[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 139 (Wednesday, September 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10603-H10609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            MAJORITY MAKERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin this hour by talking 
about a subject that has become one of the most significant issues of 
our time. I am going to be joined by members of the freshman class or 
the Majority Makers throughout this hour to talk about Iraq.
  We have heard in recent days about what the President's idea of our 
way forward is. He has called for more money and more patience and a 
renewed commitment to U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future, 
another stay-the-course strategy that puts us on a path toward a $1 
trillion, at least 10-year presence war in Iraq. On top of that, we 
have no convincing evidence that the political reconciliation necessary 
will be achieved even after so much sacrifice on the part of our brave 
troops will be realized.
  I believe that the President's plan for Iraq amounts to an open-ended 
and dangerous commitment of American troops in Iraq and an open wallet 
from the American people to pay for it.
  The question should not be whether we keep our troops in Iraq for 10 
years. The question should be: How do we responsibly redeploy our 
troops? And how do we develop that plan that will do so while we 
continue to protect our homeland and fight against terrorists?
  On August 19, we saw in the New York Times an editorial that was 
written by seven brave U.S. soldiers. I bring this to the attention, 
Mr. Speaker, of you and all those who may be tuned in because I think 
it is important that we listen to their vantage point. And while I 
won't be reading the entire article, I will read excerpts from it. 
Again, it is August 19, the New York Times, and I would suggest that 
everybody who can take a look at the complete editorial. It is 
entitled, ``The War As We Saw It.'' And it begins:
  ``Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the 
political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, 
by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents 
for the control and support of a population.

                              {time}  1630

  To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago 
outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local 
population and win this counterinsurgency is farfetched. As responsible 
infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne 
Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press 
coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it 
has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see 
every day.''
  And then they say, in parentheses, ``Obviously these are our personal 
views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.''
  They continue:
  ``The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields 
in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered 
framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are 
offset by some failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the `battle 
space' remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is 
crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, 
al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. 
This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and 
Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi army, which have been 
trained and armed at United States taxpayers' expense.''
  And then they continue:
  ``Reports that a majority of Iraqi army commanders are now reliable 
partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that 
battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little or no influence 
over the thousands of obstinate men under them in an incoherent chain 
of command who are really loyal only to their militias.''
  They continue in this article, and they state, ``Political 
reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways 
that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the 
reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political 
sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party 
the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice 
that we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to 
please every party to this conflict, as we do now, will only ensure we 
are hated by all in the long run.''
  These brave soldiers conclude this op-ed with the following:
  ``It would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center 
stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we 
assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as 
they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather 
to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends 
without recognizing the incongruities.''
  They say, ``We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, 
we will see this mission through.''
  I share that because I think it's worth having out there for our 
consideration and our contemplation to add to the wealth of information 
that is being presented to the American people.
  I'm sad to report that since this op-ed began, they started writing 
this, during the course of writing it, one of these brave soldiers was 
shot in the head, and he is recovering. But on September 13, the 
headline in the same New York Times sadly stated, ``Skeptical But Loyal 
Soldiers Die in a Truck Crash in Iraq.'' And two of these soldiers who 
had the courage not only to go and fight for our Nation but to do 
everything they were asked to do were killed in Iraq.
  We are here today to talk about this pressing, pressing issue. The 
light that

[[Page H10604]]

has been shed on this by these soldiers should be part of the 
discussion. I am joined here on the floor right now by a couple of my 
colleagues, leaders on this issue, I know, who feel it deeply. The 
gentleman from Florida, Ron Klein, a tremendous new Member, at this 
point I am going to just yield to him for his remarks.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Thank you, Congresswoman Sutton.
  It's a pleasure to serve with you and the other 54 Members of our 
class. They call us freshmen. Some people call us freshmen. Some people 
call us majority makers. But clearly we're new Members, and I think 
that as new Members we probably have heard through some very active 
campaigns a very clear message from our communities and, that is, 
what's going on in Iraq, this is back in November, but continues to 
today, as your point is, is not working. And it's not working on a 
number of levels.
  The way I sort of focus on this is the notion that all this should be 
about the national security of the American people. This is about what 
makes us safe in our homes, our communities, our States, our country. 
And yes, we obviously have interests around the world in other places 
as well. But first and foremost, what's important to us is at home, 
that we know our families and that we are protected.
  The problem as I see it, and I think it has now been confirmed, and 
I'm on the Foreign Affairs Committee, so I've had the opportunity, as 
many of the Members of Congress have had, to get the briefings of a 
number of people, including members of the State Department and others, 
and we've all had the chance to go over and speak to the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff over at the Pentagon to get a firsthand question-and-answer 
about what the assumptions were in the surge and what the assumptions 
were in adding or subtracting military personnel and how our 
commitments were affecting the rest of our military and the rest of the 
commitments that we as Americans have internally. National Guard. I 
come from Florida. We have hurricane season, and are we at risk in 
terms of being able to respond, or anywhere in the world where our 
military is needed.
  I think it's very clear, and I think most Americans understand this, 
that al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the people that perpetrated 9/11, it 
wasn't Iraq, it was Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was not in 
Iraq at the time of September 11.
  The bottom line is Osama bin Laden is still operating. Al Qaeda is 
still operating. And it's not operating in Baghdad. Sure there are 
cells in places in Iraq, and it's up to our military, and our military 
understands its responsibilities to root them out. Those are specific 
engagements and we should find those cells and root them out.
  But al Qaeda is not limited to Iraq. They're operating in different 
parts of the world. Afghanistan is at a tipping point, as we understand 
it. Nobody, no Democrat or Republican, seems to be contesting that 
issue. Americans understand that the Taliban and al Qaeda are re-
emerging in Afghanistan. Yet, our assets, our men, our women, our 
military hardware and equipment are saddled and stuck in Iraq. That's 
not to say that there's not a terrible situation in Iraq. It is a 
terrible situation.
  But as Americans, we have to put ourselves first and say, what's in 
the best interest for America? Both here at home, and dealing with 
Afghanistan, dealing if there's a problem in Pakistan, dealing with 
Iran, dealing with North Korea. These are the potential hot spots 
around the world, where there are potential nuclear issues and things 
like that.
  My biggest concern all along, and I know I shar this with certainly 
all Members of our Democratic side, and I know many Republicans. This 
is not a Democrat-Republican issue. This is an American issue. It's 
what is the right thing to do. I think it's very clear, based on 
everything we've seen so far, is that this is not going to get resolved 
now, 6 months from now, a year from now, 5, 10 years from now, with 
just a military solution.

  Senator Lindsay Graham, a Republican from the Carolinas, was before 
our Foreign Affairs Committee today, and he said he was there. He also 
specifically said, listen, our generals are generals. He comes from a 
military background. He did work in the legal corps of our military. He 
said, but, you know, generals are not always necessarily right. Ask 
them the tough questions. I know when General Petraeus came before our 
committee and many of us listened very carefully as to what he had to 
say, many of us were not quite fully satisfied that the answers were 
consistent. On the one hand he said, yeah, we're going to draw down. On 
the other hand he's saying, we need power, we need troops, we need, you 
know, the power to make sure that everything is there. It didn't all 
sound consistent to me.
  But the bottom line is I think we need to be strategic and smart. And 
redeployment is not a question of getting everybody out immediately. 
Nobody is suggesting that among our group here today. What we are 
saying is be smart. Secure the borders. Do some things to make sure 
this doesn't spill out. Really double and triple our efforts to retrain 
the military, and there are other ideas not limited to anybody in this 
room. There are lots of generals out there, retired and active, that 
are coming up with good suggestions.
  But repackaging the stay-the-course approach, which is what is going 
on right now, is not the answer. We need to have a better answer to 
protect our men and women in the field, and protect America most 
significantly, at home and abroad.
  Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Congressman Klein.
  I couldn't agree more that we need to have that kind of a plan. And 
unfortunately, a plan for responsibly redeploying and a plan for 
dealing with the broad scope of protecting America and what's in 
America's best interest is not being offered up. In fact, it's not even 
being discussed, because we're having the same discussion that we've 
been having for years now about staying the course in Iraq.
  I would like to shift it over to my colleague from New Hampshire, 
Representative Carol Shea-Porter, who I know can shed a great deal of 
light on this as well as a member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, Congresswoman.
  I am on the Armed Services Committee and we've had many, many 
hearings on this issue. It has become very clear to me that we need a 
plan to redeploy responsibly and to start it immediately.
  First, let's go over some of the facts once again because it is a 
national security issue here. There were no Iraqis on the plane that 
day. 9/11, there were no Iraqis. But we were attacked by people who had 
been trained in Afghanistan in Osama bin Laden's group, and we needed 
to go there. We needed to go to Afghanistan. We still need to win in 
Afghanistan. But somehow or another we got diverted to Iraq, and we 
have paid the price, and the Iraqis have paid the price as well.
  We are now spending $10 billion a month, that we acknowledge, in 
Iraq. We really don't know the cost. We borrow money from Communist 
China to pay for this.
  I was a military spouse and so I'm feeling particularly protective of 
our troops. Our soldiers are exhausted. We send the same team in over 
and over again. This is an American problem, not a Republican problem 
or a Democratic problem. It's an American problem, and it calls for an 
American solution.
  Let us talk about what it looks like in Iraq right now. And I have 
been there. What it looks like right now, and it was the independent 
Jones report that verified this, and I appreciated the report very 
much, retired General Jones and his commission. What they talked about 
was 2.2 million Iraqis displaced within the borders of Iraq. Every 
single month for the past 6 months, 100,000 Iraqis have moved. They've 
left their homes, their communities, their jobs, if they had jobs, and 
they have moved.
  Now, why would 100,000 people move? Because it's not safe. It's as 
simple as that. We've had ethnic cleansing there. If you look at the 
maps that was in the Jones Commission, 2005, you could see in the 
neighborhoods in Baghdad that they were mixed, Sunni and Shiia living 
side by side. By 2007, the mixed neighborhoods are virtually gone. 
They've had ethnic cleansing. They have militias.
  People say, well, you know, take a look at this. The Sunnis have 
joined with the United States to defeat al

[[Page H10605]]

Qaeda. No, not really. What it is is an enemy of my enemy is a friend. 
What has happened here is that the Sunnis have joined with the U.S. 
right now so they can rid themselves of their enemies.
  We estimate that al Qaeda is maybe 7 to 10 percent of the violence 
there. But the reality is that most of this violence is still a civil 
war. It comes from within and it has not gotten better.
  We know that 95 percent of the children are showing terrible signs of 
post-traumatic stress syndrome disorder. We know that they have dirty 
water. We know that they have 2 hours of electricity if they're lucky.
  We know that in every way to measure standard of life, it has 
declined. Why are we still there? That's the question that all of us 
are asking. Why are we still in Iraq? And why does the President have a 
plan that says, stay. Stay for how long? Just stay. That is not 
acceptable to the American public anymore.
  I yield back to you and I thank you very much for bringing this to 
the floor today so that we can tell the American people what has really 
happened, what we have heard from independent commissions, and what the 
reality is for the people of Iraq and the people of the United States.
  I would like to add one more point which is important. Let's look at 
the American benchmarks and let's ask where America is now. Where are 
we on education? Where are we on health care? Where are we on jobs? 
Where are we on infrastructure? We have poured so much money into Iraq. 
What about American benchmarks?
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentlewoman for her excellent remarks. I 
guess the question that comes to mind when you ask where are we on 
these domestic items, where are we going to be in 10 years on these 
domestic items?
  At this point I would just like to shift it over to my great 
colleague, a new freshman Member, a majority maker who has brought a 
lot of valuable insight and knowledge to this body and on this subject, 
the Honorable Joe Courtney.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Congressman Sutton, for yielding.
  And I just want to follow up with my friend from the Armed Services 
Committee about the lack of strategic balance that presently is 
occurring right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. In late August, German 
authorities arrested three terrorists who were plotting a major attack 
on an American military installation in Germany. Where were they 
trained? Well, we know the answer. They were trained in northern 
Pakistan, in that region of the world where our own military and 
intelligence officials have identified the real threat to Europe and 
the U.S. in terms of where future hits are going to take place.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I was in Afghanistan in 
May. We had briefings from military commanders over there who have said 
that training camps are in full level of activity, and they made a flat 
prediction that we are going to see attempted attacks emanating from 
that region of the world.
  Let's step back. We have 26,000 troops in Afghanistan; 165,000 troops 
in Iraq. Is this a strategy that is really aimed at what is in the 
national interest of this country? I mean obviously if we look at just 
recent events in terms of where arrests are taking place, where the 
real training is taking place to hit Europe and the U.S., the fact of 
the matter is it is in the northern part of Pakistan, which is an area 
that the Taliban is now pretty much able to move and operate unimpeded 
because we have a dysfunctional relationship with the Pakistani 
Government and the Afghan Government is too weak to basically police 
those borders.
  And I think a lot of the debate that is taking place right now after 
the Petraeus-Crocker report, which is appropriately focused on whether 
or not the benchmarks that the Iraq Government set forth have been met 
and what is the level of wear and tear in terms of our Armed Forces, 
they are clearly important to discuss, but we also need to have an 
overall strategic vision about what is in the national interest of this 
country. And the fact is being involved at the level that we are at 
right now in a civil war in Iraq is not in America's national interest, 
and for the sake of our military families, as Congresswoman Shea-Porter 
indicated, and certainly for a safer, smarter foreign policy, we need 
to have a change in course and a redeployment.
  Over the summer the New York Times did a study on the situation right 
now in terms of the mid-level officer corps of our Armed Services, our 
ground forces. In the 2001 graduating class from West Point, which just 
completed their 5-year tour of duty, 44 percent of the class have left 
the Armed Forces. That is the highest number in three decades. People 
need to think about that in terms of what is happening to the best and 
the brightest in our military. They are voting with their feet. They 
are leaving the armed services. And many commanders from the Vietnam 
era, General Shinseki being one of them, the Army chief of staff who 
had the wisdom and vision to predict that we would need hundreds of 
thousands of troops if we were going to truly police Iraq after 
Afghanistan, have spoken all across the country about the fact that 
what's happening in Iraq today is having the same effect, same negative 
effect, on our Armed Forces that the war in Vietnam had, which is a 
hollowed-out mid-level officer corps of our armed services. It took a 
generation to recover from that, and we are now seeing, with the exodus 
that is happening right now with, again, the best and brightest of our 
West Point graduates leaving our armed services, that we, for the sake 
of our own future, ground forces and military readiness, need to have a 
change of course in Iraq.
  And Senator Webb has an amendment that's coming up, the Dwell Time 
Amendment, which will require the Armed Forces by law to make sure that 
our Armed Forces have the same amount of dwell time as they do 
deployment. I think that is an important step. I am very excited that 
it looks like we are going to get to the 60-vote number in the Senate 
and overcome a cloture, that we are going to start bringing some sanity 
back into our military and defense policy so that we don't destroy the 
greatest warfighting machine in the world.
  And I know Congressman Welch from Vermont, my neighbor to the north 
and a good Red Sox fan, is also someone who has talked a lot about this 
issue in terms of the impact on our military families, and I would be 
happy to hear from Congressman Welch from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Courtney.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't think any of us want to be here talking about 
the war because it's a tragedy, and I believe the American people have 
come to that conclusion. Whether they supported going into the war or 
they opposed going into the war, they figured out that at this point 
our military men and women have done all they can do. They toppled 
Saddam. They reported back truthfully that there were no weapons of 
mass destruction, and they allowed stability in Iraq so that Iraq had 
three democratic elections. At a certain point, it is up to the Iraqis 
to step up and build their own institutions and their own democracy. We 
obviously can help and we have some responsibility. But the American 
people, those who supported the war, those who opposed going into the 
war initially, have come to a pretty commonsense conclusion: We have 
done our job, the military has performed ably, and it is time for the 
Iraqis to take our place.
  The fundamental question that the President has put to this Congress 
and to the American people is this: Is it the proper role of the United 
States military to be refereeing a civil war? That's the question. Now, 
Republicans and Democrats in the past have been united that our 
military has a primary responsibility for defending us in fighting 
wars, not for refereeing civil wars.
  A couple of things. One, there has never been an example in the 
history of the world where a third-party military has actually refereed 
a civil war to a peaceful political and economic conclusion. There are 
examples of third-party militaries, outside militaries, coming in on 
one side and, through force of arms, imposing an outcome. But that is 
not the policy even of the Bush administration.
  Is this a civil war? Here's what is going on in Iraq right now: There 
are several different civil wars that are underway. In the south in the 
Basra region where our ally Great Britain has

[[Page H10606]]

basically taken its 44,000 troops down to 5,000 troops and redeployed 
them to a base, there are three different Shia wars going on. They're 
not fighting about democracy. They're not fighting pro- or anti-Iran 
primarily. They're not fighting about the future of Iraq as a united 
country. They are fighting about oil. It is about who is going to be in 
control of that port and that refinery in Basra.
  You then go to Kurdistan. Kurdistan has been, in effect, independent 
since 1991, Mr. Speaker, after the first Gulf War. And they have 
actually built an economy. They have outside investment coming in. They 
will not even allow the Iraqi flag to be flown in Kurdistan and are 
bent on achieving their own independence. But they want oil as well and 
are threatening, and they have an independent military, the Peshmurga, 
to take significant forceful action if they don't, from their 
perspective, get their share of oil in the Kirkuk region.
  Then you have Baghdad. Baghdad has been the site of the most extreme 
ethnic cleansing. Before the fall o Saddam, Baghdad had 65 percent 
population that was Sunni. That was the seat of Saddam's power. Now it 
is 75 percent Shia.

  A neighborhood that I visited, Mr. Courtney, when I was with a 
delegation to Iraq, the Dora neighborhood, had previously been Sunni 
and was now Shia, and peace came about basically by displacing the 
people who used to be there and putting new people in.
  And the overall dislocation in Iraq is astonishing, as you mentioned, 
my friend from New Hampshire: 2 million Iraqis displaced internally, 2 
million exiled; 4 million people already, about 60,000 a month, are 
affected by this. And that is the equivalent in the United States, 20 
percent of our population or about 50 million people. Think about it if 
50 million people were displaced, either thrown out of the country or 
fleeing the country or had to move from Texas to Vermont or Vermont to 
New York because of force and fear.
  Then you have the provinces around Baghdad. The Sunni Triangle, 
Anbar, Diyala, a couple of provinces where General Petraeus was arguing 
that there was, quote, ``progress.'' Well, again, no one is going to 
quibble about a military person's estimation of whether there is 
military progress, but what has happened there largely is that there 
has been dislocation. The Sunni tribal leaders have done what most 
analysts expected they would do: They would turn against al Qaeda 
because they are nationalists. They are much more concerned about Iraq 
than they are accommodating this radical ideology and they would, 
quote, ``work with the United States.''
  But what's the price that we are paying? What is the tactical 
decision that was made? The decision was made to arm tribal chiefs. 
Now, that can work in the short run. It gives them arms to fight 
alongside American soldiers in some particular circumstances. But what 
is the overall policy of the Bush administration? It is a strong 
central Iraqi Government centered in Baghdad. So what you have now is a 
United States policy that arms factions in the provinces, which is a 
momentary truce of convenience, that has no loyalty to the central 
government in Baghdad. And down the road, as what happened in 
Afghanistan when the United States, to pursue its interest against the 
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, armed the Taliban, and that Taliban 
then became the monster that produced an Osama bin Laden. But we have 
our policy where we are literally doing two things against the middle: 
arming factions who are hostile to a central government even as we say 
our goal is to have a strong central government.
  So none of us know what all the details are, but what you have is an 
incredibly internal complexity: a Shia south where there is Shia 
factional fighting, a Sunni Triangle where there is a temporary 
alliance of convenience, you have ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, and you 
have a Kurdistan that is insisting upon being independent.
  Incidentally, on this question of being independent, even the 
President's friends who have business interests are getting it. You 
read the report last week about Hunt Oil. Hunt Oil is owned by Mr. 
Hunt, a very good friend of the President, a big contributor and a 
member of the Foreign Policy Advisory Committee that the President pays 
deference to, listens to. Mr. Hunt bypassed the central government in 
Iraq and is entering into a direct oil agreement with Kurdistan. So he 
not only has made his bet that the President's policy is going to fail, 
he is making arrangements to profit by that failure.
  So why is it that we are asking the American military, the American 
taxpayer to continue pursuing a dead-end policy? There is one reason 
that the President now offers to defend a policy that is bankrupt, that 
is a dead end, that has a history of failure. That argument that the 
administration is making is this: If we leave, there will be chaos.
  Now, think about it. Those who oppose the war, those who voted 
against it argue that if we invaded Iraq, in all likelihood the outcome 
would be the quick toppling of Saddam and the long-term chaos and 
violence that would follow. The argument that the President rejected 
then he is embracing now.
  All of us who oppose the war really do so with a heavy heart because 
we know that the choices that are available to this country and to the 
people of Iraq are very constrained and there is going to be untold 
suffering that lies ahead. We don't have good choices, but the question 
is what is the right choice that is going to mitigate the suffering? 
And that right choice has to be to redeploy our troops because the 
continued presence of the United States through the military emphasizes 
a military approach to a political problem. And that's why all of us 
are here doing everything we can to change our direction in Iraq.
  And I thank you for my opportunity to participate with my wonderful 
colleagues.
  Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Congressman Welch.
  And we have been joined by another great new Member of the class and 
a great help on issues related to Iraq and so many more things, my 
colleague from the Rules Committee, the esteemed Mike Arcuri.
  I yield to Mr. Arcuri.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from the 
great State of Ohio for organizing this and bringing us all together 
here, and I thank all of you for being here.
  Like so many other Members of Congress, I have had an opportunity to 
go to Iraq. And recently I came back from there, about 3 weeks ago, and 
I couldn't help but be so impressed with the incredible job that our 
troops are doing there. The men and women that are there are doing 
everything that is asked of them and much more in an incredibly hostile 
environment.

                              {time}  1700

  And they're doing it not just as a job, but they're doing it with 
intensity and passion. And they're doing a great job at what they do in 
just incredibly hostile circumstances. I am convinced, after seeing the 
job that they did, that our military, in a just cause, could accomplish 
anything we ask of them, anything in the world. And I was just very 
impressed with how hard they're working.
  But you can't help but be troubled by the fact that the mission there 
continues to change. I can't help but think about, the old example that 
they use in football is every time that the team sets up to kick a 
field goal they move the goalpost back. It just seems like that's what 
we're doing. First, as my friend from Vermont just said, we were told 
we were going to Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. That didn't pan 
out. We were told we had to remove a dictator in Saddam Hussein. Our 
soldiers did that, and they did it magnificently. Then we were told we 
had to stay until there were free elections. We had free elections. 
Then we were told that we had to stay there; in fact, we not only had 
to stay there, we had to increase our numbers there, we had to have a 
surge so that we could reduce the violence so that the government would 
have an opportunity, would have a chance to come together. And that's 
exactly what our soldiers did. And despite that fact, we are still told 
that we will continue to be there. This is just unimaginable.
  Our soldiers have done everything that we have asked of them, and 
much more, in an incredibly hostile environment, and yet they continue 
to be told that they have to stay in Iraq. And for what?

[[Page H10607]]

  I am convinced, after meeting with Dr. Salam al-Zubaie, the Deputy 
Prime Minister, that the factions in Iraq will continue to fight, they 
will continue to use America as a crutch for as long as they possibly 
can. We gave them time. We did exactly what we said we would do. And 
what did they do? They squandered that time. They continued to posture 
for a better position, and they continue to do that today. Blood is 
spilling, Iraqi blood, American blood, and they continue to posture. 
Violence increases, and they continue to posture. They refuse to come 
together. It is high time for us to allow Iraq to take over, to stand 
up for itself. They will stand up when we stand down.
  The other thing that was very amazing, when you see it, and we talk 
about how much money we're spending there, we talk about the $16 
million an hour, the $2 billion a week. And they sound like numbers 
until you actually go there and you see the amount of equipment and you 
see the amount of investment we are making there. And obviously that is 
something that we have been doing and we will continue to do. But when 
you think about the fights that we have here right on this floor, the 
debates that we have on this floor about things like SCHIP, about 
things like improving our infrastructure that's crumbling, about things 
that are good domestically for our economy, and we don't do them. And 
we discuss and continue to debate about the money, and yet we spend 
billions and billions of dollars in Iraq.
  I think while we do that, countries like China continue to take money 
and they invest it in their economy. We need to make our investment in 
our domestic economy, in our bridges, in our infrastructure, in our 
economy, in our health care system, in education. Those are the things 
that the American people want. Those are the things that we ran on last 
year. Those are the things that we promised the American people. And 
those are the things that we need to continue to work on.
  I thank you thank you very much, my colleagues from the freshman 
class, for being here today. And, Ms. Sutton, thank you very much for 
bringing us here.
  Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Representative Arcuri. That firsthand account 
and your observations are very enlightening. We appreciate you bringing 
them forward and, again, highlighting the fact that as we make this 
choice and as the President opts to try and keep us in Iraq for 10 
years, or beyond, it means there are other consequences. Beyond all of 
those other consequences we talked about militarily and the effects on 
our military, there are those domestic issues, Representative Shea-
Porter, that you point out and Mr. Arcuri points out that we will 
continue to fall behind on. I think that the picture is becoming a 
little bit more clear down here tonight that we need some comprehensive 
thinking that is smart and effective. And the question of a responsible 
redeployment and what that plan should look like is really the one that 
we need to be working on.
  With that, I want to pass it over to another great Member of the new 
Congress, a freshman from Minnesota who I think is going to shed some 
light on the Blackwater situation.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I am really honored to join my members of 
this freshman class. I am so proud to be a Member of the 110th 
Congress.
  I just wanted to point out that this week as we contemplate and as 
we've seen the three reports, the GAO report, the report from General 
Petraeus, the report from General Jones, we are at a point where we 
have to make a big decision. The people of America and Iraq want our 
troops to have a safe but clear end point to this conflict. The surge 
has not been successful, as we see 11 of 18 legislative security and 
economic benchmarks set down have not been met.
  But I just wanted to talk about a very interesting and curious 
development in this whole conflict, which is that part of the story of 
the Iraq conflict is the contractors. Blackwater is the most well known 
of them, but that's not the only one. There's DynCorp, there's Titan, 
there's Casey, there's many of them. As a matter of fact, what we have 
seen is a privatization of this conflict. We've seen the privatization 
of this conflict as literally estimated at upwards of 150,000 
contractors have been in Iraq. And the question is, since we've never 
privatized a war, since we've always kept an essential governmental 
function, which is defense of the Nation, within the firm hands of the 
government and we've never really privatized a military conflict 
before, what does all of this mean? Interestingly and sadly, we've seen 
this privatization situation devolve into a very dangerous situation 
which I believe has in many ways compromised national security and has 
damaged the reputation of the United States and has led, in my view, to 
a situation where the Iraqi Government, even though it is a government 
under occupation, under U.S. military occupation, has had to make a 
statement to throw Blackwater out of its country.
  Now, think about that. This is a government that is not in full 
control of its own country but has mustered itself and said, Look, in 
order to go forward, this institution, Blackwater, must leave our 
country. I just want to talk about this a little bit because I think 
that it's an important part of the story and it needs to be told even 
from the floor of Congress.
  The recent incident that I'm talking about has caused the Iraqi 
Government to revoke the license of Blackwater. This is the result of a 
situation, of a killing of Iraqi citizens that happened on September 
11, 2007 and the wounding of 14 others by a Blackwater USA security 
company. Ostensibly, this private security company guards U.S. Embassy 
personnel in Iraq. Blackwater USA is based in North Carolina and is one 
of the largest of at least 28 different private security firms that 
have received governmental contracts to work in Iraq, paid for by at 
least $4 billion in taxpayer dollars.
  This group, funded by American taxpayer dollars through their 
contract, seems to hold very few American values, it seems to me, 
except for making money, by some accounts as much as five times the 
amount that our brave soldiers make. Five times the amount the average 
soldier is making is what one of these contractors can make, 
particularly one that was in Blackwater. According to one source, in 
February 2004, Blackwater started training former Chilean commandos, 
some of whom were serving during the Pinochet years in Chile, for duty 
in Iraq. People who know the Pinochet regime know that this regime was 
known for people disappearing in the country. Torture was routine. 
Other news reports indicate that four of the guards killed in January 
while working for a subcontractor had served in South Africa's security 
forces during the apartheid era, and one of them had applied for 
amnesty for crimes that he committed while operating under the 
apartheid regime. Not good news.
  Press reports further indicate that this latest incident was not 
isolated, with Iraqi Interior Minister spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf 
calling the episode the ``last and biggest mistake'' committed by 
Blackwater.
  Khalaf went on to say, ``Security contracts do not allow them to 
shoot people randomly. They are here to protect personnel, not to shoot 
people without reason.''
  Mr. Speaker, we are not in a position to win the hearts and minds of 
the Iraqi people if we have cowboy mercenary vigilantes. Blackwater 
seems to be accountable neither to the Iraqi Government, and there are 
serious questions as to whether they're even accountable to the U.S. 
Government. They are not subject to the Geneva Convention, which our 
soldiers are. If accounts of this and other incidents prove to be 
accurate, and of course due process is critically important, then the 
Iraqi Government's actions to expel Blackwater from Iraq could indicate 
the first concrete sign that a real government may exist in Baghdad. 
Who knows. We'll see.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very critical that we continue to look 
into this issue of private contractors. It is an important part of the 
story of Iraq. It is a critical and fundamental part of this dialogue 
that we're having. We can't privatize our Nation's national defense. 
When we do, we lose control of these people.
  Mercenary actions are not deemed sanctioned by U.N. charter. And to 
hire a private mercenary army is something that we should not be 
associated with. They call themselves security contractors, and yet 
they have been involved

[[Page H10608]]

in major military actions in Najaf. Everybody remembers the horrific 
incident that occurred in Fallujah that was succeeded by a major action 
against that city. At this point I think it's important for us to pay 
much closer attention to this situation and put some real 
accountability on this situation.
  I yield back at this time, but I do ask that we raise these important 
issues and focus on exactly what this means for our country and our 
national security.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank Representative Ellison for that addition to this 
debate this evening. It's important that all of this be exposed to the 
light of day so that we can make the inquiries that are appropriate as 
well as the policies that make sense from this Chamber.
  At this point, I would like to throw it back over to Representative 
Carol Shea-Porter from New Hampshire. I think, Representative Shea-
Porter, you were going to share with us some statistics and information 
from a report.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, Congresswoman.
  I am holding in my hands a report to Congress from September 6, 2007 
called ``The Independent Commission Security Forces of Iraq.'' This is 
retired General Jones. They did an absolutely wonderful job, 
nonpartisan, and I'm very pleased to say that it seems incredibly 
accurate and fair in all respects.
  Here is a concern, or one of the many concerns that I have, and I 
just want to read a couple of lines and talk about it. It says, Iraq's 
central government in Baghdad, and this is page 39, does not have 
national reach in terms of security, nor does it have a monopoly on use 
of force, a defining characteristic of a functioning nation state. 
Militias continue to play a prominent role and are seen by American and 
Iraqi officials alike as posing almost as significant a threat to Iraqi 
stability and security as al Qaeda in Iraq.
  Now, isn't that fascinating? We hear them talk about al Qaeda, al 
Qaeda, al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq on 9/11, 2001, and 
yet we have militias roaming around and there is very little talk about 
that.
  Now, as this report states, if you have militias, it means that the 
Iraqi Central Government is not in control of their streets. This is 
where we have our soldiers, in the middle of a civil war. And this is 
the reason that we've had ethnic cleansing and the other problems that 
we're having.
  I want to talk about the Iraqi political establishment for a moment. 
Our troops have done everything they've been asked to do. They are 
guarding the streets. And yes, violence has gone down where our troops 
are, and it's a great credit to our troops, but I can tell you right 
now that if you put 50 policemen and women on a corner of any major 
city in America, or anywhere, crime would go down because these forces 
do a terrific job, but it doesn't mean that you've changed the hearts 
and minds of the people, the criminals. What we have here is an Iraqi 
Government that has not stepped forward. And so we are relying on our 
troops to not only control the violence in Baghdad, but also to run 
everything.
  The Iraqi Government, the Parliament, wanted to take 2 months off 
this summer in the middle of this crisis. When the White House, Tony 
Snow, was asked about the 2-month vacation, he said, well, it's 140 
degrees there. And somebody said, well, aren't our troops in 140 
degrees as well?
  The Iraqi Parliament also, more than half of them, signed a petition 
asking the United States to leave Iraq. Now, this is not leadership. 
Our troops have waited for years for Iraqi leadership to step forward 
and run their country.

                              {time}  1715

  We cannot ask our troops to not only be the police there, be the cop 
on the beat there, but also to be the politicians there. If the Iraqi 
Government will not, cannot, step up, we have to finally say we have to 
step down. It has been just too long.
  So picture that, what it is like, and you will understand why 100,000 
Iraqis have been leaving every month and why there is more than 2 
million people who are now out of the Iraqi borders. They have lost 
their middle class. They have lost anybody who could help the society. 
They have fled. And you understand why, when you think about militias 
and you think about the lack of Iraqi political leadership. You didn't 
hear very much about that coming out of the White House. Ask them to 
name the Iraqi politicians, the leaders, who are going to take over, 
and ask when. Because they can't say when. They can't name who is going 
to take over. We cannot leave our troops there indefinitely until the 
Iraqis decide to find political reconciliation.
  That is the problem. As long as we have our troops there, yes, we can 
tamp down the violence where our troops are. But we must have a 
government. That report shows that they have militia wandering around 
and that the Iraqi Government has not stepped up to the task. We are in 
our fifth year, Americans know that, our fifth year of our treasure and 
our blood of our people. It is time to stop.
  Ms. SUTTON. Well, I thank the gentlewoman from New Hampshire. It is a 
sad state of affairs, but it goes back to the point that we have heard 
here tonight, and that is that unity in Iraq, really, at the end of the 
day, is going to be determined by the people of Iraq. We all know that 
our military has performed valiantly and selflessly and that they are 
true American heroes. But as you point out, it is not fair to keep them 
trapped in the middle of a civil war and refuse to acknowledge that all 
that has been discussed here tonight is going on. That is not a prudent 
plan. I think it is time. We have heard the call when we go home and 
talk to our constituents. It is time for a plan to responsibly 
redeploy. That is what the American people need from our President.
  I will share just a few statistics with you that sort of buttress 
this need. We know that there was a great rollout when we had this so-
called surge introduced as a new way forward. But let me just shed some 
light on some of the results. In June, July and August of 2007, it 
marked the bloodiest summer so far U.S. troops in Iraq have had, with 
264 soldiers killed. U.S. casualties in Iraq are 56 percent higher this 
year than they were at this time in 2006. Since January of this year, 
we have lost 761 brave servicemen and women to the war in Iraq.
  By the way, I should say that these statistics are as of September 
10. I have fear they have grown since then. As of September 10, 3,759 
U.S. troops have been killed and more than 27,770 have been wounded in 
Iraq since it began in March 2003. Think about that. Think about the 
cost in lives. Think about the cost in the casualties and the injuries 
that our soldiers are facing for the rest of their lives in many cases, 
the costs to them, which is unfathomable and enormous, and the cost to 
the American people as we do what we must do, and that is provide them 
with the health care and the resources they need and to fulfill the 
promise that we make to them when we send them into harm's way. We must 
take care of our veterans.
  We also learn that, and you pointed this out, Representative Shea-
Porter, that in Iraq, opinions are also that they would like our troops 
to be responsibly deploying. Just to share some information from a new 
poll that was jointly conducted and released by ABC News, BBC News and 
Japan's NHK, 47 percent of Iraqis want American forces and their 
coalition allies to leave the country immediately. That is a 12 percent 
increase over March. Remember, our soldiers are there in that 
environment. The polls showed that every person interviewed in Baghdad 
and Anbar province, a Sunni-dominated area where Bush recently visited 
and cited progress, said the troop increase has worsened security. 
Seventy percent believe security has deteriorated in the areas where 
the U.S. surge troops were located. Between 67 and 70 percent say that 
the surge has hampered conditions for political dialogue, 
reconstruction and economic development. Fifty-seven percent of Iraqis 
say that attacking coalition forces is ``acceptable,'' more than three 
times higher than when polled in February of 2004. That is the 
environment we are keeping our troops in. The President's plan is to do 
so for the very foreseeable future.
  It is time for a plan of responsible redeployment. Our military 
should not be asked to try to control a civil war, a sectarian civil 
war. We have heard all

[[Page H10609]]

the components of all the factions and all the dynamics that are going 
on in Iraq. Just think about our troops sitting in the middle of that 
and doing everything they are asked to do. We know from the report that 
Representative Shea-Porter referenced, and we know from the GAO 
reports. They confirm that our strategy is not working and that this 
conflict begs for a political solution, not a military one; though the 
United States can play a constructive role, and we will, and we have 
done so by providing, through high cost and blood and money, an 
opportunity to embrace a different way to the Iraqi people. We also 
know the toll that that country has, along the way, encountered.
  Seventy-eight percent of Americans say they believe that the U.S. 
should withdraw some or all troops from Iraq. Sixty percent of 
Americans say the U.S. should set a timetable to withdraw our forces 
from Iraq and should ``stick to that timetable regardless of what is 
going on in Iraq.'' That is not because we don't care. That is because 
we are looking at the evidence, and we are trying to make the 
responsible decision for our troops, for the safety of this country and 
for domestic policy.
  At this point, I would like to turn it over to Representative Shea-
Porter, and we will be wrapping up here in a few moments.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I would also like to point out that this really is a 
national security issue for the United States of America. General Peter 
Pace was asked if he was comfortable with the ability of our Nation to 
respond to an emerging world threat. He paused and he said, ``No, I am 
not comfortable.''
  We have our troops bogged down in Iraq. We do have enemies around the 
world, no question about it, but our military is strained. We know that 
the troops could not stay at this pace past March anyway, so it is 
natural that the President would call to bring back some of the troops 
in March. It is not really progress. It is just acknowledging that we 
have to have them back. But here is the issue: If you know there is a 
burglar in your neighborhood, the first thing you do is you lock your 
own door. We didn't do that. We went to Iraq instead of locking our own 
door. We didn't even pass the 9/11 recommendations. The 110th Congress 
had to take care of that business. So, finally, we are going to be 
inspecting cargo from airplanes, and we are going to be inspecting 
cargo that comes from overseas, and we are going to inspect 100 percent 
of it after a period of time. That should have been done immediately. 
We should have beefed up homeland security, locked our doors, so to 
speak, and then worked with other nations to catch terrorists. They 
were ready.
  On 9/12/01, we had the world's sympathy and empathy. They were ready 
to work with us to catch these horrible terrorists. Instead, we went to 
Iraq, and now our brave troops are bogged down there. The Iraqis have 
suffered enough. It is time to bring them home responsibly and to start 
looking at building up our troop strength again so that we can respond 
to anyplace around the world that we might need to be.
  Ms. SUTTON. Well said, Representative Shea-Porter.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to close and yield back the balance of our 
time.

                          ____________________