[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 185 (Wednesday, December 5, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H14163-H14169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1585, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department 
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal 
year, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree 
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the 
Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hunter moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1585 be instructed 
     to agree to the following provisions:
       (1) The provision contained in section 1536(b) of the 
     Senate amendment, relating to

[[Page H14164]]

     the sense of the Senate that the Senate should commit itself 
     to a strategy that will not leave a failed state in Iraq and 
     the Senate should not pass legislation that will undermine 
     our military's ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq.
       (2) The provisions contained in title XV of the House bill, 
     relating to the authorization of additional appropriations 
     for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I yield myself such time as 
I might consume.
  My colleagues, the Republican motion to instruct outlines the 
consequences of a failed state in Iraq and supports a clean war funding 
bill without a date certain to withdraw American troops from Iraq. And 
I would remind my colleagues that the motion to instruct goes to the 
Senate provision which passed by a nearly unanimous vote of 94-3.
  Let me explain what it does. The Republican motion to instruct puts 
the House of Representatives on record acknowledging the consequences 
of a vote for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and not fully funding 
our troops and their missions. It instructs House conferees to accept 
Senate provision 1536 which states that it is the sense of Congress 
that a failed state in Iraq would become a safe haven for Islamic 
radicals, including al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are determined to 
attack the United States and its allies.
  The provision also notes that a failed state in Iraq could lead to a 
broader regional conflict involving Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and 
Turkey, and would lead to massive humanitarian suffering, including 
widespread ethnic cleansing and countless refugees and internally 
displaced persons, many of whom will be tortured and killed for having 
assisted coalition forces.
  Senate provision 1536 concludes by stating that the Congress should 
commit itself to a strategy that will not leave a failed state in Iraq 
and should not pass legislation that will undermine our military's 
ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq.
  Now, going to the aspect of the authorization of additional 
appropriations for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom, my colleagues, these are the funds that are essential in this 
ongoing war in two theaters, to keep the funds going, to keep the money 
going to operate our military forces so that we don't end up having to 
reach into the cash register and pull money out for ammunition, pull 
money out for training exercise, pull money out for important ongoing 
operations and activities here that are in fact assisting the war-
fighting effort.
  One example of those, of course, is the Joint Improvised Explosive 
Device Defeat Organization, JIEDDO, which has a complicated name but 
very simply means developing capabilities against roadside bombs. 
That's a command that we set up to defeat IEDs in Iraq, and we are told 
now that it will run out of money within the next hundred days and may 
not have enough money to fund all urgent initiatives from Iraq and 
Afghanistan during that time.

                              {time}  1045

  I would remind my colleagues that the roadside bombs are being seen 
on a more widespread basis in Afghanistan now. There has been an 
understanding by the insurgents, by the Taliban, by al Qaeda in 
Afghanistan that those, in fact, are a deadly and effective system. And 
it makes no sense whatsoever for us to shortchange the accounts that 
are going toward the defeat of roadside bombs.
  Another point that I would make is that we have been notified that 
the Pentagon will soon be required to lay off 100,000 civilian workers. 
Many of those workers are working on important projects that go to the 
heart of our ability to win in the war-fighting theaters. So this is a 
major, major mistake for this Congress, in the middle of an operation 
in two war-fighting theaters, to shortchange these accounts which will 
result in the military having to reach in the cash register, take money 
out of other accounts in the hope that at some point in the future next 
year we are going to be able to make up that money. So whatever your 
position on our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether you think 
we should be there or not be there, every Member of this body says time 
and again, ``We support the troops.''
  Madam Speaker, stripping this funding off, which is what we will do 
if we don't pass this motion to instruct, is very clearly a disservice 
to these 157,000 plus troops in Iraq and the 22,000 plus American 
troops fighting in Afghanistan right now.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As my friend, Mr. Hunter, the gentleman from California knows, both 
the House version of the Defense Authorization Act and the Senate 
version authorized supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. I say ``authorized.''
  The Armed Services Committee has collectively supported authorizing 
this funding to ensure the continued relevance of the committee and to 
make sure that the specific purposes for which the President has 
requested funds are actually related to the wars.
  In both the House and Senate versions of the bill, we have authorized 
this funding in a way that provides maximum flexibility for the 
leadership as well as for the appropriators. While we authorize 
funding, as my friend from California knows, nothing can happen without 
further action on an appropriations bill, and it is those 
appropriations bills that have served as the vehicles for the Iraq 
debate.
  The House recently passed a bridge supplemental fund that would 
change our policy in Iraq. We may very well have similar debates in the 
future, and I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle would be forthcoming with their suggestions on how to address the 
strategic risk we incur by pursuing the President's failed policy. In 
the Defense Authorization Act, our committee, I expect, will act in 
conference to ensure that those debates can occur and that the House 
can work its will on future appropriations bills to restrain the 
President's Iraq war policy.
  We all acknowledge that our troops have done a great job in Iraq. We 
owe them our thanks, our gratitude and our congratulations for their 
work as well as for their sacrifices. Their sweat and their blood have 
helped to reduce the level of violence in Iraq from the horrific levels 
of late 2006 and early 2007.
  The original purpose of this surge was to reduce violence to provide 
the Iraqis with a chance for political reconciliation. Violence is 
down. It is time for the Iraqis to step up and take the hard steps 
toward reconciliation that will finish the job our wonderful troops 
have started. Yet they have refused to do this.
  In response to this refusal, the House recently voted to begin to 
redeploy most of our troops out of Iraq and to change the nature of our 
involvement there. This policy is supported by a large majority of the 
American people who do not believe that we should continue to police a 
civil war when the Iraqis themselves refuse to take the hard steps to 
bring it to an end.
  Well, we are not having the Iraq debate on the defense authorization 
bill. The supplemental authorization is intended to set the stage for 
that debate. That is an appropriations bill as all of us know. That is 
why the House and the Senate versions of the Defense Authorization Act, 
which is before us, included a supplemental authorization and why I 
suspect that the conference will do the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) who 
is the ranking member on the Terrorism Subcommittee.
  Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I happen to believe that this motion to instruct is extremely 
important. I think it is extremely important for two reasons. First, as 
Mr. Hunter pointed out, this provision provides instruction to 
authorize the full $192 billion supplemental for the war spending bill 
without strings or date certain to withdraw American forces from Iraq. 
I think that is important. And I will say why a little bit later here. 
But I also I think it

[[Page H14165]]

is important to recognize, as this provision also does, that there are 
consequences for not carrying out our actions in Iraq and in other 
places in the world, for that matter, in a responsible fashion.
  This measure instructs the House conferees to accept a provision that 
has already been passed by the Senate. It is known as provision 1536 
which states that it is the sense of Congress that a failed state in 
Iraq would become a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including al Qaeda 
and Hezbollah, and others, who are determined to attack the United 
States here at home and our allies.
  Let me speak to the first point to say why I think it is important 
that we go forward to authorize the full $192 billion supplemental war 
spending bill. All of us should be students of history, particularly 
recent history. I know that the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee is a great historian himself. But recent events I think are 
extremely important. Perhaps some of our colleagues here have not 
watched this as closely as perhaps some of us on the Armed Services 
Committee, but as we saw progress begin to take place in Iraq, many of 
us asked why. And I think it was universally accepted that one of the 
reasons was that the Sunni tribal leaders, for a couple of reasons, I 
believe, began to cooperate with our forces and our personnel who are 
there. One reason was in their own self-interest. They recognized that 
the time of wishing each other, that is Sunnis and Shias ill, was 
drawing to a close because the Iraqi people themselves were tired of 
the violence. So just like any of our neighbors here would be tired of 
violence under those circumstances, the Iraqis grew tired of it as 
well.
  But the second reason I believe we began to make the progress that we 
see today is very simply that the Iraqi people became convinced, in 
spite of many days of rhetoric on this floor, became convinced that we 
weren't going to leave them, that we were going to stay and finish the 
job. And so the commitment that would be expressed by the passage of 
this language I think is extremely important.
  But I also think it is important to recognize that the provision 
notes that a failed state in Iraq could lead to a broader regional 
conflict. There was a lot of talk here this morning on this floor and 
yesterday in the news media about the state of Iran, and why was it 
that in 2003 we now believe that they discontinued their effort to 
create nuclear weapons. Could it have been something that happened in 
their neighborhood? Could it have been the determination that our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines showed next door in Iraq? And 
could it be that the Iranian leadership recognized that there were 
actions that they needed to take in their best interest which perhaps 
included the discontinuation of their effort to create nuclear weapons?
  Senate provision 1536 concludes by stating that the Congress should 
commit itself to a strategy that will not leave a failed state in Iraq, 
that will continue the progress that we have seen in recent months and 
should not pass legislation that will undermine our military's ability 
to prevent a failed state in Iraq.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from 
Mississippi, let me point out the fact that both in the House version 
of the defense authorization bill as well as the Senate version of the 
bill there is positive reference to the threat of a failed state in 
Iraq. That is fully recognized in both pieces of legislation, and I 
appreciate the gentleman's comments thereon and hopefully correct and 
parallel language could be adopted in that regard.
  I now, Madam Speaker, yield 5 minutes to my friend, my colleague, the 
gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Seapower (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR. I thank the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman.
  Madam Speaker, one of the things we ought to do in a democracy is 
when the other guy has a good idea, no matter what political party he's 
in, is to say that's a good idea. I would remind the gentleman that it 
was the Bush administration that classified the number of jammers in 
Iraq under a failed policy by Donald Rumsfeld that basically didn't 
want the moms and dads of Americans to know how few we had. It was this 
Congress that insisted that we have a jammer on every vehicle in Iraq 
to keep the improvised explosive devices from being remotely detonated. 
So, of course, I don't want those funds cut because I, along with 
others, worked to put those funds in the bill.
  Along that same policy of ``war by wishful thinking'' from the 
Rumsfeld crowd was that we didn't need mine-resistant vehicles over 
there. The Bush administration only asked for 4,000. We were going to 
build over 15,000 because this Congress realized the importance of 
them, and that there are kids in Walter Reed today who would still have 
their limbs if we had built them sooner. There are kids in Mississippi 
graveyards who would still be alive if we had built them sooner. So of 
course we want those funds in the bill.
  I fully support the gentleman's efforts. We have a lot of very good 
things in this bill, and it deserves to be funded, and the troops in 
Iraq need to know that we are going to fund the jammers they need to 
save their lives both over there and here because one of the problems 
with having too few jammers is that our troops in the United States 
that are training to go to Iraq still aren't seeing a jammer until they 
get to theater. And this is the device that is going to save their 
lives. This is the device that is going to save their limbs. And they 
need to be training with those things here in America so that the first 
time they don't see this device that's going to save their life is when 
they are traveling from Kuwait into Iraq. That is the situation that 
still exists today that we are trying to fix.
  The Bush administration asked for too few of these. Congress, in an 
earmark, said no, we are going to build them because they are going to 
save lives. The Bush administration asked for too few mine-resistant, 
ambush-protected vehicles. Congress, in an earmark, said no, we are 
going to build them because it is going to keep kids from losing their 
legs, and it is going to keep kids from losing their lives. So of 
course I am going to support this bill, I am going to support the 
gentleman's efforts, and I thank the chairman for putting together what 
I think is an excellent Armed Services defense authorization bill that 
is going to lead to fewer deaths in Iraq, fewer deaths in Afghanistan, 
and a stronger, and hopefully in the future, more peaceful world.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the last speaker for his 
statement and for his wonderful contribution on the Armed Services 
Committee in terms of working the jammer issues, and lots of other 
Members who have worked these important force protection issues. I 
think that we have proven on the committee that the wisdom of the 
committee and lots of Members who have gotten personally involved in 
this force protection issue have matched and at some times exceeded the 
Pentagon's own projections and projects.

                              {time}  1100

  I am reminded also that we manufactured and fielded 10,000 portable 
jammers, so that troops who are on foot could also have jammers, which 
had not been planned by the Pentagon. So I think he makes a good point. 
Of course, having these funds that are available in these supplementals 
that we can direct to force protection is a key aspect of our 
responsibility.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia 
(Mrs. Drake).
  Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to 
instruct conferees. This motion would instruct House conferees to 
accept section 1536 of the Senate version of the national defense 
authorization, a provision which received near unanimous support on the 
other side of the Capitol. This section states, ``A failed state in 
Iraq would become a safe haven for radicals, including al Qaeda and 
Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the United States and its 
allies.'' It goes on to state that ``a failed state in Iraq would lead 
to a broader regional conflict, possibly involving Syria and Iran.''
  I would remind my colleagues that only a few short months ago, the 
President of Iran was quoted as saying that very soon we will be 
witnessing a great power vacuum in the region, and that Iran is willing 
to fill this void.
  Madam Speaker, the other side has attempted over 40 times to wave a

[[Page H14166]]

white flag in Iraq. This motion would put this Chamber on record as 
supporting a policy of success in Iraq. Our goal must be the path that 
we are on; a stable, functioning Iraqi Government, who can be an ally 
with us in the war on terror and not the goal of our enemy, which is 
Iraq as the capital of their caliphate.
  Madam Speaker, I visited Iraq this summer. I had the opportunity to 
meet with the Deputy Prime Minister, and I asked the question why Iraq 
had not passed the legislation that we were using as a benchmark. I 
told him I had heard he had the votes to pass the legislation.
  His answer to me was quite surprising. He said, ``Yes, I have the 
votes. I have 75 percent to pass the legislation.'' He said, ``But if I 
do it, I will be cutting the Sunnis out of the government; they will 
have no voice and no power.''
  That is exactly the opposite of what their goal is in Iraq. I would 
maintain that the Iraqi Government is working very hard for stable 
institutions where no one group can take over power again.
  We have all seen the efforts of our military and the surge are 
working, creating stability and security. And now we are seeing the 
best of all results, which is the Iraqi people themselves, who have 
chosen us and have chosen their government. And in the words of their 
own sheiks that we met, two Sunni and two Shia, they said, ``We are 
working together for Iraq.''
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion in the best interests of 
our national security and working together for Iraq.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), who is the 
chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the House Armed Services Committee, who led a fabulous effort this 
year. For the first time in 13 years, Democrats are in the majority and 
wrote a defense bill that came to the floor and passed with almost 400 
votes. I think that is a record, and I think it speaks very much for 
the bipartisan effort that we had on the committee.
  In my subcommittee, Strategic Forces, which includes many different 
issues, including missile defense, the entire nuclear weapons 
portfolio, our part of the bill passed through on a voice vote and then 
came to the committee and was supported by virtually all members. So I 
think we have a very good bill. I think that the conference between the 
House and the Senate will be a productive one. It will be a time for us 
to mesh these issues.
  But as we so often say in Washington, no good deed goes unpunished. I 
very much appreciate the ranking member from California bringing this 
motion to instruct forward, but, by the way, it is what is going to 
probably be in the bill, and it is certainly what is reflected in a 
bipartisan way by both Democrats and Republicans in both the House and 
the Senate.
  I think there has been a lot of rhetoric today about how dangerous a 
failed state in Iraq would be, and I stand to join my colleagues. I am 
absolutely, unambiguously convinced that a failed state in Iraq is not 
only now a bad thing, but would continue to be a bad thing.
  I guess the real question is, what about the failed policy that got 
us to a place where we are all concerned about a failed state in Iraq, 
and why isn't the debate today about the failed policy? How could it be 
that we are sitting here talking about a national defense bill that is 
one of the most important bills that the Congress brings, our 
constitutional responsibility, and we are not talking about a failed 
policy that has caused us to borrow almost $800 billion, caused us to 
have virtually no ready ground forces in the United States currently, 
caused us to degrade our ability to be prepared for any other 
contingency? Why isn't the debate today about that?
  Well, because that would be a good debate. That would be really what 
the debate should be about. But, instead, we are going to have a motion 
to instruct on things that are already agreed to by the Senate and the 
House, by the conferees, and I would say every Member here.
  So I appreciate the Member from California bringing this up. This is 
easy to support. We are all for it and we all know it. But the real 
question is: Why don't we have a debate about the failed policy? Why 
aren't we really concerned about the readiness of our troops, our 
inability to deal with other contingencies, all of the money we have 
borrowed, and no solution to extricate ourselves honorably and as soon 
as possible to bring our troops home so that we can maintain our 
readiness?
  Our American forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq have done everything 
that the American people have asked for. The problem, my colleagues, is 
they have done it for too long. They have done it for too long without 
an Iraqi Government that will stand up and provide the political 
solution necessary for us to be able to leave an Iraq that is beginning 
to put itself together, knitting those tribes together, moving forward 
together to do the right thing.
  But what we have right now is an intransigent, stuck Iraqi Government 
that hasn't provided the political solution, the only solution, that 
will be able to create a stable Iraq. It is not our responsibility to 
create a stable Iraq. That is why they have a sovereign government. And 
what we can no longer do is enable the sovereign government to come up 
with excuse after excuse after excuse.
  I really appreciated my colleague from Virginia explaining to me why 
the oil legislation written by our State Department isn't something 
that the Iraqis can pass, even though they have the votes to do it. I 
find that fascinating.
  We have been told for months that the petrochemical law is the most 
important thing that they can do. It is the thing that is going to give 
the Sunnis the effort to come into the government and feel like they 
are part of the government and that they are part of a solution and a 
one-Iraq strategy. But, of course, we don't have that, because even 
though they have the votes, it seems like it is just a little too hard 
to do.
  We are spending too much money. We are spending too much time. We are 
risking too many American soldiers. We are risking our readiness. The 
failed policy is really what we should be talking about, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, I said it is easy to support this motion to instruct 
because it is something we all agree on.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to respond to my good 
colleague from California.
  First, I would say to my colleague, we are winning in Iraq. We are 
winning. We are going to leave Iraq in victory.
  Maybe my friend heard a different briefing than the one that I heard 
when General Petraeus came back and laid out the most recent figures 
with respect to attacks, but that very dangerous part of Anbar province 
that we have both visited has seen a drop in attacks of 80 percent. In 
fact, we have seen a drop in attacks and a drop in American casualties 
and civilian casualties across Iraq. And we have also seen new 
capabilities in the 131 Iraqi battalions that we have built from 
scratch.
  I would just say to my friend, I have seen all the old smooth-path 
books and reports and recommendations that said somehow there was a 
smooth path to victory in Iraq, and I have always said there is no 
smooth path.
  To those who say we should have kept Saddam Hussein's army in place, 
I am reminded that Saddam Hussein's army had 11,000 Sunni generals, 
which would have been exactly the wrong formula for a military which is 
supposed to take on a role of stabilization and honest brokerage in 
Iraq.
  The reports that we are now seeing from the battlefield are that the 
Iraqi forces, while some of them have had limited battlefield 
experience, some have had extensive battlefield experience, that 
military is maturing; that the military that broke and ran in the first 
battle of Fallujah, the Iraqi military, now stands and fights; that in 
fact that government is moving forward, and although it is moving 
forward in a stumbling, bumbling, sometimes inept fashion, that is the 
nature of new governments. That is also the nature of governments that 
solve their problems with ballots and not bullets, because it is not 
always easy to get the other guy to agree with you on a particular 
function.

[[Page H14167]]

  With respect to oil distribution, there is an ad hoc oil distribution 
that is taking place right now, or de facto oil distribution. It is not 
a function of legislation. Right now the Kurds get, for example, 18 
percent of the oil revenues. So there is an oil distribution. And I 
think if there wasn't an oil distribution, you would have more 
conflict. Instead of seeing a waning conflict between the various 
sectors in Iraq, you would see an increasing conflict.
  So I would just say to my friends and to the gentlewoman and to 
everyone who cares about an American victory in Iraq, we will have 
victory in Iraq if we maintain our strength. And maintaining our 
strength includes continuing to fund this operation.
  It is our committee, the Armed Services Committee, that came up 
initially with the so-called bridge fund appropriation, because we said 
it is only proper that the Armed Services Committee authorizes an 
appropriation that will go through the winter months of the year so 
that the services do not have to reach into the cash register and take 
money out of valuable training exercises, take money out of our 
military equipment accounts and take money out of our ammunition 
accounts.
  So I think we have exactly what we need in this motion to recommit. 
It is a motion that says it is the commitment of the United States 
Congress that we don't have a failed state in Iraq, and it also 
emphasizes again that we have to have these supplemental funds to 
ensure that the war fighters in both of these theaters, in Afghanistan 
and in Iraq, are able to move forward.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Republican motion to instruct the conferees on the 2008 Department of 
Defense authorization act.
  Madam Speaker, as we adjourned for the Thanksgiving recess, we 
witnessed something remarkable. We witnessed the Democratic majority, 
in working to mollify their liberal base one more time before the 
Thanksgiving recess, come to the floor pounding their fist declaring 
that we must not give our troops additional funding without 
congressional mandated withdrawal guidelines. They recycled the same 
old rhetoric, seemingly oblivious to the facts on the ground.
  Thankfully, the direction of our efforts in the global war on terror 
is being guided by General Petraeus and others who do understand the 
momentum that we have garnered; that violence between Sunnis and 
Shiites has nearly disappeared from Baghdad, with terrorist bombings 
down 77 percent; that attacks against United States soldiers have 
fallen to levels not seen since before the February 2006 bombing of the 
Shiite shrine in Samarra; that United States casualties in Iraq are at 
their lowest level since March of 2006; and that many military 
analysts, including some who are opposed to the war, have concluded 
that the United States and its allies are on the verge of winning in 
Iraq.
  Indeed, Madam Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the Defense 
Authorization Appropriations Subcommittee just returned from Iraq, and 
he declared that the surge is finally working. I reference Mr. Murtha 
from Pennsylvania.
  Madam Speaker, this is something the other side doesn't like to 
discuss, victory in the global war on terror. That is tough to squeeze 
in with the defeatist rhetoric recited to appease MoveOn.org and Code 
Pink.
  Another thing the Democratic majority never discusses are the 
consequences of failure, and they have been discussed this morning on 
our side.

                              {time}  1115

  That is why this motion to instruct is so important, Madam Speaker. 
It is critical that the House accept Senate provision 1536 and 
recognize that failure in Iraq would mean a collapse of a democratic 
Iraqi Government, likely leading to mass killings and genocide in that 
nation; certainly emboldening al Qaeda; regional instability; Iran and 
Syria determining the course of Iraq's future; and Israel being pushed 
into the Mediterranean Sea, just as Ahmadinejad called for.
  These are the consequences of defeat and these are the reasons why 
Congress must commit to a strategy that will not leave a failed state 
in Iraq and why Congress must not pass, indeed, not pass legislation 
that risks demoralizing and undermining our military, as they are 
indeed on the verge of victory in Iraq.
  So, Madam Speaker, the Democrats are zero for 40 in trying to compel 
this precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. With this motion to instruct, I 
ask them for once to get on the right side. Join not just the 
Republicans, but, more importantly, our brave men and women in the 
military, and give victory a chance.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues, let's vote ``yes'' on 
the motion to instruct.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a very distinguished member of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, this resolution affirms the obvious and 
avoids the necessary. It is obvious that the common goal of the United 
States, the House, the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, is to avoid a 
failed state in Iraq. The Senate bill affirms this, the House bill 
affirms this, and I am supremely confident that the final conference 
report will confirm it as well.
  The issue, as my friend the gentlewoman from California said, is how 
do we avoid a failed state in Iraq. Sadly, the record gives us many 
examples of what not to do.
  When General Shinseki told the administration that his recommendation 
was to put 300,000 troops on the ground after Saddam fell, and the 
administration ignored that request, that is what not to do; when 
leaders who had studied Iraq in our State Department, our intelligence 
agencies and our Defense Department said abolishing the Iraqi Army and 
the Baathist Party in its entirety is the wrong thing to do, abolishing 
the Iraqi Army, abolishing the Baathist Party in its entirety was the 
wrong thing to do, it increased the risk of a failed state.
  Now I heard my friend, the ranking member, talk about 11,000 Sunni 
generals, and he is right. The top of the Iraqi Army, the erstwhile 
Iraqi Army, the top of the Baathist Party should have either been put 
on trial, put in prison, or, at the very least, removed from those 
institutions. But the 85 to 90 percent who ran the sewer system and the 
train system and the bureaucracy of Iraq should not have been fired all 
at once. It was not the recommendation of the Secretary of State, it 
was not the recommendation of the intelligence community, but it's what 
we did, and it's how to create a failed state.
  When voices within our government and around the world said that the 
right way to transition from Saddam's corrupt and evil regime to a new 
day was an internationally supervised political process, not listening 
to those voices was the wrong thing to do, and it increased the risk of 
a failed state.
  So, yes, we know all sorts of things. We have learned all kinds of 
lessons about what not to do.
  What should we do? Well, I think what we should do is insist that the 
Iraqi politicians do what American troops have done with such 
excellence, to execute the job they have been given. We are thankful 
that the level of violence has been reduced. We are very grateful for 
this, and we understand that the credit for that largely goes to the 
Americans in uniform and to their Iraqi partners fighting with them. We 
are very thankful for that result.
  But we are also very mindful that the Iraqi politicians who have been 
given a golden opportunity to bring peace and stability to their 
country have utterly failed to do so. They have not passed a law 
dividing up the proceeds of their oil industry; they have not 
guaranteed minority rights in their government; they have not set up 
and established provincial elections and provincial governments. They 
have utterly failed to establish a stable government, because we have 
stood there and continued to hold their coats and let them suffer the 
delusion that America's sons and daughters will stay there forever.
  If you want to avoid a failed state in Iraq, change that delusionary 
perception. Say to the Iraqi politicians, the

[[Page H14168]]

clock is running. The time is drawing nigh when our sons and our 
daughters will no longer referee your civil war. Negotiate an end to 
it, stop it, build a stable government. That is how to avoid a failed 
state. That is the policy underlying the policy of this majority. 
Frankly, it's a policy reflected in this excellent Armed Services 
authorization bill, which I hope will promptly be on the floor, 
promptly be on the President's desk, and promptly get about the 
business of serving the people who serve us so well.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to a gentleman, in 
fact, the next two gentlemen have sons who have served in the Iraqi 
theater. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) has a son who is a 
Blackhawk helicopter pilot who has served, I believe, in both theaters 
and has quite a bit of experience in some very difficult operations. 
The gentleman always has an excellent insight on this important 
operation. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), I would like to 
give him 3 minutes.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for 
his kind words.
  I, like the gentleman from California, have a son serving in uniform 
and I am very proud of his service, proud of Mr. Hunter's son's service 
in the Marine Corps and my son's service in the Army in Iraq. I 
understand that on January 1 my son is heading to Afghanistan. So I do 
feel a certain personal importance to what we are discussing today and 
to the funding for our troops. But collectively we have all sent our 
sons and daughters into combat, into dangerous theaters in the world, 
and we need to make sure that we are giving them every chance for 
victory.
  My good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, said 
that we have learned some things not to do and some things to do. I 
would argue that the thing not to do is to take a strategy which is 
clearly working, which is bringing increased security to a dangerous 
spot in the world, to a strategy that is producing more electricity, 
more oil, opening schools, shops. You don't take that strategy and pull 
the rug out from under it.
  Last July, Madam Speaker, I and other Members stood on this floor to 
ask our colleagues not to snatch the possibility of victory away from 
our soldiers and marines. In an atmosphere filled with overblown 
rhetoric predicting the failure of surge operations before they had 
begun in earnest, General Petraeus and those under his command pushed 
forward into the streets of Baghdad and into the tribal-dominated areas 
of al Anbar province. They engaged and destroyed al Qaeda cells while 
working closely with tribal leaders to establish a lasting stability in 
once hostile Sunni areas.
  Just a few short months ago, critics in this body and the Senate 
declared defeat, declared defeat before giving success a chance. They 
did not believe our fighting men and women, implementing General 
Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy, could rout al Qaeda and 
insurgent forces and win over the Iraqi population. I am proud to say 
that they were wrong, and that is what has happened.
  As we proceed with conference negotiations on this National Defense 
Authorization Act, I would urge my colleagues not to repeat the mistake 
we have sadly made many times before. We must not declare defeat while 
our military forces fight for victory. This motion to instruct 
conferees is just a small step to ensure that the position of this body 
is not to accept a strategy which will produce a failed state in Iraq.
  In a letter to his troops before commencing the surge operations, 
General Petraeus noted that, ``Success will require discipline, 
fortitude and initiative, qualities that you have in abundance.''
  The question before us today, Madam Speaker, is the same one I asked 
in July: Do we in Congress have those same qualities?
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The motion to instruct by my friend Mr. Hunter from California is in 
two parts. Both of these sections make reference to issues that are 
spelled out in both the House and Senate versions and consequently 
should be acceptable. I would hope that the conferees would be in line 
with accepting both of those issues.
  I would like to take just a moment, Madam Speaker, however, to say a 
word about those wonderful troops who we, through this authorization, 
support. They are the best in the world. They and their families have 
been tasked to do monumental work in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, 
and to say we are proud of them is an understatement. General Petraeus 
is the right man for the job in his great efforts in Iraq.
  That is why in this bill we authorize a 3\1/2\ percent pay raise for 
our troops; that is why we made significant changes to address the 
problems unearthed by the Walter Reed situation regarding our wounded 
warriors; that is why we put $1 billion in strategic readiness funds to 
deal with the critical readiness shortfall. And this is a major 
challenge for us. The reforms for Iraq and Afghanistan contracting are 
spelled out in this bill. There is additional money for the MRAP 
vehicles; there is $980 million for our National Guard equipment; 
prohibition on TRICARE fee increases; taking steps to minimize the 
inequities for survivors and to step forward on the survivor benefit 
plan offset.
  So all of these are major issues within the realm of the two bills, 
and hopefully the conferees would be able to make significant progress 
on each of those.
  I am proud of the work we have done. I am proud of the Armed Services 
Committee. I think it is the most bipartisan committee in Congress. 
Special thanks to the gentleman from California who has worked with us 
these many years to the end of positive help for the American in 
uniform.
  So with that, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes now to 
another gentleman whose son has served in the Iraq theater, Mr. Wilson 
of South Carolina.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I want to thank my Republican 
colleagues for bringing this motion to instruct to the floor. It is 
important to me as a member of the Armed Services Committee, as a 31-
year veteran of the Army National Guard, and as the parent of a soldier 
who has served in Iraq, with another son soon to deploy to Iraq. 
Additionally, our family is grateful to have two additional sons 
serving in the military.
  This motion to instruct is straightforward. It simply confirms that 
the representatives of the American people understand the consequences 
of our actions in Iraq and that we are not going to pull the rug out 
from underneath our brave soldiers. Congress should never act to 
undermine our troops and jeopardize the success they are achieving in 
Iraq today. Unfortunately, the strategy of precipitous withdrawal and 
defeat some continue to advocate has brought us to this point.
  The Democrat leadership has continued to propose legislation that 
aims to micromanage our military leaders and tie their hands as they 
stop the terrorists. This undermines the extraordinary gains by our 
troops that I have seen on my eight visits to Iraq, which has been 
possible by the surge led by General David Petraeus. We must not forget 
al Qaeda spokesman Zawahiri has declared Iraq and Afghanistan the 
central front in the global war on terrorism, and we must succeed in 
stopping terrorists overseas and protecting American families at home.

                              {time}  1130

  This motion to instruct is a right opportunity for this body, for the 
leadership here in Washington to say with one voice that we are 
invested in success, that our aim is not to leave behind a failed Iraqi 
state where safe havens for terrorists will threaten American families. 
Our military should be able to count on our unwavering support for the 
fight in which they are engaged.
  Our colleagues in the Senate have already acted with near unanimous 
support, 94-3, to include the language of this motion in their 
authorization. Only three Senators voted against this, showing a 
unified United States Senate. They have gone on record recognizing that 
a failed state in Iraq would have dire consequences for the safety and 
security of the region, for American families, and for our allies 
around

[[Page H14169]]

the world. It is imperative that we follow their lead.
  Again, I want to thank the ranking member, Duncan Hunter, for his 
leadership. He is a dedicated veteran and father of an Iraq veteran. 
And additionally, I want to thank my Republican colleagues for bringing 
this motion to the floor. I encourage all of my colleagues to support 
it and send a bipartisan message to our enemies and allies that we are 
committed to victory in Iraq and ensuring that Iraq does not become a 
failed state and a safe haven for terrorists.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers on our side 
and are prepared to close.
  I just want to once again remind everyone what this is really about. 
We have an excellent national defense authorization bill for fiscal 
year 2008. It has broad bipartisan support, bicameral support, both the 
House and the Senate. Most Members voted for this bill when it came to 
the floor in the spring. We are about to go to conference and make sure 
that the bills become congruent so we can send it to the President.
  This is a bill that the President must sign. It has so many good 
things in it. I want to take a couple of seconds and talk about the 
fact that Democrats, who took majority in January, have written their 
first bill in 13 years, and there are many, many good things in here 
that we are very proud of. We have done many things for the troops. We 
have included a 3.5 percent pay raise. We have prohibited increases in 
their health care, which is called TRICARE, and pharmacy user fees.
  The bill also provides $980 million for National Guard equipment. We 
know how stressed and strained our National Guard has been. We know how 
upset many Governors have been that the National Guard has been 
deployed out of States so the State is without their own National 
Guard. And the worst part of it is when they went to Iraq or 
Afghanistan, and some are there for the second and third time, they 
left their equipment there. So the State doesn't even have equipment 
that the State can use in the case of a flood or fire or some other 
kind of an emergency.
  We have a lot of equipment that we have added; $17.4 billion for 
MRAPs, which is a plus-up from what the President requested. We have 
also added a shipbuilding request that the President didn't ask for, 
which is a Virginia class submarine, an LPD and a T-AKE, and eight C-
17s that the Pentagon didn't ask for either, because we know that we 
need global power projection.
  This is a very important bill that is part of our congressional 
responsibility to raise and support our troops, and I am proud to say 
this is a strong bill that supports our troops, restores military 
readiness and improves accountability to the American people. I ask for 
my colleagues' support of it when we bring it back from the conference.
  I appreciate the fact that this is a motion to instruct, but what we 
are being instructed is, frankly, two different issues that we have 
general widespread support for. Both in the House and Senate version of 
the bill, the language included in the motion to instruct has been 
included. We should be very confident that they will be part of the 
final conference report, so this is a motion to instruct that is very 
supportable.
  I am happy to yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from 
California for her comments, and also the distinguished chairman, who 
is a great friend and a wonderful patriot and has done a great job of 
steering our committee through the authorization process.
  Let me tell you why I think it is important to pass this motion to 
instruct. We built the bridge fund. The Armed Services Committee 
realized we have the winter months when you need funding for the troops 
before you get to the spring supplemental. So we came up initially 
several years ago with the idea of a $50 billion bridge fund to make 
sure that those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines had what they 
needed in the war-fighting theater to be successful.
  It is true we have this in our bill this time because we are the 
major architects of the bridge fund. We are the people who came up with 
it the first time, and the appropriators followed us. But this time 
they did not follow us. This time they conditioned the bridge fund with 
get-out-of-Iraq language, and that was a disservice to everyone who 
wears the uniform in the theater and to the mission. So it is important 
for the Members of this body to cast their votes in favor of that 
bridge fund, and perhaps that will show the right direction to the 
Appropriations Committee and to the Members of Congress who vote on the 
full appropriations, because we need to have that bridge fund not only 
authorized but appropriated.
  Finally, we do need to have that very strong language committing 
ourselves to avoid a failed state in Iraq. And we are winning.
  Now let me go back to my good colleague Mr. Skelton, who said we all 
support the troops and we have manifested that support in pay raises. 
And we have. We have manifested it in good medical care and a new 
Wounded Warrior bill to assist those in Walter Reed and Bethesda and in 
our medical facilities around the world. We have done that. And we have 
manifested that in getting them the right equipment to carry out their 
mission.
  But there is something else we owe the troops. We owe them the right 
to have victory, and they are achieving victory. And we owe them the 
right to have a successful mission, because nothing will be more 
fulfilling to them than to be victorious. And that means we need to 
continue to move the resources into Iraq and Afghanistan so they can 
continue to be victorious, so that the 80 percent drop-off in the 
violence rate in Anbar province will continue, and so that the Iraqi 
Army will continue to stand up to the point where it can displace 
America's heavy combat forces, Marines and Army, and our guys can come 
home or go to other places in CENTCOM.
  Madam Speaker, this is a very important motion to instruct because it 
gives a very clear message to those 157,000-plus troops in Iraq and 
those 22,000-plus troops in Afghanistan. It says the American Congress, 
we stand behind our troops and we stand behind their mission.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, I voted in favor of the motion 
to instruct conferees, which included Senate language stating that 
``the Senate should not pass legislation that will undermine our 
military's ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq'', because I 
believe the men and women of the United States military are admirably 
and ably performing their duties. They are already doing everything the 
can to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state, and I continue to 
support them and the professionalism and skill they have displayed. 
However, it is not the role of the United States military to control 
the long term viability of the Iraqi government. To avoid becoming a 
failed state, Iraqi political leaders must come to a consensus 
regarding the future of Iraq and the Iraqi government. There is no role 
for the United States military in that task. I continue to call for 
strong diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation in Iraq, and believe 
that a firm time-line for the withdrawal of U.S. troops will force 
Iraq's political leaders to take responsibility for the future of their 
country.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________