Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 148 (Tuesday, October 2, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 148 (Tuesday, October 2, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11155-H11162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FOCUSING ON MOVING FORWARD

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy of Connecticut). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Israel) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, tonight we do something different, something
out of the ordinary. The American people are accustomed to tuning into
C-SPAN and watching Democrats yelling at Republicans and Republicans
yelling at Democrats. There is a Democratic Special Order and there is
a Republican Special Order. C-SPAN has become a channel that requires a
parental advisory before kids are able to watch. It has become unsafe
because of all the screaming and yelling.
Tonight we do something different. Tonight we have a bipartisan
Special Order. Tonight Democrats and Republicans will spend some time
not focusing on our disagreements, not fighting with one another, not
talking about the left and the right, although this is a place where
there should be discussion about left and right, but focusing on moving
forward, focusing on specific solutions and ideas with respect to Iraq
that will move us forward.
The plain fact is that Democrats and Republicans are are going to
disagree on some fundamental issues. Maybe we are going to disagree on
60 or 70 percent of the issues, but we do agree on the 30 to 40 percent
that is left. The problem is that we have allowed ourselves to be
paralyzed on our agreements because we are so busy disagreeing with one
another.
Well, 2 years ago we found the Center Aisle Caucus, a bipartisan
group of 50 Democrats and Republicans who meet routinely not to talk
about our disagreements, we know where we are going to disagree, but to
see if we can carve out areas of agreement. To talk not about the left
or the right, but to talk about the way forward.
We have convened a series of meetings specifically pertaining to
Iraq. Tonight I am joined by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest), a Marine veteran who has been involved in those meetings
and talked about bipartisanship and finding common ground and important
solutions.
I am joined by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) who has become
very active, a leader in the Center

[[Page H11156]]

Aisle Caucus, who also understands the importance of engaging one
another and talking about moving forward rather than left and right.
We will be joined by other colleagues. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) who has been proposing with the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) that we integrate the recommendations of the
Iraq Study Group into policy as we move forward.
I will be talking about two bipartisan solutions that I have been
submitting. One, directing that the President submit a status of forces
agreement to the Government of Iraq as a signal that we are not in Iraq
to stay, to occupy, but that Iraq is a sovereign government responsible
for its security. I believe that status of forces agreement, which we
have in almost every country where we have a military presence, would
be a very important signal to the Iraqi people and to our own forces.
Secondly, I will be talking about bipartisan legislation that I have
introduced with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) to expedite the
process of bringing a variety of Iraqi refugees to the United States,
those refugees who have served coalition forces as interpreters, as
translators, who have risked their lives and now have to go through a
bureaucratic nightmare to leave Iraq and come here. We will talk about
that as well.
The final point I want to make before I yield to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Lampson) is this: yesterday I visited the Walter Reed Army
Hospital. I visited with about seven soldiers who have sustained some
very serious wounds in Iraq. I visited with one of my constituents who
had his foot amputated. I visited with another Long Islander who found
it very difficult to talk, very difficult to breathe. I visited with a
soldier who was being discharged yesterday afternoon and will now begin
outpatient treatment.
Ultimately, I believe and the Members who will join me this evening
believe that our obligation is to them. It is not to the left or to the
right. It is to them. They do not want the United States Congress to be
engaged in partisan paralysis and bickering. That will not end the war.
They want us to try and find common ground. I am under no illusions
that whatever we discuss tonight, and the gentleman from Maryland and
the gentleman from Texas and the other Members and myself, will end the
war tomorrow. I wish we could end the war tomorrow.
The fact of the matter is that for as long as we are here together on
the floor of the House, we have an obligation to try and work with one
another on areas where we can agree. We can fight honorably, we can
disagree respectfully on all matters of policy; but we have an
obligation to move forward on areas where there is agreement. That is
what the Center Aisle Caucus was formed to do.
One of our members from Texas served for many years in this
distinguished Chamber and has returned to the Congress after a 2-year
hiatus. He is somebody who personifies bipartisanship, who has been a
leader in this body, whose constituents also expect him to be working
hard to move forward rather than left or right, and I yield to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join Mr. Israel and all
of my colleagues tonight for something that is special. I want to first
start out by telling our colleagues and the Speaker and others that
even though there is a tradition that typically a Democrat will speak
from one side of the well, and the Republicans the other, tonight is
not about where we will sit or stand in this room. It is more about
where we will sit or stand in relation to the needs of the people of
the United States of America.
The Center Aisle Caucus is an organization of Members of Congress who
are indeed going to look for ways to move issues forward that can make
a difference for our families, our communities, and our States and
Nation.
My involvement with this began actually on a trip, I guess, with Mr.
Gilchrest some years back; and then when I returned to Congress after
what I found to be some very difficult times where camaraderie broke
down and it was very difficult for us to feel comfortable working with
each other and discussing difficult issues, where oftentimes it did
break down into the partisan bickering and the screaming and shouting
and little getting resolved, to the point where we gathered some of our
colleagues to sit down and have coffee and ask: What can we do and do
differently? What can we do to begin to get our friends to come and sit
down with each other and talk about these issues respectfully, talk
about them in the depth that I believe our constituents all expect us
to be talking about, and find the acceptable solutions to the very
difficult, difficult issues that face us in this Nation, and they are.
You said it, Mr. Israel. Politics are suffocating the debate on Iraq
in nearly every issue that we have faced in this Congress. If we can't
come together and work honestly to find compromise on a critical issue
like Iraq, what can we expect for other issues that are facing us?
We can't allow for progress to be stymied by partisan politics and
vitriol. We must not let any political organization or campaign detract
for the purpose we are all here for, which is to work on behalf of our
constituents for the good of our country. What is needed now is
thoughtful debate that considers Republican and Democratic ideas. We
are getting there. That is what tonight is going to be the beginning
of, I believe, and I look forward to a wonderful relationship with all
of the friends that we are going to make in carrying all of this
forward.
We owe it to our troops abroad, to our children in need of health
care, to our students, the hardworking taxpayers and the people that we
represent to work together to provide a new direction for America. I
believe that the Center Aisle Caucus is an organization within our
Congress that is going to be able to help pull that together.
It is wrong for any party to think that they are solely right or
wrong, and I am proud to be able to join those of our colleagues who
have been willing to step forward, come to the middle and begin this
debate.
I will yield back, but I would like very much to speak again in
another few minutes as we go through this process this evening.

{time} 2130

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I can assure him
that he will have ample time this evening to elaborate on his views.
We have been joined by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) who
I know is going to speak on some of his priorities and his efforts to
bridge the gap between both parties.
I would like to yield to one of the most distinguished Members of
this House, as I said before, a veteran, someone who I've come to know
only recently. I've served in this House for nearly 8 years, and the
gentleman from Maryland and I got to know each other only recently with
respect to trying to reduce the polarization of this debate. We've had
dinner. We met in my office some 2 weeks ago, and I want to commend him
for his leadership and his bipartisanship and his desire also to find a
way forward rather than right or left, and with that, I yield to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Israel for yielding, and this
evening we are here as Members of Congress. Mr. Israel from New York,
Mr. Lampson from Texas, Mr. Dent from Pennsylvania, myself from
Maryland and other Members will be here shortly from the various
corners of this country, and we're here because we know that tonight a
young American soldier may be on patrol somewhere in Iraq and there may
be a landmine that he will run over. There will be Iraqi children that
may get caught in the terrible crossfire. There may be Iraqi students
on their way to a school or university that may be caught in a horrific
explosion from a suicide bomber. Those kinds of things are unfolding in
Afghanistan and, to some extent, those kinds of things are unfolding
throughout the very difficult places in the world.
This institution, the House of Representatives, has a history of
integrity. This Nation is based on the philosophy of integrity, and
American citizens, the broad breadth of humans across the globe have,
for centuries, had an assumption that this institution was competent,
informed and rested on that philosophy of integrity that buttressed the
concept of freedom and justice and dignity.

[[Page H11157]]

This cannot happen with a partisan divide. This cannot happen with
people talking about the Democrats or the Republicans. We are not
Democrats. We're not Republicans. We are Members of Congress
representing constituencies that assume or, at least up until recently,
they assumed that we were here for that philosophy of integrity. We
were here to work hard, to work together, to integrate that integrity
amongst the vast areas of this country, not just to be a Republican and
find some mythical icon Republican that you are supposed to obey or
some mythical icon Democrat that you were supposed to obey.
But Americans need more than that. Americans deserve more than that.
That young soldier in that armored vehicle riding down the road in Iraq
right now deserves more than that, and each of us, not only should, we
must have a sense of urgency to fulfill our obligation and
responsibility.
Mr. Israel and Mr. Lampson and Mr. Dent will talk about that we have
come together here fairly recently in the Halls of Congress to
represent the sense that this institution is going to have an impact in
a very positive way on this world that's laying out before us, and as
we progress this evening as each of us discusses these issues, we will
talk specifically about Iraq. But I want to make sure, Mr. Speaker,
that as we speak about Iraq and this war, this is not our grandfather's
war of World War I. This is not our grandfather's war of World War II,
where you had a million Russian soldiers moving toward Berlin, you had
a million American and Canadian and British soldiers moving toward
Berlin, where the public could follow it on little wiggly lines in the
newspaper every day to see how they were advancing. This is a war of
insurgents where there are no cities to firebomb. There are no million
troops to deal with this particular issue.
This is a war of insurgency. And how have these wars gone on in the
past? They are wars that are complex and need the initiative, the
ingenuity, the utmost intellect and courage of this institution to
bring it to a successful conclusion.
I would agree with many Members who have talked about this, that we
can't have 535 Secretaries of Defense. That's true. We should not have
535 Secretaries of State, and that's true. But this is not our
grandfather's war. This is a war where Members of Congress need to know
their counterparts in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Israel, in Jordan and
Syria and Saudi Arabia, in Iran. This is a war where the integration of
integrity of people from across the world need to understand each other
in an ongoing deep and abiding dialogue.
This is so important for Members of Congress to be involved in this
kind of conflict because it's not a million-man army against a million-
man army. This is a war that involves culture, ancient cultures. This
is a war that involves politics. It's a war that involves economics.
It's a war that involves geography. It's essentially a war where
there's very little understanding. There's almost complete
misunderstanding.
So an institution like the House of Representatives, working together
can resolve this conflict. This conflict cannot be resolved, there is
no reconciliation, without a dialogue of integrity across these great
divides.
I want to thank Mr. Israel and the other gentlemen that are here
tonight to bring this dialogue, raise this discussion, this debate
about this war to a new and higher and much-needed level.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland and I want
to underscore the point that he's making.
The center aisle is right here, right here in front of me. Those on
my side of the center aisle can scream at those on the other side and
those on the other side can scream at my side. That's not going to end
the war. Again, this is a place, this is a House where we encourage
debate and even dissent and disagreement, but the screaming and the
vitriol and the partisan attacks will not bring this war to an end.
Those of us who are here this evening would prefer to spend our time
engaging with one another, disagreeing respectfully on some issues but
trying to find that common ground, trying to build that consensus that
will bring the war to an end.
One of our colleagues who's here, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Dent), has been working very, very hard on a proposal to integrate
the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group into current
policy. That was a perfect example of an advanced and high plane of
bipartisan dialogue. Members from both parties, experts from around the
country, convened in that Iraq Study Group, made recommendations to the
administration and to Congress. Many of those recommendations received
widespread praise and support but have not been implemented, and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania has been working to attempt to take those
recommendations and move them forward, take them off the shelf and move
them forward in our policy.
I yield to my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Israel for helping organize this
Special Order this evening, and I do want to commend you for what
you've been doing to help try to change the tone of this institution.
You're absolutely right when you talk about the level of noise, the
partisan vitriol.
I think we all realize that many of our constituents come to us from
time to time, and they see partisanship for the sake of partisanship.
They don't always see the philosophical differences that may underlie
those partisan debates. They get annoyed with it, and they see carping
and whining. They hear Republicans criticizing Democrats over their
policies, Democrats criticizing Republicans. And I think at times they
would just like us to turn the temperature down, improve the tone and
try to find solutions to the problems that face us, especially on
issues of war and peace.
It was after the Second World War in the late 1940s and right up
until the demise of the former Soviet Union, this Nation seemed to have
a bipartisan policy to carry us through the cold war. It was called the
policy of containment, and that doesn't mean that everybody in Congress
felt universally that containment was a great policy, and they might
have disagreed with certain aspects of that policy. But nevertheless,
containment was the policy and it was able to survive from one
administration to the next. Whether that be a Democrat or Republican
administration, the policy survived, and each administration may have
had a different spin on it and tweaked that policy, but it was the
policy of this country.
And I think that our enemies understood that. We all understood that
there was a Soviet threat, and we as Americans came together during
that Cold War and eventually were successful. We outlasted the Soviet
Union, and here we are in Iraq.
I think the American people have reached a point where they'd like us
to develop that same kind of bipartisan consensus as we deal with the
threats that face us today, the threats from violent extremists, people
who are represented by al Qaeda we know who want to do great damage to
us, who have made statements to the effect that they want to kill 4
million Americans, 2 million children.
So the American people expect us to work together, and Iraq certainly
is part of this whole debate because, of course, al Qaeda has a
significant presence in that country. And I do want to thank you once
again for helping to facilitate this dialogue. Because of your efforts
and many others, we were able to talk about the Iraq Study Group and
the recommendations presented there.
Also, we may hear from some of our other colleagues later tonight,
people like Congressmen Tanner and Castle, Tanner a Democrat from
Tennessee and Castle a Republican from Delaware, who have talked at
great length about the need for a bipartisan compact on Iraq. And they
really set forth several principles that they thought that we could all
agree to as we move forward.
And one of those first principles they talked about was that we could
agree in Congress that we need to end the political infighting over the
conflict in Iraq and commit immediately to a truly bipartisan dialogue
on these issues that we're facing, and that was I think really their
first main point. And many of us have signed on to that compact, an
even number of Republicans and Democrats, and I think that's very
important.

[[Page H11158]]

And we came to an agreement on many of those issues, and I won't
elaborate them all right now because I think some others may want to
talk about them, but I think it is absolutely critical. Those points of
interest of policy in this bipartisan compact on Iraq are entirely
consistent, in my view, with the recommendations of the Iraq Study
Group, another very significant initiative headed by former Secretary
of State James Baker and former distinguished Congressman Lee Hamilton
that talked about a lot of things I think many of us agree on.
For example, we all agree that there shouldn't be permanent bases in
Iraq, and you came up with the idea of a status of forces agreement in
lieu of permanent bases, just a status of forces agreement just like
our Nation has with other countries where we have a military presence,
whether that be in Germany or Korea, like we had in the Philippines at
one time, where our country enters into agreements with those
governments to really state the nature of our presence and what the
presence would be. And it's also certainly important to the government
that we'll be dealing with, whether it be in Iraq or elsewhere, to help
give them legitimacy.
So that was an idea that you came up with, and again, I think it's an
issue that we can all agree to on a very broad bipartisan basis.
There are other issues, too, but I won't belabor them all tonight,
but I think something you said to me a few weeks ago I think is worth
repeating, and it's this: That as our constituents from time to time
watch C-SPAN and they hear the noise, they hear the rancor and they
sometimes get a little frustrated and throw up their hands about what's
happening in Congress, and I think you said it was one of your
constituents who pointed out after the last time we did one of these
bipartisan Special Orders, they said that we were making C-SPAN safe
for children once again, and for that, I want to give you a lot of
credit, but there's a lot of truth to that.
Hopefully, because of these types of activities that we are
conducting here tonight, more people will be likely to turn on C-SPAN
and listen to I hope what will be a very thoughtful and constructive
dialogue on one of the preeminent issues that's facing this country.

{time} 2145

Mr. ISRAEL. I yield time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. I certainly agree with everything that Mr. Dent has said
and that Mr. Gilchrest has said and that you, Mr. Israel, have said. I
think it's worth repeating some of it. I think it's worth emphasizing
the importance of this being a first step and really trying to change
the attitude of our body to achieve what the Founding Fathers of this
Nation attempted when they designed this body, which is supposed to be
deliberative. It's supposed to be able to come together with tolerance.
I was looking at the words that are embedded in this desk here before
us that we should listen with respect to each other, and words that Mr.
Dent just gave us as far as where we can go, what we can be doing to
begin to craft a direction for us.
Just this past weekend, I was at a ceremony with many Gold Star
Mothers, parents who had lost their sons or daughters in either
Afghanistan or in Iraq. I guess all of us have friends or parents or
grandparents or someone that has lost someone there, pastors in our
districts, perhaps, who are mourning the loss of some of our best and
bravest that America has to offer.
The best way that we can honor these soldiers, I guess, as Mr.
Gilchrest was referring to a few moments ago, the best way that we can
do things to honor them and family is to work together as our Founders
and Framers envisioned to answer the difficult questions that are
facing us.
I think that it's tremendous that the Center Aisle Caucus has taken
the step. I wanted to congratulate you and the other members who have
started to ask Members of our Congress to join us. I hope that other
colleagues will grow this into a large body.
I would like to hear some of the things that you are proposing at
this time to move us forward on the issue of Iraq.
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman.
Let me focus on just one very specific bipartisan solution that the
Center Aisle Caucus has proposed. The gentleman from Pennsylvania
alluded to it. It's a status of forces agreement.
At the end of the cold war, the United States had permanent status of
forces agreements with about 40 countries. Today the number has grown
to more than 90, which means that the United States Government has
status of forces agreements with nearly half of the countries
comprising the world community. Now, what is a status of forces
agreement?
A status of forces agreement is essentially a negotiated document
between the United States Government and a host government where we
have a military presence that governs the relationship between the
military and that government. It governs our criminal justice issues.
It governs a variety of diplomatic and protocol issues.
Now, I have been told on my visits to Iraq and in my conversations
with Iraqi officials here at home and with American officials that one
of the concerns that the population of Iraq has is that we are going to
be there forever, that we want to occupy Iraq forever.
We don't want to occupy Iraq forever. We don't want to be there one
day longer than we need to be. If I had my way, we would be out
tomorrow. The fact of the matter is that if the Iraqi people believe
that we are there running the place and that they are not a sovereign
government, they will never have the capability to stand up their own
ministries, to take care of their own security.
I have proposed on a bipartisan basis a resolution that asks the
President to begin negotiating a status of forces agreement with the
sovereign Iraqi Government. You can't expect a government to have a
capability if we can't even negotiate an agreement between that
government and our government with respect to the presence of military
forces.

Iraq is a sovereign entity. One of the very important signals that we
can send to the Iraqi people and to our population at home is the
negotiation of the status of forces agreement.
Now, one of the great levels of frustration that I have is that
whenever I raise this issue, I am told that we are pushing up against
an open door. I am told that mostly everybody agrees that we should
have a status of forces agreement in Iraq.
In fact, the Jones Commission, which was constituted as a group of
highly expert military people assessing the condition of Iraqi
security, when they made their recommendations, the number two
recommendation in the Jones Commission report was, in fact, the
submission of, and I will read directly from the report: ``The second
recommendation the Commission wishes to offer is that consideration be
given to pursuing an agreement akin to a status of forces agreement
with the Government of Iraq. Appropriately drawn, it would have the
effect of codifying our relationship with the host nation, reinforcing
its sovereignty and independence, and would be consistent with other
such agreements we enjoy with many nations where we have a military
presence.''
So here you have yet another bipartisan commission recommending yet
another idea that everybody can agree on, the Iraqis can agree to it,
we can agree to it, Republicans and Democrats can agree to it, except
that nobody is making it happen.
So I have proposed, as I said before, a resolution, a bipartisan
resolution, that simply tells the President to submit a status of
forces agreement to negotiation with the Iraqi Government. It begins
this process. It signals the Iraqi people that we have no intention of
owning Iraq. We are guests there, and they are the host government.
This is just one simple move in the right direction, a bipartisan
move in the right direction; and I am hoping that the administration
will listen to it and vigorously negotiate a status of forces agreement
with Iraq.
I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania, who has been active with
me on that resolution, for his assistance, and would yield to him if he
wants to comment further on it.
Mr. DENT. Again, I applaud you for your leadership on this issue. You
are absolutely right, the Jones Commission really did give your
legislation, without saying it, a very strong endorsement.

[[Page H11159]]

I think you pointed out another issue that I think we can all agree
on about this issue of permanent bases. We have voted before against
permanent bases, and your status of forces agreement, I think, really
does provide the right answer to the question of permanent bases.
I would also point out too that should not be an open-ended commit in
Iraq as has been reported and stated in the Iraq Study Group report.
Finally, I think there is another area where most of us degree in
this Chamber, that what we want in this country is we want to make sure
that we pursue our national interest as it relates to Iraq.
I think most of us realize that we cannot allow al Qaeda to have a
base from which to operate in Iraq. I think that's something on which
Republicans and Democrats can agree. I think we also agree that we
cannot allow Iraq to become a failed state, that is, it becomes a
threat to itself and to the region.
The third point I want to make on this, I think it's a very
significant point, and perhaps we don't state it enough, and I think
you will get a sense of this issue, if you have ever attended the
funeral of someone who was killed in Iraq, as I know we all have, and I
have families in my district, and Paris and Rush that have lost family
members in recent months, and the issue really deals with honoring the
service and sacrifice of our people who have invested so much or in
some cases, as Abraham Lincoln said, gave that last full measure of
devotion.
I have had numerous conversations, for example, with Secretary of
Defense Bob Gates, and I know some of you have as well. We talk about
these types of issues that, regardless of how one feels about the run
up to this war, or how it has been executed, and the mistakes have been
made along the way, critics of this administration, for example, have
said they do not listen to many of the generals going into Iraq.
But I think it's very important that we do listen to generals as we
transition down and go out of Iraq. I think that's critically important
that we do this, and as we transition, that we remember the service and
the sacrifice, remember our national interest, which is making sure al
Qaeda has no base from which to operate and that we do not leave a
failed state in our wake.
I just wanted to share those thoughts with you and, again, applaud
you. I hope that your bill is one of those bipartisan bills that we
will be able to bring to this floor for consideration, just as we did
with the Tanner-Abercrombie-English bill today, which was a good start.
I think we saw a broad consensus in this House that supported that
legislation, and I think that's good for all of us.
Again, I would just applaud you for your work on the status of forces
agreement.
Mr. ISRAEL. I would like to raise another very specific solution,
bipartisan solution that the Center Aisle Caucus has with respect to
Iraq.
Last week, and I know my colleagues may be shocked to hear this, or
perhaps they won't be shocked, perhaps they have had the same
experience I have, but last week I met with an Iraqi refugee and his
family. This individual was a translator for coalition forces, risked
his life as a translator.
The work that he was doing was saving the lives of our forces, of our
military people. He has a wife, a son and a disabled daughter. He
decided that Iraq was no longer a safe place for his family. Why? Not
just because of the war, but because of the service that he performed
for the American military. So he applied for a special immigrant visa,
and this is what he was told:

First you have to find a general to sign the form. He said, well, I
don't know many generals who can sign this form.
Can I find someone else? He was told, no, the regulation is that you
have to find a general. Well, he found a general who signed, who
vouched for his credibility.
Then he was told, well, you can't apply for a special immigrant visa
here in Iraq. You actually have to leave Iraq, go to another country
and apply.
Well, that's just mind-boggling. Again, this is somebody who risked
his life translating for American forces, and they have saved their
lives, when they have translated what the bad guys were saying and what
they were planning, and he was told, you have to leave Iraq to submit
your visa application. So he found his way with his family to Amman,
Jordan.
Then he was told, by the way, when you apply for this special
immigrant visa, you have got to pay fees, hundreds and hundreds of
dollars. This young man didn't have that kind of money. Can you
imagine, he was, again, interpreting for our military and then told to
leave the country and perhaps save his life; he had to pay a fee for
himself, his wife, his son, his disabled daughter. Guess what, he came
up with the money. Then he sat for a year in Jordan and waited for them
to process the application.
I want to make sure that you understand the point that I am making.
We are not saying we should open the doors for every single refugee,
let them in without being properly vetted, without the proper security
checks, without the background checks; but certainly someone who is
providing services to the United States military, who had already been
vetted by the military, who was saving lives, deserves better than, you
have got to leave the country, you have got to find a general to sign
the form, you have to pay hundreds of dollars for the form, you have to
wait for a year, and then we will see if we can let you in.
To top it off, when he finally arrived here, this individual, who has
critical military skills, the ability to read and understand what our
enemies may be saying about us, was told, well, you have got to find a
job somewhere, maybe you can drive a taxi. I think the State Department
and Department of Defense ought to be rolling out the red carpet for
this individual.
One of the most glaring deficiencies we have in our military right
now is an inability to translate documents, to hear what our enemies
are saying about us. We ought to be hiring these people at whatever
salary we can afford to pay them.
Then to add insult to injury, when he came here, he asked, well, how
do I get various documents? There was no one area to give him some
information, nothing.
So Frank Wolf, who was the ranking Republican of the State and
Foreign Operations Subcommittee on which I now serve, and I have
introduced legislation that would make this system a little easier for
people who have already established that they can help the United
States.
Number one, we would allow our Ambassador in Iraq to have more
authority so that he can vouch for the credibility of those who
assisted U.S. efforts.
Number two, we allow those people to apply for visas at the U.S.
Embassy or U.S. Consulate in Iraq. We don't force them to go to another
country, Jordan or elsewhere.
Number three, we waive fees for those who have demonstrated their
support for U.S. forces, their assistance, who have been properly
vetted. We help find translators find work in the United States in the
military and State Department, and we broaden relocation benefits.
Now, who can be against somebody who helped our Armed Forces by
translating for them? I can't think of a single person who would say,
no, they risked their lives, but we have to make them stay there. We
have to make it harder for them and suggest this is another area of
bipartisan agreement that we can agree on.
I am hopeful that the Israel-Wolf resolution will be passed by the
House, passed by the Senate, and signed by the President.
I don't know whether any of my colleagues would like to comment on
that particular legislation or share some of their thoughts, but I
would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

{time} 2200

Mr. GILCHREST. I'd like to thank the gentleman from New York. And
what you're describing, Mr. Israel, is exactly the right thing that
Members of Congress can do, certainly in a bipartisan fashion, to help
facilitate the conflict in Iraq.
The military is doing a stunningly competent job at what they do. But
this is war that is multidimensional. It's myriad complexities does not
lend itself to, for example, that million-man Russian Army, that
million-man Allied Army heading toward Berlin. This is a

[[Page H11160]]

multidimensional complex insurgency, a difficult cultural conflict, a
geopolitical conflict, an economic conflict. And it takes a united
institution like the House and the Senate, to deal with the many
different levels, for example, besides the Status of Force Agreement
that we've been talking about here tonight that will give the Iraqi
community, the Iraqi country, some dignity, about dealing with the
issues of the day on a level playing field. The issue of an Iraqi
interpreter trying to get to the United States can be effectively dealt
with by the legislation that Mr. Israel described. The Sunnis, the
Shiites and the Kurds in Iraq have very different views, perspectives
on how to govern their country. Each of them comes to this conflict,
this political reconciliation debate from very different perspectives.
This past August, August 26, there was a Unity Accord Agreement
signed between these three factions in Iraq. But that Unity Accord
Agreement has not been carried through yet. What is the status of that?
Now, it's very difficult for that political process to be understood
and then pursued by our military. It is something that Members of
Congress can do.
What about the oil law, the hydrocarbon law, how to share the oil in
Iraq? That is a political question. It's a question that we, in this
House, can deal with much more effectively than the military can
because it's a political process. We cannot deal with that in a
political way if we're divided in a partisan way.
But the integration of our understanding that we represent America,
as Members of Congress, not as political parties which, by the way, are
not mentioned in the Constitution, that can effectively deal with this
issue.
The British are leaving Basra. They are basically going to turn Basra
over in a short period of time to the Iraqi Army. This is a
predominantly Shiite region of Iraq. What is the relationship of the
various Shiite groups in and around Basra with Iran?
Now, General Petraeus is responsible for the military activities
inside Iraq. Who is responsible for the intergovernmental relations of
various countries around the world, especially in the Middle East, and
especially between Iran and southern Iraq where the Shiites are
dominant?
It's a political process. We, as Members of Congress, must understand
how we can individually continue to probe to have a dialogue with Iran.
The issue of the surge bringing greater security, has it brought
greater security? What does greater security mean when you have
security forces on the ground if you're going to go beyond that? It's a
political process, a greater political process than I think we have
understood.
General Petraeus cannot call for Dayton negotiations where you bring
the warring factions, like we did in the former Yugoslavia, to the
United States to Dayton, Ohio. The political process of reconciling
those vast differences is a political process of this institution.
This institution doesn't represent 535 Secretaries of Defense or
Secretaries of State. We represent the philosophy of integrity where
dialogue is way more important, under these circumstances, than
continued violence.
What about the refugees in Jordan and Syria, 2 million refugees, not
to count the displaced persons in Iraq? Do we just ignore that? Do we
say, well, that's the administration's problem, that's a military
problem? No. We get together with dialogue with Assad and Syria, with
the King of Jordan. We talk to people in the Middle East that have
resources that can effectively deal with those people who may be
starving to death.
Another thing, just to add to the complexity of it, one of the
military strategies in the war in Vietnam by this country, a military
strategy to achieve victory in Southeast Asia, was attrition. Is
attrition a part of the military strategy in Iraq with the vast array
of complex insurgencies? Some al Qaeda, some Sunni, some Shia, some
from various other sects coming from Saudi Arabia or Iran or Jordan or
Hezbollah? Attrition cannot be a strategy now. Attrition doesn't work.
It didn't work in Vietnam.
How do we reconcile American military strategy? We do it in a debate
on this House floor. The difficulties of an insurgency, the
difficulties of culture, primitive, ancient cultures sometimes that
we're dealing with, the economics, the resources, the religious
differences, this is a political solution that General Petraeus has
said many, many times. And where does that political reconciliation,
the resolution of those vast myriad of problems begin? It begins here
on the House floor. It begins with Members of Congress that we see here
tonight, Mr. Israel, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Dent, myself and many other
Members, there's quite a few. I think Mr. Israel and I talked about the
potential for 70 Members in a bipartisan working group that can bring,
through dialogue, through ingenuity, through information, through
intellect. Somebody once said that history is a vast early warning
system. We should not complain about having hindsight. We have
hindsight. If we have a dialogue, we understand history and we're going
to make this work. This group here tonight can certainly lead the way.
I yield back to Mr. Israel. Thank you very much.
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on one point that the gentleman
made, and then I'm going to yield to the gentleman from Texas and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman talked about the importance of having a
dialogue here on the floor of the House, and I agree. I don't know how
we can expect Sunni and Shia and Kurd to reconcile their differences
when we seem to be incapable of reconciling our differences. I think we
should lead by example.
But in addition to engaging one another on the floor of the House, I
believe that leadership also involves bringing communities together.
And one of the unique things that the Center Aisle Caucus will be doing
under the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) and the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) is to have town hall meetings
in each others' districts on Iraq so that we can listen together to the
broad range of opinions that are in our districts and bring that back
in a bipartisan fashion.
And I'm very pleased, Madam Speaker, to have learned that our first
bipartisan town hall meeting will be in the district of the gentleman
from Maryland. Mr. Cramer from Alabama, Mrs. Emerson from Missouri and
I will be traveling to the gentleman's district in Maryland to have a
bipartisan town hall that he is convening, and I'm very much looking
forward to engaging in that dialogue, and hoping that the gentleman
will be educated by what my constituents believe, and that I will be
educated by what his constituents believe.
With that, I will yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. LAMPSON. Let me just raise another point. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Gilchrest spoke of the amount of time that many of our forces
served without break. We saw just recently a proposal made in the
Senate that I would like for us to add to the list of things that you
have already delineated and that we will be discussing, a way that we
can assure that our troops get at least the amount of time off that
their last deployment involved before being sent back into the war
activity. That is a proposal that, in the Senate, drew significant
bipartisan support. It came very, very close to passage, and it's one
that, again, finds something that hardly anyone will disagree with. It
is a change in the policy that we have to make, obviously, to the way
that our military operates, and again, is to be debated on this floor.
But if I may put that issue on the table for us to discuss some during
the evening, I would appreciate that as well.
And I yield back.
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. GILCHREST. Could I just very quickly, one second on the point
that Mr. Lampson made. That's one thing that's critical for this
debate.
In World War II, 25 percent of the soldiers had what was called shell
shock. That's 25 percent. In the Vietnam War era it was the same. In
this war, it is the same. Of the hundreds of thousands of young men and
women that travel through Iraq, not on one tour or two tours, sometimes
three and four tours, the kind of traumatic stress that they

[[Page H11161]]

experience is horrendous. It's not only the psychological stress; it's
the number of young men and women coming back with concussions. And
that debate needs to take place. That resolution to that problem cannot
happen with the military alone. It has to happen with a dialogue here
about how we send our forces into harm's way and how much time they
need for that break back home.
And the other issue with the problem of traumatic stress, when you're
in combat and you experience that, it can expose itself in the
individual with serious depression. And are our soldiers in Iraq being
treated when they have those symptoms of depression? Are they given
medication? These are a lot of questions that need to be answered that
haven't been, I think, addressed clearly enough from, I use the term,
because of the partisan cacophony of chaos that has happened here for
such a long period of time.
Mr. LAMPSON. If the gentleman would yield. It's precisely the point
of supporting our troops. This is the way to support our troops, to
make sure that there is order in the manner in which they are deployed
into combat and order in which they are called up and allowed to serve
in certain different capacities, to make sure that we are debating the
issues providing the resources, making sure that they have the
equipment that's necessary as well as the moral support to make sure
that their mission and their efforts are successful.
I yield back.
Mr. ISRAEL. And before I yield to the gentleman, I do want to point
out that one of the proudest achievements that I believe this Congress
has had is that we passed the largest single increase in veterans
health care in the 77-year history of the VA. We did that several
months ago. I think that's another shining example of bipartisan
cooperation that puts the interests of our troops first and subjugates
any partisan interests that sometimes occur here.
And with that, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. I'd like to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
And Madam Speaker, there's one issue that I always recall very much,
having visited Iraq in the summer of 2005 with at least one gentleman
in this room tonight. And it dealt with the issue of reconciliation,
although we really didn't talk as much as about it back then, but
that's what the exercise was in.
You've mentioned this, as we talked about reconciliation in Iraq, you
were very good enough to organize a meeting among the Center Aisle
Caucus not so long ago where a prominent Iraqi in the diplomatic corps
addressed us, and he talked about the need for reconciliation in our
country. And we referred to the tribalism in Iraq that we saw that was
frustrating to us and difficult for us to comprehend, and he sort of
noticed the tribalism in our country, as he referred to it, I believe,
as in Republicans and Democrats and very hard for him to understand the
type of chatter that was going on here. So the point is there's
reconciliation needed here in America as well as in Iraq.
But one issue of reconciliation that I learned about in Iraq, Madam
Speaker, was in August of 2005 when I met a fellow named Albert
Chowanski, Jr., who was from a town about 45 miles from my hometown of
Allentown, Pennsylvania. He lives in Frackville, Pennsylvania; been in
the Middle East for about 30 years. He was working for a contractor,
the Siemens Corporation, and was building a power plant, helping to
construct a power plant in the Taza area near Kirkuk. And he told me
the challenges of building a power plant while people are shooting
mortars at you, and how difficult that was. And I asked him, ``Well,
how did you deal with the situation?'' He said, ``Well, the mortar
attacks weren't very effective, to be perfectly candid, but
nevertheless it was troublesome and made life difficult for us.'' And
so he said the way he dealt with it, he went out and he met with each
of the tribal leaders, and that's a multiethnic area near Kirkuk. You
have ethnic Turks or Turkmen, and you have Kurds and Sunni Arabs and
Shia Arabs. And so he went out and he met with all the tribal leaders,
and he gave jobs to members of each tribe. And he said, ``You know,
they all work together just fine, and everything went pretty quiet.''
And my point is that here's a fellow who seemed to be an engineer of
some sort. I think he was an electrical engineer, and he was out there
trying to solve a problem from a very practical level. And we've seen a
bit of that in Iraq, I think, in recent months. You've seen it in the
Sunni areas that have been much talked about, the tribal leaders
turning on al Qaeda, which is all very encouraging. But sometimes we
talk about benchmarks and we talk about things that we expect the
Iraqis to do, and we are frustrated with the pace of or lack of
progress in that country from the higher levels.

{time} 2215

But then we see some of these more local efforts at reconciliation
that do bring a certain amount of encouragement and hope.
But I just wanted to share that with you tonight as something that we
ought to think more about as we talk about this policy of how we deal
with Iraq and as we try to deal with the issue from 60,000 feet in the
air here. And as many of us have visited that country and we talk to a
lot of folks who are in charge, sometimes life brings us unexpected
events, and sometimes those events are positive, and I think we can
learn from people who are on the ground.
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my friend.
Madam Speaker, our time is drawing to a close; so I would like to
summarize some of the points that we have made and some of the very
specific solutions that the Center Aisle Caucus is pursuing.
Number one, we have a bipartisan resolution that would direct the
President to submit and negotiate a status of forces agreement with the
sovereign government of Iraq.
Number two, we believe that if you are a refugee who was providing a
critical lifesaving service for U.S. forces as a translator, as an
interpreter, or some related position and that you have received death
threats and that you want to get your family out of harm's way that we
shouldn't make it almost impossible for you to do so, that a
compassionate nation would reward you rather than building roadblocks.
So we have proposed legislation cosponsored by Mr. Wolf from Virginia
and me that would make it a little bit easier for those who have
provided a service to the United States military to seek special
immigrant status here.
Number three, we believe that the recommendations of the Iraq Study
Group report ought to be incorporated into policy and not just sit on a
shelf, the recommendations for a diplomatic surge and all the other
recommendations. Now, we may not agree on every single one of these
elements, and we may not agree on every single one of the bills that
the Center Aisle Caucus has put forward, but we are trying to build
that critical mass and develop consensus on some clear directions.
Next, the Center Aisle Caucus will be visiting one another's
districts to hold bipartisan town hall meetings because we may not have
all of the ideas here. Our jobs are Members of Congress, but we are
representatives. We are supposed to represent the views that we hear.
So we will be going out on a bipartisan basis to one another's
districts to hear those views.
One other thing that I didn't have an opportunity to mention and we
will mention it in the future is that our colleagues from Tennessee
(Mr. Cooper) and from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) are working on a
bipartisan Center Aisle assessment of the War Powers Act. As our
colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) said at one of our dinners, ``I
fear that one day we as Members of Congress will wake up and find out
that we have just launched World War Three and we are reading about it
in the newspaper.'' He is very concerned, as is Mr. English, that the
War Powers Act needs to be assessed. We want to make sure that we are
exercising our constitutional oversight responsibility and that we
don't find ourselves in a war without that proper congressional
authority and oversight. So they will be convening an assessment of the
War Powers Act and making some legislative recommendations.
I want to conclude by reiterating something that I said when we
opened up, Madam Speaker. We are not going to end the war tomorrow
through the Center Aisle Caucus. None of these resolutions will end the
war tomorrow as

[[Page H11162]]

much as many of us would like to end the war tomorrow and may vote to
end the war tomorrow. But we have had enough screaming at one another
from both sides of the aisle, and that has not ended the war up to now.
We have an obligation to the people that I saw yesterday, that my
colleagues Mr. Dent and Mr. Lampson and Mr. Gilchrest have been
visiting at our military hospitals and at funerals. They don't want us
to harp on left and right. They want us to figure out a way forward.
They want us to put aside disagreements that have paralyzed us and move
forward on what we can agree to. That is exactly what we intend to
continue focusing on.
I thank my colleagues for spending time on this very late evening,
and I hope, Madam Speaker, that the American people understand the
importance of this engagement, this reconciliation, this dialogue to
move not left or right but forward.
Did the gentleman want to close?
Mr. DENT. If I may, Madam Speaker, I just hope that our exercise
tonight has done just what you want us to do to make C-SPAN safe for
children again, and I hope this exercise has accomplished that goal.
Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, we will never be the Disney Channel, but
it is a good start.

____________________