[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3291-3292]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               WHAT IT MEANS TO SUPPORT AMERICA'S TROOPS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, what does it mean to support America's 
troops? Does it mean placing a yellow ribbon on the bumper of your car? 
Does it mean blindly supporting the wars in which they fight? Or does 
it mean something else entirely?

[[Page 3292]]

  I believe that supporting our Nation's brave soldiers means honoring, 
above all else, the promise to never place them in harm's way unless 
the safety and security of our Nation depends on it. It also means that 
we properly equip them in battle and then fully care for them once they 
are home.

                              {time}  1945

  Sadly, the war in Iraq has violated all three of the ways that we 
must support our troops. The very premise of this war violates the 
trust that our military places in the government. It actually violates 
the trusts that we will only vote to go to war under circumstances of 
dire national emergency when our fate as a Nation depends on it.
  The war in Iraq was never about a national emergency or America's 
security. It was about the Bush administration's callous manipulation 
of the 9/11 tragedy. In the end, it was about promoting the 
administration's own political causes using the tactic of ridding Iraq 
of weapons of mass destruction and now, installing their version of a 
democracy in the Middle East.
  The sad irony is that Iraq is now less stable than ever before. And 
it has never posed a bigger threat to our security here at home. Iraq 
has become the breeding ground for terrorists of all nationalities 
whose most common trait is their hatred of the United States.
  This war was fought for the worst reasons, not for the security of 
our country, but to promote the Bush administration's political goals. 
The fact that the Bush administration has the audacity to label anyone 
who does not support this false war as being unsupportive of the troops 
is nothing short of hypocritical.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that the President does not confuse my opposition 
to this war for a lack of support for those who fight it. In fact, the 
Bush administration and his team at the Pentagon have demonstrated a 
potent lack of support for the troops through poor planning, poor 
planning for the long military operation of Iraq. And by neglecting to 
provide every soldier with the life-saving body armor needed to survive 
military combat.
  Hundreds of lives could have been saved if our troops had not been 
left as sitting ducks on the battlefield without the body armor, 
without the plated armor for Humvees and without what would have saved 
their lives during battle.
  Finally, the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress have 
clearly neglected to support the soldiers once they come home. Veterans 
health care continues to suffer under this administration's reckless 
fiscal policies, and America has not kept its promise to properly 
provide for the health care of our soldiers once they have returned 
from the war.
  In fact, one of the champions of veterans in the Republican party, 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) was stripped of his Veterans 
Affairs Committee chairmanship precisely because he advocated for full 
support of our veterans. And then, after losing his chairmanship, he 
was removed from the committee.
  What kind of message does that send to our troops currently stationed 
in Iraq and Afghanistan?
  If they think their lives are tough on the battlefield, just wait 
till they come back home and wait till they need services for either 
physical or mental health or whatever else they are going to need from 
us when they return.
  Mr. Speaker, I introduced H. Con. Res. 35 with the support of 28 of 
my colleagues in the House. This legislation will help secure Iraq by 
withdrawing our troops, which will ensure that America's role in Iraq 
actually does not make our troops sitting ducks. H. Con. Res. 35 is 
part of a larger national security strategy that I call SMART security. 
SMART is a sensible multilateral American response to terrorism. And it 
will ensure America's security by relying on smarter policies, policies 
that encourage a commitment to diplomacy, a committee to international 
cooperation and a commitment to nuclear security. Smart security will 
actually make our country safer.

                          ____________________