[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20752-20753]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1945
                              IRAQ HEARING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, September 15, we held an 
informal congressional hearing to discuss and explore a military 
withdrawal from Iraq. It was called ``The Bipartisan Congressional 
Forum on How to Bring the Troops Home.'' It was the first of its kind 
and it was about time.
  I had hoped that the House Committee on Armed Services or the House 
Committee on International Relations would have taken up the matter, 
but repeated calls for such hearings have fallen on deaf ears. So, with 
the help of my colleagues and with many others and also my wonderful 
staff, we went about putting together this very needed hearing.
  In so doing, we knew absolutely that opposition to the war is a 
stance that is firmly in the political mainstream. Less than 40 percent 
of Americans, according to the recent polls, approve of the President's 
handling of Iraq, and roughly half want to see our troops come home as 
soon as possible. With this being an American sentiment comes 
responsibility to be more than a protest movement.
  We also knew that we needed to offer sound, thorough policy proposals 
that could turn our deeply held convictions into operational reality, 
and that is what Thursday's hearing was all about. This was not an 
opportunity for placard waving, though there is certainly a time and a 
place for that. We were more interested in how to bring our troops 
home, rather than why.
  We heard from a broad range of experts, from scholars and military 
strategists. We heard from Senator Max Cleland from Georgia.
  We started with an overview of the situation on the ground, including 
a perspective on the lives of Iraqis under U.S. occupation. Later, we 
heard about specific ways that we can pivot away from the current 
policies, ending our military presence in Iraq and bringing our troops 
home. From there, we transitioned into a discussion of what next. I 
have always insisted that ending the war does not and cannot mean 
abandoning Iraq and its people.
  Believing in the principle underlying Colin Powell's ``Pottery Barn 
Rule,'' and that even if it was the Bush administration policy that 
broke it, at the

[[Page 20753]]

very least we must play a constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraq.
  Most of all, Thursday's hearing was designed to inspire a long 
overdue national conversation about alternatives to the current Iraq 
policy.
  Our goal was to fill the policy vacuum and break the silence on 
Capitol Hill where, frankly, Members of Congress have been slow to 
embrace the fresh thinking and new approaches to Iraq that their 
constituents are eager to discuss and are eager to hear. For too long, 
for a number of reasons, this debate has been ceded to the Bush 
administration, even as they have produced a bloody and ruinous 
debacle.
  Thursday's hearing demonstrated that we want to do more than just say 
no to the war in Iraq. We want to say yes to a new, intelligent, 
progressive, peaceful Iraq policy that will both protect the American 
people and fulfill our obligations to the Iraqi people. Chief among 
these obligations is to ensure that the United States does not maintain 
a long-term military presence in Iraq. That means no permanent bases 
and no control over Iraqi oil.
  From our witnesses, it was clear: We need to engage in an open and 
robust dialogue, both at home and in Iraq. They agreed that multiparty 
peace talks are the best way to convince all factions of Iraqis that we 
are serious about allowing them to dictate their country and rebuild 
it, and, most important of all, the need for a commitment to bring the 
U.S. troops home. The truth is that our military presence in Iraq is 
contributing to the chaos there, not alleviating it. By bringing our 
troops home, we can save both American and Iraqi lives and we can 
reunite thousands of American families in the process.
  Mr. Speaker, my hope is that last week's hearing will serve as a 
catalyst for elected officials, for think-tanks and others around the 
country to join in a dialogue about military disengagement from Iraq, 
that the hearing will start a discussion that has been long, long 
overdue. The time for action in Iraq is now. So let us start taking 
action.

                          ____________________