permanently throw this threat back, the 
moderate people in Islam have to lead and help us, and that's beginning 
to happen.
  A gentleman who's been to Iraq six times, Dr. Burgess from Texas, 
another physician, a healer, a member of the Commerce Committee with 
extraordinary perspective from six separate visits to Iraq in country. 
I yield him such time as he may consume, hoping to get the other 
gentleman from Texas in at some point in the next 7 minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. And I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Indeed, I did take my sixth trip to Iraq in July, a weekend trip. And 
believe it or not, it is possible to make a weekend trip to Baghdad.
  I've got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was concerned. The 10 months 
prior to my going, we've had just a litany of one bad story after 
another come out of Iraq, and I was concerned about what I was going to 
find.
  The story is a mixed story. I suspect next week when we do hear the 
report from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, we'll get a mixed 
report.
  But I've just got to tell you, it was a vastly different condition on 
the ground that I saw than what I had been led to believe I would 
encounter with reading the stories in the paper.
  Now, just over a year ago I was there. There's a lot that's changed 
in Iraq. There's a lot that's changed here at home since that year's 
time. Concerned about what I would find, and again, made the trip over 
a relatively condensed time frame, we left for Baghdad really early in 
the morning out of Kuwait City on a C-130.
  And Mr. Speaker, you always hear people criticize us on these trips. 
They say, well, you just saw what they wanted you to see. They just 
trotted out the dog-and-pony show for you and you bought it.
  But the reality is you get on a C-130, 3 or 4 or in the morning, it's 
already 90,

[[Page H10145]]

95 degrees. You're put in the back of a C-130 with troops being moved 
into one theater or another. And they don't pick the guys that happen 
to show up at the airport that morning. You go with whoever is going in 
or out of the country.
  Now, when you're on the plane, it's just too noisy and hot and dark 
to talk. But as the plane landed when we got to Baghdad and they bring 
the engines down and you can actually hear again, the soldiers that 
were around became anxious to talk to me when they found out who I was 
and why I was there.
  Most of them, it was their second or third rotation. Their 
deployments had been extended to 15 months, and most of the guys that 
were on that plane wouldn't see home again for almost a year.
  Since February, there's been a big change in how they do their job. 
They're placed alongside Iraqi soldiers in smaller groups, both in 
Baghdad and out in the provinces, and they're no longer attached to 
this larger and more protected military base. And clearly, they're 
seeing a greater amount of activity and, to a large degree, that 
concerned them.
  The fellow that was just right across from me I actually spoke with 
in some depth, and he'd been reading a book all during this hot plane 
ride for 2 hours from Kuwait City into Baghdad.
  He obviously voiced a concern. He wondered if the General Officer 
Corps even knew what they were up to, even knew what they were doing. 
He wondered if they knew what they were up against. He did complain 
about the long hours. He complained about the heat. He complained about 
being separated from his family.
  Mr. Speaker, he'd been reading a book intently while we were on the 
plane. And I asked him about this. I said, What book are you reading? 
And he said it was a book about philosophy. So I naturally assumed that 
at the end of his deployment he'd be coming home to perhaps finish 
school, or maybe he had a job waiting for him, and I asked him about 
this. And he looked at me very strangely and said, I just signed up for 
five more years.
  You know, it's that kind of ambiguity, it's that kind of enigma that 
confronts you when you're in Iraq. Things just don't add up the way you 
think that they might.
  Now, we got off that plane and we all went our separate ways. We were 
taken into the town of Ramadi. And a year ago, there would have been no 
way to go to Ramadi. We visited with the mayor.
  And again, as Mr. Akin just alluded to, the good news story coming of 
out of Iraq is the building up of those institutions of local 
government just like we have here in this country, county governments, 
city governments that are doing the really hard work. They're doing 
reconciliation at the city level, at the provincial level. If it takes 
the central government a while longer to catch up with them, I've got a 
lot of hope based on what I saw on the ground.
  But what really gives me hope is what I saw in the market in Ramadi. 
Look at the faces on these two young guys. We were just out there 
walking in the market just in an area that a year ago it had been so 
dangerous no one in their right mind would have taken us there.
  Let me just show you this other picture that gives you some idea of 
the types of thing for sale in the market. Again, it looks like a 
typical marketplace anywhere you'd find in the Middle East, Jordan or 
Saudi Arabia. A lot of stuff for sale. I don't know where the stuff 
comes from, but a lot of stuff for sale. And again, clearly the people 
who were there did not look to be particularly stressed or aggrieved. 
They looked half curious and happy to see us. In fact, the kids were 
starting school in a couple of weeks and would come up to us and ask us 
for pens and quarters. Apparently our military had given them a good 
deal of coaching on the kinds of things you can get from a codel as it 
walks through town.
  Mr. Speaker, I will conclude here and leave the remaining time to my 
friend from Texas. I will say I do believe it is in America's interest 
that we finish the job. The next 30 years will look starkly different 
if we're successful versus if we're a failure.
  I will yield back to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. I'd like to yield our final minute to Mr. Hensarling of 
Texas to close.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
the gentleman from Tennessee for leading this hour. I want to thank the 
other members of the Republican Study Committee, the House's 
conservative caucus, for lending their voice here.
  In the remaining time, I just want to make a couple of points, and 
that is, we see every night the cost of fighting this war, and it is a 
heavy cost. It's a heavy cost in terms of money and, much more 
importantly, lives. But we need to again remember the cost of losing 
this war and what that could mean and how serious the threat is.
  I was home during the August recess, got to spend time not only with 
my wife and children, but with my parents. My mother reminded me of 
something that she said from time to time, and that is, sometimes life 
is full of lousy options. And yes, fighting this war is costly. But 
losing this war could be even costlier if Iraq becomes what Afghanistan 
once was, under the Taliban, a breeding ground, a training ground for 
terrorists that are bent on hurting our country.
  And we have to remember these are people who have said they have the 
right to kill 4 million Americans. Two million of them are children and 
two of those 2 million are mine. We have to remember what the cost of 
defeat is.
  So we finally have signs for cautious optimism. We all need to have 
an open mind when the report comes in.

                          ____________________